United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

March 2012

Draft 

Environmental Impact 

Statement

and Forest Plan Amendments

Rim-Paunina Project

Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest

Klamath County, Oregon

Townships 25, 26 South and Ranges 7, 8, 9 East

Willamette Meridian
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page 2 of 528

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, 

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page iii of 528

Rim-Paunina Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Klamath County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: John P. Allen

Deschutes National Forest Supervisor 

63095 Deschutes Market Road

Bend, OR 97701

For Information Contact: Tim Foley, IDT Leader or

Holly Jewkes, District Ranger

Crescent Ranger District

P.O. Box 208

Crescent, OR 97733

(541) 433-3200

Abstract: The Forest Service has analyzed vegetation management activities in the 40,000-acre RimPaunina Project area on the Crescent Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest. The purpose and 

need of the project is to decrease the density of trees, providing a variety of stand structures and 

compositions appropriate to the biophysical environment in order to increase resilience and provide 

habitat for a variety of species (flora and fauna). The project would also contribute to the local and 

regional economies by providing timber and other wood fiber products. The proposed action (Alternative 

B) involves commercial thinning and improvement cutting of approximately 12,000 acres, prescribed 

burning of approximately 8,500 acres, and construction of 9.2 miles of temporary roads. It would make 

available to the local economy approximately 19.9 Million Board Feet (MMBF) of timber. Three action 

alternatives to the proposed action (Alternatives C, D and E) were developed. Alternative C was 

developed to respond to the needs of selected Management Indicator Species, retaining some dense 

ponderosa pine stands and some decadent lodgepole pine stands. It would reduce the amount of 

commercial harvest to approximately 9,800 acres and increase the application of prescribed fire to 

approximately 12,750 acres, producing approximately 15.3 MMBF of timber and constructing 6.5 miles 

of temporary roads. 

Alternatives D and E were developed to respond to the need to address severely mistletoe-infected pine 

stands across the project area, which inhibit the development of Late and Old Structure (LOS) conditions. 

Alternative D would create 2-5 acre gaps across approximately 2,600 acres of mistletoe-infected areas in 

which all trees, regardless of size, are removed in an effort to prevent the spread of mistletoe. Alternative 

E would remove all mistletoe-infected trees under 21 inches in diameter across approximately 1,900 acres 

of the most severely infected stands; however, trees over 21 inches would be retained on site. Alternative 

D would commercially harvest approximately 9,800 acres, apply prescribed fire to approximately 12,750 

acres, produce approximately 25.3 MMBF of timber and build 6.5 miles of temporary roads. Alternative 

E would commercially harvest approximately 11,200 acres, apply prescribed fire to approximately 13,490 

acres, produce approximately 24.1 MMBF of timber and build 8.3 miles of temporary roads. 

All action alternatives would restore temporary roads back to proper hydrologic function. All alternatives 

considered in this environmental impact statement are consistent with applicable local, state, and national 

laws and regulations and with all land management plans. Alternative E is the preferred alternative.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page iv of 528

Public Comment: This comment period is intended to provide those interested in or affected by this 

activity an opportunity to make their concerns known. Those who participate and provide timely 

comments would be eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR part 215 regulations.

How to Comment and Timeframe: Written, facsimile, hand-delivered, oral, and electronic comments 

concerning this action would be accepted for 45 calendar days following the EPA notice of availability 

being published in the Federal Register. The publication date in the Federal Register is the exclusive 

means for calculating the comment period for this proposal. Those wishing to comment should not rely 

upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. The Regulations prohibit extending 

the length of the comment period.

Written comments must be submitted to: Holly Jewkes, Crescent Ranger District, P.O. Box 208, 

Crescent, OR 97733. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered comments are 7:45 

A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Oral comments must be provided at the 

Responsible Official’s office during normal business hours via telephone (541) 433-3200 or in person. 

Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text 

format (.rtf), or Word (.doc). If no identifiable name is attached to a comment, a verification of identity 

would be required for appeal eligibility. Send comments to: comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutescrescent@fs.fed.us. In cases using an electronic message, a scanned signature is one way to provide 

verification. Emails submitted to email addresses other than the one listed above, in other formats than 

those listed, or containing viruses would be rejected. 

It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of the comment period 

and ensure that their comments have been received. Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible 

to appeal must meet the information requirements of 36 CFR 215.6.

Contact Persons

For additional information concerning the specific activities authorized with the decision, you may 

contact: Tim Foley, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, at the Crescent Ranger District, P.O. Box 208, 

Crescent, OR 97733 @ (541) 433-3200. 

Send Comments to: Holly Jewkes

District Ranger

Crescent Ranger District 

P.O. Box 208

Crescent, OR 97733
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page v of 528

Summary 

The Crescent Ranger District on the Deschutes National Forest is proposing a project that focuses on 

developing and maintaining a diversity of wildlife habitats appropriate for an eastside dry forest 

environment. This is to be accomplished primarily through vegetation management and prescribed 

burning. The Rim-Paunina project area encompasses approximately 40,000 acres, lying to the south of 

Crescent, Oregon, in Townships 25, 26 South and Ranges 7, 8, 9 East. The entire analysis area lies within 

Klamath County, and is managed under direction provided in the 1990 Deschutes Land and Resource 

Management Plan.

In the Rim-Paunina area, the gap between the current habitat condition and what is desired is 

considerable. Well-intentioned management actions in the past, such as fire exclusion and salvage of 

insect-killed lodgepole pine, have reduced habitat diversity for Management Indicator Species in the 

project area, including white-headed and black-backed woodpeckers. Thus, a dual purpose and need for 

this project has been developed: 

1. “There is a need to decrease the density of trees to provide a variety of stand structures and 

compositions appropriate to the Rim-Paunina biophysical environment in order to increase 

resilience and provide habitat for a variety of species (flora and fauna) across the landscape now 

and in the future.”

2. There is a need to contribute to the local and regional economies by providing timber and other 

wood fiber products now and in the future.

In response to these current conditions, the Forest Service proposes to treat between 12,000 and 17,000 

acres (depending on alternative) to improve wildlife habitat, while also providing economic input to local 

communities through timber harvest. The proposal uses silvicultural treatments to provide a diversity of 

habitats for Management Indicator Species more in line with historical conditions to maintain and 

enhance existing late- and old-structured stand characteristics. It also applies prescribed fire to firedependent ecosystems, mimicking natural processes and creating habitat conditions for white-headed 

woodpecker and other wildlife species.

The public scoping letter for the Rim-Paunina Project was mailed on January 27, 2009. The Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal Register

on May 22, 2009. A field trip was held on June 3, 2009 for the public and conservation groups who were 

interested in an on-the-ground look and to discuss the various treatments proposed for the project area. In 

addition to the NOI, the Crescent District Ranger requested feedback on the alternatives in a December 1, 

2009 letter updating interested stakeholders (individuals, agencies, and organizations) on the progress of 

the project.

Key issues drove the alternatives developed for the Rim-Paunina project, which address retaining some 

dense ponderosa pine stands for big game and accipiter hawk habitat (Key Issue #1), reducing mistletoeinfection (Key Issue #2), retaining decadent lodgepole pine for future black-backed woodpecker habitat 

(Key Issue #3), and application of prescribed fire (Key Issue #4).

These issues led the agency to develop three alternatives, in addition to the no-action and the proposed 

action (Alternative B). Alternative E is the Preferred Alternative. The following is a summary of the 

alternatives; a Comparison of Alternatives in table form is available in Chapter 2.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page vi of 528

Alternative A: No Action

Under the No Action alternative, no specific management actions would be authorized as a result of this 

analysis. Custodial activities would continue, such as routine maintenance of roads; however, no thinning 

or fuels treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Conditions on the ground would 

continue to provide inadequate habitat for a variety of wildlife species. The current overcrowding in 

ponderosa pine stands would continue, eventually resulting in the loss of late and old structure (LOS) 

conditions. Additionally, the spread of the western dwarf mistletoe disease would continue in ponderosa 

pine. Finally, lodgepole pine stands in the project area would remain in their current state, which lack 

structural complexity and do not provide adequate wildlife habitat.

Alternative B: The Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would use silvicultural treatments across 12,036 acres to provide a diversity of 

habitats for Management Indicator Species more in line with historical conditions, to maintain and 

enhance existing late- and old-structured stand characteristics, and encourage the development of such 

characteristics. It proposes approximately 6,000 acres of thinning in ponderosa pine stands to reduce 

density, returning the area to a more historically representative condition and improving habitat for 

species such as the white-headed woodpecker. It also proposes approximately 6,000 acres of 

improvement cutting in lodgepole pine stands with previous mountain pine beetle damage, to increase 

stand complexity in the long-run and provide improved habitat for species such as the black-backed 

woodpecker. Alternative B also includes post-treatment prescribed underburning on 8,506 acres, to 

achieve management objectives. Treatments are estimated to yield approximately 19.9 Million Board 

Feet (MMBF) of timber.

Alternative B Connected Actions 

In order for Alternative B to be implemented, the following connected actions would need to occur:

Approximately 9.2 miles of temporary road would need to be constructed

Alternative C:

Alternative C responds to Key Issue #1 by retaining some ponderosa pine stands from the proposed action 

in a denser, multi-layered condition for wildlife species that favor those conditions. It also responds to 

Key Issue #3 by retaining some decadent lodgepole pine stands to provide short-term habitat for wildlife 

species, including black-backed woodpecker and marten. This alternative also incorporates some 

additional passively-managed patches or “retention areas” greater than 15 percent in some ponderosa pine 

and lodgepole pine activity units. The objective is to provide more contiguous suitable habitat for a 

potential goshawk nest stand; nesting, roosting, foraging for black-backed woodpeckers; denning and 

foraging for pine marten; and hiding cover and foraging for big game. 

This alternative proposes silvicultural treatment on a total of 9,792 acres, using thinning and improvement 

cutting prescriptions. It also responds to Key Issue #4 by proposing 12,762 acres of prescribed fire 

treatments on the landscape. Treatments are estimated to yield approximately 15.3 Million Board Feet 

(MMBF) of timber.

Alternative C Connected Actions

In order for Alternative C to be implemented, the following connected actions would need to occur:

Approximately 6.5 miles of temporary road would need to be constructed

Alternative D:

Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D responds to Key Issue #1 by retaining some ponderosa pine stands 

in a denser, multi-layered condition and Key Issue #3 by retaining some decadent lodgepole pine stands. 

It also responds to Key Issue #2 through focused mistletoe treatments. In 2,593 acres of stands 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page vii of 528

categorized as “severely mistletoe infected”, this alternative proposes to create 2-5 acre openings on 30

percent of those acres, with the other 70 percent being treated through thinning. These openings, in which 

all trees would be removed, would serve to give ponderosa pine seedlings a chance to grow in a relatively 

mistletoe-free environment

This alternative proposes silvicultural treatment on a total of 9,792 acres, using thinning, improvement 

cutting, and group selection prescriptions. It also responds to Key Issue #4 by proposing 12,762 acres of 

prescribed fire treatments on the landscape. Treatments are estimated to yield approximately 25.3 Million 

Board Feet (MMBF) of timber.

Alternative D Connected Actions

In order for Alternative D to be implemented, the following connected actions would need to occur:

Approximately 6.5 miles of temporary road would need to be constructed

Alternative E: The Preferred Alternative

Alternative E responds to Key Issue #2 in a different manner than Alternative D. This alternative 

proposes to treat 1,921 acres of the most severely mistletoe-infected stands by removing all infected trees 

less than 21 inches, and accelerating the mortality of infected trees over 21 inches through prescribed fire, 

blasting or other means. Similar to Alternatives C and D, Alternative E also responds to Key Issue #1 by 

retaining some ponderosa pine stands in a denser, multi-layered condition and Key Issue #3 by retaining 

some decadent lodgepole pine stands, although not to the same degree as Alternatives C and D.

This alternative proposes silvicultural treatment on a total of 11,236 acres, using thinning, improvement 

cutting, and alternative mistletoe treatment prescriptions. It also responds to Key Issue #4 by proposing 

13,490 acres of prescribed fire treatments on the landscape. Treatments are estimated to yield 

approximately 24.1 Million Board Feet (MMBF) of timber.

Alternative E Connected Actions

In order for Alternative E to be implemented, the following connected actions would need to occur:

Approximately 8.3 miles of temporary road would need to be constructed

Forest Plan Amendments

There are four site-specific amendments proposed to the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) as part of this project: 

1. In Alternative D, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Interim Eastside Screens 

to allow a timber sale to cut and remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inches in diameter.

2. In Alternative D, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Interim Eastside Screens 

to allow for a net loss of 145 acres of LOS for two biophysical environments.

3. In all Action Alternatives, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Interim Eastside 

Screens to allow for a timber harvest when LOS falls below the historic range of variability 

(HRV) in a particular biophysical environment.

4. In all Action Alternatives, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Deschutes Land 

and Resource Management Plan to utilize prescribed fire in larger than 5-acres blocks of Partial 

Retention Foreground areas of Scenic Views along Highways 58 and 97. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page viii of 528

Major conclusions include: 

Wildlife

The complexity of analysis shows that there are trade-offs when managing wildlife habitat but wildlife 

species are not necessarily winners if habitat is gained or losers if habitat is lost. Treatments result in a 

more resilient landscape, more closely resembling the historic range of variability that the species 

developed in and a landscape returning to a more frequent fire regime reducing risk to all habitats and in 

which all species benefit in the long term.

The determination in the Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, and Federal Candidate 

species was that implementation of this project for Alternatives B, C, D, and E would have “No Effect”

on the northern spotted owl and northern spotted owl critical habitat. Alternatives B, C, D and E would 

have “No Impact” on the Oregon spotted frog and California wolverine. Alternatives B, C, D and E 

would result in a determination of “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”

for the Pacific fisher. 

Forested Vegetation

Rim-Paunina treatments are intended to address vegetative conditions that fall outside of historic range of 

variability (HRV), and reduce the ability of the area to support a variety of wildlife species. Treatments 

would address the overabundance of dense ponderosa pine stands, and would improve forest health in 

beetle-infested lodgepole pine stands. Mistletoe infection is widespread in the project area, and 

Alternative E has the highest predicted effectiveness for addressing this issue.

Fire and Fuels

The entire Rim-Paunina project area is within the Walker Range Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 

The goals of fuels reduction activities would be to reduce the undesired effects of a wildfire within the 

project area, and facilitate a low-intensity frequent fire regime in appropriate stands. The strategy would 

be a landscape approach to strategically target stands with techniques to lower the fire behavior 

characteristics. To this end, Alternative E would afford the greatest risk reduction on a landscape scale, 

due to the scope and placement of proposed activities.

Soils

All activities have been designed to meet Forest Plan and Regional Standards, as none of the proposed 

activities would lead to a detrimental soil disturbance exceeding 20 percent in any of the units. All areas 

where active management is to occur would continue to function as productive sites. 

Recreation

The only developed recreation site within the project area is Boundary Springs near Walker Rim, and 

dispersed camping is also popular in the area. No harvest activities are planned within the Boundary 

Springs camping site. Additionally, the project area overlaps the planned Three Trails OHV designated 

trail system, and timber hauling and/or prescribed burning operations could lead to temporary trail 

closures. The project area also overlaps winter snowmobile routes; however, proposed seasonal 

restrictions on harvesting and hauling would mitigate any conflict. Impacts to the safety and enjoyment 

of recreation opportunities in the project area have been addressed through project design features and 

mitigations.

Botany 

Of the 74 species listed on the Deschutes/Ochoco Sensitive Plants list, there are two species that have 

been documented within the Rim-Paunina project area: pumice grape-fern (Botrychium pumicola) and 

tomentypnum moss (Tomentypnum nitens). No treatment areas overlap with documented pumice grape-
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page ix of 528

fern sites and within unit 205 where tomentypnum moss has been documented, no activities are proposed 

in the wet meadow area where the moss has been found.

Invasive Plants

Based on the vectors and proposed activity, all alternatives were determined to have a high risk rating for 

introduction and spread of existing populations of invasive plants. Regardless of alternative, this project 

would use prevention as the main strategy to manage invasive plant species (R6 Invasive Plant EIS 

Standard #7). Actions conducted or authorized by written permit (contracts) that operate outside the 

limits of the road prism, require clean equipment prior to entering National Forest System Lands. All 

active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material will be inspected for invasive plants 

before use and transport. Only weed-free gravel, fill, sand, and rock would be used. 

Fisheries and Water Quality

The determination in the Biological Evaluation was that implementation of this project would have “No 

Effect” on Bull Trout fisheries or their aquatic habitat, and “No Impact” on Redband Trout fisheries or 

their aquatic habitat.

Some activities are proposed in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) to address lodgepole 

encroachment and promote meadow restoration. Based on the location, timing and design of these 

activities, the effects would be localized and would not have any direct or indirect effects on water quality 

or water quantity. Mechanized equipment would be restricted to the edge of soils mapped as sensitive.

There are no State of Oregon 303(d) water bodies listed as impaired within the planning area.

Economic and Social

Contributing to the local and regional economies by providing timber and other wood fiber products is 

one of the purposes of this project. Alternative D would provide the largest volume of timber to the local 

economy, and as a result the largest amount of job creation. Of the action alternatives, only Alternatives 

D and E are projected to have a benefit-cost ratio over 1.0, generating more revenue than the costs 

associated with the project.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page x of 528

List of Acronyms

ACS - Aquatic Conservation Strategy

BA - Biological Assessment

BBS - Breeding Bird Surveys

BCC - Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR - Bird Conservation Region

BE - Biological Evaluation

BEMA - Bald Eagle Management Area

BI - Beneficial Impact

BMP - Best Management Practices

BO - Biological Opinion

BOR - Bureau of Reclamation

CEQ- Council on Environmental Quality

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations

CHU- Critical Habitat Unit

COHVOP Central Oregon Combined Off-Highway Vehicle Operations

CSA - Conservation Support Areas

CWPP - Community Wildfire Protection Plan

DEQ - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

EA - Environmental Assessment

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

ESA - Endangered Species Act of 1973

FRCC - Fire Regime Condition Class

FS - Forest Service

FSH - Forest Service Handbook

FSM - Forest Service Manual

GIS - Geographical Information System

GNN - Gradient Nearest Neighbor

HIM - Harvest Improvement Cut

HRV - Historic Range of Variability

HSG - Harvest Group Selection

HTH - Harvest Thinning Cut

HUC - Hydrologic Unit Code

INFISH - Inland Native Fish Strategy

IRA - Inventoried Roadless Area

IWMP - Deschutes National Forest Integrated Weed Management Plan

LAP - Land Analysis Process

LOS - Late and Old Structure

LRMP - Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990)

LSR - Late Successional Reserve

MIS - Management Indicator Species

MIIH - May Impact Individuals or Habitat but Would Not Likely Contribute to a Trend 

Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

MOU - Memorandum of Understanding

MSA - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act

MSL - Mean Sea Level
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS

Page xi of 528

MVUM - Motor Vehicle Use Map

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA - National Forest Management Act

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act

NLAA - May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect

NMFS - National Marine Fisheries Service

NOA - Notice of Availability

NOI - Notice of Intent

NWFP - Northwest Forest Plan

OCRA - Oregon Cascade Recreation Area

ODF - Oregon Department of Forestry

ODFW - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OEDC - Oregon Environmental Quality Commission

OHV - Off-Highway Vehicle

ORV - Outstanding Remarkable Value

OSHA - Occupational Safety and Health Association

PAG - Plant Association Group

PDC - Project Design Criteria from the 2006-2009 Programmatic Biological Assessment

PFA - Post-Fledgling Area

R6 - Region Six

RHCA - Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

ROD - Record of Decision

RR - Riparian Reserve

SDI - Stand Density Index

SHPO - State Historic Preservation Office

TES - Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

TM- Travel Management

TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

USDI - United States Department of the Interior

USFS - United States Forest Service

USFWS - United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VQO - Visual Quality Objective

WSR- Wild and Scenic River

WQMP - Water Quality Management Plan

WUI - Wildland-Urban Interface
Rim-Paunina Project Table of Contents

Page xii of 528

Table of Contents

Summary v

List of Acronyms x

List of Tables 15

List of Figures 19

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 22

Document Structure 22

Background and Existing Condition 22

Purpose and Need for Action 23

Proposed Action 24

Decision Framework 25

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 27

Introduction 27

Public Involvement 27

Issues 29

Alternatives Considered in Detail 30

Alternative A 31

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 33

Alternative C 40

Alternative D 46

Alternative E 54

Resource Protection Measures 63

Project Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives 63

Mitigations Common to All Action Alternatives 72

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 76

Comparison of Alternatives 79

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 82

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 82

Project Record 84

Wildlife 85

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 94

Management Indicator Species 123

Birds of Conservation Concern 191

Big Game – Deer and Elk 207
Rim-Paunina Project Table of Contents

Page xiii of 528

Old Growth Management 223

Forested Vegetation 244

Key Issue #2 Related to Forest Disease – Western Dwarf Mistletoe 260

Fire and Fuels Management 268

Soil Quality 293

Recreation 313

Botany 318

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Species 318

Invasive Plants 327

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 334

Transportation 349

Cultural Resources 358

Scenery 360

Public Health and Safety 364

Social and Economic Analysis 366

Air Quality 373

Wilderness, Potential Wilderness Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, and Other Undeveloped Lands 377

Other Disclosures 408

Climate Change 408

Forest Plan Amendments 410

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 415

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 415

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 416

Incomplete and Unavailable Information 416

Energy Requirements 416

USDA Civil Rights Policy 417

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land 417

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 417

CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 418

Preparers and Contributors 418

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement 421

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement are Sent 422

Literature Cited 423

Glossary 446

Index 461
Rim-Paunina Project Table of Contents

Page xiv of 528

APPENDICES 463

Appendix A – Consistency with Current Laws and Management Direction 464

Endangered Species Act 465

Clean Water Act 466

Protection of Floodplains and Wetlands 466

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations 467

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 468

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation 469

Management Direction 470

Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 470

Appendix B 473

Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices for Protection of Soil and Water Quality 473

Appendix C - Soils 478

Appendix D –Potential Wilderness Inventory 501
Rim-Paunina Project List of Tables

Page 15 of 528

List of Tables

Table 1. Proposed Activity and Approximate Acreage for the Rim-Paunina Project.................................24

Table 2. Public Involvement in the Rim-Paunina Planning Process..........................................................27

Table 3. Proposed Activity and Approximate Acreage for the Rim-Paunina Project................................33

Table 4. Alternative B Management Units ................................................................................................33

Table 5. Proposed Activities for Alternative C..........................................................................................40

Table 6. Alternative C Management Units ................................................................................................40

Table 7. Proposed Activities for Alternative D..........................................................................................46

Table 8. Alternative D Management Units................................................................................................47

Table 9. Proposed Activities for Alternative E..........................................................................................55

Table 10. Alternative E Management Units...............................................................................................55

Table 11. Seasonal Restrictions on Disturbing Activities near Active Nest Sites, Wolverine Dens and Big 

Game Calving/Fawning Habitat..................................................................................................................67

Table 12. Minimum Snag Levels to Determine Snag Creation .................................................................68

Table 13. Minimum Down Wood Levels ..................................................................................................69

Table 14. Deschutes National Forest Plan Standards for Down Wood in Potential Firewood Units ........69

Table 15. Connectivity Corridor Acres by Alternative..............................................................................73

Table 16. Comparison of how the Alternatives meet the Purpose and Need..............................................79

Table 17. Comparison of how the Alternatives Address the Key Issues...................................................80

Table 18. Comparison of All Alternatives.................................................................................................81

Table 19. Past, Present, and Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions.......................................................84

Table 20. Example of Tolerance Levels and Intervals developed from DecAID Information ..................88

Table 21. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Reproductive Habitat (Denning and Nesting) in 

Acres over Time or Big Game Hiding Cover Post-treatment .....................................................................93

Table 22. Threatened, Endangered, and Federal Candidate Wildlife Species Documented to Occur or 

May Potentially Occur Within the Rim-Paunina Project Area ...................................................................94

Table 23. Summary of Conclusion of Effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Federal Candidate 

Wildlife Species, Rim-Paunina Project Area..............................................................................................95

Table 24. Tolerance Intervals for the pacific Fisher and Snag Use .........................................................100

Table 25. Acres of Disturbed and Undisturbed Potential Fisher Denning Habitat in the Rim-Paunina 

Planning Area............................................................................................................................................100

Table 26. Acres of Disturbed and Undisturbed Fisher Denning Habitat in the Planning Area Projected out 

to Years 2018 and 2058 for Each Alternative...........................................................................................102

Table 27. Regional Forester Listed Sensitive Animal Species for the Deschutes National Forest..........104

Table 28. Summary of Conclusion of Effects to Region 6 Sensitive Animal Species. ...........................105

Table 29. Acres and Percentage of Projected Lewis’ Woodpecker Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area 

Post Harvest (2018) and Projected For Year 2058 Expressed in Acres and as a Percentage (1,041 Acres 

Currently Suitable or 3 Percent of the Planning Area) .............................................................................112

Table 30. Tolerance Intervals for the White-headed Woodpeckers.........................................................116

Table 31. Acres and Percentage of Projected White-Headed Woodpecker Nesting Habitat in the Planning 

Area Post Harvest (2018) and Projected for Year 2058 Expressed in Acres and as a Percentage (1,090 

Acres Currently Suitable or 3 Percent of the Planning Area)...................................................................116

Table 32. Deschutes National Forest Management Indicator Species and Presence within the Analysis 

Area...........................................................................................................................................................123

Table 33. Nesting Period for Raptors.......................................................................................................125

Table 34. Acres of Potential Goshawk Nesting Habitat within the Rim Paunina Project Area (National 

Forest System Lands only)........................................................................................................................129

Table 35. Acres of Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat in Undisturbed and Disturbed Zones for the RimPaunina Project Area.................................................................................................................................130
Rim-Paunina Project List of Tables 

Page 16 of 528

Table 36. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Goshawk Nesting Habitat Acres over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only).......................................................132

Table 37. Acres of Potential American Marten Denning Habitat within the Rim--Paunina Project Area 

(National Forest System Lands Only).......................................................................................................139

Table 38. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Marten Denning Habitat Acres over Time within the 

Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) ............................................................141

Table 39. Acres of Denning Habitat Within and Outside the 660 foot Disturbance Zone ......................142

Table 40. American Marten Intervals and Snag Use ...............................................................................144

Table 41. Acres of Potential Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat within the Rim-Paunina 

Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)...................................................................................150

Table 42. Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat Inside and Outside the 660 foot Disturbance Buffer

..................................................................................................................................................................151

Table 43. Acres of Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Inside and Outside the 660 foot Disturbance 

Buffer........................................................................................................................................................151

Table 44. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) ...........................................153

Table 45. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres over 

Time within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)..................................154

Table 46. Acres of Potential Black-Backed and Three-Toed Woodpecker Nesting Habitat within the 

Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) ............................................................161

Table 47. Acres of Nesting Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpecker Habitat Within and Outside the 

660 Foot Disturbance Buffer.....................................................................................................................162

Table 48. Tolerance Intervals for the Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpeckers and Snag Use .........163

Table 49. Tolerance Intervals for Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpeckers and Down Wood Use ..164

Table 50. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Black-backed and Three-Toed Woodpecker Nesting 

Habitat Acres over Time within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)...166

Table 51. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Pileated Woodpecker Nesting Habitat over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) ...........................................171

Table 52. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Williamson Sapsucker Nesting Habitat over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) ...........................................172

Table 53. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Northern Flicker Nesting Habitat over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only).......................................................173

Table 54. Tolerance Intervals for the Pileated Woodpecker and Snag Use .............................................174

Table 55. Tolerance Intervals for the Pileated Woodpecker and Down Wood Use ................................175

Table 56. Tolerance Intervals for the Williamson Sapsucker and Snag Use ...........................................176

Table 57. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Great Gray Owl Nesting Habitat Acres over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands Only)...........................................185

Table 58. Bird Conservation Region 9 (Great Basin) 2008 List..............................................................191

Table 59. Landbird Focal Species for Central Oregon ............................................................................194

Table 60. Flammulated Owl Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area ........................................................197

Table 61. Pygmy Nuthatch Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area ..........................................................197

Table 62. Chipping Sparrow Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area ........................................................198

Table 63. Brown Creeper Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area.............................................................199

Table 64. Hermit Thrush Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area..............................................................201

Table 65. Olive-sided Flycatcher Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area .................................................203

Table 66. April (2006-2010) Mule Deer Trend Data on the Ft. Rock Management Unit Winter Range 

Expressed as a Percentage of the Management Objective ........................................................................208

Table 67. Existing Hiding Cover within the Six Subwatersheds of the Little Walker Watershed which 

Comprises the Rim-Paunina Analysis Area..............................................................................................210

Table 68. Motorized Route Densities Expressed in Miles per Square Mile for National Forest System 

Roads Only and Combined Roads and Trails by Subwatersheds of the Little Walker Watershed...........211
Rim-Paunina Project List of Tables

Page 17 of 528

Table 69. Results of Banding Analysis....................................................................................................212

Table 70. Comparison of Key Indicators for Big Game by Alternative ..................................................213

Table 71. Acres of Hiding Cover Removed and the Percent of the Little Walker Watershed Remaining as 

Hiding Cover by Alternative as a Result of Proposed Vegetation Management ......................................216

Table 72. Hiding Cover Acreage on National Forest System Lands within Each Subwatershed within 660 

feet of a Road or Trail Open for Motorized Use Pre- and Post-Treatment...............................................217

Table 73. Acres of Treatment Occurring within each OGMA by Alternative.........................................230

Table 74. Seral/Structural Matrix and Definitions (Seral Structural Stages)...........................................245

Table 75. Trees/acre of Ponderosa Pines and 32-year Intensification in Relation to Original Dwarf 

Mistletoe Infection Rating Class and Diameter (from Hawksworth, 1990 on Arizona Ponderosa Pine).263

Table 76. Trees/acre of Ponderosa Pines and Percent Survival after 11, 20, and 32 years in Relation to 

Original Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Rating Class and Diameter (from Hawksworth, 1990 on Arizona 

Ponderosa Pine) ........................................................................................................................................263

Table 77. Predicted Survival of Surveyed Ponderosa Pine Trees 21 Inches and Greater with Dwarf 

Mistletoe by DMR Rating in the Rim-Paunina Project Area....................................................................265

Table 78. Mistletoe-infected Ponderosa Pine Predicted Survival by DMR and Size Class in the RimPaunina Project Area.................................................................................................................................265

Table 79. Composite Ranking of Dwarf Mistletoe Treatment Effectiveness by Alternative ..................267

Table 80. Communities-at-Risk in the Rim-Paunina Project Area ..........................................................269

Table 81. Fire Regime Condition Classes................................................................................................272

Table 82. Fuel Models within the Rim-Paunina Project..........................................................................273

Table 83. Summary of Existing Forest Structure in the Rim-Paunina Project Area................................276

Table 84. Average Days of Oregon Fire Season by Fire Danger Rating (1991-2004).............................276

Table 85. Historical Fire Occurrence in the Rim-Paunina Area by Class, Number, and Acres Consumed 

from 1980 through 2007 ...........................................................................................................................276

Table 86. Modeled Inputs for Fire Behavior in the Rim-Paunina Project Area.......................................279

Table 87. Existing Stand Characteristic by Plant Association Group (PAGs) Proposed for Treatment..279

Table 88. Predicted Fire Behavior Associated with Fuel Models in the Rim-Paunina Project Area.......280

Table 89. Potential Fire Behavior Outputs for Alternative A ..................................................................282

Table 90. Potential Fire Behavior Outputs for Alternative B Compared to Alternative A......................285

Table 91. Potential Fire Behavior Outputs for Alternatives C and D Compared to Alternative A..........287

Table 92. Potential Fire Behavior Outputs for Alternative E Compared to Alternative A ......................289

Table 93. Comparison of how Action Alternatives Respond to Key Issue #4.........................................291

Table 94. Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) Mapping Units Containing Sensitive Soils within the RimPaunina Planning Area (Soil Resource Inventory, Deschutes National Forest 1976) ..............................297

Table 95. Estimates for Miles of Temporary Road to be Constructed for the Various Alternatives in RimPaunina......................................................................................................................................................304

Table 96. Pre-Field Review Summary of 2008 Sensitive Plant List for the Rim-Paunina Planning Area

..................................................................................................................................................................320

Table 97. Location of Pumice Grape-fern Sites near Rim-Paunina Project Units....................................326

Table 98. Known Occurrences of Invasive Plant Species within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area.........331

Table 99. Risk Assessment for the Proposed Rim-Paunina Alternatives ................................................332

Table 100. Ground Disturbance Associated with each Alternative .........................................................332

Table 101. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species............................................................334

Table 102. Acres by Subwatershed (SWS) in the Rim-Paunina Analysis Area ......................................335

Table 103. Relevant Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Widths that Apply in the Rim-Paunina 

Analysis Area............................................................................................................................................338

Table 104. The Four Categories* of Stream or Water Bodies and Standard Widths for each.................338

Table 105. Road Densities Including OHV Trails in the Rim-Paunina Water Quality Analysis/Project 

Area...........................................................................................................................................................341

Table 106. Streams and their Flow Regime in the Rim-Paunina Analysis Area .....................................342
Rim-Paunina Project List of Tables 

Page 18 of 528

Table 107. Acres of Proposed Treatment that Overlap Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA).344

Table 108. Units within the Rim-Paunina Project Area with Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

(RHCA) Proposed for Treatment..............................................................................................................345

Table 109. Miles of Roads by Road Surface Type ..................................................................................351

Table 110. Miles of Roads by Maintenance Level ..................................................................................351

Table 111. Road Density – Subwatershed Basis (Mile/Square Mile)......................................................352

Table 112. Haul Road Miles (Forest Service Jurisdiction) by Maintenance Level .................................354

Table 113. Temporary Road Estimate by Alternative .............................................................................355

Table 114. Acres of Scenic Views Management Area by Visual Quality Objective in the Rim-Paunina 

Analysis Area............................................................................................................................................361

Table 115. Description of Areas for Alternatives B, C, D, and E where the Inventoried Visual Quality 

Objectives is Partial Retention (Scenic View Foreground Management Area) and Underburning is 

Proposed....................................................................................................................................................362

Table 116. Active Management in Scenic Views by Acres.....................................................................363

Table 117. Prescriptions in Foreground Retention by Acres...................................................................363

Table 118. Klamath County Employment ...............................................................................................367

Table 119. Amounts Spent by Hunting and Wildlife Viewing in Deschutes, Klamath, and Lake Counties

..................................................................................................................................................................369

Table 120. Potential Jobs in the Timber Industry per Million Board Feet Created by Rim-Paunina Project

..................................................................................................................................................................371

Table 121. Cash Flow Analysis by Alternative .......................................................................................371

Table 122. Potential Emissions for a “Problem Fire” Scenario ...............................................................375

Table 123. Alternative B Prescribed Fire Emissions (12, 036 acres) ......................................................375

Table 124. Alternative C Prescribed Fire Emissions (14,751 acres) .......................................................375

Table 125. Alternative D Prescribed Fire Emissions (14,751 acres) .......................................................375

Table 126. Alternative E Prescribed Fire Emissions (16,193 acres)........................................................376

Table 127. Polygons meeting FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71 for Inclusion in Potential Wilderness Inventory

..................................................................................................................................................................383

Table 128. Alternative B Acres that Overlap Potential Wilderness Areas ..............................................387

Table 129. Alternative C Acres that Overlap Potential Wilderness Areas ..............................................389

Table 130. Alternative D Acres that Overlap Potential Wilderness Areas..............................................391

Table 131. Alternative E Acres that Overlap Potential Wilderness Areas................................................394

Table 132. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas that Overlap the Rim-Paunina Project Area for Alternative B

..................................................................................................................................................................402

Table 133. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas that Overlap the Rim-Paunina Project Area for Alternatives C 

and D.........................................................................................................................................................404

Table 134. Oregon Wild’s Unroaded Areas that Overlap the Rim-Paunina Project Area for Alternative E

..................................................................................................................................................................406

Table 135. Existing LOS and Changes in Alternative D .........................................................................411

Table 136. Alternative B: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest by 

Activity Areas...........................................................................................................................................478

Table 137. Alternative C: Estimates of Detrimental Soils Conditions following Mechanical Harvest by 

Activity Areas...........................................................................................................................................483

Table 138. Alternative D: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest by 

Activity Areas...........................................................................................................................................489

Table 139. Alternative E: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest by 

Activity Areas...........................................................................................................................................495

Table 140. Summary of Potential Wilderness Acres Removed by each Analysis Step...........................510

Table 141. Rim-Paunina Potential Wilderness Inventory- Polygon by Polygon......................................512

Table 142. Five Potential Wilderness Polygon Identifiers with Acreage and Inventory Criteria............528
Rim-Paunina Project List of Figures

Page 19 of 528

List of Figures

Figure 1. Rim-Paunina Project Area Locator Map ....................................................................................26

Figure 2 Alternative B Proposed Units within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area .......................................39

Figure 3. Alternatives C and D Proposed Units within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area..........................53

Figure 4. Alternative E Proposed Units within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area ......................................62

Figure 5. Pacific Fisher Denning Habitat Modeled Using Green Tree Data (Viable) that Overlaps with 

DecAID Snag Data .....................................................................................................................................99

Figure 6. White-headed Woodpecker Nesting Habitat Modeled using Green Tree Data (Viable) that 

Overlaps with DecAID Snag Data ............................................................................................................115

Figure 7. Potential Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat based on the Viable Ecosystem Model ............128

Figure 8. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Goshawk Nesting Habitat over Time within the RimPaunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only).....................................................................132

Figure 9. Potential American Marten Denning Habitat based on the Viable Ecosystem and DecAID 

Models ......................................................................................................................................................139

Figure 10. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Marten Denning Habitat over Time within the RimPaunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only).....................................................................140

Figure 11. Potential Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Based on the Viable Ecosystem 

Model........................................................................................................................................................149

Figure 12. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only).......................................................153

Figure 13. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) ...........................................154

Figure 14. Potential Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpecker Nesting Habitat Based on the Viable 

Ecosystem and DecAID Models...............................................................................................................160

Figure 15. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Black-backed and Three-Toed Woodpecker 

Nesting Habitat over Time within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) 165

Figure 16. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Pileated Woodpecker Nesting Habitat over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) ...........................................171

Figure 17. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Williamson Sapsucker Nesting Habitat over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) ...........................................172

Figure 18. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Northern Flicker Nesting Habitat over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only).......................................................173

Figure 19. Location of the Five Old Growth Management Areas in the Rim-Paunina Project Area ......228

Figure 20. Current Structure and Composition of Dry Lodgepole Pine ..................................................248

Figure 21. Current Structure and Composition of Ponderosa Pine ..........................................................249

Figure 22. Current Structure and Composition of Mixed Conifer Dry....................................................250

Figure 23. Current Condition of Ponderosa Pine in Rim-Paunina Project Area......................................251

Figure 24. Current Condition of Mixed Conifer in the Rim-Paunina Project Area .................................251

Figure 25. Comparison of Bark Beetle Risk Between No Action Alternative and Alternatives B-E......254

Figure 26. Projection of Structure and Composition for Lodgepole Pine in Year 2018 for All Alternatives

..................................................................................................................................................................255

Figure 27. Projection of Structure and Composition for Lodgepole Pine in Year 2058 for All Alternatives

..................................................................................................................................................................255

Figure 28. Projection of Structure and Composition for Ponderosa Pine in Year 2018 for All Alternatives

..................................................................................................................................................................256

Figure 29. Ponderosa Pine LOS in Year 2018 for All Alternatives.........................................................256

Figure 30. Projection of Structure and Composition for Ponderosa Pine in Year 2058 for All Alternatives

..................................................................................................................................................................257

Figure 31. Ponderosa Pine LOS in Year 2058 for All Alternatives.........................................................257
Rim-Paunina Project List of Tables 

Page 20 of 528

Figure 32. Projection of Structure and Composition for Mixed Conifer (Dry) in Year 2018 for All 

Alternatives...............................................................................................................................................258

Figure 33. Mixed Conifer (Dry) LOS in Year 2018 for All Alternatives................................................258

Figure 34. Projection of Structure and Composition for Mixed Conifer (Dry) in Year 2058 for All 

Alternatives...............................................................................................................................................259

Figure 35. Mixed Conifer (Dry) LOS in Year 2058 for All Alternatives................................................259

Figure 36. Determining Dwarf Mistletoe Ratings (DMR) using the 6-class Dwarf Mistletoe Rating 

System.......................................................................................................................................................261

Figure 37. Relative Growth of Ponderosa Pine of Differing Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Ratings.............263

Figure 38. Surveyed Dwarf Mistletoe Presence and Severity in the Rim-Paunina Project .....................264

Figure 39. Walker Range Community Wildfire Protection Plan Area ....................................................270

Figure 40. Leading Causes of Fire between 1980 to 2007.......................................................................277

Figure 41. A Comparison of Historic and Current Fire Severity.............................................................278

Figure 42. Results of Alternative A Fire Pathway Analysis....................................................................283

Figure 43. Results of Alternative B Fire Pathway Analysis ....................................................................286

Figure 44. Results of Alternatives C and D Fire Pathway Analysis........................................................288

Figure 45. Results of Alternative E Fire Pathway Analysis.....................................................................290

Figure 46. Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) Soil Types within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area ..............295

Figure 47. Inherent Soil Productivity and Land Suitability .....................................................................296

Figure 48. Sensitive Soils Areas..............................................................................................................298

Figure 49. Inventoried Dispersed Traditional Camping Sites in the Rim-Paunina Project Area.............314

Figure 50. Invasive Species Locations within the Rim-Paunina Treatment Areas..................................329

Figure 51. Rim-Paunina Area with 6th Field Subwatersheds, RHCAs with Treatment (orange), and Roads 

and Trails from Three Trails OHV Project ...............................................................................................336

Figure 52. The Hydrological Cycle (USDI GS 2009)..............................................................................343

Figure 53. Rim-Paunina Potential Temporary Road Construction ..........................................................357

Figure 54. Annual Average Unemployment Rate Compared to the State and the Nation.......................368

Figure 55. Designated Wilderness, Oregon Cascades Recreation Area and their Proximity to RimPaunina Project Planning Area .................................................................................................................379

Figure 56 Inventoried Roadless Areas and their Proximity to Rim-Paunina Project Planning Area.......381

Figure 57. Rim-Paunina Project Area with Two Mile Buffer and Five Potential Wilderness Inventory 

Areas.........................................................................................................................................................384

Figure 58. Alternative B Harvest and Fuels Only Units that Overlap Potential Wilderness Inventory 

Areas in Rim-Paunina Planning Area .......................................................................................................388

Figure 59. Alternative C Harvest and Fuels Only Units that Overlap Potential Wilderness Inventory 

Areas in Rim-Paunina Planning Area .......................................................................................................390

Figure 60. Alternative D Harvest and Fuels Only Units that Overlap Potential Wilderness Inventory 

Areas in Rim-Paunina Planning Area .......................................................................................................392

Figure 61. Alternative E Harvest and Fuels Only Units that Overlap Potential Wilderness Inventory 

Areas in Rim-Paunina Planning Area .......................................................................................................395

Figure 62. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas Overlaid on the Rim-Paunina Planning Area Including the 

Two-mile Buffer .......................................................................................................................................399

Figure 63. Oregon Wild Unroaded Area within the Rim-Paunina Project Area along Walker Rim.......400

Figure 64. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas in Relation to Alternative B Harvest and Burn Units............403

Figure 65. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas in Relation to Alternatives C and D Harvest and Burn Units.405

Figure 66. Oregon Wild Unroaded in Relation to Alternative E Harvest and Burn Units.......................407

Figure 67. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Allocations within the RimPaunina Project Area.................................................................................................................................471

Figure 68. Map D-1 Removal of Non-Federal Lands...............................................................................503

Figure 69. Map D-2 Removes Stump Producing Activity.......................................................................504

Figure 70. Map D-3 Removes Areas Adjacent to Roads with Evidence of Stumps................................506
Rim-Paunina Project List of Figures

Page 21 of 528

Figure 71. Map D-4 Depicts Acres not Containing Evidence of Stumps or Roads.................................508

Figure 72. Map D-5 Potential Wilderness Inventory Acres......................................................................509

Figure 73. Map D-6 Overview of All Five Maps Depicting Analysis Steps One to Five to Reach Potential 

Wilderness Area Inventory in Rim-Paunina Project Area ........................................................................511
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Page 22 of 528

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure _________________________________________

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 effects that 

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters: 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the history of the 

project proposal, existing conditions within the analysis area, the purpose of and need for the 

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

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 and 

other agencies. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides 

a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes 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 the environmental impact statement.

Index: The index provides page numbers by subject.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented 

in the environmental impact statement. Appendix A describes the management areas and 

consistency with current laws and management direction.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in 

the project planning record located at the Crescent Ranger District, Crescent, Oregon.

Background and Existing Condition

Rim-Paunina is located in the Walker Mountain area on the southern end of the Crescent Ranger District. 

The project focus is on developing and maintaining a diversity of wildlife habitats that are appropriate for 

an eastside dry forest environment. Potential actions include thinning of trees in variable densities and 

prescribed burning. The project included broad participation from a diverse group of stakeholders in a 

collaborative planning process.

The Rim-Paunina project area is approximately 40,000-acres, and bordered by the new Gilchrist State 

Forest to the north and the Fremont-Winema National Forests to the south and east. It is mostly 

comprised of ponderosa and lodgepole pine forests with some mixed conifer on Walker Rim. Wellintentioned management actions in the past, such as fire exclusion and salvage of insect-killed lodgepole 

pine, have reduced habitat diversity in the area for a special segment of wildlife called Management 

Indicator Species. These species have evolved within a condition across the landscape which developed 

through various disturbance processes such as low-intensity and frequent fires in ponderosa pine, and 

events that maintained lodgepole in a range of conditions including single story to dense and multi-story 

trees. The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) has designated 

them because their welfare is used as a benchmark against which other species dependent upon similar 

habitat conditions is measured. In the Rim-Paunina area, the Management Indicator Species of focus 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 1– Purpose and Need

Page 23 of 528

would be white-headed, black-backed, and three-toed woodpeckers; accipiter hawks (small to medium 

low-flying and agile hawks); big game (deer and elk); and American marten. 

The Forest Service acknowledges that insects, disease, or wildfire is a part of the ecology of all forests. In 

order to provide the habitat diversity for the various Management Indicator Species of focus, the goal was 

to establish conditions for an appropriate level of disturbance, based largely upon conditions for which 

they historically occurred, particularly in ponderosa pine. If kept in its current condition, these events

have potential to remove important habitat structure, particularly large trees that are desired over the longterm. 

Purpose and Need for Action

The 1990 Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, 

guides all natural resource management activities and provides standards and guidelines for the Deschutes 

National Forest, and in this respect, this Rim-Paunina EIS tiers to the FEIS for the Forest Plan (USDA 

Forest Service, 1990). The Forest Plan (Forest Plan; page 4-2) contains three Forest Management Goals 

that are particularly relevant to this project:

1. Maintain and enhance vigor of the forest ecosystem through the control of forest pests.

2. Provide old-growth tree stands for (1) preservation of natural genetic pools, (2) habitat for plants 

and wildlife species associated with over-mature tree stands, (3) contributions to the diversity 

spectrum, (4) aesthetic appeal.

3. Provide an optimum level of timber production consistent with various resource objectives, 

environmental constraints, and economic efficiency.

In the Rim-Paunina area, the gap between the current habitat condition and what is desired is 

considerable. Large diameter, open ponderosa pine stands which provide the most suitable habitat for the 

white-headed woodpecker have diminished and there is an increasing amount of smaller trees in the 

understory. This overcrowding and competition with the larger trees is evident now resulting in a 

mortality level that is expected to increase faster than large diameter trees can develop. The presence of 

dense understory trees and high levels of brush increase the risk of white-headed woodpecker nests being 

preyed upon by squirrels and chipmunks. If nothing is done, there will be substantially fewer large trees 

within the next two decades thus further diminishing an important habitat component for this 

woodpecker.

Approximately 40 percent of the project area is lodgepole pine that currently provides little habitat for the 

black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers and marten due to a mountain pine beetle outbreak in the 

1980s. Subsequent management actions at the time extensively salvaged the dead and down trees. Much 

of the area currently has minimal overstory trees but has a dense layer of understory that has regenerated. 

Currently, stand complexity in lodgepole pine is considered low and is not providing optimum habitat for 

many wildlife species of focus. Utilizing management techniques to vary the tree densities, optimizing 

tree growth, and even passively managing (no action) in some stands would ultimately benefit target 

species. These actions would lead to more complex structure and historical range of conditions, 

benefiting species in the short- and long-term.

The project area also contains a diminishing number of aspen and other hardwood stands, a preferred 

habitat for Downy Woodpecker and Red-Naped Sapsucker. Historically the numerous small draws along 

the Walker Rim and other moist micro climates in the project area were maintained in a more open 

condition due to periodic fire. Aspen and other hardwood need these conditions in order to regenerate 

and grow. In the absence of fire, dense conifer stands have grown in these areas and have pushed out the 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Page 24 of 528

historical aspen and other hardwood species as well as shading out hardwood regeneration. Management 

is necessary to restore these areas for those species which prefer a hardwood habitat. 

Purpose and Need Statement #1: There is a need to decrease the density of trees to provide a variety of 

stand structures and compositions appropriate to the Rim-Paunina biophysical environment in order to 

increase resilience and provide habitat for a variety of species (flora and fauna) across the landscape 

now and in the future.

The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 directs the policy of National Forests to be administered 

for consideration for all resources. This includes goods and services that have a monetary and nonmonetary value. This places natural resource managers sometimes at odds with various segments of the 

public that desire solely consumptive or non-consumptive (such as wildlife habitat or recreation) uses of 

the forest. Given that the Forest Service should place equal consideration to all resources and nonconsumptive values to ensure they are weighted equally, then:

Purpose and Need Statement #2: There is a need to contribute to the local and regional economies by 

providing timber and other wood fiber products now and in the future.

Proposed Action

Simply stated, the proposed action is to:

Use silvicultural treatments to provide a diversity of habitats for Management Indicator Species 

more in line with historical conditions to maintain and enhance existing late- and old-structured 

stand characteristics, and encourage the development of such characteristics.

Apply prescribed fire to fire-dependent ecosystems to create habitat conditions that allow fire to 

perform its natural ecological function and more closely mimic natural processes that maintain 

white-headed woodpecker habitat and other dependent wildlife species.

Apply activities on the landscape and maintain them through time to optimize diversity and 

juxtaposition of habitats. 

Take advantage of opportunities resulting from vegetation management activities that offset costs 

and provide products to stimulate the economy.

The following table displays approximate acres of various treatments:

Table 1. Proposed Activity and Approximate Acreage for the Rim-Paunina Project

Proposed Activities for Alternative B Approximate Acres

Density reduction, or thinning, including commercial and 

non-commercial removal in ponderosa pine (HTH).

6,082

Improvement cutting primarily in lodgepole pine to enhance 

overall stand composition and quality (HIM).

5,910

Aspen Treatment 43

Disposal of activity-created slash without underburning 3,530

Disposal of activity-created slash followed by prescribed 

underburning 8,506
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 1– Purpose and Need

Page 25 of 528

Decision Framework

The Responsible Official for this proposal is the Forest Supervisor of the Deschutes National Forest. The 

Responsible Official would make a decision and document it in a Record of Decision (ROD). The 

Responsible Official can decide to:

1. Select the proposed action, an action alternative that has been considered in detail, modify an 

action alternative, or select the no-action alternative.

2. Identify what Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures would apply.

3. Determine what monitoring would be necessary.

4. Amend the Forest Plan.

The Forest Supervisor would evaluate the alternatives by: 

Examining how well they meet the underlying purpose and need for action;

Considering their responsiveness to the issues and concerns raised by the public and other 

agencies; and

Reviewing their likely environmental effects.
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

Page 26 of 528

Figure 1. Rim-Paunina Project Area Locator Map 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 27 of 528

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Introduction

This chapter describes public involvement and issue development that led to alternatives. It also 

compares the alternatives considered for the Rim-Paunina Project. 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 by the decision 

maker. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the 

alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social, and economic effects of 

implementing each alternative. 

Public Involvement

The public scoping letter was mailed on January 27, 2009. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Rim-Paunina Project was published in the Federal 

Register on May 22, 2009. A field trip was held on June 3, 2009 for the public and conservation groups

who were interested in an on-the-ground look and to discuss the various treatments proposed for the 

project area. In addition to the Notice of Intent (NOI), the Crescent District Ranger requested feedback 

on the alternatives in a December 1, 2009 letter updating interested stakeholders (individuals, agencies, 

and organizations) on the progress of the project. 

Early in the process, a link from Central Oregon forest website was established and maintained 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/projects/units/crescent/index.shtml). Table 2 illustrates the public 

involvement effort for the Rim-Paunina Project.

Table 2. Public Involvement in the Rim-Paunina Planning Process

Date Stakeholder Format/Information

April 17, 2009 Tribal

Letter from Holly Jewkes, Crescent 

District Ranger to Tribal leaders 

describing the Rim-Paunina project 

and inviting them to comment and 

join the collaboration group.

May 4, 2009 Public

Letter to interested citizens with 

request to comment on RimPaunina Project.

May 19, 2009 Public

Email with Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS for Rim-Paunina 

Project.

May 22, 2009 All interested parties Notice of Intent (NOI) Federal 

Register Vol. 74, No. 98

May 2009 to present Public

Meetings and field trips with 

stakeholders to develop a better 

understanding of the NEPA process 

and project planning. All meeting 

were open to the public.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 28 of 528

Date Stakeholder Format/Information

June 3, 2009 Public

Field trip with stakeholders to three 

sites within the Rim-Paunina 

Project area on the Crescent Ranger 

District to discuss proposed 

treatments.

December 1, 2009 Public

Letter to interested citizens with an 

update on Rim-Paunina and an 

opportunity to comment.

Consultation with American Indian Tribes

During the early stages of this project, government to government contact was made with affected tribes 

(Klamath, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, and Burns-Paiute). The proposed action was presented 

in a letter dated April 17, 2009 to the Tribal Chairs and their Cultural Resource Program Managers. The 

Klamath Tribes responded with an interest in potential disturbance to culturally important sites on Walker 

Rim and Little Walker Mountain. To respond to this concern Project Design Features were incorporated 

to buffer any known sites prior to treatment activities and if during treatment activities any cultural 

artifacts or features are discovered, work would be halted until an archeologist can review the site.

Consultation with Government Agencies

Informal consultation and correspondence has occurred with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Environmental Protection Agency.

Consultation has occurred with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

Collaboration

The development of the Rim-Paunina project was bolstered by robust collaborative participation from a 

diverse group of external stakeholders. This group was convened and facilitated through the Central 

Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) acting as a third party. Collaborators ranged from forest 

conservation and wildlife advocates to forest products harvesting interests, and from recreation interests, 

to timber industry advocates. Including an initial scoping meeting, the group had nine collaborative 

process meetings over an 11 month period and used the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

public input process to weigh in on the Rim-Paunina project. All meetings were open to the public and 

followed Federal Advisory Committee Act guidelines, which enabled participation by the full diversity of 

groups interested in the well-being of the Deschutes National Forest and the resources it manages. In 

addition, the Forest Service was invited to participate in these meetings and helped provide the group with 

on-the-ground knowledge of current conditions in the project area, so the group could make more 

informed recommendations on the agency’s proposed action. 

From an agency perspective, public collaborative participation in any planning process builds a greater 

transparency from initial scoping to decision-making. It is also essential in achieving quality feedback 

and ensuring that all possible alternatives are explored before a decision is made. For the Rim-Paunina 

project, the dialogue within the collaborative group as well as between the group and the Forest Service 

helped generate key issues and develop potential solutions to tackle these issues that supported the Forest 

Service planning process. The diversity of perspectives and the inclusivity of the collaborative group 

enabled all sides of an issue to be explored. In sum, this EIS was strengthened by enthusiastic 

participation from a broad group of stakeholders, helping the agency best meet the dual purpose and need 

of the project; creating a diversity of wildlife habitats while also providing timber and other wood 

products to the local community.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 29 of 528

Issues______________________________________________________

Issues are points of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects or competing uses of the 

resources that may occur as a result of the proposed action. Issues provide focus and influence alternative 

development, including development of mitigation measures to address potential environmental effects, 

particularly potential negative effects. Issues are also used to display differing effects between the 

proposed action and the alternatives regarding a specific resource element. 

The project Interdisciplinary Team sorted the comments received during initial scoping into categories to 

help issue tracking and response. The issues are categorized as follows:

Key Issues: These are issues that cannot be resolved without some consideration of the tradeoffs involved and so are used to develop alternatives and design elements. Trade-offs can be 

more clearly understood by developing alternatives and displaying the relative effects of these 

alternatives.

Resources of Concern: These are those resource values that comments identified as potentially 

affected by the proposed project, and which require consideration in the environmental analysis 

and decision. In contrast to key issues which drive alternative development, resources of concern

drive the focus of analysis in Chapter 3 to explore the effects of the project on various disciplines. 

These are important for providing the Responsible Official with complete information about the 

effects of the project.

Key Issues

The alternatives respond to the following key issues identified during initial project scoping. The key 

issues are specific to the proposed actions and the analysis area. Each issue includes a measure that can 

help evaluate how each of the alternatives addresses the concern raised. Evaluations of each attribute and 

measure are provided later in this Chapter in the Comparison of Alternatives section.

Key Issue #1: The proposed action strives to use silvicultural techniques and prescribed underburning to 

return ponderosa pine in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer plant association groups to a more open 

condition. This action would move landscape conditions more toward what was seen historically and 

tend to favor species such as the white-headed woodpecker that prefer this type of habitat. However,

these treatments and resultant habitat conditions are less desirable for other species such as accipiter 

hawks and big game that tend to favor denser, often multi-layered stands.

Measure: Dense ponderosa pine stands retained as compared to the proposed action (in 

acres)

Measure: Change in habitat over time for White-headed woodpeckers and Accipiters

Measure: Change in hiding cover retained for Big Game

Key Issue #2: The proposed action recognizes the diminishing amount of suitable habitat for ponderosa 

pine-dependent wildlife species such as the white-headed woodpecker. However, a considerable portion 

of the ponderosa pine-dominated stands are heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe in all size classes. In 

these stands, actions described in the proposed action may only provide marginal white-headed 

woodpecker habitat in the short term. In the long term, mortality of the overstory trees and their 

replacement creates a gap-in-time that can span decades before larger trees are available. 

Measure: Mistletoe-Infected ponderosa pine stands treated (in acres)

Key Issue #3: The proposed action would use silviculture techniques to manage lodgepole pine stands to 

develop future black-backed woodpecker nesting habitat, but did not provide a proper balance for short-
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 30 of 528

term and long-term conditions. Currently, some of these stands also serve as suitable habitat for the 

black-backed woodpecker, marten, and Big Game. 

Measure: Decadent lodgepole stands retained as compared to the proposed action (in acres)

Measure: Habitat over time for American marten and Black-backed woodpecker

Key Issue #4: The proposed action did not go far enough in the application of prescribed fire in the 

project area. Currently, there are several thousand acres of relatively open pine stands that are mostly 

single story with a brush component that is not in a desirable condition favored by the white-headed 

woodpecker for nesting habitat. With minimal investment, they would be in a condition for the return of 

a frequent fire regime for which they likely evolved. 

Measure: Prescribed fire applied (in acres)

Resources of Concern

Other issues and concerns for various resource areas were raised during scoping that did not result in 

different alternatives or design elements, but are considered during the analysis process and discussed in 

Chapter 3. These include:

Aquatic Resources including fish habitat

Botanical Resources and Invasive Plant species

Cultural Resources

Forested Vegetation

Potential Wilderness Inventory

Public Health and Safety

Recreation 

Scenery as it relates to Forest Plan consistency

Social and Economic effects

Soil and Water Quality

Wildlife

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed three alternatives to the Proposed Action, for a total of five alternatives, 

including the No Action, for the Rim-Paunina Project. The No Action Alternative is used as a baseline to 

display consequences of a passive management scenario. This section includes a description and map of 

each Action Alternative considered. It 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. Information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design 

of the alternative and on the environmental, economic, and social effects of implementing each 

alternative. 

No activities would occur within the boundary of the Oregon Cascade Recreation Area (OCRA), 

designated Wilderness, or Inventoried Roadless Areas.

The Action Alternatives for this project involve a variety of vegetation management prescriptions:

Thinning (HTH) – a cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve 

growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality (Helms 1998).

Trees would be thinned to a density within the management zone with thought to future growth within the 

next 20 or 30 years before the next likely commercial treatment. This would primarily be achieved by 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 31 of 528

thinning from below – the removal of trees from the lower crown classes to favor those in the upper 

crown classes (Helms 1998). After thinning, stands would average as low as 20 percent canopy cover and 

50 square feet of basal area in lodgepole pine and up to 40 percent canopy cover and 180 square feet of 

basal area in mixed conifer plant associations.

Improvement Cutting (HIM) – the removal of less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or 

larger trees, primarily to improve composition and quality (Helms 1998).

Improvement cutting activities are primarily proposed in lodgepole pine stands that were impacted by the 

mountain pine beetle outbreak of the 1980s. The proportion of their overstories that exhibit poor crowns 

and/or heavy mistletoe infection would be removed. These trees have poor growth rates and potential for 

infecting the understory with mistletoe is high. These stands would have fewer remaining overstory trees 

than in those stands that are thinned (HTH). The understory would contribute significantly to future 

growth. 

Group Selections (HSG) – In Alternative D, areas of high mistletoe occurrence of dwarf mistletoe are 

proposed for this treatment. Within a stand, two to five acres openings would be created totaling 15-30 

percent of the total stand area. The remainder would be thinned. All trees infected with dwarf mistletoe 

would be removed from the openings and ponderosa pine would be planted. This would prevent 

reinfection of dwarf mistletoe from above.

Alternate Mistletoe Treatment (AltMist) – All dwarf mistletoe infected trees less than 21” would be 

removed. Mortality of the remaining infected trees above 21” may be accelerated using techniques such 

as prescribed fire or blasting. The stand would be planted with ecologically appropriate trees species, 

primarily ponderosa pine. Where live infected ponderosa pine remain, alternate species would be planted 

within 30 feet of the infected tree’s dripline to prevent reinfection of the understory (dwarf mistletoe 

generally is not transmitted between tree species). 

Aspen - Unit 621 is proposed for aspen treatment in all action alternatives. This is a 43 acre unit 

containing two small draws which, under a historical fire regime, would have had a greater hardwood 

component. The current condition of dense conifers has resulted in existing aspen and other hardwoods 

being crowded out as well as hardwood regeneration being suppressed. Treatment would consist of 

creating five openings of up to two acres in size, where all conifers less than 21 inches in diameter would 

be removed, which would facilitate the restoration of native species such as aspen and willow. Two of 

the openings would be located adjacent to an existing aspen patch toward the north end of the unit in 

order to allow it to expand. Additional openings would be placed within small draws that have a moist 

micro climate suitable to these species. Regeneration may also be assisted through a variety of means 

including prescribed fire, root cutting, or planting. Seedlings and saplings would be protected using 

wood, metal, or plastic fences until the crown is above the area susceptible to browse from large 

ungulates. Trapping of gophers may also be required. The remaining portion of the unit would be 

thinned following the HTH treatment guidelines.

Alternative A

No Action

The No Action Alternative is included as a baseline comparison of continuing the existing conditions 

without implementing the proposed actions as required by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1502.14). The 

No Action/No Change Alternative would not implement any changes in the current management 

direction. No thinning or fuels treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. There 

would be no Forest Plan amendments to Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by 

the Eastside Screens. Custodial activities would continue, such as routine maintenance of roads and 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 32 of 528

timber plantations. Response to environmental emergencies, such as suppression response to wildfire, 

would continue. 

Action Alternatives

Four Forest Plan Amendments are required.

There are four site-specific amendments to the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended for the proposed Rim-Paunina Project on the Crescent 

Ranger District. Three are for the Eastside Screens, harvest of trees over 21 inches and two related to 

Historical Range of Variability (HRV) and Late and Old Structure (LOS) scenarios, and the fourth is for 

the use of prescribed fire exceeding five acres within scenic views.

1. In Alternative D, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Interim Eastside Screens 

to allow a timber sale to cut and remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inches in diameter.

2. In Alternative D, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Interim Eastside Screens 

to allow for a net loss of 145 acres of LOS for two biophysical environments.

3. In all Action Alternatives, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Interim Eastside 

Screens to allow for a timber harvest in LOS when LOS falls below the HRV in a particular 

biophysical environment.

4. In all Action Alternatives, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Deschutes Land 

and Resource Management Plan to allow prescribed fire in larger than 5-acre blocks of Partial 

Retention Foreground areas of Scenic Views, located along Highways 58 and 97. 

See the Other Disclosures section in Chapter 3 for more details on Forest Plan Amendments.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 33 of 528

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Alternative B would use silvicultural treatments to provide a diversity of habitats for Management 

Indicator Species more in line with historical conditions to maintain and enhance existing late- and oldstructured stand characteristics, and encourage the development of such characteristics. It also would 

apply prescribed fire to fire-dependent ecosystems to create habitat conditions that allow fire to perform 

its natural ecological function and more closely mimic natural processes that maintain white-headed 

woodpecker habitat and other dependent wildlife species. There would be approximately 19.9 Million 

Board Feet (MMBF), of which approximately 70 percent is saw log.

The following table displays approximate acres of various treatments:

Table 3. Proposed Activity and Approximate Acreage for the Rim-Paunina Project 

Proposed Activities for Alternative B Approximate Acres

Density reduction, or thinning, including commercial and noncommercial removal in ponderosa pine (HTH).

6,082

Improvement cutting primarily in lodgepole pine to enhance 

overall stand composition and quality (HIM).

5,910

Aspen Treatment 43

Disposal of activity-created slash without underburning. 3,530

Disposal of activity-created slash followed by prescribed 

underburning.

8,506

Connected Actions

In order for Alternative B to implemented, the following are connected actions:

About 9.2 miles of temporary roads to be constructed.

Table 4. Alternative B Management Units

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views

1

5 77 HTH GP/UB GF No No

6 20 HIM GP GF No No

10 7 HTH GP/UB GF No No

15 16 HIM GP GF No No

20 30 HIM GP GF No No

25 306 HTH GP/UB GF No No

30 57 HIM GP/UB GF No No

35 137 HIM GP GF No No

40 197 HIM GP GF No No

45 70 HIM GP GF No No

50 17 HIM SB GF, SV No 14 ac.

55 31 HIM SB SV No 31 ac.

60 95 HIM SB GF, SV No 87 ac.

 

1 Only Scenic Views Foreground acres are shown is this column because they are potentially affected by vegetative 

prescriptions prescribed in this project. Partial Retention Middleground acres are not shown.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 34 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views

1

65 17 HIM SB SV No 17 ac.

70 176 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF No 140 ac.

75 38 HTH GP GF No No

80 48 HIM GP/UB GF No No

85 29 HTH GP/UB GF No No

90 47 HIM GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 5 ac.

95 74 HTH GP; SB in scenic GF, SV No 30 ac.

110 28 HIM GP GF No No

115 18 HTH SB/UB SV No 18 ac.

120 70 HTH GP/UB GF No No

125 31 HIM GP/UB GF No No

130 184 HIM SB GF, SV No 13 ac.

135 34 HIM SB/UB GF, SV No 33 ac.

140 55 HIM GP; SB in scenic GF, SV No 31 ac.

145 18 HTH SB/UB SV No 18 ac.

150 53 HIM SB SV No 53 ac.

155 13 HIM SB SV No 13 ac.

160 9 HTH SB/UB SV No 9 ac.

165 15 HIM SB SV No 15 ac.

166 7 HIM SB SV No 7 ac.

167 4 HIM GP/UB GF No No

170 26 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 3 ac. No

171 22 HIM GP GF, OG 1 ac. No

180 113 HTH GP/UB GF No No

185 24 HTH GP/UB GF No No

190 22 HTH GP/UB GF No No

195 82 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 67 ac. No

200 10 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 9 ac. No

205 50 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 48 ac. No

215 15 HIM GP GF No No

220 23 HIM GP/UB GF No No

225 65 HIM GP GF, OG 1 ac. No

235 52 HIM SB GF, SV No 48 ac.

240 250 HIM GP/UB GF No No

245 24 HIM GP GF No No

250 23 HIM GP GF No No

255 52 HTH GP/UB GF No No

260 65 HIM GP GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 35 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views

1

265 49 HIM GP GF No No

270 55 HIM GP GF No No

275 98 HTH GP/UB GF No No

285 29 HIM GP/UB GF No No

286 12 HIM GP/UB GF No No

290 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

295 80 HIM GP/UB GF No No

300 72 HTH GP/UB GF No No

305 31 HIM GP GF No No

310 113 HIM GP GF No No

330 70 HIM GP GF No No

335 62 HTH GP GF, OG 3 ac. No

345 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

350 79 HTH GP/UB GF No No

355 123 HIM GP GF No No

370 51 HTH GP/UB GF No No

385 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

390 300 HTH GP/UB GF No No

395 36 HIM GP GF No No

400 26 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 1 ac.

405 43 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 6 ac.

410 143 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 75 ac.

415 64 HIM GP; SB in scenic GF, SV No 51 ac.

425 33 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 21 ac.

430 101 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 67 ac.

435 32 HIM GP GF No No

445 190 HTH GP/UB GF No No

460 13 HIM GP GF No No

465 9 HTH GP/UB GF No No

470 29 HIM GP/UB GF No No

475 167 HIM GP GF No No

480 85 HIM GP GF No No

490 266 HIM GP GF No No

495 47 HIM GP GF No No

510 66 HIM GP GF No No

605 26 HTH GP/UB OG 26 ac. No

610 48 HIM GP GF, OG 3 ac. No

620 65 HTH GP/UB OG 65 ac. No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 36 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views

1

621 43 Aspen GP/UB GF, OG 39 ac. No

630 68 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

640 166 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 10 ac. No

645 296 HIM GP GF No No

650 54 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

655 185 HTH GP/UB GF No No

660 14 HIM GP GF No No

665 214 HTH GP/UB GF No No

670 38 HIM GP GF No No

675 52 HIM GP GF No No

680 58 HTH GP/UB GF No No

685 121 HTH GP/UB GF No No

690 120 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 118 ac. No

700 67 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 3 ac. No

710 105 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 1 ac. No

720 17 HTH GP/UB GF No No

725 32 HTH GP/UB GF No No

730 73 HIM GP GF, SV No No Foreground

735 67 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

740 339 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 318 ac. No

745 168 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 153 ac. No

750 95 HTH GP/UB GF 1 ac. No

755 106 HTH GP/UB GF No No

765 370 HIM GP/UB GF No No

770 165 HIM GP/UB GF No No

775 235 HIM GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 18 ac.

780 100 HIM SB GF, SV No 96 ac.

785 199 HTH GP/UB GF No No

795 22 HTH GP/UB GF No No

796 40 HTH GP/UB GF No No

800 69 HTH GP/UB GF No No

805 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

810 149 HTH GP/UB GF No No

815 92 HTH GP/UB GF No No

820 164 HIM GP/UB GF No No

825 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

830 60 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

835 18 HTH GP/UB SV No No Foreground
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 37 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views

1

850 27 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

855 33 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

860 9 HIM SB/UB SV No 9 ac.

865 51 HTH SB/UB SV No 51 ac.

870 145 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 64 ac.

875 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

876 40 HTH GP/UB GF No No

880 84 HTH GP/UB GF No No

885 30 HTH GP/UB GF No No

890 21 HTH GP/UB GF No No

895 92 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 92 ac. No

940 150 HIM SB/UB SV No 150 ac.

945 106 HIM SB/UB GF, SV No 99 ac

965 33 HTH GP/UB SV No No Foreground

975 41 HTH GP OG 41 ac. No

980 37 HTH GP/UB OG, SV 22 ac. No Foreground

1025 38 HTH GP/UB OG, SV 20 ac. No Foreground

1030 97 HTH GP/UB GF, SV, OG 55 ac. No Foreground

1040 28 HIM GP GF No No

1045 105 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 44 ac.

1050 38 HIM SB/UB SV No 38 ac.

1051 7 HIM SB SV No 7 ac.

1056 11 HIM GP GF No No

1060 66 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1065 102 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1070 43 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1085 70 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1090 20 HIM GP GF No No

1095 74 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1096 24 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

2000 72 HTH GP GF No No

2005 83 HTH GP GF No No

2010 38 HTH GP/UB OG 37 ac. No

Total unit acres for Alternative B = 12,036 

HIM = Harvest Improvement Cut

HTH = Harvest Commercial Thin

Aspen-Unit #621 only, to facilitate aspen regeneration

GP = Grapple pile material, utilization of piles or disposal; or slash busting/mastication by machine with no pile 

disposal

UB = Prescribed underburning
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 38 of 528

SB = Slash busting (brush mastication) with no pile disposal or handpile with disposal in scenic areas

GF = General Forest

OG = Old Growth

SV = Scenic Views (Foreground and Middleground)
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 39 of 528

Figure 2 Alternative B Proposed Units within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 40 of 528

Alternative C

This alternative was developed to provide more of a balance between species that prefer open ponderosa 

pine stands and those that favor denser, multi-layered conditions (Key Issue #1), retaining approximately 

395 acres of dense stands in comparison to the proposed action. Also, it retains many decadent lodgepole 

pine stands (1,878 acres in comparison to the proposed action) to provide more of a balance between short 

and long-terms by providing habitat for Management Indicator Species such as the black-backed 

woodpecker and the marten (Key Issue #3). Return of a frequent fire regime in appropriate stands is also 

a component of this alternative (Key Issue #4), which includes 1,205 acres of small diameter thinning 

within the Old Growth Management Area on Walker Rim, handpiling, and disposal. Then, a lowintensity fire would be carefully applied to ready the stand for a frequent fire regime in a maintenance 

mode. This activity would be coded “Fuels Only” along with 3,780 acres of slashbusting/brush 

mastication and prescribed fire in stands that are ready for a frequent fire regime without reduction of 

stand density. 

In addition to deferring management in some lodgepole pine stands, this alternative incorporates some 

additional passively-managed patches or “retention areas” greater than 15 percent in some ponderosa pine 

and lodgepole pine activity units. The objective is to provide more contiguous suitable habitat for a 

potential goshawk nest stand; nesting, roosting, foraging for black-backed woodpeckers; denning and 

foraging for pine marten; and hiding cover, foraging for big game. There would be approximately 15.3

Million Board Feet (MMBF), of which approximately 70 percent is saw log.

Table 5. Proposed Activities for Alternative C

Proposed Activities for Alternative C Approximate Acres

Density reduction, or thinning, including commercial and noncommercial removal in ponderosa pine (HTH). 5,717

Improvement cutting primarily in lodgepole pine to enhance overall 

stand composition and quality (HIM). 4,032

Aspen Treatment 43

Disposal of activity-created slash without underburning. 2,015 

Disposal of activity-created slash followed by prescribed 

underburning. 7,777

Brush mastication and/or application of prescribed “maintenance” 

burning outside of commercial harvest units. 3,780

Thin small diameter material, pruning of limbs, pile, dispose of 

piles, and then apply prescribed underburning. 1,205

Connected Actions

In order for Alternative C to implemented, the following are connected actions:

About 6.5 miles of temporary roads to be constructed.

Table 6. Alternative C Management Units

Unit Total Acres 

in Unit Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views2

5 77 HTH GP/UB GF No No

6 20 HIM GP GF No No

 

2 Only Scenic Views Foreground acres are shown is this column because they are affected by vegetative 

prescriptions prescribed in this project. Partial Retention Middleground acres are not shown.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 41 of 528

Unit Total Acres 

in Unit Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views2

10 7 HTH GP/UB GF No No

15 16 HIM GP GF No No

20 30 HIM GP GF No No

25 306 HTH GP/UB GF No No

30 57 HIM GP/UB GF No No

40 197 HIM GP GF No No

45 70 HIM GP GF No No

50 17 HIM SB GF, SV No 14 ac.

60 95 HIM SB GF, SV No 87 ac.

65 17 HIM SB SV No 17 ac.

70 176 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 140 ac.

80 48 HIM GP/UB GF No No

85 29 HTH GP/UB GF No No

90 47 HIM GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 5 ac.

110 28 HIM GP GF No No

115 18 HTH SB/UB SV No 18 ac.

120 70 HTH GP/UB GF No No

135 34 HIM SB GF, SV No 33 ac.

140 55 HIM GP; SB in scenic GF, SV No 31 ac.

145 18 HTH SB/UB SV No 18 ac.

155 13 HIM SB SV No 13 ac.

160 9 HTH SB/UB SV No 9 ac.

165 15 HIM SB/UB SV No 15 ac.

166 7 HIM SB SV No 7 ac.

167 4 HIM GP/UB GF No No

170 26 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 3 ac. No

180 113 HTH GP/UB GF No No

185 24 HTH GP/UB GF No No

190 22 HTH GP/UB GF No No

195 82 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 67 ac. No

200 10 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 9 ac. No

205 50 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 48 ac. No

225 65 HIM GP GF, OG 1 ac. No

235 52 HIM SB GF, SV No 48 ac.

240 250 HIM GP/UB GF No No

250 23 HIM GP GF No No

255 52 HTH GP/UB GF No No

260 65 HIM GP GF No No

265 49 HIM GP GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 42 of 528

Unit Total Acres 

in Unit Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views2

275 98 HTH GP/UB GF No No

285 29 HIM GP/UB GF No No

286 12 HIM GP/UB GF No No

290 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

295 80 HIM GP/UB GF No No

300 72 HTH GP/UB GF No No

345 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

350 79 HTH GP/UB GF No No

355 123 HIM GP GF No No

370 51 HTH GP/UB GF No No

385 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

390 300 HTH GP/UB GF No No

400 26 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 1 ac.

405 43 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 6 ac.

410 143 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 75 ac.

425 33 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 21 ac.

430 101 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 67 ac.

445 190 HTH GP/UB GF No No

465 9 HTH GP/UB GF No No

470 29 HIM GP/UB GF No No

490 266 HIM GP GF No No

495 47 HIM GP GF No No

510 66 HIM GP GF No No

605 26 HTH GP/UB OG 26 ac. No

610 48 HIM GP GF, OG 3 ac. No

615 182 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 181 ac. No

620 65 HTH GP/UB OG 65 ac. No

621 43 Aspen GP/UB GF, OG 39 ac. No

625 76 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 66 ac. No

630 68 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

640 166 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 10 ac. No

645 296 HIM GP GF No No

650 54 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

655 185 HTH GP/UB GF No No

660 14 HIM GP GF No No

665 214 HTH GP/UB GF No No

670 38 HIM GP GF No No

680 58 HTH GP/UB GF No No

685 121 HTH GP/UB GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 43 of 528

Unit Total Acres 

in Unit Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views2

690 120 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 118 ac. No

700 67 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 2 ac. No

710 105 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 1 ac. No

720 17 HTH GP/UB GF No No

725 32 HTH GP/UB GF No No

730 73 HIM GP GF, SV No No Foreground

735 67 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

750 95 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 1 ac. No

755 106 HTH GP/UB GF No No

765 370 HIM GP/UB GF No No

770 164 HIM GP/UB GF No No

775 235 HIM GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 18 ac.

785 199 HTH GP/UB GF No No

795 22 HTH GP/UB GF No No

796 40 HTH GP/UB GF No No

800 69 HTH GP/UB GF No No

805 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

815 92 HTH GP/UB GF No No

820 164 HIM GP/UB GF No No

825 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

830 60 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

835 18 HTH GP/UB SV No No Foreground

850 27 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

855 33 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

860 9 HIM SB/UB SV No 9 ac.

865 51 HTH SB/UB SV No 51 ac.

870 145 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 64 ac.

875 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

876 40 HTH GP/UB GF No No

880 84 HTH GP/UB GF No No

885 30 HTH GP/UB GF No No

890 21 HTH GP/UB GF No No

895 92 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 92 ac. No

905 173 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 173 ac. No

910 47 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 46 ac. No

925 47 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

930 199 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 198 ac. No

935 37 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 37 ac. No

940 150 HIM SB/UB SV No 150 ac.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 44 of 528

Unit Total Acres 

in Unit Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views2

945 106 HIM SB/UB GF, SV No 99 ac.

965 33 HTH GP/UB OG, SV No No Foreground

970 49 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 49 ac. No

980 37 HTH GP/UB OG, SV 22 ac. No Foreground

1020 86 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG, SV 63 ac. No Foreground

1025 38 HTH GP/UB OG, SV 20 ac. No Foreground

1030 97 HTH GP/UB GF, OG, SV 55 ac. No Foreground

1040 28 HIM GP GF No No

1045 105 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 44 ac.

1050 38 HIM SB/UB SV No 38 ac.

1051 7 HIM SB SV No 7 ac.

1060 66 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1065 102 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1070 43 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1080 92 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1085 70 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1095 74 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1096 24 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

2000 72 HTH GP GF No No

2005 83 HTH GP GF No No

2010 38 HTH GP/UB OG 37 ac. No

3000 219 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 140 ac. No

3005 138 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3010 128 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3015 127 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 110 ac.

3020 206 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3025 142 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3030 37 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3035 20 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3040 55 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 17 ac.

3045 18 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3050 107 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 37 ac.

3055 5 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

3060 91 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 17 ac. No

3065 144 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3070 68 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3075 15 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3080 43 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3085 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 45 of 528

Unit Total Acres 

in Unit Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG Acres Scenic Views2

3090 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3095 41 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4000 16 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4005 7 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4010 27 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 27 ac. No

4015 13 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 13 ac. No

4020 60 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 6 ac. No

4025 8 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 8 ac. No

4030 78 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG, SV 2 ac. No Foreground

4035 153 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 153 ac. No

4040 146 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 144 ac. No

4045 80 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

4050 292 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

4055 108 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 108 ac. No

4060 63 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG, SV 43 ac. No Foreground

4065 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4070 62 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4075 42 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 36 ac. No

4080 11 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4085 79 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4090 7 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4095 393 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5000 58 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5005 56 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5010 9 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5015 39 Fuels Only SB/UB OG, SV 1 ac. No Foreground

5020 18 Fuels Only SB/UB OG, SV 7 ac. No Foreground

5025 19 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

5030 22 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

5035 408 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

5040 46 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

5045 35 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

Total unit acres for Alternative C = 14,780

HIM = Harvest Improvement Cut

HTH = Harvest Commercial Thin

Aspen-Unit #621 only, to facilitate aspen regeneration

Fuels Only= Accomplished without a commercial timber sale. For units on Walker Rim, includes Small Diameter 

Thinning (SDT), hand piling (HP), and disposal. All other “Fuels Only” units are those ready for restoring to a 

frequent fire regime without any tree thinning. Activities include, slashbusting/brush mastication (SB) and 

prescribed underburning (UB) 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 46 of 528

GP = Grapple pile material, utilization of piles or disposal; or slash busting/mastication by machine with no pile 

disposal

UB = Prescribed underburning

SB = Slash busting (brush mastication) with no pile disposal or handpile with disposal in scenic areas

GF = General Forest

OG = Old Growth

SV = Scenic Views (Foreground and Middleground)

Alternative D

This alternative uses Alternative C units as the base and addresses dwarf mistletoe infection (Key Issue 

#2) by emphasizing a focused strategy to reduce the length in time for when large trees are absent from 

those areas most heavily infected. It uses density control and application of prescribed fire in “light” and 

“moderate” infected stands; however it is more aggressive in approximately 2,500 acres of stands 

categorized as “severely infected”, as determined by on-the-ground inventory. This alternative proposes 

to break the cycle of continual infection by creating openings of 2-5 acres across portions of stands where 

ponderosa pine seedlings currently have little chance to advance beyond a seedling/sapling stage. These 

openings would be created on approximately 30 percent of the area in severely infected stands. In those 

openings all trees, including those over 21 inches in diameter, would be cut and removed followed by 

planting of ponderosa pine. In addition to addressing the future health of the stands, these openings 

would serve to create a mosaic of different tree sizes and densities within each stand, which was a 

historical component. The remaining 70 percent would use density reduction prescriptions to retain the 

healthiest trees, as well as all trees 21 inches and over.

A Forest Plan amendment to the Eastside Screens would be required for this alternative to remove 

severely infected trees 21 inches and over, and to amend direction for Late and Old Structured (LOS) 

stands. This alternative addresses Key Issue #1 (retention of dense ponderosa pine stands) and Key Issue 

#3 (retention of decadent lodgepole stands) to the same degree as Alternative C. Return of a frequent fire 

regime in appropriate stands (shown as “Fuels Only” and described in Alternative C description of 

activities) is also a component of this alternative (Key Issue #4). This alternative is estimated to produce 

approximately 25.3 Million Board Feet (MMBF), of which approximately 70 percent would be in saw 

logs.

Table 7. Proposed Activities for Alternative D 

Proposed Activities for Alternative D Approximate Acres

Density reduction, or thinning, including commercial and noncommercial removal in ponderosa pine (HTH). 6,122

Improvement cutting primarily in lodgepole pine to enhance overall 

stand composition and quality (HIM).

2,849

Group selection (HSG) in the most severely infected stands 

includes openings 2-5 acres. Includes removing trees over 21 

inches in diameter.

7783

Aspen Treatment 43

Disposal of activity-created slash without underburning. 2,015 

Disposal of activity-created slash followed by prescribed 

underburning. 7,777

Brush mastication and/or application of prescribed “maintenance” 

burning outside of commercial harvest units. 3,780

 

3 This is approximately 30 percent of total HSG acres (2,593) in the Rim-Paunina project area. The remaining 1,815 

acres would be treated as HTH.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 47 of 528

Proposed Activities for Alternative D Approximate Acres

Thin small diameter material, pruning of limbs, pile, dispose of 

piles, and then apply prescribed underburning. 1,205

Connected Actions

In order for Alternative D to implemented, the following are connected actions:

About 6.5 miles of temporary roads to be constructed.

Table 8. Alternative D Management Units

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views4

5 77 HTH GP/UB GF No No

6 20 HIM GP GF No No

10 7 HTH GP/UB GF No No

15 16 HIM GP GF No No

20 30 HIM GP GF No No

25 306 HTH GP/UB GF No No

30 57 HIM GP/UB GF No No

40 197 HIM GP GF No No

45 70 HIM GP GF No No

50 17 HIM SB GF, SV No 14 ac.

60 95 HIM SB GF, SV No 87 ac.

65 17 HIM SB SV No 17 ac.

70 176 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 140 ac.

80 48 HIM GP/UB GF No No

85 29 HTH GP/UB GF No No

90 47 HIM GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 5 ac.

110 28 HIM GP GF No No

115 18 HTH SB/UB SV No 18 ac.

120 70 HTH GP/UB GF No No

135 34 HIM SB GF, SV No 33 ac.

140 55 HIM GP; SB in scenic GF, SV No 31 ac.

145 18 HTH SB/UB SV No 18 ac.

155 13 HIM SB SV No 13 ac.

160 9 HTH SB/UB SV No 9 ac.

165 15 HIM SB/UB SV No 15 ac.

166 7 HIM SB SV No 7 ac.

167 4 HIM GP/UB GF No No

170 26 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 3 ac. No

180 113 HTH GP/UB GF No No

 

4 Only Scenic Views Foreground acres are shown is this column because they are affected by vegetative 

prescriptions prescribed in this project. Partial Retention Middleground acres are not shown.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 48 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views4

185 24 HTH GP/UB GF No No

190 22 HTH GP/UB GF No No

195 82 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 67 ac. No

200 10 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 9 ac. No

205 50 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 48 ac. No

225 65 HIM GP GF, OG 1 ac. No

235 52 HIM SB GF, SV No 48 ac.

240 250 HSG GP/UB GF No No

250 23 HIM GP GF No No

255 52 HTH GP/UB GF No No

260 65 HIM GP GF No No

265 49 HIM GP GF No No

275 98 HTH GP/UB GF No No

285 29 HIM GP/UB GF No No

286 12 HIM GP/UB GF No No

290 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

295 80 HIM GP/UB GF No No

300 72 HTH GP/UB GF No No

345 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

350 79 HTH GP/UB GF No No

355 123 HIM GP GF No No

370 51 HTH GP/UB GF No No

385 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

390 300 HTH GP/UB GF No No

400 26 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 1 ac.

405 43 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 6 ac.

410 143 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 75 ac.

425 33 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 21 ac.

430 101 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 67 ac.

445 190 HTH GP/UB GF No No

465 9 HTH GP/UB GF No No

470 29 HIM GP/UB GF No No

490 266 HIM GP GF No No

495 47 HIM GP GF No No

510 66 HIM GP GF No No

605 26 HTH GP/UB OG 26 ac. No

610 48 HIM GP GF, OG 3 ac. No

615 182 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 181 ac. No

620 65 HSG GP/UB OG 65 ac. No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 49 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views4

621 43 Aspen GP/UB GF, OG 39 ac. No

625 76 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 66 ac. No

630 68 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

640 166 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 10 ac. No

645 296 HIM GP GF No No

650 54 HSG GP/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

655 185 HSG GP/UB GF No No

660 14 HIM GP GF No No

665 214 HTH GP/UB GF No No

670 38 HIM GP GF No No

680 58 HTH GP/UB GF No No

685 121 HSG GP/UB GF No No

690 120 HSG GP/UB GF, OG 118 ac. No

700 67 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 3 ac. No

710 105 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 1 ac. No

720 17 HTH GP/UB GF No No

725 32 HTH GP/UB GF No No

730 73 HIM GP GF, SV No No Foreground

735 67 HSG GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

750 95 HSG GP/UB GF No No

755 106 HSG GP/UB GF No No

765 370 HSG GP/UB GF No No

770 164 HSG GP/UB GF No No

775 235 HSG GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 18 ac.

785 199 HSG GP/UB GF No No

795 22 HTH GP/UB GF No No

796 40 HTH GP/UB GF No No

800 69 HSG GP/UB GF No No

805 57 HSG GP/UB GF No No

815 92 HTH GP/UB GF No No

820 164 HSG GP/UB GF No No

825 68 HSG GP/UB GF No No

830 60 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

835 18 HTH GP/UB SV No No Foreground

850 27 HSG GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

855 33 HSG GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

860 9 HIM SB/UB SV No 9 ac.

865 51 HTH SB/UB SV No 51 ac.

870 145 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 64 ac.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 50 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views4

875 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

876 40 HTH GP/UB GF No No

880 84 HTH GP/UB GF No No

885 30 HSG GP/UB GF No No

890 21 HSG GP/UB GF No No

895 92 HSG GP/UB GF, OG 92 ac. No

905 173 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 173 ac. No

910 47 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 46 ac. No

925 47 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

930 199 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 198 ac. No

935 37 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 37 ac. No

940 150 HIM SB/UB SV No 150 ac.

945 106 HIM SB/UB GF, SV No 99 ac.

965 33 HTH GP/UB OG, SV No No Foreground

970 49 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 49 ac. No

980 37 HTH GP/UB OG, SV 22 ac. No Foreground

1020 86 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG, SV 63 ac. No Foreground

1025 38 HTH GP/UB OG, SV 20 ac. No Foreground

1030 97 HTH GP/UB GF, OG, SV 55 ac. No Foreground 

1040 28 HIM GP GF No No

1045 105 HTH GP; SB in scenic/UB GF, SV No 44 ac.

1050 38 HIM SB/UB SV No 38 ac.

1051 7 HIM SB SV No 7 ac.

1060 66 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1065 102 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1070 43 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1080 92 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1085 70 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1095 74 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1096 24 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

2000 72 HTH GP GF No No

2005 83 HTH GP GF No No

2010 38 HTH GP/UB OG 37 ac. No

3000 219 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 140 ac. No

3005 138 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3010 128 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3015 127 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 110 ac.

3020 206 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3025 142 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 51 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views4

3030 37 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3035 20 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3040 55 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 17 ac.

3045 18 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3050 107 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 37 ac.

3055 5 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

3060 91 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 17 ac. No

3065 144 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3070 68 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3075 15 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3080 43 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3085 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3090 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3095 41 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4000 16 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4005 7 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4010 27 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 27 ac. No

4015 13 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 13 ac. No

4020 60 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 6 ac. No

4025 8 Fuels Only SB/UB OG No No

4030 78 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG, SV 2 ac. No Foreground

4035 153 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 153 ac. No

4040 146 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 144 ac. No

4045 80 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

4050 292 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

4055 108 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 108 ac. No

4060 63 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG, SV 43 ac. No Foreground

4065 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4070 62 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4075 42 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 36 ac. No

4080 11 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4085 79 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4090 7 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4095 393 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5000 58 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5005 56 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5010 9 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5015 39 Fuels Only SB/UB OG, SV 1 ac. No Foreground

5020 18 Fuels Only SB/UB OG, SV 7 ac. No Foreground
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 52 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views4

5025 19 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

5030 22 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

5035 408 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

5040 46 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

5045 35 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

Total unit acres for Alternative D =14,780

HIM = Harvest Improvement Cut

HTH = Harvest Commercial Thin

HSG = Harvest Group Selection

Aspen-Unit #621 only, to facilitate aspen regeneration

Fuels Only= Accomplished without a commercial timber sale. For units on Walker Rim, includes Small Diameter 

Thinning (SDT), hand piling (HP), and disposal. All other “Fuels Only” units are those ready for restoring to a 

frequent fire regime without any tree thinning. Activities include, slashbusting/brush mastication (SB) and 

prescribed underburning (UB)

GP = Grapple pile material, utilization of piles or disposal; or slash busting/mastication by machine with no pile 

disposal

UB = Prescribed underburning

SB = Slash busting (brush mastication) with no pile disposal or handpile with disposal in scenic areas

GF = General Forest

OG = Old Growth

SV = Scenic Views (Foreground and Middleground)
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 53 of 528

Figure 3. Alternatives C and D Proposed Units within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 54 of 528

Alternative E

Alternative E was developed to provide a different approach in response to Key Issue #2, addressing the 

gap-in-time for large trees to replace those lost by severe dwarf mistletoe infection. Instead of openings 

created by Alternative D in the most severely infected stands with dwarf mistletoe, this alternative would 

thin 1,921 acres and then use alternative methods to hasten the mortality of the overstory. All the largest 

trees 21 inches and greater would be retained. Also, within the overlap of severely infected stands and 

Old Growth Management Areas, those structurally advanced trees exhibiting fire and drought resistance 

would be retained regardless of tree size. To minimize the continued cycle of mistletoe infection, several 

techniques would be used to hasten the mortality of visibly infected trees5depending on site specific 

appropriateness:

Prescribed fire or other methods (such as blasting or topping6) could be used to accelerate their 

mortality, providing recruitment for snags.

Ecologically appropriate species of conifers that would not be susceptible to mistletoe infection 

from the overstory could be planted underneath. 

Also, in response to Key Issue #1, this alternative provides more of a balance of habitat for Management 

Indicator Species, retaining 88 acres (in comparison to the proposed action) of ponderosa pine stands in a 

dense, multi-story condition. Alternative E also responds to Key Issue #3 by retaining 712 acres (in 

comparison to the proposed action) of decadent lodgepole pine stands to provide more of a balance 

between short and long-terms, by providing habitat for Management Indicator Species such as the blackbacked woodpecker and the marten.

In response to Key Issue #4, return of a frequent fire regime in appropriate stands is also a component of 

this alternative, which includes 1,205 acres of small diameter thinning within the Old Growth 

Management Area on Walker Rim, handpiling, and disposal. Then, a low-intensity fire would be 

carefully applied to ready the stand for a frequent fire regime in a maintenance mode. This activity would 

be coded “Fuels Only” along with 3,780 acres of slashbusting/brush mastication and prescribed fire in 

stands that are ready for a frequent fire regime without a commercial timber sale, or small diameter 

thinning. 

In order to restore much of the ponderosa pine stands to a condition that allows a frequent, low-intensity 

fire regime, big game cover was reassessed and engineered where it exists on the landscape and placed in 

the most logical and functional places where it can be sustained. In those subwatersheds that were most 

deficient, passively-managed patches or “retention areas” were increased above 15 percent in activity 

units to maintain a minimum of 30 percent hiding cover across the subwatershed. These retention areas 

would also provide more suitable habitat for other dependent MIS species beside big game.

This alternative is estimated to produce approximately 24.1 Million Board Feet (MMBF), of which 

approximately 70 percent would be in “saw logs.”

 

5 Trees 21 inches and greater outside of designated Old Growth Management Areas and all trees retained within the 

Old Growth Management Area that are structurally advanced and exhibit fire and drought resistance regardless of 

size.

6 Blasting or topping refers to removing the top of a live tree by mechanical methods, thereby creating a snag
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 55 of 528

Table 9. Proposed Activities for Alternative E 

Proposed Activities for Alternative E Approximate Acres

Density reduction, or thinning, including commercial and noncommercial removal in ponderosa pine (HTH). 5,244

Improvement cutting primarily in lodgepole pine to enhance overall 

stand composition and quality (HIM).

4,028

Removal of all trees under 21 inches in the most severely infected 

stands plus activity-induced mortality to larger diameter trees which 

are a source of infection (AltMist).

1,921

Aspen Unit #621 43

Disposal of activity-created slash without underburning. 2,730 

Disposal of activity-created slash followed by prescribed 

underburning. 8,506

Brush mastication and/or application of prescribed “maintenance” 

burning outside of commercial harvest units. 3,780

Thin small diameter material, pruning of limbs, pile, dispose of 

piles, and then apply prescribed underburning. 1,205

Connected Actions

In order for Alternative E to implemented, the following are connected actions:

About 8.3 miles of temporary roads to be constructed.

Table 10. Alternative E Management Units

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views7

5 77 HTH GP/UB GF No No

6 20 HIM GP GF No No

10 7 HTH GP/UB GF No No

15 16 HIM GP GF No No

20 30 HIM GP GF No No

25 306 HTH GP/UB GF No No

30 57 HIM GP/UB GF No No

40 197 HIM GP GF No No

45 70 HIM GP GF No No

50 17 HIM SB GF, SV No 14 ac.

55 31 HIM SB SV No 31 ac.

60 95 HIM SB GF, SV No 87 ac.

65 17 HIM SB SV No 17 ac.

70 176 HTH GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 140 ac.

80 48 HIM GP/UB GF No No

85 29 HTH GP/UB GF No No

90 47 HIM GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 5 ac.

 

7 Only Scenic Views Foreground acres are shown is this column because they are affected by vegetative 

prescriptions prescribed in this project. Partial Retention Middleground acres are not shown.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 56 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views7

95 74 HTH GP; SB in scenic GF, SV No 30 ac.

110 28 HIM GP GF No No

115 18 HTH SB/UB SV No 18 ac.

120 70 HTH GP/UB GF No No

125 31 HIM GP/UB GF No No

135 34 HIM SB/UB GF, SV No 33 ac.

140 55 HIM GP; SB in scenic GF, SV No 31 ac.

145 18 HTH SB/UB SV No 18 ac.

150 53 HIM SB SV No 53 ac.

155 13 HIM SB SV No 13 ac.

160 9 HTH SB/UB SV No 9 ac.

165 15 HIM SB SV No 15 ac.

166 7 HIM SB SV No 7 ac.

167 4 HIM GP/UB GF No No

170 26 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 3 ac. No

171 22 HIM GP GF, OG 1 ac. No

180 113 HTH GP/UB GF No No

185 24 HTH GP/UB GF No No

190 22 HTH GP/UB GF No No

195 82 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 67 ac. No

200 10 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 9 ac. No

205 50 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 48 ac. No

215 15 HIM GP GF No No

220 23 HIM GP/UB GF No No

225 65 HIM GP GF, OG 1 ac. No

235 52 HIM SB GF, SV No 48 ac.

240 250 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

245 24 HIM GP GF No No

250 23 HIM GP GF No No

255 52 HTH GP/UB GF No No

260 65 HIM GP GF No No

265 49 HIM GP GF No No

270 55 HIM GP GF No No

275 98 HTH GP/UB GF No No

285 29 HIM GP/UB GF No No

286 12 HIM GP/UB GF No No

290 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

295 80 HIM GP/UB GF No No

300 72 HTH GP/UB GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 57 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views7

310 113 HIM GP GF No No

330 70 HIM GP GF No No

345 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

350 79 HTH GP/UB GF No No

355 123 HIM GP GF No No

370 51 HTH GP/UB GF No No

385 68 HTH GP/UB GF No No

390 300 HTH GP/UB GF No No

400 26 HTH GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 1 ac.

405 43 HTH GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 6 ac.

410 143 HTH GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 75 ac.

415 64 HIM GP; SB in scenic GF, SV No 51 ac.

425 33 HTH GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 21 ac.

430 101 HTH GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 67 ac.

445 190 HTH GP/UB GF No No

460 13 HIM GP GF No No

465 9 HTH GP/UB GF No No

470 29 HIM GP/UB GF No No

480 85 HIM GP GF No No

490 266 HIM GP GF No No

495 47 HIM GP GF No No

510 66 HIM GP GF No No

605 26 HTH GP/UB OG 26 ac. No

610 48 HIM GP GF, OG 3 ac. No

615 182 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 181 ac. No

620 65 AltMist GP/UB OG 65 ac. No

621 43 Aspen GP/UB GF, OG 39 ac. No

625 76 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 66 ac. No

630 68 HTH GP/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

640 166 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 10 ac. No

645 296 HIM GP GF No No

650 58 AltMist GP/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

655 178 HTH GP/UB GF No No

660 14 HIM GP GF No No

665 214 HTH GP/UB GF No No

670 38 HIM GP GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 58 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views7

675 52 HIM GP GF No No

680 58 HTH GP/UB GF No No

685 121 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

690 123 AltMist GP/UB GF, OG 118 ac. No

700 67 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 3 ac. No

710 105 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 1 ac. No

720 17 HTH GP/UB GF No No

725 32 HTH GP/UB GF No No

730 73 HIM GP GF, SV No No Foreground

735 67 AltMist GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

740 339 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 318 ac. No

745 168 HIM GP/UB GF, OG 153 ac. No

750 95 AltMist GP/UB GF 1 ac. No

755 106 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

765 408 HTH GP/UB GF No No

770 113 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

775 235 AltMist GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 18 ac.

785 127 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

786 86 HTH GP/UB GF No No

795 22 HTH GP/UB GF No No

796 40 HTH GP/UB GF No No

800 69 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

805 57 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

810 149 HTH GP/UB GF No No

815 92 HTH GP/UB GF No No

820 164 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

825 68 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

830 60 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

835 18 HTH GP/UB SV No No Foreground

850 27 AltMist GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

855 33 AltMist GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

860 9 HIM SB/UB SV No 9 ac.

865 51 HTH SB/UB SV No 51 ac.

870 145 HTH GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 64 ac.

875 57 HTH GP/UB GF No No

876 40 HTH GP/UB GF No No

880 84 HTH GP/UB GF No No

885 30 AltMist GP/UB GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 59 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views7

890 21 AltMist GP/UB GF No No

895 92 AltMist GP/UB GF, OG 92 ac. No

905 173 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 173 ac. No

910 47 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 46 ac. No

925 47 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

930 199 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 198 ac. No

935 37 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 37 ac. No

940 150 HIM SB/UB SV No 150 ac.

945 106 HIM SB/UB GF, SV No 99 ac.

965 33 HTH GP/UB SV No No Foreground

970 49 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG 49 ac. No

975 41 HTH GP OG 41 ac. No

980 37 HTH GP/UB OG, SV 22 ac. No Foreground

1020 86 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB OG, SV 63 ac. No Foreground

1025 38 HTH GP/UB OG, SV 20 ac. No Foreground

1030 97 HTH GP/UB GF, OG, 

SV 55 ac. No Foreground

1040 28 HIM GP GF No No

1045 105 HTH GP; SB in 

scenic/UB GF, SV No 44 ac.

1050 38 HIM SB/UB SV No 38 ac.

1051 7 HIM SB SV No 7 ac.

1060 66 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1065 102 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1070 43 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1080 92 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1085 70 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1090 20 HIM GP GF No No

1095 74 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

1096 24 HTH GP/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

2000 72 HTH GP GF No No

2005 83 HTH GP GF No No

2010 38 HTH GP/UB OG 37 ac. No

3000 219 Fuels Only SDT/HP/UB GF, OG 140 ac. No

3005 138 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3010 127 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3015 127 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 110 ac.

3020 206 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3025 142 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3030 37 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 60 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views7

3035 20 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3040 55 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 17 ac.

3045 18 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3050 107 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No 37 ac.

3055 5 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 4 ac. No

3060 91 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 17 ac. No

3065 144 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3070 68 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3075 15 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3080 43 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3085 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3090 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

3095 41 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4000 16 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4005 7 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4010 27 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 27 ac. No

4015 13 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 13 ac. No

4020 60 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 6 ac. No

4025 8 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 8 ac. No

4030 78 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG, 

SV 2 ac. No Foreground

4035 153 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 153 ac. No

4040 146 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 144 ac. No

4045 80 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

4050 292 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

4055 108 Fuels Only SB/UB OG 108 ac. No

4060 63 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG, 

SV 43 ac. No Foreground

4065 14 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4070 62 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4075 42 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, OG 36 ac. No

4080 11 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4085 79 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4090 6 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

4095 393 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5000 58 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5005 55 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5010 9 Fuels Only SB/UB GF No No

5015 39 Fuels Only SB/UB OG, SV 1 ac. No Foreground

5020 18 Fuels Only SB/UB OG, SV 7 ac. No Foreground
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 61 of 528

Unit

Total 

Acres in 

Unit

Veg Rx Fuels Rx MGMT OG 

Acres Scenic Views7

5025 19 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

5030 22 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

5035 408 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

5040 46 Fuels Only SB/UB GF, SV No No Foreground

5045 35 Fuels Only SB/UB SV No No Foreground

Total unit acres for Alternative E = 16,221

HIM = Harvest Improvement Cut

HTH = Harvest Commercial Thin

AltMist = Alternative Mistletoe

Aspen - Unit #621 only, to facilitate aspen regeneration

Fuels Only= Accomplished without a commercial timber sale. For units on Walker Rim, includes Small Diameter 

Thinning (SDT), hand piling (HP), and disposal. All other “Fuels Only” units are those ready for restoring to a 

frequent fire regime without any tree thinning. Activities include slashbusting/brush mastication (SB) and 

prescribed underburning (UB).

GP = Grapple pile material, utilization of piles or disposal; or slash busting/mastication by machine with no pile 

disposal

UB = Prescribed underburning

SB = Slash busting (brush mastication) with no pile disposal or handpile with disposal in scenic areas

GF = General Forest

OG = Old Growth

SV = Scenic Views (Foreground and Middleground)
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 62 of 528

Figure 4. Alternative E Proposed Units within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 63 of 528

Resource Protection Measures

Project Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives

The following features are incorporated into the design of all activities included in the Rim-Paunina 

project. The difference between these design features and mitigation measures is that these are 

considered routine, have been used on numerous similar projects, and are either incorporated into contract 

provisions or accomplished between appropriate resource specialists, and have proven to be effective. 

Mitigation measures are site-specific, usually have a specific unit(s) assigned to them, and are used to 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate an impact (40 CFR 1508.20). For example, a Project 

Design Feature may include a seasonal closure for an unknown nest site (if discovered); a mitigation 

measure would place a seasonal closure on a known nest site specific to a unit. Project Design Features 

and mitigation measures are used as a basis for determining and disclosing effects in the Environmental 

Consequences discussions.

Vegetation Management

Commercial material would be thinned and removed using harvest methods that ensure soil 

productivity and minimal damage to residual trees. Since the commercial market fluctuates 

widely, a precise division between small tree and commercial products is not defined within this 

document. Implementation of this project would utilize the smallest materials the commercial 

market would bear at the time of implementation. For removal of these special forest products, a 

conservative estimate for additional soil disturbance was factored in; however existing skid trails 

and disturbed areas would be utilized where feasible. Also, no additional access above what was 

needed for the harvest operation would be required.

The diversity of species on the site would be retained, though the proportion of one species over 

another may change considerably. Generally, the preference for conifer species to retain is (from 

highest to lowest): Douglas-fir, sugar pine, western white pine, ponderosa pine, Shasta red fir, 

mountain hemlock, white fir/grand fir, and lodgepole pine. These preferences may vary on 

specific sites depending on the abundance of a given species, presence of pathogens, vegetative 

potential, and/or site-specific objectives.

Structural diversity and spatial heterogeneity would be clearly maintained on the landscape, but 

may not be very diverse in a given activity unit. This means some individual areas may be 

single-storied, others two-storied, and still others with more canopy layers.

Trees of high value to wildlife would remain on site. Examples include, but are not limited to, 

true fir with conks that would indicate a future hollow log, non-lodgepole trees with multiple 

tops, trees with very large limbs, etc.

Late and old seral and/or structural trees greater than or equal to 21 inches in diameter (Eastside 

Screens, Scenario A, 2(a)) would be retained, except in approximately 778 acres of openings to 

be created in Alternative D.

Except in Alternative D, those structurally advanced trees exhibiting fire and drought resistance 

would be retained regardless of tree size or level of infection to provide for one of the goals of 

Management Area 15: “...naturally evolved old growth forest ecosystems (Forest Plan 4-149).” 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 64 of 528

Generally, the bark plate widths of these trees are approximately 15 centimeters (6 inches) in 

width and more than three times wider than the darker fissures that separate them8. 

Activities applied to the landscape, such as a return to a proper fire return interval in ecologically 

appropriate plant association groups would be maintained through time to optimize diversity and 

juxtaposition of habitats. 

In addition to retention of passively-managed patches across the landscape, silviculture 

prescriptions and prescribed burning plans would incorporate features that provide for spatial 

heterogeneity.

All activities would take advantage of opportunities resulting from vegetation management 

activities that offset costs and provide products to stimulate the economy.

Soil and Water Quality

If site specific investigation determines soils that are mapped for seasonally wet are inaccurate, 

then restrictions on mechanical methods may be lifted. 

The Riparian Management Objective is to maintain the unique values associated with wet 

meadow habitats in the Five Mile Draw area. Non-fish bearing streams and ephemeral streams 

would have one standard tree height or 150 feet no-harvest buffer placed on either side of the 

stream except for those units specifically designed for riparian enhancement and restoration 

activities (units listed below). To accomplish this, some dead and downed material, as well as 

encroaching lodgepole pine would need to be removed (“Exceptions” TM-1a and b, INFISH A7). Mechanized equipment would be restricted to the edge of the soils within the draw mapped as 

sensitive. 

Alternative B: 15, 20, 25, 35, 240, 285, 286, 355, 610

Alternatives C, D, and E: 15, 20, 25, 240, 285, 286, 355, 610

Meadow, wet draw restoration activities for the Five Mile Draw area includes removal of small 

encroaching lodgepole pine and removal of downed material where appropriate. 

There would be no use of tracked mechanized equipment associated with harvest operations on 

any wetted soils; permanent or seasonally. Storage and refueling requirements and other 

intoxicants for equipment are regulated by contract provision and would occur outside of RHCAs 

(INFISH RA-4).

Best Management Practices (BMPs) (USDA 1988) apply. Specific BMPs are for Timber 

Management (pp. 1-21), Road Systems (pp. 22-42), Fire Suppression and Fuels Management 

(pp.43-47), Watershed Management (pp. 48-55), and Vegetative Manipulation (pp. 71-73). 

These practices maintain the physical integrity of the aquatic system and in cooperation with the 

State of Oregon, are required to be followed in accordance with the Clean Water Act. For a 

complete list, see Appendix A, Management Direction. 

When designating access for harvest operations, utilize previously disturbed areas whenever 

possible. Assure that water control structures are installed and maintained on skid trails that have 

 

8 Robert Van Pelt, 2008, Identifying Mature and Old Forests in Western Washington and Identifying Old Trees and 

Forests in Eastern Washington
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 65 of 528

gradients of 10 percent or more. Ensure that erosion control structures are stabilized and working 

effectively (LRMP SL-1; Timber Management BMP T-16, T-18). 

In all proposed activity areas, locations for new yarding and transportation systems would be 

designated prior to the logging operations. This includes temporary roads, spur roads, log 

landings, and primary (main) skid trail networks. (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; Timber Management 

BMP T-11, T-14 & T-16). 

Minimize potential erosive effects of concentrated water through the proper design and 

construction of temporary roads (Road BMP R-7). 

Conduct regular preventive maintenance to avoid deterioration of the road surface and minimize 

the effects of erosion (Road BMP R-18, R-19).

Retain adequate supplies of large woody debris (greater than 3-inches in diameter) to provide 

organic matter reservoirs for nutrient cycling following completion of all project activities 

(LRMP SL-1). A minimum of 5 to 10 tons per acre of woody debris be retained on dry, 

ponderosa pine sites to help maintain long-term site productivity. 

The objective is to maintain existing sources of unburned or partially consumed, fine organic 

matter (organic materials less than 3-inches in diameter; commonly referred to as the duff layer) 

over a minimum of 50 percent of the prescribed burn unit (LRMP SL-6; Fuels Management BMP 

F-2; Timber Management BMP T-13). 

Maintain spacing of 100 to 150 feet for all primary (main) skid trail routes, except where they 

converge at landings. If closer spacing is necessary due to complex terrain, the Timber Sale 

Administrator must provide advance approval. Main skid trails spaced 100 feet apart will 

maintain soil quality on 89 percent of the unit area. For larger activity areas (greater than 40 

acres) that can accommodate wider spacing distances, it is recommended that distance between 

main skid trials be increased to 150 feet to maintain soil quality on 93 percent of the unit area 

(Froehlich 1981; Garland 1983). This would reduce the amount of surface area where restoration 

treatments, such as subsoiling, would be required to mitigate impacts and to achieve soil 

management objectives. 

Reclaim all temporary roads by applying appropriate rehabilitation treatments (such as the use of 

subsoiling equipment to loosen compacted soils) where detrimental soil conditions are expected 

to exceed the Regional Policy guidelines. 

Restrict skidders and tractors to designated areas (i.e. roads, landings, designated skid trails), and 

limit the amount of traffic from other specialized equipment off designated trails. Harvester 

shears would be authorized to operate off designated skid trails, at appropriate intervals, and 

make no more than two equipment passes9on any site specific area to accumulate materials.

No sharp turning off of the skid trail for slashbusting machinery to minimize natural resource 

damage. 

 

9 A pass of a machine is defined as off the skid trail, cutting and accumulating material, and then traveling back to 

the skid trail to place the material 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 66 of 528

Avoid equipment operations during periods of high soil moisture, as evidenced by equipment 

tracks that sink deeper than during dry or frozen conditions. An indication of potential 

detrimental disturbance would be identifiable when ruts, or indentations in the ground after 

equipment travel appears six inches in depth or greater. 

Prevent additional soil effects in random locations of activity areas, between skid trails and away 

from landings, by machine piling and burning logging slash on existing log landings and skid 

trails that already have detrimental soil conditions. Machine piling equipment must stay on 

existing skid trails and landings because of lack of effects associated with slashbusting/mowing 

equipment. It would be allowed off of skid trails and landings for one pass.

On steep pitches (slopes of 30 percent or steeper) less than 100 feet long, equipment will be 

permitted to make one pass out and one pass back to harvest trees. In other areas, directional 

felling of trees to skid trails and /or line pulling should be utilized to harvest trees. This method 

applies to units that have a small amount of slopes over 30 percent in less than 10 percent of the 

unit area.

Wildlife

Fifteen (15) percent of each unit, regardless of management allocation would be retained in an 

unmanaged condition averaged across the total of activity units within a subwatershed to provide 

strategic wildlife habitat and take advantage of lumping retention areas to increase their size 

and/or distribution. The areas would be positioned in a manner to accommodate prescribed fire 

within ecologically appropriate plant association groups. Using this strategy, some smaller

activity units that are planned for return of a frequent fire regime may not be feasible to maintain 

retention areas over time; however larger units could have more than 15 percent retention10 areas 

with larger patches. They would retain desired site characteristics such as dense multi-storied 

pockets, accumulations of snags and down logs, and the largest available healthy live trees, 

unique habitats (rock outcrops and mixed conifer/hardwood stands). They also would be used to 

retain other unique and desired resources such as cultural heritage sites, developed water sources 

(guzzlers), or wildlife connectivity corridors.

Seasonal restrictions on all occupied wildlife habitat sites identified in this EIS would be placed 

as described in Table 11. Activities that may disturb each species would be determined by a 

qualified wildlife biologist, but generally include timber hauling, timber harvest, temporary road 

construction, small tree thinning, prescribed slash burning, and underburning operations. 

Seasonal restrictions may be waived in a given year if a wildlife biologist determines the species 

is in a non-nesting status, had a nest failure, or that the habitat is not occupied; waivers are only 

valid until the beginning of the next breeding season. There are no known Threatened or 

Endangered wildlife species within the project area. However, if new occupied habitats are 

discovered during sale layout or implementation of the Rim-Paunina Project, contract provisions 

are in place to halt operations for Threatened and Endangered species. For all other species, the 

Forest Service would negotiate with the purchaser or amend the timber sale contract in order to 

follow related Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

 

10 All severely infected trees within/up to 800 acres of ‘openings’ would be removed. Activities that overlap Old 

Growth Management Areas especially in Alternative E subwatersheds that have an additional need for cover.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 67 of 528

Table 11. Seasonal Restrictions on Disturbing Activities near Active Nest Sites, Wolverine Dens and Big 

Game Calving/Fawning Habitat 

Species Buffer Distance Restricted Season

Northern spotted owl (nest) 1⁄4 mile (most activities) or 1⁄2 mile March 1 –August 31

Northern bald eagle (nest) 1⁄2 mile (line-of-sight) or 1⁄4 (non line-ofsight) January 1 – August 31

Bald eagle (winter roost) To be determined by a wildlife biologist November 1 – April 30

Golden eagle (nest) 1⁄4 mile February 1 – July 31

Goshawk (nest) 1⁄4 mile March 1- August 31

Osprey (nest) 1⁄4 mile April 1 – August 31

Red-tailed hawk (nest) 1⁄4 mile March 1 – August 31

Sharp-shinned hawk (nest) 1⁄4 mile April 15 – August 31

Cooper’s hawk (nest) 1⁄4 mile April 1 – August 31

Great gray owl (nest) 1⁄4 mile March 1 – June 30

Great blue heron (nest) 1⁄4 mile March 1 – August 31

Wolverine (den) 2 miles February 1 – May 30

Deer and Elk (fawning/calving 

habitat) To be determined by wildlife biologist May 1 – June 30

If sharp-shinned, Cooper’s hawk or goshawk nests are discovered during layout, then temporary 

road construction will be located outside of nest stands (LRMP WL-27, 18, and 10). A Cooper’s 

hawk nest is currently located in Unit 4045, which is proposed for treatment in Alternatives C, D,

and E.

If a sharp-shinned, Cooper’s hawk, or goshawk nest is discovered during project layout, a 

forested stand of at least 10 acres would be retained for sharp-shins (LRMP WL-25), 15 acres for 

Cooper’s (LRMP WL-17), and 25 acres for goshawks (LRMP WL-9). A Cooper’s hawk nest is 

currently located in Unit 4045, which is proposed for treatment in Alternatives C, D, and E. If a 

goshawk nest is discovered, seasonal restrictions on activities near the nest will be required for 

activities that may disturb or harass the pair while bonding or nesting. Thirty (30) acres of the 

most suitable nesting habitat surrounding the nest will be deferred from harvest. A 400-acre post 

fledgling area (PFA) would be established. While harvest activities can occur within this area, 

the prescription will retain LOS stands and enhance younger stands towards LOS conditions, if 

possible (Interim Wildlife Standard Scenario A, 5).

If a great gray owl nest is discovered during Rim-Paunina layout, a forested stand of at least 30 

acres will be maintained around the nest site (LRMP WL-31). 

Active red-tailed hawk nests would be protected by maintaining the forested character of the area 

at least 300 feet in radius around the nest. Timber management may occur within this area, but 

must maintain an average of four dominant overstory trees per acre suitable for nest and perch 

trees. Ponderosa pine would be favored where available (LRMP WL-2). Currently, the 

following units are known to contain, or are within a 1⁄4 mile of a red-tailed hawk nest. These 

nests sites would be assessed for activity before proceeding with activity in a unit:

Alternative B: 5, 6, 665, 685, 690, 775, 800, 805, 875, 876, 880, 945

Alternatives C, D, and E: 5, 6, 665, 685, 690, 775, 800, 805, 875, 876, 880, 905, 930, 945, 

3005, 3010, 3020, 3025, 4025, 4030, 4035
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 68 of 528

To protect potential bat habitat, restrict all project activities (such as timber harvest, vegetation 

removal and underburning operations) on lava pressure ridges greater than or equal to 100 square 

feet in size.

All rock outcroppings and lava pressure ridges greater than 100 square feet found during unit 

layout would have directional felling and restrictions for mechanized equipment to protect 

potential bat roosting and maternity areas. 

Wildlife/Snags

All existing snags (any species) would remain except where snags must be felled for temporary 

and Maintenance Level 1 roads, log landings, or occupational safety. Harvest operations would 

be designed to avoid snags by locating skid trails and landings away from them, where possible. 

If snags need to be felled, they are to be retained for down wood. Felled snags may be moved off 

roads and landings, but not removed from the site. In addition, mistletoe infection and resultant 

mortality is expected to provide snag recruitment in many places across the Rim-Paunina analysis 

area. However, if an area has been determined to be deficient as indicated by pre-sale tally, 

sufficient live trees would be retained to create snags as funding is available. 

In stands currently below desired snag levels (Table 12) as determined by pre-sale tally, 

sufficient live trees would be retained to create snags. Snag creation to increase snag densities 

would take place as funding is available. Note: These levels exceed minimum requirements 

specified in the Eastside Screens.

Table 12. Minimum Snag Levels to Determine Snag Creation 

Location PAG11 Snag Densities and Diameters

East of the 

NSO Line

PP 2.25 snags/acre > 15” dbh with 0.14 snags/acre > 20” dbh

MC 2.25 snags/acre > 15” dbh with 0.14 snags/acre > 20” dbh

LP 1.80 snags/acre > 10” dbh with 0.59 snags/acre > 20” dbh

Wildlife/Down Wood

Down wood requirements in all units except areas of potential firewood: The intent is to 

retain all existing levels of down wood eight inches and greater in lodgepole pine and nine inches 

and greater in all other Plant Association Groups12. Only activity-created slash below these 

maximum diameters would be piled and utilized or disposed. Retain 2-3 piles per acre. 

Minimum pile size is 15 feet by 15 feet by 10 feet in grapple pile units. The maximum pile size 

is 6 feet by 6 feet by 4 feet in handpile units. This requirement can be waived if site-specific 

monitoring determines adequate levels of down wood are met in all units regardless of location 

(Table 13). While retaining down wood in place is preferred, it is recognized that some 

manipulation may be needed to meet stand prescription objectives. In all units, down wood may 

be manipulated (shifted, clumped, grouped, driven over, etc.) only as necessary to meet 

objectives. In all units, if sufficient size classes are not present, then the largest available down 

logs would be substituted. 

In Units 80 and 85 only, down wood may be removed to facilitate meeting stand prescriptions; 

however there would be high-density patches left in pockets to approximate densities per Table 

13.

 

11 MH= mountain hemlock, PP= ponderosa pine, LP = lodgepole pine, MC = mixed conifer

12 Minimum down wood requirements are Plant Association Group specific for dependent wildlife species. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 69 of 528

Wherever possible, cull material greater than or equal to nine inches in diameter would be 

retained in the unit and not moved to landings.

Live trees not intended for removal but damaged during vegetation management activities would 

remain standing if they do not pose a safety risk to forest workers. If they are felled, they would 

remain on site and retained for down wood.

Table 13. Minimum Down Wood Levels 

Species Tons

per Acre

Diameter 

Small end Whole Tree Equivalent Percent Cover

Lodgepole Pine 7-42 8 inches 17-105 Whole Trees

8-12 inches in diameter

2.6-15.9

Stands Dominated by 

Ponderosa Pine 12-23 9 inches 11-16 Whole Trees16-22 inches in diameter

2.8-5.2

Ponderosa Pine Stands 

Where Lodgepole Pine 

Comprises Most Down 

Wood

Not 

specified in 

this plant 

association

9 inches

8-10 Whole Trees Largest 

LP on Site Plus Retain all 

Other Species 

0.1-0.3

in lodgepole

Mixed Conifer 11-42 9 inches 11-38 Whole Trees

16-22 inches in diameter

2.6-10

Personal Use Firewood

Requirements in areas of potential firewood: Meet or exceed minimum levels specified in 

Table 12 and Table 14.

No snag falling would be allowed in personal use firewood areas.

Firewood units would be subject to the same seasonal restrictions as the timber and fuels units 

(ie. calving/fawning, raptor closures) in Table 11.

Potential Firewood Units 

Alternatives B, C, D: 10, 15, 20, 155, 160, 166, 190, 370, 385, 425, 430, and 870

Alternative E: 15, 20, 150, 155, 160, 166, 190, 370, 385, 425, 430, and 870

Personal use and/or commercial firewood removal would not be permitted within designated Old 

Growth Management Areas that overlap units: 620, 650, 690 and 895. 

Table 14. Deschutes National Forest Plan Standards for Down Wood in Potential Firewood Units

East of the NSO Range Line (Eastside Screens)

Vegetative Series Pieces per Acre Diameter Small 

End Piece Length Total Lineal Length

PP 3-6 12” >6 feet 20-40 feet

MC 15-20 12” >6 feet 100-140 feet

LP 15-20 8” >8 feet 120-160 feet

Slash Disposal/Prescribed Burning Operations

Slash disposal using prescribed fire would be accomplished during the cool and moist seasons of 

spring and fall.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 70 of 528

Prescribed burning would be accomplished in a mosaic pattern across the landscape with 

unburned areas within the burn, in addition to unburned designated leave areas, with the goal of 

leaving at least 25 percent shrub cover.

To maintain a quality camping and hunting experience, during the green dot road closure period 

associated with two-week rifle deer season, prescribed burning would be suspended in the 

immediate vicinity of designated campgrounds, including Boundary Springs.

To concurrently meet wildlife objectives for retention of larger dead wood and fuel objectives for 

reduction of large fire risk, burn prescriptions and fuels moistures should be such that snags 

greater than 15 inches in diameter and down wood greater than 12 inches in diameter at the large 

end would be protected. It is assumed that reduction of snags and down wood less than nine

inches is most effective in reducing rate of fire spread. Grapple and hand piles would not include 

material greater than nine inches in all plant associations, instead it would be retained. 

If snag and down wood diameters do not meet objectives within a unit, the largest material 

available would be retained. Within the Eastside Screens, fire prescription parameters will ensure 

that consumption will not exceed three inches total (1.5 inches per side) in featured log sizes in 

Table 2-7 (Interim Direction Scenario A, 2).

Burning operations would be utilized to create snags, where deficiencies occur. 

In order to reduce risk to motorists from reduced visibility as a result of fuel hazard abatement 

activities, limit disposal of slash directly adjacent to the highways to methods that do not include 

prescribed fire. Acceptable methods may include hauling piles away, or mastication (e.g. "slash 

buster"). 

Prescribed fire managers would use smoke management forecasts in order to minimize smoke 

from fuels reduction activities from entering into places where smoke is undesirable, including 

Class 1 airsheds and designated areas, as well as sensitive wildlife habitat areas such as spotted 

owl nesting habitat and potential bat roosting areas.

Smoke from application of prescribed fire has the potential to overlap the designated motorized 

trail system from the Three Trails OHV Project. In order to minimize potential exposure and 

maintain a positive rider experience, utilize public contact and sign affected trail systems and 

staging areas. If application of prescribed fire directly overlaps a portion of the main trail system, 

then that system would be closed until the prescribed maintenance burning as been completed. 

Within and adjacent to units with rock outcroppings and/or lava pressure ridges, all prescribed 

burning would be seasonally restricted to the fall months when bats are more fit and able to 

survive potential disturbance associated with smoke. A district wildlife biologist would also 

determine buffer distances which may range from 50-300 feet based on site-specific conditions 

such fuel loadings and topography.

Cultural Resources

In the event that previously unknown sites, cultural artifacts, or features are discovered during 

project implementation, they would be flagged and operations in the area avoided until the 

archaeologist can review the site.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 71 of 528

Activities have been coordinated to avoid known cultural resources by buffering up to 90 feet (30 

meters) as coordinated between archaeologist and resource/fuels specialists.

Botany

Known sites of pumice grape-fern would be flagged for avoidance prior to equipment work 

within the following treatment units for all action alternatives: 655, 680, 755, 795, 796, 800, 805, 

815, 820 and 870. No equipment or vehicles would be staged within these flagged areas to 

protect the pumice grape-fern plant.

Invasive Plant Species

The Region 6 Invasive Plant Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Record of Decision (ROD)

(USDA Forest Service, 2005) amended the Deschutes LRMP, adding additional standards for invasive 

plant prevention and control. Prevention would be emphasized as the preferred strategy for invasive plant 

management by adhering to Regional Standards as adopted by central Oregon Forest Plans. The 

following identifies which standards apply to this project.

Actions conducted or authorized by written permit (contracts) that operate outside the limits of 

the road prism, require clean equipment (i.e., bulldozers, skidders, other logging equipment) prior 

to entering National Forest System Lands or moving into a new or different analysis area. 

Conduct road blading, brushing, and ditch cleaning in areas with high concentrations of invasive 

plants in consultation with District or Forest-level invasive plant specialists, incorporate invasive 

plant prevention practices as appropriate (road maintenance and re-opening roads). 

Forest Service employees would inspect, remove, and properly dispose of weed seed and plant 

parts found on their clothing and personal equipment prior to leaving a project site infested with 

weeds. 

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 are judged to be weed free by District or Forest 

weed specialists. There are no activities, including road reconstruction planned within the 

analysis area that requires rock from a quarry.

Recreation

To maintain a quality camping and hunting experience, during the green dot road closure period 

associated with two-week rifle deer season, harvest operations would be suspended in the 

immediate vicinity of the Boundary Springs campground, including Unit 640. 

During rifle hunting season, all hauling associated with timber harvest would honor agreements 

with the green dot system and access management restrictions for motorized vehicles. 

In dispersed campsites, to maintain the recreation experience, forest management activities would 

minimize change to the setting by retaining the largest trees onsite and locating landings, skid 

trails, and soil activities away from the campsite. 

Protect temporary bollards and trail signs needing to be removed from closed roads to access 

timber sale activity.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 72 of 528

For rider safety all OHV trails and roads would be closed and posted during timber harvest 

activities in areas where Three Trails OHV implementation and the Rim-Paunina project overlap. 

To limit disturbance by mechanized equipment to designated OHV trails in harvest units, skid 

trails, temporary roads, and other crossings would be approved by the Forest Service prior to use.

Air Quality

Reduce particulate emission through utilization to the extent practical (i.e. pulling trees to the 

landing with limbs attached and biomass utilization versus prescribed burning). 

The objective is to minimize human-caused visual impacts to the Class 1 airsheds. Prescribed 

burning operations would be restricted during the period of July 1 – September 15th. Also, 

prescribe burn operations to dissipate smoke away from the Class 1 airshed (i.e. burn during 

forecasted westerly winds). 

Prescribed burning operations would utilize the following methods to maintain safety and a 

quality riding experience for those visiting the Walker Mountain area:

o Sign Boundary Springs campground, motorized trails at appropriate locations and at 

OHV staging areas.

o Utilize the physical presence of field rangers at key locations, especially during firing 

and mop-up.

o Utilize public notification in media, the Forest Service Web Portal, the COHVOPS 

website, and other appropriate venues such as organized motorized vehicle clubs.

o Warning signs would be posted at prominent road junctions to inform the public of 

prescribed burning operations, and would remain in place until there is no visible 

smoke. If feasible, roads and trails may be temporarily closed for the protection of 

public safety.

o As part of the plan to inform the public, notify local businesses prior to the burning 

season and on the day of planned prescribed burning operations. Also, notify adjacent 

landowners of burning operations conducted in units within 1⁄4 mile of their property. 

o Coordinate with appropriate partners, such as the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife to incorporate information regarding prescribed burning operations in 

publications such as the hunting regulations and hunter booth hand outs.

o Prescribed burning operations are generally discouraged during rifle season and 

overlapping high visitation weekends such as Memorial Day and Fourth of July.

Mitigations Common to All Action Alternatives

The following mitigation measures are an integral part of each of the action alternatives. These are 

different from Project Design Features in that they are typically tied to a specific unit and they are used to 

avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate an impact (40 CFR 1508.20). They are listed here 

separately to avoid repeating them in each alternative description.

The effectiveness of each measure is rated at high, moderate, or low to provide a qualitative assessment of 

how effective the practice will be in preventing or reducing resource impacts. These mitigation measures 

and design elements are considered in the effects discussions of Chapter 3.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 73 of 528

Effectiveness ratings of High, Moderate or Low are based on the following criteria: a) Literature and 

Research, b) Administrative Studies (local or within similar ecosystem), c) Experience (judgment of 

qualified personnel by education and/or experience, d) Fact (obvious by reasoned, logical, response).

High: Practice is highly effective (greater than 90 percent), meets one or more of the rating criteria, 

and documentation is available.

Moderate: Documentation shows that practice is 75 to 90 percent effective; or logic indicates that 

practice is highly effective, but there is no documentation. Implementation and effectiveness of this 

practice needs to be monitored and the practice will be modified if necessary to achieve the mitigation 

objective. 

Low: Effectiveness is unknown or unverified, and there is little or no documentation; or applied logic 

is uncertain and practice is estimated to be less than 60 percent effective. This practice is speculative 

and needs both effectiveness and validation monitoring. 

Vegetation Management

1. Within all mapped wildlife connectivity corridors site-specific field reconnaissance would be 

performed by a wildlife biologist, silviculturist, and fuels specialist to determine appropriate 

treatments and maintain consistency with Regional Forester’s Amendment #2 Eastside 

Screens. For details, reference Connectivity and Fragmentation in the Wildlife section, 

Chapter 3. High

Table 15. Connectivity Corridor Acres by Alternative

Unit Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Unit Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

25 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 660 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2

45 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 665 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7

50 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 675 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3

60 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 685 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

70 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 690 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

115 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 700 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

120 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 710 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

125 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 730 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

130 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 735 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

135 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 740 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8

140 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 745 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2

145 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 750 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8

180 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 755 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

185 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 765 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9

195 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 785 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0

205 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 795 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

240 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 796 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

255 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 820 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

290 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 830 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3

300 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 850 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

305 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 855 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

335 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 865 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2

385 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 870 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

390 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 875 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8

395 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 876 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 74 of 528

Unit Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Unit Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

405 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 880 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

430 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 885 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

435 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 940 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5

605 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 945 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4

610 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 965 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

645 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 TOTAL 300 280.2 280.2 284.7

Soil and Water Quality

1. To achieve acceptable productivity potential following land management activities (Forest Plan 

page 4-70, SL-1 and SL-3), Guidelines (FSM 2500, R-6 supplement 2500-98-1), Forest Service 

Region 6 Supplement 2520.3 – Policy, use subsoiling to relieve compacted soils, if monitoring 

shows detrimental conditions. Currently there are no units estimated to require subsoiling after 

management activities. High

Wildlife

1. To minimize disturbance to deer and elk during fawning/calving season. A limited operating 

period would be applied to activities near water sources during the period of May 1 through June 

30. This measure would reduce the disturbance to mule deer does and elk calves during the 

fawning/calving season and lessen the potential of fawn/calf abandonment and/or mortality 

during the critical time period. The ability to implement and the efficacy of this measure is 

considered High forest-wide. The seasonal restrictions on prescribed burning, timber sale 

activities and pre-commercial thinning would be applied to the following treatment units: 

Alternative B: 5, 6, 25, 195, 205, 225, 275, 385, 621, 665, 785, 825, and 1065

Alternatives C and D: 5, 6, 25, 195, 205, 225, 275, 385, 615, 621, 625, 665, 785, 825, 1065, 

3005, 3055, 3060, 3065, 3095, 4000, 4005, and 4095.

Alternative E: 5, 6, 25, 195, 205, 225, 275, 385, 615, 621, 625, 665, 785, 825, 1065, 3005, 

3055, 3060, 3065, 3095, 4000, 4005, and 4095.

2. If requested, waivers may be considered if surveys are conducted and determine deer and/or elk 

are not present in individual units during the calving/fawning season. High

3. Within units #275, #665, #785, #825, #1065, and #4095, maintain a minimum six acre 

unthinned clump centered on the following guzzlers: South Paunina #2, Crescent Siding, #248, 

Marmot Butte, South End, and South Paunina #3. Commercial timber harvest, pre-commercial 

thinning, and prescribed underburning would not be permitted within the six acre no treatment 

clump. Approximately four acres of unit #390 surrounding the Paunina #4 guzzler would be 

underplanted with sugar pine and/or lodgepole pine trees to develop future big game hiding 

cover. No underburning in unit #390 would be permitted to retain the hiding cover currently 

present. This measure is intended to provide and maintain big game hiding cover near 

developed water sources. This mitigation applies to all Action Alternatives; B, C, D, and E. 

High

4. The following units would have retention areas that exceed the fifteen percent previously 

mentioned in the Project Design Features description. There are several reasons for the 

increased level of no treatment retention areas. Several subwatersheds have low levels of hiding 

cover and additional retention allows increased size of cover blocks and better distribution 

across the project area. Wherever possible, retention blocks would meet the definition of hiding 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 75 of 528

cover and be placed adjacent to roads and trails open for motorized use. The presence of 

wildlife connectivity corridors, cultural heritage sites, large rock outcrops, developed water 

sources, sensitive plant sites, or other resource concerns are also reasons for increased amounts 

of no treatment areas. High

Alternative B: 15% all units

Alternatives C and D: units with 20% retention: 265, 410, 430, and 510 

Alternatives C and D: units with 25% retention: 5, 25, 40, 45, 70, 80, 90, 120, 140, 195, 775, 

3005, 3010, and 3020 

Alternative E: units with 20% retention: 265, 410, 430, and 510 

Alternative E: Units with 25% retention: 5, 25, 40, 45, 70, 80, 90, 120, 140, 195, 290, 390, 615, 

775, 3005, 3010, and 3020 

Recreation

1. Harvest operations and haul routes would be restricted in the following units to protect access 

and quality of winter snowmobile trails and to maintain safety of users. Seasonal restrictions for 

harvest operations accessed by Forest Service roads 5835 and 5840 would be in place between 

December 1 and March 31, unless agreed otherwise depending upon snow conditions. High 

a. Alternatives B and E: 195, 205, 215, 220, 240, 255, 265, 270, 275, 285, 286, 290, 295, 

300, 310, 345, 350, 465, 470, 480, 490, 495

b. Alternatives C and D: 195, 205, 240, 255, 265, 275, 285, 286, 290, 295, 300, 345, 350, 

355, 465, 470, 490, 495, 510

2. The following Rim-Paunina units would require coordination between the fuels specialist, 

presale specialist, timber sale administrator, and the Central Oregon Combined Off-Highway 

Vehicle Operations (COHVOPS) trail specialist to ensure adequate buffer and/or ‘pivot’ trees, as 

needed to maintain OHV trail integrity for the Rivers South trail area of Three Trails OHV 

Project implementation that overlaps the Rim-Paunina Project area. Moderate

a. Alternative B Harvest units: 180, 235, 250, 260, 385, 390, 400, 410, 415, 430, and 445

b. Alternatives C and D Harvest units: 180, 235, 250, 260, 385, 390, 400, 410, 430, and 

445; and ‘fuels only’ units: 3095, 4065, 4070, 4075, 5005, and 5010.

c. Alternative E Harvest units: 180, 235, 250, 260, 385, 390, 400, 410, 415, 430, and 445; 

and ‘fuels only’ units: 3095, 4065, 4070, 4075, 5005, and 5010.

3. The following Rim-Paunina Units would require coordination between the fuels specialist, 

presale specialist, timber sale administrator, and the Central Oregon Combined Off-Highway 

Vehicle Operations (COHVOPS) trail specialist to ensure adequate buffer and/or ‘pivot’ trees, as 

needed to maintain OHV trail integrity for the Three Trails OHV 10-mile loop trail: Moderate

a. Alternative B Harvest units: 255, 265, 275, 310, 345, 355, 

b. Alternatives C and D Harvest units: 255, 265, 275, 345, 355, and ‘fuels only’ units:

3075, 3080, 4080, 4085, and 4095.

c. Alternative E Harvest units: 255, 265, 275, 310, 345, 355, and ‘fuels only’ units: 3075, 

3080, 4080, 4085, and 4095.

4. The following Rim-Paunina Units would require coordination between the fuels specialist, 

presale specialist, timber sale administrator, and the Central Oregon Combined Off-Highway 

Vehicle Operations (COHVOPS) trail specialist to ensure adequate buffer and/or ‘pivot’ trees, as 

needed to maintain OHV trail integrity for the Three Trails OHV Walker Mountain area trails: 

Moderate

a. Alternative B Harvest units: 870, 940, 1025, 1030, 1060, 1065, 1070, 1085, 1090, and 

1096
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 76 of 528

b. Alternatives C, D, and E Harvest units: 870, 940, 1025, 1030, 1060, 1065, 1070, 1085, 

1090, and 1096, and ‘fuels only’ units: 4050, 4060, 5015, 5020, 5025, and 5030.

Scenery along Highways 58 and 97

1. Timing of cleanup along Highways 58 and 97 would occur two years following activity in units:

Forest Plan Standard and Guideline M9-8 and M9-58. High

a. Alternative B: 70, 115, 145, 430, 865, and 870

b. Alternatives C, D, and E: 70, 115, 145, 430, 865, 870 and 3015

2. Design skid trails and landings to minimize visibility. Landings closer than 200 feet would be 

approved on a case by case basis. During on-the-ground layout of skid trails take advantage of 

vegetation screening and topography and where possible run skid trails perpendicular to the 

highway to minimize visibility. Forest Plan Standard and Guideline M9-4 and M9-57. High

3. Following implementation of all harvest and post sale operations, the objective is to have no 

visible marking paint to visitors on the roadway. After activities are completed, remove tags, 

ribbons, boundary signs and other means of designating activity. Forest Plan Standard and 

Guideline M9-4 and M9-57. High

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 the alternatives may 

have duplicated the alternatives considered in detail or were determined to be unable to meet the project’s 

Purpose and Need. Alternatives that were considered but dismissed from consideration and the reasons 

for dismissal are summarized below.

Utilize Group Selection for Areas Where There is a High Occurrence of Dwarf Mistletoe but Retain 

Trees 21 inches in Diameter and Greater

Some ponderosa pine stands in the Rim-Paunina area are so severely infected with dwarf mistletoe, long 

term mortality of the overstory trees and their replacement creates a gap-in-time that can span decades 

before larger trees are available. In responding to Key Issue #2, Alternative D would create two to five 

acre openings totaling 15-30 percent of the total stand area and removing all sources of dwarf mistletoe to 

stop the cycle of infection. This would include trees that are severely infected 21 inches and larger. 

Some members of the public suggested exploring areas in severely infected stands where a sufficient gap 

could be created while retaining all large trees. 

The Interdisciplinary Team silviculturist performed additional monitoring of stands to determine if this 

suggestion was feasible. Although considered, it was later determined that this alternative method would 

not sufficiently respond to creating sufficient gaps from severely-infected sources and was therefore not 

analyzed in further detail. Additional walk-through surveys revealed the juxtaposition of trees 21 inches 

and over were too close to provide sufficient gaps. Subsequent dispersal from infected sources would 

likely infest the desired openings at a rate faster than the established regeneration could outgrow the 

infection. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 77 of 528

Thin Trees to 12-, 15- or 16-inch Maximum Diameter with No Created Openings

Some members of the public feel that thinning should be limited to various diameters less than 21 inches 

and have no created openings. These alternative maximum diameters were considered but eliminated 

from detailed study because they do not achieve the density reduction objectives in most stands and they 

remain in the Upper Management Zone; thereby increasing the rate of mortality to a level that is expected 

to increase faster than large diameter trees can develop. This diminishes an important habitat component 

for the white-headed woodpecker. 

Use Prescribed Fire to Achieve Density Reduction Objectives 

This alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study because reintroduction of fire is not a 

viable option in most stands without creating conditions where low-intensity/frequent fire can be 

established. Most stands within the Rim-Paunina Project area identified for active management are too 

dense and application of fire would cause an undesired level of mortality to the overstory trees, even 

potentially causing stand-replacing fires which would result in the loss of large-diameter trees. Retention 

of overstory trees is desirable and part of the Purpose and Need of the project. However, there would be 

approximately 3,800 acres of “maintenance” prescribed burning outside of commercial harvest units in 

Alternatives C-E, which use prescribed fire to meet stand objectives.

Include Walker Rim and Little Walker Mountain for Similar Density Reduction Objectives as in 

Alternatives B-E 

An alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study to commercially thin along the steeper 

portions of the project area; particularly 3,000 acres where dwarf mistletoe surveys have indicated 

pockets of severe infections on Walker Rim. This was considered but eliminated from detailed 

consideration due to a combination of resource concerns associated with the two areas. They include soil 

quality, the high cost of utilizing an advanced logging system (such as skyline or helicopter logging 

where operating costs exceeds the value of timber being removed), cultural resources, big game 

movement, and the scenery as viewed from major travelways.

Regenerate Severely-Infected Stands by Clearcutting Larger Than 2-5 Acre Openings 

This alternative was considered as it has been demonstrated to be effective in controlling dwarf mistletoe 

and can be cost-effective. This alternative was eliminated from detailed consideration because of the 

number of large trees that would be removed at one time would diminish important habitat for the whiteheaded woodpecker and dependent species quicker than desired. Therefore, this alternative was 

eliminated from detailed consideration. 

Planting Mistletoe-Resistant Tree Species in the Understory

This alternative was explored in order to allow a relatively disease-free understory to develop and replace 

the larger trees. It would also retain an important habitat component in the larger infected trees on the 

landscape through mortality. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because there are not 

suitable areas in sufficient quantities where the environmental factors for survival and growth of desired 

tree species could be manipulated to provide a successful shift in composition. These factors include 

frost, heat, and shade. Wherever there is potential for an alternative desired tree species to be successfully 

regenerated within severely infected stands, it was included in Alternatives D and E list of activities. 

Sale Area Improvement Projects

Money may be collected from the timber sales to complete certain projects as required reforestation, 

identified mitigation, and enhancement and restoration projects in the vicinity of the timber sale areas. 

Required reforestation items (R) and mitigation measures (M) have the highest priority for funding, but 

may be funded by other means such as appropriated funds to insure that requirements are accomplished. 

Items marked with an (E) are considered Enhancement.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 2 - Alternatives 

Page 78 of 528

This list is intended to serve as an overall guide in the analysis area. As timber sales are delineated within 

the project area, specific priorities may be adjusted to meet the needs for each sale area. This priority 

setting should be documented briefly in the implementation file for each timber sale.

1. Planting (R)

2. Unmanageable Tree Cutting (R)

3. Mechanical Brush Release (R)

4. Subsoiling (M)

5. Small Diameter Thinning (E)

6. Prescribed Burning (E)

7. Grapple Pile and Disposal of Hazardous Fuels (E)

8. Treatment of Existing Invasive Plants (hand-pulling) (E)

9. Pruning (E)

10. Snag Creation (E)

11. Aspen Fencing for Browse Protection (E)

12. Invasive Plant Monitoring (E)

13. Closed Road Sign Posting (E)

14. Guzzler Replacement (E)
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _____ Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Page 79 of 528

Comparison of Alternatives

The following tables provide additional information for a comparison between alternatives.

Table 16. Comparison of how the Alternatives meet the Purpose and Need

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Purpose and Need - To decrease the density of trees (in acres)

Density reduction in 

Ponderosa Pine 0 6,082 5,717 4,307 5,244

Improvement cuts primarily 

in Lodgepole Pine (which 

includes density reduction)

0 5,910 4,032 2,849 4,028

Small Diameter Thin on 

Walker Rim 0 0 1,205 1,205 1,205

Stand prescriptions 

specifically designed for 

severely infected mistletoe 

stands (HSG and AltMist)

0 0 0 2,593 1,921

Aspen Treatment 0 43 43 43 43

Total 12,036 10,997 10,997 12,441

Purpose and Need - Increase White-headed Woodpecker habitat in addition to thinning(in acres)

Restore Ponderosa Pine to a 

low-intensity, frequent fire 

regime

0 8,506 12,762 12,762 13,490

Purpose and Need - Contribute to the local and regional economies by providing timber and other wood fiber products

Local and regional 

economics

No Commercial 

timber harvest

19.9 MMBF with 

approximately 70% 

saw logs

15.5 MMBF with 

approximately 70% 

saw logs

25.3 MMBF with 

approximately 70% 

saw logs

24.1 MMBF with 

approximately 70% 

saw logs
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS_ _____ Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Page 80 of 528

Table 17. Comparison of how the Alternatives Address the Key Issues

 

13 HTH – 4,307 acres, HSG - 2,593 acres, of which approx 30 % (778 acres) would consist of 2-5 acre openings, the remaining 70% would be HTH

14 HTH – 5,244 acres, AltMist - 1,921 acres of severely infected dwarf mistletoe thinned and then hasten mortality to trees 21+ inches by prescribed fire or other means

Key Issue Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Key Issue #1 –Moving ponderosa pine stands to a more open condition results in less desirable habitat conditions for species such as accipiter hawks 

and big game, and thus some retention is needed

Dense ponderosa pine stands retained as 

compared to the proposed action (in acres) No treatment 0 365 365 87

Big Game hiding cover remaining posttreatment for all habitat types (in acres) 24,259 18,021 16,940 16,940 16,020

Nesting habitat (in acres for a given year) 2018 2058 2018 2058 2018 2058 2018 2058 2018 2058

White-headed Woodpecker 786 424 1,643 1,803 1,565 1,697 1,487 1,602 1,700 1,745

Goshawk 8,989 28,355 7,325 24,167 7,439 25,157 7,279 25,371 5,931 24,300

Cooper’s Hawk 6,891 20,260 5,844 16,455 5,915 17,411 5,816 17,854 5,519 16,336

Sharp-shinned Hawk 2,268 10,239 1,893 8,124 1,929 8,738 1,895 9,214 1,813 8,834

Key Issue #2 – A considerable portion of the ponderosa pine-dominated stands are heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe in all size classes, affecting 

the long-term creation of white-headed woodpecker habitat

Mistletoe-Infected Ponderosa Pine stands 

treated (in acres) No treatment 6,082 5,717 6,90013 7,16514

Key Issue #3 – In the short-term, decadent lodgepole stands serve as important habitat for black-backed woodpecker, and thus some retention is 

needed

Decadent lodgepole stands retained as 

compared to the proposed action (in acres) No treatment 0 1,878 1,878 712

Denning/Nesting habitat (in acres for a given 

year) 2018 2058 2018 2058 2018 2058 2018 2058 2018 2058

American Marten 4,814 12,661 3,475 11,284 4,018 11,512 4,016 11,506 3,406 11,375

Black-backed Woodpecker 23,806 25,442 21,178 24,344 21,959 24,538 21,919 24,538 20,648 24,299

Key Issue #4 – Treatment is needed to return conditions to an appropriate fire interval

Prescribed Fire Applied (in acres) No treatment 8,506 12,762 12,762 13,490
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Page 81 of 528

Table 18. Comparison of All Alternatives

Proposed Activities Approximate Acres

ALT A ALT B ALT C ALT D ALT E

Density reduction, or thinning, including commercial 

and non-commercial removal in ponderosa pine (HTH). 0 6,082 5,717 6,122 5,244

Improvement cutting primarily in lodgepole pine to 

enhance overall stand composition and quality (HIM). 0 5,910 4,032 2,849 4,028

Group selection (HSG) in the most severely infected 

stands includes openings 2-5 acres. Includes removing 

trees over 21 inches in diameter.

0 0 0 77815 0

Removal of all trees under 21 inches in the most 

severely infected stands plus activity-induced mortality 

to larger diameter trees which are a source of infection 

(AltMist).

0 0 0 0 1,921

Aspen Treatment 0 43 43 43 43

Disposal of activity-created slash without 

underburning. 0 3,530 2,015 2,015 2,730

Disposal of activity-created slash followed by 

prescribed underburning. 0 8,506 7,777 7,777 8,506

Brush mastication and apply prescribed “maintenance” 

prescribed burning outside of commercial harvest units. 0 0 3,780 3,780 3,780

Thin small diameter material, pruning of limbs, pile, 

dispose of piles, and then apply prescribed 

underburning.

0 0 1,205 1,205 1,205

 

15 This number is approximately 30 percent of total HSG acres (2,593 acres) in the Rim-Paunina project area, the 

remaining 1,815 acres would be commercially thinned similar to being treated as HTH.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Page 82 of 528

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

Cumulative Effects of Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the analysis area 

and the anticipated effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. 

“Affected Environment” refers to the existing biological, physical, and social conditions of an area that 

are subject to change directly, indirectly, or cumulatively as a result of a proposed human action. 

Information on the affected environment is found in each resource section under “Existing Condition.” 

The following discussion of effects follows CEQ guidance for scope (40 CFR 1508.25(c)) by categorizing 

them as direct, indirect, and cumulative. The focus is on cause and consequences. Effects exist in a chain 

of consequences and thus may be labeled “indirect” (occurring later in time or farther in distance, 40 CFR

1508.8(b)), rather than cumulative. For this analysis, in general, direct and indirect effects have been 

discussed in the context that most readers are accustomed to: those consequences which are caused by the 

action and either occur at the same time and place, or are later in time or farther removed in distance but 

are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative effects are discussed where there is an 

effect to the environment which results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, 

present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

There are basically two methodologies the individual resource subjects use in discussing cumulative 

actions and consequences. The first method would be to describe each individual past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable action – including mitigation (cataloging). The second would be to “lump” 

individual actions if the information regarding those actions would not be useful to illuminate or predict 

the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives. A mere “cataloging” of effects may not provide the 

most useful discussion. In some cases, lumping past actions and describing them in terms of “where we 

are today” can be the most informative. No matter which method is used, it would be formulated to 

provide the most relevant, useful, helpful, necessary and informative format for the public and deciding 

official. 

Where there is an overlapping zone of influence, or an additive effect, this information is disclosed. In 

order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past 

actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and 

natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 

The temporal and spatial scale of the analysis is variable depending upon the resource concern being 

evaluated, particularly for cumulative effects. The landscape within the Rim-Paunina analysis area 

boundary is the focus of this EIS, but adjacent lands are considered in this analysis process.

Measures to mitigate or reduce adverse effects caused by the implementation of any of the actions 

proposed are addressed in Chapter 2, Resource Protection Measures. Effective mitigation avoids, 

minimizes, rectifies, reduces, or compensates for potential effects of actions. After mitigation is applied, 

any unavoidable adverse effect to each resource area is addressed in the section titled “Other Disclosures” 

in this chapter of the EIS.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Page 83 of 528

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. 

This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events 

that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up 

all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a 

catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current 

conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to 

isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, 

providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative 

effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate 

than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of 

individual past actions, and one can not reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that 

has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks while 

ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just 

as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of 

past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. 

Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on 

individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum 

on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into 

the historical details of individual past actions.” 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part: 

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to 

determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects 

of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the 

proposal for agency action or its alternatives would add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The 

final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered 

(including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. 

With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, 

the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the 

required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the 

direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to 

predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require 

agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because 

information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean 

that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Page 84 of 528

Table 19. Past, Present, and Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions

Project/Event Name General Description of Activities Status

Gilchrist State Forest

(2010)

State of Oregon purchased 43,235 acres of working 

forest lands east of Hwy 97 near the town of Gilchrist, 

OR from Cascade Timberlands. In addition, the 

Conservation Fund has purchased 25,000 acres of 

adjacent forest for later acquisition by the state. This 

block borders the Rim-Paunina area to the north.

State of Oregon is 

developing a comprehensive 

management plan.

Baja EA (1998-2003)

2,878 acre understory thin (1,068 within suitable 

northern spotted owl habitat); 166 acres salvage in 

lodgepole pine; 904 acres prescribed burning in 

appropriate stands; and 250 acres of early seral stands in 

lodgepole pine. 

Completed and included in 

the existing condition where 

it overlaps the Rim-Paunina 

Project area.

BLT (2008)

Commercial and small-tree thinning of forested stands, 

prescribed burning, piling and disposal of activitygenerated slash, and construction of 9.8 miles of 

temporary roads over 7,499 acres within the analyzed 

vegetation management 80,000-acre BLT project area.

Implementation and 

included in the existing 

condition where it overlaps 

the Rim-Paunina Project 

area.

Boundary Springs CE 

(2004)

230 acres of hazardous fuels reduction in the Little 

Walker Mountain Watershed along private land. 

Includes small diameter thinning, utilization, and 

disposal.

Completed and effects from 

the action have diminished.

Danger Tree Removal 

(annual)

Removal of identified hazard trees along roads and in 

recreation areas and parking lots. Dependent upon the 

magnitude of disturbance events, an average year would 

fell 100 hazard trees or less district-wide per year.

Ongoing and mainly 

associated with the Three 

Trails OHV staging areas.

Region 6 Invasive

Plant EIS (2005)

Implements Standards and Guidelines and prevention 

strategies to manage invasive plant species.

Implementation

Three Trails OHV 

Project (2010)

142 miles of designated motorized OHV trails over a 

93,016 acre project with the focus on areas that are 

currently being most heavily used by riders. Fifty-six to 

94 miles of user-created trails would be rehabilitated.

Implementation. 

Approximately 1⁄2 of the trail 

system overlaps the RimPaunina Project area in the 

Rivers and Walker 

segments.

Small Tree Thinning 

(2011 and annually)

District-wide thinning of small trees, primarily in 

plantations. Some thinning units overlap with the RimPaunina project area. In 2011, the thinning program was 

approximately 500 acres. 

Implementation

Deschutes and Ochoco 

National Forests and 

Crooked River 

National Grassland 

Travel Management 

Project EIS (2011)

Motorized travel in central Oregon would be restricted 

to designated roads and trails only. Access to dispersed 

camping would have special provisions to limit access 

to sensitive areas.

Implementation

Project Record

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) includes Forest specialists for each discipline (see Chapter 4 for team 

members and their qualifications). Specialists on the IDT prepared technical reports to address the 

affected environment and environmental consequences of the Rim-Paunina project. All reports are 

maintained in the project file, located at the Crescent Ranger District office in Crescent, Oregon. In some 

cases, this chapter provides a summary of the report and may only reference technical data upon which 

conclusions were based. Specialist reports as well as any field surveys referenced in Chapter 3 are 

incorporated by reference into this EIS (40 CFR 1502.21).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 85 of 528

Wildlife

Introduction to Wildlife Effects 

The following specialist reports for wildlife sections, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 

(TES), Management Indicator Species (MIS), Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), and Big Game have 

been incorporated in their entirety. The Zone of Influence for discussion on effects is bounded by the 

project area for all species except Big Game which is bounded on a subwatershed basis. The area of 

influence includes overlap with existing conditions such as roads, trails, and past management activities. 

This section includes discussion on data used, methods, models, general assumptions, evaluation criteria 

and a summary of effects. General effects are discussed in this section. General effects cover broad 

categories of species and those effects that are common to all alternatives including the no action 

alternative. 

Species Analysis

Sensitive species were analyzed using the 2008 R6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list16. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) were analyzed for those species identified in the Deschutes 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Surveys were not conducted specifically 

for this project. Recent surveys from overlapping projects (Three Trails OHV), in addition to historical 

data, were used in determination of species occupancy within the Rim-Paunina project area. Incidental 

species observations have also contributed to the knowledge of species presence within the project area 

and/or Crescent Ranger District. Potentially suitable habitat is considered to be occupied unless surveys 

or incidental observations have not detected the species. 

The information used for habitat definitions and trend analysis of species is from the best available 

research found in books, scientific journals, and scientific websites. Nesting/denning habitat is assumed 

to be the limiting factor for most species. Nesting/denning habitat was modeled for key species, 

providing a more meaningful analysis than modeling all habitats used. Effects to other habitats used 

(foraging, resting, etc.) were addressed in the analysis, and were not modeled. 

One major contributor for population trend data is NatureServe, an international non-profit conservation 

organization whose mission is to provide the scientific basis for effective conservation action. 

NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs, including Oregon State Heritage Program, are 

the leading source for information about rare and endangered species and threatened ecosystems. Their 

website, http://www.natureserve.org/, compiles historic and current information from The Nature 

Conservancy and other conservation groups, U.S. government agencies, private sector partnerships, 

international agencies, and data cooperators. 

Survey and Manage

Survey and manage species are managed by the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan. Management of these species 

occurs within the range of the northern spotted owl under the Northwest Forest Plan. The Rim-Paunina 

project area is outside the range of the northern spotted owl therefore these species were not analyzed for 

this project unless they were under another category (i.e. TES, MIS, BCC etc.).

 

16 The Regional Forest’s Sensitive Species list was updated in a letter signed December 9, 2011. The updated list

applies to all projects initiated on or after the date of this letter. Projects initiated prior to the date of this letter may 

use the list that was in effect when the project was initiated. More info updated list at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/. The Rim-Paunina project was initiated March 01, 2009
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 86 of 528

Modeling Methodology

Habitat for the various wildlife species was determined using district occurrence data, habitat descriptions 

found in scientific literature, various data sets, and professional experience. The Viable Ecosystem 

Model (Viable) was used to determine the live tree component of habitat and formed the basis of acres of 

existing nesting/denning habitat (Viable Ecosystems Management Guide 1994). For selected species, 

such as the black-backed woodpecker and American marten, the snag components of habitat were 

determined using a variety of sources including gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) data and DecAID, as 

well as Viable. Because of Forest Plan standards for cover and thermal cover requiring trees per acre and 

height, deer and elk habitat was determined using GNN data. 

This section describes each model and/or data set and how they were used separately or in combination 

with others. While modeling habitats or components generally match conditions known to occur on the 

ground, modeling does not necessarily match a specific point. It gives conditions that may occur given 

the assumptions of the model. Since it was used identically, for all alternatives, it provides a basis for 

comparison. Also see the Forested Vegetation section in this Chapter for more modeling information.

Viable Ecosystems Model

The Ochoco and Deschutes Viable Ecosystems Management Guide (VEMG) was developed to classify 

vegetation on a landscape basis. “The Viable Ecosystem model provides a process to apply ecosystem 

management concepts to project level planning. This system compares existing vegetation with site 

potential. The model focuses on relationships between combinations of vegetation structure and species 

composition, and habitat requirements for animals, insects, and plants. Viable Ecosystems is a useful tool 

for cumulative effects analysis of broad scale changes in vegetation at a subwatershed to Forest-wide 

scale and subsequent changes in animal, insect, or plant communities.”

Viable stratifies the environment along a gradient of size, structure, species composition, and relative tree 

density. The various classifications are then linked to wildlife habitat requirements. For example, a 

classification with a value of 56152 is white fir (56), early seral (1), medium/large structure (5), and low 

density (2) and would typically have a single story (low density) dominated by ponderosa pine (early 

seral in white fir) 21” diameter or greater (medium/large structure). This provides nesting habitat for 

white-headed woodpeckers. A value of 56351 would equate to white fir (56), late seral (3), medium/large 

structure (5), and high density (1) and would be a multi-storied stand dominated by white fir 21” 

diameter or greater and provide nesting habitat for pileated woodpeckers. All values that provide habitat 

for species were used. In addition to the mixed conifer value of 56152 using the white-headed 

woodpecker example, any seral stage dominated by ponderosa pine, medium/large structure, and low 

density would provide similar open ponderosa pine habitat and was used in determining amounts of 

white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat across the Deschutes National Forest.

The 2002 satellite imagery layer was used to develop the vegetation layer to run in the Viable Ecosystem 

Model. Data is mapped on a 30 meter pixel grid, meaning the map is divided up on a 30 meter grid and 

that every 30 meter square (pixel) is assigned a value (i.e. 56351) that relates to a stratum of size, 

structure, tree species composition, and relative tree density. Criteria used (vegetation, seral state, 

structure, and density) to determine habitat for each species is described in the existing condition of each 

species. No major vegetation projects have taken place in the project area since 2002. Existing 

conditions include past actions such as timber sales which used the Forest “FACTS” database. Presenting 

information in this way and including those current and foreseeable future actions in cumulative effects is 

the most informative for the decision maker. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 87 of 528

GIS Analysis and ArcMap

A geographic information system (GIS) integrates hardware, software, and data for capturing, managing, 

analyzing, and displaying all forms of geographically referenced information. The information can be 

related to visual data (maps), tabular data (tables, spreadsheets, or data bases), and used to run models 

(create new data set from existing data based on criteria or specific conditions). ArcMap is a component 

of the ArcGIS program. The client software developed by Economic and Social Research Institute 

(ESRI) was used for the processing and presentation of GIS data.

Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN)

GNN maps consist of 30 meter pixel (grid) maps with associated data (tree size, density, snag density, 

canopy cover, percent down wood cover, etc.). The maps used for this analysis were developed by the 

Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping, and Analysis (LEMMA) team as part of the GNNPAC Pacific 

States Forest Vegetation Mapping project. This project involves developing detailed maps of existing 

forest vegetation across all land ownerships in the Pacific Coast States (Oregon, Washington, and parts of 

California). It is being conducted by the LEMMA team (Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) and 

Oregon State University) at the Corvallis Lab, in close collaboration with the Western Wildlands 

Environmental Threats Assessment Center, the Interagency Mapping and Assessment Project (IMAP), 

Northwest Forest Plan Effectiveness Monitoring, the Remote Sensing Applications Center, and Forest 

Inventory and Analysis at the PNW Research Station.

The process to create the maps involves using gradient imputation (Gradient Nearest Neighbor, or GNN). 

GNN uses many variables on a gradient along with satellite imagery to assign data from known field plots 

to pixels with no data that have the same satellite imagery signature (i.e. it “looks” the same to the 

computer). The species-size GNN model was used in the Rim-Paunina analysis. This model uses species 

composition and stand structure as components for developing maps. Accuracy of the modeling depends 

on how “like” pixels match up based on numerous variables. Generally speaking, forest types that had 

more samples like white-fir were more accurate than those with fewer samples like mountain mahogany 

(Ohman et al. 2008). Information on GNN accuracy, the LEMMA group, IMAP and the GNNPac project 

is available at the project website: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/gnnpac.

DecAID

DecAID is a web-based dataset, it is not a model. It is a synthesis of all of the best available research on 

dead wood. DecAID does not provide information on all life needs of a given species. It integrates 

current research/studies on wildlife use of dead wood (snags, down wood, dead portions of live trees) in 

various habitat types. From this, tolerance levels are generated. 

Tolerance level (t.l.) is the percent of the studied population that would use a density of snags or down 

wood. For example, the following table shows the tolerance levels for white-headed woodpeckers. For a 

population of 100 individual white-headed woodpeckers, at the 50 percent tolerance level, 50 of them 

would use habitat with at least 1.7 snags per acre greater than or equal to10 inches in diameter. Basically,

the higher the tolerance level, the more assurance that you are providing habitat to meet the needs of more 

individuals in the population (Mellen et al. 2006).

Tolerance intervals (t.i.) were used to determine habitat levels in the planning area. A tolerance interval 

includes the range of snag density between tolerance levels. Using the example below, the 30-50 percent 

tolerance interval would be habitat with more than 0.3 snags per acre and less than or equal to 1.7 snags 

per acre. The 0-30 percent category is included (where 0 values are actually greater than 0) as it provides

habitat for a few individuals. A zero category is included in the analysis showing what acreage does not 

provide habitat.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 88 of 528

Table 20. Example of Tolerance Levels and Intervals developed from DecAID Information 

Habitat type and Table used from DecAID: Table PPDF_S/L.sp-22; 

Species: White-headed Woodpecker

Minimum DBH 10" 20"

Tolerance Level 30% 50% 80% 30% 50% 80%

Snag Density 

(#/acre) 0.3 1.7 3.7 0.5 1.8 3.8

Tolerance Interval 0-30% 30-50% 50 -80% 80%+ 0-30% 30-50% 50 -80% 80% +

Snag Density 

(#/acre) 0-0.3 0.3 - 1.7 1.7-3.7 3.7+ 0-0.5 0.5-1.8 1.8-3.8 3.8+

Often times, DecAID only had one study available to base its tolerance levels on. While applying 

findings from a single research site to another area is not always wholly applicable, DecAID provides the 

best available science to determine effects to a species at this time. Used as a comparison for effects 

across all alternatives, it can be a useful tool. Tolerance levels do not equate to population potential, nor 

imply viability, but they are assumed to indicate habitat at varying snag densities. 

More information on DecAID can be found on the website at: 

www.fs.fed.us/wildecology/decaid/decaid_background/decaid_home.htm

Deer and Elk Habitat

The Deschutes Forest Plan defines suitable deer hiding cover as one of the following: 

a) six acres or larger capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult deer from view of a human at a 

distance of 200 feet, or 

b) six acres or larger with an average height of six feet and which has not been thinned in 15 years, 

or

c) residual clumps of one half acre or larger stands within units with advanced regeneration (trees 

including small trees up to seven inches in diameter) and at least 12 greater than seven inch trees 

per acre remaining after harvest (LRMP, WL-54, p. 4-58). Residual clumps less than six acres in 

size were not modeled which likely under-represents the amount of hiding cover present in the 

subwatershed analysis.

Suitable elk hiding cover is similar:

a) being six acres or larger capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult elk from view of a 

human at a distance of 200 feet, or 

b) six acres or larger with an average height of 10 feet and which has not been thinned in 20 years, 

or residual clumps of two acres, or 

c) larger stands within units with advanced regeneration (trees including whips up to seven inches in 

diameter) and at least 12 greater than seven inch trees per acre remaining after harvest (LRMP, 

WL-47, p.4-57). 

To be conservative, hiding cover for both species was modeled using Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) 

with the criteria of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult elk from view of a human at a distance of 200 

feet. This condition was modeled using trees with a density of at least 469 trees/hectare (190 trees/acre or 

a tree every 15 ft) with a diameter of 3-25 cm (1-10 in) and at least two meters (7 ft) tall across the 40,000 

acre planning area. Fields containing this data in GNN and the definitions from the data dictionary 

include:

TPH_3_25 – Density of live trees 2.5-25 cm dbh in trees/hectare.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 89 of 528

STNDHGT – Stand height, computed as average of heights of all dominant and codominant trees 

in meters.

LEMMA Data Dictionary: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/common/dataDictionary.php

Thermal cover for deer is not analyzed. Standards for deer thermal cover apply to winter range only. 

There is no winter range in the project area.

Thermal cover for elk is not analyzed. Standards for elk thermal cover apply to Key Elk Areas. There are 

no Key Elk Areas in the project area.

An important finding from the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range studies is that road (or route) 

density is not the best predictor of habitat effectiveness for elk. Instead, a model based on distance bands 

proved to be a more spatially explicit and biologically meaningful tool for assessing effects from roads. 

Road densities do not provide a spatial depiction of how roads are distributed on the landscape (Rowland 

2005). Consequently, a distance banding analysis was conducted on the 40,000 acre project area. Open 

motorized routes (roads and trails) were buffered at three scales (also referred to as distance bands) to 

display the amount of National Forest acreage within the buffers. The three distance bands applied 

included: a) acres and percent of the project area within 660 feet of open motorized routes, b) acres and 

percent of the project area greater than 1⁄2 mile from an open motorized route, and c) acres and percent of 

the project area greater than one mile from an open motorized route. Hillis et al. (1991) defined elk 

security habitat for forested stands greater than 250 acres in size and greater than 1⁄2 mile from an open 

route. Rowland et al. (2000) determined that the distance of 1,969 yards (1,800 meters) is equivalent to 

that at which elk response to open roads diminished markedly. Therefore, acreage greater than one mile 

from an open motorized route is assumed to provide greater security habitat for elk than the 1⁄2 mile 

distance. 

Evaluation Criteria and Comparison Measures 

Evaluation criteria are developed to illustrate the effects to wildlife and how those effects differ by 

alternative. In this analysis, commercial thinning and fuels treatments are the major impacts to habitat 

quality, quantity and species life needs. Using the same units of measure allows the major impacts to be 

easily understood and compared, providing the Decision Maker the necessary data to make an informed 

decision.

Key Issue #1: The proposed action returns ponderosa pine in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer plant 

association groups to a more open condition favoring species such as the white-headed woodpecker and 

creating habitat conditions less desirable for other species such as accipiter hawks and big game that tend 

to favor denser, often multi-layered stands. 

Alternatives develop less habitat for white-headed woodpeckers and more for other species. The Wildlife 

TES section analyzes the effects to white-headed woodpecker habitat and the MIS section covers the 

effects to the various accipiter habitats. Effects to mule deer and elk are covered in the Big Game section. 

The focus for big game is amount and distribution of habitat remaining post harvest.

Units of Measure: Acres of suitable nesting habitat for white-headed woodpecker and accipiter 

hawks over time. Acres of hiding cover remaining after treatment for big game.

Key Issue #2: Existing ponderosa pine-dominated stands are heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe in all 

size classes providing marginal white-headed woodpecker habitat in the short term. In the long term, 

mortality of the overstory trees and their replacement creates a gap-in-time that can span decades before 

larger trees are available. Alternatives treat the mistletoe stands differently and in differing amounts. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 90 of 528

Forested Vegetation looks at the effects to the growth and development of ponderosa pine under each 

alternative. The wildlife TES section analyzes effects to habitat for white-headed woodpeckers.

Units of Measure: Acres of suitable nesting habitat for white-headed woodpecker over time.

Key Issue #3: The existing condition in lodgepole pine stands is a result of insect outbreaks, salvage 

logging, and fire suppression. The stands provide poor habitat with high levels of mistletoe and low 

levels of diversity. Proposed treatments would develop future black-backed woodpecker nesting habitat. 

Some of these stands also serve as current suitable habitat for the black-backed woodpecker and marten. 

Alternatives vary by amount of habitat treated and resulting habitat over time. Forested Vegetation looks 

to the growth and vegetation diversity effects of treatments. The wildlife MIS section analyzes effects to 

habitat for black-backed woodpeckers and marten.

Units of Measure: Acres of suitable nesting habitat for black-backed woodpeckers over time and 

acres of marten denning habitat over time.

Key Issue #4: The proposed action prescribes fire only in commercial treatment units in the project area. 

Additional ponderosa pine stands are in a condition to initiate a frequent fire regime reducing brush and 

improving white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat. Alternatives include additional prescribed fire only 

treatments. The wildlife TES section analyzes effects to white-headed woodpecker habitat over time.

Units of Measure: Acres of suitable nesting habitat for white-headed woodpecker over time.

Other Assumptions

Modeling was completed to year 2018 to simulate post harvest conditions and 2058 for conditions 40 

years post harvest. It is assumed that the time span is sufficient to show most habitat development trends.

Modeling does not take into account losses to insect, disease or fire and assumes no further treatments 

through the time period 2018 to 2058.

Redundant Analysis

In order to be efficient with time and funds where-ever possible, species with similar habitats were 

combined or effects referred to and not repeated. Analyses are sufficient to disclose effects to the public 

and for the decision maker to make an informed decision. 

Occurring in the Rim-Paunina project area are the recreational trails from the Three Trails OHV project. 

Initiated in 2011, the Three Trails OHV project restricts off-trail OHV traffic to specific roads and trails,

some of which are within a portion of the Rim-Paunina project area. Impacts from this recreational traffic 

on designated roads are an existing condition to the habitats found in the Rim-Paunina project area. A 

660 foot buffer on the trails has been integrated into the project analysis to take into account any impacts 

OHV noise would have on wildlife. Where avian habitat within the Rim-Paunina project area is two

percent or less within the Three Trails OHV system buffers analysis, primarily Birds of Conservation 

Concern and Landbird Focal Species, those impacts were not included. It is part of the existing condition, 

and no additional road closures or trail construction is proposed with the Rim-Paunina project. For a 

detailed analysis of vehicle and OHV effects on these and other species refer to the Three Trails OHV 

Project FEIS (2010) available at: 

http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=26312.

Summary of Wildlife Effects

The Rim-Paunina project area is comprised mostly of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine forests with 

some mixed conifer on Walker Rim. Past vegetation management actions have included salvage of beetle 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 91 of 528

killed lodgepole pine, and selection and regeneration harvest within pine and mixed conifer stands. 

Wildfires have also been actively suppressed which have also contributed to the current condition of this 

landscape. While these actions have provided increased vegetative diversity and benefited some wildlife 

species, they have also decreased habitat for the animal species that evolved in the fire, insect and disease 

conditions endemic to this area. In general, these actions have resulted in a landscape extremely 

susceptible to insect infestation, disease and high intensity wildfire. 

While disturbance from insects, disease or wildfire is a part of the ecology for all forests and necessary 

for many wildlife species, disturbance events are best kept within proportion to historical occurrence. 

The increased vegetation density due to past management and fire suppression has resulted in higher 

levels of insects, disease and fuel loads, which increase the likelihood of high intensity fires that would 

remove most of the components of a mature forest. The cycle of natural fire recurrence of the RimPaunina area ranges from zero to 15 years (J. Dillon per. comm. 2011). The repetitive disturbance from 

fire resulted in a combination of lodgepole and mixed conifer forests with varying degrees of understory 

in a matrix of large and old-growth trees with an open canopy. This historic forest type was habitat for 

species that are now on the Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species list - White-headed 

woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, as well the Management Indicator Species such as the Williamson’s 

sapsucker and Northern flicker and Bird Conservation Concern and Landbird Focal species such as 

pygmy nuthatch and flammulated owl. 

Ponderosa pine mistletoe 

Ponderosa pine stands within Rim-Paunina vary widely as a result of past harvest and fire suppression. 

The resulting stands vary from large open ponderosa pine that has had recent fire to dense stands of 

ponderosa pine heavily infected with mistletoe. Ponderosa pines heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe 

have substantially lower growth rates than uninfected trees. Severely infected trees may be sufficiently 

weakened that they are killed outright, or they may be predisposed to mortality caused by other agents. 

Roth (1971; 1974) found that uninfected seedlings were taller than infected individuals after 12 years of 

observation. Severely infected small trees, especially on poor sites, are unlikely to develop normally, as 

height and diameter growth are. Groups of severely infected trees would become stunted. Most 

importantly, loss of natural disturbance regimes, as well as direction to both retain infected large trees and 

manage stands to an uneven age structure, would increase the incidence and severity of western dwarf 

mistletoe. 

Probability of dwarf mistletoe infection is largely a function of the infection hazard and the size of the 

susceptible seedling; the larger the individual, the greater the probability of intercepting ejected mistletoe 

seeds. For years, pest management specialists have recommended that an infected overstory should be 

killed or removed before the new understory reaches this size/age threshold. Conversely, excessive levels 

of mistletoe will effect stand growth and increase the risk of catastrophic fire (Schmitt 1996).

Reynolds et al. (1992) puts this in the proper context with recommendations for managing stands for the 

northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. While some of the changes induced by mistletoe 

infestation on ponderosa pine stands benefit a variety of wildlife, over time, mistletoe related changes can 

be detrimental to some goshawk prey species, and are not desirable in post-fledging family and foraging 

areas. As an example, severely infected stands may stagnate and not develop to late and old structure. 

The risk of stand replacement fire is much greater in severely-infected stands and should be a primary 

concern where wildlife use values are high (Schmitt 1996).

Endemic levels of insects and pathogens can play significant ecological roles causing tree mortality, 

defoliation, decay, or deformity, that are often important attributes for goshawk nesting or foraging. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 92 of 528

Species Summary

The proposed treatments and alternatives affect wildlife species in different ways. While developing 

habitat for white-headed woodpeckers, they would reduce habitat for goshawk. While improving the 

resilience and size of lodgepole pine for future black-backed woodpeckers, existing habitat for the blackback woodpeckers, marten, and mule deer are reduced. The following table summarizes the acres of 

habitat by alternative and over time for the majority of species with habitat affected by the project. 

Habitat and changes over time were modeled using Viable Ecosystems Modeling. The complexity of 

analysis that follows this section shows that there are trade-offs when managing wildlife habitat but 

wildlife species are not necessarily winners if habitat is gained or losers if habitat is lost. Treatments 

result in a more resilient landscape, more closely resembling the historic range of variability that the 

species developed in and a landscape returning to a more frequent fire regime reducing risk to all habitats 

and in which all species benefit in the long term. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife

Page 93 of 528

Table 21. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Reproductive Habitat (Denning and Nesting) in Acres over Time or Big Game Hiding Cover Posttreatment

Modeled Year 2010 Year 2018 Year 2058

Species

Existing 

Condition

(Acres)

Alt. A Alt .B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

TES

Fisher 3,502 4,943 4,295 4,351 4,255 4,056 14,040 11,463 11,842 11,551 11,075

Lewis's Woodpecker 1,041 632 1,309 1,241 1,182 1,281 334 1,211 1,131 1,090 1,244

White-headed Woodpecker 1,090 786 1,643 1,565 1,487 1,700 424 1,803 1,697 1,602 1,745

MIS - Not listed in TES

Goshawk 7,350 8,989 7,325 7,439 7,279 5,931 28,355 24,167 25,157 25,371 24,300

American Marten 2,898 4,814 3,475 4,018 4,016 3,406 12,661 11,284 11,512 11,506 11,275

Cooper's Hawk 5,439 6,891 5,844 5,915 5,816 5,519 20,260 16,455 17,411 17,854 16,336

Black-backed Woodpecker 21,313 23,806 21,178 21,959 21,919 20,648 25,442 24,344 24,538 24,538 24,299

Pileated Woodpecker 1,412 2,096 1,984 2,008 1,993 1,926 5,454 4,897 4,959 4,928 4,830

Williamson Sapsucker 1,094 789 1,646 1,537 1,491 1,707 425 1,829 1,723 1,628 1,771

Northern Flicker 1,553 1,756 2,568 2,504 2,427 2,259 953 2,397 2,281 2,184 2,318

Great Gray Owl 6,173 8,626 9,171 9,170 8,923 8,835 17,865 18,009 18,165 17,615 17,049

Big Game Hiding Cover 24,259 24,259 18,021 16,940 16,940 16,020 Not Modeled Out to 2058

Birds of Conservation Concern and Land Bird Focal Species not in TES or MIS

Flammulated Owl 4,780 6,410 7,303 7,293 6,991 7,071 13,546 14,319 14,381 13,835 13,423

Pygmy Nuthatch 5,022 6,669 7,556 7,494 7,245 7,319 14,265 15,010 15,075 14,525 14,100

Chipping Sparrow 3,206 3,647 5,451 5,328 5,067 5,134 4,957 6,366 6,329 6,236 6,205

Brown Creeper 6,176 8,630 9,176 9,175 8,928 8,840 17,880 18,040 18,196 17,645 17,080

Hermit Thrush 1,055 1,233 1,148 1,158 1,156 1,134 2,662 2,481 2,507 2,501 2,437

Olive-sided Flycatcher 9,909 10,569 12,076 11,958 11,695 11,472 5,353 7,652 7,361 7,272 7,280
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 94 of 528

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

Introduction

This Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared in compliance with the requirement of Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) 2630.3/ FSM 2670-2671, FSM W.O. Amendments 2600-95-7, and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA of 1973, as amended). Species classified as sensitive by the Forest Service are to be 

considered by conducting biological evaluations to determine potential effects of all programs and 

activities on these species (FSM 2670.32). The BE is a documented review of Forest Service activities in 

sufficient detail to determine how a proposed action may affect sensitive wildlife species. The document 

becomes part of the analysis file.

The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests completed a Joint Terrestrial and Aquatic Programmatic 

Biological Assessment (BA, USDA and USDI, 2010-2013) in July 2010 for Federal Lands within the 

Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. A 

letter of concurrence was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in September 2010 

that agreed with the effects determination in the programmatic document. Every project that meets the 

project design criteria (PDCs) applicable to each affected species is covered by this document. If every 

PDC is not followed, then additional consultation may be needed and an effects determination made to 

determine the need for further consultation with the USFWS. The BA covers the northern spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis caurina) as a threatened species and the 2008 designation of Critical Habitat and the 

Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) that is currently a federal candidate for listing. 

Description of Affected Species and Environmental Consequences

The federally listed species analyzed in this document include the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina). The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti), and the North 

American wolverine (Gulo gulo) are federal candidates for ESA listing and are also on the Region 6 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list.

Threatened, Endangered, and Federal Candidate Wildlife Species (Table 22) displays those species that 

are currently federally listed or candidates on the Deschutes National Forest and whether the species has 

been documented to occur within the Rim-Paunina project area. 

Table 22. Threatened, Endangered, and Federal Candidate Wildlife Species Documented to Occur or May 

Potentially Occur Within the Rim-Paunina Project Area

Species Listing Status Habitat Presence Within RimPaunina Project Area

Northern Spotted Owl

(Strix occidentalis 

caurina)

Federal Threatened Old Growth Mixed 

Conifer Forest Outside the Range

Oregon Spotted Frog

(Rana pretiosa)

Federal Candidate and 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive

Ponds, Marshes No Habitat

Pacific Fisher

(Martes pennanti)

Federal Candidate and 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive

Mixed Forest with 

Complex Structure Unknown

North American

Wolverine

(Gulo gulo luscus)

Federal Candidate and 

Regional Forester 

Sensitive 

Alpine, Subalpine, Rock 

Talus, High Cirque 

Basins

Unknown
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 95 of 528

Table 23. Summary of Conclusion of Effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Federal Candidate Wildlife 

Species, Rim-Paunina Project Area

Species/Habitat Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Northern Spotted Owl NE NE NE NE

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat NE NE NE NE

Oregon Spotted Frog NI NI NI NI

Pacific Fisher MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

North American Wolverine NI NI NI NI

NE = No Effect

NLAA = May Effect, Not Likely To Adversely Affect

BI = Beneficial Impact

NI = No Impact

MIIH = May impact individuals or hábitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species

Summary Conclusions for Threatened and Endangered Species and Federal Candidates 

1. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would have “No Effect” on the northern spotted owl and northern 

spotted owl critical habitat.

2. Alternatives B, C, D and E would have “No Impact” on the Oregon spotted frog and North 

American wolverine.

3. Alternatives B, C, D and E would result in a determination of “May impact individuals or 

habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species” for the Pacific fisher. 

Note: Where there was a “No Impact” determination, it was concluded the Rim-Paunina project either 

does not have the habitat for a particular species, or the zone of influence and its activities do not have the 

potential to overlap the biological needs of an individual, or a combination of both. Disclosure of effects 

associated with past activities in an incremental account is not the most informative manner in which to 

disclose effects. Discussion of wolverine is found in the Sensitive Species section of this chapter.

Northern Spotted Owl, Federal Threatened, Management Indicator Species

In June 1990 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the northern spotted owl as a threatened species 

and critical habitat was designated in 1992. Critical Habitat for the spotted owl was revised in 2008. The 

northern spotted owl was also designated as a Management Indicator Species for the Deschutes National 

Forest (USDA 1990). Spotted owls generally require habitats of mature or old growth coniferous forest 

with complex structure. Nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat includes stands of mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine with white fir understory and mountain hemlock with subalpine fir. Nest sites are 

generally in tree cavities in the boles of live trees or snags; however, abandoned raptor nests, broken 

treetops, or mistletoe brooms can be used as nest structures, but generally less frequently. Foraging 

habitat consists of relatively heavy canopy structure with a semi-open understory. Prey species include 

flying squirrels, wood rats, tree voles, and other small nocturnal or crepuscular creatures. 

Direct, Indirect, Cumulative Effects and Determination

Because the Rim-Paunina project area is located outside the range of the northern spotted owl and the 

2008 Critical Habitat boundaries, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the species or 

critical habitat. Therefore, the selection and implementation of any alternative would lead to a 

determination of “No Effect” to the northern spotted owl and designated critical habitat and would not 

contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 96 of 528

Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa), Federal Candidate, R6 Sensitive 

The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is currently listed as a federal candidate species by the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Spotted frogs have a historic distribution that covers a small 

part of western North America, from southern British Columbia to northeastern California, and from the 

west side of the Willamette Valley to the east side of the Klamath Basin in Oregon. They have been 

extirpated in much of their range by introduction of the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and habitat alteration, 

loss through intensified agriculture, grazing, and urbanization (USGS 2003). Pearl (pers. comm. 2008) 

remarked that central Oregon including Big Marsh on the Crescent Ranger District and Sunriver south of 

Bend, seem to represent strongholds for the species and have the largest populations in the state of 

Oregon.

Ecology: Oregon spotted frogs are associated with wetland complexes greater than four hectares (10 

acres) in size with extensive emergent marsh coverage that warms substantially during seasons when 

Oregon spotted frogs are active at the surface and sites always include some permanent water juxtaposed 

to seasonally inundated lands (Pearl and Hayes 2004 cited in Cushman and Pearl 2007). They use 

shallow oviposition sites consistently across their range with average depths per site ranging from 2.3 

inches to 10 inches in depth (Pearl and Hayes 2004). Oviposition usually occurs between mid-February 

and mid-April depending on water temperature. The diet of the Oregon spotted frog includes arthropods 

(e.g. spiders, insects), earthworms, and other invertebrate prey. In turn, they may be preyed upon by 

mink, river otter, herons, bitterns, corvids, and garter snakes. Threats to the species were hypothesized by 

Cushman and Pearl (2007) to include direct loss and conversion of marsh habitats, interactions with nonnative fishes, plant succession and other vegetation changes, livestock grazing, degraded water quality, 

isolation from other populations, and drought. 

Existing Condition: Within the Rim-Paunina project area permanent water sources are limited to several 

narrow drainages, east of the Two Rivers North housing subdivision that flow eastward into the Five Mile 

Draw near Highways 58 and 97, and Boundary Springs located in the northeastern part of the project area. 

During the summer months most of the water present near Two Rivers North goes subsurface and only a 

few, small ponds provide standing water during the warmest part of the year. Oregon spotted frogs have 

never been detected in these ponds. The nearest known Oregon spotted population is located along the 

Little Deschutes River approximately 1⁄2 mile to the west of the western Rim-Paunina project boundary. 

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

None of the alternatives propose silvicultural or fuels treatments within wetland habitat of the project 

area. In addition, Oregon spotted frogs are not known to occupy any of the wetland habitats in the project 

area based on field reconnaissance that has occurred in the last decade. Therefore, implementation of any 

alternative is not expected to negatively affect any wetland habitat or any population of Oregon spotted 

frogs. Consequently, the determination is “No Impact” to the Oregon spotted frog. The Rim-Paunina 

project is consistent with all Project Design Features (PDFs) listed in the 2010-2013 Joint Aquatic and 

Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment for Federal Lands in the Deschutes and John Day River 

Basin’s Administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests (USDA 2010). Because no effects 

would occur there are also no cumulative effects to the species. 

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti), Federal Candidate, R6 Sensitive

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was issued a court order in April 2003 to conduct a 90 day 

finding on a petition to list a distinct population segment of the fisher. In July, 2003, the USFWS 

published a 90 day finding that substantiated a listing may be warranted and began a 12 month status 

review. In April, 2004, the USFWS determined the fisher in Washington, Oregon and California is a 

“distinct population segment” of the entire fisher species. The USFWS determined the fisher faces 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 97 of 528

significant biological threats sufficient to warrant listing but is precluded by other higher priority listing 

actions (Federal Register Vol. 69, No. 68). Threats to the fisher include loss and fragmentation of habitat, 

mortalities and injuries from incidental captures, decreases in prey base, increasing human disturbance, 

and small isolated populations. An Interagency Fisher Conservation Assessment and Strategy document 

produced by the Interagency Fisher Biology Team has been completed (Lofroth et al. 2010). This four 

volume set assesses the current status of fishers on the west coast, including the synthesis of habitat and 

evaluation of threats. The goals of the strategy are to provide recommendations to restore and/or maintain 

habitat conditions that can support fishers, re-establish fisher populations and restore connectivity by 

creating and managing for resilient landscapes throughout the west coast assessment area. 

Ecology

The fisher is a house-cat sized member of the Mustelidae family which includes weasels, mink, marten, 

and otters. Their occurrence is closely associated with low- to mid-elevation forests (generally less than 

1250 m) with a coniferous component, large snags or decadent live trees, and logs for denning and 

resting, and complex physical structure near the forest floor to support adequate prey populations (Powell 

and Zielinski 1994). Rosenberg and Raphael (1986 cited by Kremaster and Bunnell in Rochelle et al. 

1999) stated the fisher was negatively associated with edges at all scales of measurements and could be 

considered a forest interior species. However, fishers also venture into openings to feed (reviews of 

Buskirk and Powell 1994 and Martin 1994 cited by Kremaster and Bunnell 1999 in Rochelle et al. 1999). 

Within a given region, the distribution of fishers is likely limited by elevation and snow depth and fisher 

are unlikely to occupy habitats in areas where elevation and snow depth act to limit their movements for 

traveling and hunting (Krohn et al. 1997 cited by USFWS 2004; Lofroth et al. 2010). In mid-elevation 

areas with intermediate snow depth, fishers may use dense forest patches with large trees because the 

overstory increases snow interception (Weir 1995 cited by USFWS 2004). Aubry and Houston (1992 

cited by Powell 1993) felt that snow affected fisher distribution and population density in Washington 

State. 

Prey item remains collected in Oregon include snowshoe hare, brush rabbit, California ground squirrel, 

Douglas’ squirrel, northern flying squirrel, woodrats, opossum, striped skunk, porcupine (male fishers 

only), bobcat, deer, elk, Stellar’s jay, pileated woodpecker, and hairy woodpeckers (Aubry and Raley 

2002). Fishers are fast, agile and adept at climbing trees and would eat any prey they can catch and 

overpower, including squirrels, hares, mice, birds, and porcupines. Although adapted for climbing, 

fishers are primarily terrestrial. When inactive, the fisher occupies dens in tree hollows, under logs, inground or rocky crevices, or rests in the branches of conifer trees during the warmer months. Female 

fishers give birth and raise kits in cavities in large-diameter (greater than 80 cm, 31 inches dbh) live trees, 

snags, and logs, and use these structures and large platform branches for rest sites (Powell and Zielinski 

1994; Aubry and Raley 2002). In the western USA, fishers generally avoid clearcuts and forested stands 

with less than 40 percent canopy cover (Buck et al. 1994; Jones and Garton 1994 cited by Aubry and 

Lewis 2003). Powell (1993) reported that open habitat vegetated with young deciduous trees and shrubs 

typical of clear-cut areas, are used by fishers in summer but are truly open with no overhead cover in 

winter. Aubry and Raley (2006) in a study area in the southern Oregon Cascades determined that mean 

home ranges for adult females was 25 square kilometers (10 square miles) and for males averaged 62 

square kilometers (24 square miles) during the non-breeding season) and 147 square kilometers (57 

square miles) during the breeding season.

Prior to extensive European settlement, fishers occupied most coniferous forest habitats in Washington, 

Oregon, and California (Aubry and Lewis 2003). Lofroth et al. (2010) reproduced a map by Gibilisco 

(1994) that showed the presumed historical range of fishers in North America that included western 

Oregon, the east and west Cascade Range in Oregon and the entire border with Washington State. 

Extensive trapping in the 1800s and 1900s is frequently cited as the principal initial cause of the 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 98 of 528

substantial reduction of the range of the fisher in Washington, Oregon, and California (Federal Register 

Vol. 69, No. 68). Claar et al. (1999) stated that trapping may affect local populations and even light 

pressure may cause local extinction. Claar et al. (1999) also stated there is evidence that western fisher 

populations have lower natality and high natural mortality rates as compared to eastern populations. He 

recommended in travel planning, managers should consider ramifications of increased trapper access and 

distribution.

The extent of past timber harvest is one of the primary causes of fisher decline across the United States 

(Powell 1993 cited in USFWS 2004) and may be one of the main reasons fishers have not recovered in 

Washington, Oregon, and portions of California as compared to the northeastern United States (Powell 

and Zielinski 1994). Habitat fragmentation has contributed to the decline of fisher populations because 

they have limited dispersal distances and are reluctant to cross open areas to re-colonize historical habitat 

(USFWS 2004). Fishers have a low annual reproductive capacity; not all females produce young every 

year and litters usually consist of two to three kits raised entirely by the female. In addition, recent 

evidence suggests only juvenile males disperse long distances which would affect the rate at which fishers 

may be able to colonize formerly occupied areas within its historical range (Aubry et al. 2003). Fishers 

are estimated to live up to 10 years (Powell 1993). 

Existing Condition

Gibilisco (1994) described the presumed historical range of fishers including lands within the state of 

Oregon. The eastern extent included the eastern portion of the Cascade Range to Bend and southward to 

Paulina Peak, Walker Rim, and lands in the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Lofroth et al. (2010) used 

these boundaries for their assessment area based on the known and historical range of fishers. In Oregon, 

the fisher has been extirpated from all but two portions of its historical range (Aubry and Lewis 2003). 

Within Oregon the two known extant populations are in the southwestern portion of the state: one in the 

southern Cascade Range that was established through reintroductions of fishers from British Columbia 

and Minnesota that occurred between 1961 and 1981, and one in the northern Siskiyou Mountains of 

southwestern Oregon presumed to be an extension of the population in northern California. Genetic 

testing has revealed the populations are isolated from each other (Aubry et al. 2002). The same study 

revealed juvenile male fishers are capable of long distance dispersal with one collared male relocating to 

the Crescent Ranger District in the summer of 1999 having traveled fifty-five kilometers (34 miles) from 

the point of capture on the Rogue River National Forest. The radio signal from this animal was lost in 

December 1999 north of Big Marsh due to battery failure. 

Anecdotal information suggests that a few trappers target beaver, coyotes, and marten on the Crescent 

District including all or portions of the Rim-Paunina project area. It is currently unknown if any fishers 

have been unintentionally captured during lawful trapping seasons for other species. 

Carnivore surveys were conducted on the Crescent District in 1993-1996 and 1998, and the winter of 

2010-2011 using bait with camera sets, snow tracking and track plates. There were no detections of 

fishers or wolverine from these surveys although marten were confirmed. As previously mentioned, the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cite Krohn et al. (1997) as saying the distribution of 

fishers is likely limited by elevation and snow depth and the species is unlikely to occupy habitats where 

elevation and snow depth act to limit their movements. At the present time it is unknown if the average 

annual snow depths and the high elevation of the Crescent Ranger District (>4,400 feet) and within the 

Rim-Paunina project area (4,500 to 7,080 feet) can support year-round fisher occupancy. If currently 

present on the district, they may have to include lower elevation forest with less snow on the Bend-Ft. 

Rock Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest or the adjacent Rogue River-Siskiyou, Umpqua, or 

Willamette National Forests as part of their home ranges. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 99 of 528

Suitable fisher denning habitat for this project was defined as forested stands with greater than 20 inch 

diameter trees in lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, white fir, Shasta red fir, and mountain hemlock plant 

association groups (PAGs) having a dense canopy greater than 40-55 percent depending on the plant 

association group. Using this definition the Viable program estimated there is currently 3,502 acres of 

potential denning habitat in the Rim-Paunina planning area. This figure accounts for all past and present 

timber sales, natural events such as wildfires, and any other habitat altering activity. The majority of this 

potentially suitable denning habitat is located in a relatively contiguous, but narrow strip along the west 

slope of Walker Mountain on the eastern project area boundary. Figure 5 below shows pacific fisher 

denning habitat using green tree data from Viable and also shows where snag densities greater than 20 

inches dbh and greater than 6.2/acre overlap with modeled denning habitat. This would represent the 

highest quality denning habitat in the project area, though snag densities less than 6.2/acre could still 

provide denning habitat. 

Figure 5. Pacific Fisher Denning Habitat Modeled Using Green Tree Data (Viable) that Overlaps with 

DecAID Snag Data

An Aubry and Raley (2006) study on southwestern Oregon seemed to suggest the Rogue River and a 2-

lane highway corridor influenced spatial use and distribution of fishers in their study area. Their radio 

collared fishers established home ranges on one side or the other of the corridor. However, males 

regularly crossed the corridor during the breeding season, and the corridor did not appear to impede 

juvenile dispersal. Two highways (97 and 58) bisect the Rim-Paunina project area and may limit female 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 100 of 528

fisher presence to either side of the highways though males may cross during the breeding season as 

suggested in Aubry and Raley’s 2006 study. 

Table 24 displays the range of tolerance intervals for fishers based on snag levels taken from DecAID. 

1,795 acres of the 3,502 acres of current denning habitat (51%) does not have snags >20 inches dbh and is 

less likely to support denning females. For the 0-50 percent tolerance interval, modeling shows 1,633 

acres (47%) of the mapped denning habitat has 0-6.2 snags/acre greater than 20 inches dbh. This 

tolerance interval is more likely to support denning females than the acreage showing no snags/acre 

greater than 20 inches dbh. Only 75 acres (2%) of the denning habitat has greater than 6.2 snags/acre 

greater than 20 inches dbh and would equate to the higher quality denning habitat in the project area. 

Project Design Features in Chapter 2 disclose the limited circumstances where snag felling may be 

needed during project implementation.

Table 24. Tolerance Intervals for the pacific Fisher and Snag Use 

Pacific Fisher 

3,502 Acres

Density of Snags ≥ 20" dbh 

by tolerance interval

Tolerance 

Interval* 0% 0-50% 50%+

Density 

(#/hectare)* 0 0-15.3 15.3+

Density (#/acre) 0 0-6.2 6.2+

% of Habitat 51% 47% 2%

Acres 1,795 1,633 75

Environmental Consequences 

Because fishers are known to be susceptible to trapping and motorized access can increase the risk of 

capture, an analysis of disturbed versus undisturbed denning habitat was conducted. Table 25. Acres of 

displays the amount of disturbed versus undisturbed fisher denning habitat in the Rim-Paunina planning 

area. A 660 foot buffer was applied to each side of a road or trail open for motorized use to determine 

disturbed habitat. 

Table 25. Acres of Disturbed and Undisturbed Potential Fisher Denning Habitat in the Rim-Paunina 

Planning Area

Current Acres of 

Potential Denning 

Habitat

Undisturbed Denning 

Habitat

Disturbed Denning 

Habitat

3,502 1,909 – 55% 1,593 – 45%

Alternative A – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct impacts to fishers or their habitat with selection of this alternative because no 

trees, snags, or down logs would be removed from existing denning habitat. Fishers, if currently present, 

could continue to utilize late and old structural stands in the planning area for foraging, denning, and as 

resting sites though, as shown in Table 25, 45 percent of the denning habitat is also within 660 feet of an 

open road or motorized trail defined as disturbed habitat. This level of motorized access would not be 

reduced which would maintain fisher risk of coming into contact with the recreating public during the 

furbearer trapping season. This could lead to incidental catch and mortality from trappers that are legally 

targeting other species such as coyotes and marten. 

As shown in Table 26, with the absence of active forest management, the amount of the planning area that 

becomes suitable denning habitat in 2018 would increase to 4,943 acres and to 14,040 acres by 2058. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 101 of 528

This is the result of increased tree growth and additional canopy layering particularly in the ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer plant associations. However, the lack of active forest management would also 

make these stands much more susceptible to large-scale loss to wildfire, beetle outbreak or disease events 

that could lead to short- and long-term loss of habitat for the species. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All action alternatives would result in silvicultural and fuels treatments conducted in potential denning 

habitat for the fisher. Commercial thinning and small diameter thinning would reduce tree densities in 

affected stands and likely reduce canopy cover below the 40 percent level defined as potential denning 

habitat. Post harvest canopy cover would range from 30-35 percent in the ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer stands. It is assumed female fishers if present in the project area, would avoid treated areas for 

denning purposes for several decades or until canopy cover returns to the 40 percent or greater level. The 

benefits to conducting the commercial and small diameter thinning would reduce the risk of large tree and 

large scale loss of forest to a wildfire event, beetle outbreak or other disease issues. These events would 

potentially be more impactive to fishers than thinning depending on scale and intensity whereas with 

thinning, a 40 percent canopy cover level could return in a decade or two. 

Prescribed fire is generally used in ponderosa pine plant associations to remove small diameter fuels, 

needle cast with minimal large tree loss, therefore, this action by would likely have minimal impact on 

fisher habitat. All action alternatives are expected to remove some trees infected with mistletoe which 

have been documented as providing resting sites for fishers (Lofroth et al. 2010) although complete 

mistletoe eradication within the project area would not occur. 

None of the action alternatives propose the closure of any additional roads or motorized trails beyond 

those decided with the Three Trails OHV EIS decision (USDA 2010). In addition, no new permanent 

system roads would be constructed for the implementation of the Rim-Paunina project. However, all four 

action alternatives would require the construction of temporary roads to access treatment units that total 

9.2 miles in Alternative B, 6.5 miles in Alternatives C and D, and 8.3 miles in Alternative E. Temporary 

road construction would have the capability of increasing short-term disturbance to fishers if present, but 

would have little effect long-term because of its small scale, its location within treatment units, its 

temporary nature, and the fact that temporary roads would be restored to a hydrological and native 

vegetative state likely within five years after completion of commercial treatments. Because no 

permanent road construction is proposed the percentage of disturbed versus undisturbed denning habitat 

would essentially remain the same for all action alternatives shown in Table 26. 

Management actions also have the potential to cause disturbance which could temporarily displace 

individuals if they are dispersing through an active timber sale, prescribed burn site or where small 

diameter thinning is proposed. However, this disturbance would be localized to the particular activity and 

its associated acreage and implementation of the Rim-Paunina project would be spread out over five to six 

years. Undisturbed denning habitat would always be available to fishers, if present in the project area. 

All Rim-Paunina activities are expected to be completed by 2018. 

Table 26 displays the amount of potential fisher denning habitat in the project area after the completion of 

all activities in each alternative and projected out to 2058. This assumes no further silvicultural or fuels 

treatments prior to 2058. As shown, all Action Alternatives (B, C, D, and E) are all relatively similar in 

the amount of suitable denning habitat available in 2018 and 2058. However, all action alternatives 

would have less denning habitat in 2018 and 2058 compared to Alternative A. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 102 of 528

Table 26. Acres of Disturbed and Undisturbed Fisher Denning Habitat in the Planning Area Projected out to 

Years 2018 and 2058 for Each Alternative 

Acres of disturbed and undisturbed fisher denning habitat in the planning area projected out to years 2018 

and 2058 for each alternative(Current denning habitat is 3502 acres of which 1593 acres or 45% considered 

currently disturbed and 1909 acres or 55% currently considered undisturbed)

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Dist. Undist. Dist. Undist. Dist. Undist. Dist. Undist. Dist. Undist.

2018

2355 

(48%)

2588 

(52%)

1925 

(45%)

2370

(55%)

1966 

(45%)

2385

(55%)

1930 

(45%)

2325 

(55%)

1840

(45%)

2216 

(55%)

4943 ac total 4295 ac total 4351 ac total 4255 ac total 4056 ac total

2058 7368

(52%)

6672

(48%)

5706

(50%)

5757

(50%)

5958

(50%)

5884

(50%)

5811

(50%)

5740

(50%)

5535

(50%)

5540

(50%)

14040 ac total 11463 ac total 11842 ac total 11551 ac total 11075 ac total

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The selection and implementation of this alternative would result in the retention of the second highest 

level of denning habitat in the project area of the four action alternatives for 2018 and third highest 

projected for 2058. Denning habitat would still be available to support individuals and/or pairs in the 

project area particularly near Walker Rim for both modeled time periods and also west of Highway 97 by 

2058. 

Determination 

Timber harvest and fuels treatments actions have the potential to reduce canopy cover below the levels 

described as used by the species and may create short-term disturbance to animals that may occupy or be 

dispersing through the planning area. Modeling indicates a habitat increase by 2018 compared to the 

current condition in Table 25 and more than tripling denning habitat acreage by 2058, though fewer acres 

overall compared to the no action alternative. Therefore, the determination is “May impact individuals 

or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability 

to the population or species”.

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The selection and implementation of this alternative would result in the greatest retention and future 

development of denning habitat of the four action alternatives for both time periods modeled. This is the 

result of less acreage proposed for treatment in Alternative C and forested lands that develop into 

suitability for both modeled time periods. Similar to Alternative B, denning habitat would be available 

for female fishers particularly east of Highway 97 near Walker Rim in 2018 and on both sides of 

Highway 97 by 2058 due to the increase in denning acreage. 

Determination 

Timber harvest and fuels treatments actions have the potential to reduce canopy cover below the levels 

described as used by the species and may create short-term disturbance to animals that may occupy or be 

dispersing through the planning area. Modeling indicates this alternative results in the greatest amount of 

denning habitat projected for 2018 and 2058 of the four action alternatives, though fewer acres overall 

compared to the no action alternative. Therefore, the determination is “May impact individuals or 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 103 of 528

habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to 

the population or species”.

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Effects

The selection and implementation of Alternative D would result in effects relatively similar to 

Alternatives B and C particularly by the year 2018. In spite of the treatments, this alternative would still 

result in the second highest level of denning habitat of the four action alternatives projected for 2058. 

Similar to the other action alternatives, denning habitat would be available for female fishers on both 

sides of Highway 97 though reduced in amount compared to the no action alternative. 

Determination 

Timber harvest and fuels treatments actions have the potential to reduce canopy cover below the levels 

described as used by the species and may create short-term disturbance to animals that may occupy or be 

dispersing through the planning area. Modeling indicates a habitat increase by 2018 compared to the 

current condition in Table 25 and more than tripling denning habitat acreage by 2058, though fewer acres 

overall compared to the no action alternative. Therefore, the determination is “May impact individuals 

or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or cause a loss of viability 

to the population or species”.

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Effects

The selection and implementation of this alternative would provide the least amount of denning habitat 

projected for years 2018 and 2058 due to Alternative E proposing the greatest amount of treatment 

acreage of the four alternatives. However, similar to the other action alternatives, suitable denning habitat 

is projected to more than triple by 2058 compared to the current level of 3,502 acres and result in an 

increasing trend assuming no further treatments occur in the time period modeled. 

Determination 

Similar to the other action alternatives, there is an increasing trend in denning habitat capability according 

the modeling results. However, timber harvest and fuels treatments actions would still reduce canopy 

cover below the levels described as used by the species and may create short-term disturbance to animals 

that may occupy or be dispersing through the planning area. Therefore, the determination is “May 

impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or 

cause a loss of viability to the population or species”.

Cumulative Effects 

Table 19 was reviewed for projects that have the capability to overlap in time and space within the zone 

of influence for Rim Paunina. The zone of influence was defined as the 40,000 acres of Deschutes 

National Forest lands within the Little Walker watershed (Rim-Paunina project area) because this land 

base may be capable of supporting four females and one male fisher using home range data from the 

Aubry and Raley study on the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest fisher study (2006). There are no projects 

that overlap in time and space within the same zone of influence therefore; there are no additive 

cumulative effects.

Privately owned land in the planning area is limited to approximately 106 acres in the Two Rivers North 

housing subdivision at the west boundary of the project. None of this acreage would meet the definition 

of suitable denning habitat. Based on existing knowledge of species presence and habitat conditions 

available, cumulative effects are not expected to occur. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 104 of 528

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Species classified as sensitive by the Forest Service are to be considered by conducting biological 

evaluations (BE) to determine potential effects of all programs and activities on these species (FSM 

2670.32). The BE is a documented review of Forest Service activities in sufficient detail to determine 

how a proposed action may affect sensitive wildlife species.

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list was updated in January 2008 and Table 27 includes all 

animal species documented or suspected to occur on the Deschutes National Forest and their status within 

the Rim-Paunina vegetation project area using the 2008 updated list. 

Table 27. Regional Forester Listed Sensitive Animal Species for the Deschutes National Forest

Species Listing Status Habitat

Species Presence or 

Suitable Habitat 

Within Rim Paunina 

Project Area

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Regional Forester Sensitive

Management Indicator 

Species

Lakes, Reservoirs, Large 

Trees for Nesting

Observations - No Known 

Nests

Horned Grebe

(Podiceps auritus)

Regional Forester Sensitive Lakes No Habitat

Red-necked Grebe

(Podiceps gisegena)

Regional Forester Sensitive Lakes No Habitat

Bufflehead

(Bucephala albeola)

Regional Forester Sensitive Lakes, Rivers, Snags No Habitat

Harlequin Duck

(Histrionicus histrionicus)

Regional Forester Sensitive Fast Flowing Streams No Habitat

American Peregrine Falcon

(Falco pergrinus anatum)

Regional Forester Sensitive

Management Indicator 

Species

Cliffs, Riparian No Habitat

Tricolored Blackbird

(Agelaius tricolor)

Regional Forester Sensitive Lakeside, Bulrushes No Habitat

Lewis’ Woodpecker

(Melanerpes lewis)

Regional Forester Sensitive

Management Indicator 

Species

Open woodland habitat 

(oak, ponderosa, or 

cottonwood) near water, 

burned forests 

Species Documented

White-headed Woodpecker

(Picoides albolarvatus)

Regional Forester Sensitive

Management Indicator 

Species

Ponderosa pine or mixed 

conifer forests dominated 

by ponderosa pine

Species Documented

Northern Waterthrush

(Seiurus aurocapillus)

Regional Forester Sensitive Riparian hardwoods 

(willows) No Habitat

Western Sage Grouse

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus phaeios)

Regional Forester Sensitive Sagebrush No Habitat

Yellow Rail

(Coturnicops 

noveboracensis)

Regional Forester Sensitive Marshes No Habitat

North American Wolverine

(Gulo gulo luscus)

Regional Forester Sensitive

Management Indicator 

Species

Alpine, Subalpine, Rock 

Talus, High Cirque Basins No Habitat

Pygmy Rabbit

(Brachylagus idahoensis)

Regional Forester Sensitive Sagebrush Flats No Habitat

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

(Plecotus townsendii)

Regional Forester Sensitive

Management Indicator 

Species

Roost sites in buildings, 

caves and bridges No Habitat

Crater Lake Tightcoil 

(Pristiloma arcticum 

crateris)

Regional Forester Sensitive Springs, seeps, streams Potential Habitat
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 105 of 528

Species Listing Status Habitat

Species Presence or 

Suitable Habitat 

Within Rim Paunina 

Project Area

Silver-Bordered Fritillary

(Boloria selene)

Regional Forester Sensitive 

Wet meadows, marshes, 

bogs and more open parts 

of shrubbier wetlands

No Habitat

Johnson’s Hairstreak

(Callophrys johnsoni)

Regional Forester Sensitive 

Mostly in old growth 

coniferous forests with 

mistletoe presence

Potential Habitat 

After a review of existing observation records, habitat requirements, and existing habitat components, it 

was determined that the following sensitive species have habitat present in the project area or are known 

to occur and would be included in this analysis: Northern bald eagle (Halaieetus leucocephalus), Lewis’ 

woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), Crater Lake 

tightcoil (Pristiloma arcticum crateris), and Johnson’s hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni). 

Summary of Conclusions for Sensitive Species 

1. There is no habitat present and/or the following species are not expected to occur within the 

project area: horned grebe, red-necked grebe, bufflehead, harlequin, peregrine falcon, Tricolored 

blackbird, northern waterthrush, western sage grouse, yellow rail, North American wolverine, 

pygmy rabbit, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and silver-bordered fritillary. 

2. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would result in a determination of “Beneficial Impact” to the Lewis’ 

and white-headed woodpeckers.

3. Alternatives B, C, D, and E “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Would Not Contribute 

to a Trend Toward Federal Listing or Loss of Viability To The Population or Species” for 

the Johnson’s hairstreak. 

Table 28. Summary of Conclusion of Effects to Region 6 Sensitive Animal Species.

Species Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Bald Eagle NI NI NI NI

Horned Grebe NI NI NI NI

Red-necked Grebe NI NI NI NI

Bufflehead NI NI NI NI

Harlequin Duck NI NI NI NI

American Peregrine Falcon NI NI NI NI

Tricolor Blackbird NI NI NI NI

Lewis’ Woodpecker BI BI BI BI

White-Headed Woodpecker BI BI BI BI

Northern Waterthrush NI NI NI NI

Western Sage Grouse NI NI NI NI

Yellow Rail NI NI NI NI

North American Wolverine NI NI NI NI

Pygmy Rabbit NI NI NI NI

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat NI NI NI NI

Crater Lake Tightcoil Snail NI NI NI NI

Silver-Bordered Fritillary NI NI NI NI

Johnson’s Hairstreak MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

NI = No Impact

MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to 

the population or species

BI = Beneficial Impact
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 106 of 528

The following species were determined not to occur in the project area based on a lack of existing 

sighting information, a review of habitat requirements, and habitat types present in the project area: 

Horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), Red-necked grebe (Podiceps grisgena), Bufflehead (Bucephala 

albeola), Harlequin (Histrionicus histrionicus), Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines anatum), Tricolored 

blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), Northern waterthrush (Seiurus aurocapillus), Western sage grouse 

(Coturnicops noveboracensis), Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), North American wolverine 

(Gulo gulo luscus), Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Plecotus 

townsendii), and the Silver-bordered fritillary (Boloria selene).

Horned and Red-Necked Grebes - Both grebes nest in lakes and ponds with tall vegetation or marshy 

habitats. NatureServe gives the horned grebe in Oregon a listing of S2B, S5N – Imperiled Breeding, 

Secure Non-breeding and for the red-necked a ranking of S1B, S4N – Critically Imperiled-Apparently 

Secure Non-breeding. The project area does not contain any lakes or ponds that could potentially provide 

nesting habitat for either species. While the horned grebe has been documented to occur on Big Lava 

Lake on the Deschutes National Forest (Marshall et al. 2003) there are no known breeding locations of 

either species on the forest. Implementation of any alternative would have “No Impact” on the horned 

grebe and red necked grebe.

Bufflehead - The bufflehead is North America’s smallest diving duck. It winters throughout Oregon but 

is an uncommon breeder in the central and southern Cascades (Marshall 2003). Known nest sites in 

central and southern Oregon include Hosmer Lake, Crane Prairie Reservoir, Twin Lakes, Wickiup 

Reservoir, Davis Lake and along the Little Deschutes River in Deschutes County. The bufflehead will 

use tree cavities or artificial nest boxes in trees close to water. Marshall (1996) stated that human 

disturbance from high recreation use at Cascade Lakes and a shortage of suitable nesting cavities due to 

forestry practices may be having an impact on their population status. The Oregon breeding population is 

considered sensitive by the ODFW because of its small size and limited nesting habitat (Marshall et al.

2003). NatureServe (2011) lists the Oregon status as S2B, S5N – Imperiled Breeding, Secure Nonbreeding. There are no lakes, ponds, rivers, or reservoirs in the project area therefore, implementation of 

any alternative would have “No Impact” to the bufflehead nor result in any change in species viability on 

the Deschutes National Forest. 

Harlequin - The Harlequin duck nests along fast-flowing rivers and mountain streams in the Cascade 

Mountains of Oregon and Washington. There are no confirmed breeding sites in the east Cascades of 

Oregon with the exception of the Hood River basin (Marshall et al. 2003). In the western Cascades of 

Oregon breeding pairs are observed on low to moderate gradient (1-7 percent) third to fifth-order streams 

in the western hemlock zone with simple channels and abundant in-stream rocks for loafing sites 

(Marshall et al. 2003). Threats to the species may include recreation related disturbances and oil spills. 

Direct effects of timber harvesting, mining, road building or other activities have not been documented 

(Marshall et al. 2003). NatureServe (2011) lists the harlequin in Oregon as S2B – Imperiled Breeding.

Potential breeding habitat may exist on the Crescent Ranger District in the upper Little Deschutes River 

canyon and Crescent Creek though the species has not been documented to occur. There is no potentially 

suitable nesting habitat in the Rim-Paunina project area. Implementation of any alternative would have 

“No Impact” to the harlequin nor result in any change in species viability on the Deschutes National 

Forest. 

Peregrine Falcon - In Oregon, peregrine falcons occur as resident and migratory populations. They nest 

on cliffs greater than 75 feet in height and within one mile of some form of water (Pagel 1992). Nesting 

occurs in xeric areas of eastern Oregon, marine habitats of western Oregon, montane habitats to 6,000 feet 

elevation, small riparian corridors statewide, and more recently urban habitats of the lower Willamette 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 107 of 528

and Columbia Rivers. Riparian corridors are used for travel and as hunting areas (90-95 percent of all 

prey items are birds that may come from these systems (Pagel 1992). NatureServe (2011) lists the species 

status in Oregon as S2B – Imperiled-Breeding. While there is one known peregrine falcon eyrie located 

in 2008 on the Sisters Ranger District of the Deschutes National Forest none have been reported on the 

Crescent Ranger District. Within the Rim-Paunina project area there is no suitable cliff habitat that could 

function as nesting habitat. Implementation of any alternative would have “No Impact” on the peregrine 

falcon and would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest.

Tricolored Blackbird - This blackbird is a highly gregarious colonial breeder largely endemic to 

California. However, breeding colonies are scattered and intermittent in Oregon. In Oregon they breed 

most consistently in southern Klamath County in the southern part of the state. There are no records of 

nesting tricolored blackbirds in northern Klamath County where the Rim-Paunina project area is located. 

Nesting occurs in fresh-water marshes of cattails, tules, bulrushes and sedge, or in thickets of willows or 

other shrubs. Most birds in Oregon migrate to California for the winter. Threats to this species include 

habitat loss due to drainage of wetlands and conversion of former nest and roost sites to agriculture. 

Human disturbance has also been implicated in nesting colony abandonment or failure (Marshall et al. 

2003). The Oregon population was estimated to have declined by 22 percent in the 1980s but the Oregon 

population represents only one percent of the total tricolored blackbird population (Beedy et al. 1999). 

NatureServe (2011) ranks the species in Oregon as SP ‘Sensitive’ (peripheral or naturally rare) and by the 

Natural Heritage program as G3 ‘Vulnerable’ – either rare throughout its range or found locally in a 

restricted range. There are no documented sightings of tricolored blackbirds on the Crescent District. In 

addition, there is no potential nesting habitat for the species in the Rim-Paunina project area due to very 

limited riparian habitat, none of which have the willows, tules, sedges, or bulrushes used for nesting. 

Therefore, implementation of any alternative would have “No Impact” to the tricolored blackbird. 

Northern Waterthrush - The northern waterthrush is a small neotropical migrant that travels long 

distances nocturnally. Breeding habitat in North America includes Alaska and west to east across Canada 

extending into New England, the Mid-Atlantic States, the Great Lakes region, Montana, Idaho, North 

Dakota (NatureServe 2008) and a small area in the central Cascades of Oregon. NatureServe ranks the 

species in Oregon as S2B – ‘Imperiled-Breeding’. The species winters in the West Indies and Central and 

South America. On the Crescent Ranger District the species has been known to occur along Crescent 

Creek and the Little Deschutes River near the communities of Crescent and Gilchrist, Oregon since 1977 

(Contreras 1988). The birds in central Oregon seem to prefer dense riparian willow thickets and were 

usually found in willow clumps five to eight feet high, with some Sitka alder intermixed with small 

grassy patches and pools of water left in old stream meanders, although no nests have been found 

(Contreras 1988). There is no suitable nesting habitat with dense willow thickets present in the RimPaunina project area. Therefore, the selection and implementation of any alternative would have “No 

Impact” to the northern waterthrush. 

Western Sage Grouse - Sage grouse are found in foothills, plains, and mountain slopes where sagebrush 

is present and the habitat contains a mixture of sagebrush, meadows, and aspen in close proximity. 

Winter habitat containing palatable sagebrush probably is the most limited seasonal habitat in some areas 

(NatureServe 2011). While this habitat type and sage grouse are known to occur on the Deschutes 

National Forest, this habitat type does not occur within the project area or the Crescent Ranger District. 

Implementation of any alternative would have “No Impact” on the western sage grouse. 

Yellow Rail - From information gathered over the last ten years, nesting habitat for the yellow rail in 

Oregon has been described as marshes or wet meadows which have an abundance of thin-leaved sedges, a 

layer of senescent vegetation to conceal their nests, and an average water depth of seven centimeters

(Popper 2001). Winter habitat is thought to occur along the California coast although more research is 

needed to confirm this (Popper 2001). A very small breeding population of yellow rails (2-7 pairs 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 108 of 528

annually) is known to occur on Big Marsh outside the project area on the Crescent Ranger District based 

on information gathered since 1997 (Popper 2004). NatureServe gives this species a state ranking of S1B 

– Critically Imperiled –Breeding. There is no marsh habitat present in the Rim-Paunina project area and 

therefore implementation of any alternative would have “No Impact” on the yellow rail. 

North American Wolverine - In December 2010 the North American wolverine in the contiguous 

United States was determined by the USFWS to be a distinct population and warranted to be listed but 

precluded by higher priority actions. The North American wolverine was added to their list of candidate 

species (Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 239/Tuesday December 14, 2010, pp. 78030-78061) threatened 

primarily by loss of habitat due to the impact of climate change on their alpine habitats. The North 

American wolverine was also designated a Management Indicator Species for the Deschutes National 

Forest (USDA 1990). NatureServe (2011) gives them a state ranking of S1 – Critically Imperiled.

The wolverine is the largest terrestrial member of the mustelid family with males weighing 26 to 40 

pounds and females 17 to 26 pounds. Wolverines are opportunistic feeders consuming a variety of foods 

depending on availability. Primarily a scavenger rather than a hunter, the wolverine forages where 

carrion can be found (Ruggiero 1994). In addition to carrion they will also prey on small animals and 

birds and eat fruits, berries, and insects. Wolverines occupy a wide variety of habitats from the arctic 

tundra to coniferous forest. The most common habitats are those that contain a high diversity of 

microhabitats and high prey populations. Copeland (2007) described wolverine habitat in the contiguous 

United States as consisting of small, isolated “islands” of high-elevation, alpine habitats containing 

sufficient snow depth during the denning period, separated from each other by low valleys of unsuitable 

habitats. Wolverines occupy habitat in a high elevation band from 6,888 feet to 8,528 feet in the 

mountains of the lower 48 states (Federal Register/ Vol. 73, No. 48/ Tuesday, March 11, 2008). The 

intervening valleys in this area range from 3,198 feet to 4,920 feet and are unsuitable for long-term 

wolverine habitat because they do not have the snow conditions or other habitat features required by 

wolverines (Aubry et al. 2007 in Federal Register/ Vol. 73, No. 48/ Tuesday, March 11, 2008). High 

elevation alpine wilderness areas appear to be preferred in summer, which tend to effectively separate 

most wolverine and human interactions. Aubry et al. (2007) reported that virtually all of the wolverine 

records located in the Pacific states were within or near alpine areas. The essential component of 

wolverine habitat may be isolation and the total absence of disturbance by humans (Ruggiero 1994). 

However, Copeland et al. (2007) reported unmaintained winter roads used for snowmobile access to 

trapping sites in the study area were frequently used for travel by wolverines. 

The most critical and limiting habitat for wolverines seems to be acceptable natal denning habitat. 

Magoun and Copeland (1998) described two types of dens used by wolverines: natal and maternal. Natal 

dens are used during parturition17 and occur more commonly in subalpine cirque basins associated with 

boulder talus slopes. Maternal dens are used subsequent to natal dens and before weaning occurs. They 

consist of a complex of dens associated with boulders or fallen trees. Magoun and Copeland (1998) 

believe that a critical feature of wolverine denning habitat is the dependability of deep snow to persist 

through the denning period of February through May with at least one meter of snow depth. 

Home ranges for adult wolverines tend to be large ranging from 38.5 square miles to 348 square miles 

(Banci 1994 in Federal Register Doc. 03-26475). Copeland (1996) radio collared wolverines in Idaho and 

reported annual home ranges of resident adult females averaged 148 square miles and an average of 588 

square miles for resident adult males. Aubry et al. (2007) compiled verifiable and documented records of 

wolverine occurrences and suggest that the historical distribution of wolverines in the Cascade Mountains 

and Sierra Nevada was disjunct, contradicting previous interpretations. Current records (1995-2005) are 

limited to north-central Washington, northern and central Idaho, western Montana, and northwestern 

 

17 The action or process of giving birth. Merriam-Webster 2012
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 109 of 528

Wyoming (Aubry et al. 2007). A recent observation with photographs indicates wolverines are still 

present in California (Zielinski, pers. comm. 2008). Aubrey et al. (2007) found no current records in 

Oregon despite concerted efforts to obtain verifiable evidence of wolverine occurrence using remote 

cameras, bait stations, and helicopter surveys in many areas of the Pacific states. However, five verifiable 

records of wolverine presence in Oregon were documented from 1961 to 1994 (Aubry et al. 2007). In the 

late winter early spring of 2011, researchers confirmed the presence of three wolverines using trail 

cameras and tracks in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Eagle Cap Wilderness of northeastern 

Oregon (ODFW Report 2011). 

Wolverine denning habitat for the Deschutes National Forest was modeled using alpine dry, alpine 

meadow, glacier and rock talus lands with aspects of 320-120 degrees and clipped to areas above 5500 

feet. A total of 1664 acres were mapped, generally in small, disjunct areas extending from Tolo Mountain 

at the south end of the Crescent District northward including areas on Cowhorn Mountain, Diamond 

Peak, Paulina Peak, Broken Top, South Sister, Middle Sister, North Sister, Black Crater, Mt. 

Washington, Three Finger Jack, and Mt. Jefferson. While the Rim-Paunina planning area contains some 

high elevation lands to 7,063 feet at the top of Walker Rim, it is not defined as alpine or subalpine habitat

nor does it have talus slopes. Aubry et al. (2007) reported that virtually all of the wolverine records 

located in the Pacific states were within or near alpine areas. While there is potential for wolverines to 

travel through the area it is unlikely due to more remote habitats available along the crest of the Cascade 

Mountains. Implementation of the Rim-Paunina project would have “No Impact” to the North American 

wolverine and would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest.

Pygmy Rabbit - Pygmy rabbits typically occur in dense stands of big sagebrush growing in deep loose 

soils and NatureServe (2011) gives them a state ranking of S2 – ‘Imperiled.’ This habitat type does not 

occur within the project area. The selection and implementation of any alternative would have “No 

Impact” on the pygmy rabbit.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat - This bat species typically utilizes caves and mine tunnels for its maternity 

and hibernation colonies. They roost almost exclusively in cavities, both in human-made structures 

(buildings, bridges, and mines) and caves (Christy and West 1993). They are extremely sensitive to 

disturbance while roosting, because they hang directly from the ceiling of the roost and do not go into 

torpor (temporary hibernation) during the day in summer colonies (Barbour and Davis 1969 and Dalquist 

1948 cited in Christy and West 1993). Perkins and Levesque (1987) estimated the Oregon population at 

2,300-2,600 bats and Gaines (1997 cited in NatureServe 2008) estimated 3,000-5,000 individuals in 

Oregon. The species range extends from southwestern British Columbia, western Washington, western 

and central Oregon, and northwestern and west-central California. NatureServe (2011) gives them a 

status of S2, ‘Imperiled’ in the state of Oregon. The greatest threat to the species is vandalism and 

disturbance by humans. Disturbance of a nursery colony or a hibernating group is likely to cause the bats 

to abandon the site and move to an alternate roost. An additional threat is blockage of cave/mine 

entrances through collapse or human activities (NatureServe 2009). 

There are no known caves or mines on the Crescent Ranger District (L. Hickerson, pers. comm. 2008)

and there are no documented reports of Townsend’s big-eared bats occurring on the district. The 

selection and implementation of any alternative would have “No Impact” on the Townsend’s big-eared 

bat and would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest.

Silver-Bordered Fritillary – This butterfly has a holarctic range extending from northern Canada 

southward into the United States and as far south as New Mexico (NatureServe 2008). While the species 

is common and widespread in northeastern Washington and northern Idaho, colonies are extremely local 

and isolated southward, and are particularly vulnerable to local extinctions. Only two primary colonies 

are found in Oregon; one at Big Summit Prairie on the Ochoco National Forest and one in the Strawberry 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 110 of 528

Mountains Wilderness on the Malheur National Forest (Miller and Hammond 2007). Suitable habitat for 

this species is described as mostly wet meadows, marshes, bogs, and more open parts of shrubbier 

wetlands (NatureServe 2011, Miller and Hammond 2007). This species is dependent on the maintenance 

of open and wet meadow habitats (Miller and Hammond 2007). Food sources for the adults include 

nectar sources such as composite flowers, including goldenrod and black-eyed susans (Opler et al. 2006). 

Eggs are laid singly near host plants and caterpillar hosts are violets including Viola glabella and Viola 

nephrophylla (Opler et al. 2006). NatureServe (2011) lists the Oregon state ranking as S2-‘Imperiled.’ 

Limited wet meadow habitat is present in the Five Mile Draw drainage near Rim-Paunina Unit 20 and 

east of the Two Rivers North subdivision near Unit 205. No treatments would occur in the wet meadows 

therefore, the selection and implementation of any alternative would have “No Impact” to the silverbordered fritillary. 

Northern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus luecocephalus), R6 Sensitive, Management Indicator Species

The northern bald eagle was officially de-listed as a federal threatened species on August 8, 2007. The 

Federal Register (Vol. 72, No. 130/Monday July 30, 2007) stated the bald eagle has made a dramatic 

resurgence from the brink of extinction. The banning of DDT, coupled with cooperative conservation 

efforts of the Service, States, other Federal agencies, non-government organizations, and individuals, 

have all contributed to the recovery of our National symbol. While the bald eagle has been de-listed they 

are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. This law provides for the 

protection of bald eagles and the golden eagle by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, 

offer to sell, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, dead or alive, including any part, 

nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (2007) has prepared Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to help landowners, land managers, and 

others to meet the intent of this Act. In addition, monitoring of selected bald eagle nest sites would 

continue to occur including sites on national forest system lands. 

The northern bald eagle was selected as a management indicator species for the Deschutes National 

Forest. Certain river or lake locations on the Forest are extremely important as feeding sites during the 

reproductive, fall and winter periods. Most bald eagles are sensitive to human disturbance during these 

time periods. Over-mature ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forest is preferentially selected for nesting or 

winter-roosting habitat. The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 

also provides direction for the management of habitat through the designation of Bald Eagle Management 

Areas (BEMAs). Management direction in the LRMP for BEMAs permits pre-commercial thinning and 

timber harvest to achieve eagle habitat objectives. In catastrophic situations, all efforts are to be made to 

protect or create suitable eagle habitat (Deschutes LRMP M3-4, 5, 6, 7 page 4-94). It also calls for 

protection of all existing nest, roost, and perch trees which are defined as 110 feet in height and 40 inches 

or greater in diameter (Deschutes LRMP M3-11, 12, page 4-95). The DLRMP (4-19) states the target 

bald eagle population is 35-45 pairs. The current population level is 49 pair territories on the Deschutes 

National Forest which exceeds the target level (Programmatic BA, USDA 2010).

Ecology -A detailed account of bald eagle habitat requirements can be found in the Pacific Bald Eagle 

Recovery Plan (USDI 1986). Bald eagle nesting territories are normally associated with lakes, reservoirs, 

or rivers. Nests are usually located in large conifers in uneven-aged, multi-storied stands with old-growth 

components (Anthony et al. 1982). Nest trees usually provide an unobstructed view of the associated 

body of water. Live, mature trees with deformed tops are often selected for nesting. East of the Cascade 

Mountains in Oregon, bald eagles prefer nesting in ponderosa pine trees that average 46 inches in 

diameter (range 21-76 inches) and tend to be larger than the surrounding trees (Anthony et al. 1982). 

Existing Condition -There are currently 17 bald eagle nesting territories on the Crescent Ranger District 

located adjacent to Odell Lake, Crescent Lake, Davis Lake, and the Crescent District side of Wickiup 

Reservoir. There are no bald eagle nests, roosts, nor any designated Bald Eagle Management Areas
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 111 of 528

(BEMAs) within the Rim-Paunina project area. The nearest BEMA is located approximately ten miles to 

the northwest of the project area on the east side of Crescent Lake. Wildlife observational records list 

only one incidental observation of a bald eagle in the project area. The lack of records would be 

consistent with the lack of large water bodies with a food base capable of supporting a nesting pair. 

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives and Determination

Because there are no bald eagle nests, roosts, or BEMAs within the Rim-Paunina project area, the 

selection of any alternative would no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to bald eagles. The 

combination of actions proposed for Rim-Paunina would result in a determination of “No Impact” to the 

bald eagle and consequently have no cumulative effects. Project implementation would also not 

contribute to a negative trend in viability for the bald eagle on the Deschutes National Forest.

Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), R6 Sensitive, Management Indicator Species

Ecology: The Lewis’ woodpecker is a medium-sized bird that relies on flycatching during the spring and 

summer and stored mast and fruits in the fall (Marshall et al. 2003). It breeds in low numbers in open 

habitats along eastern Oregon rivers and stream valleys including the lower Deschutes River. The species 

is most common in open habitats (e.g. burns) in and near Cascade forests. Wisdom (2000) reported that 

burned ponderosa pine forest created by stand-replacing fires provide highly productive habitats as 

compared to unburned pine. Lewis’ are aerial insectivores and Linder and Anderson (1998) suggested the 

main priorities for habitat use are perch availability, open canopy and a brushy understory. They winter 

in oak savannah habitats (Marshall et al. 2003) and the nearest wintering areas to the Rim-Paunina project 

would be located in southwest Oregon near Medford and Roseburg. Lewis’ Woodpeckers are not 

considered strong cavity excavators but require large snags in an advanced stage of decay that are easier 

to excavate. Lewis’ woodpeckers would also use old cavities created by other woodpeckers. Forty-two 

percent of the nest trees on the eastern edge of the Mt. Hood National Forest were in ponderosa pine 

(typically snags) and 43 percent were in living and declining Oregon white oak. The mean diameter of 

nest trees was 26 inches and mean nest tree height was 41 feet (Marshall et al. 2003). Haggard and 

Gaines (2001) determined that the Lewis’ woodpecker was most abundant in low snag density stands 

within a stand replacement fire study conducted on the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington. 

Marshall et al. (2003) reports the species is declining throughout its range possibly due to loss of suitable 

habitat, competition for nest holes, and the effects of pesticides. NatureServe lists the Oregon state 

ranking as S2S3B – ‘Imperiled/Vulnerable Breeding.’

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to map suitable nesting habitat defined as open forested stands 

with less than 40 percent canopy in the dry ponderosa pine PAGs with trees equal to or greater than 15-20 

inch diameter. There is an estimated 1,041 acres of mostly consolidated nesting habitat on National 

Forest System lands in the extreme southeast corner of the planning area. This figure accounts for all past 

and present timber sales, natural events such as wildfires, and any other habitat altering activity including 

the construction of roads over the last four to five decades. The number of acres of habitat in the analysis 

area is primarily due to most ponderosa pine stands being densely stocked and not providing the more 

open forest this species prefers for nesting. Habitat acreage is likely on an increasing trend over the last 

decade or two as commercial and small-diameter tree cutting has reduced tree density and combined with 

prescribed underburning to lower canopy cover levels. Existing district wildlife sighting records show 

two observations of Lewis’ woodpeckers in or adjacent to the project area with one on Walker Rim and 

the other on the Gilchrist State Forest near the Deschutes National Forest boundary east of Highway 97. 

Outside the project area nesting Lewis’ woodpeckers have been confirmed within the 21,000 acre Davis 

Fire area east of Davis Lake and near Wickiup Reservoir on the Crescent District. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 112 of 528

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A –No Action

As shown in Table 29 the selection of this alternative would result in a reduction of nesting habitat from a 

current 1,041 acres to a projected 632 acres in 2018 and additional decrease to 334 acres by 2058. This is 

the result of no silvicultural or fuels treatments to reduce tree stem density and canopy cover in ponderosa 

pine stands to less than 40 percent defined as nesting habitat. The lack of treatments would directly 

correlate into reduced Lewis’ woodpecker presence in the planning area. If large-scale disturbance events 

occurred such as wildfire, beetle outbreaks, or tree diseases, the negative impacts could be reversed 

depending on scale within the ponderosa pine plant associations. 

Table 29 displays projected modeling of Lewis’ woodpecker nesting habitat in the planning area by 

alternative for years 2018 and 2058. The year 2018 represents the expected completion of all actions 

associated with the Rim-Paunina project and 2058 represents vegetation and habitat changes 40 years 

after Rim-Paunina implementation assuming no further treatments are conducted in the planning area. 

Table 29. Acres and Percentage of Projected Lewis’ Woodpecker Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area Post 

Harvest (2018) and Projected For Year 2058 Expressed in Acres and as a Percentage (1,041 Acres Currently 

Suitable or 3 Percent of the Planning Area) 

Modeled Year Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

2018 632 (2%) 1,309 (3%) 1,241 (3%) 1,182 (3%) 1,281 (3%)

2058 334 (1%) 1,211 (3%) 1,131 (3%) 1,090 (3%) 1,244 (4%)

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, D, and E)

All action alternatives would include a combination of commercial thinning harvests and small tree

thinning less than eight inches in diameter. Fuel treatments including prescribed underburning would also 

occur within ponderosa pine stands with burning taking place in the spring or fall months depending on 

appropriate weather conditions. The combination of actions would have the capability to increase nesting 

habitat suitability by reducing canopy cover in the ponderosa pine dominated stands below the 40 percent 

level modeled as suitable nesting habitat. In addition, thinning treatments would accelerate the diameter 

growth of smaller ponderosa pine into trees and future snags into the size class this species appear to 

require having benefits well into the future. 

While there are differences in the amount of acreage proposed for thinning and burning, each action 

alternative results in an increasing amount of nesting habitat in the planning area as shown in Table 29. 

The modeling also showed the action alternatives are very similar to each other in nesting acreage with 

less than 154 acres difference between the action alternatives for years 2018 and 2058. Viable modeling 

indicates by 2018 when the Rim-Paunina project is expected to be completed, all action alternatives show 

almost double the amount of nesting habitat compared to Alternative A. For the year 2058 modeling 

shows all action alternatives would more than triple nesting habitat acreage for Lewis’ woodpeckers 

compared to 2058 with the no action alternative. This is a result of the proposed treatments and to a 

minor degree some stands that have grown into suitability by the year 2058. The table also shows a small 

reduction in suitable nesting acreage in for each alternative from 2018 to 2058. This is the result of 

increasing tree growth and canopy cover exceeding 40 percent in forested stands across the planning area, 

though nesting acreage is greater than the no action alternative. All modeling assumes no further 

treatments would occur in the planning area until 2058. 

Prescribed underburning proposed ranges from 8,506 acres (Alternative B), 12,762 acres (Alternatives C 

and D) and 13,491 acres (Alternative E). The burning would reduce shrub density and its distribution 

within each unit, affecting the Lewis’ woodpecker which is positively associated with a brushy shrub 

understory for insect production. It is also expected that maintenance burns would occur on the same 

acreage on an 8-15 year rotation. A minimum 15 percent of each treatment unit would remain unburned 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 113 of 528

in a mosaic pattern providing shrub cover of bitterbrush, ceanothus, and manzanita for insect production. 

Because Alternative B proposes the least amount of prescribed burning it would provide the greatest 

nesting habitat benefit of the four action alternatives. This is the result of increased retention of shrub 

cover though all action alternatives would have greater benefits than the no action alternative. 

While harvest operations associated with timber sales may require limited snag felling for safety 

considerations during temporary road construction and placement of log landings, overall snag removal 

would be very minimal based on past timber sales and temporary road building projects. Project Design 

Features have been incorporated to limit snag felling and the loss of snags during prescribed burning 

operations. This strategy would be consistent with the recommendations in the Landbird Conservation 

Strategies for the East-Slope Cascades (Altman 2000) for the retention of greater than one ponderosa pine 

snag per acre greater than 40 feet tall and 30 inches in diameter and an open overstory with a mean 

canopy cover less than 40 percent in those areas where this size snag is present. While timber harvest and 

spring underburning have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of Lewis’ woodpeckers this is considered a 

short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. 

Because not all of expected activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, 

undisturbed nesting habitat would be still be available for the species across suitable nesting habitat in the 

project area. 

Determination 

Timber harvest and prescribed underburning if conducted in the spring may result in limited disturbance 

to individuals or nesting pairs and a reduction in shrub cover. However, with mitigation measures in 

place for snag retention and unthinned/unburned patches with native shrubs left intact in each treatment 

unit, over the short- and long-term each action alternative is projected to result in a substantial increase in 

nesting habitat in the Rim-Paunina planning area. Therefore, project implementation of Alternative B, C, 

D, or E would result in a determination of “Beneficial Impact” to the Lewis’ woodpecker. Because there 

is an improving habitat trend in the Little Walker watershed when added to the 141,773 acres of nesting 

habitat on the Deschutes National Forest, there is also an increasing viability trend for the Lewis’ 

woodpecker. 

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 was reviewed for projects that overlap in time and space and have the same zone of influence. 

The zone of influence was defined as the 40,000 acre Rim-Paunina project area because of the species 

relatively small home range. There are approximately 106 acres of private land in the planning area 

although it unlikely to provide habitat for this species because the acreage is within a rural housing 

subdivision and the large diameter trees needed by Lewis’ woodpeckers are not present. There are no 

projects that overlap with the Rim-Paunina planning area, therefore no potential for additive cumulative 

effects. 

White-Headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), R6 Sensitive, Management Indicator Species

Ecology - The white-headed woodpecker is a medium sized bird and unique because of striking plumage 

with a mostly white head with males having a red patch on the nape. They are a resident of montane 

forests from southern interior British Columbia south through central Washington, northern Idaho, east 

and southwest Oregon, north and central California, and the eastern edge of central Nevada to the 

mountains of southern California (Marshall et al. 2003). The presence of old growth pine is thought to be 

important to white-headed woodpeckers. Larger diameter ponderosa and sugar pine trees provide bark 

crevices for the invertebrate prey of white-headed woodpeckers and are also good cone producers. 

During the winter months white-headed woodpeckers rely on seeds from ponderosa pine and sugar pine. 

Old-growth stands also have greater densities of the large-diameter snags that white-headed woodpeckers 

appear to select for nesting (Frenzel 2002). He also reported that the presence of sugar pine may be 

important at high elevation sites as an alternate food source. They usually excavate nest cavities in snags, 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 114 of 528

but other recorded substrates include stumps, leaning logs, and the dead tops of live trees. Frenzel’s study 

area on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests (2002) determined that nest trees ranged from 23.6 to 

118.1 cm (9-46 inches) with an average diameter of 27 inches and 89 percent of the nest trees were in 

ponderosa pine. He also measured canopy closure at the nest tree which ranged from 0 percent to 57 

percent with a mean of 13 percent. 

Frenzel (2002) concluded population recruitment for this woodpecker was insufficient to offset mortality 

in his study areas on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests. He also reported that shrub growth and 

increased understory tree densities from fire suppression may be factors affecting levels of mammalian 

nest predation and vulnerability of adults to avian predation. Marshall et al. (2003) stated the long-term 

stability of this woodpecker in Oregon and Washington appears to rest with reversing the declining health 

of ponderosa pine forest. NatureServe (2011) lists the Oregon state ranking as S2S3 –

‘Imperiled/Vulnerable.’ 

The Viable Ecosystem model estimated there are approximately 1,090 acres of ponderosa pine, white fir, 

and Shasta red fir plant associations with the presence of ponderosa pine greater than 20 inch diameter 

with an open canopy condition defined as suitable nesting habitat for this species. This figure accounts 

for all past and present timber sales, natural events such as wildfires, and any other habitat altering 

activity including the construction of roads to access forested stands over the last four to five decades. 

The suitable nesting habitat in the project area is located on National Forest System lands in the very 

southeastern portion east of Highway 97 near the base of Walker Rim and closely overlaps with Lewis’ 

woodpecker habitat. Smaller patches of white-headed woodpecker habitat are also present at the far 

southwestern end of the planning area one to two miles south of the Two Rivers North housing 

subdivision. Suitable nesting habitat in the project area is likely on an increasing trend over the last 

fifteen years due to commercial and small-diameter tree cutting to reduce tree density and combined with 

prescribed underburning. These actions have lowered overall canopy cover closer to what the species 

prefers and also reduced the amount of bitterbrush and small diameter down wood in ponderosa pine 

stands for small mammals that prey on white-headed woodpecker nestlings. District records do not show 

any known white-headed woodpecker nests but do include nine observations of white-headed 

woodpeckers between the base of Walker Rim and Highway 97. Figure 6 shows modeled white-headed 

woodpecker nesting habitat using green tree data from Viable and where snags greater than 20 inches 

diameter exceed 0.5 snags/acre (30% tolerance interval from DecAID). 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 115 of 528

Figure 6. White-headed Woodpecker Nesting Habitat Modeled using Green Tree Data (Viable) that 

Overlaps with DecAID Snag Data 

Table 30. displays the range of tolerance intervals based on snag levels taken from DecAID. At the zero 

percent tolerance interval, 408 acres (37%) percent of the 1,090 acres of modeled current nesting habitat 

do not have any snags greater than 20 inches dbh. At the 0-30 percent tolerance interval, 574 acres (53%) 

are showing snag densities that meet or exceed 0.5 snags/acre greater than 20 inches dbh. At the 30-50

percent tolerance interval, only 68 acres are showing snag densities that meet or exceed 0.5-1.8 snags/acre 

greater than 20 inches dbh. For the greater than 50-80 percent and 80+ percent levels, there are only 40 

acres modeled as having enough snags greater than 20 inches dbh (1.8-3.8 snags/acre for 50-80% and 

greater than 3.8 snags/acre for 80+%) capable of supporting a higher proportion of the population. 

However, as previously mentioned, white-headed woodpeckers are known to use stumps, leaning logs, 

and dead portions of live trees (dead tops, dead limbs, etc.) as nesting substrate in addition to snag habitat. 

Project Design Features in Chapter 2 disclose the limited circumstances where snag felling may occur. 

Prescribed burn plans developed after timber harvest activities are completed may include a request to 

create additional snags from burning where snags are currently limited. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 116 of 528

Table 30. Tolerance Intervals for the White-headed Woodpeckers 

White-headed 

Woodpecker 

1,090 Acres

Density of Snags ≥ 20" dbh 

by tolerance interval

Tolerance Interval 0% 0-30% 30-50% 50-80% 80%+

Density (#/hectare) 0 0-1.2 1.2-4.5 4.5-9.4 9.4+

Density (#/acre) 0 0.5 0.5-1.8 1.8-3.8 3.8+

% of Habitat 37% 53% 6% 3% 0%

Acres 408 574 68 38 2

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A –No Action

Viable habitat modeling conducted for this alternative as shown in Table 31 displays a steady depletion of 

white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat in the planning area from the present to the 2018 and 2058 time 

periods. The year 2018 was selected for modeling purposes to represent when any action alternative 

would be fully implemented and 2058 to represent 40 years post-harvest. The depletion of nesting habitat 

is the result of no tree cutting and/or underburning to reduce tree densities and canopy cover below 40 

percent modeled as nesting habitat. This would result in reduced white-headed woodpecker presence in 

the planning area and reduced annual population recruitment because nest predation would likely increase 

in the absence of prescribed burning to control shrub growth. Increased white-headed woodpecker

predation by raptors is also likely because increasing tree densities would limit the woodpeckers’ ability 

to see raptors from greater distances. If large-scale disturbance events occurred such as wildfire, beetle 

outbreaks or tree diseases, the negative impacts could be reversed depending on scale within the 

ponderosa pine plant associations. 

Table 31 displays projected modeling of white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat in the planning area by 

alternative for years 2018 and 2058. The year 2018 represents the expected completion of all actions 

associated with the Rim-Paunina project and 2058 represents vegetation and habitat changes 40 years 

after implementation. Modeling also assumes no further treatments are conducted in the planning area 

through 2058.

Table 31. Acres and Percentage of Projected White-Headed Woodpecker Nesting Habitat in the Planning 

Area Post Harvest (2018) and Projected for Year 2058 Expressed in Acres and as a Percentage (1,090 Acres 

Currently Suitable or 3 Percent of the Planning Area) 

Modeled Year Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

2018 786 (2%) 1,643 (4%) 1,565 (4%) 1,487 (4%) 1,700 (4%)

2058 424 (1%) 1,803 (5%) 1,697 (4%) 1,602 (4%) 1,745 (4%)

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, D, and E)

All action alternatives would conduct a combination of commercial thinning harvests and small diameter 

thinning less than eight inches in diameter, reducing canopy cover in the ponderosa pine dominated stands 

below the 40 percent level modeled as suitable nesting habitat. In addition, thinning treatments would 

accelerate the diameter growth of smaller ponderosa pine into trees and future snags of the size class this 

species appears to require, having benefits well into the future. The planned fuels treatments with 

prescribed underburning would likely occur in the spring or fall months depending on appropriate weather 

conditions. It is also expected that maintenance burns would occur on the same acreage on an 8-15 year 

rotation. The burning would help reduce small tree and shrub density within each treatment unit 

benefitting white-headed woodpeckers by increasing their sight distance of avian predators. It would 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 117 of 528

reduce the amount of shrubs and small diameter wood that provides habitat for small mammals such as 

ground squirrels and chipmunks known to predate on white-headed woodpecker nestlings. As shown in 

Table 31, this combination of activities would have the capability to improve existing nesting habitat in 

the short- and long-term (years 2018 and 2058) compared to Alternative A though the differences 

between action alternatives are less than several hundred acres for both 2018 and 2058. 

Project Design Features have been incorporated into the project for the protection of existing snags during 

timber harvest operations and prescribed underburning treatments although some very limited snag felling 

may be required for safety considerations in the placement of temporary roads and log landings. This 

design feature would be consistent with the recommendations by Altman (2000) in the Landbird 

Conservation Strategies for the East-Slope Cascades and white-headed woodpeckers that ponderosa pine 

stands have at least ten trees per acre, at least 21 inch diameter, of which two should be greater than 31 

inches. There should also be at least 1.4 snags per acre, at least eight inches in diameter, with 50 percent 

having decay and an overall mean canopy closure of 10-40 percent. 

Timber harvest and spring underburning have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of white-headed 

woodpeckers. This is considered a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur 

during the spring nesting season. Because not all of expected activities would occur at the same time over 

the entire project area, undisturbed nesting habitat would be still be available for the species across 

suitable nesting habitat in the project area. 

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Effects

As shown in Table 31, modeling for Alternative B indicates this alternative would result in the second 

highest amount of white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat by 2018 and the highest amount as projected 

out to 2058. This is due to the amount of commercial thinning and prescribed underburning planned 

within ponderosa pine dominated stands that maintain canopy cover below the modeled 40 percent level 

defined as nesting habitat. Planned small diameter thinning to accelerate tree growth and reduce stand 

density would also result in increasing nesting habitat by 2058 and has been incorporated into the nesting 

acres displayed in Table 31. .

Determination

Nesting habitat is projected to more than double by 2018 and quadruple by 2058 compared to the no 

action alternative. Therefore, the combination of short- and long-term habitat improvement would result 

in a determination of “Beneficial Impact” for the white-headed woodpecker. Because there is an 

improving habitat trend in the Little Walker watershed when added to the 198,330 acres of nesting habitat 

on the Deschutes National Forest, there is also an increasing viability trend for the white-headed 

woodpecker. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Effects

As shown in Table 31, modeling for Alternative C indicates this alternative would result in the third 

highest amount of white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat for 2018 and 2058 of the four action 

alternatives. Similar to Alternative B, this is due to the amount of commercial thinning and prescribed 

underburning planned within ponderosa pine dominated stands that maintain canopy cover below the 

modeled 40 percent level defined as nesting habitat. Planned small diameter thinning to accelerate tree 

growth and reduce stand density would also result in increasing nesting habitat by 2058 and has been 

incorporated into the nesting acres displayed in Table 31. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 118 of 528

Determination

Nesting habitat is projected to almost double by 2018 and quadruples by 2058 compared to the no action 

alternative. Therefore, the combination of short- and long-term habitat improvement would result in a 

determination of “Beneficial Impact” for the white-headed woodpecker. Because there is an improving 

habitat rend in the Little Walker watershed when added to the 198,330 acres of nesting habitat on the 

Deschutes National Forest, there is also an increasing viability trend for the white-headed woodpecker. 

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Effects

As shown in Table 31, modeling for Alternative D indicates this alternative would result in the fewest 

acres of white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat projected for 2018 and 2058 of the four action 

alternatives. Similar to Alternative B, this is due to the amount of commercial thinning and prescribed 

underburning planned within ponderosa pine dominated stands that maintain canopy cover below the 

modeled 40 percent level defined as nesting habitat. Planned small diameter thinning to accelerate tree 

growth and reduce stand density would also result in increasing nesting habitat by 2058 and has been 

incorporated into the nesting acres displayed in Table 31. The planned 778 acres of group selection cuts 

in heavy mistletoe infected stands also contribute to the reduced increase in nesting habitat for the whiteheaded woodpecker for both 2018 and 2058. 

Determination

In spite of having the fewest acres of nesting acres projected for 2018 and 2058, there would still be an 

increase of 701 acres of nesting habitat (89 percent increase from the current level) by 2018 and an almost 

quadrupling of nesting acreage by 2058 as compared to the no-action alternative. Therefore, the 

combination of short- and long-term habitat improvement would result in a determination of “Beneficial 

Impact” for the white-headed woodpecker. Because there is an improving habitat trend in the Little 

Walker watershed when added to the 198,330 acres of nesting habitat on the Deschutes National Forest, 

there is also an increasing viability trend for the white-headed woodpecker. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Effects

As shown in Table 31, modeling for Alternative E indicates this alternative would result in the highest 

amount of white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat by 2018 and the second highest amount modeled for 

2058. This is due to the amount of commercial thinning and prescribed underburning planned within 

ponderosa pine dominated stands that maintain canopy cover below the modeled 40 percent level defined 

as nesting habitat. Planned small diameter thinning to accelerate tree growth and reduce stand density 

would also result in increasing nesting habitat by 2058 and has been incorporated into the nesting acres 

displayed in Table 31.

Determination

Because Alternative E proposes the greatest amount of treatments it would also provide the greatest 

benefit to the species, though all four alternatives would result in a vast improvement in suitable nesting 

habitat compared to the no action alternative. Nesting habitat is projected to more than double by 2018 

and quadruple by 2058 compared to the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the combination of short- and 

long-term habitat improvement would result in a determination of “Beneficial Impact” for the whiteheaded woodpecker. Because there is an improving habitat rend in the Little Walker watershed when 

added to the 198,330 acres of nesting habitat on the Deschutes National Forest, there is also an increasing 

viability trend for the white-headed woodpecker. 

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 was reviewed for projects that overlap in time and space with the same zone of influence as 

Rim-Paunina. The zone of influence was defined as the 40,000 acre Rim-Paunina project area because of 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 119 of 528

the species relatively small home range. There are approximately 106 acres of private land in the 

planning area although it unlikely to provide habitat for this species because the acreage is within a rural 

housing subdivision and the large diameter trees needed by white-headed woodpeckers are not present. 

There are no projects that overlap with the Rim-Paunina planning area, therefore no potential for additive 

cumulative effects. 

Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma articum crateris), R6 Sensitive

Ecology - “The Crater Lake tightcoil may be found in perennially wet situations in mature conifer forests, 

among rushes, mosses and other surface vegetation or under rocks and woody debris within 10 meters of 

open water in wetlands, springs, seeps, and riparian areas, generally in areas which remain under snow for 

long periods of time during the winter. Riparian habitats in the eastern Oregon Cascades may be limited 

to the extent of permanent surface moisture, which is often less than 10 meters from open water” (Duncan 

et al. 2003). Threats to the species include activities that compact soils, reduce litter and/or vegetative 

cover, or impact potential food sources. NatureServe lists the Oregon status of the Crater Lake tightcoil 

as S1-Critically Imperiled. 

Existing Condition - Due to the well draining pumice soils on the Crescent Ranger District, areas that 

retain permanent surface moisture are limited to very narrow margins along the edge of springs, seeps, or 

streams. As of October, 2011, there is only one confirmed Crater Lake tightcoil population on the 

Crescent District, located in 1999 near the confluence of Princess Creek and Odell Lake outside the RimPaunina project area. Perennially wet habitat in the Rim-Paunina project area is limited to several 

unnamed springs east of the Two Rivers North subdivision, several small ponds (<1/20 acre) in the Five 

Mile Draw drainage between Highways 58 and 97, a spring near Forest Road 9751 in the southern part of 

the project area and Boundary Springs in the very northeastern part of the project area. Surveys adjacent 

to these wetlands have not been conducted for the species. 

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Project Design Features (see Chapter 2) prohibit the burning and tree cutting within the perennially wet 

areas of proposed treatment units. With this feature in place there would no disturbance of potential 

habitat. Therefore, the selection and implementation of any alternative would have “No Impact” to the 

Crater Lake tightcoil. Because there are no identified direct or indirect effects there would also be no 

cumulative effects.

Johnson’s Hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni), R6 Sensitive

Ecology - The Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly is found from southwest British Columbia southward into 

the Coast Ranges to San Francisco in California; south in the Cascades and Sierra Nevada to Yosemite 

and also in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. In Oregon its ranking is listed as S2, ‘Imperiled’, very 

rare, or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range (NatureServe 2011).

Suitable habitat for this species is described as coniferous forests, especially old growth (Opler et al. 

2006) and old growth coniferous forests with red firs, western hemlocks, or gray pines on which its 

parasitic (mistletoe) hosts grows (NatureServe 2011). Johnson’s hairstreak is believed to feed generally 

on all dwarf mistletoe species throughout its range, and to perhaps specialize on locally available dwarf 

mistletoes in specific localities (Miller per comm. 2008 cited by Schmitt and Spiegel 2008). Miller and 

Hammond (2007) describe suitable habitat as almost identical to the northern spotted owl except the 

butterfly does not occur south of central California. The caterpillar food plant is western dwarf mistletoe. 

Adults find nectar on low growing plants such as whitethorn ceanothus and Mt. Hood Pussypaws 

(NatureServe 2011 and USDA, NRCS 2008). Miller and Hammond (2007) described management 

practices to benefit this species need to promote the maintenance of mature and old-growth conifers at 

middle to low elevations on the west slope of the Cascade Mountains and Coast Range.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 120 of 528

Opler et al. (2006) shows Johnson’s hairstreak documentation for western and central Oregon plus the 

Blue Mountains in northeastern Oregon. The species is suspected to occur on the Deschutes National 

Forest but currently there is no confirmed documentation. A survey protocol was released in April 2010 

(Davis et al.) and formal surveys using the protocol were conducted on the Deschutes National Forest 

during the summer of 2010. Larvae were collected from dwarf mistletoe from the Crescent Ranger 

District; however, species identification determined the larvae were not Johnson hairstreak. Because the 

species is closely associated with dwarf mistletoe which is widespread in the planning area, the Johnson’s 

hairstreak is assumed to occur. Schmitt and Spiegel (2008) state that claims of dwarf mistletoes occurring 

solely in old growth or are dependent upon old growth are erroneous. Dwarf mistletoes generally 

increase in incidence and intensity in older stands, although even young stands readily host dwarf 

mistletoes and maturing stands may be severely infected if they have been continually infected by a 

residual overstory. They also state that in the absence of recent large scale disturbance, dwarf mistletoe 

infestation levels can occur in early, mid, and late successional stands. Incidental observations within the 

40,000 acre project indicate dwarf mistletoe is very common and infection is assumed to be present in all 

seral stage classes which could serve as a host for the caterpillar. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A – No Action

The selection of this alternative would result in no immediate effect to Johnson’s hairstreak because no 

vegetation management actions would occur to reduce mistletoe infection. While this butterfly has yet to 

be confirmed on the Crescent District, potentially suitable habitat would be maintained based on the 

widespread presence of dwarf mistletoe in all plant associations across the 40,000 acre project area. Over 

decades, the older and largest diameter trees may eventually weaken from severe mistletoe infections and 

succumb to beetle attacks and/or drought. However, until the trees’ death, the infection would continue to 

spread to the understory trees and perpetuate the life cycle of mistletoe while at the same time providing 

habitat for the Johnson’s hairstreak. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, D, and E)

The selection of any action alternative would result in the commercial thinning, small diameter thinning, 

and prescribed underburning of forested stands that include trees infected with western dwarf mistletoe. 

These actions would reduce but not eradicate mistletoe presence in the 40,000 acre project area. 

Consequently, mistletoe infection would continue to exist within actively treated stands, as well as 

forested stands not selected for treatment. Similar mitigation measures for the retention of no-treatment 

areas and the incorporation of shrub retention patches within prescribed burn units would be applied for 

all action alternatives.

These actions would be consistent with recommendations from Miller and Hammond (2007) that 

promoting the maintenance of mature and old-growth conifer forests would benefit this species. 

Prescribed underburning would occur on ponderosa pine dominated stands and may result in the reduction 

of host plants such as ceanothus and pussypaws within burn units. Each prescribed burn is required to 

have a site-specific plan and Project Design Features listed in Chapter 2 would require the retention of 

unburned patches including acreage with shrubs and forbs. Monitoring has shown these requirements to 

be generally effective, given changing environmental conditions. Usually 30-40 percent of each burn 

unit’s shrub cover would be left untreated for big game browse, nesting cover for birds, and as host plants 

for butterflies. These actions would continue to maintain the presence of mistletoe infection and host 

plants widely distributed across the entire 40,000 acre area. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 121 of 528

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Effects 

A total of 12,036 acres are proposed for commercial thinning and non-commercial (small diameter) 

thinning in ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine stands. Within the thinning acreage, 8,506 acres would 

also have prescribed burns applied on ponderosa pine dominated stands. This alternative would have the 

least effect on mistletoe infected trees and potential Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly habitat because it 

proposes the least amount of treatment acreage.

Determination

While mitigation measures and Project Design Features are in place for the retention of unburned patches 

of shrub habitat and 15-25 percent no harvest treatment acreage for each thinning unit, mistletoe infected 

trees and butterfly host plants would be removed through thinning and burning and could potentially be 

occupied by the butterflies or their larvae. However, because of the widespread occurrence of mistletoe 

within the project area, it is assumed species presence would still be maintained with this alternative. 

Based on these assumptions, the determination is “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not 

likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species” for the Johnson’s hairstreak. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This alternative would conduct commercial and small diameter thinning on 9,792 acres plus prescribe 

brush mastication and underburning on an additional 3,780 acres, and thin small diameter trees, prune 

limbs, and apply prescribed burning on 1,205 acres for a total of 14,777 acres of treatments. The effects 

described in common for all action alternatives would apply although on greater acreage compared to 

Alternative B. 

Determination

While mitigation measures and Project Design Features are in place for the retention of unburned patches 

of shrub habitat and 15-25 percent no harvest treatment acreage for each thinning unit, mistletoe infected 

trees and butterfly host plants would be removed through thinning and burning and could potentially be 

occupied by the butterflies or their larvae. However, because of the widespread occurrence of mistletoe 

within the project area, it is assumed species presence would still be maintained with this alternative. 

Based on these assumptions, the determination is “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not 

likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species” for the Johnson’s hairstreak. 

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Implementation of this alternative uses the same units and would result in the same amount of acreage 

treated as Alternative C. The major difference is that Alternative D would place greater emphasis on 

treating the most heavily infected mistletoe stands of ponderosa pine. Within the 9,792 acres of 

commercial thinning and small diameter thinning proposed, approximately 800 acres of group selection 

cuts would occur creating small two to five acre openings, and including the removal of trees over 21 

inches in diameter. The openings would be placed in those stands most impacted by mistletoe primarily 

in the Crescent Butte subwatershed at the north end of the planning area. Some openings would also be 

created in the North Paunina and Little Walker subwatersheds on either side of Highway 97. Because this 

alternative would selectively target mistletoe, impacts to butterfly host plants and food sources would be 

greater in this alternative than Alternative C that proposes the same units and acreage but does not create 

openings. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- TES

Page 122 of 528

Determination

Similar to the other action alternatives, mitigation measures and Project Design Features are in place for 

the retention of unburned patches of shrub habitat and 15-25 percent no harvest treatment acreage for 

each thinning unit, that would still maintain mistletoe infected trees and butterfly host plants across the 

planning area but at a reduced level compared to Alternatives B and C. Based on these assumptions, the 

determination is “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend 

toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” for the Johnson’s 

hairstreak. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The selection of this alternative proposes the greatest amount of commercial thinning, small diameter 

thinning, and prescribed underburning of the four action alternatives. A total of 11,236 acres of thinning 

would occur in addition to 3,780 acres of brush mastication followed by prescribed fire, and an additional 

1,205 acres of thinning small diameter trees, pruning of limbs and application of prescribed fire. This 

would result in a total of 16,221 acres of treatments on the 40,000 acre planning area. Similar to 

Alternative D, mistletoe control is a desired objective and approximately 1,921 of the most heavily 

infected stands of ponderosa pine with mistletoe would experience an alternative treatment. On the 1,921

acres all the trees under 21 inches diameter would be removed and those over 21 inches could be targeted 

for induced mortality through prescribed burning, blasting or topping the mistletoe infected portion of the 

tree. Post-treatment planting of ponderosa and/or sugar pine seedlings would occur to develop into future 

late and old structure forest. Because this alternative proposes the highest amount of thinning and 

prescribed burning of the four action alternatives, it would also have the greatest potential for mistletoe 

removal and impact on host plants and food sources for the butterfly. 

Determination

Similar to the other action alternatives, mitigation measures and Project Design Features are in place for 

the retention of unburned patches of shrub habitat and 15-25 percent no harvest treatment acreage for 

each thinning unit, that would still maintain mistletoe infected trees and butterfly host plants across the 

planning area but at a reduced level compared to Alternatives B, C, and D. Based on these assumptions, 

the determination is “May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend 

toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species” for the Johnson’s 

hairstreak. 

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 was reviewed for project actions that have a similar zone of influence and overlap in time and 

space as the Rim-Paunina vegetation management project. There are no projects in the table that overlap 

in time and space with Rim-Paunina, therefore additive cumulative effects are not anticipated to occur. 

The approximately 106 acres of private land acreage within the planning area is within the Two Rivers 

North rural housing subdivision. It is currently unknown how much private land acreage of lodgepole 

pine may be infected with mistletoe or if Johnson’s hairstreak is present on those lands. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 123 of 528

Management Indicator Species

During the preparation of the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 

LRMP 1990), a group of wildlife species were identified as Management Indicator Species (MIS). 

Certain wildlife species have been identified in the Deschutes National Forest Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Land and Resource Management Plan (EIS) and selected as MIS because their 

populations are believed to be influenced by forest management activities. They were chosen because 

they: (1) are designated as Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive on Federal or Oregon state 

lists, or; (2) have special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management 

activities, or; (3) are popular for hunting or trapping, or; (4) are nongame species of special interest, or; 

(5) indicate the effects of management for other species within major biological communities (EIS 1990. 

3-14). The MIS species welfare can be used as an indicator of other species dependent upon similar 

habitat conditions. Indicator species can also be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a 

wide range of other wildlife with similar habitat requirements. The species listed in Table 32 were

selected for the Deschutes National Forest.

Table 32. Deschutes National Forest Management Indicator Species and Presence within the Analysis Area

Species Habitat Indicator For Species 

Present 

Habitat 

Present

Northern Goshawk

Open forests with a mosaic 

of large trees, snags and 

down wood suitable for 

foraging, nesting and postfledgling areas. Unforested 

habitats

Dense Mature and Old 

Growth Ponderosa Pine, 

also Lodgepole Pine, 

Mixed-Conifer Forests

(Biological Community 

Barometer Species)

Yes Yes

American Marten

Mixed conifer and high 

elevation hemlock/lodgepole 

pine late-successional forests

Dense, Multi-Layered, 

Mature, and Old Growth 

Forest, also Lodgepole 

Pine and Mtn. Hemlock 

Forests

(Biological Community 

Barometer Species)

Yes Yes

Cooper’s Hawk

Deciduous and mixed 

conifer forest, open 

woodlands and riparian 

woodlands. Found in large 

forests, but more likely to 

occur near forest edges and 

clearings near lakes and 

streams

Dense Forest Species Yes Yes

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Deciduous and mixed 

conifer forest, open 

woodlands and riparian 

woodlands. Found in large 

forests, but more likely to 

occur near forest edges and 

clearings near lakes and 

streams

Dense Forest Species Yes Yes

Red-tail Hawk Large trees in mixed habitat Non-Game Species of 

Special Interest Yes Yes
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 124 of 528

Species Habitat Indicator For Species 

Present 

Habitat 

Present

Great Gray Owl

Mature to old growth 

coniferous and mixed 

conifer/lodgepole pine 

forests adjacent to opening 

in forests, usually meadows

Edge Species Yes Yes

Osprey Nests within 2 miles of fish 

baring bodies of water

Non-Game Species of 

Special Interest No No

Waterfowl Lakes, Ponds, Streams, Wet 

Meadows

Popular for Hunting or 

viewing No No

Golden Eagle Elevated nest sites in open 

country

Non-Game Species of 

Special Interest No No

Great Blue Heron Estuaries, Streams, Marshes, 

Lakes Riparian Species No No

Northern Bald Eagle 

(See TES)

Lakeside, Reservoirs, Large 

Trees TES Yes Yes

Northern Spotted Owl 

(See TES)

Late and old-structured 

Mixed conifer forest TES No No

American Peregrine 

Falcon (See TES) Cliffs and Riparian TES Not Documented No

Wolverine 

(See TES)

Mixed forests, High 

elevations TES Not Documented Yes

Townsend’s Big-eared 

(See TES)

Roost sites in building, caves 

and bridges TES Not Documented No

Mule Deer

Mosaic of early, forageproducing stages and later, 

cover-forming stages of 

forests, i.e. conifer, 

ponderosa pine, lodgepole 

pine and mixed 

ponderosa/lodgepole pine 

forest with shrub understory, 

in close proximity

Popular for Hunting 

or viewing Yes Yes

Elk

Mosaic of early, forageproducing stages and later, 

cover-forming stages of 

forests, in close proximity

Popular for Hunting 

or viewing Yes Yes

Woodpecker Guild

Lewis’ Woodpecker 

(See TES)

Open woodland habitat near 

water

TES

(Snags) Yes Yes

Red-naped Sapsucker

(See BCC)

Pine/aspen forests with 

riparian habitat Snags Yes Yes

White-headed 

Woodpecker 

(See TES)

Open ponderosa pine or 

mixed-conifer forests 

dominated by ponderosa 

pine. Densities increase in 

large diameter or old-growth 

sites.

TES

(Snags) Yes Yes

Black-backed 

Woodpecker

Conifer forests including 

ponderosa pine, lodgepole 

pine, Douglas -fir/mixed 

conifer with high 

proportions of dead trees

Snags Yes Yes
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 125 of 528

Species Habitat Indicator For Species 

Present 

Habitat 

Present

Three-toed 

Woodpecker

Lodgepole pine, mixedconifer, Douglas -fir/mixed 

conifer forests at high 

elevations

Mature and Old Growth 

Lodgepole Pine Forest, 

also Forests with 

Engelmann Spruce or 

Mtn. Hemlock

(Biological Community 

Barometer Species)

Yes Yes

Hairy Woodpecker

Mixed-conifer and 

ponderosa pine forests 

adjacent to deciduous stands

Snags Yes Yes

Downy Woodpecker

Aspen stands with riparian 

habitat, Less common in 

mixed conifer and ponderosa 

pine forests

Snags Yes Yes

Williamson’s 

Sapsucker

Mid- to high-elevation 

mature or old-growth conifer 

forests with fairly open 

canopy cover

Snags Yes Yes

Northern Flicker

Open forests and forests 

edges adjacent to open 

country, Terrestrial habitats

Snags Yes Yes

Effects to the northern bald eagle, northern spotted owl, American peregrine falcon, wolverine, whiteheaded and Lewis’s woodpeckers, and Townsend’s big-eared bat are discussed in the Proposed, 

Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species section, also in this Chapter. The red-naped sapsucker is 

discussed in the Birds of Conservation Concern section, also in this Chapter. All other species are

discussed within this MIS section.

Raptor Nesting Seasons

The Deschutes National Forest Plan provides Standards and Guidelines specifying the following periods 

for limiting disturbance to nesting golden eagle, osprey and red-tailed hawk (DLRMP, WL-3) as shown in 

Table 33. The nesting periods for the remaining species are the commonly accepted dates used by the 

Deschutes National Forest. 

Table 33. Nesting Period for Raptors 

Species Nesting Period

Cooper’s Hawk April 1-August 31

Golden Eagle February 1-July 31

Northern Goshawk March 1-August 31

Osprey April 1- August 31

Red-Tailed Hawk March 1- August 31

Sharp-shinned Hawk April 15-August 31

MIS Assumptions

Project activities from the Three Trails OHV EIS may alter the quality, effectiveness, and 

distribution of wildlife habitat available to some management indicator species in the planning 

area. For the Rim-Paunina analysis area, it is assumed the Three Trails OHV management 

activities have been or are in the process of being completed. For example, road closures are 

already in effect, OHV trails are constructed or are in the process of being constructed, and 

rehabilitation of designated roads have been completed or are in the process. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 126 of 528

No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Rim-Paunina project although 

temporary roads would be constructed and then returned to hydrological conditions after the 

completion of all project actions.

The wildlife sightings discussed in the following sections came from random observations while 

conducting other forest management activities and from species specific surveys as noted. There 

can be considerable overlap of habitat for some species based on the habitat definitions used to 

model acres of habitat. 

Wildlife sightings are from observers whose wildlife identification skills range from limited to 

experienced. Thus, some wildlife sightings may be incorrectly identified skewing total 

observation detections of species. 

All vegetation Historic Range of Variability (HRV) information within the MIS section was taken 

from the Forest Vegetation section in Chapter 3. This includes descriptions of historic and 

current vegetation data and affects of activity units on vegetation, insect, and disease. All fire 

related information within the MIS section was taken from the Fire and Fuels section in Chapter 

3. This includes discussion on historic and current fire regimes and events, as well as how 

activity units affect the landscape, insect, and disease. 

For the Rim-Paunina vegetation project, the snag and down wood analysis area is the Deschutes 

National Forest portion of the Little Walker Mountain watershed; approximately 80,000 acres. 

The Rim-Paunina project analysis of species habitat is 40,000 acres, with habitat projected to

change over time in response to proposed treatments. Change would be most evident after year 

2018, when it is approximated that all project implementation of activity units would be 

completed. After year 2018, forest vegetation would begin to react to treatments, with the 

resultant growth potentially changing species habitat.

Northern Goshawk

Ecology

The northern goshawk is the largest member of the accipiter family and is distributed across most of 

Canada, the northern and western United States, and into Mexico. Reynolds et al. (1978) located 

goshawk nests in Oregon from 580 meters elevation on the west slopes of the Cascades to 1,860 meters. 

Reynolds et al. (1992) stated preferred nest stands have a minimum of 40 percent canopy cover and the 

nest sites within these stands have greater than 60 percent canopy cover. Greenwald et al. (2005) 

reviewed goshawk nesting data and found that a majority of studies found a selection for stands with 

greater than 40 percent canopy as suitable goshawk nesting habitat. Vegetation plot data collected from 

Deschutes National Forest goshawk nest sites showed canopy cover ranging from 49-94 percent (USDA 

1993). For these reasons, nesting habitat is thought to be the limiting factor when looking for a habitat. 

Foraging areas are typically 4,900-5,900 acres, comprised of a forest mosaic that must support a wide 

range of suitable prey including ground dwellers or those occurring near the forest floor (e.g. ground 

squirrels, birds, small mammals (Marshall et al. 2003)). 

Wisdom et al. (2000) listed several issues, strategies, and management practices pertaining to northern 

goshawks in the Interior Columbia Basin assessment. There have been large transitions from shadeintolerant to shade-tolerant tree species leading to possible unsustainable conditions of old forests 

resulting from fire exclusion. This has resulted in an increased susceptibility to stand-replacing fires. 

Wisdom also stated that long-term maintenance of foraging areas is as important for successful 

reproduction as protection of the immediate nest stand. To address these issues he recommends a variety 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 127 of 528

of cover types and structural stages within the home range of each active nest. Management practices that 

would assist in habitat risk reduction include thinning and fuels reduction activities (i.e. prescribed fire, 

mastication, pruning, limbing, small diameter tree thinning). These practices encourage the development 

of forest openings, shrub openings, shade-intolerant and fire-, insect-, and disease resistant tree species, 

and reduce fuel loading.

Reynolds et al. (1982) found northern goshawks commonly nested in trees with deformities caused by 

dwarf mistletoe in eastern Oregon. The mistletoe induced deformities (e.g. witches brooms, doubled 

trunks, or heavy foliage) were used as nesting structures. Although some of the changes induced by 

mistletoe infestation on ponderosa or lodgepole pine stands benefits a variety of wildlife, over time, 

mistletoe related changes can be detrimental to some goshawk prey species, and are not desirable in postfledging family and foraging areas (Schmitt 1996). Severely infected stands may cease developing and 

not develop into late and old structure. Schmitt (1996) and Reynolds et al. (1983) suggest management 

recommendations for developing desired future conditions would include sanitation thinning treatments. 

The risk of stand replacement fire is much greater in severely-infected stands and should be a primary 

concern where wildlife use values are high (Schmitt 1996).

Sauer et al. (1996 cited in Wisdom et al. 2000) determined that breeding bird survey data for goshawk

was insufficient to determine population trends for any state or physiographic region within the Interior 

Columbia River Basin because of low detection rates. However, sufficient data was available to indicate 

a stable trend in numbers between the years 1966-1995 for western North America. Breeding bird 

surveys provided insufficient data to determine population trends within any state or physiographic 

province in the Interior Columbia Basin. The Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center maintains a 

list of the most current information available on the distribution and abundance of animals native to 

Oregon. For the state of Oregon, they rank the northern goshawk population in Oregon as S3, 

‘Vulnerable’, but nationally they are demonstrably wide-spread, abundant, and secure, or G5 

(NatureServe 2011).

For the Deschutes National Forest northern goshawk observation records, there are a total of 381 

detections and 113 recorded nests. From this total, the Crescent Ranger District wildlife records show 96 

observations of northern goshawks and 12 nest sites. However, 18 of the ninety-six observations 

occurred since 2000. In addition, two of twelve nest sites were observed since 2000; one in 2010 and the 

other in 2001. Goshawk surveys, using recorded adult alarm calls and wailing calls, have occurred in the 

Little Walker Mountain watershed since 2001 with the exception of 2002, due to overlap with BLT 

surveys. Surveys conducted in 2008 confirmed one additional northern goshawk response on Walker 

Rim. Other wildlife surveys conducted in 2010 resulted in the location of a goshawk nest occupied by a 

female adult and three juveniles on Cappy Mountain in the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, outside the

Rim-Paunina planning area. As of January 2012, no known nests have been documented in the project 

area. There are nine documented observations of northern goshawk in the Little Walker Watershed for 

the Crescent Ranger District section. Northern goshawk observation points are scattered on the west side 

of Highway 97 and in the Walker Rim area. 

Existing Condition

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to determine an estimated acreage of potentially suitable goshawk 

nesting habitat (Figure 7). The nesting definition used was lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and mixedconifer Plant Association Groups (PAGs), with tree diameters greater than nine inches, and having an 

estimated closed canopy of 40-55 percent for lodgepole pine, 25-40 percent for ponderosa pine, and 25-55 

percent for mixed-conifer. Canopy cover greater than the threshold percentages for all three PAGs is 

more sought after by goshawks. Potential nesting habitat is scattered across the project area with 

concentrations on Walker Rim and in the central portion. Modeling may overestimate actual nesting 

habitat available. For the Deschutes National Forest, potential nesting habitat was modeled resulting in 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 128 of 528

446,402 acres. This nesting habitat is scattered in lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and mixed-conifer 

PAG types across the three districts. 

For the Rim-Paunina project area, the modeling datasets used for canopy closure class, stand structure 

class, PAG, and species are from 2009. All timber sales, fuel reduction activities, natural disturbance 

events such as wildfire, and vegetation activities on private lands within the Rim-Paunina analysis area 

were included in this information. All activities that occurred after 2004 and their potential incremental 

effects within the Rim-Paunina area are discussed further in the cumulative effects section. 

Figure 7. Potential Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat based on the Viable Ecosystem Model 

The Rim Paunina project area encompasses 13 percent of the Crescent Ranger District. The project area 

is predominantly dense lodgepole forest (43 percent), with 33 percent of the project acres in ponderosa 

pine, and 27 percent in mixed-conifer. With fire suppression and past harvest practices (i.e. clear cutting 

in response to mountain pine beetle attacks, subsequent salvage harvests, and commercial thinning), these 

three PAG types have exceeded the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) in some structural stages. What 

once was dominated by open multi-story or open single-story forests has been replaced with dense multistory ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and mixed-conifer forests. Early fire suppression shifted the 

historic fire regime, creating fewer low intensity fires needed to naturally thin these PAG types (see Fire 

and Fuels Chapter 3). High tree densities increase the risk of beetle infestation, mistletoe infection, and 

fire events. These events can cause wide-scale morality on the landscape, reducing nesting and foraging 

habitat for northern goshawks.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 129 of 528

Potential suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat was modeled resulting in an estimated 7,350 acres, 

within the Rim-Paunina project area using the Viable Ecosystem Model. This habitat is scattered across 

the project area, with a large concentration on Walker Rim and in the south central area. The modeled 

nesting habitat is predominantly within ponderosa pine (4,412 acres - 60 percent) and mixed-conifer, 

(2,598 acres - 35 percent) PAG types. For project analysis, goshawk nesting habitat is the limiting factor 

for modeling, because potential foraging habitat is located in the both dense and open lodgepole pine, 

ponderosa pine, and mixed-conifer stands found throughout the entire project area. While the estimated 

nesting habitat acreage seems low, current vegetation conditions within the Rim-Paunina project area are 

above HRV. Increasing tree density levels are causing dense multi-story forests, providing increased

goshawk nesting habitat that did not exist historically.

Current forest structure in the Rim-Paunina project area is at least partially the result of decades of fire 

suppression. This has resulted in an increase in closed canopy stands with a dense lodgepole or conifer 

understory which may not be as valuable for goshawks as the more open stands that occurred previously. 

Furthermore, the stands have increased mistletoe infection and pine beetle infestation. Reynolds et al. 

(1992 cited in Wisdom 2000) found a high density of small diameter trees may be detrimental to foraging 

and nesting aspects of goshawk ecology in at least three ways: (1) by obstructing flight corridors used by 

goshawks to obtain forest-associated prey; (2) by suppressing tree growth needed to produce large 

diameter trees for nest sites; and (3) by reducing the growth of an herbaceous understory that supports 

potential prey species. Mistletoe infection slows down tree growth producing dwarfed trees that may not 

have the structure to support nests, can make quality trees more susceptible to insect infestation, or may 

eventually kill the host tree. By not treating the infected trees, the mistletoe would spread to other trees, 

reducing quality habitat. Likewise, beetle infestation kills trees, usually those with a larger diameter, 

reducing the amount of quality trees and overstory needed to support optimal nesting habitat.

Table 34 summarizes the effects of proposed management activities to existing goshawk habitat in the 

Rim Paunina project area by alternative. The ‘Acres Remaining’ column is assumed potential nesting 

habitat acres once project implementation is completed in 2018. Alternative E for goshawk hawk treats 

the most habitat acres with project implementation. The percent difference between all action alternatives 

is nominal, except for Alternative B. Alternative B proposed actions treat the least amount of habitat in

returning existing conditions in the Rim-Paunina project area to HRV, focusing on ponderosa pine PAG 

types.

Table 34. Acres of Potential Goshawk Nesting Habitat within the Rim Paunina Project Area (National Forest 

System Lands only)

Alternative

Goshawk Nesting Habitat Acres

PreTreatmentAcres 

Treated*

Acres 

Remaining

A 7,350 0

7,350

(100%)

B 7,350 2,598 

(35%)

4,752

(65%)

C 7,350 3,833 

(52%)

3,517

(48%)

D 7,350 3,833

(52%)

3,517

(48%)

E 7,350 3,977 

(54%)

3,373

(46%)

*Acres Treated Are Potential Foraging Habitat
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 130 of 528

The Rim-Paunina project existing condition also includes a 660 foot disturbance zone on all roads and 

motorized routes. The 660 foot disturbance zone represents existing and potential disturbance from 

vehicle use on roads and motorized routes (Forman et al. 2003). The assumption is disturbance would 

continue to effect habitat within the road effect zone (200 meters (~660ft) each side of roads or motorized 

trails; Forman et al. 2003). Decreased habitat quality, reduced reproductive potential, and avoidance of 

the roads and motorized routes effect zones are potential effects as a result of habitat alteration physically 

or due to disturbance. Table 35 shows the amount of undisturbed and disturbed nesting habitat within the 

project boundaries. In comparing action alternatives, there is minimal difference between nesting acres 

within or outside the disturbance zone, even over time. The acres of habitat inside the disturbance zone 

might be unsuitable nesting habitat, but could be suitable for foraging habitat. Alternatives C and D 

management activities result in the most potential nesting habitat over time. Alternative C has the most in 

2018 and Alternative D has the most in 2058. However, the change in the amount of acres is nominal 

when compared across action alternatives. 

Table 35. Acres of Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat in Undisturbed and Disturbed Zones for the RimPaunina Project Area

Inside Disturbed Zone Outside Disturbed Zone

Year

Alternative 2018 2058 2018 2058

A

4,610 15,734 4,379 12,621

51% 55% 49% 45%

B

3,532 13,312 3,794 10,855

48% 55% 52% 45%

C

3,616 13,703 3,823 11,454

49% 54% 51% 46%

D

3,544 13,837 3,736 11,534

49% 55% 51% 45%

E

3,356 13,271 2,575 11,029

57% 55% 43% 45%

Gunnison National Forest Travel Management Plan, USDA (2001) and Hamann et al. (1999) suggested in 

their literature reviews of motorized disturbance on raptors section that sensitivity occurs near nest sites 

and mainly effects eggs or young, resulting in nest and young abandonment as well as increased stress 

levels. Direct activities, such as noise from vehicles, could disturb these raptors during nesting and 

foraging and may negatively affect them. These species may be sensitive to prolonged OHV use adjacent 

to their nest (USDA 2001 and Hamann et al. 1999). USDA (2001) and Hamann et al. (1999) also found 

prolonged disturbance during nesting season may result in nest and young abandonment and increased 

stress levels. 

Alternatively, studies have found that walking straight to a birds’ nest (including raptors) is more 

disruptive than vehicle or OHV use (Lee 1981; Skagen 1980; Holmes et al. 1993; Burger and Gochfeld 

1998 pages 151, 220, 222 and 223; Gill et al. 1996). Specifically, a northern goshawk and Cooper’s hawk 

study, conducted by Lee (1981), found female goshawk did not show signs of agitation or flushing from 

snowmobiles until the riders stopped and got off their machines. In another observation, Lee (1981) 

found female hawks did not flush from nests when motorcycles passed by. These and other occasions are 

examples why Lee (1981) concluded hawks may become habituated to moving machines. In addition, 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 131 of 528

Lee (1981) also stated hawks may tolerate “disturbances”, hikers, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and 

horseback riders, so they can keep territories that meet resource needs.

Raptors have been known to use small two-track roads and trails that experience low use and have 

existing canopy cover on the sides as foraging habitat (Flecher at al. 1999; St. Pierre 2008). Some avian 

scavengers prefer to use these types of open areas because vegetation may hide potential predators while 

they are feeding (Skagen et al. 1991).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A – No Action

Implementation of this alternative would have no immediate direct effect on northern goshawks. 

Undiscovered pairs if present in the project area would be unaffected by vegetation management actions. 

Some levels of insect and disease can be a factor in causing tree mortality, decay, and/or deformity, which 

can be key attributes for goshawk nesting or foraging habitat (Graham et al.1999). However, in the longterm, without treatment overcrowding and competition in the ponderosa, lodgepole pine, and mixedconifer stand would lead to an increased mortality level in large diameter trees, which is evident now. 

Overcrowding conditions in these stands also elevate mistletoe infection and beetle infestations resulting 

in reduced tree vigor leading to premature tree mortality. In addition, high tree density creates spatial 

continuity within the three PAG types increasing the risk of forest replacement fires. Many forested 

stands are still at risk of catastrophic wildfire events similar to the Davis Fire, which resulted in the longterm loss of over 16,000 acres of suitable habitat. 

Alternative A would not allow for tree density thinning, reducing spatial continuity in forests, reducing 

stand competition to maintain desired late- and old structural habitats closer to historical levels across the 

project area, or improve forest health. More specific to northern goshawk habitat, under Alternative A 

tree densities would remain above HRV and would obstruct flight corridors, thus decreasing foraging 

opportunities. High tree densities can also suppress tree growth and hinder branch development both 

needed for suitable nesting structure. Alternative A presents the greatest risk of losing goshawk habitat 

due to a wide-scale disturbance event caused by beetle infestation, mistletoe infection, and/or fire events. 

The combination of these events would compound the long-term loss of northern goshawk nesting and 

foraging habitat.

Under the no action alternative, northern goshawk nesting habitat within and outside the disturbance zone 

would increase both in the short-term (2018) and long-term (2058). The current level of disturbance from 

motorized vehicles would continue within the disturbance zone, as in all action alternatives. The majority 

of roads and routes have been in place on the district for several decades and some level of habituation to 

motorized traffic may have occurred. Lee (1981) found that northern goshawk can become habituated or 

tolerate motorized vehicles in such they occupy the same territory.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Figure 8 illustrates action alternative nesting acreages growing over time as a result of expected increase 

in tree vigor from thinning, reducing overcrowded stands, fuel loading, and the probability of advancing 

stands to the next successional stages. As trees become larger and the forest density increases, more 

habitat would be available for nesting; however, there would also be an increase in the potential for a 

stand replacement event (e.g. insect, disease or fire). For year 2018, Alternatives B, D, and E all 

decreased the habitat acres when compared to the existing condition. From Table 36, Alternative E treats 

the most potential nesting habitat (3,977 acres) and, thus, provides the least amount of acres after 

implementation (5,931 acres). Alternative C treats 3,834 acres of potential nesting habitat, but provides 

the most habitat by year 2018 (7,439 acres), after implementation. In year 2058 all action alternatives 

increase the amount of projected healthy suitable habitat above the existing condition. Alternatives C and 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 132 of 528

D are projected to provide the most goshawk nesting habitat out of the action alternatives due to the 

proposed management activities. 

However, without continued treatment of stands (i.e. - fire regime or thinning), stand density would

continue to increase out to 2058, moving forests above HRV levels once again. Increased density levels 

increase the risk of beetle infestation, mistletoe infection, and fire events. With implementation of 

treatment units, activity in ponderosa pine would likely render the immediate area as unsuitable goshawk 

nesting habitat. Management activities for all action alternatives would reduce stand density and return

vegetation conditions to historic HRV levels. In the short-term, these management activities would 

reduce canopy cover under the 60 percent, noted by Reynolds et al. (1978), rendering some activity units 

unsuitable for nesting habitat, but potentially suitable for foraging. 

Figure 8. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Goshawk Nesting Habitat over Time within the RimPaunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Table 36. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Goshawk Nesting Habitat Acres over Time within the 

Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Goshawk Nesting Habitat Acres

2010 2018 2058 

A 7,350 8,989 28,355 

B 7,350 7,325 24,167 

C 7,350 7,439 25,157 

D 7,350 7,279 25,371 

E 7,350 5,931 24,300 

The proposed commercial thinning is designed to reduce stem densities and improve forest health, 

particularly in stands infected with mistletoe, infested with bark beetles, or in overall poor health, and 

would primarily remove trees less than 21 inches diameter. Post-sale treatments would include small-tree 

thinning, slash removal, mastication, and underburning where desired. This combination of effects would 

likely preclude these stands from remaining as nesting habitat in the short term because of the reduced 

canopy cover. However, the change in cover types would enhance the quality of this acreage for goshawk 

5,500

7,500

9,500

11,500

13,500

15,500

17,500

19,500

21,500

23,500

25,500

27,500

29,500

2010 2018 2058

Acres

Year

Goshawk Nesting Habitat

Alt A

Alt B

Alt C

Alt D

Alt E
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 133 of 528

foraging on the short-term level. Hargis et al. (1994 cited by Wisdom 2000) stated goshawk foraging 

occurs in various cover types and structural stages, and the juxtaposition of several habitats may enhance 

the quality of foraging habitat around nest sites. Those post-sale treatments that include low entry 

underburning would stimulate vegetation growth for prey species. In proposed activity units, snags are 

not designated for removal, except in hazardous circumstances, and coarse woody material would be 

available for goshawk prey base habitat. However, re-entry with fire would decrease vegetation growth 

and could remove possible habitat.

In addition, at least 15 percent of each proposed activity unit would be managed in a passive scenario. 

The retention of untreated acres may be capable of providing a goshawk nest stand where appropriate 

structure exists. Because well distributed nesting habitat is available to function as future replacement, 

there would be no reduction in the numbers of goshawk home ranges that can be supported across the 

analysis area. In addition, there would be no loss of Late and Old Structured habitat, because the largest 

trees would be retained, except in Alternative D. In Alternative D, due to the removal of severely 

mistletoe-infected trees over 21 inches, there would be some loss of LOS habitat (approximately 145 

acres). Within younger-aged stands, reduced competition for scarce resources as a result of thinning 

would allow the residual trees to increase their size potential. Also, management practices would 

encourage development of a more resilient forest, e.g. reducing the risk of disease, infestation, and fire 

events in nesting habitat. 

All action alternatives are consistent with recommendations by Reynolds et al. (1992) to reduce small tree 

densities to improve foraging habitat and increase the growth of residual trees. Activity units that 

maintain 40 percent and above canopy cover would convert to goshawk foraging habitat. Implementation 

of action alternatives would also contribute to a diversity of cover types and seral stages across the 

landscape needed by goshawks, as described by Wisdom et al (2000). However, post-harvest canopy 

cover in some treatment units may fall below the 40 percent level described by Reynolds et al. (1991) as 

suitable goshawk nesting habitat (e.g. ponderosa pine PAG types). 

For each action alternative, the small diameter thinning and fuels reduction activities along with the 

commercial harvest units would benefit goshawk nesting habitat by reducing small diameter trees that are 

competing with the overstory. For example, under all action alternatives, ponderosa pine stands should 

return to HRV. Proposed activity units would open a stand’s understory by removing some shrub and 

small diameter trees, thus providing space to encouraging tree growth. However, in the short-term the 

altered habitat is more conducive to goshawk foraging habitat than nesting habitat. All dead and standing 

trees would remain except for occupational safety, clearing for log landings, and temporary road 

construction. Temporary road construction for harvesting in all action alternatives would benefit the

foraging capability by providing flight lanes for prey access (Flecher at al. 1999; St. Pierre 2008). The 15 

foot clearance for these temporary roads would be sub-soiled or rehabilitated once harvesting is 

completed. 

Table 35 shows the amount of potential nesting habitat for the northern goshawk within and outside the 

disturbance zone. The potential goshawk nesting habitat acreage for all action alternatives increase over 

years 2018 and 2058 and is evenly scattered throughout the Rim-Paunina area. Decreased habitat quality, 

reduced reproductive potential, and avoidance of the roads and motorized trails effect zones are potential 

effects as a result of habitat alteration physically or due to disturbance. In all alternatives, the utilization 

of habitat for nesting within the disturbance zone may be unlikely. Science is conflicted on whether some 

habituation or tolerance occurs (Lee 1981), or whether any human disturbance, motorized or other, can 

affect the nest (USDA 2001 and Hamann et al. 1999). In summation, the projected goshawk nesting 

habitat for all action alternatives would increase over time and is evenly scattered throughout the RimPaunina area, including habitat within and outside the disturbance zone.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 134 of 528

All understory removal would result in the reduction of some habitat for goshawk prey species in the 

short term. In the long term, the understory would re-grow providing habitat for prey species again. The 

exception is where maintenance burning is prescribed on an 8-15 year cycle. Additionally, in the long 

term removing brush would open the understory enough for foraging and provide space where trees can 

grow the large limbs sought after by goshawks for nesting and roosting. 

Effects Common to Alternatives C, D, and E

For Alternatives C, D, and E, in addition to commercial and post-harvest activities, Rim-Paunina 

proposes ‘fuels only’ activity units. These units, mainly in ponderosa pine PAG types, reduce understory 

and spatial continuity through brush and slash mastication, prescribed underburning, pruning trees up to 

eight feet or 1/3 of the crown, handpiling and burning of slash, thinning trees eight inches in diameter and 

under, and maintenance burning every 8-15 years.

Effects Common to Alternatives D and E

In addition to understory and fuel treatments in activity units, Alternatives D and E propose the removal 

of severely dwarf mistletoe infected trees. Alternative D would create 2-5 acre openings on 778 acres, in 

which all infected trees, including those over 21 inches would be removed. In contrast, Alternative E 

would remove only mistletoe-infected trees less than 21 inches in diameter across 1,921 acres of the most 

severely infected stands, and would induce tree mortality on severely infected trees 21 inches and greater. 

All openings would then be replanted with ponderosa pine saplings, sugar pine, or lodgepole pine 

saplings creating patches free from dwarf mistletoe. 

These treatments within mistletoe-infected areas would minimize the cycle of dwarf mistletoe, reducing 

infection and creating a more resilient forest within the Rim-Paunina project area. In the short-term 

nesting habitat would be lost, but the 778 acres is only two percent of the project area. There would still 

be 3,833 acres (52 percent) of nesting habitat outside the activity units for Alternative D and 3,977 acres 

(54 percent) for Alternative E. In the long term, proposed mistletoe treatment areas for Alternatives D 

and E would grow back adding to nesting habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B

Implementation of this alternative would result in management activities on 2,598 acres (35 percent) of 

goshawk nesting habitat in the project area. Within this habitat, Alternative B proposes to develop, 

maintain, and enhance late- and old structured stand characteristics suitable for certain species dependent 

on ponderosa pine stands, like the white-headed woodpecker. Management actions would also include 

prescribed fire to return fire-dependent stands back to the natural state (i.e. an open, single story stand 

with little brush component). Proposed project treatments include commercial thinning of 12,036 acres in 

the Rim-Paunina project area. This treatment acreage includes 3,530 acres of slash removal without 

underburning, and 8,506 acres of prescribed underburning. Alternative B management activities would 

initially decrease potential nesting habitat within the Rim-Paunina project area, but over time habitat 

acreage would increase. Habitat not suitable for nesting would be suitable for foraging.

The treatment of 2,598 acres of the potential nesting habitat would likely have little long-term effect on 

goshawks. Goshawk nesting and foraging habitat would continue to increase over time with project 

implementation. Additionally, the majority of suitable habitat for Goshawks is outside the project area

to the west towards the crest of the Cascade Mountains.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D focus on a strategy to reduce the length of time large trees are absent from areas 

most heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe, retain decadent lodgepole pine stands, and incorporate a more 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 135 of 528

historical frequent fire regime in appropriate stands. Alternatives C and D management actions would 

also provide the most contiguous habitat acres for potential goshawk nest stands when compared to 

Alternatives B and E. Alternative C proposes habitat for MIS species that favor open ponderosa pine 

stands, like the white-head woodpecker, and those who prefer a denser multi-storied stand, like the 

northern goshawk. It also proposes to retain more decadent lodgepole pine stands that would provide 

habitat both in the short and long-term. Both Alternatives C and D propose 9,792 acres of commercial

timber harvest, 2,244 acres less than Alternative B and 1,444 acres less than Alternative E, in the project 

area. Implementation of these alternatives would result in management activities in 3,833 acres (52 

percent) of goshawk nesting habitat in the project area. 

Through management actions of Alternatives C and D, 48 percent of the potentially suitable nesting 

habitat would be maintained in its current condition. Additively, Alternative C proposes passivemanaged patches greater than the standard 15 percent in ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine treatment 

units and fewer acres of commercial thinning. These would provide more contiguous suitable habitat for 

goshawks, black-backed woodpeckers, marten, and big game and keep a canopy cover needed for 

protection. As displayed in Table 34, these alternatives show an increasing amount of suitable nesting 

habitat by 2058 in comparison to the no-action alternative. Because of the well distributed existing and 

future potential nesting habitat, there would be no reduction in the numbers of goshawk home ranges that 

can be supported across the analysis area. 

While several thousand acres of fuels treatments are proposed in Alternatives C and D, this fuels 

reduction would not negatively affect the ability of goshawks to nests in these stands. The fuels treatment 

units would still function as goshawk nesting habitat post harvest, because only the smaller diameter trees 

and some brush component would be removed. There would likely be little change in the overstory 

canopy cover and goshawk nesting capability would be maintained. A minimum of 15 to 20 percent of 

each harvest unit (silvicultural or fuels) would be retained in its present condition and provide goshawk 

nest structure where suitable. In the long-term, canopy cover would increase and return to a level suitable 

for nesting (greater than 40 percent), as shown in Table 36. 

Alternative D proposes creating 2-5 acre openings in the most severely mistletoe-infected stands, then 

planting pine seedlings in the openings. These openings include removing unhealthy infected trees over 

21 inches in diameter. The scattered openings would encompass a total of 778 acres (2 percent) of the 

Rim-Paunina project area. In the long term, these stands would create a mosaic of various cover types 

and structural stages needed for goshawk habitat (Hargis et al. 1994 cited by Wisdom 2000). For the 

action alternatives, Alternative D would provide the most goshawk nesting habitat in year 2058 (Figure 

8).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative E

Alternative E proposes commercial harvest to reduce stem densities and improve forest health, 

particularly in stands that are infected with mistletoe, infested with bark beetles, or have overall poor 

health. This alternative defers treatment of some older and decadent lodgepole stands that are specified 

for thinning in Alternative B. This would allow for a balance of habitat for MIS species; open ponderosa 

stands for white-headed woodpecker habitat, as well as multi-story dense stands for northern goshawk 

habitat. Moreover, Alternative E would provide goshawk habitat in both the short and long-term. After 

implementation, management activities would result in 3,977 acres (54 percent) of goshawk nesting 

habitat within the project area. 

Management activities would include removal of trees less than 21 inches in 1,921 acres (5 percent of the 

project areas) of the most severely mistletoe-infected stands and induced mortality to the large diameter 

trees that are the source of the infection. For source infection trees, induced mortality would be applied. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 136 of 528

These trees would be killed, but they would remain in the project area to provide recruitment for snags. 

Removing five percent of acres within the project area that are severely infected or diseased would not 

reduce potential nesting goshawk habitat. In addition to tree removal, several thousand acres of fuel 

reduction treatment are proposed. 

While several thousand acres of fuels treatments are proposed in Alternative E, this fuels reduction would 

not negatively affect the ability of goshawks to nests in these stands. The fuels treatment units would still 

function as goshawk nesting habitat post harvest, because only the smaller diameter trees and some brush 

component would be removed. There would likely be little change in the overstory canopy cover and 

goshawk nesting capability would be maintained. A minimum of 15 to 20 percent of each harvest unit 

(silvicultural or fuels) would be retained in its present condition and provide goshawk nest structure 

where suitable. In the long-term, canopy cover would increase and return to a level suitable for nesting 

(greater than 40 percent), as shown in Table 36. 

As described for Alternative B, Alternative E vegetation management activities proposed are consistent 

with recommendations by Reynolds et al. (1992) to reduce small tree densities to improve foraging 

habitat and increase the growth of residual trees. With post-harvest, canopy cover in some treatment units 

may fall below the 40 percent level described by Reynolds et al. (1991) as suitable goshawk nesting 

habitat. These stands would be converted to foraging habitat for goshawks. Management implementation 

of Alternative E units would provide more canopy cover available for nesting goshawks as compared to 

Alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 in Chapter 2 was reviewed for past, present or future projects with potential for additive effects 

that would overlap in space and time with those of the Rim-Paunina project. The zone of influence is 

defined as the 40,000 acre Little Walker Watershed because it is a large enough area to support multiple 

home ranges. There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project area.

Goshawk habitat is generally located on federal lands in and around the project area. The combination of 

insect, disease and wildfires is expected to reduce the acreage of potential goshawk nesting habitat on the 

Deschutes National Forest. However, in the long term these actions would provide suitable habitat that 

would continue to develop, per Reynolds et al. (1992), and reduce risk of loss from a wide-scale 

disturbance. 

Project implementation is not expected to lead to a loss in pair territories in the analysis area or across the 

Crescent Ranger District. Therefore, no additive cumulative effects to the northern goshawk in general 

are projected.

Conclusion

In the state of Oregon, the northern goshawk is listed as S3 ‘Vulnerable’ through the Oregon Natural 

Heritage program, due to degradation and loss of habitat (NatureServe 2011). It is assumed, that over the 

past 6-8 years northern goshawk habitat has been affected through major fire events on the Deschutes 

National Forest. The Rim-Paunina project would result in more resilient goshawk nesting habitat, i.e. 

more resilient to infestation, disease, and fire events.

Rim-Paunina, Three Trails OHV, and the Travel Management Plan Environmental Impact Statements all 

include mitigation measures to protect and maintain raptor nesting habitat in the following ways: (1) 

seasonal restriction within a 1⁄4 mile of a known nest site, (2) 15-20 percent retention of untreated habitat 

within treated acres as well as untreated suitable nesting habitat within the project area, and (3) treating 

stands to be resilient to disturbance, such as wildfires, insect, and disease.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 137 of 528

For action Alternatives B, D, and E there is an initial decrease in nesting habitat, but over decades all 

action alternatives increase goshawk nesting habitat. Action Alternative C results in the highest projected 

acreage of available nesting habitat in year 2018, while action Alternative D results in the highest 

projected acreage of available nesting habitat in year 2058. Nest stands would be available in the blocks 

of habitat within activity units where no active management occurs (15 percent of activity unit) and in 

nesting habitat outside of activity units. Habitat outside activity units and the retained passive managed 

patches inside activity units would result in the same effects as Alternative A, the no Action Alternative. 

Alternative A, is projected to provide the most habitat through year 2058. However, without treatment, 

Alternative A has the greatest risk of losing goshawk habitat due to a wide-scale disturbance event. The 

combination of insect, disease, and fire events could lead to the long-term loss of northern goshawk 

habitat.

In the long-term, the Rim-Paunina would result in more resilient goshawk nesting habitat. 

Implementation of the action alternatives would contribute to a diversity of cover types and seral stages 

across the landscape needed by goshawks, as described by Wisdom et al. (2000). Post-harvest canopy 

cover in some treatment units may fall below the 40 percent level described by Reynolds et al. (1991) as 

suitable goshawk nesting habitat, but given time would return. Additionally, there are old growth areas 

that can provide nesting habitat throughout the duration of the Rim-Paunina project implementation. For 

the Crescent Ranger District, this positive increase would not contribute to a change in the goshawk 

population. The project area is only a 13 percent of the entire Crescent Ranger District; there is ample 

nesting habitat elsewhere on district.

Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 446,402 acres of modeled nesting habitat for 

the Northern Goshawk. This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other 

districts have overlapping project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no 

overlapping projects on district there are no accumulative effects. The project area is only a 13 percent of 

the entire Crescent Ranger District, which is only 22 percent of the Deschutes National Forest. There is 

ample nesting habitat outside the project area forest wide. For the Deschutes National Forest, the RimPaunina project would not contribute to any change in the viability of the northern goshawk.

American Marten 

Ecology

The American marten is associated with mixed conifer and high elevation hemlock/lodgepole pine latesuccessional forests. Martens use denning and resting sites more than once during the year (Raphael and 

Jones 1997). Raphael and Jones (1997) describe denning and resting sites as “refugia from predation and 

protection from thermal stress; denning sites have similar function and also offer such protection to 

young.” Gilbert et al. (1997) found that denning and resting sites were in upland forests- especially 

upland conifer and hardwood forests. Raphael and Jones (1997), in a study of lodgepole pine and 

ponderosa pine forests on the Winema National Forest, determined that marten denning sites averaged 30 

percent canopy cover. They also concluded that martens tend to select rest sites with greater canopy 

cover (mean 36 percent) when snow cover is present as compared to snow-free times (mean 27 percent 

canopy cover). Additionally, they found that for marten in Oregon, during non snow intervals, denning 

sites included 35 percent live trees, 32 percent logs and 29 percent slash piles, whereas resting sites were 

primarily both logs and slash piles (Raphael and Jones 1997). In a Spencer (1987) study, the martens 

found in trees preferred lodgepole pines. The snags and logs martens use all have intermediate levels of 

decay, with greatest use in the larger (30 inches in diameter or larger) size classes when available 

(Raphael and Jones 1997). Martens can use snags and logs as small as 21 inches for denning and 4 inches 

for resting. In snags, martens have been known to use old woodpecker nest holes (Spencer 1987). 

Other preferred habitats include riparian areas, ridge tops, and areas where high concentrations of down 

logs and snags occur (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Martens eat mostly forest rodent species (e.g. squirrels) or 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 138 of 528

riparian rodent species (e.g. voles). They also use more resting sites during the summer versus winter, for

protection and thermoregulation (Chaplin et al. 1997; Bull and Heater 2000). Complex physical structure, 

especially near the ground, helps provide foraging/hunting areas and shelter from weather and predators 

(Buskirk and Powell 1994 as cited in Ruggiero et al. 1994; Bull and Heater 2000). Raphael and Jones 

(1997) estimated male marten home ranges averaged 4,272 acres and female home ranges averaged 1,392 

acres. O’Doherty et al. (1997) noticed in their study that year-round, all the martens maintained a 

common area within their home range.

Existing Condition

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to map potential denning habitat in the analysis area (Figure 9). 

The definition used for denning habitat was lodgepole pine forests with tree diameters 10-15 inches or 

greater with dense canopy greater than or equal to 40 percent and white fir, Shasta fir, and mountain 

hemlock stands with diameters greater than 10-15 inches and a dense canopy equal to or greater than 55 

percent. This resulted in an estimated 23,843 acres of potentially suitable denning habitat. However, it is 

likely the program underestimated acres of denning habitat, because marten would use denning sites with 

canopy cover levels down to 30 percent (Raphael and Jones 1997), but the Viable Ecosystems model only 

uses one canopy cover number per Plant Association Group (PAG). Modeling this way would likely 

underestimate the denning habitat in lodgepole pine and mixed-conifer forests, but may over estimate in 

ponderosa pine forests. For lodgepole pine, 40 percent is the break between open or dense stands, for 

mixed conifer and hemlock the break is 55 percent, and for dry ponderosa pine the break between 

defining stands as open or dense is considered 25 percent. Denning habitat is scattered across the project 

area with concentrations on Walker Rim and in the western portion. For the Deschutes National Forest, 

American marten denning habitat was modeled resulting in 433,973 acres. This denning habitat is 

scattered across the three districts, mainly in mixed-conifer PAG types. For foraging habitat, modeling 

guidelines used were that martens would use habitat with tree diameters five inches or greater for 

lodgepole pine forests. The modeling datasets used for canopy closure class, stand structure class, PAG, 

and species are datasets from 2009. All timber sales, fuel reduction activities, natural disturbance events 

such as wildfire, and vegetation activities on private lands within the Rim-Paunina analysis area were 

included in this information. All activities that occurred after 2004 and their potential incremental effects 

within the Rim-Paunina area are discussed further in the cumulative effects section.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 139 of 528

Figure 9. Potential American Marten Denning Habitat based on the Viable Ecosystem and DecAID Models

Table 37. Acres of Potential American Marten Denning Habitat within the Rim--Paunina Project Area 

(National Forest System Lands Only)

American Marten Denning Habitat Acres

Alternative Pre-Treatment Acres Treated Acres Remaining

A 2,898 0

2,898

(100%)

B 2,898 855

(30%)

2,043

(70%)

C 2,898 795

(27%)

2,103

(73%)

D 2,898 795

(27%)

2,103

(73%)

E 2,898 916

(32%)

1,982

(68%)

The Crescent Ranger District conducted carnivore surveys on selected areas from 1993-1996 and again in 

1998, using bait stations, Trailmaster® cameras, and tracking plates. Numerous photographs of marten 

and tracks were recorded from these surveys. During the winter of 2010-2011, another carnivore study 

was completed using bait stations with digital game cameras. Three of the four 2010-2011 stations, 

which were outside the Rim-Paunina project area, detected American marten. These site stands were 

comprised of a multistory, open to mid understory, mixed conifer stand. District observation records list 

32 reports of marten in the Rim-Paunina analysis area, concentrated on Walker Rim and the southwest 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 140 of 528

and northwest corner of the project area. Half of the observations were located in mixed conifer forests 

(15 observations), while the others were observed in lodgepole (11 observations) and ponderosa pine (6 

observations) forests. The majority of American marten observations have been in mixed-conifer stands 

on the Crescent Ranger District.

Figure 10 and Table 38 display projections of suitable marten denning habitat by alternative over time. 

Again, this is likely an underestimated amount of denning and foraging habitat. Although habitat acres 

are projected to increase under the no-action Alternative A, the resulting stand left untreated would be 

more susceptible to infection, infestation, and fire events when compared to the action alternatives. All 

Action Alternatives acreage amounts increase over time as a result of expected increase in tree vigor from 

thinning, reducing overcrowded stands, reducing fuel loading, and the probability of advancing stands to 

the next successional stages. From Table 37 and Table 38, Alternative E treats the most potential nesting 

habitat (916 acres) and, thus, provides the least amount of acres after implementation (3,406 acres). 

Alternative C treats 795 acres of potential nesting habitat, but provides the most habitat after year 2018 

(4,018 acres), after implementation. The Rim-Paunina project area is not a high source of habitat for 

martens. Historically, the project area was comprised of predominantly open, single story, ponderosa 

pine stands with a small mixed conifer component on the upper Walker Rim. Due to over-crowding, a 

dense multi-layer canopy of ponderosa and lodgepole pine with some mix-conifer is now more common. 

However, these stands exceed HRV and are at high risk of a stand replacement event. When looking at 

marten habitat on the whole District, the Rim-Paunina project area is only 13 percent of the Crescent 

Ranger District. Additionally, the western portion of the Crescent Ranger District has higher amounts of 

dense, multi-story, mixed conifer forests that are more suitable for marten denning and foraging habitat. 

Figure 10. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Marten Denning Habitat over Time within the RimPaunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

2,500

4,000

5,500

7,000

8,500

10,000

11,500

13,000

2010 2018 2058

Acres

Year

Marten Habitat

Alt A

Alt B

Alt C

Alt D

Alt E
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 141 of 528

Table 38. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Marten Denning Habitat Acres over Time within the 

Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

American Marten Denning Habitat Acres

2010 2018 

Projection 2058 Projection

Pre-Treatment

A 2,898 4,814 12,661

B 2,898 3,475 11,284

C 2,898 4,018 11,512

D 2,898 4,016 11,506

E 2,898 3,406 11,375

The Rim-Paunina project existing condition also includes a 660 foot disturbance zone on all roads and 

motorized routes. The 660 foot disturbance zone represents existing and potential disturbance from 

vehicle use on roads and motorized routes (Forman 2000). The assumption is disturbance would continue 

to effect habitat within the road effect zone (200 meters (~660 feet) each side of roads or motorized trails; 

Forman et al. 2003). 

The 660foot disturbance zone on all roads and motorized routes, including OHV and snowmobile routes, 

for the existing condition does not affect American Marten within the Rim-Paunina project area. Claar et 

al. (1999), in Joslin and Youmans (1999) conducted a literary review of potential effects from motorized 

vehicles on wildlife in Montana, while Zielinski et al. (2007) conducted a research study about 

snowmobile and OHV effects on martens. From their review, Claar (1999) found no literature of 

recreation effects on mustelids, but did focus on mortality from trapping and habitat alteration. They 

found studies suggesting wolverine, fisher, and marten were very susceptible to overharvesting from 

trapping (Powell 1979; 1982; and Weaver 1993 in Joslin and Youmans 1999). In addition, they 

hypothesized that recreation trails, especially snowmobile trails, were used by trappers and may increase 

opportunities for trapping resulting in mortalities. They also hypothesized martens need large home 

ranges and recreational activities may contribute to habitat fragmentation resulting in isolation in 

populations (Claar et al. 1999). 

Specifically to motorized vehicle effects on martens, Claar et al. (1999) and Zielinski et al. (2007) 

suggested one reason they do not affect marten is due to daytime operational hours. Martens den or rest 

in protected shelters during the hours motorized vehicles normally operate. Burskirk (1984) and Maters 

(1980) found martens stay in resting sites for long periods of time or frequently all day. During the 

Spencer (1987) study, most martens were found in enclosed sites offering protection from predators and

weather, as well as thermoregulation during warmer months (Simon 1980 in Spencer 1987; Buskirk and

Ruggiero 1994; Raphael and Jones 1997; Bull and Heater 2000). Martens that were resting in enclosed 

sites were found to be less prone to flee from humans approaching, and those in subterranean sites never 

fled (Spencer 1987). These results further concluded in the Zielinski et al. (2007) study that the martens 

did not seem to be affected by OHV use or noise while martens were in shelters.

Table 39 depicts the denning habitat located within and outside the 660 foot disturbance zone, displayed 

by year and alternative. For either year (2018 or 2058), there is a nominal difference in undisturbed 

potential denning habitat acres between alternatives. This is the same for disturbed potential denning 

habitat. The increase in denning habitat inside and outside the disturbance zone post harvest (year 2018), 

compared to the current condition, would be a result of habitat stands growing outside of the proposed

Rim-Paunina treatment areas. Additively, for year 2058 the increase would also reflect habitat stands 

exceeding HRV, primarily in ponderosa pine PAG type.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 142 of 528

Table 39. Acres of Denning Habitat Within and Outside the 660 foot Disturbance Zone 

Inside 660 foot Buffer Outside 660 foot Buffer

Year

Alternative 2018 2058 2018 2058

A

2,063

(43%)

6,206

(49%)

2,751

(24%)

6,455

(31%)

B

1,584

(46%)

5,543

(49%)

1,891

(26%)

5,741

(24%)

C

1,718

(43%)

5,634

(46%)

2,300

(31%)

5,878

(23%)

D

1,716

(43%0

5,622

(49%)

2,300

(32%)

5,884

(23%)

E

1,557

(46%)

5,554

(49%)

1,849

(31%)

5,821

(24%)

For the state of Oregon, the Oregon State Heritage Program lists the American marten in Oregon as S3/S4 

‘Vulnerable to Apparently Secure’ (NatureServe 2011). NatureServe (2011) stated that for the American 

Marten in the Pacific Northwest, “habitat conservation measures proposed/implemented for the spotted 

owl and marbled murlet, and for riparian zones, generally are sufficient to prevent the extirpation of this 

species, but ongoing management reassessment, monitoring, and adaptive management are important”

(U.S. Forest Service et al. 1993; see also Thomas et al. 1993). In addition loss/degradation of habitat due 

to timber harvest remains a threat to martens in some areas (NatureServe 2011).

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

This alternative would have no immediate direct effect on the American Marten. In the short-term, it is 

assumed existing habitat would continue to be occupied by marten. In the long-term, because this species 

tends to select forested stands that have a dense canopy, this characteristic would indicate a greater 

susceptibility to mistletoe infection, beetle attacks, competition related mortality, and large fire events. 

Over time, there is a greater potential for some of these forested areas to lose desired denning and nesting 

character from reduced canopy cover. Conversely, younger-aged stands that have resulted from past 

management such as regeneration harvest or those that were thinned have the future capability to develop 

into suitable denning and nesting habitat. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

In Wyoming, California, and Montana marten have been found utilizing dwarf mistletoe shoots as a food 

source and the brooms as nesting sites or hiding cover (Spencer 1987). However, modeling and district 

records show their main area of use is in mixed conifer, with some use in lodgepole stands. The known 

mistletoe-infected sites within the project area are primarily in ponderosa pine stands, so there would be 

little marten foraging, denning, or hiding use within the infected stands.

The Viable Ecosystem Model estimated there are 2,898 acres of marten denning habitat in the project 

area. This is based on tree size classes and appropriate Plant Association Groups typically used for 

denning. The amount of modeled habitat for marten utilization is likely an underestimation for the RimPaunina project area. Martens can use denning sites with canopy cover levels down to 30 percent 

(Raphael and Jones 1997) and forests with lodgepole pine components with tree diameters five inches or 

greater with dense canopy. The model only mapped habitat in forests with tree diameters of 10 inches or 

greater, thus underrepresenting habitat in lodgepole forests. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 143 of 528

Table 40 displays the range of tolerance intervals based on snag levels taken from DecAID. Figure 9

depicts both the Viable modeled denning habitat and snags, within the 30-80 plus percent tolerance 

intervals (see Table 40) that overlap providing the highest suitable denning habitat. Essentially, a 

tolerance level below 30 percent (0-2.8 snags per acre greater than 20 inches in diameter) is habitat that is 

less suitable for species use than acreage that supports higher levels of snag densities, which is 30 percent 

and higher with above 80 percent being the most suitable. 

Of the 2,898 acres of current modeled denning habitat, 1,767 acres (61 percent) does not have snags

greater than 20 inches in dbh and is unlikely to support denning females. For the 0 to 30 percent 

tolerance interval, there are 976 acres (34 percent of modeled habitat) of which there are 0 to 2.8 snags 

per acre that are 20 inches in dbh and larger. This snag density could support denning females, though it 

is not as likely as higher tolerance intervals. At the 30 to 50 percent tolerance interval, 134 acres (5 

percent of modeled habitat) meets or exceeds the DecAID snag densities of 2.8-7.7 snags per acre, which 

is required for suitable denning habitat (Mellen-McLean 2009). For the 50 to 80 percent tolerance level, 

21 acres (1 percent of modeled habitat) exceeds the required, 7.7-15.2 snags per acre, resulting in a higher 

likelihood denning females would use the current modeled habitat. There are no snags which fall in the 

80 plus percent tolerance interval of the modeled denning habitat. For the existing condition, the majority 

of modeled snag denning habitat falls within the tolerance level which is not as likely to support denning 

females. 

However, this is likely an underestimation of snag levels in denning habitat because data used to model 

snag tolerance levels within the project area are not current. It is assumed there has been snag recruitment 

since the data was captured and since the data was modeled for the Rim-Paunina project area analysis. 

Additionally, martens utilize other structures for denning habitat, not just snags. Raphael and Jones 

(1997) found marten denning sites in their Oregon study included live trees (35 percent), logs (32 percent) 

and slash piles (29 percent). 

Project Design Features in Chapter 2 of this document disclose the retention of snags and limited 

circumstances where snag felling may occur. For down wood, another usable source of denning habitat, 

the Project Design Features state to retain down wood and limit down wood removal, including removal 

within potential fire wood units. Other Project Design Features include retaining high value trees for 

wildlife on the site (e.g. live multiple topped trees, true firs with conks, etc). Additionally, prescribed 

burn plans developed after timber harvest activities are completed may include a request to create 

additional snags from burning where snags are currently limited for protection of existing snags. For 

down wood, prescribed burn plans would also include the retention of larger dead wood 12 inches in 

diameter and greater.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 144 of 528

Table 40. American Marten Intervals and Snag Use 

All action alternatives propose a combination of commercial thinning harvest, non-commercial thinning 

and post-sale activities that may include grapple piling of slash, pile burning, underburning, and 

commercial and/or personal use firewood removal within stands currently defined as marten denning 

habitat. It is assumed that following completion of timber harvest, associated post-sale work, and fuels 

only units, canopy cover would probably be below the levels described as denning habitat for this species. 

Within the lodgepole pine Plant Association Group, post-harvest canopy cover is estimated to be 20-25 

percent, with 30-35 percent cover for the mixed conifer and mountain hemlock Plant Association Group. 

A Raphael and Jones (1997) study in lodgepole pine forests concluded that denning sites averaged 30 

percent canopy cover. This level of canopy cover is not expected to be achieved post-harvest in 

lodgepole pine for approximately 2-3 decades, but may be reached within the mixed conifer PAG -

although the Raphael et al. (1997) study did not include mixed conifer stands in Oregon. In the longterm, reduction of competition would accelerate tree growth and allow multiple canopies to become 

fuller, providing structure that would benefit marten, where these stands exist. 

Regardless of the PAG being affected, there would be a reduction in canopy cover, resulting in less 

physical structure near the ground that contributes to protection from avian predation. In addition, in 

areas where firewood removal may occur (Alternative B, C, and D units: 10, 15, 20, 155, 160, 166, 190, 

370, 385, 425, 430, and 870; Alternative E units: 15, 20, 150, 155, 160, 166, 190, 370, 385, 425, 430, and 

870) and which overlap with marten denning habitat, there would be changes in the amount and likely 

distribution of down wood. These are the only treatment units where dead and down wood may be 

removed. 

Removal of dead and down would reduce cover habitat for marten prey species such as squirrels, 

chipmunks, and voles with a corresponding decrease in prey densities. It would also reduce the likelihood 

these stands would be used as a denning or resting site. Bull and Blumton (1999) conducted a study in 

the Blue Mountains of Oregon of fuels reduction on marten and their prey within lodgepole pine and 

mixed conifer stands. With the prescriptions that were applied for harvest and retention of live trees, 

standing dead, and down wood removal, they concluded it resulted in a reduction in densities of redbacked voles and snowshoe hares. It also increased chipmunk populations, although chipmunks hibernate 

in winter and represented less than three percent of marten diets in this study area. Bull and Blumton 

(1999) determined there was no change in squirrel numbers in mixed conifer harvest where one-acre 

islands are retained in a passive management scenario. This indicates these types of activities continue to 

American 

Marten 2,898 

acres

Density of Snags = 20" dbh by tolerance interval

Tolerance 

Interval* 0% 0%-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%+

Density 

(no./hectare*) 0 0-6.9 6.9-19.3 19.3-37.9 37.0+

Density 

(no./acre*) 0 0.2.8 2.8-7.7 7.7-15.2 15.2+

Percent of 

Habitat 61% 34% 5% 1% 0%

Acres 1,767 976 134 21 0

*From DecAID 2.1 Tables EMC_S/L.sp 22 and PPDF_S/L.sp-22. 

Information synthesized from various studies. Species utilizing high snag 

densities are generally utilizing clumps of snags.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 145 of 528

provide suitable habitat. They also placed radio collars on martens in the area. The martens avoided all 

stands with less than 50 percent canopy cover, contrary to the Raphael and Jones study on an adjoining 

forest that determined marten would use denning sites with canopy cover levels down to 30 percent. Bull 

and Blumton (1999) also found that the radio-collared marten did not use any stands that had been 

harvested with the following caveat: “The harvested stands, however, comprised such a small proportion 

of the marten’s home range that this behavior could not be construed as an avoidance of harvested 

stands.” Bull and Blumton (1999) do not recommend extrapolating the data beyond this study area 

because the numbers of animals captured was low and the sampling period was short. 

To partially lessen the effects of thinning live trees and removal of down wood in harvest areas or fuels 

treatment units, down wood would be retained to the levels described in the Project Design Features 

specified in Chapter 2. Where firewood removal would occur, Project Design Features have been

incorporated to specify minimum levels. The tonnage per acre to be retained would range from 12-20 in 

ponderosa pine type plant association group (PAG). This equates to 11-16 whole trees 16-22 inches in 

diameter or equivalent, or 2.8-5.2 percent down wood cover. For lodgepole pine PAG type 7-42 tons/acre

would be retained. This equates to 17-105 whole trees 8-12 inches in diameter or equivalent, or 2.6-15.9 

percent down wood cover. For montane mixed conifer stands (mountain hemlock) PAG type 11-42

tons/acre would be retained. This equates to 11-38 whole trees 16-22 inches in diameter or equivalent, or 

to 2.6-10 percent down wood cover. Monitoring of the woodcutting areas is standard practice on the 

District and would determine when these levels have been reached. When this occurs, woodcutting areas 

would be closed down. In addition, snags would be retained except where felled for occupational safety, 

log landings and where temporary roads would be located. These measures, in addition to the 15 percent 

of each harvest and fuels unit retained in a passive management scenario, would continue to provide a 

prey base for martens within units of activity.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B

This alternative would result in 855 acres of treated denning habitat within Rim-Paunina project area. 

Management treatments for these acres include commercial and non-commercial thinning, slash removal, 

and prescribed underburning, which would be conducted in ponderosa pine dominated stands. All of 

these activities, in the short term, can decrease prey base habitat. For those treatment units that reduce 

canopy cover into the 20-25 percent post-harvest range, the acres are assumed to be unsuitable for 

denning purposes in the short-term, particularly those in the lodgepole pine PAG. Alternative B treatment 

units would primarily focus on the ponderosa pine PAG, returning stands back to HRV. Single-story 

open ponderosa pine PAG is not American marten denning habitat. However, there are treatments in 

lodgepole and mixed conifer stands where this condition may last several decades or more until canopy 

cover increases and existing snags fall, thus increasing the amount of coarse woody debris. Through 

Rim-Paunina management activities, canopy cover for all PAGs would create a more resilient habitat and 

over time increase denning habitat in those PAGs conducive to American marten habitat (Table 38). 

However, in year 2058 these forest conditions may exceed HRV without re-entry.

This alternative would allow temporary construction of 9.2 miles of road to facilitate efficient harvest, the 

most miles of any action alternative. This would allow a temporary increase in area available for trappers 

to pursue furbearers, including marten during regulated fall and winter trapping season. These roads 

could also temporary provide predators increased access to marten habitat. 

As with all action alternatives, there would be at least 15 percent retention of passively managed acres 

and dead and down retentions, the standard for mitigation measures (Chapter 2), in all treatment units. 

Based on the habitat definition all action alternatives would result in at least 68 percent of American 

marten denning habitat remaining unmanaged, not including the 15 percent retention (Reference Table 

37). 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 146 of 528

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative C and D 

Alternatives C and D were designed to provide a balance, both short and long-term, between those MIS 

that prefer open ponderosa stands and those that favor a denser, multi-layered stand, like the American 

Marten. Alternatives C and D provide the most habitat and have the least amount of habitat within 

proposed treatment units, 795 acres (60 acres less than Alternative B). Management treatments for these 

acres include commercial and non-commercial thinning, slash removal, small diameter thinning, 

mastication, and prescribed underburning. Effects are similar to those described for Alternative B, only 

applying to a lesser number of acres.

Alternative D management activities also include group selection in severely dwarf mistletoe infected 

stands, creating 2-5 acre openings with removal of all infected trees including those over 21 inches in 

diameter, and planting ponderosa pine seedlings in the openings. Activities are proposed to break the 

dwarf mistletoe cycle of continual infection by creating openings and planting uninfected ponderosa pine. 

It is unlikely, but if these pockets of infectious stands also include lodgepole pine the trees may be used as 

denning habitat (Spencer 1987). However, most studies show American Marten use high elevations areas 

with mix-conifer forests as denning habitat (Raphael and Jones 1997, Ruggiero et al. 1994). Additionally, 

if left untreated, the current mistletoe infection would reduce tree vigor, possibly resulting in tree 

mortality, and increase the risk of a stand replacement event. 

Alternative D management activities would remove more of the over-story needed for suitable Marten 

habitat, but would also over time increase catastrophic event resistance of habitat. Over time there would 

be an increase in canopy density along with snags and trees falling, resulting in more conducive habitat. 

Additionally with Alternatives C and D, no activity would occur in select decadent lodgepole pine stands. 

Passive management activities, including the 15 percent retention in all units and the dead and down, 

would provide more disturbance resistant, contiguous habitat for denning marten with all action 

alternatives.

Both alternatives would allow for the least amount of temporary road construction, 6.5 miles, facilitating 

efficient harvest. Effects of temporary road construction are similar to those discussed in Alternative B, 

only on a lesser number of miles.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E

Alternative E activities would result in 916 acres of treated denning habitat, 61 more treated acres than 

Alternative B and 121 acres more that Alternatives C and D. Management treatments are similar to 

Alternative B, but also include the creation of varying sized openings of infected trees under 21 inches in 

diameter, with inducing mortality in trees over 21 inches in severely mistletoe-infected stands. Other 

management activities include slash removal, small diameter thinning, mastication, and prescribed 

underburning, which would be conducted in primarily ponderosa pine dominated stands. Effects are 

similar to those described for Alternative B, only applying to a lesser number of acres. Like Alternative 

D, Alternative E also reduces more canopy cover by inducing mortality in severely infected trees 21 

inches and over. However, those trees would be left in the units and recruited into snags or coarse woody 

debris.

This alternative would allow temporary construction of 8.3 miles of road to facilitate efficient harvest. 

Effects of temporary road construction are similar to those discussed in Alternative B, only on a lesser 

number of miles.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 147 of 528

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 was reviewed for past, present or foreseeable actions that have potential to intensify effects to 

the marten. The zone of influence is defined as the 40,000 acre Little Walker Watershed, because it is 

large enough to encompass multiple female home ranges based on home range data from Raphael and 

Jones (1997). Viable Modeling has accounted for all active management that has occurred prior to 

December 2011. There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project area.

The small amount of private land, 106 acres, in the Rim-Paunina project area is not likely marten denning 

habitat because of development and would not become suitable habitat in the future. Adjacent to the 

project area is the new Gilchrist State Forest that totals approximately 43,235 acres. At the present time it 

is not likely providing much marten denning habitat due to intensive timber harvest that has occurred over 

the last decade. Future marten habitat suitability would depend on forest management prescriptions and 

stated objectives would “maintain the forestlands as managed/working forests and conserve forestlands 

that could be lost to parcelization and/or development.” 18 Activities would focus on developing an 

integrated management plan for recreation, sustainable forestry and wildlife habitat. Forest management 

activities would match the Eastern Oregon Regional Forest Management Plan which would likely thin 

overly dense young forests in the first decade. This change in objective can only be hypothesized to 

improve future marten habitat, but because of the early stage of the acquisition, it is not possible to 

quantify how much and when.

Since there are no overlapping projects, no cumulative effects to the American Marten are projected for 

the Rim-Paunina project area.

Conclusion

For the state of Oregon, the Oregon Natural Heritage program lists martens as S3/4 ‘Vulnerable to 

Apparently Secure’, (NatureServe 2011). Habitat modeling of Rim-Paunina management activities shows 

an increase in the amount of denning habitat overtime (Table 38). The increased denning habitat would

be healthier, as well as more resilient to infestation, infection, and fire events. However, by year 2058 the 

increased habitat would lead to stands exceeding HRV, once again increasing risk of a stand replacement 

event. Re-entry would need to occur to keep stands at HRV in some units. These units would be 

primarily ponderosa pine PAG types, which are not conducive to denning marten.

Project mitigation measures of retaining at least 15 percent of undisturbed habitat and retaining dead and 

down wood within treated acres, as well as untreated lands, allow for blocks of unmanaged stands suitable 

for denning habitat. These blocks would help maintain American marten populations within the RimPaunina project area and on the Crescent Ranger District. The project area only affects a small portion, 

13 percent, of the district that is mainly comprised of ponderosa and lodgepole pine stands, not the high 

elevation mixed-conifer stands preferred by Marten. The majority of suitable denning habitat is outside 

the Rim-Paunina project area; inside during implementation only 2,898 acres of denning habitat would be 

affected. Additionally, there are no other ongoing or currently proposed projects that overlap with the 

Rim-Paunina area. Therefore, there are no projects that would decrease the American Marten population 

within the project area or Crescent Ranger district. 

Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 433,973 acres of modeled denning habitat for 

the American marten. This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other 

districts have overlapping project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no 

overlapping projects on district there are no cumulative effects. The project area is 13 percent of the 

entire Crescent Ranger District, which is only 22 percent of the Deschutes National Forest. There is 

 

18 State of Oregon Staff Analysis of the Proposed Acquisition, November, 2009
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 148 of 528

ample nesting habitat outside the project area forest wide. For the Deschutes National Forest, the RimPaunina project would not contribute to any change in the viability of the American marten.

Sharp-shinned and Cooper’s Hawks

Ecology

Sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks are both ranked S4, ‘Apparently Secure’ in the state of Oregon 

(NatureServe 2011). For sharp-shinned hawks small declines may be attributed to loss of preferred young 

dense forest stands in boreal forest due to logging, and pesticides (NatureServe 2011). The use of 

pesticides on farmlands and loss of habitat are the major threats for Cooper’s hawks (NatureServe 2011). 

Both species are closely associated with deciduous and mixed coniferous forests and riparian woodlands. 

They can occur in large forests but are also found near forest edges and clearings near lakes or streams. 

In a study in eastern Oregon, Reynolds (1983) found nesting sharp-shinned hawks use 25-50 year-old 

even-aged conifer stands while Cooper’s hawks used 30-70 year old even-aged conifer stands with 

somewhat larger and more widely spaced trees than those stands used by sharp-shinned hawks. Reynolds 

also reported the mean distance between the nearest nesting neighbors was 4.1 km (2.5 miles) for sharpshinned hawks and 4.7 km (2.8 miles) for Cooper’s hawks. Both species are adapted to catch avian prey 

but each would also capture small mammals, lizards, and various large insects and amphibians (Johnsgard 

1990). Home range estimates were 1,590 hectares (3,975 acres) for Cooper’s hawks and 460 hectares 

(1,150 acres) for sharp-shinned hawks in Oregon (Reynolds 1983). Reynolds (1983) studied accipiter 

nest sites in eastern Oregon and determined the mean canopy cover for sharp-shinned nests was 68 

percent and 64 percent for Cooper’s hawks, although the range extends from 20-95 percent for sharpshinned hawks and from 15-100 percent for Cooper’s. Both species select nest placement well up in the 

tree canopy for nest concealment or shading during warm temperatures (Moore and Henny 1983; 

Reynolds et al. 1983). Dense vegetation provides screening cover and physical protection from predators 

and predation may account for the high foliage density in the immediate vicinity of the nests of sharpshinned and Cooper’s hawks (Reynolds et al. 1983).

Existing Condition

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to estimate acres of suitable nesting habitat for the Cooper’s and 

sharp-shined hawks (Figure 11). Modeling for Cooper’s hawk habitat is lodgepole, ponderosa, dry to 

moist Douglas fir, dry to moist grand fir, white fir, mountain hemlock, silver fir, and dry white bark pine 

stands that have a dense canopy, trees 10 inches in diameter and higher, and early to late seral stages. 

Modeling for sharp-shinned hawk habitat is lodgepole, ponderosa, dry to moist Douglas fir, dry to moist 

grand fir, white fir, dry sub alpine fir, Shasta red fir, mountain hemlock, and dry white bark pine stands 

that have a dense canopy, trees 10 inches to 20 inches in diameter, and early to mid seral stages. There is 

considerable overlap of habitat for each species and habitat is generally well distributed across the entire 

project area with the exception of the young plantations, meadow complexes, and rock outcrops. For the 

Deschutes National Forest, potential nesting habitat was modeled resulting in 275,340 acres for Cooper’s 

hawks and 426,138 acres for sharp-shinned hawks. This nesting habitat is scattered in lodgepole pine, 

ponderosa pine, dry to moist Douglas fir, dry to moist grand fir, white fir, mountain hemlock, silver fir, 

and dry white bark pine, dry sub alpine fir, Shasta red fir, mountain hemlock PAG types across the three 

districts. 

For Rim-Paunina, the modeling datasets used for canopy closure class, stand structure class, PAG, and 

species are datasets from 2009. All timber sales, fuel reduction activities, natural disturbance events such 

as wildfire, and vegetation activities on private lands within the Rim-Paunina analysis area were included 

in this information. All activities that occurred after 2004 and their potential incremental effects within 

the Rim-Paunina area are discussed further in the cumulative effects section.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 149 of 528

There are approximately 1,985 acres of potential nesting habitat for the sharp-shinned hawk and 5,439 

acres for the Cooper’s hawk in the Rim-Paunina project area. These figures account for all past and 

present timber sales, natural events such as wildfires, and any other habitat altering activity. This acreage 

is generally well distributed on National Forest system lands across the analysis area. For Cooper’s and 

sharp-shinned hawks, the majority of potential habitat is concentrated around Walker Rim, but scattered 

throughout the analysis area. 

Figure 11. Potential Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Based on the Viable Ecosystem 

Model 

The district wildlife sighting database lists eleven sightings and one nest, discovered in 1998, for 

Cooper’s hawks. The nest is approximately one mile east of Highway 97 by Little Walker Mountain, but

sightings occur throughout the analysis area. While there are four recorded sharp-shinned sightings 

including one near Odell Butte, one near Bunny Butte, and two in the most eastern portion of the analysis 

area, there are no documented sharp-shinned nests within the analysis area. The only known sharpshinned nest is east of Big Marsh, recorded in 2006, and outside the project area. The sightings came 

from general observations during other forest management activities as well as during surveys for 

northern goshawks. There is considerable overlap of habitat for each species and habitat. Formal surveys 

have not been conducted for either species and reported observations are the results of random 

observations and responses from conducting northern goshawk surveys. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 150 of 528

Table 41 summarizes the effects of proposed management activities on existing goshawk habitat in the 

Rim-Paunina project area by alternative. The ‘Acres Remaining’ column is assumed potential nesting 

habitat acres once project implementation is completed in 2018. Alternative E for both Cooper’s and 

sharp-shinned hawk treats the most habitat acres with project implementation. The percent difference 

between all action alternatives is nominal, except for Alternative B, which treats the fewest acres in 

nesting habitat.

Table 41. Acres of Potential Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat within the Rim-Paunina 

Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Cooper's Hawk Nesting Habitat 

Acres

Alternative

Sharp-shinned Nesting Habitat 

Acres

PreTreatmentAcres 

Treated

Acres 

Remaining

PreTreatmentAcres 

Treated

Acres 

Remaining

A 5,439 0

5,439

(100%) A 1,985 0

1,985

(100%)

B 5,439 1,573

(29%)

3,866

(71%) B 1,985 478(24%)

1,507 

(76%)

C 5,439 2,598

(48%)

2,841

(52%) C 1,985 745(38%)

1,240

(62%)

D 5,439 2,598

(48%)

2,841

(52%) D 1,985 745(38%)

1,240

(62%)

E 5,439 2,697

(50%)

2,742

(50%) E 1,985 777(39%)

1,208

(61%)

The Rim-Paunina project existing condition also includes a 660 foot disturbance zone on all roads and 

motorized routes. The 660 foot disturbance zone represents existing and potential disturbance from 

vehicle use on roads and motorized routes (Forman et al. 2003). The assumption is disturbance would 

continue to effect habitat within the road effect zone (200 meters (~660 feet) each side of roads or 

motorized trails; Forman et al. 2003). Decreased habitat quality, reduced reproductive potential, and 

avoidance of the roads and motorized routes effect zones are potential effects as a result of physical

habitat alteration or due to disturbance. 

There is conflicting science when assessing the human disturbance effects on raptors. Gunnison National 

Forest Travel Management Plan, USDA (2001) and Hamann et al. (1999) suggested in both their 

literature reviews that sensitivity occurs near nest sites and mainly effects eggs or young. Direct 

activities, such as noise from vehicles, could disturb these species during nesting and foraging and may 

negatively affect them. USDA (2001) and Hamann et al. (1999) found prolonged disturbance during 

nesting season may result in nest and young abandonment and increased stress levels. Alternatively, 

other studies have found that walking straight to a birds’ nest (including raptors) is more disruptive than 

vehicle or OHV use (Lee 1981; Skagen 1980; Holmes et al. 1993; Burger and Gochfeld 1998 pages 151, 

220, 222 and 223; Gill et al. 1996). Lee (1981) found that female hawks did not flush from nests when 

motorcycles passed by. These and other occasions are examples why Lee (1981) concluded hawks may 

become habituated to moving machines. In addition, Lee (1981) also stated hawks may tolerate 

“disturbances”, hikers, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and horseback riders, so they can keep territories that 

meet resource needs.

Raptors have been known to use small two-track roads and trails that experience low use and have 

existing canopy cover on the sides as foraging habitat (Flecher at al. 1999; St. Pierre 2008). Some avian 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 151 of 528

scavengers prefer to use these types of open areas because vegetation may hide potential predators while 

they are feeding (Skagen et al. 1991).

Table 42 and Table 43 list the amount of Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat within and 

outside the disturbed zone. For both species Alternative A, the no-action alternative, leads to the most 

habitat acres, but also creates the greatest amount of risk for stand replacing events. Over time the RimPaunina project area potential nesting habitat becomes more prevalent both inside and outside the 

disturbance zone under all alternatives. Alternative D provides the most potential nesting habitat outside 

the disturbance buffer zone in year 2058, while Alternative B provides the least. However, the difference 

between each action alternative proposed potential nesting habitat, whether within or outside the 

disturbance zone, is nominal. There are no project implementations that would change the size of the 

disturbance zone.

Table 42. Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat Inside and Outside the 660 foot Disturbance Buffer 

Cooper’s Hawk Inside 660-foot Buffer Outside 660-foot Buffer

Year

Alternative 2018 2058 2018 2058

Alt A 3,442

(47%)

10,594

(52%)

3,649

(52%)

9,666

(47%)

Alt B 2,564

(44%)

8,432

(51%)

3,280

(56%)

8,023

(49%)

Alt C 2,610

(44%)

8,801

(51%)

3,305

(56%)

8,610

(49%)

Alt D 2,555

(44%)

9,025

(51%)

3,262

(56%)

8,829

(49%)

Alt E 2,414

(44%)

8,236

(50%)

3,105

(56%)

8,100

(49%)

Table 43. Acres of Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Inside and Outside the 660 foot Disturbance Buffer 

Sharp-Shinned 

Hawk

Inside 660-foot Buffer Outside 660-foot Buffer

Year

Alternative 2018 2058 2018 2058

Alt A 1,079

(48%)

5,576

(54%)

1,189

(52%)

4,663

(46%)

Alt B 852

(45%)

4,483

(55%)

1,041

(55%)

3,641

(45%)

Alt C 871

(45%)

4,621

(53%)

1,058

(55%)

4,117

(47%)

Alt D 846

(45%)

4,863

(53%)

1,049

(55%)

4,351

(47%)

Alt E 803

(44%)

4,734

(54%)

1,010

(56%)

4,100

(46%)

For Alternatives C, D, and E Unit 945, a ‘Fuels Only’ maintenance burn unit, is within a quarter mile of a 

known Cooper’s hawk nest. Seasonal restriction would apply April 1st–August 31st for all 

implementation activities that would disturb the hawks, if the nest is found active (Chapter 2).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 152 of 528

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative A

The selection of this alternative would have no immediate direct effect on sharp-shinned and Cooper’s 

hawks. In the short term, the existing territories would likely continue to be occupied by nesting pairs. 

Undiscovered pairs if present in the project area would also be unaffected by vegetation management 

actions. However, in the long-term, without treatment overcrowding and competition in stands would

lead to an increased mortality level in large diameter trees, which is evident now. Overcrowding 

conditions in stands also elevate mistletoe infection and beetle infestation resulting in reduced tree vigor, 

which can lead to premature death and an increase in fuel loading resulting in more chances of forest 

fires. 

Many forested stands are still at risk of catastrophic wildfire events similar to the Davis Fire, which 

resulted in the long-term loss of over 16,000 acres of suitable habitat. Alternative A would not allow for 

over and understory tree removal, underburning to reduce fuel loadings, stand competition to maintain 

desired late- and old structural habitats closer to historical levels across the project area, or improvement 

of stand health. The combination of insect, disease, and fire events would compound the long-term loss 

of nesting habitat. 

Over time, Alternative A has the greatest potential for stands to lose their desired nesting character from 

reduced canopy cover as a result of mortality from a disturbance event. Conversely, younger aged stands 

that have resulted from past regeneration timber harvest have the capability to develop into suitable 

nesting habitat because these species would use relatively small diameter trees for nesting purposes.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

The Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk are closely associated to mixed conifer and deciduous forests 

and riparian woodland. The majority of Rim-Paunina proposed treatments are in lodgepole pine, 

ponderosa pine, and pine dominated mixed conifer forests, with only 43 acres of treatments in aspen 

stands. The proposed project would only treat a small portion of nesting habitat for both Cooper’s and 

sharp-shinned hawk. In the short-term these treatments may render portions unusable for nesting habitat, 

but would still function as foraging habitat post-harvest for both species. 

Table 41 displays the acres of potentially suitable nesting habitat for both accipiters for each proposed 

alternative over time. Although habitat acres are projected to increase under Alternative A, the resulting 

stand left untreated would be more susceptible to infection, infestation, and fire events when compared to 

action alternatives. Action Alternative acreage amounts increase over time as a result of expected 

increase in tree vigor from thinning, reducing overcrowded stands and fuel loading, and the probability of 

advancing stands to the next successional stages.

Modeled potential nesting habitat acres for all action alternatives are similar over time (Table 44 for 

Cooper’s hawk and Table 45 for sharp-shinned hawk). In 2018, Alternative C, for both species, the RimPaunina implementation analysis modeled the most acres of nesting habitat. From Table 41, Table 44, 

and Table 45, Alternative E treats the most potential nesting habitat (2,697 acres for Cooper’s hawk; 777 

acres for sharp-shinned hawk) and provides the least amount of acres after implementation (5,519 acres 

for Cooper’s hawk; 1,813 acres for sharp-shinned hawk). Alternative C treats 2,598 acres of potential 

nesting habitat for Cooper’s Hawk and 745 acres for sharp-shinned hawk, but provides the most habitat 

after year 2018 (5,915 acres for Cooper’s hawk; 1,929 acres for sharp-shinned hawk), after 

implementation. However, the difference between acreage treated for Alternatives C, D, and E is

minimal. In year 2058, Alternative D, for both species, modeled the most potential nesting habitat. The 

difference in acreage of potential nesting habitat modeled for all action alternatives after implementation 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 153 of 528

is also minimal. The increased potential habitat in 2058 may result in some ponderosa pine and some 

mixed-conifer stands exceeding HRV. Without treatment re-entry before 2058, density in stands would

continue and exceed HRV.

Figure 12. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat over Time within the 

Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) 

Table 44. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Cooper's Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres

2010 2018 

Projection Pre- 2058 Projection

Treatment

A 5,439 6,891 20,260

B 5,439 5,844 16,455

C 5,439 5,915 17,411

D 5,439 5,816 17,854

E 5,439 5,519 16,336

5000

6500

8000

9500

11000

12500

14000

15500

17000

18500

20000

2010 2018 2058

Acres

Year

Cooper's Hawk Habitat

Alt A

Alt B

Alt C

Alt D

Alt E
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 154 of 528

Figure 13. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Table 45. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres

2010 2018 

Projection Pre- 2058 Projection

Treatment

A 1,985 2,268 10,239

B 1,985 1,893 8,124

C 1,985 1,929 8,738

D 1,985 1,895 9,214

E 1,985 1,813 8,834

While project activities would reduce the amount of potential nesting acreage for each species, Reynolds 

et al. (1983) noted that nest sites contain the appropriate vegetative structure for a limited number of years 

and that turnover of nest sites must be accounted for. Within the Rim-Paunina analysis area, at least 50 

percent (Table 41) of potentially suitable nest habitat for all action alternatives would be maintained in an 

unmanaged condition capable of providing nest habitat, not including the at least 15 percent retention of 

passively managed acres in each treatment unit. Within activities in mixed conifer and lodgepole pine 

PAGs, suitable nesting conditions may return overt ime as canopy cover returns to a desired nesting level, 

particularly for Cooper’s hawks which can tolerate a more open condition. In the event an active nest is 

discovered, Project Design Features (Chapter 2) designate an unthinned clump around each nest site and 

place seasonal restrictions as needed to prevent disturbance to nesting pair(s). 

1700

2700

3700

4700

5700

6700

7700

8700

9700

10700

2010 2018 2058

Acres

Year

Sharp-shinned Hawk Habitat

Alt A

Alt B

Alt C

Alt D

Alt E
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 155 of 528

The retention of at least 15 percent as untreated acres may be enable the provision of a stand for Cooper’s 

and/or sharp-shinned hawks where appropriate structure exists. Because well distributed nesting habitat 

is available to function as future replacement, there would be no reduction in the numbers of either

species’ home ranges that can be supported across the analysis area. In addition, there would be no loss 

of Late and Old Structured habitat because the largest trees would be retained, expect in alternative D 

where some trees over 21 inches would be removed to address mistletoe infection. Within younger-aged 

stands, reduced competition for scarce resources as a result of thinning would allow the residual trees to 

increase their size potential. Also, management practices would encourage development of a more 

resilient forest (e.g. reducing the risk of disease, infestation, and fire events in nesting habitat). 

All action alternatives are consistent with recommendations by Reynolds et al. (1992) to reduce small tree 

densities to improve foraging habitat and increase the growth of residual trees. Activity units that 

maintain below 64 percent canopy cover for Cooper’s hawk and below 68 percent canopy cover for 

sharp-shinned hawk would convert to foraging habitat. However, the canopy cover for both species have 

a wide range of tolerance, 20-95 percent for sharp-shinned hawk and 15-100 percent for Cooper’s hawk 

(Reynolds et al. 1982). Ponderosa pine PAG types may continue to function as foraging habitat due to 

maintaining HRV through re-entry.

Table 42 and Table 43 show the amount of potential nesting habitat for the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned 

hawk within and outside the disturbance zone. Regarding both species, the potential nesting habitat 

acreages for all action alternatives increase over years 2018 and 2058 and is evenly scattered throughout 

the Rim-Paunina area. However, in year 2058, increased potential nesting habitat may be from stands 

exceeding HRV. Decreased habitat quality, reduced reproductive potential, and avoidance of the roads 

and motorized trails effect zones are potential effects as a result of habitat alteration physically or due to 

disturbance. There is no proposed road opening or closing with project implementation. As in all 

alternatives, the utilization of habitat for nesting within the disturbance zone may be unlikely. Science is 

conflicted on whether some habituation or tolerance occurs (Lee 1981), or whether any human 

disturbance, motorized or other, can affect the nest (USDA 2001 and Hamann et al. 1999). 

All understory removal would result in the reduction of some habitat for prey species in the short term. In 

the long term, the understory will regrow providing habitat for prey species again. The exception is 

where maintenance burning is prescribed on an 8-15 year cycle, and vegetation is assumed to be reduced.

In proposed thinning units, snags are not designated for removal except in hazardous circumstances, thus

not disturbing snags and coarse woody debris that would be available for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned 

hawk prey base habitat. In addition, 15 to 20 percent of each proposed unit would be managed in a 

passive scenario. 

For Alternatives C, D, and E Unit 945, a ‘Fuels Only’ maintenance burn unit, is within a quarter mile of a 

Cooper’s hawk nest. If the nest is found active, a seasonal restriction from April 1st-August 31st would be 

implemented project design features in Chapter 2. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative B

Implementing Alternative B would result in management activities in 1,573 acres (29 percent) of 

Cooper’s and 478 acres (24 percent) sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat in the project area; the least 

amount of treatment for action alternatives. Management activities propose to develop, maintain, and 

enhance late- and old structured stand characteristics suitable for certain MIS habitat, like the whiteheaded woodpecker and other ponderosa pine dependent species. This would include using prescribed 

fire to return fire-dependent stands back to a more natural state (i.e. an open, single story stand with little 

brush component). Proposed project treatments include commercial thinning of 12,036 acres. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 156 of 528

Additionally, this alternative includes 3,530 acres of slash removal without underburning, and 8,506 acres 

of prescribed underburning. 

The proposed commercial thinning is designed to reduce stem densities and improve forest health, 

particularly in stands that are infected with mistletoe, infested with bark beetles, or have overall poor 

health. Post-sale treatments would include small-tree thinning, slash removal, and underburning where 

desired. This combination of effects would likely preclude these stands from remaining as nesting habitat 

in the short term because of the reduced canopy cover, below 25-55 percent used to define dense canopy 

cover (Reynolds et al. 1982). It is estimated that within lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine treatment 

units post harvest canopy cover would range from 30-35 percent, and within ponderosa pine treatment 

units 25-40 percent. Since Reynolds noted a range of canopy cover conditions below the listed mean, 

modeling may underestimate suitable nesting habitat for both species, because some treatment units may 

remain functional for this life requirement. 

Cooper’s hawks would use a more open condition than sharp-shinned hawks, so they may use some of the 

stands with lower canopy cover for nesting and foraging following treatment activities. Sharp-shinned 

hawks would be expected to use thinned stands for foraging, but would be less likely to use them for 

nesting after the completion of treatment activities. Reynolds et al. (1982) stated that observations of 

foraging hawks indicated they utilized a variety of habitats from openings to dense forest. All stands 

where treatments occur would function as foraging for both species within the project area.

After implementation of Alternative B, 3,866 acres (71 percent) of Cooper’s hawk and 1,507 acres (76 

percent) of sharp-shinned hawk potential nesting habitat would remain unmanaged. These numbers are 

underestimated due to at least 15 percent retention in all treatment units. Alternative B leaves the most 

potential nesting habitat for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk (Table 41).

The 9.2 miles temporary roads that provide access to treatment units are unlikely to have any short- or 

long-term effect to either species, since less than 20 acres of forested vegetation would be affected. 

Further, temporary roads may be used as flight paths for hunting prey. The temporary roads would be 

restored to proper hydrologically functional condition after their intended use. Project implementation 

would not affect known nest sites for either species.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D would treat 2,598 acres (48 percent) of Cooper’s hawk and 745 acres (38 percent) of 

sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat. Alternatives C and D focus on a strategy to reduce the length of time 

large trees are absent from areas most heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe, retain decadent lodgepole

pine stands, and incorporate a more historical frequent fire regime in appropriate stands. In Alternatives

C and D, management actions would also provide the most contiguous habitat acres for potential nest 

stands when compared to Alternatives B and E. Alternatives C and D propose management activities that 

would open existing ponderosa pine stands and enhance dense multi-storied stands. The opening of 

ponderosa pine stands and creation of healthier slightly more open multi-storied stands would benefit the 

Cooper’s hawk, while sharp-shinned hawk would benefit from healthier dense multi-storied stands. 

Alternatives C and D would retain more decadent lodgepole pine stands, which would provide habitat for 

Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks in both the short and long-term. Alternatives C and D propose 9,792 

acres of timber harvest, 2,244 acres less than Alternative B and 1,444 acres less than Alternative E, in the 

project area.

In addition, Alternative D management activities include creating 2-5 acres openings in the most severely 

infected dwarf mistletoe stands followed by planting of ponderosa pine seedlings in the openings. These 

openings include the possibility of removing unhealthy infected trees over 21 inches in diameter. These 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 157 of 528

opening would further reduce canopy cover sought after for nesting habitat by both Cooper’s and Sharpshinned hawks. The openings would encompass a total of 778 acres scattered throughout the RimPaunina project area. 

In the long term, these stands would create a mosaic of various cover types and structural stages needed 

for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat (Hargis et al. 1994 cited by Wisdom 2000). Per mitigation 

measures, 15 to 20 percent of each unit (silviculture or fuels) would be retained in an unmanaged 

condition and continue to provide undisturbed habitat. For the action alternatives, Alternative D would 

provide the most Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat in year 2058 (Figure 12 and Figure 

13).

For Alternatives C and D, Rim-Paunina analysis determined 52 percent of Cooper’s hawk and 62 percent 

of sharp-shinned hawk potentially suitable nesting habitat would be maintained in its current condition. 

Additively, Alternatives C and D, like all action alternatives, propose passive-managed patches greater 

than the standard 15 percent in all treatment units. This would provide more contiguous suitable habitat 

for MIS species that prefer multi-story stands. As displayed in Table 44 and Table 45 these alternatives 

show the increasing amount of suitable nesting habitat over all projected decades, including the no-action 

alternative. Effects from changes in post–harvest canopy cover are as disclosed in the discussion for

Alternative B, and cover estimates would likely underestimate the cover actually used by both species. 

Treatment units would continue to function as foraging habitat for both species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E

Alternative E, proposes commercial harvest to reduce stem densities and improve forest health, 

particularly in stands that are infected with mistletoe, infested with bark beetles, or have overall poor 

health. Like Alternatives C and D, Alternative E defers treatment of a few older and decadent lodgepole 

stands that are specified in Alternative B. This deferment would allow for more potential habitat, as well 

as provide habitat in the short- and long-term. These stands would provide dense vegetation which serves 

both Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks as screening cover and protection from predators while 

management treatments occur in adjacent units. 

With implementation of this alternative, 2,742 acres (50 percent) of Cooper’s hawk nesting habitat and 

1,208 acres (61 percent) of sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat within the project area would remain 

untreated. Alternative E has the least amount of unmanaged potential habitat post-treatment (Table 41). 

Additionally, as in each alternative, 15 to 20 percent of each unit (silviculture or fuels) would be retained 

in an unmanaged condition and to provide undisturbed habitat where suitable. These unmanaged portions 

of treatment units, deferred treatment of older and decadent stands, and surrounding habitat would 

provide potential nesting and foraging habitat while proposed treatments occur.

Cumulative Effects 

Table 19 was reviewed for activities that overlap the zone of influence in time and space and have 

potential to incrementally affect the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk. The zone of influence is 

identified as the 40,000 acre Little Walker Watershed, because it is large enough to include several home 

ranges for both species. There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project area. 

Therefore, no cumulative effects to the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk are projected.

Conclusion 

In the state of Oregon, the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks are listed as S4 ‘Apparently Secure’ 

through the Oregon Natural Heritage program (NatureServe 2011). Habitat loss in boreal forests, 

pesticides on farmlands and loss of habitat are the major threats for Sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks 

(NatureServe 2011). 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 158 of 528

For the Rim-Paunina project, nests and foraging habitat would be available in stands outside the treatment 

units. Alternative B provides 71 percent of untreated habitat for Cooper’s hawk and 76 percent for sharpshinned hawk within the project areas; Alternatives C and D provide 52 and 62 percent respectively, and 

Alternative E provides 50 and 61 percent respectively. Nesting habitat may also occur in the blocks of 

habitat big enough to support a nesting pair within activity units where no active management occurs, or 

15 percent of each unit. After project implementation, Alternative C would provide the most potential 

nesting habitat, in year 2018. Alternative D would provide the most potential nesting habitat in year 

2058. However, an increase in potential nesting habitat in year 2058 may be due to unmanaged stands 

exceeding HRV. Exceeding HRV would put stands at risk for a stand replacement event. Project 

implementation is not expected to lead to a loss in pair territories in the analysis area or across the 

Crescent Ranger District.

For all action alternatives there is an initial decrease in nesting habitat for the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned 

hawk, but over time the nesting habitat increases for both spices. Nest stands would be available in the 

blocks of habitat within activity units where no active management occurs, in the 15 percent of activity 

unit that would be considered a wildlife clump, and in nesting habitat outside of activity units. Habitat 

outside activity units and the retained passive managed patches inside activity units would result in the 

same effects as Alternative A, the no action alternative. Alternative A, is projected to provide the most 

habitat through year 2058. However, without treatment Alternative A has the greatest risk of losing 

nesting habitat due to a wide-scale disturbance event. The combination of insect, disease, and fire events 

would compound the long-term loss of northern Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat.

In the long-term, the Rim-Paunina would result in more resilient nesting habitat. Implementation of the 

Action Alternatives would contribute to a diversity of cover types and seral stages across the landscape. 

There are old growth areas that can provide nesting habitat throughout the Rim-Paunina project area as 

well as unmanaged acres within treatment units. For the Crescent Ranger District, the overall the project 

would not contribute to a change in the either species’ population. 

Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 275,340 acres of modeled nesting habitat for 

the Cooper’s hawk and 426,138 acres for sharp-shinned hawk forest-wide. This analysis incorporates all 

past management activities forest wide. No other districts have overlapping project boundaries with the 

Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no overlapping projects on district there are no cumulative 

effects. The project area is 13 percent of the entire Crescent Rangers District, which is only 22 percent of 

the Deschutes National Forest. There is ample nesting habitat outside the project area forest wide. For 

the Deschutes National Forest, the Rim-Paunina project would not contribute to any change in the 

viability of the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk.

Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpeckers

Ecology

Marshall et al. (2003) described the center of abundance for black-backed woodpeckers in Oregon as the 

lodgepole pine forest east of the Cascade crest between Bend and Klamath Falls. For the three-toed 

woodpecker, Marshall et al. (2003), describes the species as rare and local reports come sparingly from 

both slopes of the Cascades and the Blue Mountains. Habitats for both species include lodgepole pine 

forests, mixed conifer, and mountain hemlock, although forest type may not be as important as the 

presence of bark beetles (Marshall et al. 2003). 

Goggans et al. (1989) conducted a study on the Deschutes National Forest during a mountain pine beetle 

epidemic, including a portion of the Crescent Ranger District, on both species showing nesting, roosting, 

and foraging preferences. Both species nest in stands with bark beetles, disease, and heart rot. The 

Goggans study concluded that lodgepole pine trees with heart rot were used exclusively for nesting by 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 159 of 528

three-toed woodpeckers with 75 percent of the nests in snags. For black-backed woodpeckers, 89 percent 

of the nest trees were in lodgepole pine with heart rot, with 65 percent of the nests in live trees. In the 

study, mean nest tree diameter for each species was 11 inches in diameter, although in the Blue 

Mountains of Oregon average nest tree diameter was 14.6 inches (Bull et al. cited by Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Goggans et al. (1989) also concluded that the three-toed woodpeckers selected nest stands at a slightly 

higher elevation, 4,500-5,600 feet, as compared to black-backs at 4,350-5,400 feet elevation. Neither 

species prefers to roost in logged forests. Both avoided cut areas for foraging. Other differences included 

three-toed woodpeckers selected nesting stands undisturbed by logging at a higher rate than black-backs 

(75 to 49 percent of total nests located) and that three-toed woodpeckers selected mountain hemlock 

stands for roosting while black-backs selected lodgepole pine, mixed conifer with lodgepole pine, or 

mountain hemlock with lodgepole pine. 

Estimated summer home ranges for three individual black-backed woodpeckers in a bark beetle outbreak 

varied from 178 to 810 acres, with home ranges decreasing in size as the proportion of unlogged and 

mature acres of forest increased (Goggans et al. 1989). However, the same study of radio telemetry data 

of three banded three-toed woodpecker males showed estimated summer home ranges varied from 131 to 

751 acres. Home range acreage was not related to the amount of unlogged area or the amount of mature 

and immature forest present.

For the state of Oregon, the Oregon State Heritage Program ranks both species as S3, ‘Vulnerable’ 

(NatureServe 2011). Possible reasons for this listing may be due to fire suppression, cutting of snags, and 

loss of mature and old-growth forests, but reliable trend and status information is lacking (NatureServe 

2011). This is due to each species’ association with forest disturbances and large home ranges making it 

sensitive to logging and forest fragmentation. Both species show an affinity for burned forests and there 

is good evidence that bark-beetle killed forests are important habitats in Oregon, but the species also 

occurs sparingly in unburned, mature forests (Marshal et al. 2003). Stand-replacing fires produce habitats 

that briefly contain abundant food resources for woodpeckers (McCullough et al. 1998 cited in Marshall 

et al. 2003). After three to five years, the majority of the insects inhabiting the dead wood emerge as 

adults and do not re-colonize the dead trees, resulting in a decrease in food availability and hence 

decreased habitat suitability for woodpeckers. Wisdom et al. (2000) reported results from breeding bird 

surveys (BBS) indicate black-backed trends from 1966-1995 as stable in North America. Trend data 

generated by breeding bird surveys may be inadequate for monitoring due to this species uncommon 

status and its difficulty to detect. For the three-toed woodpecker, Wisdom et al. (2000) reported from 14 

breeding bird survey routes, trend data showed an annual 0.7 percent decline between 1966 and 1995.

Wisdom et al. (2000) stated there are several factors affecting these species. Silvicultural practices (tree 

harvest before susceptibility to beetle attack) and fire management policies (salvage logging) have altered 

natural patterns of beetle outbreaks. Also, increasing road densities have allowed greater human access 

into forested regions for snag removal as firewood. Usurpation of black-backed nest cavities by hairy 

woodpeckers and Lewis’ woodpeckers (Goggans et al. and Saab and Dudley 1995 cited by Wisdom et al. 

2000) may potentially reduce their reproductive success. 

Existing Condition

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to estimate acres of suitable nesting habitat for the black-backed 

and three-toed woodpecker (Figure 11). All lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine with lodgepole, mixed 

conifer, and mountain hemlock PAGs with trees between 5-20 inches diameter above 4,500 feet 

(minimum Crescent District elevation) was used to model estimated acres of potentially suitable nesting 

habitat for black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers (Figure 14). This size range was used because the 

Goggans et al. study (1989) showed nest tree diameters ranged from 7-17 inches. Using this definition, 

modeling indicated approximately 21,313 acres (53 percent of analysis area) of nesting habitat for blackbacked and three-toed woodpeckers and in the analysis area. Black-back woodpecker modeled habitat 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 160 of 528

was used as a proxy for three-toed modeled habitat because the two species’ habitats overlap in the RimPaunina project area. This includes 106 acres found on private property in the analysis area. The 21,000 

acre Davis Fire in 2003 (outside the planning area), the 80-acre Muttonchop Butte fire in 2000, and the 

381-acre Royce Butte fire in 2008 are recent wildfires that are currently providing foraging habitat for 

these species. Potential nesting habitat is generally distributed across the entire planning area although to 

a lesser degree in the northeast portion where the forests are predominantly ponderosa pine PAGs with 

little lodgepole pine present. 

Figure 14. Potential Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpecker Nesting Habitat Based on the Viable 

Ecosystem and DecAID Models

For the Deschutes National Forest, potential nesting habitat was modeled resulting in 446,003 acres for 

black-backed woodpecker and 367,499 acres three-toed woodpecker. This nesting habitat is scattered in 

lodgepole, mixed conifer, and mountain hemlock PAG types across the three districts. The modeling 

datasets used for canopy closure class, stand structure class, PAG, and species are datasets from 2009. 

All timber sales, fuel reduction activities, natural disturbance events such as wildfire, and vegetation 

activities on private lands within the Rim-Paunina analysis area were included in this information. All 

activities that occurred after 2004 and their potential incremental effects within the Rim-Paunina area are 

discussed further in the cumulative effects section.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 161 of 528

District observational records show seven reports of black-backed woodpeckers scattered throughout the 

project area. One black-backed nest was reported and is located on the southern boundary of the project 

area. There are no records of three-toed woodpeckers in the analysis area. 

Table 46 summarizes the effects of proposed treatments to existing black-backed and three-toed 

woodpecker nesting habitat in the Rim Paunina project area by alternative. The ‘Acres Remaining’ 

column is assumed potential nesting habitat acres once project implementation is completed in 2018. 

Alternative E for both black-backed and three-toed woodpecker treats the most habitat acres with project 

implementation. The difference between all action alternatives is nominal, except for Alternative B, 

which treats the fewest acres of habitat.

Table 46. Acres of Potential Black-Backed and Three-Toed Woodpecker Nesting Habitat within the RimPaunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Black-backed Woodpecker 

Nesting Habitat Acres

PreTreatmentAcres 

Treated

Acres 

Remaining

A 21,313 0

21,313

(100%)

B 21,313 4751

(22%)

16,562

(78%)

C 21,313 6,439

(30%)

14,874

(70%)

D 21,313 6,439

(30%)

14,874 

(70%)

E 21,313 7,034

(33%)

14,279

(67%)

The Rim-Paunina project existing condition also includes a 660 foot disturbance zone on all roads and 

motorized routes. The 660 foot disturbance zone represents existing and potential disturbance from 

vehicle use on roads and motorized routes (Forman 2000). The assumption is disturbance would continue 

to effect habitat within the road effect zone (200 meters (~660 feet) each side of roads or motorized trails; 

Forman et al. 2003). Decreased habitat quality, reduced reproductive potential, and avoidance of the 

roads and motorized routes effect zones are potential effects as a result of physical habitat alteration or 

disturbance. However, for woodpeckers and cavity nesters disturbance does not pose as a problem. 

Hamann et al. (1999) and Gaines et al. (2003) conducted literature reviews of recreational effects, 

including OHV use, on cavity nesters and woodpeckers. Their results showed that recreational trailassociated disturbances did not present a problem to woodpeckers and cavity nesters as a group. Hamann 

et al. (1999) also stated that recreational activity is unlikely to be focused around nest sites. 

For all alternatives, the amount of nesting habitat both within and outside the 660 foot disturbance buffer 

increases (Table 47). Between alternatives for the projected years, there is nominal difference in the acres 

of nesting habitat within and outside the disturbance zone. For each alternative, there is more potential 

nesting habitat within the disturbance zone, but the difference is slight. By year 2018, after 

implementation, the most nesting habitat acreage outside the disturbance zone occurs as a result of 

Alternative C management activities, though there is only a minimal difference between all alternatives. 

By year 2058, Alternative D results in the most potential nesting habitat acres outside the buffer zone, 

once again with minimal difference between alternatives. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 162 of 528

Table 47. Acres of Nesting Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpecker Habitat Within and Outside the 660

Foot Disturbance Buffer.

Inside 660-foot Buffer Outside 660-foot Buffer

Year

Alternative 2018 2058 2018 2058

Alt A 12,812

(54%)

13,815

(54%)

10,994

(46%)

11,627

(46%)

Alt B 11,477

(54%)

13,217

(54%)

9,701

(46%)

11,127

(46%)

Alt C 11,812

(54%)

13,343

(54%)

10,147

(46%)

11,195

(46%)

Alt D 11,775

(54%)

13,316

(54%)

10,145

(46%)

11,222

(46%)

Alt E 11,271

(55%)

13,169

(54%)

9,377

(45%)

11,130

(46%)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

The selection of this alternative would have no immediate effect on black-backed and three-toed 

woodpeckers or their habitat. It is assumed that suitable lands would continue to be occupied by both 

species regardless of disturbance events resulting in tree mortality. While both species would utilize and 

selectively seek fire-killed lodgepole and mixed conifer stands to feed on insects, this is a relatively shortterm situation. This is also the period when snag fall intensifies, particularly in lodgepole pine forests.

This alternative has the greatest level of risk from a wide-scale disturbance event (i.e. from insect, 

disease, or fire) and the tradeoff would be short versus long-term habitat. An event of a large magnitude 

would alter habitat for many decades and would not contribute to suitable habitat conditions over the 

longer-term.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

The Viable Ecosystem Model estimated there are 21,313 acres of nesting habitat available for the blackbacked and three-toed woodpeckers. This is based on tree size classes and appropriate PAGs typically 

selected for nesting by black-backed woodpeckers. 

Table 48 displays the range of tolerance interval based on snag levels taken from DecAID for blackbacked and three-toed woodpeckers. Figure 14 depicts Viable Ecosystem modeled habitat and DecAID 

modeled snag densities for the most likely black-baked and three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat use 

(denoted in blue-green). The nesting habitat with the highest suitability for use is where the Viable 

modeled nesting habitat, high snag densities, and high percent of down wood cover overlap, denoted in 

purple. 

Essentially, a tolerance level below 30 percent (0-2.5 snags per acre greater than 10 inches in diameter) is 

habitat that is less suitable for species use than acreage that supports higher levels of snag densities, which 

is 30 percent and higher with above 80 percent being the best suitable. For use of snags 10 inches (25 

cm) in diameter and greater, 10,195 acres (48 percent) of current nesting habitat is unsuitable for nesting 

pairs of black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers. There are 5,496 acres (26 percent) that have snag 

densities less than 2.5 per acre, i.e. below the 30 percent tolerance level and less likely for suitable snag 

nesting habitat. For comparatively higher suitable nesting snag densities, 5,061 acres have 2.5-13.6 snags 

per acre (30-50 percent tolerance interval). The 50-80 percent tolerance level provides higher snag 

densities, which equates to 336 acres (2 percent) of more suitable nesting habitat. The most suitable and 

highest nesting snag densities fall in the 80 plus percent tolerance interval level. At this tolerance level 

there are 224 acres (one percent) within current modeled habitat that have 29.2 snags per acre and above. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 163 of 528

Overall, there are 11,117 acres (52 percent) of suitable snag densities within the current Viable Ecosystem 

modeled nesting habitat for black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers.

However, black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers are known to excavate nesting cavities in dead 

portions of live trees (dead tops, dead limbs, etc.) and down wood in addition to snag habitat. Project 

Design Features in Chapter 2 of this document disclose the retention of snags and limited circumstances 

where snag felling may occur. Other Project Design Features require that high value trees to wildlife 

remain on the site (e.g. multiple topped trees, true firs with conks, etc.). Prescribed burn plans developed 

after timber harvest activities are completed may include a request to create additional snags from burning 

where snags are currently limited and the protection of existing snags.

Table 48. Tolerance Intervals for the Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpeckers and Snag Use

Black-backed 

Woodpecker 

21,313 acres*

Density of Snags = 10" dbh by tolerance interval

Tolerance 

Interval 0% 0%-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%+

Density 

(no./hectare**) 0 0-6.2 6.2-34 34-72.9 72.9+

Density 

(no./acre**) 0 0-2.5 2.5-13.6 13.6-29.2 29.2+

Percent of 

Habitat 48% 26% 24% 2% 1%

Acres 10,195 5,496 5,061 336 224

* DecAID snag tables are not available for the Three-toed Woodpecker. Blackbacked woodpecker data is used as a proxy.

**From DecAID XX Tables EMC_S/L.sp 22 and PPDF_S/L.sp-22. Information synthesized 

from various studies. Species utilizing high snag densities are generally utilizing clumps of 

snags.

Table 48 displays the range of tolerance intervals based on down wood densities taken from DecAID for 

black-back and three-toed woodpecker. Figure 14 also illustrates the highest likelihood of nesting habitat 

for down wood densities. The likelihood is where the current Viable nesting habitat overlaps the highest 

density percentage of down wood greater than five inches in diameter, denoted in red. The nesting habitat 

with the highest suitability for use is where the Viable modeled nesting habitat, high snag densities, and 

high percent of down wood cover overlap, denoted in purple.

Of the current modeled nesting habitat, 3,666 acres (17 percent) does not have down wood five inches (12 

cm) in diameter and is unlikely to support nesting black-backed or three-toed woodpeckers. The majority 

of the Viable modeled nesting habitat is capable of supporting nesting pairs, within the 0-30 percent 

tolerance interval. A total of 13,982 acres (66 percent) are within this 0-30 percent tolerance interval. 

Within the 30-50 percent tolerance interval, 3,410 acres (16 percent) provide nesting habitat for a higher 

portion of the black-backed and three-toed pairs. At the 50-80 percent down wood tolerance interval, 

suitable nesting habitat requires 13-25.1 percent of down wood with a diameter of 5 inches or greater. 

There are 255 acres (one percent) of Viable nesting habitat which falls within this high percent down 

wood cover. Lastly, there is no current modeled habitat that has over 25.1 percent down wood cover 

within the project area; this would have the highest likelihood to support nesting pairs.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 164 of 528

However, down wood is not the key factor in nesting habitat for the black-backed and three-toed 

woodpeckers. As mentioned before, they utilize other resources like snags and dead portions of live trees 

they can excavate. Project Design Features include retention of down wood and limitations of down 

wood removal, including within potential fire wood units. Prescribed burn plans will also include the 

retention of larger dead wood 12 inches in diameter and greater.

Table 49. Tolerance Intervals for Black-backed and Three-toed Woodpeckers and Down Wood Use

BlackBacked*

21,313 acres

Distribution of down wood >=5" (12 cm**)

Tolerance 

Interval***

0% 0%-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%+

% Down 

wood 

Cover****

0 0-4.7 4.7-13 13-25.1 25.1+

% of Habitat 17% 66% 16% 1% 0%

Acres 3,666 13,982 3,410 255 0

* DecAID snag tables are not available for the Three-toed Woodpecker. Black-backed 

woodpecker data is used as a proxy.

**Down wood cover categories are 12, 25, 50, 75 and 100% this may over estimate as the 

study from which tolerance levels were developed only measured down wood greater than 

14cm.

***Tolerance intervals based on DecAID table EMC_L.sp-24

****From DecAID 2.1 Tables EMC_S/L.sp 22 and PPDF_S/L.sp-22. Information 

synthesized from various studies. Species utilizing high snag densities are generally 

utilizing clumps of snags.

All action alternatives would prescribe thinning and post-sale activities such as non-commercial thinning, 

piling of slash, firewood removal, and careful reintroduction of prescribed fire, primarily in ponderosa 

pine dominated PAGs. These actions would reduce canopy cover and lessen vertical vegetation diversity. 

Existing snag habitat, which is especially important to three-toed woodpeckers for nesting, would 

generally remain in its current state. Thinning activities would lessen the risk of future large-scale 

infection, infestation, and fire, but some level of risk would remain present and could affect levels of 

future tree mortality. These would be distributed in individual trees or clumpy patches. While all snags 

are intended to remain, some incidental loss may occur during the construction of temporary roads, 

placement of landings where the logs are stacked and processed, or for occupational safety. Loss of hard 

snags along designated haul routes has not been monitored; however, professional judgment estimates 

these numbers to be relatively small and within levels that are routinely felled for public safety along 

Highway Safety Act roads. Monitoring by harvest inspectors show approximately one percent of snags 

are lost through harvest. The development of prescribed burning plans incorporates Project Design 

Features (Chapter 2) for the protection of snags. These features have proven to be effective in numerous 

projects such as Seven Buttes Return and Baja 58 where over 90 percent of all snags were retained 

(personal communication with Jeff Bishop, Assistant Fire Management Officer, 2008).

Personal use and/or commercial firewood is proposed within treatment units (Alternatives B, C, and D 

units: 10, 15, 20, 155, 160, 166, 190, 370, 385, 425, 430, and 870; and Alternative E units: 15, 20, 150, 

155, 160, 166, 190, 370, 385, 425, 430, and 870) to provide a product for people in communities that 

depend on wood for home heating. These are the only treatment units where dead and down wood may 

be removed. Where firewood removal would occur, Project Design Features have been incorporated to 

specify minimum levels (see Table 14). All other units utilize Table 13 where the tonnage per acre to be 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 165 of 528

retained would range from 12-23 in ponderosa pine type PAG. This equates to 11-16 whole trees 16-22 

inches in diameter or equivalent, or 2.8-5.2 percent down wood cover. For lodgepole pine PAG type 7-42 

tons/acres would be retained. This equates to 17-105 whole trees 8-12 inches in diameter or equivalent, 

or 2.6-15.9 percent down wood cover. For montane mixed conifer stands (mountain hemlock) PAG type 

11-42 tons/acre would be retained. This equates to 11-38 whole trees 16-22 inches in diameter or 

equivalent, or 2.6-10 percent down wood cover. Monitoring of the woodcutting areas is standard practice 

on the District and would determine when these levels have been reached. When this occurs, woodcutting 

areas would be closed down.

For the three-toed woodpecker, all thinning prescriptions in suitable nesting habitat are likely to result in a 

reduced use of activity areas for nesting purposes (Goggans et al. 1989). In addition, three-toed 

woodpeckers avoid harvested stands for roosting and foraging, which would require them to acquire these 

habitat components elsewhere within their home ranges - although the home range is not expected to 

increase in size. For black-backed woodpeckers, the Goggans (1989) study showed this species is more 

tolerant in using harvested stands for nesting with half of the nests located within stands disturbed by 

harvesting. However, she also found, similar to three-toed woodpeckers, that black-backed woodpeckers 

preferred passively managed stands for foraging; and that all roosting occurred in stands that have not 

been harvested. Telemetry data confirms black-backed woodpeckers avoid harvested stands for roosting 

and foraging, causing home range size to increase as the amount of passively managed areas and mature 

forest decrease.

Table 50 displays projected suitable black-backed and three-toed nesting habitat over time. Although 

habitat acres would increase in Alternative A, the resulting stand left untreated would be more susceptible 

to dwarf mistletoe infection, bark beetle infestation, and fire events when compared to action alternatives. 

Action Alternative acreage increases over time as a result of expected increase in tree vigor from 

thinning, reducing overcrowded stands, reducing fuel loading, and the probability of advancing stands to 

the next successional stages. For year 2018, Alternatives B and E decrease habitat acres, while 

Alternatives C and D increase habitat. Alternatives C and D are projected to provide the most nesting 

habitat as a result of the proposed management treatments, though the differences between alternatives 

are only a few hundred acres. By 2058, all action alternatives significantly increase healthy suitable 

habitat.

Figure 15. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Black-backed and Three-Toed Woodpecker Nesting 

Habitat over Time within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

20000

21500

23000

24500

26000

2010 2018 2058

Acres

Year

Nesting Habitat

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 166 of 528

Table 50. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Black-backed and Three-Toed Woodpecker Nesting 

Habitat Acres over Time within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Black-backed Woodpecker Nesting 

Habitat Acres

2010

2018 

Projection

2058 

Pre-Treatment Projection

A 21,313 23,806 25,442

B 21,313 21,178 24,344

C 21,313 21,959 24,538

D 21,313 21,919 24,538

E 21,313 20,648 24,299

At least 15 percent of each proposed activity unit would be managed in a passive scenario (Chapter 2). 

The retention of untreated acres may be capable of providing nesting habitat where appropriate structure 

exists. Because well distributed nesting habitat is available to function as future replacement, there would 

be no reduction in the numbers of Black-backed or Three-toed woodpecker home ranges that can be 

supported across the analysis area. In addition, there would be no loss of Late and Old Structured habitat, 

because the largest trees would be retained, except in Alternative D where some trees over 21 inches 

would be removed to address mistletoe infection. Within younger-aged stands, reduced competition for 

scarce resources as a result of thinning would allow the residual trees to increase their size potential. 

Also, management practices would encourage development of a more resilient forest, e.g. reducing the 

risk of disease, infestation, and fire events in nesting habitat. 

Viable Ecosystem modeling accounted for all active management that has occurred in the Rim-Paunina 

project area up to September 2004. It is assumed most of the habitat available is on Federal lands.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B

The selection of this alternative would enhance open single story ponderosa pine forests, by reducing the 

mixed conifer multilayered component and overall tree density. The majority of proposed thinning 

treatment units are in ponderosa pine forests (unsuitable nesting habitat), with some in lodgepole pine and 

in a few mixed conifer forests (suitable nesting habitat). Hence, this alternative would treat the least 

amount of nesting habitat, 4,751 acres (22 percent of habitat) leaving seventy-eight percent untreated. 

Neither species uses harvested area for foraging nor roosting (Goggans et al. 1989); however ponderosa 

pine PAG type, the majority of the proposed treatment areas, is not the preferred nesting or roosting 

habitat. 

Table 50 shows an increasing trend in suitable nesting acres. Projected acreage of nesting habitat for the 

black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers is 24,344 acres in 2058, which are 45 more acres than 

Alternative E and 194 acres less than Alternatives C and D. This would result in an increase in the 

number of pairs the analysis area could support. With an increase in the amount of nesting habitat 

projected, the associated risk of a disturbance event would be elevated. However, in contrast to the risk 

expressed for Alternative A, it would be less wide-scale and endemic as stands approach biological 

capabilities. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 167 of 528

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D would provide more suitable contiguous habitat for nesting, roosting, or foraging 

black-backed woodpeckers. Implementation of these two alternatives provide a balance of treatment 

acres, both short and long-term, between open ponderosa stands and a denser, multi-layered stands, which 

are more conducive to black-backed woodpeckers. Although, no activity would occur in selected 

decadent lodgepole pine stands, there would still be improvement cuts in other lodgepole pine forests, 

which is more conducive habitat for three-toed woodpeckers. For Alternatives C and D, 6,439 acres (30 

percent) of black-backed and three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat would be treated in the analysis area 

leaving seventy percent untreated. 

In addition, Alternative D includes group selection in severely mistletoe infected stands, creating 2-5 acre 

openings, removing all infected trees, including those over 21 inches in diameter, and planting ponderosa 

pine seedlings in the openings. These activities are proposed to break the dwarf mistletoe cycle of 

continual infection by creating openings and planting uninfected ponderosa pine. Alternative D 

management activities would remove more overstory needed for suitable nesting habitat on the short-term 

level than Alternatives B and C, but over time there would be an increase in healthy habitat. 

Additionally, no activity would occur in selected decadent lodgepole pine stands in treatment units as in 

Alternative C. 

Similar to Alternative B, Alternatives C and D have a projected increase in nesting habitat for black-back 

and three-toed woodpeckers in 2018 and 2058 (Table 50). By 2058, both alternatives project 194 more 

acres than Alternative B and 239 more acres than Alternative E. This would result in an increase in the 

number of pairs the analysis area could support. With an increase in the amount of nesting habitat 

projected, the associated risk of a disturbance event would be elevated. However, in contrast to the risk 

expressed in Alternative A, it would be less wide-scale and endemic as stands approach biological 

capabilities. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative E

The selection of this alternative would implement the most management activities within nesting habitat 

for the black-backed and three-toed woodpecker. Alternative E proposes to treat 7,034 acres (33 percent) 

of black-backed and three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat in the analysis area, leaving sixty-seven 

percent of habitat untreated. Similar to Alternative D, this alternative reduces the overstory component in 

severely mistletoe-infected stands. Openings would be created where severely infected trees have 

infected the understory. In the openings, all trees under 21 inches in diameter would be removed and for 

trees 21 inches in diameter and greater, proposed management activities would induce mortality. This 

induced mortality would retain the large trees within the openings and add to the recruitment of more 

snags than all other action alternatives, providing nesting trees for woodpecker species in suitable 

habitats. 

Similar to all action alternatives, this alternative is projected to increase nesting habitat, but by the least 

amount, for black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers in 2018 and 2058 (Table 50). By 2058, 

Alternative E projects 194 less acres than Alternatives C and D and 45 less acres than Alternative B, but 

2,986 acres more than the existing condition. This increase in habitat would still result in an increase in 

the number of pairs the analysis area could support. With an increase in the amount of nesting habitat 

projected, the associated risk of a disturbance event would be elevated. However, in contrast to the risk 

expressed in Alternative A, it would be less wide-scale and endemic as stands approach biological 

capabilities
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 168 of 528

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 was reviewed for activities that overlap the zone of influence in time and space and have the 

potential to incrementally affect three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers. The zone of influence is 

identified as the 40,000-acre Little Walker Watershed because it is large enough to include several home 

ranges for both species. The remaining projects from Table 19 listed as “completed” no longer have any 

effects that are quantifiable. No on going or current projects overlap with the project area. 

Snag densities on private land in the project area are assumed to be low because most landowners want to 

reduce wildfire potential on their land. Consequently, snag habitat is likely limited and may not be 

available to woodpeckers for very long and would not contribute to nesting populations. The new 

Gilchrist State Forest that abuts the project area has a stated objective “to maintain the forestlands as 

managed/working forests and conserve forestlands that could be lost to parcelization and/or 

development.” 19 Activities would focus on developing an integrated management plan for recreation, 

sustainable forestry, and wildlife habitat. Forest management activities would match the Eastern Oregon 

Regional Forest Management Plan which would likely thin overly dense young forests in the first decade. 

There are no foreseeable actions that have potential to reduce suitable habitat for either woodpecker. 

When past, present, and foreseeable actions are combined, the amount of suitable nesting habitat present 

in the analysis area would not result in a long-term decreasing trend for either woodpecker species. There 

are no actions since November 2004 with potential to alter habitat in the Rim Paunina project area. No 

cumulative effects to the three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers are projected. 

Conclusion

Within the state of Oregon, the Oregon State Heritage Program listed three-toed and black-backed 

woodpeckers as S3 ‘Vulnerable’ (NatureServe 2011). For Alternatives C, D, and E the one known, blackbacked woodpecker nest within the project area is located in a ‘fuels only’ treatment unit, which is an 

underburn consuming ground vegetation and small trees only. Habitat components, like overstory, would

not be affected.

For all action alternatives, the majority of proposed thinning and fuel treatments are in ponderosa pine 

forests, which is not habitat for either species. Alternatives C and D provide the best treatment options 

for the two species by maintaining a denser multi-storied canopy cover with retention of decadent 

lodgepole stands. For all Rim-Paunina mitigation measures and Project Design Features (Chapter 2), 

snag removal would be restricted to timber sale landings, temporary road construction, and those deemed 

a safety hazard to forest workers. Therefore the Rim-Paunina project would not contribute to a change in 

viability on the Deschutes National Forest for the Black-backed or Three-toed woodpecker.

In the long-term, the Rim-Paunina project would result in more resilient nesting habitat. Implementation 

of action alternatives would contribute to a diversity of cover types and seral stages across the landscape. 

There are old growth areas that can provide nesting habitat throughout the Rim-Paunina project area as 

well as unmanaged acres within treatment units. For the Crescent Ranger District, the overall the project 

would not contribute to a change in the either species’ population. 

This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other districts have overlapping 

project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no overlapping projects on district 

there are no cumulative effects. For both species, nesting habitat is projected to increase after 

implementation (Table 50). Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 367,499 acres of 

modeled nesting habitat for the three-toed and 446,003 acres for black-backed woodpeckers. The project 

area is only a 13 percent of the entire Crescent Ranger District, which is only 22 percent of the Deschutes 

 

19 State of Oregon Staff Analysis of the Proposed Acquisition, November, 2009
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 169 of 528

National Forest. There is ample nesting habitat outside the project area forest wide. For the Deschutes 

National Forest, the Rim-Paunina project would not contribute to any change in the viability of three-toed 

and black-backed woodpeckers.

Woodpecker Guild 

Effects to the white-headed and Lewis’ woodpeckers have been disclosed in the Threatened, Endangered, 

and Sensitive section of this Chapter. Effects to the pileated, hairy and downy woodpeckers and the 

Williamson’s and red-naped sapsucker and northern flicker are discussed here. Direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects are discussed at the end of the woodpecker guild section.

Pileated, Hairy, and Downy Woodpeckers and the Williamson’s and Red-Naped Sapsuckers and 

Northern Flickers

Ecology 

The hairy and downy woodpeckers, the northern flicker, and the Williamson’s and red-naped sapsucker 

are described as common inhabitants of Oregon and the pileated woodpecker is an uncommon species in 

Oregon limited altitudinally by habitat availability (Marshall et al. 2003). This guild of species is 

dependent upon snags and/or live trees with internal rot for nesting or roosting cavities and as a forage 

substrate. 

However, there are differences in the selection of preferred habitats among the species. The northern

flicker is generally most abundant in open forests and forest edges. The Williamson’s sapsucker prefers 

mid-to-high elevation mature or old-structured forests with fairly open canopy cover. The downy 

woodpecker and red-naped sapsucker prefer riparian areas with hardwoods. The hairy woodpecker 

utilizes mixed-conifer forests and ponderosa pine as well as adjacent deciduous stands, while the pileated 

occurs primarily in dense mixed conifer forests in late seral stages or in deciduous trees stands in valley 

bottoms (Marshall et al. 2003). Population trends in Oregon have been reported as stable (Williamson’s 

sapsuckers) or a non-significant decline ranging from 0.4-0.6 percent per year based on Breeding Bird 

Surveys 1966-2000 as reported by Marshall et al. (2003) for the remaining species. For the state of 

Oregon, the Oregon State Heritage Program 2011 lists state the hairy, downy, and pileated woodpeckers 

and the red-naped sapsucker species ranking as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’. NatureServe (2011) listed the 

following as the top five major threats afflicting pileated woodpeckers (1) conversion of forest habitats to 

non-forest habitats, (2) short rotation, even-age forestry, (3) monoculture forestry, (4) forest 

fragmentation, and (5) removal of logging residue, downed wood, and pine straw that would ultimately 

put nutrients back into the ecosystem and provide foraging substrate. For hairy woodpeckers possible 

local declines may result from usurpation of nest cavities by house sparrows or starlings. The 

Williamson’s sapsucker is listed as S4B, ‘Apparently Secure’ for breeding populations and S3N, 

‘Vulnerable’ for nonbreeding populations (NatureServe 2011). This ranking differs from the 2008 S5 

‘Secure’ listing. There were no reasons given for the declines. Northern flickers are ranked as S5, 

‘Secure’ (NatureServe 2011). 

Existing Condition

Pileated woodpecker habitat for the Deschutes National Forest is defined as ponderosa pine stands with 

Douglas fir, white fir, mountain hemlock, and Shasta red fir stands with greater than 15-20 inch in 

diameter trees and a dense canopy condition. Using the above definition, the Viable Ecosystem modeling 

estimated 1,417 acres of potential pileated nesting habitat in the project analysis area. For the 

Williamson’s sapsucker, the nesting habitat definition was ponderosa pine and white fir stands where the 

ponderosa pine present was greater than 15-20 inches in diameter in an open canopy condition (1,094 

acres). The northern flicker nesting habitat was most abundant in older open forests and forest edges, 

avoiding dense forests (1,553 acres), though they are habitat generalists and are found throughout the 

Crescent Ranger District. Individual modeling for the hairy and downy woodpeckers were not conducted. 

Hairy woodpeckers, like the northern flicker, are habitat generalists and occur throughout the Crescent 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 170 of 528

Ranger District. On the district, downy woodpeckers and red-naped sapsuckers are found in deciduous 

and mixed deciduous-conifer forests and in riparian habitat, where they are most abundant (Marshall et al. 

2003). There has been no specific survey conducted for hairy and downy woodpeckers, the northern

flicker, and the Williamson’s sapsucker, although district observational records show six Williamson’s 

sapsucker sightings and one nest clustered around the Walker Mountain area. One northern flicker 

sighting was also noted in the west section of the project area. While conducting other wildlife 

inventories, wildlife crews have seen the remaining species within the analysis area (Boucher, pers. 

comm. 2008; Rosterolla, pers. comm. 2009).

The Rim-Paunina project existing condition also includes a 660 foot disturbance zone on all roads and 

motorized routes. The 660 foot disturbance zone represents existing and potential disturbance from 

vehicle use on roads and motorized routes (Forman 2000). The assumption is disturbance would continue 

to effect habitat within the road effect zone (200 meters (~660 ft) each side of roads or motorized trails; 

Forman 2000). Decreased habitat quality, reduced reproductive potential, and avoidance of the roads and 

motorized routes effect zones are potential effects as a result of habitat alteration physically or due to 

disturbance. 

For the woodpecker guild and cavity nesters, Hamann et al. (1999) and Gaines et al. (2003) have 

conducted literature reviews of recreational effects, including OHV use. Their reviews showed 

recreational trail-associated disturbances did not present a problem to woodpeckers and cavity nesters as a 

group. This includes the 660 foot (200 meters) disturbance buffer Forman (2000) used for his study on 

potential disturbances from vehicle use on motorized trails. Hamann et al. (1999) also stated that 

recreational activity is unlikely to be focused around nest sites of these species. 

The most current reviews of recreational trail-associated literature including OHV use did not present a 

problem to woodpeckers and cavity nesters as a group. Reference the Three Trails OHV EIS for further 

discussion on the effects of motorized routes and project activities on the woodpecker guild (Three Trails 

OHV EIS 2010). 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

This alternative would have no immediate effect on any of the species in the woodpecker guild. For the 

Rim-Paunina project area, it is assumed that in the short-term, endemic levels of insects, disease, and 

density related mortality to existing stands would continue to provide snag habitat for all species in these 

guild. Over time, increased canopy layering and tree density would subject these stands to increased

levels of risk of loss due to fire, insect, and disease. This could result in a temporary increase in high 

density snag conditions favorable to these listed species.

This alternative has the greatest level of risk from a wide-scale disturbance event (i.e. from insect, 

disease, or fire) and the tradeoff would be short versus long-term habitat. An event of a large magnitude 

would alter habitat for many decades and would not contribute to suitable nesting habitat conditions over 

the longer-term.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

Figure 16 to Figure 18 and Table 51 to Table 53 display projections of suitable pileated woodpecker, 

Williamson sapsucker, and northern flicker nesting habitat by alternative over time. All action alternative 

acreage amounts increase over time as a result of expected increase in tree vigor from thinning, reducing 

overcrowded stands, reducing fuel loading, and the probability of advancing stands to the next 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 171 of 528

successional stages. By year 2058 increased habitat would also include stands that are untreated and 

possibly exceeding HRV resulting in the same effects as Alternative A. 

The Rim-Paunina project area is not a high source of habitat for the pileated woodpecker. Historically, 

the project area was a predominantly open, single-story, ponderosa pine stand with a small mixed conifer 

component on the upper Walker Rim. Due to over-crowding a dense multi-layer canopy of ponderosa 

and lodgepole pine with some mixed conifer is now modeled as potential habitat. However, these stands 

exceed HRV and are at high risk of a stand replacement event. All action alternatives increase nesting 

habitat post-implementation. While Alternative C has the most modeled potential habitat postimplementation in 2018 and projected for 2058, the acreage habitat between each action alternative is 

nominal. Concerning projected year 2058, there is more modeled potential nesting habitat because there 

is no vegetative activity to maintain HRV (Table 51). By not maintaining HRV, stand densities and stand 

canopy cover increase which results in more conducive pileated woodpecker nesting habitat.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 Pre-Treatment 2018 Projection 2058 Projection

Pileated Woodpecker Nesting 

Habitat

A

B

C

D

E

Figure 16. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Pileated Woodpecker Nesting Habitat over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only) 

Table 51. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Pileated Woodpecker Nesting Habitat over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Pileated Woodpecker Nesting Habitat Acres

2010

2018 

Projection 2058 Projection

Pre-Treatment

A 1,417 2,096 5,454

B 1,417 1,984 4,897

C 1,417 2,008 4,959

D 1,417 1,993 4,928

E 1,417 1,926 4,830
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 172 of 528

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2010 Pre-Treatment 2018 Projection 2058 Projection

Williamson Sapsucker Nesting 

Habitat

A

B

C

D

E

Figure 17. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Williamson Sapsucker Nesting Habitat over Time 

within the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Table 52. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Williamson Sapsucker Nesting Habitat over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Williamson Sapsucker Nesting Habitat Acres

2010

2018 

Projection 2058 Projection

Pre-Treatment

A 1,094 789 425

B 1,094 1,646 1,829

C 1,094 1,537 1,723

D 1,094 1,491 1,628

E 1,094 1,707 1,771

All action alternatives increase modeled potential nesting habitat after project implementation in 2018 and 

2058 for the Williamson sapsucker. Williamson sapsucker potential nesting habitat includes ponderosa 

pine stands with an open canopy, which the Rim-Paunina project proposes management for. Post 

implementation (year 2018), Alternative E results in the highest amount of modeled nesting habitat, 

whereas Alternative B results in the highest amount of modeled potential nesting habitat in year 2058.

Alternatives B and E propose more treatment in units which will open canopy cover, resulting in stands 

closer to HRV for ponderosa pine PAG types. However, the difference between each action alternative is 

nominal after project implementation and in projected year 2058.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 173 of 528

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2010 Pre-Treatment 2018 Projection 2058 Projection

Northern Flicker Nesting Habitat

A

B

C

D

E

Figure 18. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Northern Flicker Nesting Habitat over Time within the 

Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Table 53. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Northern Flicker Nesting Habitat over Time within the 

Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands only)

Alternative

Northern Flicker Nesting Habitat Acres

2010

2018 

Projection 2058 Projection

Pre-Treatment

A 1,553 1,756 953

B 1,553 2,568 2,397

C 1,553 2,504 2,281

D 1,553 2,427 2,184

E 1,553 2,259 2,318

Like the Williamson sapsucker, the northern flicker also prefers open older PAG types. All action 

alternatives increase nesting habitat after project implementation in 2018. Alternative B prescribed 

treatments result in the most nesting habitat after project implementation in 2018 and in year 2058. This 

alternative, as well as Alternative E, opens more of the ponderosa pine PAG types, returning them to 

HRV, open single-story stands. In the long-term both of these alternatives would have lower stand 

density compared to Alternatives C and D. However, the difference between each action alternative is 

nominal after project implementation and in projected year 2058. Modeling shows that in year 2058 

projected acres of habitat would decrease compared to after project implementation. This may be due to 

stands and canopy cover becoming denser due to lack of vegetation management and lack of re-entry into

units.

The Viable Ecosystem Model estimated 1,417 acres of current nesting habitat for the pileated woodpecker 

based on suitable PAGs and tree diameters typically selected for nesting. Table 54 displays the range of 

tolerance intervals based on snag levels taken from DecAID for snags 10 inches in diameter (dbh) and 20 

inches dbh. Essentially, a tolerance level below 30 percent (0-14.9 snags per acre greater than 10 inches 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 174 of 528

in diameter or 0-3.5 snags per acre greater than 20 inches dbh) is habitat that is less suitable than acres 

with higher snag densities. There are 290 acres (20 percent) of the current suitable acres according to 

Viable that have zero snags per acre greater than 10 inches in diameters. For the 0 to 30 percent tolerance 

interval, 1,086 acres (77 percent of modeled habitat) have a snag density less than 14.9 snags per acre for 

snags greater than 10 inches in diameter, which is unlikely habitat to support nesting pairs. There are 27 

acres (2 percent of modeled habitat) with snag densities meeting or exceeding 14.9-30.1 snags per acre. 

This has a higher likelihood of supporting nesting pairs. For snags greater than 10 inches in diameter, 14 

acres (one percent) of the defined Viable nesting acres exceed 30.1snags per acre, providing a higher 

likelihood of suitable habitat for nesting pairs. There is no current Viable habitat with snag densities 

above 49.3 snags per acre for snags greater than 10 inches dbh, in the 80 plus percent tolerance interval. 

The majority of the current Viable modeled habitat has a low likelihood of nesting pair use for snags 10 

inches in diameter.

For snag densities of trees 20 inches dbh and greater there are 348 acres (25 percent) of the current Viable 

modeled nesting habitat which have no snags. For the 0 to 30 percent tolerance interval, 1,046 acres (74 

percent of modeled habitat) have a snag density less than 3.5 snags per acre greater than 20 inches in 

diameter, which is unlikely habitat to support nesting pairs. There are nine acres (one percent of modeled 

habitat) with snag densities meeting or exceeding 3.5-7.8 snags per acre. This has a higher likelihood of 

supporting nesting pairs. For snags greater than 20 in diameter, 14 acres (1 percent) of the defined Viable 

nesting acres exceed 7.8 snags per acre, providing a higher likelihood of suitable habitat for nesting pairs. 

There is no current Viable habitat with snag densities above 18.4 snags per acre for snags greater than 20 

inches dbh, in the 80 plus percent tolerance interval. The majority of the current Viable modeled habitat 

has a low likelihood of nesting pair use for snags 20 inches in diameter.

Table 54. Tolerance Intervals for the Pileated Woodpecker and Snag Use

Pileated 

Woodpecker 

1,417 acres

Density of Snags = 10" dbh by tolerance 

interval

Density of Snags = 20" dbh by tolerance 

interval

Tolerance 

Interval 0% 0%-30% 30%-50%

50%-

80%

80%

+

0% 0%-30% 30%-

50%

50%-

80%

80%

+

Density 

(no./hectare*) 0 0-37.2 37.2-75.2 75.2-123.2

123.2

+

0 0-8.8 8.8-19.4 19.4-45.9 45.9

+

Density 

(no./acre*) 0 0-14.9 14.9-30.1 30.1-49.3 49.3+

0 0-3.5 3.5-7.8 7.8-18.4 18.4

+

Percent of 

Habitat

20

%

77% 2% 1% 0% 25% 74% 1% 1% 0%

Acres 29

0

1,086 27 14 0 348 1,046 9 14 0

*From DecAID 2.1 Tables EMC_S/L.sp 22 and PPDF_S/L.sp-22. Information synthesized from various studies. Species 

utilizing high snag densities are generally utilizing clumps of snags.

Table 55 displays the range of tolerance intervals based on down wood densities taken from DecAID for 

pileated woodpecker. Of the current Viable Ecosystem modeled nesting habitat, 632 acres (45 percent) 

does not have down wood 5 inches (12 cm) in diameter and is unlikely to support nesting pileated 

woodpeckers. The majority of the Viable modeled nesting habitat is capable of supporting nesting pairs, 

both within the 0-30 percent tolerance interval and on acres with greater than 4 percent down wood cover.

A total of 457 acres (32 percent) are within the 0-30 percent tolerance interval. Within the 30-50 percent 

tolerance interval, five acres (0 percent) provide nesting habitat for a higher portion of nesting pairs. At

the 50-80 percent down wood tolerance interval, suitable nesting habitat requires 4.5 to 5.1 percent of 

down wood with a diameter of 5 inches or greater. There are 197 acres (14 percent) of Viable nesting 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 175 of 528

habitat which falls within this level of down wood cover. For the 80 percent tolerance interval, there are 

125 acres (9 percent) of current Viable modeled habitat for down wood 5 inches dbh and greater.

Table 55. Tolerance Intervals for the Pileated Woodpecker and Down Wood Use

Pileated 

Woodpecker 1,417

acres

Distribution of down wood >=5" (12 cm*)

Tolerance 

Interval** 0% 0%-30% 30%-50% 50%-80% 80%+

% Down wood 

Cover*** 0 0-4 4-4.5 4.5-5.1 5.1+

% of Habitat 45% 32% 0% 14% 9%

Acres 632 457 5 197 125

*GNN Attributes down wood cover categories are 12, 25, 50, 75 or 100% this may over estimate as 

the study from which tolerance levels were developed only measured down wood greater than 15cm.

**Tolerance intervals based on DecAID table EMC_L.sp-24

***From DecAID 2.1 Tables EMC_S/L.sp 22 and PPDF_S/L.sp-22. Information synthesized from 

various studies. Species utilizing high snag densities are generally utilizing clumps of snags.

Historically the Rim-Paunina project area was not a high source of habitat for pileated woodpecker. Due 

to over-crowding, a dense multi-layer canopy of ponderosa and lodgepole pine with some mixed-conifer 

now exists as potential habitat. These stands are currently above HRV and result in low acres of Viable 

modeled nesting habitat, snags levels, and down wood. 

Project Design Features in Chapter 2 of this document disclose the retention of snags and limited 

circumstances where snag felling may occur. For down wood, the Project Design Features state to retain 

down wood and limit down wood removal, including removal within potential fire wood units. Other 

Project Design Features include retaining high value trees to wildlife on the site (e.g. live multiple topped 

trees, true firs with conks, etc). Additionally, prescribed burn plans developed after timber harvest 

activities are completed may include a request to create additional snags from burning where snags are 

currently limited and the protection of existing snags. For down wood, prescribed burn plans will also 

include the retention of larger dead wood 12 inches in diameter and greater.

The Viable Ecosystem Model estimated 1,094 acres of nesting habitat for the Williamson sapsucker based 

on suitable PAGs and tree diameters typically selected for nesting. Table 52 displays the range of 

tolerance intervals based on snag levels taken from DecAID. Essentially, a tolerance level below 30 

percent (0-14 snags per acre greater than 10 inches dbh, or 0-3.3 snags per acre greater than 20 inches 

dbh) is less suitable for Williamson sapsuckers than acres with higher snag densities. Currently 488 acres 

(45 percent) of the Viable Ecosystem-defined nesting acres have zero snags per acre greater than 10 

inches in diameter. There are also 601 acres (55 percent) of nesting habitat with less than 14 snags per 

acre which equates to a 0-30 percent tolerance interval. For snags 10 inches dbh and greater, four acres of 

the current Viable modeled nesting habitat are suitable (i.e. are with in the 30 to 50 percent or 50 to 80 

percent tolerance interval levels). There is no modeled nesting habitat with snag densities greater than 

49.7 snags per acre for snags 10 inches dbh and greater. The majority of current Viable nesting habitat 

for the Williamson Sapsucker is unlikely to support nesting pairs for snags 10 inches dbh and greater.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 176 of 528

Currently 574 acres (53 percent) of the Viable Ecosystem-defined nesting acres have zero snags per acre 

greater than 20 inches in diameter. There are also 514 acres (47 percent) of nesting habitat with less than 

14 snags per acre which equates to a 0-30 percent or greater tolerance interval. For snags 20 inches dbh 

and greater, four acres of the current Viable modeled nesting habitat are suitable (30 to 50 percent 

tolerance interval level). There are two acres of current modeled habitat which is has a high likelihood of 

nesting use, within the 50-80 percent tolerance level. There is no modeled nesting habitat with snag 

densities greater than 16.6 snags per acre for snags 20 inches dbh and greater. The majority of current 

Viable nesting habitat for the Williamson Sapsucker is unlikely to support nesting pairs for snags 20 

inches dbh and greater.

Like the pileated wood pecker, the Williamson sapsucker has low acres of suitable habitat within the 

Rim-Paunina project area. The same Project Design Features protect existing habitat as with the pileated 

woodpecker.

Table 56. Tolerance Intervals for the Williamson Sapsucker and Snag Use 

Williamson 

Sapsucker 

1,094 acres

Density of Snags = 10" dbh by tolerance 

interval

Density of Snags = 20" dbh by tolerance 

interval

Tolerance 

Interval 0% 0%-30% 30%-50%

50%-

80% 80%+ 0% 0%-30%

30%-

50%

50%-

80% 80%+

Density 

(no./hectare*) 0 0-35.1 35.1-71 71-124.2 124.2+ 0 0-8.2 8.2-21.6 21.6-41.4 41.4+

Density 

(no./acre*) 0 0-14 14-28.4 28.4-49.7 49.7+ 0 0-3.3 3.3-8.6 8.6-16.6 16.6+

Percent of 

Habitat 45% 55% 0% 0% 0% 53% 47% 0% 0% 0%

Acres 488 601 2 2 0 574 514 4 2 0

*From DecAID 2.1 Tables EMC_S/L.sp 22 and PPDF_S/L.sp-22. Information synthesized from various studies. Species 

utilizing high snag densities are generally utilizing clumps of snags.

All four action alternatives propose a combination of commercial thinning, improvement cuts, slash 

treatments, underburning, and activities related to “fuels only” prescriptions that would remove live trees 

less than eight inches diameter to approximate 18-foot spacing. Additionally, Alternative D proposes 

group selection in severely mistletoe-infected stands, including removal of trees over 21 inches in 

diameter. Alternative E proposes removal of infected trees under 21 inches in diameter while inducing

mortality for those over 21 inches in the most severely infected stands on approximately 1,921 acres, 

which would contribute to snag recruitment. The total acres of treatments vary between alternatives; 

however, the effects would be similar. In addition, for each action alternative there is personal and/or 

commercial firewood removal proposed in a limited number of harvest units. 

Personal use and/or commercial firewood is proposed within treatment units (Alternatives B, C, and D

units: 10, 15, 20, 155, 160, 166, 190, 370, 385, 425, 430, and 870; and Alternative E units: 15, 20, 150, 

155, 160, 166, 190, 370, 385, 425, 430, and 870) to provide a product for people in communities that 

depend on wood for home heating. These are the only treatment units where dead and down wood may 

be removed. Where firewood removal would occur, Project Design Features have been incorporated to 

specify minimum levels. The tonnage per acre to be retained would range from 12-23 in the ponderosa 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 177 of 528

pine PAG. This equates to 11-16 whole trees 16-22 inches in diameter or equivalent, or 2.8-5.2 percent 

down wood cover. For lodgepole pine PAG type 7-42 tons/acre would be retained. This equates to 17-

105 whole trees 8-12 inches in diameter or equivalent, or 2.6-15.9 percent down wood cover. For 

montane mixed conifer stands (mountain hemlock) PAG type, 11-42 tons/acre would be retained. This 

equates to 11-38 whole trees 16-22 inches in diameter or equivalent, or to 2.6-10 percent down wood 

cover. Monitoring of the woodcutting areas is standard practice on the District and would determine 

when these levels have been reached. When this occurs, woodcutting areas would be closed down.

The felling of snags would not occur except those that must be removed under limited circumstances such 

as clearing for temporary road construction (9.2 miles Alternative B, 6.5 miles in Alternatives C and D, 

and 8.3 miles Alternative E), where the placement of log landings would occur and for occupational 

safety (Project Design Features, Chapter 2). Prescribed underburning would include “burn plans” which 

include methods to protect snags and down logs, such as building handline to exclude fire. District wide 

post-burn monitoring has determined these measures are generally effective in preventing the snags and 

down logs from charring. On occasion, new snags are created from underburning operations in areas 

where snag densities are low. This is determined for every activity unit before site-specific prescribed 

burning prescriptions are written during the Crescent District post-sale monitoring review.

Commercial thinning of live trees would likely affect future snag recruitment on those trees that would 

have succumbed to competition from stress-related mortality (e.g. competition for scarce site resources). 

However, the increased tree growth of residual trees as a result of thinning would facilitate/accelerate 

attainment of large diameter trees, which would be available as larger diameter snags in the future. High 

density snag patches and concentrations of down wood would be available in the 15 percent unmanaged 

retention areas of each harvest activity unit. In addition, some alternatives would provide for snag 

recruitment with management activities. These pockets of unmanaged stands along with stands outside 

the treatment units serve as blocks of available nesting habitat for the woodpecker guild. 

Pileated woodpecker effects

The Viable Ecosystem program determined 1,417 acres of suitable pileated woodpecker habitat in the 

analysis area. All four action alternatives propose thinning (commercial, none, and small diameter), slash 

removal, and underburning activities in Viable Ecosystem-defined nesting habitats. In Alternative D 

there is a group selection to remove severely mistletoe-infected trees, including those 21 inches and 

greater, while creating 2-5 acres openings. Alternative E removes all severely infected trees 21 inches 

and below, while inducing mortality in infected trees 21 inches and greater, thus providing recruitment of 

snags for potential nesting habitat. Alternatives B, C, and E all retain larger diameter trees on the 

landscape. Alternative C provides the most potential nesting habitat in year 2018 and 2058 (Table 51). 

This alternative keeps the most canopy cover needed for pileated woodpeckers through less thinning, 

deferred lodgepole treatment, and retained decadent lodgepole stands. The majority of the suitable habitat 

in the Rim-Paunina analysis area is on Walker Rim. 

Planned activities would likely reduce canopy cover post-harvest and not have the dense conditions 

preferred by this species. However, the tree species that have potential to achieve the largest diameters 

(ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir) would be favored tree species for retention as they are more fire 

tolerant. This would benefit the species within several decades as canopy cover returns, returning stands 

to nesting and foraging habitat. Modeling for all action alternatives showed an increase in tree growth 

and vigor over projected 2018 and 2058 modeled timeframes, contributing to improved habitat with larger 

diameter snags and down logs available than under a passive management scenario. Viable Ecosystem 

modeling determined an increase in pileated woodpecker habitat in all alternatives for projected years 

2018 and 2058. Alternative B increased habitat to 4,897 acres by 2058, Alternative C to 4,959 acres, 

Alternative D to 4,928 acres, and Alternative E to 4,830 acres (Table 51). While project activities may 

result in some short-term disturbance during implementation that may result in some pairs being 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 178 of 528

temporarily relocated, the long-term (50 years) habitat trend would indicate an increase in suitable habitat 

that could support a population increase.

Williamson sapsucker and northern flicker effects

Because each of these species is more closely associated with open canopied forests, proposed activities 

such as thinning, both commercial and non-commercial, removal of slash, and underburning would 

promote more favorable overall habitat conditions. All four action alternatives propose thinning, slash 

removal, and underburning activities in Viable Ecosystem-defined nesting habitats. In Alternative D 

there is a group selection to remove severely mistletoe-infected trees, including those 21 inches and 

greater, while creating 2-5 acres openings. Alternative E removes all severely infected trees 21 inches 

and below, while inducing mortality in infected trees 21 inches and greater, thus providing recruitment of 

snags. Alternatives B, C, and E all retain larger diameter trees on the landscape. Alternative B 

management activities include 163 acres (15 percent) of nesting habitat for the Williamson sapsucker and 

303 acres (20 percent) of northern flicker nesting habitat. Alternative C and D management activities 

include 613 acres (56 percent) of nesting habitat for the Williamson sapsucker and 697 acres (45 percent)

of northern flicker nesting habitat. Alternative E management activities include 633 acres (58 percent) of 

nesting habitat for the Williamson sapsucker and 731 acres (47 percent) of northern flicker nesting 

habitat. For Alternative E, induced tree mortality of severely infected large trees would add to snag 

recruitment providing nesting habitat. All existing snags would remain except for temporary road 

construction, log landings, and occupational safety.

The Viable model predicted an increasing trend in suitable habitat acres over projected years 2018 and 

2058 (Table 52 and Table 53). For both the Williamson sapsucker and northern flicker, modeling 

determined an increase in the amount of nesting acreage for each alternative greater than the no-action 

alternative. Alternative E results in the most potential nesting habitat for Williamson sapsucker in 2018 

and Alternative B for northern flicker (see explanations of alternatives under Table 52 for Williamson 

sapsucker and Table 53 for the northern flicker). The Williamson sapsucker and northern flicker are

projected to gain the most nesting habitat through Alternative B by year 2058 (1,829 acres of habitat for 

Williamson sapsucker and 2,397 acres for northern flicker), increasing nesting habitat over 1,400 acres 

compared to Alternative A, the no action alternative. However, all other action alternatives are within 

100 to 200 acres. Based on the habitat modeling, there would be habitat to support an increase in 

population for the flicker and Williamson sapsucker, regardless of the alternative selected for 

implementation.

Altman (2000) in the Landbird Conservation Strategies for the East-Slope Cascades recommended the 

retention of at least one snag/acre at least 12 inches in diameter in mixed-conifer stands or at least 18 

inches in diameter in ponderosa pine stands for Williamson sapsuckers. The Project Design Features and 

mitigation measures in Chapter 2 prescribe even higher levels. The Rim-Paunina project is consistent 

with Altman’s recommendations.

Hairy and downy woodpecker and red-naped sapsucker effects

Viable Ecosystem modeling was not conducted for the hairy and downy woodpeckers or red-naped 

sapsucker. There would be no adverse effects to the downy woodpecker or red-naped sapsucker because 

of their close association with riparian habitats in the long-term. For the short-term, depending on the 

alternative there are 12 or 13 units (Unit no. 5, 6, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 80, 85, 90, and 110 for all 

alternatives; Unit 95 for Alternatives B and E; and unit 3005 for Alternatives C, D, and E) proposed for 

treatment within the Five Mile Draw drainage. The objective is to restore riparian function and improve 

vigor of riparian-associated vegetation. Additionally Unit no. 621 treatment is intended to enhance aspen 

stands. For the hairy woodpecker which utilizes mixed conifer, deciduous, and ponderosa pine forests 

there would be minimal short- or long-term effects to the species. In the short-term temporary 

disturbance to nesting pairs may occur during the breeding season from harvest operations and prescribed 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 179 of 528

underburning. This disturbance is considered small scale compared to nesting habitat available in the 

entire 40,000 acre watershed. The intensity of disturbance is also considered low because not all 

activities would occur at the same time and it would last from 1-5 years in duration. Retention of snags 

and down logs is specified in the Project Design Features in Chapter 2. In the long-term, aspen 

enhancement of Unit No. 621 would provide increased deciduous nesting habitat. 

Marshall et al. (2003) reported findings on population trends for the hairy woodpecker, northern flicker, 

pileated woodpecker, and the downy woodpecker. They have experienced non-significant declines over 

the last several decades based on Breeding Bird Surveys. Marshall et al. also reported that the 

Williamson sapsucker population was stable as reported in most of the studies they reviewed. RimPaunina implementation should not result in any short- or long-term decline in populations to any of these 

species.

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 was reviewed for actions that have a similar zone of influence and overlap in time and space

with the Rim-Paunina project. The zone of influence for this group of woodpeckers is defined as the 

Rim-Paunina analysis area, which encompasses the 40,000 acre Little Walker Watershed, which is large 

enough to provide multiple pair home ranges for each of the woodpecker species. The projects from 

Table 19 listed as “completed” no longer have any effects that are quantifiable. No ongoing or current 

projects overlap with the project area. 

Snag density on private land in the project area is assumed to be low because most landowners want to 

reduce wildfire potential on their land. Consequently, snag habitat is likely limited and may not be 

available to woodpeckers for very long and would not contribute to nesting populations. The new 

Gilchrist State Forest that abuts the project area has a stated objective “to maintain the forestlands as 

managed/working forests and conserve forestlands that could be lost to parcelization and/or 

development.” 20 Activities would focus on developing an integrated management plan for recreation, 

sustainable forestry, and wildlife habitat. Forest management activities would match the Eastern Oregon 

Regional Forest Management Plan which would likely thin overly dense young forests in the first decade. 

There are no foreseeable actions that have potential to reduce suitable habitat for any of these woodpecker

species. With project implementation, nesting habitat present in the analysis area would not result in a 

long-term decreasing trend for the woodpecker guild species. There are no additive actions occurring 

since November 2004 with the potential to alter habitat in the project area. No additive cumulative effects 

to the woodpecker guild are projected. 

Conclusion

For the state of Oregon, the Oregon State Heritage Program 2011 lists the hairy, downy, and pileated 

woodpeckers and red-naped sapsucker as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’. NatureServe (2011) listed the 

following as the top five major threats afflicting pileated woodpeckers (1) conversion of forest habitats to 

non-forest habitats, (2) short rotation, even-age forestry, (3) monoculture forestry, (4) forest 

fragmentation, and (5) removal of logging residue, downed wood, and pine straw that would ultimately 

put nutrients back into the ecosystem and provide foraging substrate. For hairy woodpeckers possible 

local declines may result from usurpation of nest cavities by house sparrows or starlings. The 

Williamson’s sapsucker is listed as S4B, ‘Apparently Secure’ for breeding populations and S3N, 

‘Vulnerable’ for nonbreeding populations (NatureServe 2011). This ranking differs from the 2008 S5 

‘Secure’ listing, there were no reasons given for the declines. Northern flickers are ranked as S5, ‘Secure’ 

(NatureServe 2011). 

 

20 State of Oregon Staff Analysis of the Proposed Acquisition, November, 2009
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 180 of 528

Rim-Paunina mitigation measures and Project Design Features would restrict snag removal to timber sale 

landings, temporary road construction, and those deemed a safety hazard to forest workers. In RimPaunina all action alternatives do not permit the removal of snags from the landscape. In Alternative E, 

the induced mortality of severely mistletoe-infected trees 21 inches and over would add to the recruitment 

of snags, creating nesting habitat for all woodpecker guild species. Because of project mitigation 

measures, Project Design Features, and retention of 15-20 percent of acres as untreated in treatment units, 

the Rim-Paunina project does not contribute to any change in the viability of the woodpecker guild within 

the project area. 

No other districts have overlapping project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are 

no overlapping projects on district there are no cumulative effects. Modeled potential nesting habitat for 

2018 (post project-implementation) increases for the pileated woodpecker, Williamson sapsucker, and 

northern flicker. However, modeled northern flicker potential nesting habitat decreases in projected year 

2058 because stand and canopy cover may become more dense due to lack of vegetation management. 

This could be because of increased stand density due to lack of vegetation management. The project area 

is only a 13 percent of the entire Crescent Ranger District, which is only 22 percent of the Deschutes 

National Forest. Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 178,480 acres of modeled 

nesting habitat for the pileated woodpecker, 243,364 acres for Williamson sapsucker, 219,576 acres for 

the northern flicker, 507,921 acres for the hairy woodpecker, and 1,330 acres for the downy woodpecker. 

This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. There is ample nesting habitat 

outside the project area forest wide. For the Deschutes National Forest, the Rim-Paunina project would 

not contribute to any change in the viability of the woodpecker guild.

Red-tail Hawk

Ecology

Red-tail hawks are widely distributed across North America and winter from southern Canada south into 

the United States and Central America. The red-tail hawk has increased in numbers and expanded its 

range since Euro-American settlement (Marshall et al. 2003). While it was selected as a Management 

Indicator Species for large trees in mixed habitat, it uses any habitat that has perches to hunt from and is 

open enough to capture its prey on the ground. Small mammals, such as rabbits, hares, and mice provide 

the bulk of their diet. They are also known to capture birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Red-tails use a 

wide variety of structures for nests, including trees, utility poles and cliffs (Marshall et al. 2003). They 

place their nests higher in trees than other raptors, and generally select larger trees or smaller deformed 

trees where branch structure supports this higher placement. Red-tailed hawks are ranked S5, ‘Secure’ in 

Oregon (NatureServe 2011).

Existing Condition

No Viable Ecosystem analysis was done for the red-tailed hawk because the species is a habitat generalist 

as long as trees are present and capable of supporting a nest structure. Red-tail habitat consists of large 

snags or deformed trees, open country intersperse forests, and suitable perches (e.g. trees, utility poles, 

outcrops etc.). They are known to use agricultural land, clearcuts, grasslands, woodlands and alpine 

environments (Marshall et al. 2003). District wildlife sighting records list thirty-one red-tail hawk 

observations and 10 nests scattered across the analysis area, of which only seven were observed active 

and three were noted as inactive. Private forestlands in the analysis area (106 acres) are not managed for 

red-tail hawks, although scattered large, overstory ponderosa pine may provide nest sites. However, any 

nesting capability for red-tail hawks on private forested lands would be incidental and would not be 

expected to persist for the long-term.

The Three Trails OHV EIS was reviewed for literature research conducted to ascertain OHV effects on 

the red-tailed hawks, if any (Three Trails OHV FEIS 2010). The existing and potential disturbance 

assumption was disturbance would continue within the road effect zone (200 meters each side of roads or 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 181 of 528

motorized trails) for the OHV travel system. Decreased habitat quality, reduced reproductive potential, 

and avoidance of the road effect zone are potential effects as a result of physical habitat alteration or 

disturbance. Disturbance would decrease beyond the road or motorized trail effect zone and as a result, 

habitat quality and amount would increase.

The majority of the existing roads and trails in the project area have been in place for several decades and

some level of habituation to motorized traffic has probably occurred for nesting red-tailed hawks. Flecher 

at al. (1999) conducted a raptor study in Colorado riparian corridors, which included some corridors with 

recreation trails. They found red-tailed hawk abundance was similar from the controlled sites to the trail 

sites. They concluded red-tailed hawks seem to tolerate human activity along the recreational trails. 

Janes (1984) in a red-tail study in Wasco County, Oregon reported that normal human activity did not 

affect red-tailed hawk reproductive success. He also concluded that the presence of dwellings or 

frequently travelled roads and the locations of nests near roads had no significant effects and that 

compensation for normal human activities was not necessary for estimates of reproductive success. Other 

studies stated human activity near a nest site (e.g. walking around or stopping vehicles) has more of an 

effect than OHVs riding by a nest (Lee 1981; Skagen 1980; Holmes et al. 1993; Burger and Gochfeld 

1998 pages 151, 220, 222 and 223; Gill et al. 1996). 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

With the selection of Alternative A, there would be no effect on red-tailed hawk nesting habitat. There 

would be recruitment of additional acres into nesting status as younger managed stands develop the age

and structure requirements red-tails select for nesting. However, in the long term the continuation of 

mistletoe infection and beetle infestation throughout the landscape could lead to tree mortality. 

Additionally, the risk of stand replacement events would continue to increase as well.

This alternative would have no immediate direct effect on red-tailed hawk potential nesting habitat. In 

the short-term, the existing habitat would be occupied with pair territories in the planning area. Younger 

aged stands that have resulted from past regeneration timber harvest have the capability to develop into 

suitable nesting habitat, because these species would use relatively small diameter trees for nesting 

purposes. The long-term poses the greatest potential for stands to lose their desired nesting character 

from reduced stratified structure and canopy cover as a result of mortality from a disturbance event (i.e. 

mistletoe infection, beetle infestation, or fire events).

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All active management alternatives propose activities within stands with trees large enough to provide 

nest structure for red-tail hawks. Alternative B proposes 12,036 acres of commercial thinning, non 

commercial thinning and improvement cuts with underburning treatments in the Rim-Paunina project 

area. For Alternatives C and D there are 14,780 acres of management treatments including commercial 

and non-commercial thinning, slash removal, small diameter thinning, mastication, and prescribed 

underburning, which would be conducted primarily in ponderosa pine dominated stands. In addition, 

Alternative D also includes group selection in severely dwarf mistletoe infected stands, creating 2-5 acre 

openings with removal of infected trees, including those over 21 inches in diameter, and planting 

ponderosa pine seedlings in the openings. For Alternative E, 16,221 acres of proposed treatments include 

slash removal, small diameter thinning, mastication, and prescribed underburning, as well as 1,921 acres 

of alternative mistletoe treatment, in which all infected trees under 21 inches in diameter would be 

removed and mortality in infected trees over 21 inches would be induced. These trees would stay on the 

landscape as snags, eventually adding to the down wood component on the landscape. Treatment of 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 182 of 528

severely infected stands would provide a more healthy resilient forest, with larger trees in which red-tails 

can use in the long term.

Because red-tailed hawks are not known to require dense multi-layered stands for nesting, the commercial 

thinning and fuels reduction activities in all action alternatives would not affect nesting habitat and there 

would be no difference between alternatives. Residual stands would be more likely to sustain large trees 

over the longer term. Project implementation of live tree removal would focus on trees less than 21 

inches in diameter. However, Alternatives D and E slightly reduce the amount of large live trees by 

thinning or killing severally mistletoe infected trees 21 inches and over. 

Stand density reduction, especially in removing trees less than 21 inches in diameter would tend to 

provide more foraging habitat for this species by opening up stands, allowing greater access to the forest 

floor to capture prey. Retaining the largest trees with the largest diameter limbs would also be beneficial 

in maintaining nesting capability in forested stands. Project Design Features and mitigation measures 

(Chapter 2) have been provided to protect active nest sites during the nesting season by prohibiting 

disturbing activities such as timber harvest, temporary road construction, and fuel reduction activities.

Multiple treatment units are located within a quarter mile of a red-tailed hawk nest. If the nests are 

occupied, a seasonal restriction would apply March 1

st

–August 31st for all implementation activities that 

disturbs the nesting hawks (Chapter 2). For Alternative B, treatment units within a quarter mile are: 5, 6, 

665, 685, 690, 775, 800, 805, 875, 876, 880, and 945. For Alternatives C, D, and E units within a quarter 

mile are: 5, 6, 665, 685, 690, 775, 800, 805, 875, 876, 880, 905, 930, 945, 3005, 3010, 3020, 3025, 4025, 

4030, and 4035.

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 in Chapter 2 was reviewed for past and current vegetation management projects with the

potential for additive effects that would overlap in space and time with those of the Rim-Paunina project. 

The zone of influence is defined as the 40,000 acre Little Walker Watershed because it is a large enough 

area to support multiple home ranges. There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project 

area.

Project implementation is not expected to lead to a loss in pair territories in the analysis area or across the 

Crescent Ranger District. Therefore, no cumulative effects to the red-tailed hawk are projected.

Conclusion

In the state of Oregon, the red-tailed hawk is listed as S5 ‘Secure’ through the Oregon Natural Heritage 

program (NatureServe 2011). Rim-Paunina project mitigation measures protect and maintain raptor 

nesting habitat in the following ways: (1) seasonal restriction within a 1⁄4 mile of a known nest site, (2) 15-

20 percent retention of untreated habitat within treated acres as well as untreated suitable nesting habitat 

within the project area, and (3) treating stands to be resilient to disturbance, such as wildfires, insect, and 

disease. From literature research, red-tailed hawks seem to tolerate human activity along recreational 

trails (Flecher et al. 1999, Janes 1984, Three Trails OHV FEIS 2010).

Red-tailed nesting habitat is located on federal lands and is prevalent in and around the project area. The 

combination of insect, disease and wildfires, is expected to reduce the acreage of potential red-tailed 

hawk nesting habitat on the Deschutes National Forest in the absence of management. In general, 

prescriptions for vegetation manipulations promote and maintain nesting habitat by retaining the largest 

diameter trees during harvest operations and opening stands to allow larger limb to grow for nesting. 

Rim-Paunina prescriptions promote more resilient nesting habitat by treating infected and diseased stands 

as well as stands that exceed HRV. In the short term, project implementation would also reduce habitat. 

However, in the long term these actions would provide suitable more resilient nesting habitat that would 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 183 of 528

continue to develop, per Reynolds et al. (1992), and reduce risk of loss from a wide-scale disturbance. 

The Rim-Paunina project analysis does not show short- or long-term red-tailed hawk population change. 

Rim-Paunina would enhance habitat for red tail nesting and foraging on the Crescent Ranger District.

This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other districts have overlapping 

project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no overlapping projects on the 

Crescent Ranger District there are no cumulative effects. Red-tailed are habitat generalists, keying in on 

large diameter trees for nesting. The Rim-Paunina project is not removing large trees, except in 

Alternative D. Alternative D proposes to harvest severely mistletoe-infected trees over 21 inches. 

Alternative E induces tree mortality in trees 21 inches and over, but the trees will stay on the landscape. 

The project area is only a 13 percent of the entire Crescent Ranger District, which is only 22 percent of 

the Deschutes National Forest. Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 192,492 acres 

of modeled nesting habitat for the red-tailed hawk. There is ample nesting habitat outside the project area 

forest wide. For the Deschutes National Forest, the Rim-Paunina project would not contribute to any 

change in the viability of the red-tailed hawk.

Osprey

Ecology

Ospreys are good biological indicators of ecosystem health, because they are long-lived and are the top 

predator of aquatic food webs (USGS 2005). Various fish species comprise 99 percent of their diet. 

Ospreys dramatically declined in abundance through the mid-1970s, as a side effect of pesticide use, but 

have since recovered and become a common nesting species along the Columbia and Willamette 

waterways in western Oregon (USGS 2005). They nest within two miles of fish bearing bodies of water 

and generally nest in larger broken top live trees or snags, but also utilize utility poles, man-made Canada 

goose nest boxes, channel markers and other manmade structures where natural structures are lacking 

(Marshall et al. 2003). The primary habitat requirements of osprey include a dependable source of fish 

that can be captured near the surface and an elevated nesting platform within a few kilometers of their 

food supply. Ospreys are migratory, typically arriving on the Crescent Ranger District in April and May 

and staying into early autumn until fall migration. While a pair would mate for life, they migrate 

separately and re-unite at their nest site the following spring. The birds winter from central California 

south into Central and South America. They are currently ranked as S4 in Oregon, ‘Apparently Secure’

(NatureServe 2011). NatureServe (2011) listed the following as major threats to ospreys: (1) pesticides, 

(2) gunshots, (3) steel traps, (4) impact with or electrocution by high-tension wires, and (5) being caught 

or drowned in nets (Wiemeyer et al. 1980 cited in Henny and Anthony 1989).

Existing Condition

There are at least 40 known osprey nests on the Crescent Ranger District, although none are located in the 

Rim-Paunina analysis area. The greatest concentration of nests are found west and north of Davis Lake, 

but there are also several nests along the shoreline of Odell Lake, all of which are outside the RimPaunina planning area. Within the planning area there are no osprey observations or known nests as of 

February 2012. The lack of nest data in the project area is likely a result of most of the land base being 

greater than two miles away from an adequate food base to support a nesting pair and young in the 

analysis area (i.e. fish bearing bodies of water) (Marshall et al. 2003). There are no major streams or 

rivers that could support enough fish or fishable waters to sustain a pair.

Environmental Consequences

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Effects and Conclusion

There is no indication as of February 2012 that nesting ospreys are present in the 40,000 acre analysis 

area. The Rim-Paunina project area does not encompass any major streams or rivers that could support 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 184 of 528

enough fish or fishable waters to sustain an osprey pair. Therefore, the selection of any action alternative 

is unlikely to have any adverse effect on ospreys and direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are not 

expected to occur. If an active nesting pair became known during sale activities or post-sale work, project 

design features and mitigation measures are in place to protect the nest site. 

Table 19 in Chapter 2 was reviewed for past and current vegetation management projects with the 

potential for additive effects that would overlap in space and time with those of the Rim-Paunina project. 

The zone of influence is defined as the 40,000 acre Little Walker Watershed because it is a large enough 

area to support multiple home ranges. There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project 

area.

The osprey is listed as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’, statewide in Oregon (NatureServe 2011). For the RimPaunina project area there are no direct or indirect effects identified with implementation of any proposed 

alternative. There is no osprey habitat within the project area. There is no overlapping ongoing or current 

projects within the Rim-Paunina area, thus there are no cumulative effects on osprey habitat. The RimPaunina project would not contribute to a change in viability in the Rim-Paunina project area.

This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other districts have overlapping 

project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no overlapping projects on the 

Crescent Ranger District there are no cumulative effects. There is no osprey habitat within the RimPaunina project area. Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 496,233 acres (275,697 

with required structure) of modeled nesting habitat for the osprey. There is ample nesting habitat outside 

the project area forest wide. For the Deschutes National Forest, the Rim-Paunina project would not 

contribute to any change in the viability of the osprey.

Great Gray Owl

Ecology

This species is associated with mature stands of mixed conifer/lodgepole pine/mountain hemlock near 

meadow complexes. Great gray owls do not build their own nests, but rely on other raptor nests, 

mistletoe platforms, broken topped snags, or artificial nest platforms. Bull and Henjum (1990) found that 

great gray owls tended to nest in unlogged, mature or older stands with a fairly open understory and dense 

overstory (60 percent or greater). In a study that included portions of the Deschutes National Forest south 

of LaPine, Oregon, Bryan and Forsman (1987) determined canopy cover at 11 nest sites ranged from 15-

70 percent with a mean of 46.5 percent. Great gray owls have been documented using alternative nest 

sites and may nest more than 0.5 mile from the previous years nest (Bull and Henjum 1990). Bryan and 

Forsman suggested that forest/meadow associations are a preferred habitat. In fact, their research located 

63 sites with great gray owls, of which 60 sites were in forests less than 0.3 km from meadows and three 

were in forest areas 0.30-0.8 km (0.2 - 0.5 miles) from the nearest meadow. Fifty-nine sites were 

dominated by lodgepole pine or mixtures of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. Four sites were in mixed 

coniferous forests. Bryan and Forsman stated all sites where great gray owls were located were in oldgrowth (45 sites) or mature (15 sites) habitat characterized by large overstory trees. They defined oldgrowth lodgepole pine as any stand greater than 70 years of age and old-growth ponderosa pine or mixed 

coniferous forests as any stand over 200 years of age. Elevations at occupied sites ranged from 1,270 to 

1,650 meters (4,167 to 5,413 feet), although great gray owls have been documented to occur at elevations 

up to 1,890 meters (6,200 feet) in eastern Oregon.

Home ranges for breeding adults in northeastern Oregon averaged 1,112 acres and ranged from 324 acres 

to 1,606 acres, although they have been observed foraging up to two miles from the nest (Bull and 

Henjum 1990). Foraging habitat is typically defined as natural meadows greater than 10 acres in size, 

riparian areas, and clear-cut or selectively logged areas where they forage on voles, pocket gophers, 

shrews, chipmunks, squirrels, and snowshoe hares.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 185 of 528

Existing Condition

From a global perspective, great gray owl populations are S5, ‘Stable’, but the Oregon State Heritage 

Program rates the great gray as S3, ‘Vulnerable’, for the state of Oregon (NatureServe, 2011). Reasons as 

to why they are listed as ‘Vulnerable’ were not given. However, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project found populations to be widely distributed, although at low levels. Since 1995, 

surveys conducted to Region 6 protocol have shown available nesting habitat to be found in wider bands 

of elevation as more nests are found region-wide. 

As of January 2012 there are no known nests within the Rim-Paunina project area. The one known nest 

on the district is by Refrigerator Creek outside of the project area. Other observations or vocalizations of 

great grays have been documented within the Three Trails OHV project area, along the Little Deschutes 

River, in Big Marsh, and in the Five Mile Draw drainage north of Highway 58, within the project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A – No Action

This alternative would result in no immediate change in habitat conditions for great gray owls in the 

planning area. Nesting habitat in the planning area would be maintained in late- and old- structure stands 

with broken topped trees and/or where other raptors have created stick nests suitable for great gray owl 

nesting use. However, this alternative would be at the greatest risk to a disturbance event that could 

remove the largest trees and suitable nesting habitat. Stands would continue to exceed HRV, thus 

increasing the risk for a stand replacement event. Additionally, meadows and open areas used by great 

gray owls and their prey species would become encroached upon by lodgepole pine, thus reducing

habitat.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Table 57 displays projections of suitable great gray owl nesting habitat by alternative over time. 

Although habitat acres are projected to increase in Alternative A, the no-action alternative, the resulting 

stand left untreated would be more susceptible to infection, infestation, and fire events when compared to 

Alternatives B-E. Action alternative acreage amounts increase over time as a result of expected increase 

in tree vigor from thinning, reducing overcrowded stands, fuel loading, and the probability of advancing 

stands to the next successional stages. In the action alternatives, analysis for projected years 2018 and 

2058 show an increase in great gray nesting habitat when compared to the existing condition.

Table 57. Viable Ecosystem Modeling Projection of Great Gray Owl Nesting Habitat Acres over Time within 

the Rim-Paunina Project Area (National Forest System Lands Only)

Alternative

Great Gray Owl Nesting Habitat Acres

2010 2018 

Projection Pre- 2058 Projection

Treatment

A 6,173 8,626 17,865

B 6,173 9,171 18,009

C 6,173 9,170 18,165

D 6,173 8,923 17,615

E 6,173 8,835 17,049

Treatments are projected to improve nesting and foraging habitat within the Rim-Paunina project. Bull 

and Henjum (1990) stated partial cuts are generally suitable foraging habitat because the stand is open 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 186 of 528

enough for maneuvering, adequate perches are available, and dead and down material should be left for 

cover for voles. 

Underburning operations are proposed in the ponderosa pine Plant Association Group to reduce needle 

cast and small diameter down wood less than three inches in diameter. Burning may also reduce the 

number of small diameter lodgepole and ponderosa pine present in each unit; however, Project Design 

Features in Chapter 2 were incorporated into the alternatives to retain snags and down wood. Also, 

prescribed burning would be accomplished in a mosaic pattern with unburned areas within the burn, in 

addition to unburned designated leave areas. It is assumed, after timber harvest and fuels activities that 

post-harvest canopy cover levels would range from 20-25 percent in the lodgepole PAG and 30-35 

percent in the ponderosa and mixed conifer PAGs. These percentages would be below those described by 

Bull and Henjum (1990) as suitable nesting conditions and below the average described by Bryan and 

Forsman (1987) in their south central Oregon study. While nesting capability would be reduced, active 

forest management would reduce stem densities and improve great gray owl foraging opportunities 

because visibility and access to the ground for prey capture would be enhanced.

For all treatment units, retention of at least 15 percent for passive management is required. Passive 

management on areas adjacent to thinning activities would maintain sufficient nesting habitat. There 

would be no long-term effect on the great gray owl’s ability to successfully locate suitable nest platforms 

and adjacent foraging areas if nesting habitat is maintained over the long-term in the planning area. Bull 

and Henjum (1990) also state that managing habitat for northern goshawks would provide nest sites over 

time for great gray owls because the owls used old goshawk nests more than any other type of nest in 

their northeastern Oregon study sites. If active nest sites are discovered from future survey efforts, 

Project Design Features and mitigation measure would ensure nest stands would be protected from 

harvest activities and seasonal restrictions placed on disturbing activities as needed.

In all action alternatives, Unit #621 is proposed for aspen treatment. Five openings, up to two acres in 

size, would be created and restoration of aspen and willow would occur. The openings would be 

scattered in the unit, located adjacent to existing aspen patches and within small moist micro climate 

draws suitable for aspen growth. Aspen and willow regeneration would be managed by prescribed fire, 

root cutting, and/or planting. To protect these openings from browsers, wood, metal, or plastic fence 

would surround the openings and trapping of gophers may also be required for aspen growth. The 

remainder of the unit would be thinned following the HTH treatment guidelines (Chapter 2). 

The thinning and aspen enhancement would create more suitable foraging and nest habitat for great gray 

owls. Thinning the unit and establishing opening results in easier foraging grounds, with more 

accessibility to prey species. Over time the unit would return to an aspen-willow wet meadow, which can 

be nesting habitat for great gray owls (Marshall et al. 2003; Riper et al. 2006; Hayward and Verner 1994;

Duncan 1997). Additionally, reducing stand density allows for larger trees to grow creating potential nest 

trees. 

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 in Chapter 2 was reviewed for past and current vegetation management projects with the 

potential for additive effects that would overlap in space and time with those of the Rim-Paunina project. 

The zone of influence is defined as the 40,000 acre Little Walker Watershed because it is a large enough 

area to support multiple home ranges. There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project 

area, thus there are no cumulative effects.

Conclusion

In the state of Oregon, the great gray owl is listed as S3 ‘Vulnerable’ through the Oregon Natural 

Heritage program. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 187 of 528

Rim-Paunina Unit #621, an aspen enhancement treatment unit, would increase habitat in meadow and 

riparian areas by reducing stand densities and restoring native vegetation. In addition, the Rim-Paunina 

project includes mitigation measures to protect and maintain nesting habitat in the following ways: (1) 

seasonal restriction within a 1⁄4 mile of a known nest site, (2) 15-20 percent retention of untreated habitat 

within treated acres as well as untreated suitable nesting habitat within the project area, and (3) treating 

stands to be resilient to disturbance, such as wildfires, insect, and disease.

This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other districts have overlapping 

project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no overlapping projects on the 

Crescent Ranger District there are no cumulative effects. Project implementation would increase great 

gray owl potential nesting and foraging habitat. Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there 

are 197,847 acres of modeled nesting habitat for the great gray owl. There is ample nesting habitat 

outside the project area forest wide. For the Deschutes National Forest, the Rim-Paunina project would 

not contribute to any change in the viability of the great gray owl.

Great Blue Heron

Ecology

The great blue heron is one of the most wide-spread waterbirds in Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003). For the 

state of Oregon, the Oregon State Heritage Program rates the great blue heron as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’

(NatureServe 2011). It is highly adaptable and is found along estuaries, streams, marshes and lakes 

throughout the state. Nest locations are in the proximity of available food. They nest in colonies, 

rookeries, in shrubs, trees and river channel markers where there is little disturbance (Marshall et al. 

2003). Tree species they would utilize in the analysis area include ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. 

While the average preferred diameter of nest trees is 4.5 feet, they use a wide range of sizes from 1.5 to 6 

feet in diameter (Marshall 2003). They hunt around shallow waters of lakes and streams, and wet or dry 

meadows, feeding on fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, reptiles, mammals and birds. Foraging 

habitat on the Crescent Ranger District includes the shallow water of Davis Lake, Odell Creek, Ranger 

Creek and their associated marshes and riparian habitat, which are outside the Rim-Paunina analysis area.

Existing Conditions

Habitat for the great blue heron on the Crescent Ranger District includes meadows, streams, lakes, and 

wetlands. Colony nesting trees on the Crescent Ranger District include western hemlock, ponderosa pine 

and Douglas fir. There are no district records of great blue herons in the Rim-Paunina planning area. 

Also, there are no known active heron rookeries or colony nesting in the project area and only one 

documented rookery on the Crescent District, located in the Moore Creek drainage west of Davis Lake, 

outside the project area. This site however, has not been active since 2003 when nesting red-tailed hawks 

moved into the rookery.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are no activities planned within riparian areas that would have the capability to affect wetland 

habitat which provides foraging habitat for the great blue heron. There are no documented observations 

of great blue herons along the riparian systems in the analysis area. There are no anticipated direct or 

indirect effects to the species. During project implementation, if a heron rookery is discovered, an 

evaluation would occur to determine if activities have the potential for nesting disturbance and a limited 

operating restriction period attached as needed (Project Design Feature, Chapter 2). Restriction would 

apply to activities located within 1⁄4 mile of the rookery, and may include timber harvest, road 

construction, underburning and small-tree thinning or any combination of the above depending on the site 

conditions. Because there are no known nest sites (rookeries) within the project area, nesting disturbance 

would not be an issue with the selection of any alternative including the No Action alternative. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 188 of 528

Table 19 in Chapter 2 was reviewed for past and current vegetation management projects with the

potential for additive effects that would overlap in space and time with those of the Rim-Paunina project. 

The zone of influence is defined as the 40, 000 acre Little Walker Watershed because it is a large enough 

area to support multiple home ranges. There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project 

area.

Since there is no activity in riparian areas that could be possible habitat for the great blue heron and there 

are no overlapping projects with the Rim-Paunina analysis area, there would also be no cumulative 

effects. 

Conclusion

For the state of Oregon great blue herons are listed as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’ (NatureServe 2011). Great 

blue heron need a permanent wetland for nesting habitat, within the project area there are only a few 

intermittent streams and wetlands. Within the Rim-Paunina project area, there is no nesting habitat that 

can support great blue heron, nor are there any known active rookeries within the Rim-Paunina project 

boundary. 

This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other districts have overlapping 

project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no overlapping projects on the 

Crescent Ranger District there are no cumulative effects. There is no wetland habitat that can support 

great blue heron nesting habitat within the Rim-Paunina project boundary. Recent Deschutes National 

Forest analysis shows there are 210,194 acres of modeled nesting habitat for the great blue heron. There 

is ample nesting habitat outside the project area forest wide. For the Deschutes National Forest, the RimPaunina project would not contribute to any change in the viability of the great blue heron.

Waterfowl

Existing Condition

There are no ponds, lakes or reservoirs within the Rim-Paunina project area, thus limiting possible habitat 

and waterfowl abundance. Additionally, there are only a few unnamed intermittent streams and wetlands, 

mainly located in the western portion, which provide scant amounts of habitat. Moreover, there are no 

district records for any waterfowl within the project boundaries, as of February 2012.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There is no proposed project work within riparian reserve zones that could influence waterfowl species 

that require tree cavities for nesting or those that nest on the ground near water sources. Therefore there 

are no direct or indirect effects to waterfowl.

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 in Chapter 2 was reviewed for past and current vegetation management projects with the 

potential for additive effects that would overlap in space and time with those of the Rim-Paunina project. 

There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project area. Since there is no nesting habitat 

for waterfowl in the Rim-Paunina project area and no overlapping projects with the Rim-Paunina analysis 

area, there would are no cumulative effects for waterfowl. 

Conclusion

The majority of the waterfowl habitat on the district occurs in Big Marsh and Davis Lake outside the 

project area. The Rim-Paunina project includes only a small amount of intermittent riparian and stream 

habitat when compared to the contribution of lakes, larger rivers, and wetlands forest wide. There are no 

district records of waterfowl within the Rim-Paunina project area. Waterfowl need a permanent source of 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 189 of 528

water (i.e. stream or wetlands) to nest. Thus, project activities do not propose any change within nesting 

habitat.

This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other districts have overlapping 

project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no overlapping projects on the 

Crescent Ranger District there are no cumulative effects. Nesting waterfowl habitat is located outside the 

project area forest wide. For the Deschutes National Forest, the Rim-Paunina project would not 

contribute to any change in the viability of waterfowl.

Golden Eagle

Ecology

Gilligan et al. (1994) describes the golden eagle as an uncommon to fairly common summer resident in 

open country east of the Cascade Mountains and a very uncommon summer resident high in the Cascades. 

The golden eagle nests in open large (greater than 30 inches in diameter) live ponderosa pine or cliff 

ledges that support its 3-10 foot tall nest (Marshall et al. 2003).

In the state of Oregon, the golden eagle is listed as S4 ‘Apparently Secure’ through the Oregon Natural 

Heritage program (NatureServe 2011).

Existing Condition

Because the majority of the analysis area is dominated by forested stands with two or three canopy layers 

of live trees, open country suitable for nesting and foraging is very limited for this species. The Viable 

Ecosystem analysis was completed and showed approximately 269 acres are present in the Rim-Paunina 

analysis area with trees greater than 30 inches in diameter that would be suitable for the golden eagle. 

District wildlife records list eleven golden eagle sightings across the entire district, four within the 

analysis area. Of these four, two were dead eagles along Highway 58 the other two were live sightings 

along Highway 97, one in a perch tree and one feeding on a deer carcass. It is unknown if there is enough 

open habitat present in the analysis area for a golden eagle territory based on Viable Ecosystem modeling. 

There are no known golden eagle nests in the project area. For the state of Oregon, the Natural Heritage 

program ranks golden eagles as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’ (NatureServe 2010). NatureServe (2010) listed 

the following as the major threats golden eagles experience: (1) powerline electrocution because wings 

can span phase-to-phase or phase-to-ground wires (Biosystems Analysis 1989), (2) poison intended for 

coyotes, (3) occasional shootings, and (4) habitat loss to agriculture and suburban land uses. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The selection of any alternative would have no current direct or indirect effect on the golden eagle since 

there are no known nests within the project area. In each action alternative, treatments units that open the 

stand and understory allowing for large diameter trees to grow would eventually (over several decades)

provide more habitat conducive to the golden eagle. Golden eagles have been known to nest in large, 

over 30 inches in diameter, live ponderosa pines with sturdy open branches (Marshall et al. 2003). 

Foraging habitat is limited to open habitat with a shrub component that provides food and shelter for their 

prey. The prescriptions proposed would not remove trees greater than 30 inches diameter described by 

Marshall et al. (2003) as potential nest habitat structure, except for a few trees in Alternative D which 

may be removed in order to address mistletoe infection.

In the event that nesting golden eagles are discovered in the project area and would be affected by the 

project, project mitigation measures and Project Design Features would protect the nest site (Deschutes 

Land and Resource Management Plan WL-2 and WL-3; page 4-52). These measures have been used as 

routine on the Forest and have been proven to be effective. Since no short- or long-term golden eagle 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- MIS

Page 190 of 528

population decrease would occur as a result of Rim-Paunina implementation, no direct or indirect effects 

are anticipated.

Cumulative Effects 

Table 19 in Chapter 2 was reviewed for past and current vegetation management projects with the 

potential for additive effects that would overlap in space and time with those of the Rim-Paunina project. 

The zone of influence is defined as the Little Walker Watershed because it is a large enough area to 

support multiple home ranges. There are no projects which overlap with the Rim-Paunina project area.

Since there is no activity in riparian areas that could be possible habitat for the golden eagle and there are 

no overlapping projects with the Rim-Paunina analysis area, there would also be no cumulative effects.

Conclusion

Rim-Paunina project actions would not decrease golden eagle habitat. Project actions reducing overall 

tree density and understory would improve forests for possible golden eagle habitat. Project mitigation 

measures protect and maintain raptor nesting habitat in the following ways: (1) seasonal restriction within 

a 1⁄4 mile of a known nest site, (2) at least 15 percent retention of untreated habitat within treated acres as 

well as untreated suitable nesting habitat within the project area, and (3) treating stands to be resilient to 

disturbance, such as wildfires, insect, and disease. 

The golden eagle is listed as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’ in the state of Oregon (NatureServe 2011). The

Rim-Paunina project implementation may improve potential nesting habitat by opening canopy cover and 

understory, as long as re-entry occurs. 

This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest wide. No other districts have overlapping 

project boundaries with the Rim-Paunina project, and since there are no overlapping projects on the 

Crescent Ranger District there are no cumulative effects. Project implementation, along with continued 

re-entry, would increase potential nesting habitat for the golden eagle around the Walker Rim area. 

Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 49,233 acres of modeled nesting habitat for 

the golden eagle. There is ample nesting habitat outside the project area forest wide. For the Deschutes 

National Forest, the Rim-Paunina project would not contribute to any change in the viability of the golden 

eagle.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 191 of 528

Birds of Conservation Concern

In January 2001, President Clinton issued an executive order on migratory birds directing 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. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to conserve migratory birds, and includes taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, 

prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporate migratory bird conservation into agency 

planning processes whenever possible. Prior to the Memorandum of Understanding being finalized, 

several documents were produced for the conservation of migratory birds. These documents from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included the Birds of Conservation Concern released in 2002 and the U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan released in 2004.

The “Birds of Conservation Concern 2002” (BCC) identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all 

migratory non-game birds that without additional conservation protection actions are likely to become 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While all of the bird species included in 

the BCC are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they 

warrant consideration for Endangered Species Act listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for 

additional Endangered Species Act bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation 

plans. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004, revised 2007) was released in 2004 and 

updated in 2007 with new information, and developed a list of U.S. and Canadian shorebirds considered 

highly imperiled or of high conservation concern. Conservation measures were not included but these 

lists should be consulted to determine reasons for conservation concern. 

Bird Conservations Regions (BCRs) were developed based on similar geographic parameters. The Rim 

Paunina project area falls completely within one BCR; BCR 9, Great Basin. Table 58 displays the Bird 

Conservations Region species for this area, preferred habitat and whether suitable habitat is present in the 

project area. 

Table 58. Bird Conservation Region 9 (Great Basin) 2008 List

Bird Species Preferred Habitat Habitat in Rim-Paunina

Project Area

Greater Sage Grouse (Columbia 

Basin DPS) (a) Sagebrush dominated rangelands No Habitat

Eared Grebe (nb)

Nests near shore on small 

freshwater lakes and reservoirs 

with emergent vegetation No Habitat

Bald Eagle Nests in large conifers usually 

near lakes, reservoirs No Habitat

Ferruginous Hawk Sagebrush-shrub steppe No Habitat

Golden Eagle Elevated nest sites in open 

country No Habitat

Peregrine Falcon (b) Cliffs No Habitat

Yellow Rail Marshes with shallow water No Habitat

Snowy Plover Dry sandy beaches No Habitat

Long-billed Curlew Grasslands No Habitat

Marbled Godwit (nb) Marsh/Wet Meadows No Habitat 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (w. U.S. 

DPS) (a) Dense riparian/cottonwoods No Habitat

Flammulated Owl Ponderosa pine forests Potential Habitat

Black Swift Cliffs associated with waterfalls No Habitat
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 192 of 528

Bird Species Preferred Habitat Habitat in Rim-Paunina

Project Area

Calliope Hummingbird

Open mountain meadows, open 

forests, meadow edges, and 

riparian areas breeding mainly at 

middle elevations

No Habitat

Lewis’ Woodpecker Ponderosa pine forests Species Documented

Williamson’s Sapsucker Ponderosa pine forests Species Documented

White-headed Woodpecker Ponderosa pine forests Species Documented

Willow Flycatcher 

Breeding habitat is dense shrubs 

and/or tall herbaceous vegetation 

especially riparian willow 

thickets No Habitat

Loggerhead Shrike Open country with scattered 

trees/shrubs No Habitat

Pinyon Jay

Juniper, juniper-ponderosa pine 

transition, and ponderosa pine 

edge forests

No Habitat

Sage Thrasher

Preferred breeding habitat is big 

sagebrush but would also use 

greasewood, shadscale and rabbit 

brush.

No Habitat

Virginia’s Warbler Mountain Mahogany groves No Habitat

Green-tailed Towhee

Vigorous shrub stands with high 

shrub species diversity and less 

abundant in big sagebrush habitat Species Documented

Brewer’s Sparrow Sagebrush clearings in coniferous 

forests/bitterbrush Potential Habitat

Black-chinned Sparrow

Dry slopes and hillsides covered 

with tall thick vegetation, SE and 

SW Oregon No Habitat

Sage Sparrow Sagebrush No Habitat

Tricolored Blackbird Cattails or tules No Habitat

Black Rosy-Finch

Bare rock outcrops, cliffs and 

talus for breeding on Steens 

Mountains.

No Habitat

(a) ESA candidate, (b) ESA delisted, (c) non-listed subspecies or population of Threatened or Endangered 

species, (d) MBTA protection uncertain or lacking, (nb) non-breeding in this BCR

The following species have not been documented to occur as there is no suitable habitat present in the 

Rim-Paunina project area: greater sage grouse, eared grebe, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, peregrine 

falcon, yellow rail, snowy plover, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, yellow-billed cuckoo, black swift, 

calliope hummingbird, willow flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, pinyon jay, sage thrasher, Virginia’s 

warbler, black-chinned sparrow, sage sparrow, tricolored blackbird, and black rosy finch. The bald eagle, 

Lewis’ woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker are discussed in the Threatened and Endangered 

section. The Williamson’s sapsucker is discussed in the Management Indicator Species (MIS) portion of 

this document.

Habitat for the green-tailed towhee and Brewer’s sparrow potentially occur in the Rim-Paunina project 

area and are discussed below. The flammulated owl is on both the Birds of Conservation Concern and the 

Landbird Focus Species list, and is discussed in the latter section. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 193 of 528

Mitigations and Project Design Features

Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features are automatic modifications that would be made to 

vegetation prescriptions to protect known or newly discovered Management Indicator Species (MIS) and 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species during treatment. These are discussed in detail in 

the Management Indicator Species section and Chapter 2 of this document. These features would also 

increase protection of the Birds of Conservation Concern and Landbird Focal Species.

Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus) and Brewer’s Sparrow (Spizella breweri)

Ecology and Existing Condition

The green-tailed towhee and Brewer’s sparrow are discussed together because of similar life histories and 

breeding territories. Both are long distance migrants, flying from southern California and as far as 

southern Mexico. The breeding range of both species includes eastern, central and southern Oregon, 

down into southern California and east to include Nevada, Arizona and Idaho. The primary nesting 

habitat is sagebrush, but other shrubs and thickets are used, depending on elevation (Nature Serve, 2011). 

Both forage primarily on the ground (Dawson et al. 1979, NatureServe 2011). Threats to both species 

include ground squirrels, chipmunks, red squirrels, snakes, and weasels that prey on nestlings. Adults are 

preyed upon by raptors and shrikes (NatureServe 2011). 

The green-tailed towhee is known to use riparian areas in dry open country for nesting (Gilligan et al. 

1994) but it utilizes primarily low shrubs, sometimes interspersed with trees; it avoids typical forest, other 

than open pinyon-juniper woodlands (Dobbs et al. 1998). Nests in Oregon are not well described but 

generally located in low bushes close to the ground, woven of grasses and lined with hair sometimes of 

porcupine (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940 cited by Marshall et al. 2003). Jehle et al. (2006) found that 

green-tailed towhee nesting success decreased in areas of contiguous high shrub density. It was 

postulated that the historic frequent fire regime scattered the dense brush clumps used for nesting across 

the landscape, which diminished the competition between nesting towhees for limited food resources and 

the potential for predation.

Brewer’s sparrow is also known to utilize a variety of other shrub species in the Great Basin and has been 

found as high as 6,000 feet elevation in the Cascades (Gilligan et al. 1994; M. Patterson pers.comm. in 

Marshall 2003). The sparrow also prefers areas dominated by shrubs rather than grass and sites with high 

shrub cover and large patch size, but thresholds for these values have not been quantified (Knick and 

Rotenberry 1995). It prefers to build its nests low in sagebrush or other shrubs, from an inch to about 

three feet from the ground.

The current NatureServe Conservation Status Rank for both the green-tailed towhee and the Brewer’s 

sparrow in Oregon is a S4B, ‘Breeding Population Apparently Secure’, and nationally G5, ‘Secure’ 

(2009). Both species show short-term declines in their population, which is considered linked to habitat 

fragmentation and degradation, primarily associated with the conversion of big-leaf sagebrush to tilled 

agriculture, the replacement of sagebrush with annual grassland to promote livestock forage and invasive, 

non-native plants in the Great Basin (NatureServe 2011). There is one documented observation of a 

green-tailed towhee and no documentation of Brewer’s sparrow within the analysis area. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

The primary nesting habitat for the green-tailed towhee and Brewer’s sparrow is in drier ecosystems with 

a strong sagebrush component. While some fringe habitat may be available in the Rim-Paunina project 

area, it is unlikely that any significant nesting habitat is present for either species. Therefore, no direct or 

indirect effects would occur to these populations in any of the alternatives.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 194 of 528

Landbird Strategic Plan

The Forest Service has prepared a Landbird Strategic Plan (January 2000) to maintain, restore, and 

protect habitats necessary to sustain healthy migratory and resident bird populations to achieve biological 

objectives. The primary purpose of the strategic plan is to provide guidance for the Landbird 

Conservation Program and to focus efforts in a common direction. On a more local level, individuals 

from multiple agencies and organizations within the Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight 

participated in developing a publication for conserving landbirds in this region. A Conservation Strategy 

for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington was published in 

June 2000 (Altman). This strategy has been used since its development in planning and projects analysis. 

The Rim-Paunina project area falls within the Central Oregon subprovince. The species selected in the 

conservation strategy represent focal species for habitats types or features considered at risk. Table 59

shows the focal species for the habitats that occur within the project area. 

Table 59. Landbird Focal Species for Central Oregon

Habitat Habitat Feature Focal Species for 

Central Oregon

Rim Paunina Project 

Area Habitat Present

Ponderosa Pine

Large patches of old forest with 

large trees White-headed woodpecker Yes

Large trees Pygmy nuthatch Yes

Open understory with regenerating 

pines Chipping sparrow Yes

Patches of burned old forest Lewis’ woodpecker Yes

Mixed Conifer

Late-Successional

Large trees Brown creeper Yes

Large snags Williamson sapsucker Yes

Interspersion grassy openings/dense 

thickets Flammulated owl Yes

Multi-layered/dense canopy Hermit thrush Yes

Edges and openings created by 

wildfire Olive-sided flycatcher Yes

Lodgepole pine Old growth Black-backed woodpecker Yes

Meadows Wet/dry Sandhill Crane No

Aspen Large trees with regeneration Red-naped sapsucker Yes

Subalpine fir Patchy presence Blue grouse Minimal

Whitebark pine Old growth Clark’s nutcracker Yes

Existing habitat conditions and potential impacts to the Lewis’ and white-headed woodpeckers are 

discussed in the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species section. Habitat conditions and impacts 

to the Williamson sapsucker, black-backed woodpecker and red-naped sapsucker are disclosed in the 

Management Indicator Species section. There is no suitable sandhill crane habitat in the project area.

The remaining species from Table 59 with potential for occurrence in the Rim-Paunina project area and 

discussed below include: flammulated owl, pygmy nuthatch, chipping sparrow, brown creeper, hermit 

thrush, olive-sided flycatcher, blue grouse, and the Clark’s nutcracker.

Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) and Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea)

Ecology

The flammulated owl and pygmy nuthatch are discussed together, as they utilize similar habitats: latesuccessional, open-canopied ponderosa pine forests. Both species are dependent on snags or live trees 

with dead tops. They share habitat preferences with some of the MIS species (great grey owl, various 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 195 of 528

woodpeckers). While the pygmy nuthatch usually excavates its own nesting cavity, the flammulated owl 

is a secondary cavity nester and is dependent on cavity nesters like the pileated woodpecker and the 

northern flicker for its nesting site (Nelson et al. 2009).

The flammulated owl is one of the smallest owls in North America and is unique in that it preys almost 

exclusively on insects. It is a neotropical migrant (USDA 1994b). The species winters in central and 

southern Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador. In Oregon, this species breeds on the eastern slope of the 

Cascades, Blue and Wallowa Mountains and in small numbers in the mountains of southwest Oregon 

(Marshall et al. 2003). Their breeding season reaches its peak between June and July (NatureServe 2011). 

Flammulated owls are most closely associated with ponderosa pine forest but also nest in mixed 

coniferous stands dominated by ponderosa pine. Marshall et al. (2003) reported that forested stands used 

for nesting tend to have moderate to high levels of upper canopy closure ranging from 31-94 percent with 

a rather open understory or an open area adjacent, which can be used for foraging. The species is a cavity 

nester and in northeastern Oregon ponderosa pine snags are the most commonly used nest tree (Marshall 

et al. 2003). Nelson et al. (2009) suggested that the limiting factor for suitable habitat for flammulated 

owls is not the amount of food available as much as the presence of suitable nesting cavities. Snags and 

trees used for nesting averaged 22 and 28 inches diameter breast height in two Oregon studies (Goggans 

1986; Bull et al. 1990 cited by Marshall et al. 2003).

Little is known on the population status of the flammulated owl to indicate significant population declines 

(Marshall et al. 2003). Risks to these species include loss of mature ponderosa pine forests, fire 

suppression resulting in overstocked stands and reduced snag recruitment and salvage logging (Marshall 

et al. 2003). The Oregon State Heritage Program lists a ranking of S3, ‘Vulnerable Breeding Population’ 

for the flammulated owl (NatureServe 2011) due to loss of snags for firewood or during timber harvest 

operations. The life history of flammulated owls tend to slow their recovery from population declines, as 

established pairs rarely expand their territories and seldom increase their reproduction rates, even when 

neighboring habitats and abundant food supplies are available (NatureServe 2011). 

The pygmy nuthatch is a resident of ponderosa pine dominated forests from the east slopes of the 

Cascades eastward into the Blue and Warner Mountains (Marshall et al. 2003). It forages in young 

ponderosa pines and in lodgepole pines adjacent or near mature ponderosa stands. The pygmy nuthatch is 

a primary cavity nester, excavating nests in snags or dead portions of live trees. Outside of their breeding 

season, pygmy nuthatches roost in communal cavities, which are larger than their individual nest cavities. 

In winter, larger flocks of pygmy nuthatches use the same cavity roost; up to 150 birds using the same 

cavity to conserve body heat (Ghalambor and Dobbs 2006). Their diet includes beetles, ants, true bugs, 

butterfly/moth larvae, spiders, and pine seeds. Foraging pygmy nuthatches utilize the whole tree for 

foraging, from lower bole to the branches, cones, needles and emerging shoots. It rarely utilizes downed 

wood. Typical nest cavities in California were found in decaying pines that usually exceeded 20 inches in 

diameter. In Arizona, nest cavities were found in trees averaging 16 inches in diameter at breast height 

(dbh; Marshall et al. 2003). Risks to the pygmy nuthatch include loss of snags and predation from 

chipmunks and red squirrels, which abound in areas with a dense shrub undercanopy (Ghalambor and

Dobbs 2006). The Oregon State Heritage Program lists the pygmy nuthatch ranking as S4, ‘Apparently 

Secure.’

Existing Condition

Viable Ecosystem modeling was done for both species to approximate the amount of potential nesting 

habitat and accounts for all past and present timber sales and wildfires. Modeling indicates there is 

approximately 4,780 acres (12 percent of the project area) of potential flammulated owl nesting habitat. 

The habitat definition used was forests of ponderosa pine, dry to moist Douglas-fir, white fir, and moist 

Shasta fir with the presence of ponderosa pine, dense or open stands, and with trees greater than 15 inches 

in diameter (dbh). The flammulated owls’ consolidated nesting habitat is located along Walker Rim but 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 196 of 528

includes other stands west of Highway 97. There are no District records or reports of flammulated owls 

in the project area.

The Viable Ecosystem modeling program for the pygmy nuthatch indicates there are approximately 5,022 

acres (13 percent of the project area) of nesting habitat. The nesting habitat definition used was dense or 

open forests of ponderosa pine, dry to moist Douglas-fir, and white fir with the presence of ponderosa 

pine, with dense or open canopies and trees greater than 15 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). The 

most consolidated acreage is located along Walker Rim but also includes ponderosa pine dominated 

stands both east and west of Highway 97. There are undocumented reports from wildlife field crews of 

pygmy nuthatches in the project area.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A- No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would have no immediate effect on either species. For the Rim-Paunina project area, it is 

assumed that in the short-term, endemic levels of insects, disease, and density related mortality to existing 

stands would continue to provide snag habitat for both species. Over time, increased canopy layering and 

tree density would subject these stands to increased levels of risk of loss due to fire, insect, and disease. 

This could result in a temporary increase in high density snag conditions favorable to these listed species.

This alternative has the greatest level of risk from a wide-scale disturbance event (i.e. from insect, 

diseases, or fire) and the tradeoff would be short versus long-term habitat. A large magnitude event (fire, 

insect infestation, etc.) would alter habitat for many decades and would not contribute to suitable nesting 

or foraging habitat conditions over the longer-term.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

All proposed management activities would move the current vegetative condition towards its historical 

range of variability: a predominantly fire dependent, open ponderosa pine forest consisting of largediameter trees with standing snags, downed wood, and components of mixed conifer and lodgepole pine 

habitat, with a mosaic of understory regeneration and openings. The primary difference is the number of 

acres treated (Alt. B: 12,000 acres, Alts. C and D 15,000 acres, and Alt. E: 16,000 acres, approximately). 

The retention and creation of snags, decreased understory, removal of diseased trees, and heavy fuel loads 

in the project area would increase and stabilize suitable nesting habitat for both pygmy nuthatches and 

flammulated owls (Ghalambor and Dobbs 2006; Marshall 2003; Nelson et al. 2009). 

Viable Ecosystem habitat modeling for all alternatives show an increase in nesting habitat for both the 

flammulated owl and pygmy nuthatch from the current levels to the projected for the years 2018 and 2058 

(Table 60 and Table 61). Alternatives D and E would have projected habitat levels similar to those in 

Alternative A in the projected future, although the probability of high levels of disease, insect infestation, 

and intense wildfire is much lower due to the proposed treatments.

Table 60 shows the projected flammulated owl nesting habitat in the planning area post harvest and 

projected out for each alternative to the year 2058 in acres and in percent of project area (i.e. 4,780 acres 

currently suitable or 12 percent of the planning area).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 197 of 528

Table 60. Flammulated Owl Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area 

Year 

2010 Year 2018 Year 2058

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

4,780 

(12%)

6,410 

(16%)

7,303 

(18%)

7,239 

(18%)

6,991 

(17%)

7,071 

(18%)

13,546 

(34%)

14,319 

(36%)

14,381 

(36%)

13,835 

(35%)

13,423 

(34%)

Table 61 shows the projected pygmy nuthatch nesting habitat in the planning area post harvest and 

projected out for each alternative to the year 2058 in acres and in percent of project area (i.e. 5,022 acres 

currently suitable or 13 percent of the planning area).

Table 61. Pygmy Nuthatch Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area 

Year 

2010 Year 2018 Year 2058

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

5,022 

(13%)

6,669 

(17%)

7,556 

(19%)

7,494 

(19%)

7,245

(18%)

7,319

(18%)

14,265 

(36%)

15,010 

(38%)

15,075 

(38%)

14,525

(36%)

14,100 

(35%)

All alternatives show increase nesting habitat in 2018 and 2058. More nesting habitat is modeled in 2058 

because there is no vegetative activity to maintain the historic range of variability thus increasing stand 

density. Alternatives B and C modeled nesting habitat shows the most potential habitat in year 2018 and 

2058. However, the difference between each action alternative is minimal after project implementation 

and in projected year 2058. 

Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees would be favored tree species for retention as they are more fire 

tolerant and have the potential to achieve the largest diameters. This would benefit the species within 

several decades as canopy cover returns, returning stands to nesting and foraging habitat. This also 

contributes to nesting habitat for the pileated woodpecker and northern flicker, upon which the 

flammulated owl depends for nesting cavities. See the white-headed woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker

in the Woodpecker Guild portion of the MIS section for snag and downed wood densities. 

Cumulative Effects 

Table 19 has been review for relevancy and no other actions, currently or in the foreseeable future, are 

planned in the Rim-Paunina project area that would impact the Flammulated Owl or Pygmy Nuthatch. 

Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine)

Ecology and Existing Condition

The chipping sparrow is found throughout the continental United States, north into Canada and as far 

south as southern Mexico. Breeding populations in Canada and the northern United States are longdistant migrants from the lower United States and Mexico. Their nesting habitat is inclusive, ranging 

from croplands, hardwood and coniferous forest, to forest edges, grasslands, and savannahs. They seem 

to benefit from human-caused habitat alterations (NatureServe 2011). In central Oregon, chipping 

sparrows can be found in open coniferous forests or stands of trees interspersed with grassy openings or 

low foliage as well as in juniper, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine forests (Marshall et al. 2003). Nests 

are usually in trees or shrubs, three feet to over thirty-six feet above the ground. Adults and juveniles 

feed on seeds and insects, foraging mainly on the ground (NatureServe 2011).

The current NatureServe Conservation Status Rank for chipping sparrows in Oregon is a S4, ‘Apparently 

Secure’, and nationally as G5, ‘Secure’ (2011). Annual population declines of chipping sparrows have 

averaged 3.9 percent in Oregon due to a decrease in wildfires to maintain open woodlands but also due to 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 198 of 528

cowbird brood parasitism and competition with house sparrows and house finches (Marshall et al. 2003). 

Sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks are known to predate on adults (NatureServe 2011). There is no 

documentation of chipping sparrows on the district, although chipping sparrows have been observed by 

the district wildlife crew members during goshawk surveys (K. Boucher pers. comm. 2009).

Environmental Consequences

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to estimate acres of suitable habitat for the chipping sparrow. 

This figure accounts for all past and present timber sales and natural events such as wildfires. The 

definition used was open canopied stands of lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, white fir, and mountain 

hemlock with tree diameters 10-15 inches or larger. This definition resulted in an estimated 3,206 acres 

of potentially suitable nesting habitat scattered throughout the 40,000 acre project area. 

Table 62 shows projected chipping sparrow nesting habitat in the planning area post harvest and projected 

out for each alternative to the year 2058 in acres and percent of project area (i.e. 3,206 acres currently 

suitable or 8 percent of the planning area).

Table 62. Chipping Sparrow Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area 

Year 

2010 Year 2018 Year 2058

Alt. A Alt .B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

3,206

(8%)

3,647 

(9%)

5,451

(14%)

5,328 

(13%)

5,067 

(13%)

5,134 

(13%)

4,957 

(13%)

6,366 

(16%)

6,329 

(16%)

6,236 

(16%)

6,205 

(16%)

Alternative A- No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would have no immediate effect on the chipping sparrow. For the Rim-Paunina project 

area, it is assumed that in the short-term, endemic levels of insects, disease, and density related mortality 

to existing stands would continue to provide open forest, forest edge, and shrub habitat. Over time

increased canopy layering and tree density would subject these stands to increased levels of risk of loss 

due to fire, insect, and disease. This would result in more open areas and meadows which would provide 

habitat for the chipping sparrow, but would remove any habitat in the long term for the MIS and TES 

species that are endemic to this area.

Direct and Indirect Effects for All Alternatives

All alternatives show some increases in nesting habitat in 2018 and 2058. Nesting habitat is modeled to 

increase slightly in 2058 because the openings created in the project would regenerate into open forests 

while the existing open canopies would grow closed over time. Alternative B modeled nesting habitat 

shows the most potential habitat in year 2018, while all action alternatives show similar increases in 2058. 

However, while the difference between each action alternative is minimal after project implementation 

and in projected year 2058, Alternatives D and E would create the most open, contiguous nesting habitat 

for the chipping sparrow through the mistletoe treatment areas. 

Cumulative Effects 

Table 19 has been review for relevancy and no other actions, currently or in the foreseeable future, are 

planned in the Rim-Paunina project area that would impact the Chipping Sparrow. 

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana)

Ecology and Existing Condition

The brown creeper is a common but inconspicuous permanent resident in most of Oregon (Gilligan et al. 

1994). Its breeding range extends from Alaska across to Newfoundland, south through Mexico to Middle 

America (NatureServe 2011). The brown creeper is the only North American bird that relies on both the 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 199 of 528

trunk and bark of trees for nesting and foraging. It is found predominantly in the coniferous forests but 

can also be located in oak woodlands, cottonwood stands, and in urban areas during the winter (Marshall 

et al. 2003). Brown creeper populations have been known to temporarily increase in areas that have had

major tree die-offs, such as fire and disease-killed stands, taking advantage of the increased snag 

availability (NatureServe 2011). Altman (2000) stated the brown creeper shows a preference for 

Douglas-firs as the deeply fissured bark offers better foraging opportunities. Old cottonwoods and oaks 

have been utilized for similar reasons. It nests under loose sloughing bark of large diameter snags with 

little to moderate decay. Nesting in Oregon can occur from near sea level to high in the mountains 

(Gilligan et al. 1994). Marshall et al. (2003) reported the diameters of nest trees in the Coast Range 

varied from 16 inches to 42 inches diameter breast height (dbh) with the mean diameter increasing as 

stands mature. Threats to this species include the loss of large diameter snags and live trees. Sauer et al. 

(1999 cited by Altman 2000) stated there was an increase in the brown creeper population of 3.1 percent 

as seen in the Cascade Mountains Breeding Bird Survey between 1980 and 1998, but this was an 

insignificant increase in a short-term trend. 

The brown creeper shares its nesting habitat preferences with both the white-headed woodpecker and the 

northern goshawk. While the white-headed woodpecker prefers an open canopy and the goshawk prefers 

a closed canopy, the brown creeper utilizes both. The creeper would also be able to use the goshawk’s 

open-canopied, mature pine foraging areas for nesting habitat as well. Documented nest predation by 

rodents on white-headed woodpecker suggests that other cavity nesters are similarly impacted when brush 

densities are high, but there are no known studies or observations to verify this. There is no 

documentation of brown creepers in the Rim-Paunina project area, although sightings have been reported 

by Crescent District wildlife crew members in the older mixed conifer forests of the project area. 

For more in-depth discussion on nesting habitat condition and snag density tolerance intervals in the RimPaunina project area, see the discussions for the northern goshawk (MIS Section) and White-headed 

woodpecker (TES section) in this chapter. 

Environmental Consequences

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to determine an approximate number of nesting habitat acres in 

the Rim-Paunina analysis area. The definition used was all Plant Association Groups (PAGs) with tree 

diameters exceeding 15 inches with an open or closed canopy condition. This resulted in approximately 

6,176 acres of nesting habitat on National Forest land within the 40,000 acre Rim-Paunina project area.

Table 63 displays projected nesting habitat for brown creeper in the planning area post harvest and 

projected out for each alternative to the year 2058 in acres and percent of project area (i.e. 6,176 acres 

currently suitable or 15 percent of the planning area).

Table 63. Brown Creeper Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area 

Year 2010 Year 2018 Year 2058

Alt. A Alt .B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

6,176 (15%) 8,630 

(22%)

9,176

(23%)

9,175 

(23%)

8,928 

(22%)

8,840 

(22%)

17,880 

(45%)

18,040 

(45%)

18,196 

(45%)

17,645 

(44%)

17,080 

(43%)

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The selection of this alternative would have little short term (year 2018) impact on the brown creeper or 

its nesting habitat, although the possibility of nest predation by rodents in dense-brush areas would 

remain. All Plant Association Groups (PAGs) with trees greater than 15 inches diameter trees and snags 

would continue to provide habitat for this species within the project area. The long-term (year 2058) 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 200 of 528

consequences of no treatment would be the overcrowding and competition in the pine and mixed-conifer 

stands which would lead to an increased mortality level in large diameter trees. The current 

overcrowding conditions in these stands also elevate mistletoe infection and beetle infestations resulting 

in reduced tree vigor leading to premature tree mortality. This could result in a temporary increase in 

high density snag conditions favorable to the brown creeper. In addition to increasing the potential of 

nest predation by rodents that inhabit dense brush, the high tree density creates spatial continuity within 

the Plant Association Group (PAG) types increasing the risk of forest replacement fires. Many forested 

stands are still at risk of catastrophic wildfire events similar to the Davis Fire, which resulted in the longterm loss of over 16,000 acres of suitable habitat. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All action alternative acreage amounts increase over time as a result of expected increase in tree vigor 

from thinning, reducing overcrowded stands, reduced fuel loading, and the probability of advancing 

stands to the next successional stage. In all action alternatives, thinning within younger-aged stands

would reduce competition for scarce resources and thus allow the residual trees to increase their size 

potential. In addition, management practices would encourage development of a more resilient forest

(e.g. reducing the risk of disease, infestation, and fire events in nesting habitat). All treated ponderosa 

pine stands should return to the historic range of variability. 

All action alternatives increase nesting habitat after project implementation in years 2018 and 2058. 

Alternatives B and C modeled nesting habitat shows the most potential habitat in years 2018 and 2058. 

However, the difference between each action alternative is minimal after project implementation and in 

projected year 2058. More nesting habitat is modeled in 2058 because there is no vegetative activity to 

maintain the historic range of variability thus increasing stand density. Alternative E treats the most 

potential nesting habitat and therefore, provides the least amount of acres after implementation. In year 

2058 all action alternatives increase the amount of projected healthy suitable habitat above existing 

condition of 6,176 acres to as much as 18,196 in Alternative C. Alternatives D and E are projected to 

provide the least amounts of nesting habitat (17,645 acres and 17,080 acres respectively) out of the action 

alternatives due to the proposed management activities. 

It is possible that any operations (thinning or underburning) conducted during the nesting season may 

affect breeding pairs of brown creepers. This may result in pairs being displaced into adjacent habitats. 

Not all sales would be active at the same time, leaving undisturbed nesting habitat widely distributed 

across the planning area within a five year time period. In addition, for each action alternative there is 

personal and/or commercial firewood removal proposed in a limited number of harvest units. 

Cumulative Effects 

Table 19 has been review for relevancy and no other actions present or in the foreseeable future are 

planned in the Rim Paunina project are that would impact the Brown Creeper.

Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) 

Ecology and Existing Condition

The hermit thrush is an opportunistic ground forager in all types of mature forests containing multiple 

canopy layers of brush and small trees, feeding on insects, berries, and small vertebrates (Marshall et al. 

2003). Gilligan et al. (1994) described the hermit thrush as a fairly common summer resident in the 

Cascade, Siskiyou, and Blue Mountains and uncommon in the Coast Range of Oregon. They are known 

to breed in mature forests of all types that provide a shaded understory of brush and small trees (Aldrich 

1968 in Marshall 2003). Breeding sites usually have semi-open canopies and many areas lack a dense 

understory having only a minimal shrub cover (D. Fix pers.comm. Marshall 2003). Nests are on the 

ground, in dense brush or in small trees (Mannan 1980). The few Oregon nests that have been described 

were in spruce and fir saplings six to eight feet above the ground (Gabrielson and Jewett 1940 in Marshall
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 201 of 528

2003). During the winter months they are rarely seen east of the Cascades as they tend to winter in the 

west-side lowlands and foothills along the coast. There appear to be no serious conservation problems at 

this time (Marshall et al. 2003). The current NatureServe Conservation Status Rank for hermit thrushes in 

Oregon is a S4, ‘Apparently Secure’, and Nationally G5, ‘Secure’ (2009). 

Smucker et al. (2005) reported that hermit thrush populations increase in abundance in forests that burned 

at low severity, primarily due to the increase in low shrub and grass cover the first few years post fire, 

which increases their food resources. High severity fires, usually seen with high fuel loads from past fire 

suppression activities, decrease the relative abundance of hermit thrush nesting and hiding habitat as the 

understory of young trees and tall shrubs is destroyed. 

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to approximate acres of suitable nesting habitat in the project area. 

Using a definition of all Plant Association Groups (PAGs) with tree diameters exceeding 10-15 inches 

with a dense canopy resulted in an estimated 1,055 acres of nesting habitat. All of the suitable acres are 

on National Forest lands within the mixed conifer and ponderosa pine plant association groups. 

These are predominantly on Walker Mountain outside most of the treatment area. The percentage of 

acres that are within the proposed activity areas are units that are designated for fuels treatment (brush 

removal and small diameter thinning). There are no formal surveys or district observational records of 

hermit thrush occurring in the planning area; however they are assumed to be present in low numbers, 

making detection difficult. 

Environmental Consequences

The Viable Ecosystem model projected an increasing trend of suitable nesting acreage for the hermit 

thrush over each decade that was modeled (Table 64). In year 2018 Alternative A shows a greater 

increase in nesting habitat over time than the four action alternatives; however, the action alternatives 

after treatment provide healthier stands that have a vegetation structure more capable of responding to 

natural levels of frequent fire disturbance. This is due to trees becoming larger with fuller canopies as 

competition is reduced and the understories become more open. After five decades, the Viable model 

shows 2,662 acres of hermit thrush habitat in Alternative A, 2,481 acres in Alternative B, 2,507 acres in 

Alternative C, 2,501 acres in Alternative D, and 2,473 in Alternative E. For comparison, current nesting 

habitat in the Rim-Paunina project area is 1,055 acres. 

All action alternatives use management techniques that impact forest vegetation (thinning, underburning, 

brush mastication, etc.) that would lead to a sustainable ecosystem type that functions in the natural fire 

regime of this area. As the vegetation responds to the proposed treatments, hermit thrush habitat is 

expected to improve over time as the treated areas mature throughout the project area.

Table 64 shows projected hermit thrush nesting habitat in the planning area post harvest and projected out 

for each alternative to the year 2058 in acres and percent of project area (i.e. 1,055 acres currently suitable 

or 3 percent of the planning area).

Table 64. Hermit Thrush Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area 

Year 

2010 Year 2018 Year 2058

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

1,055

(3%)

1,233 

(3%)

1,148

(3%)

1,158 

(3%)

1,156 

(3%)

1,134 

(3%)

2,662 

(7%)

2,481 

(6%)

2,507 

(6%)

2,501 

(6%)

2,473 

(6%)
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 202 of 528

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The selection of this alternative would likely have no effect on the hermit thrush and it’s habitat in the 

short-term. Nesting habitat would be maintained and well distributed in the multi-layered, dense canopy 

stands of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests found in the Rim-Paunina project area. Following the 

Viable Ecosystem model, the short term (2018) nesting habitat would have increased by less than 200 

acres over the current habitat, and would be slightly more than any of the action alternatives by less than 

100 acres. However, this alternative has the highest risk from loss associated with competition for scarce 

site resources and future disturbance from fire events that potentially lead to large scale loss of the 

younger trees and shrubs upon which the hermit thrush is dependent. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All four action alternatives propose silvicultural and/or fuels treatments to improve overall stand health 

and maintain the presence of the dominant large overstory trees, primarily ponderosa pine, and a more 

open understory. The resulting amount of suitable nesting habitat would vary by alternative, but the 

difference between acreage would be insignificant: less than 100 acres difference in 2018, and less than 

200 acres in 2058. The No Action Alternative (A) would have slightly more nesting habitat than the 

action alternatives, but the vegetation would be more susceptible to intense wildfires, disease and insect 

infestation.

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and no other activities present or in the foreseeable future are 

planned for the Rim-Paunina project area that would affect the Hermit Thrush.

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) 

Ecology and Existing Condition

The olive-sided flycatcher is a neotropical migrant that inhabits montane and northern coniferous forests 

up to 3,000 meters (9,482 feet) in elevation, especially in burned-over forest areas with tall standing dead 

trees (DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). In Oregon this flycatcher is a summer resident that breeds in low 

densities throughout coniferous forests. The olive-sided flycatcher prefers nesting near forest openings or 

edge habitats where forest meets meadows, timber harvest units, rivers, bogs, or marshes (Marshall et al. 

2003). An aerial insectivore, the olive-sided flycatcher feeds almost entirely on flying insects, including 

bees and wasps (NatureServe 2011) found in these open areas. This species has not been documented to 

occur in the analysis area, but is assumed to be present. The current NatureServe Conservation Status 

Rank for the olive-sided flycatcher in Oregon is a S3B, ‘Breeding Vulnerable’, and Nationally 4B, 

‘Breeding Apparently Secure’ (2009). NatureServe (2010) stated that fire suppression throughout the 

breeding range has limited the available habitat, although the deforestation of its wintering habitat in 

Central and South America seems to have a greater impact. It also reports the species is ‘Apparently 

Secure’ globally, although at risk from deforestation on wintering grounds in Central and South America. 

This flycatcher is considered a contrast species using old forests for nesting and either openings or gaps in 

old forests for foraging. Large trees and snags are preferred habitat elements for the olive-sided 

flycatcher (Romain-Bondi 2009) which are used for singing and feeding perches (NatureServe 2011). 

They are positively associated with recent burns (Hejl 1994 cited by Wisdom et al. 2000). Nests are most 

often found on the horizontal limbs of live conifers, six to fifty feet above the ground. Wisdom (2000) 

cited that burning and uneven-aged management would help accelerate the development of old-forest 

conditions and the juxtaposition of early-seral and late-seral habitats used olive-sided flycatchers. 

Wisdom (2000) stated that suppression of wildfire has resulted in fewer, larger and more destructive fires, 

thereby reducing the areas of juxtaposed early- and late-seral forests. Altman (2000) recommended the 

use of underburning to promote a shrubby understory for insect production, retention of standing dead or 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 203 of 528

diseased trees where they occur, and that selective logging can be used to increase suitability of habitat as 

long as sufficient large living and dead trees are retained. 

The Viable Ecosystem model was used to estimate acres of suitable nesting habitat for this species. The 

definition used was open canopied stands of lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and 

mountain hemlock plant associations with tree diameters 5 -10 inches or larger in the lodgepole Plant 

Association Groups (PAGs) and greater than 10 inches in the remaining PAGs. This definition resulted in 

an estimated 9,909 acres (25 percent) of potentially suitable nesting habitat in the approximately 40,000 

acre project area. This figure accounts for all past and present timber sales and natural events such as 

wildfires. Breeding bird surveys (Sauer et al. 1996 cited in Wisdom et al. 2000) indicated a 2.5 percent 

per year decline from 1966 to 1994 for olive-sided flycatchers in eastern Oregon and Washington but no 

known reason for the decline was given. Hann and others (1997 cited by Wisdom 2000) stated late-seral 

montane forest which provides source habitat for this species was tending to increase in more than 50 

percent of the watersheds in the Southern Cascades which includes the Rim-Paunina project area.

Environmental Consequences 

The Viable Ecosystem modeling program projected an increasing trend of suitable nesting acreage over 

the first decade that was modeled (year 2018) for all alternatives with incremental differences between 

alternatives (Table 65). Projected nesting acreage after 50 years (year 2058) shows a decrease in nesting 

habitat, in the absence of fire or future vegetation management because as the forest grows and the open 

canopies close it reduces the habitat the olive-sided flycatcher utilizes.

Table 65 shows projected olive-sided flycatcher nesting habitat in the planning area post harvest and 

projected out for each alternative to the year 2058 by acres and in percent of project area (i.e. 9,909 acres 

currently suitable or 25 percent of the planning area).

Table 65. Olive-sided Flycatcher Nesting Habitat in the Planning Area 

Year 

2010 Year 2018 Year 2058

Alt. A Alt .B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

9,909

(25%)

10,569 

(26%)

12,076

(30%)

11,958 

(30%)

11,695 

(29%)

11,472 

(29%)

5,353 

(13%)

7,652 

(19%)

7,361 

(18%)

7,272 

(18%)

7,280 

(18%)

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would have no direct effects on the olive-sided flycatcher. Habitat conditions in the 

project area would change marginally in the least in the short-term, as forest die-off from competition and 

disease create openings in the forest canopy. In the long term, the current overcrowding conditions in 

these stands could result in an increasing risk of forest replacement fires, which would remove nesting 

habitat for the flycatcher entirely. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

All action alternatives propose a combination of commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, and 

fuels reduction activities to maintain stand health and reduce the risk of large scale loss of large trees to 

wildfire, insects, and disease. The selection of any action alternative would result in improved habitat 

conditions for the olive-sided flycatcher in the short term by creating open-canopied forests and 

increasing forest openings or edge habitat that is preferred nesting habitat for the flycatcher. These 

activities would be consistent with strategies suggested by Wisdom (2000) and Altman (2000). These 

conditions would be promoted in each action alternative and would result in improved habitat conditions 

for olive-sided flycatchers. However, without continued treatment of stands, i.e. fuels treatment or 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 204 of 528

thinning, stand density would continue to increase moving forests above the historic range of variation, 

and the increased density levels would increase the risk of insect infestation, mistletoe infection, and 

intense fire events. This is represented by the long term nesting projection in the Viable Program model 

in the year 2058.

It is possible that any thinning or underburning conducted during the nesting season may affect breed 

pairs of olive-sided flycatchers. This may result in pairs being displaced into adjacent habitats. However, 

not all sales or activities would be active at the same time. Regardless of alternative chosen, undisturbed 

nesting habitat would be present and widely distributed across the project area. 

Olive-sided flycatcher nesting habitat in all of the action alternatives are within 600 acres of each other, 

with Alternatives B and C having the greatest amount. Alternatives D and E treat the most acres, and so 

have the lowest number of potential nesting habitat acres. The long term projection of nesting habitat 

decreases to below current levels, due to canopy closure removing nesting habitat and foraging habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and no other actions present or in the foreseeable future, are 

planned in the Rim-Paunina project area that would impact the Olive-sided Flycatcher.

Blue Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus)

Ecology and Existing Condition

The blue grouse is the largest of the three forest grouse found in Oregon and is fairly common in the 

coniferous forests from the Cascade crest to the coast, but also found in the Blue and Wallowa Mountains 

of eastern Oregon. They utilize a variety of habitats in the spring and summer months with insects, 

berries and seeds of various forbs and shrubs providing the bulk of their diet. Pelren (1996 cited in 

Marshall et al. 2003) stated open park-like stands of mature ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir were selected 

for wintering habitat where the grouse eat needles and buds. Pelren (1996) also stated that prescribed 

burning and other methods that maintain open park-like stands would likely benefit this species. Other 

winter range habitats include stands dominated by spruce, lodgepole pine, limber pine, western hemlock, 

and mountain hemlock (Zwickel 1992 cited in Marshall et al. 2003). Nesting habitat ranges from nearly 

bare ground with no overhead cover to dense vegetation beneath full forest canopies (Zwickel 1992; 

Pelren and Crawford 1999 cited in Marshall et al. 2003) with most successful nests beneath logs. 

NatureServe Conservation Status Rank (2010) lists the blue grouse as S4 ‘Apparently Secure’ in the state 

of Oregon.

Blue grouse are not common on the Crescent District. While they have been observed in the areas 

adjacent to the Rim-Paunina project area that contain more water sources, the Viable Ecosystem model 

used to determine estimated acres of nesting and wintering habitat for this species estimated 11 acres of 

nesting habitat for blue grouse in the approximately 40,000 acre Rim-Paunina project area (<0.001 

percent). For nesting and brood rearing habitat, the modeling definition used was all Plant Association 

Groups with open canopies and trees averaging less than five inches in diameter. The District Wildlife 

Observation database has only one record of blue grouse in the Rim-Paunina project area.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Blue grouse habitat constitutes less than 0.001 percent of the Rim-Paunina project area. None of the 

proposed management activities within the Rim-Paunina project area would have any direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects or consequences on the blue grouse population.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 205 of 528

Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana)

Ecology and Existing Condition

The Clark’s nutcracker is a resident along the crest of the Cascade Mountains usually above 4,000 feet 

although lower on the east slopes. They breed in open coniferous forests of pine, spruce fir, and adjacent 

Douglas-fir and less often in juniper and ponderosa pine east of the Cascades. New nests are built every 

year in the outer branches on the leeward side of the tree (Marshall et al. 2003). In Oregon their diet 

includes ripe and unripe seeds of whitebark, limber, Jeffrey, and ponderosa pines, Douglas-fir, Shasta red 

fir, plus spiders, insects, and small mammals. Large wingless seeds of white pines are preferred (Lanner

1996; Tomback 1998 in Marshall et al. 2003). Clark’s nutcrackers provide the sole mechanism of 

primary seed dispersal for whitebark pine (Hutchins and Lanner 1982 cited by Lorenz 2007) but they also 

collect and cache ponderosa pine seeds, and are actually better dispersers of ponderosa pine seeds than 

whitebark pine seeds (Raphael and Lorenz, 2011). As the Clark’s Nutcracker is a habitat generalist, no 

Viable Ecosystem analysis was done for this species for this project. 

Although there is only one documented sighting of a Clark’s nutcracker on the Crescent Ranger District, 

they are commonly seen during late summer and early fall at the higher elevations of the Rim-Paunina 

planning area. The Oregon Heritage Information Center does not rank the Clark’s nutcracker population, 

presumably due to the abundance and widespread distribution of this species. The current NatureServe 

Conservation Status Rank for the Clark’s nutcracker in Oregon is an S4 ‘Apparently Secure.’ 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A

Direct and Indirect Effects

The selection of this alternative would have no immediate impact on the Clark’s nutcracker and its 

habitat. All Plant Association Groups with open coniferous forests would continue to provide habitat for 

this species within the project area. In the long-term, these stands would develop a dense brush and 

sapling understory and would be at an elevated risk to a high intensity, stand replacing fire. This type of 

event would remove live trees needed for nesting habitat as well as mature, cone-bearing trees the 

nutcracker depends upon for food.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

All four action alternatives propose activities such as commercial and small tree thinning, pruning of 

small diameter trees, disposal of slash, and additional prescribed underburning in ponderosa pine 

dominated stands, but at different levels of management: Alternative B would restore approximately 

6,000 acres of ponderosa pine forest, Alternative C would restore approximately 5,700 acres, Alternative 

D restores 4,300 acres and Alternative E restores 5,200 acres of ponderosa pine forest. These would 

result in long term source for nesting habitat and forage. 

Outside of commercial harvest units in Alternatives C, D, and E, approximately 5,000 acres of “fuels 

only” activities would include removal of live trees up to eight inches in diameter as well as brush 

removal. This would benefit the Clark’s nutcracker by increasing its ability to see aerial predators that 

also inhabit mature pine stands, and would reduce the amount of shrubs and small diameter wood that 

provides habitat for small mammals such as ground squirrels and chipmunks known to predate on 

nestlings.

It is possible that any operations (thinning or underburning) conducted during the nesting season may 

disrupt breeding activities of the Clark’s nutcracker. This may result in pairs being displaced into 

adjacent habitats, although not all sales would be active at the same time, leaving undisturbed nesting 

habitat widely distributed across the planning area within a five year time period.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- BCC

Page 206 of 528

Cumulative Effects 

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and no other actions present or in the foreseeable future, are 

planned in the Rim-Paunina project area that would impact the Clark’s Nutcracker.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 207 of 528

Big Game – Deer and Elk

Assumptions used in the big game analysis:

Big Game hiding cover was modeled in GIS using the definition of ‘six acres or larger’ described 

in the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (DLRMP USDA 1990). This likely 

under-estimates the actual amount of hiding cover present in each of the subwatersheds. The 

Deschutes LRMP (WL-54) also defines hiding cover patches as small as 1⁄2 acre in size with 

advance regeneration of trees with residual larger trees present. 

The road and motorized trail densities described in the Rim-Paunina analysis are taken from 

Alternative E (Preferred) of the Three Trails OHV Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

with the Record of Decision signed on December 20, 2010. The road closures would be in place 

and trail construction in progress at the time Rim-Paunina is ready for implementation. 

No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Rim-Paunina project, although 

temporary roads would be constructed and then returned to hydrological conditions after the 

completion of all project actions.

The Rim-Paunina project area is approximately 40,000 acres. However, the big game analysis 

was conducted at the watershed level which incorporates all National Forest lands in six 

subwatersheds of the Little Walker Mountain watershed (see Table 67) which total approximately 

40,715 acres. All references to the analysis area in this big game section as well as all effects 

described refer to this 40,715 acre watershed area.

The Rim-Paunina analysis area provides summer range habitat for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk. 

Both mule deer and elk are popular big game species and contribute thousands of recreational visitor days 

to this area during hunting seasons and for general wildlife viewing opportunities outside the hunting 

periods. Summering mule deer in the Rim-Paunina area primarily migrate easterly across Highway 97, 

detouring north or south around Walker Rim to winter ranges in the desert beyond the district and 

Deschutes National Forest boundary. 

Mule Deer

The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (DLRMP, FEIS 3-18) states that mule deer 

populations on the Deschutes National Forest are divided into four herd management units by Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); Metolius, Upper Deschutes, Paulina, and Ft. Rock. The 

estimated total wintering population is 25,000 animals. Winter range for each of these herds includes 

land ownerships other than the Deschutes National Forest and the numbers of deer wintering on the 

Deschutes National Forest is dependent upon weather conditions. However, the Deschutes Land and 

Resource Management Plan (DLRMP 4-58)21 lists four big game management units (Metolius, Upper 

Deschutes, North Paulina, and South Paulina) with wintering population objectives of 24,900 mule deer. 

The Ft. Rock management unit is not mentioned in DLRMP 4-58 nor does it list a wintering population 

objective because the winter range is located on ownerships other than the Deschutes National Forest. 

In response to declining mule deer population trends the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) initiated a South Central Oregon Mule Deer Telemetry Study beginning in 2005 to monitor 

mule deer highway mortality and migration patterns along Highways 97 and 31 in central Oregon, where 

many of these mule deer migrate between summer and winter ranges. Through November 2010 a total of 

498 deer have been captured including 95 mule deer in the Ft. Rock big game management unit (Ardt

 

21 Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan has the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines 

for deer and elk from page 4-55 through 4-58.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 208 of 528

ODFW pers. comm. 2011). As of February 2011, the study is continuing and may involve additional deer 

captures in the Metolius and Interstate management units but not in the Ft. Rock, Upper Deschutes, or 

Paulina units (Ardt ODFW pers. comm. 2011). Preliminary results of data collected by ODFW and 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) personnel indicates the majority of mule deer road-kill on 

Highway 97 occurs in a 40 mile stretch from the junction of Highways 97 and 31 near LaPine south to the 

junction with Highway 138, south of Chemult, although mortality was significant for the entire 100 miles 

segment monitored from Bend to Spring Hill (Ardt, ODFW personal comm. 2011). The majority of the 

deer were killed from May through July, although October is also a high mortality month when animals 

are migrating to winter ranges. The stretch of Highway 97 between mileposts 191-200 near the junction 

with Highway 58 is a documented hot spot for deer collisions based on data collected by ODOT and 

ODFW. The Rim-Paunina project area is within this segment of Highway 97 experiencing high road 

mortality. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) initial interpretation of telemetry data collected to 

date has indicated that some collared animals return to the same summer range area each year suggesting 

strong site fidelity. In addition, telemetry monitoring has shown the lands south and east of the Two 

Rivers North subdivision and partially in the project area appear to hold a concentration of collared mule 

deer (Ardt ODFW pers. comm. 2009). The Crescent Ranger District performed a coarse scale review of 

the telemetry locations and vegetation, which appeared to show that lodgepole 

pine/bitterbrush/needlegrass and ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/needlegrass are the two dominant plant 

associations collared mule deer seem to be keying in on summer ranges on this part of the District. 

However, data available was not sufficient to determine how these plant associations are being used in 

relation to stand density, canopy cover, and patch size. Preliminary telemetry data and anecdotal 

information seems to suggest that mule deer use is heavy on all six subwatersheds of the project area and 

does not favor any particular watershed over another. 

The 40,715 acre Rim-Paunina analysis area is located within the 1,133,551 acre Ft. Rock management 

unit. The analysis area represents only four percent of the entire management unit acreage and only 

250,494 acres of the management unit are located on the Deschutes National Forest, all on the Crescent 

District. The remaining Ft. Rock unit acreage is either managed by the Fremont-Winema National 

Forests, Gilchrist State Forest, Bureau of Land Management, or is privately owned. While the Deschutes 

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) does not list a wintering population objective for the Ft. 

Rock unit, ODFW has a mule deer management objective (MO) of 11,200 individuals. Deer population 

trend data for the Ft. Rock Management Unit is displayed in Table 66. 

Table 66. April (2006-2010) Mule Deer Trend Data on the Ft. Rock Management Unit Winter Range 

Expressed as a Percentage of the Management Objective

Management 

Unit

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Ft. Rock (MO 

11,200 animals) 8,600 – 77% 5,800 – 52% 7,800 - 70% 5,616 – 50% 5,300 - 47%

Similar to central Oregon mule deer populations, most of the western United States began experiencing a

widespread decline in mule deer populations in the mid-1990s. The Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (2004) reported there were a multitude of factors adversely impacting mule deer 

populations including habitat loss to development, deterioration of forage quality and quantity, droughts, 

severe winter weather, competition with other ungulates, predation, disease, poaching, and increased 

hunting mortality. As displayed in Table 66, mule deer populations are currently reaching only about 50 

percent of the management objectives (MO) for the Ft. Rock unit. Surrounding big game management 

units including the Upper Deschutes, North and South Paulina are also experiencing similar declines. The 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 209 of 528

population decline for big game in central Oregon is likely attributable to a combination of several 

factors. These include residential development, disturbance from an increase in motorized and 

mechanized recreation, altered migration patterns due to an increase in highway traffic, poaching, and 

predation also contribute. The enforcement of road closures and hunting regulations have also not kept 

up with the increase in human population in central Oregon. While deer populations are decreasing, 

Anglin (ODFW, 2010) stated birth rates expressed as number of fawns produced per 100 does indicate 

that Oregon herds are healthy though populations are lower than they were historically. 

Within the Ft. Rock unit mule deer fawn production is considered to be good, but fewer fawns are 

surviving to reach winter ranges due to predation, disease, highway crossing mortality, and decreasing 

forage quality (Hedricks ODFW pers. comm. 2010). Hedricks also stated that buck ratios per 100 do

seem to be consistent with historical figures, although there are fewer animals overall. Preliminary data 

through November 2010 on radio collared adult mule deer mortality (total 156 animals) in central Oregon 

suggests that of the known mortality factors, illegal harvest (14%), legal harvest (13%), cougar kills 

(13%), and vehicle collisions (8%) are the primary mortality causes. Fawning deaths, coyote predation, 

disease, and fences collectively contribute another six percent of the known mortalities (Ardt ODFW pers. 

comm. 2011). However, 46 percent of the known deer mortalities of the study animals were not 

attributable to a specific cause. Over time, as more data becomes available in this study, percentages 

assigned to the various causes of mule deer mortality could change. 

Elk

There is no official estimate on numbers of elk that summer in the analysis area. However, the Bend 

Field Office of ODFW estimated approximately 200 elk summer in the 93,000 acre Three Trails OHV 

analysis area (ODFW 2009) which partially overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. Because the RimPaunina area is less than half the acreage of Three Trails OHV area and does not include large expanses 

of riparian habitat, elk numbers are assumed to be much less than 200 head. The elk that are present 

scatter to several winter ranges, with some bands moving westerly across the Cascade Crest onto the 

Umpqua and Willamette River drainages and some bands moving easterly across Highway 97 into the 

desert of mixed ownership including the Fremont-Winema National Forests, BLM lands, and privately

owned land. The majority of the summering elk occur in small groups along the Little Deschutes River 

system and the Five Mile Draw lands north of Highway 58 and west of Highway 97 where limited 

riparian habitats are present for calving and foraging. A few elk also summer near the base of Walker 

Rim east of Highway 97. Other adjacent calving grounds are thought to include National Forest System 

lands along the Little Deschutes River just outside the project area. 

Direction

The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (DLRMP) provides habitat 

management direction for big game animals. Mule deer and elk were designated as Management 

Indicator Species in the DLRMP and management objectives were developed with ODFW because of 

their status as game animals.

Mule Deer Hiding Cover

On mule deer summer range, hiding areas must be present over at least 30 percent of each National Forest 

implementation unit (DLRMP WL-54). For this analysis the six subwatersheds of the Little Walker 

watershed have been used to represent the implementation units (see Table 67). Deschutes National 

Forest acreage in the six subwatersheds ranges from 1,061 acres to 12,598 acres and totals 40,715 acres. 

To be a suitable hiding area, forested stands must meet one of several conditions including: being six 

acres or larger and capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult deer from view of a human at a 

distance of 200 feet; being six acres or larger with an average tree height of 6 feet and which has not been 

thinned in 15 years; or residual clumps of one half acre or larger stands within units with advanced 

regeneration (trees including whips up to 7 inch diameter) and at least 12 trees per acre with a diameter 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 210 of 528

greater than seven inches remaining after harvest (DLRMP WL-54). Hiding cover was modeled using a 

definition of all forested stands with at least 190 trees per acre between 1-10 inches dbh, at least 6.6 feet 

tall (two meters) and in blocks greater than six acres in size. Table 67 displays the current amount of 

hiding cover present in the watershed (analysis area) and subwatershed amounts are shown for their 

individual contributions to the watershed and analysis area as a whole. However, the numbers shown 

likely under-represent the total amount of hiding cover present because the model utilizes six acres as a 

minimum patch size. 

Table 67. Existing Hiding Cover within the Six Subwatersheds of the Little Walker Watershed which 

Comprises the Rim-Paunina Analysis Area

Rim-Paunina Analysis Area (Little Walker Watershed)

6

th Field Subwatersheds

6

th Field Acres

Deschutes National 

Forest System Lands 

Only

Acres and Percent of 

Existing Hiding Cover

Corral Springs 2,637 1,680 (64%)

Crescent Butte 4,534 2,799 (62%)

Little Walker Mountain 12,598 8,296 (66%)

North Paunina 10,214 4,050 (40%)

North Walker 1,061 883 (83%)

South Paunina 9,671 6,551 (68%)

Total Acres 40,715 24,259 (60%)

Road Densities 

The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (DLRMP) also has guidelines for road densities 

with a target level of 2.5 miles per square mile to achieve deer summer range habitat effectiveness targets,

unless impacts on deer can be avoided or the proposed project would result in a net benefit to deer habitat. 

The density would be applied as an average for the implementation unit and would be used as a threshold 

requiring further analysis. The final judgment on open road density would be based on the further 

evaluation rather than the density guideline (DLRMP WL-53). Table 68 displays the motorized route 

densities of roads only as well as roads and trails combined open for public use. Densities were provided 

by each subwatershed to show their contribution to the Little Walker watershed (Rim-Paunina analysis 

area) as a whole. Because of the wide range in subwatershed acreages with several containing less than 

4,500 acres of Deschutes National Forest land, the Little Walker watershed with a combined 40,715 acres

was defined as the implementation unit. 

On December 20, 2010 the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Three Trails Off-Highway Vehicle EIS was 

signed, designating an OHV trail system and closing numerous miles of existing user-created trails and 

National Forest System roads. In addition, cross-country motorized travel was prohibited under this 

decision. The six subwatersheds of the Rim-Paunina analysis area almost entirely overlap with the Three 

Trails OHV project area and are subject to this decision. While the Deschutes National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (DLRMP 1990) provides guidance for road densities on mule deer summer 

range it does not mention OHVs in the plan. Because no additional roads or trails are proposed for 

closure, the densities in Table 68 would remain the same for all Rim-Paunina alternatives. As shown in 

Table 68 the overall open road density averaged across the analysis area is slightly below the 2.5 miles 

per square mile target threshold described in the DLRMP. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 211 of 528

Table 68. Motorized Route Densities Expressed in Miles per Square Mile for National Forest System Roads 

Only and Combined Roads and Trails by Subwatersheds of the Little Walker Watershed

Rim-Paunina Analysis Area (Little Walker Watershed)

Road and Motorized Trail Densities

6

th Field 

Subwatershed

6

th Field Acres 

National Forest 

System Lands Only

Motorized 

Density 

(Roads Only)

Motorized 

Density (Roads 

+ Trails)

Corral Springs 2,637 2.0 3.8

Crescent Butte 4,534 3.0 3.0

Little Walker 

Mountain 12,598 2.3 4.0

North Paunina 10,214 2.2 2.4

North Walker 1,061 0.8 0.8

South Paunina 9,671 2.6 4.1

Total 40,715 2.4 3.4

Elk

Management objectives for elk are described in the DLRMP in WL-42 to WL-51. Specifically, the 

summer population objectives for the Ft. Rock management unit is 400 animals (DRLMP WL-42), 

though the expectation is that the populations are found in certain key habitat areas which have the 

conditions to support summering animals (DLRMP WL-43). There are no Key Elk Areas (KEAs) in the 

Rim-Paunina analysis area. The nearest ones (Hemlock and Upper Spruce Creek) are located 

approximately 1⁄2 mile west of the analysis area. The estimated January 2010 elk population for the 

Paulina/East Ft. Rock unit is 400 animals (S. George ODFW pers. comm. 2010). However, not all of 

these animals would be expected to be located in the Rim-Paunina project area. The DLRMP also 

specifies habitat conditions to be provided for elk and designated KEAs across the forest. The signing of 

the Three Trails OHV EIS Record of Decision (ROD) in December 2010 included a forest plan 

amendment that adjusted the boundaries of the Hemlock Key Elk Area (KEA). Prior to the Three Trails 

OHV ROD being signed, approximately 200 acres of the 2,511 acre Hemlock KEA fell within the RimPaunina project area. As of December 2011 there is no KEA acreage within the Rim-Paunina boundary 

and no further discussion of KEA is needed. 

Roads have long been identified as having impacts on big game populations. Recent studies at the 

Starkey Project in northeast Oregon (Wisdom 2005) have disclosed even more information on the effects 

of roads and road densities on deer and elk. Rowland et al. (2005) summarized the direct impacts of 

roads and associated traffic on elk, in addition to outright mortality from vehicular collisions, as follows: 

(1) Elk avoid areas near open roads with variability in response to traffic rates; (2) Elk vulnerability to 

mortality from hunter harvest, both legal and illegal, increases as open road density increases; and (3) In 

areas of higher road density, elk exhibit higher levels of stress and increased movement rates. Rowland 

(2005) also noted that elk use increased as distance from open roads increased and suggested that 

judicious closing of certain road segments, particularly road spurs, may retain or create blocks of habitat 

that serve as security areas for elk while allowing sufficient road access for other management needs. 

Hillis et al. (1991 cited in Wisdom 2005) suggested security areas be a non-linear block of hiding cover at 

least 250 acres in size and at least one-half mile from roads open to motorized traffic. The Rowland et al. 

(2000) study at Starkey showed elk response to open roads diminished markedly at a distance of 1,969 

yards (1.1 miles). 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 212 of 528

Other research at Starkey found strong evidence, although observational, that mule deer avoided elk and 

tended to select areas near roads as a means of avoiding elk (Johnson et al. 2000; Coe et al. 2001). 

However, Wisdom et al. (2005) cautioned against inferring these results to areas where elk are absent or 

sparse. In the Rim-Paunina area, mule deer are much more common than elk and there is no evidence to 

suggest that deer would selectively utilize lands adjacent to roads. 

Because the literature listed above has shown big game animals, particularly elk, are known to be 

sensitive to motorized disturbance, a distance banding analysis was conducted for this project. Three 

distances were selected to measure edge effects based on research by Forman (2000), Hillis et al. (1991), 

and Rowland et al. (2000). The 660 foot buffer zone was chosen because of increased animal 

vulnerability to legal and illegal harvest adjacent to open roads and motorized trails. The one-half mile 

buffer distance was chosen to represent lands offering a moderate level of elk security. The third banding 

distance of one mile was selected to show where motorized disturbance diminished markedly for elk. 

However, analysis concluded there is no acreage greater than one mile from an open or motorized trail. 

Analysis was also completed on the number of security blocks for elk larger than 250 acres in size and 

greater than 1⁄2 mile from an open route also shown in Table 69. An assumption used in the analysis is 

that acreage within 660 feet of an open road or motorized trail is unavailable for consistent elk use as 

cover or foraging areas at least during daylight hours when motorized traffic is more likely to occur. 

Table 69. Results of Banding Analysis

Banding Distance Applied Alternatives

A, B, C, D, and E

Acres of National Forest land <660 feet from an open 

motorized route and percent of the analysis area

23,475

(58%)

Acres and percent of National Forest land greater than 1⁄2 

mile from an open motorized route

1,535

(4%)

Acres and percent of National Forest land greater than one 

mile from an open motorized route 0

Number of 250 acre elk security blocks greater than 1⁄2 mile 

from an open motorized route 3

The analysis completed and shown in Table 69 illustrates that 58 percent of the existing National Forest 

land base in the analysis area is less than 660 feet from an open road or motorized trail. This is the result 

of the decision made in the Three Trails OHV EIS to provide vehicle access including OHVs. The same 

decision also resulted in four percent of the analysis area being greater than 1⁄2 mile from open routes and 

three blocks of security habitat that are greater than 250 acres in size. Because Rim-Paunina does not 

propose any adjustments in road or trail densities, the numbers provided in Table 69 would remain the 

same in all alternatives. 

Analysis of Effects to Big Game Habitat 

Key Indicators for Big Game Habitat

Effects to big game will be displayed at the watershed and 6th-field subwatershed scale and the following 

indicators will be used to compare the effects of alternatives on big game:

Percentage of hiding cover present in each subwatershed and the watershed as a whole 

Acres and percent of Deschutes National Forest land providing hiding cover <660 feet from an 

open motorized route. 

Table 70 displays a summarization of the predicted effects of the proposed action and alternatives on big 

game.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 213 of 528

Table 70. Comparison of Key Indicators for Big Game by Alternative

Key Indicators

Alternative

A B C D E

Acres and percent of National Forest land 

defined as hiding cover in the Little Walker 

watershed (analysis area) post- treatment

24,259

(60%)

18,021

(44%)

16,940

(42%)

16,940

(42%)

16,020

(39%)

Acres and percent of National Forest land 

providing hiding cover <660 feet from an open 

motorized route in the Little Walker watershed

13,642

(58%)

9,254

(39%)

8,272

(35%)

8,272

(35%)

7,690

(33%)

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

Motorized Vehicle Access - The signing of the Three Trails OHV Record of Decision (ROD) in December 

2010 resulted in a lowering of road densities and combined road and trail densities in the six 

subwatersheds, which overlap with the Rim-Paunina analysis area and are displayed in Table 68. There

are no roads or motorized trail closures planned for the Rim-Paunina project, therefore the densities 

shown by subwatershed and as an analysis area as a whole would remain the same in all alternatives. 

Because the analysis shows a 2.4 mile per square mile road only density in all alternatives, 

implementation of the Rim-Paunina project would be consistent with the Deschutes Land and Resource 

Management Plan guidelines for deer summer range. The road closures implemented with the Three 

Trails OHV decision benefit deer and elk by restricting motorized access to designated roads and trails 

and eliminating cross-country motorized travel in the Rim-Paunina analysis area. In addition, other road 

closures including the Green Dot Closure for Walker Rim and the Paunina Code of Federal Regulation 

(CFR) closure between Highway 58 and Highway 97 also contribute to benefitting big game by reducing 

motorized disturbance to summering animals. 

 

Distance Banding Analysis - Due to the existing road and motorized trails open for public travel, analysis 

concluded there was no National Forest acreage greater than one mile from an open route, meaning that 

no high quality security habitat for elk exists in the project area. This was also the condition prior to the 

signing of the Three Trails OHV Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). 

Banding analysis of National Forest lands showed that 1,535 acres (4 percent) of the analysis area is 

located greater than 1⁄2 mile from an open route. A total of six blocks ranging in size from 59 acres to 571 

acres accounted for the entire acreage greater than 1⁄2 mile from an open route. The largest amount of 

acreage is located in the North Paunina subwatershed (571 acre block) followed by a 402 acre block on 

Walker Rim in the Crescent Butte subwatershed. Smaller patches ranging from 59 acres to 178 acres are 

also present in the North Walker, Corral Springs, and Little Walker Mountain subwatersheds. Because of 

the minimal amount of acreage greater than 1⁄2 mile from an open motorized route capable of providing 

security habitat for elk in the analysis area, this acreage is likely more valuable to deer than elk. It is 

expected that elk utilizing the project area would continue to experience high levels of disturbance from 

motorized use in the majority of the analysis area. Johnson et al. (2004) stated that elk trying to elude 

hunters can deplete fat reserves needed for over-wintering survival and that elk responded to hunters by 

fleeing disturbances, whereas deer appear to elude hunters by hiding. Cook et al. (2005) reported that the 

effects of summer-autumn nutrition on fat accretion of cows and growth of calves significantly influenced 

their survival probability under harsh winter conditions. Consequently, if elk are spending more time 

running from disturbances they are spending less time foraging to build up fat reserves needed for 

survival. Having to move away from disturbances also reduces their existing fat reserves. This could 

lead to higher winter mortality.

Banding analysis was also conducted for National Forest acreage within 660 feet of an open road or trail. 

Table 69 shows that a total of 23,475 acres or 58 percent of the analysis area is within this distance band. 

This figure would remain the same for all alternatives. This banding distance adjacent to roads is 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 214 of 528

important because of the potential for animal visibility from motorized routes, although visibility is also 

dependent on topography and the presence of tree or shrub cover for screening. High animal visibility in 

this distance band would tend to increase the potential for deer and elk harvest. The 42 percent of the 

land base that is outside the 660 foot band would tend to benefit deer more than elk because the Starkey 

research has shown elk have greater sensitivity to open roads and travel further distances when disturbed. 

Analysis also shows that there is no high quality security habitat greater than one mile from an open road 

or trail in the analysis area. The Rowland et al. (2000) study at Starkey showed elk response to open 

roads diminished markedly at a distance of 1,969 yards (1.1 miles). 

250 Acre Security Habitat Blocks for Elk – As previously mentioned, Hillis et al. (1991 cited in Wisdom 

2005) suggested security areas be a non-linear block of hiding cover at least 250 acres in size and at least 

one-half mile from roads open to motorized traffic. Because no new system roads are proposed to be 

built or additional roads or motorized trails closed in any alternative, there would be no change in the 

number of, amount of acreage within, or distribution of security habitat blocks. The distance banding 

analysis concluded, based on the road and trail network, security blocks greater than 250 acres in size are 

restricted to two adjoining blocks totaling 571 acres in the North Paunina subwatershed (within the 

Paunina CFR closure area) between Highway 58 and Highway 97 and one block totaling 402 acres in the 

Crescent Butte subwatershed on Walker Rim. Because the number of large blocks is limited, elk utilizing 

the project area would continue to experience high levels of disturbance from motorized use in the 

majority of the analysis area with effects as described in the previous paragraph. 

Executive Order 13443 – This order was signed by President Bush on August 13, 2007 and is intended to 

enhance hunting opportunities on federal public lands. The stated purpose of the Executive Order is to 

“...direct federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land 

management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and 

the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and 

the management of game species and their habitats.” The selection of any alternative of the Rim-Paunina 

vegetation project would result in no loss of hunting land acreage and motorized hunting access would be 

maintained within the National Forest System lands. 

Direct and Indirect Effects on Big Game Habitat

Alternative A

Forest Management Activities (Tree removal and prescribed burning)

Because no forest management would occur with this alternative, there would be no change in the current 

amount and distribution of hiding cover in each subwatershed. As shown in Table 72, with the exception 

of the North Paunina subwatershed, all subwatersheds have greater than 60 percent hiding cover, well 

above the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan minimum of 30 percent. In the North Paunina 

subwatershed the existing level is at 40 percent as a result of past mountain pine beetle attacks, 

subsequent salvage harvest, commercial thinning treatments, and prescribed burning in ponderosa pine 

dominated stands. Over time there would be a gradual increase in the amount and distribution of hiding 

cover across the project area as a result of increased tree growth and/or stem density. Cross-country 

motorized travel is restricted and the existing level of hiding cover at 58 percent within 660 feet of roads 

would be maintained. In addition, there would be no loss of antelope bitterbrush from prescribed burning 

operations, which would continue to provide the primary forage base for mule deer in the project area. 

Based on these conditions, it is expected the mule deer population for this portion of the Ft. Rock 

management unit herd would be maintained at current levels. However, these animals would still be 

subject to mortality factors including winter range habitat conditions located off the Crescent District, as 

well as extreme weather conditions, highway crossing mortality, predation, and disease. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 215 of 528

Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, D, and E)

Forest Management Activities (Tree removal and prescribed burning)

Each action alternative proposes a combination of commercial thinning treatments, small diameter tree 

removal and fuels treatments that would change the vegetative character of affected stands. In most 

instances the reduction in tree densities would open the forested stands resulting in increased visibility 

and loss of hiding cover for big game. Conversely, opening these stands would increase the amount of 

sunlight reaching the forest floor and result in increased growth potential to forage species. This would 

include antelope bitterbrush and, where prescribed burning would occur, an increase in native bunch 

grasses. Prescribed underburning could occur in the spring or fall depending on conditions favorable for 

burning. Underburning would generally be conducted in ponderosa pine dominated forests, which are 

present in each of the six subwatersheds of the project area. However, the most consolidated ponderosa 

pine stands are located between the eastside of Highway 97 to the base of Walker Rim. Prescribed 

burning would generally have two major impacts to big game. First, it is assumed that prescribed 

underburning in ponderosa pine dominated stands would be placed on a burning cycle of every 8-15 

years. This short time frame would generally not allow for the re-establishment of forested hiding cover 

for the short- or long-term. Hiding cover would be restricted to treatment unit retention areas and 

untreated stands in the project area. A mitigation measure has been included in Chapter 2 to place no 

treatment retention areas currently functioning as hiding cover next to open roads and motorized trails 

wherever possible to lessen the impact of reduced hiding cover. 

The second impact of burning is the removal of antelope bitterbrush, which is the dominant forage species 

for mule deer in this area. Busse and Reigle (2008) conducted a study on the Deschutes National Forest 

on the response of bitterbrush to repeated prescribed burning in ponderosa pine forests. Their study had 

several major conclusions, including that low- to moderate-intensity spring burning killed the majority of 

the bitterbrush plants on replicate plots. Results from the 15-year study showed that the presence of 

bitterbrush was significantly altered by repeated burning. The initial burns resulted in a short-term 

collapse in bitterbrush cover followed by a fairly rapid recovery period. In 2002 a repeat underburning 

was accomplished and although it did not eliminate bitterbrush from the forest understory, it did 

substantially reduce seedling recruitment and total cover. Average recruitment (seed germination plus 

basal sprouting) was 2-6 fold lower after the 2002 burns compared to the 1991 burns. Fifteen years after

the initial burn, bitterbrush cover was 75-92 percent lower on the repeatedly-burned plots compared to 

unburned plots and much of the decline was attributed to seedbank depletion with insufficient time 

between burn cycles to develop and replenish the seed crop. They concluded that repeated burning is an 

effective tool to reduce the presence of bitterbrush and modify its function as both a wildlife browse and a 

ladder fuel. 

As previously stated, the prescribed fire cycles proposed in the Rim-Paunina area may range from 8-15 

years - within the timelines described by Busse and Reigle (2008). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume 

underburning would result in a short- and long-term reduction in bitterbrush abundance in all six 

subwatersheds and particularly in the Crescent Butte and Little Walker Mountain watersheds that are 

heavily dominated by ponderosa pine and have prescribed fire as a proposed fuels treatment. Prior to any 

prescribed burn for this project, as with any prescribed burning project on the District, an implementation 

plan would be developed and reviewed by district specialists. Typical mitigation measures added to the 

plan include the retention of 30-40 percent of the shrub communities including bitterbrush in unburned 

islands for the benefit of big game, small mammals, and songbirds. This measure has been shown to be 

effective based on past burning operations and would help maintain bitterbrush distributed across each 

treatment unit. 

Prescribed burning would also result in a short-term loss of forage and cover currently provided by dense 

patches of ceanothus and manzanita near the base of Walker Rim. The total acres of this condition are 

unknown although burning would likely kill most of their above ground vegetation immediate re-
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 216 of 528

sprouting would occur providing desirable forage in the first few years after burning. The disturbance 

associated with prescribed burns would be a short-term localized effect normally limited to one or two 

days while timber sales could be in operation for several months up to two years. This has the potential 

for deer to avoid these disturbance areas during spring and fall migrations (April-June) and (OctoberNovember). Daytime avoidance of these areas would probably occur but animals could still move 

through the burn or timber sale areas after dark. There should be no long-term negative effects on mule 

deer migration through the Rim-Paunina project area.

In addition, Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures (see Chapter 2) include a provision for the 

retention of untreated acreage for various resource concerns including big game hiding cover, dense 

canopied stands, raptor nest stands, heritage sites, dense concentrations of snags and down wood, shrub 

patches for foraging or nesting, or other desired features. In all action alternatives it is reasonable to 

assume some shift in big game distribution may result from the reduction in bitterbrush cover in the 

project area. Those stands not selected for thinning and burning and lodgepole pine dominated stands 

may experience greater mule deer use because of the greater availability of bitterbrush. 

Several mitigation measures have been proposed (see Chapter 2) that would lessen effects on deer and 

elk. A number of treatment units would have a limited operating period applied during the deer 

fawning/elk calving period of May 1 – June 30. Disturbance activities such as spring burning and timber 

harvest would be restricted on units near water sources to reduce the potential of fawn and calf mortality 

from abandonment. As previously mentioned, the placement of no treatment retention clumps providing 

cover would be preferentially directed near open roads and trails where feasible. A minimum six acre 

hiding cover clump would be left surrounding guzzlers listed in the Mitigation Measures in Chapter 2.

Table 71 displays the change in hiding cover condition in each subwatershed as a result of implementing 

each action alternative. None of the alternatives would fall below the 30 percent cover level objective 

specified in the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (WL-54). The amount of hiding cover 

presented in Table 71 represents stands equal to or greater than six acres in size and also includes hiding 

cover present that would be left in no treatment retention clumps (15-25 percent) specified in the Project 

Design Features of Chapter 2. However, the numbers provided in Table 71 also likely under-represents 

the actual amount of hiding cover present in stands less than six acres in size. 

Table 71. Acres of Hiding Cover Removed and the Percent of the Little Walker Watershed Remaining as 

Hiding Cover by Alternative as a Result of Proposed Vegetation Management 

6

th Field 

Subwatershed

6

th Field 

Acres

Deschutes 

National 

Forest System 

Lands Only

Acres and 

Percent of 

Existing 

Hiding 

Cover

Alt A

Acres of 

Hiding 

Cover and 

Percent 

Remaining

Alt B

Acres of 

Hiding 

Cover and 

Percent 

Remaining

Alt C

Acres of 

Hiding 

Cover and 

Percent 

Remaining

Alt D

Acres of 

Hiding 

Cover and 

Percent 

Remaining

Alt E

Corral Springs 2,637 1,680 (64%) 1,406 (53%) 1,179 (45%) 1,179 (45%) 1,166 (44%)

Crescent Butte 4,534 2,799 (62%) 1,376 (30%) 1,824 (40%) 1,824 (40%) 1,376 (30%)

Little Walker 

Mountain 12,598 8,296 (66%) 6,240 (51%) 5,153 (41%) 5,153 (41%) 5,037 (40%)

North Paunina 10,214 4,050 (40%) 3,128 (31%) 3,180 (31%) 3,180 (31%) 3,063 (30%)

North Walker 1,061 883 (83%) 661 (62%) 325 (31%) 325 (31%) 325 (31%)

South Paunina 9,671 6,551 (68%) 5,210 (54%) 5,279 (55%) 5,279 (55%) 5,053 (52%)

Total Acres 40,715 24,259 (60%) 18,021* (44%) 16,940* (42%) 16,940* (42%) 16,020* (39%)

*Hiding cover includes each unit’s retention areas plus all acres not proposed for thinning or fuels treatment. Hiding cover 

acreage listed above only measures polygons equal to or greater than 6 acres in size and under-represents actual amount of cover.

Table 72 has combined the data from previous tables in this section and displays the amount of National 

Forest System acreage within each subwatershed within 660 feet of an open road or motorized trail, the 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 217 of 528

amount of land currently defined as hiding cover, and the amount of hiding cover within 660 feet of open 

roads and trails post-treatment. The intent is to show the distribution of hiding cover across the analysis 

area and how the amount of hiding cover adjacent to roads changes between alternatives. Generally 

speaking, less hiding cover adjacent to roads equals more disturbance to deer and elk foraging or traveling 

through the subwatersheds and an increased risk of animal mortality from legal and illegal harvest. 

However, topographic features such as hills, draws, and/or high shrub cover where available, may 

partially compensate for low amounts of hiding cover. As previously mentioned, the hiding cover 

amounts listed represent only blocks equal to or greater than six acres in size. This would likely underrepresent the actual amount of hiding cover present within the 660 foot disturbance zone analyzed. 

Table 72. Hiding Cover Acreage on National Forest System Lands within Each Subwatershed within 660 feet 

of a Road or Trail Open for Motorized Use Pre- and Post-Treatment 

Subwatershed

Subwatershed 

Acres

Open Road 

*and 

Combined 

Road and 

Trail** 

Density

Alternative

Acres of Hiding 

Cover in 

Subwatershed

Subwatershed

Acres Within 

660’ of Open 

Motorized 

Route

Hiding Cover 

Within 660’ of 

Open 

Motorized 

Route

Corral Springs 2,637 2.0* - 3.8**

A 1,680 – 64%

1,674 – 63%

1,178 – 70%

B 1,406 – 56% 895 – 64%

C and D 1,179 – 45% 655 – 56%

E 1,166 – 44% 634 – 53%

Crescent Butte 4,534 3.0* - 3.0**

A 2,799 – 62%

2,197 – 48%

1,137 – 52%

B 1,376 – 30% 299 – 14%

C and D 1,824 – 40% 566 – 26%

E 1,376 – 30% 299 – 14%

Little Walker

Mountain 12,598 2.3* - 4.0**

A 8,296 – 66%

8,026 – 64%

5,219 – 65%

B 6,240 – 51% 3,444 – 43%

C and D 5,153 – 41% 2,799 – 35%

E 5,037 – 40% 2,726 – 34%

North Paunina 10,214 2.2* - 2.4**

A 4,050 – 40%

5,139 – 50%

2,118 – 41%

B 3,128 – 31% 1,561 – 30%

C and D 3,180 – 31% 1,429 – 28%

E 3,063 – 30% 1,343 – 26%

North Walker 1,061 0.8* - 0.8**

A 883 – 83%

301 – 28%

242 – 80%

B 661 – 62% 140 – 47%

C and D 325 – 31% 104 – 35%

E 325 – 31% 103 – 35%

South Paunina 9,671 2.6* - 4.1**

A 6,551 – 68%

6,138 – 63%

3,748 – 61%

B 5,210 – 54% 2,915 – 47%

C and D 5,279 – 55% 2,719 – 44%

E 5,053 – 52% 2,585 –42%

* Open Road Only Density ** Combined Road and Trail Density

Disturbance to Big Game

The existing road and motorized route densities assume full implementation of the Record of Decision for 

the Three Trails OHV project. None of the Rim-Paunina action alternatives propose the construction of 

new permanent roads in the project area or the closure of additional existing roads. However, temporary 

roads would need to be constructed to facilitate the economical removal of timber from treatment units. 

These would be relatively short segments that would normally be open for 2-3 years for timber sale 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 218 of 528

completion and associated post-sale activities including post and pole sales and fuels reduction work. All 

temporary roads would be closed to motorized travel with the placement of barricades or berms and 

subsoiled to allow their return to proper hydrologic function after the completion of all activities. 

Therefore, the system roads and motorized route densities listed in Table 68 would not change between 

any of the alternatives. The impact on deer and elk would be described as short-term, lasting a couple 

years, with elk tending to avoid open roads as noted by Rowland et al. (2005) from a study in the Blue 

Mountains of Oregon. For deer, access to nearby hiding cover may help partially mitigate the disturbance 

from motorized traffic on roads and trails. Projected temporary road needs for Alternative B are 9.2

miles, for Alternatives C and D a total of 6.5 miles and for Alternative E 8.3 miles. It is highly unlikely 

that all vegetation treatments would be conducted in the same year; therefore there would be areas where 

activities are not occurring and providing relatively disturbance free land, particularly for deer. 

In all alternatives, those subwatersheds with the highest road densities would tend to retain greater 

amounts of hiding cover. For example, motorized densities for South Paunina are 2.6 mi/mi2for roads 

and 4.1 mi/mi2for roads and motorized trails, and cover is retained above the 50 percent level. For Little 

Walker Mountain the densities are 2.3 mi/mi2and 4.0 mi/mi2respectively, but hiding cover levels would 

stay above 40 percent in each alternative. An exception would be the Crescent Butte subwatershed,

where road and road + trail densities are 3.0 mi/mi2and 3.0 mi/mi2respectively, but hiding cover would 

fall to 30 percent in Alternatives B and E. In the North Paunina subwatershed, with road and road plus

trail densities at 2.2 mi/mi2and 2.4 mi/mi2respectively, hiding cover would be down to the 30 percent 

level in all action alternatives. All alternatives would meet Deschutes Land and Resource Management 

Plan direction for hiding cover using the entire Little Walker watershed as the implementation unit.

All action alternatives would be expected to have similar effects on elk that utilize the project area. There 

would be no change in the number of 250 acre habitat blocks that Hillis et al. (1991) described as 

providing security cover for elk. Because no roads or trails are proposed for closure in Rim-Paunina, 

there would be no change between action alternatives in the amount of land base that is greater than 1⁄2 

mile from an open motorized route. All action alternatives propose a reduction in hiding cover within 

each subwatershed and adjacent to roads and trails open for vehicle use. Therefore, a reduction in hiding 

cover would equate to an increase in animal visibility and may result in a few additional bull elk taken 

legally and/or a few more animals of either sex taken illegally near open roads. While some additional 

elk mortality may occur, the analysis area is not considered a high use elk area nor was it designated a 

Key Elk Management Area in the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan. Rim-Paunina has a 

smaller elk population compared to other drainages on the Crescent Ranger District such as the Hemlock, 

Spruce, and Swamp Creek meadow complexes and the lands surrounding Big Marsh.

Specific to Each Action Alternative

Alternative B 

Forest Management Activities (tree removal and prescribed burning)

Implementation of this alternative would reduce big game hiding cover in each of the six subwatersheds 

in the project area, though it would retain the greatest amount of hiding cover of the four action 

alternatives. As shown in Table 71, the Crescent Butte and North Paunina subwatersheds would have 

hiding cover levels at or near 30 percent, although the remaining subwatersheds would retain hiding cover 

levels from 44 to 62 percent post-treatment. Measured over the entire analysis area hiding cover would 

drop from 60 percent to 44 percent of the National Forest land base. Within 660 feet of open roads and 

trails Alternative B would retain the greatest amount of hiding cover, though the percentage would drop 

from a current 58 percent down to 39 percent. However, this amount does not factor in the placement of 

no treatment retention areas near roads and trails as described in the Project Design Features (see Chapter 

2), which would increase hiding cover within this banding distance above that shown in Table 72. This 

would also be consistent with Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan WL-58 that states, if 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 219 of 528

possible, leave strips of trees along roads to reduce view distances. Although there is no Deschutes Land 

and Resource Management Plan threshold identified for a minimum level of hiding cover adjacent to 

roads, the vegetation treatments in the Crescent Butte subwatershed would reduce road-side hiding cover 

down to 14 percent. The North Paunina subwatershed would have the next lowest level of hiding cover 

adjacent to open roads, falling to 30 percent. 

In addition to the commercial thinning treatments, prescribed underburning is proposed on up to 8,506 

acres (21percent of the project area) with the vast majority in the ponderosa pine plant associations. The 

greatest amount of burning would take place in the Crescent Butte and Little Walker Mountain 

subwatersheds. As previously described, this activity and regularly scheduled future burns would result 

in a long-term loss of hiding cover and the reduction and distribution of bitterbrush as mule deer forage. 

In the prescribed burn areas, some shifting of animal use may occur into adjoining areas where bitterbrush 

forage is in greater supply, though mitigation measures for retention areas would be applied in prescribed 

burn units and commercial timber sale treatments. The combination of thinning and prescribed burning 

would still maintain hiding cover at levels in excess of 30 percent measured at the watershed scale and 

therefore, would meet Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan direction.

Alternative C

Forest Management Activities (tree removal and prescribed burning)

Similar to Alternative B, this alternative would reduce big game hiding cover in each of the six 

subwatersheds in the project area. It would retain the second highest amount of hiding cover of the four 

action alternatives. As shown in Table 71, two subwatersheds (North Paunina and North Walker) would 

have hiding cover levels very near the 30 percent level although the remaining subwatersheds would 

retain hiding cover levels from 40 to 55 percent post-treatment. Measured over the entire analysis area 

hiding cover would drop from 60 percent to 42 percent of the National Forest land base. The most 

noticeable changes from Alternative B are an increase in hiding cover retention in the Crescent Butte 

subwatershed and a decrease in hiding cover in the North Walker subwatershed. 

Hiding cover within 660 feet of open roads and trails would be reduced from the current 58 percent to 35 

percent. It is assumed the amount of hiding cover near roads would increase with the 15-25 percent no 

treatment retention areas deliberately placed adjacent to roads. The level of hiding cover retained near 

roads would be similar to Alternative B in North and South Paunina subwatersheds but would result in

reductions in hiding cover in the Corral Springs, Little Walker Mountain, and North Walker subdivisions. 

Crescent Butte is the only subwatershed that would experience an increase in hiding cover adjacent to 

roads as compared to Alternative B. 

In addition to the commercial thinning treatments, prescribed underburning is proposed on up to 12,762

acres (32 percent of the project area) with the majority in the ponderosa pine plant associations. Similar 

to Alternative B, regularly scheduled burning would likely result in a long-term loss of hiding cover and 

reduction in the amount and distribution of bitterbrush as mule deer forage. The combination of thinning 

and prescribed burning would still maintain hiding cover at levels exceeding 30 percent measured at the 

watershed scale and therefore, would meet Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan direction.

Alternative D

Forest Management Activities (tree removal and prescribed burning)

The selection of Alternative D would have similar effects to those described in Alternative C, because the 

same units and acres for treatment are proposed. The major difference with Alternative D compared to 

Alternative C is that a total of approximately 778 acres of two to five acre gaps would be created 

primarily in the Crescent Butte subwatershed with lesser amounts in the North Paunina and Little Walker 

Mountain subwatersheds. While this would result in a reduction in hiding cover similar to the 

commercial thinning proposed in the other action alternatives, Alternative D would propose underplanting 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 220 of 528

tree seedlings in the gaps. The planted trees would grow into hiding cover in about ten years, though the 

gaps would be less than the six acre minimum patch size that was utilized to model hiding cover in this 

analysis. Prescribed burning within the planted gaps would not occur until the trees reach about 30 years 

of age (J. Bowles pers. comm. 2011) which would allow these small hiding cover clumps to function as

cover for up to two decades. Because underburning would also be delayed for several decades until the 

planted trees reach approximately 30 years of age, bitterbrush re-establishment is also likely and available 

for big game until maintenance burns are started once again on an 8-15 year cycle. These actions would 

help partially mitigate the loss of and better distribute hiding cover and big game forage in the Crescent 

Butte, North Paunina and Little Walker Mountain subwatersheds. This would benefit mule deer in the 

subwatersheds by reducing at least minimally, their susceptibility to road-side legal and illegal harvest for 

several decades. The combination of thinning and prescribed burning would still maintain hiding cover at 

levels exceeding 30 percent measured at the watershed scale and therefore, would meet Deschutes Land 

and Resource Management Plan direction.

Alternative E

Forest Management Activities (tree removal and prescribed burning)

Alternative E would result in the greatest loss of big game hiding cover of the four action alternatives 

with 39 percent of the analysis area providing hiding cover post-treatment. An additional 2,000 acres of 

hiding cover would be removed compared to Alternative B and approximately 920 acres less compared to 

Alternatives C and D. Within 660 feet of open roads and trails, hiding cover would be reduced to 33 

percent, the lowest of the four action alternatives. However, similar to the other action alternatives, 

hiding cover would still be maintained at or above the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan

levels, consistent with direction for mule deer summer range. 

Alternative E proposes approximately 1,921 acres of alternative mistletoe treatments in the most severely 

infected stands, where all infected trees under 21 inches in diameter would be removed. No trees greater 

than 21 inches in diameter would be removed; however, infected trees greater than 21 inches in diameter 

could have induced mortality. This would occur through tree topping, blasting, or burning with the 

objective of reducing the impact of mistletoe raining down the infection onto the understory trees. These 

actions would occur primarily in the Crescent Butte subwatershed with lesser amounts in the North 

Paunina and Little Walker Mountain subwatersheds. After tree removal, prescribed burning would occur, 

followed by tree planting of ecologically appropriate species. These planted areas would be capable of 

becoming hiding cover in about ten years and remain hiding cover until pre-commercial thinning occurs 

at about 30 years of age. Bitterbrush re-establishment after the initial burn following the mistletoe 

treatment on the 1,921 acres is also possible. This would last until underburns are conducted again when 

the planted trees reach approximately 30 years of age. This would help partially mitigate the loss of and 

better distribute hiding cover and big game forage in the Crescent Butte, North Paunina and Little Walker 

Mountain subwatersheds for several decades once re-established. It would also benefit mule deer in the 

subwatersheds by reducing, at least minimally, their susceptibility to road-side legal and illegal harvest. 

In addition to the commercial thinning treatments, prescribed underburning is proposed on up to 13,491

acres (34 percent of the project area) in the ponderosa pine plant associations. This is the highest level of 

treatment proposed of all four action alternatives and result in the greatest change in the amount and 

distribution of bitterbrush and other shrubs in the analysis area. Mitigation measures previously 

mentioned for retention of browse species (bitterbrush, ceanothus, manzanita) would be included in the 

prescribed burn plans for all action alternatives to retain a well distributed network for big game but also 

benefitting resident and neotropical birds, and small mammals. 

Cumulative Effects 

The following projects overlap in time and have a zone of influence that overlaps the Rim-Paunina 

project. The Three Trails OHV EIS (USDA 2010) designated an OHV trail system, closed 94 miles of 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 221 of 528

user-created OHV trails and 115 miles of Forest Service System roads on a 93,016 acre project area that 

partially overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. The effects for big game on the preferred Alternative (E) 

concluded that road and user-created trail closures would benefit deer and elk by increasing the amount of 

undisturbed habitat available to the animals, by increasing the number of large block security areas 

greater than 250 acres in size, clustering OHV trails where possible to minimize the amount of lands 

subject to motorized disturbance, and finally by adjusting the boundary of the Hemlock Key Area to 

incorporate more wet meadow habitat and reducing road densities. The road and trail system open for 

motorized use as identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) for Three Trails OHV EIS was used as the 

existing condition for determining road and trail densities for the Rim-Paunina big game effects. 

The Deschutes National Forest signed a Forest-wide Travel Management Plan decision in August 2011 to 

review and make recommendations to our current motorized access system. At this time there are no 

additional road and/or trail closures planned in the Rim-Paunina project area as a result of implementing 

the Forest-wide Travel Management decision. 

The small diameter thinning program would overlap the Rim-Paunina project area. Small tree thinning is 

an annual activity with the vast majority of the acreage within young tree plantations. This activity has 

been accounted for up to the present. For the next several years no additional small diameter thinning 

other than Rim-Paunina activity units would be programmed within the Little Walker watershed until 

hiding cover increases in the subwatersheds. At that time another hiding cover analysis would be 

conducted to determine how much acreage has grown into hiding cover in the watershed and its 

distribution across the 40,000 acre area. 

Approximately 106 acres of the Two Rivers North housing subdivision is within the boundary of the 

Rim-Paunina project. This acreage is developed with homes occupied year-round and/or used as summer 

homes. This small amount of acreage was not considered capable of supporting hiding cover for the 

short- or long-term and was not used in the analysis. 

The BLT Vegetation EIS (USDA 2009) which is currently being implemented is included in the 

cumulative effects discussion even though it does not overlap the Rim-Paunina analysis area. The two 

projects are in separate but adjoining watersheds, and also both within the Ft. Rock management unit, of 

which 250,494 acres (22 percent) of the 1,133,551 acre management unit is on the Crescent District. The 

BLT project proposed commercial and small diameter tree thinning and prescribed burning similar to that 

proposed for Rim-Paunina. The EIS stated post-treatment hiding cover would remain above the 

Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan minimums. The road closures approved for the Three 

Trails OHV EIS also overlap the BLT EIS analysis area and resulted in benefits to big game. Therefore, 

no adverse cumulative effects are expected in combination with Rim-Paunina.

Conclusions

Mule Deer – The selection of any action alternative would result in an improvement to foraging habitat 

where commercial thinning is proposed, particularly in denser stands of lodgepole pine. Antelope 

bitterbrush is expected to favorably respond as a result of increased sunlight reaching the plants. 

Conversely, commercial and small diameter thinning would result in a reduction of big game hiding cover 

in several subwatersheds down to the minimum levels stated in the Deschutes Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Where regular prescribed burning is planned in ponderosa pine stands, the loss of 

bitterbrush as a forage species would be a long-term event. For these reasons, Alternative E would have 

the greatest negative effect to mule deer because it results in the least amount of hiding cover adjacent to 

open roads and trails leaving animals more susceptible to legal and illegal hunting pressure. Alternative E 

also proposes the most acreage planned for prescribed underburning resulting in reduced bitterbrush cover 

available for foraging animals. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Wildlife- Big Game

Page 222 of 528

However, connected actions associated with Alternatives D and E for mistletoe control would provide 

some temporary mitigation to the loss of hiding cover and antelope bitterbrush. Alternatives D and E 

propose underplanting of tree seedlings (approximately 778 acres in Alternative D and up to 1,921 acres 

in Alternative E) following mistletoe treatments. Because the seedlings would be susceptible to 

underburning, these trees would be allowed to grow until approximately age 30 at which time 

maintenance burns could be scheduled on a 8-15 year rotation. This would allow a short time frame of 

approximately two decades where hiding cover would be available and where bitterbrush could re-sprout 

for big game browse until the next burning cycle. Once burning is established on a regular 8-15 year 

cycle, bitterbrush loss would be a long-term effect as described earlier. The short-term increase in hiding 

cover would help offset the loss of hiding cover near motorized routes, though the hiding cover may not 

be present long-term. Alternatives C and D would be described as mid-range in effects because of the 

amount of acres treated for thinning and burning. Alternative B is expected to have the least impact to big 

game because it would treat the fewest acres. 

For all action alternatives, summering mule deer populations would be maintained, though there may be 

some adjustment of animals moving where cover and forage are available in close proximity to each other 

in the analysis area. The Project Design Features and mitigation measures collectively, would also help 

lessen negative effects to deer. As previously mentioned, mule deer are subject to numerous mortality 

factors including events such as extreme weather and habitat conditions on winter ranges that are located 

outside the analysis area and off the Deschutes National Forest. Therefore, the relatively modest amount 

of hiding cover removed with the Rim-Paunina project as compared to the overall size of the 1,133,551 

acre Ft. Rock management unit and the hiding cover acreage available on the Deschutes National Forest 

would be almost negligible regardless of the alternative selected for implementation. The Rim-Paunina 

project is consistent with the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan and mule deer viability 

would be maintained on the Deschutes National Forest. 

Elk – All action alternatives would result in a loss of hiding cover across subwatersheds and within the 

660 foot distance banding zone adjacent to open roads and motorized trails. This would lead to an 

increase in elk vulnerability to legal and illegal hunting near these motorized routes. Increased visibility 

is also expected to result in the animals spending even more time moving to avoid human disturbance. 

Because this project does not impact key elk areas described in the Deschutes Land and Resource 

Management Plan, effects are expected to be minimal with a small negative trend but negligible at the 

forest level. The Rim-Paunina project is consistent with the Deschutes Land and Resource Management 

Plan, and elk viability would be maintained on the Deschutes National Forest. 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 223 of 528

Old Growth Management 

Late and Old Structure (LOS) Connectivity Corridors 

Existing Condition

Late and old successional (LOS) habitat is an element of the “Interim Management Direction establishing 

Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales in the Regional Forester’s Eastside 

Amendment #2” (Screens). The entire Rim-Paunina planning area of 40,000 acres is within this “Interim 

Management Direction, Eastside Amendment #2” area. This amendment requires the identification of 

connectivity corridors designed to connect designated old growth areas and LOS habitat types across the 

landscape. These corridors are intended to allow movement and interaction of adults and dispersal of 

young of LOS or old growth associated species. Corridors do not necessarily meet the description of 

“suitable” habitat for breeding, but allow free movement between suitable breeding habitats. It is 

important to ensure that blocks of habitat maintain a high degree of connectivity between them and that 

blocks of habitat do not become fragmented in the short-term. Connectivity corridors are considered 

stands in which medium to larger trees are common, and canopy closure is within the top-third of site 

potential. Stand widths should be at least 400 feet at their narrowest point, unless it is impossible to meet 

the 400 foot with current vegetative conditions. If stands meeting these descriptions are not available, the 

next best available habitat would be identified. 

Removal of trees within connectivity corridors is permitted if all the criteria in the above can be met and 

if understory is left in patches or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover. Understory 

removal, stocking control, and salvage are potential activities that can occur. In stands that do not 

currently meet LOS standards, non-regeneration or single tree selection activities should proceed only if 

the prescription moves the stand towards LOS conditions as soon as possible (USDA 1995).

Connectivity corridors have been identified and mapped for the Crescent Ranger District. The placement 

of the corridors reflects habitat conditions currently present considering past timber harvests including 

salvage operations from the mountain pine beetle epidemic of the 1980’s. Medium and large size trees 

are present in most of the corridors although small diameter trees likely comprise the majority of the 

stems/acre. Most of the corridor acreage has multiple canopy layers regardless of the PAG the corridor is 

in. There are at least two connectivity corridors between allocated old growth areas. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternatives A 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The selection of this alternative would result in no active management within the mapped corridors. The 

structural complexity and existing canopy cover within the corridors would remain unchanged, at least in 

the short-term. On many stands of drier ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine plant associations, stocking 

densities would remain above desired levels. Vegetation successional processes would continue to occur 

that may include an increased overstory canopy cover and tree height and the formation of multiple 

canopy layering favorable to some species. However, over the long-term this alternative may also 

increase the risk of overstocked stands becoming susceptible to large tree loss from disease, insects and 

fire events. Because implementation of this alternative would result in no impact to the existing 

condition, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

As shown in Table 15 (Connectivity Corridor Acres in Chapter 2, Mitigation Measures) all action 

alternatives have nearly identical corridor acreage proposed for thinning treatments. Alternative B would 

conduct thinning treatments on 300 acres, Alternatives C and D would have 280 acres of thinning, and 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 224 of 528

Alternative E would have 285 acres of thinning. The commercial and small diameter thinning planned 

would reduce overall canopy cover but would still remain within the top third of site potential depending 

on the plant association and site specific conditions. This would result in a more open condition favorable 

to some species that prefer less canopy, but would provide adequate cover and structure to facilitate travel 

by most species likely to utilize corridors. Thinning would promote the development of larger diameter 

trees by reducing stand density and competition for scarce resources and improve forest resilience where 

actively managed. Where thinning occurs within younger aged stands, thinning designed to promote the 

development of large tree would likely improve long-term habitat conditions within the corridors. 

Underburning in corridors of ponderosa pine would be limited to maintain the presence of multi-canopy 

layering and shrubs for small mammals, nesting songbirds, and browse for big game animals. The 

placement of wildlife retention areas (passive management) may result in fewer actual acres of the 

corridors being treated than the 280 to 300 acres predicted. Site specific wildlife retention areas would 

not be known until sale layout. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

The effects of past timber harvest were considered when connectivity corridors were identified and 

mapped. The activities in Table 19 were reviewed for their potential for cumulative effects on 

connectivity corridors. None of the activities listed in the table would contribute to a cumulative effect 

because the projects have either already been completed or are not relevant due to spatial proximity of the 

project. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects expected with project implementation.

Forest Fragmentation

Li and Reynolds (1999) defined forest fragmentation as the processes of increasing the number of 

landscape pieces, decreasing interior habitat area, increasing the extent of forest-opening edges, or 

increasing isolation of residual forest patches. The primary force causing changes in the fragmentation 

patterns are human-caused disturbances (Butler et al. 2003). Since the late 1800’s timber harvesting and 

fire suppression have replaced natural disturbances as the primary forces shaping forest landscapes 

(Rochelle 1999). In low-elevation forest land in western-Washington and Oregon, a significant 

proportion of the forest has been converted to other uses such as agriculture and suburban development, 

resulting in long-term or permanent habitat loss and forest fragmentation (Rochelle 1999). In November 

1998, a scientific conference was held in Portland, Oregon entitled “Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and 

Management Implications”. The conference was convened to provide a synthesis of the current state of 

knowledge related to fragmentation in managed forests of the Pacific Northwest. Rochelle (1999) 

synthesized key points from the authors’ papers and conference presentations. Some of the key findings 

from the conference included: 

Northwest forests were naturally fragmented by disturbances such as fire and disease; small 

patches dominated east-side forests; larger patches characterized west-side forests. In drier eastside forests fire suppression is, over-time, “de-fragmenting” patterns of fuel distribution and 

increasing the potential for large wildfires. 

Fragmentation usually co-occurs with habitat loss and the response of vertebrate populations 

differ, and for most species the effects of habitat loss are more significant than changes in habitat 

pattern. 

Both positive and negative effects of forest “edge” have been documented in recent research. 

Leaving relatively small amounts of habitat structure (e.g. shrubs, snags, decaying wood, live 

conifers, and hardwoods) after harvest, apparently, makes the areas (matrix) between habitat 

patches more hospitable, so that movement and dispersal of many species may be enhanced.

In the east and midwest many studies document increased predation and parasitism near edges; in 

the Pacific Northwest researchers have found little effect of patch area or negative edge effects, 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 225 of 528

nor does there appear to be strong evidence of bird species requiring only forest interior habitat 

(Kremsater and Bunnell 1999; Bunnell et al. 1997 cited in Rochelle et al. 1999). 

In western forests there is little evidence of negative edge effects (Kremsater and Bunnell 1999 in 

Rochelle 1999) and reflects the fact that stands of different ages do not act as habitat islands, are 

not surrounded by agricultural habitat, and exist in a mosaic where edges are continually 

changing.

Existing Condition

The 40,000 acre Rim-Paunina project area could be described as a relatively contiguous forested block 

separated by Highways 97 and 58. Large lakes, reservoirs, or lava formations which can interrupt a 

connected forested landscape are not present in this planning area. There is a noticeable difference 

however, in forest types as a result of changes in physiography, geology, soil types, and aspect that affect 

which tree species are best suited to the growing conditions. Human-induced fragmentation has occurred 

through the design and placement of a forest road network and regeneration timber harvest program that 

began in the 1950s and ended in the early 1990s. Regeneration harvests in the planning area are most 

common west of Highway 97 in stands of beetle killed lodgepole pine. However, the only permanent loss 

of forest stands are those that were removed for permanent road access and approximately 106 acres of 

private land in the Two Rivers North housing subdivision in the watershed. The regeneration harvest 

blocks have been re-planted with trees and are currently 20-25 years old and over the next several decades

would result in a much less fragmented (less edge) landscape as stands become mid-successional in age

(greater than 40 years). During the interim, early-seral associated wildlife species benefit from a 

landscape that provides some of this habitat type. 

Any future large-scale fragmentation would likely be the result of disturbance events such as wildfire or 

forest loss to insects or diseases. Small-scale fragmentation may occur from group selection cuts ranging 

from two to five acres in size. However, Kremsater and Bunnel (1999 cited by Rochelle et al. 1999) 

stated there is little available data on potential edge effects in the small openings created by partial cutting 

in the Pacific Northwest, or on edges between old growth and older second-growth stands. Neither of 

these effects is likely to be large because openings may be too small in the first instance and in both 

instances the structural contrasts are relatively small. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A

Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementation of this alternative would result in no immediate change from the current vegetative 

condition in the project area. The regenerated stands of forest would continue to grow resulting in less 

edge habitat in the planning area. This would benefit wildlife species generally associated with increasing 

levels of canopy cover and larger tree diameter by providing a more connected forest landscape. Those 

wildlife species more closely associated with early-seral forests would gradually decrease in population 

and distribution as these stands mature. Because there are no actions planned there would be no 

cumulative effects from this action.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

There is no permanent road construction planned with this analysis. However, to access treatment units, 

temporary roads would be constructed. Approximately 9.2 miles would be needed for Alternative B, 6.5

for Alternatives C and D, and 8.3 miles for Alternative E. This would equal approximately 17 acres 

converted to temporary road for Alternative B, 12 acres for Alternatives C and D, and 16 acres for 

Alternative E. Temporary roads are generally less than 16 feet in width and would be subsoiled after the 

completion of all post-sale activities, usually within five years (or less) of the initial activity. Natural revegetation of subsoiled roads would occur as shrubs and tree species begin seeding in. On the Crescent 

Ranger District, due to available seed source, vegetative recovery on subsoiled roads is usually 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 226 of 528

established within five years 22. Temporary road construction has effects that have been disclosed for 

other resources in this analysis (reference the sections titled “Soils”, “Big Game”, “Cultural Resources,” 

and “Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources” in Chapter 3 of this EIS). Due to the 

temporary nature of the effects (less than five years) and the limited short-term access, this activity would 

not be considered to change the existing continuity of the forest or result in any long-term edge habitat 

throughout the 40,000 acre planning area. Also, the potential for introduction of invasive plants 

associated with temporary road construction is discussed in the section titled “Invasive Plants” in Chapter 

3 of this EIS. Activities proposed would not create additional habitat fragmentation to mid- or late-seral 

forested stands in the project area. 

Alternatives B and C

Direct and Indirect Effects

Both alternatives propose a mix of commercial thinning, improvement cuts, small diameter thinning, and 

the use of prescribed underburns to improve tree growth and enhance forest health. Large scale openings 

capable of creating fragmentation would not occur in either alternative. There would also be no 

conversion of forested lands to other uses such as commercial development. Therefore, no direct or 

indirect effects are anticipated to occur.

Alternatives D 

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative proposes a group selection cutting method to eliminate the presence of mistletoe through 

the creation of openings on approximately 778 acres of the most severely infected stands. Openings 

would range from 2-5 acres in size and essentially all trees would be removed including those over 21 

inches in diameter. The most severely infected stands are located in ponderosa pine primarily in the 

northern portion of the planning area and south of the Gilchrist State Forest. Within an individual stand, 

several openings of 2-5 acres could be created totaling 15-30 percent of the total stand areas to prevent reinfection of dwarf mistletoe from above. Ponderosa pine and sugar pine seedlings would be planted in the 

group selection cuts to facilitate future replacement of the stand. The remainder of the timber harvest 

proposed in Alternative D would have a commercial thinning or an improvement cut prescription applied 

generally removing infected trees and/or understory trees to increase residual tree vigor and forest health. 

The approximately 778 acres of openings 2-5 acres in size would be interspersed among other treatment 

units where commercial thinning and/or prescribed underburning would occur. While this action would 

create small unit edge habitat, this effect would last for approximately thirty years or until the replanted 

trees have grown and the treatment units no longer appear as a small opening. As previously mentioned, 

Kremsater and Bunnell (1999) have found there is little evidence of negative edge effects in western 

forests. They concluded that stands of different ages do not act as habitat islands, are not surrounded by 

agricultural habitat and exist in a mosaic where edges are continually changing. Agee (1999 cited in 

Rochelle et al. 1999) stated that most forest restoration strategies are specifically designed to fragment the 

continuous fuel across the interior West landscapes. Fragmentation in this context discussed by Agee 

does not necessarily affect interior habitat area or create edge effect. The benefit of conducting the group 

selection treatments is having mistletoe free trees developing into future late and old structure as opposed 

to trees experiencing reduced growth and continuously raining down mistletoe onto understory trees. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative E also proposes a mistletoe reduction strategy, focusing on the most severely infected stands. 

However, the difference from Alternative D is that only trees under 21 inches would be removed and 

infected trees over 21 inches diameter would be converted to snags through underburning, tree topping, or 

 

22 Ken Kittrell, Transportation Manager for the Crescent Ranger District, June, 2006.
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 227 of 528

blasting the infected portion of the tree. The size of openings for mistletoe control would not be limited 

to two to five acres as in Alternative D. This has the potential to create larger openings as a long-term aid 

to control mistletoe and develop future old growth ponderosa pine not impacted by mistletoe. Planting of 

ponderosa pine and/or sugar pine seedlings would occur within the openings with small diameter thinning 

expected in approximately twenty to thirty years to control stocking. Alternative E has the potential to 

create larger openings than Alternative D although this effect would only last several decades until the 

growth of the planted tree seedlings diminishes the look of an opening. The provision for providing well 

distributed big game hiding cover would also tend to restrict the size of openings. 

Similar to Alternatives B, C, and D, there is no conversion of forest lands to other uses such as 

commercial development. The benefit of this alternative is in having larger areas able to develop into late 

and old structure ponderosa pine and sugar pine less likely to be impacted by mistletoe as opposed to trees 

experiencing reduced growth and having mistletoe continually infecting the understory trees that may 

never develop into old growth. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

The activities in Table 19 were reviewed for their potential for cumulative effects on forest fragmentation. 

The zone of influence was defined as the 40,000 acre Rim-Paunina project area. There are no projects 

that have a similar zone of influence that overlap in time and space therefore, additive cumulative effects 

are not anticipated. There are approximately 106 acres of private lands in the planning area within the 

Two Rivers North rural housing subdivision. Because of roads and housing development that has already 

occurred these lands are considered fragmented and would remain that way for the foreseeable future.

Old Growth Management Areas

The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) designated Old Growth Management 

Areas (OGMA) in order to provide stands of old-growth trees to preserve natural genetic pools, provide 

habitat for plants and wildlife species associated with over-mature tree stands, contribute to the diversity 

spectrum, and provide aesthetic appeal (LRMP p.4-2). The distribution and minimum size of old growth 

areas were based upon the habitat requirements of three indicator species: pine martens in the mixed 

conifer forest, goshawk in the ponderosa pine forest, and three-toed woodpecker in the lodgepole pine 

forest. 

Key standards for this project from the amended LRMP include the following:

Timber

“M15-4 There will be no programmed harvest or wood removal in these areas during this 

planning period, however, vegetation manipulation including removal may occur to perpetuate 

or enhance old growth characteristics.” (LRMP 4-150).

“M15-6 Firewood cutting and gathering is not permitted” (LRMP 4-150).

Analysis Methods, Units of Measure and Assumptions

This section focuses on focal species habitat within the OGMAs, as well as the diversity of other species 

dependent on late and old structure that may be affected by silvicultural and fuels reduction treatments. 

Habitat for the focal species is not limited to the OGMA but provided throughout the project area. 

Analysis Measures

Habitat for Focal Species – To measure existing condition and the change from each action alternative, 

the amount of currently available nesting or denning habitat is described for each OGMA and how much 

would be altered under each alternative. The focal species in OGMAs were selected because they are 

endemic and their habitat requirements are thought to be similar or exceed other species dependent on late 

and old forest structure (LRMP 4-149). Table 73 is also provided that shows total acres of treatments by 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 228 of 528

type, OGMA, and by alternative regardless of whether the acreage is currently functioning as denning or 

nesting habitat for the focal species. 

Existing Condition

There are five designated Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) that are entirely or partially within 

the project area and are described below. 

Figure 19. Location of the Five Old Growth Management Areas in the Rim-Paunina Project Area

Little Deschutes River OGMA (id #570 and #575) is 257 acres located east of the Two Rivers North 

community and near the Little Deschutes River. This OGMA is bisected by a narrow strip of private 

railroad land with two sets of railroad tracks bisecting id #570 to the north and #575 to the south. Both 

are described as one OGMA. This OGMA is primarily (93 percent) ponderosa pine with minor 

components of riparian and lodgepole pine. The focal species for this OGMA is goshawk. There are no 

recorded observations in the vicinity. Approximately 60 acres of the OGMA are classified as goshawk 

nesting habitat. 

Railroad OGMA (id#579) is 540 acres located approximately one mile southeast of the Little Deschutes 

OGMA. Railroad OGMA has both railroad and utility corridor lines running through it. This OGMA is 

73 percent lodgepole pine with a component of ponderosa pine. The three-toed woodpecker is the focal 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 229 of 528

species, although there are no documented sightings in the area. Approximately 367 acres of the OGMA 

were classified as currently providing three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat. 

9751 OGMA (id#586) is 525 acres located in the southern portion of the project area, west of Highway 97 

along the 9751 road. This OGMA is 70 percent ponderosa pine with stands of lodgepole pine mixed in. 

The focal species are goshawk and three-toed woodpeckers. There are no documented sightings of either 

species within or adjacent to this area. Currently, approximately 244 acres of goshawk habitat and 150 

acres of three-toed woodpecker habitat are defined as nesting capable within this OGMA. 

Walker Mountain OGMA (id#581) is the largest OGMA within the project area. It is 1,936 acres located 

east of Highway 97 on the southern portion of Walker Mountain. It is predominately (78 percent) a 

mixed conifer dry plant association. The lower slopes are ponderosa pine that transitions to mixed conifer 

consisting of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and sugar pine. The focal species for this OGMA are the 

goshawk, marten, and three-toed woodpecker because habitat is available and suitable for all three 

species. Marten are documented in and around the area but goshawks and three-toed/black-backed 

woodpeckers are not. Approximately1,692 acres of the OGMA are considered three-toed woodpecker 

habitat, 757 acres meet the goshawk nesting habitat definition, and 310 acres provide marten denning 

habitat. 

Walker Rim OGMA (id#561) is 1,931 acres located in the northeastern portion of the planning area on 

the rim and north of the Walker Mountain OGMA. The habitat is nearly split with 50 percent in 

ponderosa pine and 44 percent in mixed conifer and with the remaining six percent in lodgepole pine. 

The focal species are goshawk, marten, and three-toed woodpecker. There are documented goshawk 

observations in and around the area but no known nests. There are no documented marten or three-toed 

woodpecker sightings in the OGMA. There are approximately 1,111 acres of goshawk nesting habitat, 

996 acres of three-toed woodpecker habitat, and 517 acres of marten denning habitat in the OGMA. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

Implementation of this alternative would result in no immediate vegetative change within any of the five 

designated Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) within the project. Habitat capability would be 

maintained for the designated species although overstocked stands would continue to be at risk of large 

tree loss from disease, insects, and uncharacteristic fire events. For more information, reference sections 

titled “Fire and Fuels” and “Forested Vegetation” in Chapter 3 of this EIS.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All five OGMAs are located outside the range of the Northwest Forest Plan but within lands managed 

with Interim East-Side Screen direction. Active vegetative management is proposed in each OGMA for 

each action alternative. Commercial sized tree removal prescriptions include a standard thin from below, 

a stand improvement cut removing diseased trees or those unlikely to respond to thinning, group selection 

cuts removing all or most trees in two to five acre gaps, and/or alternative mistletoe treatments to remove 

diseased trees. Post-sale these areas would also experience small diameter thinning and/or underburning 

as needed. “Fuels only” treatments are also prescribed that would involve thinning small (<8 inch 

diameter) trees, pruning to reduce susceptibility to wildfire, and prescribed underburning in ponderosa 

pine stands for a return to a historical regime. The amount of OGMA acres treated by alternative is 

displayed in Table 73.

The commercial thinning activities would reduce canopy cover and tree densities on affected units and 

may not provide habitat needs for all life conditions for the species listed above. For example, canopy 

cover may be reduced below levels typically used for nesting or denning but would still provide habitat 

for some life functions such as foraging or dispersal. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 230 of 528

Additional effects analysis based on the entire project area is provided for the northern goshawk, 

American marten and three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers in the Management Indicator Species 

section of this document.

Table 73. Acres of Treatment Occurring within each OGMA by Alternative

OGMA Focal Species

OGMA Acres 

Treated 

Alternative

B

OGMA Acres 

Treated 

Alternative

C

OGMA Acres 

Treated 

Alternative

D

OGMA Acres 

Treated 

Alternative

E

Little 

Deschutes 

257 acres

Goshawk 57 HTH 57 HTH 57 HTH 57 HTH

Railroad

540 acres

3-toed 

woodpecker

67 HTH

5 HIM

72 total

67 HTH

 4 HIM

21 Fuels

92 total

67 HTH

 4 HIM

21 Fuels

92 total

67 HTH

4 HIM

21 Fuels

92 total

9751

525 acres

Goshawk

3-toed 3 HTH 36 Fuels 36 Fuels 36 Fuels

woodpecker

Walker 

Mountain

1,936 acres

Goshawk

231 HTH

189 HTH

1,079 Fuels

1,268 total

97 HTH

92 HSG

1,079 Fuels

1,268 total

138 HTH

92 ALTMIST

1,079 Fuels

1,309 total

Marten

3-toed 

woodpecker

Walker Rim

1,931 acres

Goshawk

488 HIM

39 Aspen

255 HTH

782 total

255 HTH

17 HIM

39 Aspen

387 Fuels

698 total

68 HTH

17 HIM

187 HSG

39 Aspen

387 Fuels

698 total

68 HTH

488 HIM

188 ALTMIST

39 Aspen

387 Fuels

1,170 total

Marten

3-toed 

woodpecker

Grand Total 

OGMA 

Treatments

1,145 2,151 2,151 2,664

HTH = commercial thinning, HIM = improvement cuts, Aspen = aspen treatment, HSG = group selection 

ALT MIST = Alternative Mistletoe treatment (see Ch.3 (Forested Vegetation) for more information on 

prescriptions). Fuels = small diameter thinning, pruning, and/or prescribed underburning.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Effects

Little Deschutes OGMA

Goshawk

A total of 57 acres would have commercial treatment followed by prescribed underburning. Post-harvest 

canopy cover would likely range from 30-35 percent and below the minimum 40 percent level the 

Crescent Ranger District uses to define goshawk nesting habitat. However, the remaining 200 acres of 

the OGMA would stay in a passive management strategy capable of providing nesting acreage for a pair 

of goshawks. The 57 acres of thinned stands may function as goshawk foraging habitat but may also redevelop into nesting suitability within one to two decades with canopy cover increasing approximately 

five percent per decade.
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 231 of 528

Railroad OGMA

Three-toed Woodpecker

A total of 72 acres of the OGMA would have commercial treatment applied. It is estimated that postharvest canopy cover in this lodgepole pine dominated area would range from 20-25 percent but be within 

the range of mature lodgepole pine stands used by nesting three-toed woodpeckers described by Goggans 

et al. (1989). The 72 acres thinned would reduce the risk of this acreage becoming susceptible to 

mountain pine beetle attacks and may retain the larger tree component longer than in unthinned stands. 

However, Goggans et al. (1989) also concluded that three-toed woodpecker are less likely to use logged 

stands as nesting habitat as compared to unlogged sites. They also determined that three-toed 

woodpecker foraging occurred most often in uncut stands with canopy cover less than 60 percent and the 

species selected against multi-story stands for foraging and roosting. The Goggans study took place on 

the Deschutes National Forest including sites on the Crescent District. Because approximately 468 acres 

would remain untreated (passive management), these more densely stocked acres would continue to 

provide nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat.

9751 OGMA

Goshawk and Three-toed Woodpecker

Alternative B proposes the commercial treatment of three acres of the 525 acre 9751 OGMA. Because 

this OGMA contains lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine, the goshawk and three-toed woodpeckers are 

both focal species. The three acres planned for treatment would have negligible impacts to either species 

and the OGMA would continue to provide nesting, foraging and roosting habitat for both species. 

Walker Mountain OGMA

Goshawk

As previously mentioned, the majority of the OGMA is within the mixed conifer plant association with 

the marten being the focal species for mixed conifer forest. However, the 231 acres of commercial 

treatment planned with post-sale activities of small diameter thinning, shrub mowing and/or underburning 

would occur in the ponderosa pine portion of the OGMA with the goshawk as the focal species. None of 

the 231 acres meet the goshawk nesting definition, consequently, post-treatment, these acres could still 

function as foraging habitat. Over time, an increase in residual tree diameter and canopy could move 

these stands towards suitability as nesting habitat. Therefore, there would be no impact to goshawk

habitat. 

Three-toed Woodpecker

Because much of the ponderosa pine stands also have an understory component of lodgepole pine, it 

would provide habitat for the three-toed woodpecker. The commercial treatment would remove most of 

the lodgepole pine understory in preparation of returning prescribed fire in the treatment units. The 231 

acres affected however is relatively minimal compared to the estimated 1,692 acres currently defined as 

three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat in the OGMA. Therefore, three-toed woodpecker habitat would 

still be available in the OGMA. 

Marten

The 310 acres of marten denning habitat in this OGMA would not be affected by any project activities in 

Alternative B. 

Walker Rim OGMA

Goshawk

A total of 782 acres of commercial treatments would occur in Alternative B. Approximately 1,111 acres 

of the OGMA currently provide goshawk nesting habitat with the majority of this acreage in mixed 

conifer stands on the steeper portions of Walker Rim. The commercial treatments (thinning,
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 232 of 528

improvement cuts, and aspen enhancement) would generally occur in stands not currently defined as 

nesting habitat due to less than 40 percent canopy cover defined as nesting and/or tree diameters not large 

enough for nesting. Portions of several units including 630, 690, and 2010 have mapped nesting habitat 

but would not be defined as nesting habitat after the completion of timber harvest, small diameter 

thinning, and/or prescribed underburning operations. Post-treatment canopy cover would be below the 40 

percent but could develop into nesting habitat again in several decades. Mitigation measures for the 

retention of 15-25 percent of each treatment unit may also provide blocks of nesting habitat left in a 

passive management scenario for a pair of goshawks. Therefore, effects to goshawks utilizing this 

OGMA are expected to be minimal. 

Marten

There are 517 acres of mapped marten denning habitat in this OGMA, approximately 20 acres of which 

overlap unit 621. Unit 621 (39 acres in the OGMA, and 20 acres in marten denning habitat) is an aspen 

enhancement unit designed to remove conifers less than 21 inches diameter in five small openings up to 

two acres each to reduce competition to the existing aspen trees. Two, 2-acre openings would be created 

in marten denning habitat, with the remaining 16 acres having understory thinning. The small openings 

would not function as denning habitat though the commercial thinning portion would have canopy at the 

30-35 percent range used to define denning habitat based on Raphael and Jones marten study on the 

adjacent Winema National Forest (1997). There would be a reduction in stand diversity with less canopy 

layering, though snags and down wood would not be reduced. Post-harvest this unit should still maintain 

its capability to support a denning female marten. 

Raphael and Jones (1997) conducted a study of marten on the adjacent Winema National Forest and 

estimated male marten home ranges at 4,272 acres and 1,392 acres for females. Based on these estimates, 

the Walker Rim OGMA by itself is not large enough to support one male marten home range but may 

support several female home ranges that have overlap with the OGMA. The four acres of openings would 

not be expected to appreciably change marten use in this OGMA. 

Three-toed Woodpecker

There are 996 acres of three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat in this OGMA. Approximately 34 acres of 

commercial thinning and four acres of small openings (in Unit 621) would be completed in nesting habitat 

in Alternative B. The thinning would remove trees less than 21 inches in diameter including lodgepole 

pine in the 7-17 inch range that Goggans et al. (1989) determined were preferentially used for nesting. 

Post-harvest canopy cover in the thinned units would range from 20-30 percent and within the mean of 27 

percent for nest sites determined by Goggans et al. (1989). The four acres of openings would not meet 

this post-harvest canopy cover level. However, Goggans et al. (1989) also concluded three-toed 

woodpecker are less likely to use logged stands as nesting habitat as compared to unlogged sites. They 

also concluded that male three-toed woodpecker home range size ranged from 131 to 751 acres and was 

not related to the amount of unlogged areas or the amount of mature and immature forest present. 

Because approximately 958 of the 996 acres of current nesting habitat would remain untreated (passive 

management) these more densely stocked acres would continue to provide nesting, foraging, and roosting 

habitat. There should be no reduction in the number of nesting pairs of three-toed woodpeckers utilizing 

the Walker Mountain OGMA based on the Goggans et al. (1989) study. 

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Effects

Little Deschutes OGMA

Goshawk

Because Alternative C proposes the same units with the same prescriptions as Alternative B, the effects 

would be similar. Post-harvest canopy cover would likely range from 30-35 percent and below the 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 233 of 528

minimum 40 percent level the Crescent Ranger district uses to define goshawk nesting habitat. However, 

the remaining 200 acres of the OGMA would stay in a passive management strategy capable of providing 

nesting acreage for a pair of goshawk. The 57 acres of thinned stands may function as goshawk foraging 

habitat but may also re-develop into nesting suitability within several decades as canopy cover of the 

residual trees increases in response to less tree competition. 

Railroad OGMA

Three-toed Woodpecker

Alternative C proposes nearly the same treatments units and prescriptions as Alternative B with the same 

effects, but also includes an additional 21 acres of fuels only treatments. The 21 acres includes mowing 

of bitterbrush and application of prescribed burning in a ponderosa pine portion of the OGMA. The

burning may result in the mortality of a few understory lodgepole and/or ponderosa trees but would not 

appreciably change the character of this portion of the OGMA. Its ability to provide nesting, roosting, 

and foraging habitat for the three-toed woodpecker would be maintained with a small acreage benefit of 

reducing risk of large tree loss from competition, uncharacteristic fire, or beetle attacks. 

9751 OGMA

Goshawk and Three-toed Woodpecker

Alternative C proposes 36 acres of fuels treatments of bitterbrush mowing followed by prescribed 

underburning in the ponderosa pine portion of the OGMA (eastern boundary). While the burning may 

result in the loss of a few, small diameter ponderosa or lodgepole pine, the overstory that provides the 

high canopy cover would be retained. Therefore, there would be no impact to goshawk nesting habitat 

nor would there be any impact to three-toed woodpeckers which are associated with large diameter 

lodgepole pine for nesting, roosting, and foraging. 

Walker Mountain OGMA

Goshawk

Implementation of Alternative C would result in 189 acres of commercial treatment and 1,079 acres of 

fuels treatments utilizing small diameter thinning, shrub mowing and/or prescribed underburning. None 

of the commercial treatments would occur within stands currently functioning as goshawk nesting habitat 

though they would have the capability to become nesting habitat in the future with increased diameter 

growth and canopy cover. The small diameter thinning (<8 inches diameter) would not negatively affect 

nesting habitat because the large and dominant overstory trees provide the greatest contribution toward 

canopy cover. The mowing and/or underburning in the ponderosa pine stands would have no impact on 

goshawk nesting habitat. As of January 2012 goshawks have not been documented in this OGMA.

Marten

A total of 148 of the 189 acres of commercial treatments planned are within ponderosa pine dominated 

stands that do not meet the definition of marten denning habitat. Unit 975 (41 acres) is mapped as 

denning habitat and the commercial treatment would likely reduce the canopy cover in the range of 30-35 

percent defined as denning habitat based on a Raphael and Jones marten study (1997). There would be a 

reduction in stand diversity with less canopy layering, though snags and down wood would not be 

reduced. Post-harvest this unit should still maintain its capability to support a denning female marten. 

Approximately 200 acres of fuels treatments mid-slope on the OGMA would occur within mapped marten 

denning habitat. Activities planned include small diameter thinning (<8 inches diameter) and brush 

mowing or prescribed burning. The small trees being removed are not large enough to act as a den site, 

though they do contribute to stand structural diversity and provide additional protection from avian 

predation. The mowing and/or burning have the capability to reduce small mammal habitat (snowshoe 

hares, squirrels, chipmunks) that provide a prey base for marten. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 234 of 528

Raphael and Jones (1997) conducted a study of marten on the adjacent Winema National Forest and 

estimated male marten home ranges at 4,272 acres and 1,392 acres for females. Based on these estimates, 

the Walker Mountain OGMA by itself is not large enough to support one male marten home range but 

may support several female home ranges that are within or overlap the OGMA. The 200 acres of fuels 

treatments would reduce prey availability for martens but would be partially mitigated with the retention 

of no treatment blocks averaging 15 percent in each unit. These would continue to function as foraging 

areas for marten and denning habitat would still be available to support individual animals. 

Three-toed Woodpecker

The 189 acres of planned commercial treatment is in an area dominated by ponderosa pine but has an 

understory component of lodgepole pine. Goggans et al. (1989) study of black-backed and three-toed 

woodpeckers on the Deschutes National Forest showed three-toed woodpeckers nested exclusively in 

lodgepole pine with heartrot. They also determined that home range size of three male three-toed 

woodpeckers ranged from 131 to 751 acres and was not related to the amount of unlogged areas or the 

amount of mature and immature forest present.

The commercial treatment would remove lodgepole pine that is potentially large enough diameter (7-17 

inches) described by Goggans et al. (1989) as used for nesting. Mitigation measures for 15-25 percent no 

harvest retention areas in each treatment would maintain some lodgepole pine presence and be available 

for nesting purposes. The 1,079 acres of fuels only treatments would focus on small diameter thinning of 

green trees less than eight inches in diameter which is at the lower diameter range described by Goggans 

et al. (1989) used by three-toed woodpeckers for nesting. Therefore, the fuels treatments would only have 

a minimal impact on three-toed woodpeckers because the majority of the potential nest-sized lodgepole 

pine trees would be retained. There should be no reduction in the number of nesting pairs of three-toed 

woodpeckers utilizing the Walker Mountain OGMA based on the 1989 Goggans et al. study. 

Walker Rim OGMA

Goshawk

A total of 698 acres of activities would occur in Alternative C in the Walker Rim OGMA including 311 

acres of commercial treatment and 387 acres of fuels only work. Of this amount, Alternative C would 

implement approximately 105 acres of commercial treatment with post-sale activities of small diameter 

thinning and brush mowing and/or underburning within mapped goshawk nesting habitat. There would 

also be approximately 195 acres of ‘fuels only’ treatments within the 1,111 acres of mapped goshawk 

nesting habitat in this OGMA. Based on past timber harvests in ponderosa pine plant association with 

similar prescriptions, post-harvest canopy cover would likely range form 30-35 percent and below the 40 

percent canopy level used to define nesting stands. However, this effect would be temporary and thinned 

stands could return to the 40 percent level in several decades due to increased canopy cover development. 

The ‘fuels only’ units would focus on removing trees less than eight inches in diameter that do not 

substantially contribute to overstory canopy cover percentages. Therefore, fuels treatments would have 

no impact on goshawk nesting stands. Consequently, approximately 255 acres of the 1,111 acres of 

goshawk nesting habitat in the OGMA would be impacted by harvest activities with the capability of 

returning to nesting conditions in several decades. The remaining 856 acres of passively managed nesting 

habitat would continue to provide well connected stands on Walker Rim available for nesting goshawks. 

Marten

A total of 698 acres of activities would occur in Alternative C in the Walker Rim OGMA including 311 

acres of commercial treatment (thinning, improvement cuts, and aspen enhancement) and 387 acres of 

‘fuels only’ treatments. Of this amount, approximately 20 acres of commercial treatment and 143 acres of 

‘fuels only’ treatments would occur within the 517 acres of mapped marten denning habitat. Unit 621 (39 

acres in the OGMA, and 20 acres in marten denning habitat) is an aspen enhancement unit designed to 

remove conifers less than 21 inches diameter in five small openings up to two acres each to reduce 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 235 of 528

competition to the existing aspen trees. Two, 2-acre openings would be created in marten denning 

habitat, with the remaining 16 acres having understory thinning. The small openings would not function 

as denning habitat though the commercial thinning portion would have canopy reduced to about 30-35 

percent, what was defined as marten denning habitat based on the Raphael and Jones marten study on the 

adjacent Winema National Forest (1997). There would be a reduction in stand diversity with less canopy 

layering, though snags and down wood would not be reduced. Post-harvest the thinned acreage of this 

unit should still maintain its capability to support a denning female marten. 

Approximately 153 acres of fuels treatments would occur on the lower slopes of the OGMA within 

mapped marten denning habitat. Activities planned include small diameter thinning (<8 inches diameter) 

and brush mowing or prescribed burning. The small trees being removed are not large enough to act as a 

den site though they do contribute to stand structural diversity and provide additional protection from 

avian predation. The mowing and/or burning have the capability to reduce small mammal habitat 

(snowshoe hares, squirrels, chipmunks) that provide a prey base for marten. 

Raphael and Jones (1997) conducted a study of marten on the adjacent Winema National Forest and 

estimated male marten home ranges at 4,272 acres and 1,392 acres for females. Based on these estimates, 

the Walker Rim OGMA by itself is not large enough to support one male marten home range but may 

support several female home ranges that overlap the OGMA and adjoining National Forest lands. The 

153 acres of fuels treatments would reduce prey availability for martens but would be partially mitigated 

with the retention of no treatment blocks averaging 15 percent in each unit. These blocks would continue 

to function as foraging areas for marten and denning habitat would still be available to support individual 

animals. 

Three-toed Woodpecker

A total of 698 acres of activities would occur in Alternative C in the Walker Rim OGMA including 311 

acres of commercial treatment (thinning, improvement cuts, and aspen enhancement) and 387 acres of 

fuels only treatments. Of this amount approximately 40 acres of commercial treatment and 163 acres of 

fuels only treatments would occur within the 996 acres of mapped three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat 

in this OGMA. The 40 acres of commercial treatment would occur in mixed conifer forest dominated by 

ponderosa pine, white fir, Douglas-fir, and a few aspen trees in unit 621 with an understory component of 

lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and white fir. Goggans et al. (1989) study of black-backed and three-toed 

woodpeckers on the Deschutes National Forest showed three-toed woodpeckers nested exclusively in 

lodgepole pine with heartrot. They also determined that home range size of three male three-toed 

woodpeckers ranged from 131 to 751 acres and was not related to the amount of unlogged areas or the 

amount of mature and immature forest present.

The commercial treatment would remove lodgepole that is potentially large enough diameter (7-17 

inches) described by Goggans et al. (1989) used for nesting. Mitigation measures for 15-25 percent no 

harvest retention areas in each treatment would maintain some lodgepole pine presence and be available 

for nesting purposes. The 163 acres of fuels only treatments would focus on small diameter thinning of 

green trees less than eight inches in diameter which is at the lower diameter range described by Goggans 

et al. (1989) used by three-toed woodpeckers for nesting. Therefore, the fuels treatments would only have 

a minimal impact on three-toed woodpeckers because the majority of the potential nest-sized lodgepole 

pine trees would be retained. There should be no reduction in the number of nesting pairs of three-toed 

woodpeckers utilizing the Walker Rim OGMA based on the 1989 Goggans et al. study. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 236 of 528

Alternative D

Direct and Indirect Effects

Little Deschutes OGMA

Goshawk

Because Alternative D proposes the same units with the same prescriptions as Alternatives B and C the 

effects would be similar. Post-harvest canopy cover would likely range from 30-35 percent and below the 

minimum 40 percent level the Crescent Ranger District uses to define goshawk nesting habitat. However, 

the remaining 200 acres would stay in a passive management strategy capable of providing nesting 

acreage for a pair of goshawks. The 57 acres of thinned stands may function as goshawk foraging habitat 

but may also re-develop into nesting suitability within several decades with canopy cover increasing 

approximately five percent per decade.

Railroad OGMA

Three-toed Woodpecker

Alternative D proposes the same 71 acres of commercial treatment with the same effects described for 

Alternative C. It also has the same 21 acres of fuels treatments described for Alternative C with similar 

effects. The commercial treatment would reduce the risk of large tree loss to density competition, beetle 

attacks, and/or uncharacteristic wildfire. The 21 acres of bitterbrush mowing and prescribed fire would 

take place in a small stand dominated by ponderosa pine. The burning may result in the mortality of a 

few understory lodgepole and/or ponderosa trees but would not appreciably change the character of this 

portion of the OGMA. Its ability to provide nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for the three-toed 

woodpecker would be maintained. 

9751 OGMA

Goshawk and Three-toed Woodpecker:

Because Alternative D proposes the treatment units and prescriptions as Alternative C the effects would 

be the same as Alternative C. The fuels treatments would not result in any loss of goshawk nesting 

habitat nor any loss of three-toed woodpecker nesting, foraging, or roosting habitat. 

Walker Mountain OGMA

Goshawk

Because Alternative D proposes the same treatment units as Alternative C, the effects would be similar to 

Alternative C. Implementation of Alternative D would result in 189 acres of commercial treatment and 

1,079 acres of fuels treatments utilizing small diameter thinning, shrub mowing and/or prescribed 

underburning. None of the commercial treatment would occur within stands currently functioning as 

goshawk nesting habitat. The only difference between Alternatives C and D is that in D approximately 28 

acres of two to five acre gaps would be created in unit 895 as a mistletoe control method. All trees would 

be removed in these gaps and then replanted with disease free seedlings to develop into mistletoe free late 

and old structure forest. Unit 895 does not currently meet the definition of goshawk nesting habitat 

though the portion treated as a stand understory thin (approximately 64 acres) would have the potential to 

develop into goshawk nesting habitat as the ponderosa pine increases in diameter. The fuels treatments of 

small diameter thinning (<8 inches diameter) would not negatively affect nesting habitat because the large 

and dominant overstory trees provide the greatest contribution toward canopy cover. The mowing and/or 

underburning in the ponderosa pine stands would have no impact on goshawk nesting habitat. 

Marten

Because Alternative D proposes the same treatment units as Alternative C, the effects would be similar to 

that described for Alternative C. A total of 148 of the 189 acres of commercial treatments planned are 

within ponderosa pine dominated stands that do not meet the definition of marten denning habitat. Unit 

975 (41 acres) is mapped as denning habitat and the commercial treatment would likely reduce the canopy 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 237 of 528

cover in the range of 30-35 percent defined as denning habitat based on Raphael and Jones marten study 

(1997). There would be a reduction in stand diversity with less canopy layering, though snags and down 

wood would not be reduced. Post-harvest this unit should still maintain its capability to support a 

denning female marten. 

The only difference between Alternatives C and D is that in D approximately 28 acres of two to five acre 

gaps would be created in unit 895 as a mistletoe control method. All trees would be removed in the gaps 

and then replanted with disease free seedlings to develop into mistletoe free late and old structure forest. 

Unit 895 does not meet the definition of marten denning habitat and the thinning and small gap creation 

would have no effect on marten. 

Approximately 200 of the 1,079 acres of fuels treatments would be located mid-slope on the OGMA and 

within mapped marten denning habitat. Activities proposed include small diameter thinning (<8 inches 

diameter) and brush mowing or prescribed burning. The small trees that would be removed are not large 

enough to act as a den site though they do contribute to stand structural diversity and provide additional 

protection from avian predation. The mowing and/or burning would have the capability to reduce small 

mammal habitat (snowshoe hares, squirrels, chipmunks) that provide a prey base for marten. 

Raphael and Jones (1997) conducted a study of marten on the adjacent Winema National Forest and 

estimated male marten home ranges at 4,272 acres and 1,392 acres for females. Based on these estimates, 

the Walker Mountain OGMA by itself is not large enough to support one male marten home range but 

may support several female home ranges that overlap the OGMA and adjoining National Forest lands. 

The 200 acres of fuels treatments would reduce prey availability for martens but would be partially 

mitigated with the retention of no treatment blocks averaging 15 percent in each unit. These would 

continue to function as foraging areas for marten and denning habitat would still be available to support 

individual animals. 

Three-toed Woodpecker

Because Alternative D proposes the same treatment units as Alternative C, the effects would be similar to 

that described for Alternative C. The 189 acres of planned commercial treatment is dominated by 

ponderosa pine but has an understory component of lodgepole pine of varying sizes. The only difference 

between Alternatives C and D is that in D approximately 28 acres of two to five acre gaps would be 

created in unit 895 as a mistletoe control method. All trees would be removed in the gaps and then 

replanted with disease free seedlings to develop into mistletoe free late and old structure forest. Unit 895 

does not meet the definition of three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat and the small gap creation would 

have no effect on this woodpecker species. A Goggans et al. (1989) study of black-backed and three-toed 

woodpeckers on the Deschutes National Forest showed three-toed woodpeckers nested exclusively in 

lodgepole pine with heartrot. They also determined that home range size of three male three-toed 

woodpeckers ranged from 131 to 751 acres and was not related to the amount of unlogged areas or the 

amount of mature and immature forest present.

The commercial treatment would remove lodgepole that is potentially large enough diameter (7-17 

inches) described by Goggans et al. (1989) used for nesting. Mitigation measures for 15-25 percent no 

harvest retention areas in each treatment would maintain some lodgepole pine presence and be available 

for nesting purposes. 

The 1,079 acres of fuels only treatments would focus on small diameter thinning of green trees less than 

eight inches in diameter which is at the lower diameter range described by Goggans et al. (1989) used by 

three-toed woodpeckers for nesting. Therefore, the fuels treatments would only have a minimal impact 

on three-toed woodpeckers because the majority of the potential nest-sized lodgepole pine trees would be 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 238 of 528

retained. There should be no reduction in the number of nesting pairs of three-toed woodpeckers utilizing 

the Walker Mountain OGMA based on the 1989 Goggans et al. study. 

Walker Rim OGMA

Goshawk

Alternative D proposes the same treatment units as Alternative C with the same 311 acres of commercial 

treatment (thinning, improvement cuts, group selection, and aspen enhancement) and 387 acres of ‘fuels 

only’ treatments, of which approximately 105 acres of commercial treatment and 195 acres of ‘fuels only’

treatments would occur within the 1,111 acres of mapped goshawk nesting habitat in this OGMA. 

However, there is a slight difference in silvicultural prescriptions for some of the acreage for Alternative 

D. The commercial treatment portion with post-sale activities of small diameter thinning and brush 

mowing and/or underburning within mapped goshawk nesting habitat would be similar as described in 

Alternative C. Within unit 690, approximately 20 acres are mapped as goshawk nesting habitat and 

would have a prescription of small openings two to five acres in size on 30 percent of the unit acreage. 

All trees would be removed in these openings and would represent about six acres of openings in unit 690 

with the remaining 14 acres having a standard understory thin. Neither the small openings in unit 690 nor 

the thinned acreage in 690 and additional units would meet the 40 percent canopy cover level defined as 

the minimum needed for goshawk nesting habitat post-harvest. The thinned acreage would be capable of 

returning to nesting habitat capability within several decades with additional increases in canopy growth 

from the residual trees. 

The approximately 195 acres of ‘fuels only’ treatments in goshawk nesting habitat would only remove 

green trees <8 inches in diameter followed by brush mowing and/or prescribed underburning. These 

actions are not expected to negatively affect nesting habitat because the largest and dominant overstory 

trees provide the greatest contribution toward canopy cover. While approximately 255 acres of goshawk 

nesting habitat would be converted into potential foraging habitat, the remaining 856 acres would be fully 

capable of supporting nesting goshawks. 

Marten

Alternative D proposes the same treatment units as Alternative C with the same 311 acres of commercial 

treatment and 387 acres of ‘fuels only’ treatments, of which approximately 20 acres of commercial 

treatment and 143 acres of ‘fuels only’ treatments would occur within the 517 acres of mapped marten 

denning habitat. Unit 621 (39 acres in the OGMA, and 20 acres in marten denning habitat) is an aspen 

enhancement unit designed to remove conifers less than 21 inches diameter in five small openings up to 

two acres each to reduce competition to the existing aspen trees. Two, 2-acre openings would be created 

in marten denning habitat, with the remaining 16 acres having understory thinning. The small openings 

would not function as denning habitat though the commercial thinning portion would have canopy 

reduced to about 30-35 percent, what was defined as marten denning habitat based on the Raphael and 

Jones marten study on the adjacent Winema National Forest (1997). There would be a reduction in stand 

diversity with less canopy layering, though snags and down wood would not be reduced. Post-harvest the 

thinned acreage of this unit should still maintain its capability to support a denning female marten. 

Approximately 153 acres of fuels treatments would occur on the flats and lower slopes of the OGMA 

within mapped marten denning habitat. Activities proposed include small diameter thinning (<8 inches 

diameter) and brush mowing or prescribed burning. The small trees that would be removed are not large 

enough to act as a den site though they do contribute to stand structural diversity and provide additional 

protection from avian predation. The mowing and/or burning would have the capability to reduce small 

mammal habitat (snowshoe hares, squirrels, chipmunks) that provide a prey base for marten.

Raphael and Jones (1997) conducted a study of marten on the adjacent Winema National Forest and 

estimated male marten home ranges at 4,272 acres and 1,392 acres for females. Based on these estimates, 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 239 of 528

the Walker Rim OGMA by itself is not large enough to support one male marten home but may support 

several female home ranges that extend onto adjoining National Forest lands. The 153 acres of fuels 

treatments would reduce prey availability for martens but would be partially mitigated with the retention 

of no treatment blocks averaging 15 percent in each unit. These blocks would continue to function as 

foraging areas for marten and denning habitat would still be available to support individual animals. 

Three-toed Woodpecker

Alternative D proposes the same treatment units as Alternative C with the same 311 acres of commercial 

treatment and 387 acres of ‘fuels only ‘treatments, of which approximately 40 acres of commercial 

treatment and 163 acres of ‘fuels only’ activities would occur within the 996 acres of three-toed 

woodpecker nesting habitat. The 40 acres of commercial treatment would occur in mixed conifer forest 

dominated by ponderosa pine, white fir, Douglas-fir, and a few aspen trees in unit 621 with an understory 

component of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and white fir. A Goggans et al. (1989) study of black-backed 

and three-toed woodpeckers on the Deschutes National Forest showed three-toed woodpeckers nested 

exclusively in lodgepole pine with heartrot. They also determined that home range size of three male 

three-toed woodpeckers ranged from 131 to 751 acres and was not related to the amount of unlogged 

areas or the amount of mature and immature forest present.

The commercial treatment would remove lodgepole that is potentially large enough diameter (7-17 

inches) described by Goggans et al. (1989) as used for nesting. Mitigation measures for 15-25 percent no 

harvest retention areas in each treatment would maintain some lodgepole pine presence and be available 

for nesting purposes. The 163 acres of fuels only treatments would focus on small diameter thinning of 

green trees less than eight inches in diameter which is at the lower diameter range described by Goggans 

et al. (1989) used by three-toed woodpeckers for nesting. Therefore, the fuels treatments would only have 

a minimal impact on three-toed woodpeckers because the majority of the potential nest-sized lodgepole 

pine trees would be retained. There should be no reduction in the number of nesting pairs of three-toed 

woodpeckers utilizing the Walker Rim OGMA based on the 1989 Goggans et al. study. 

Alternative E

Direct and Indirect Effects

Little Deschutes OGMA

Goshawk

Because Alternative E proposes the same units with the same prescriptions as Alternatives B, C, and D 

the effects would be similar. Post-harvest canopy cover would likely range from 30-35 percent and below 

the minimum 40 percent level the Crescent Ranger District uses to define goshawk nesting habitat. 

However, the remaining 200 acres would stay in a passive management strategy capable of providing 

nesting acreage for a pair of goshawks. The 57 acres of thinned stands may function as goshawk foraging 

habitat but may also re-develop into nesting suitability within one to two decades with canopy cover 

increasing approximately five percent per decade.

 

Railroad OGMA

Three-toed Woodpecker

Alternative E proposes the same 71 acres of commercial treatment with the same effects described for 

Alternatives C and D. It also has the same 21 acres of fuels treatments described for Alternatives C and D

with similar effects. The commercial treatment would reduce the risk of large tree loss to density 

competition, beetle attacks, and/or uncharacteristic wildfire. The 21 acres of bitterbrush mowing and 

prescribed fire would take place in a small stand dominated by ponderosa pine. The burning may result in 

the mortality of a few understory lodgepole and/or ponderosa trees but would not appreciably change the 

character of this portion of the OGMA. Its ability to provide nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for 

the three-toed woodpecker would be maintained. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 240 of 528

9751 OGMA

Goshawk and three-toed Woodpecker

Because Alternative E proposes the same treatment units and prescriptions as Alternatives C and D the 

effects would be the same as Alternatives C and D. The fuels treatments would not result in any loss of 

goshawk nesting habitat nor any loss of three-toed woodpecker nesting, foraging, or roosting habitat. 

Walker Mountain OGMA

Goshawk

Implementation of Alternative E would result in 138 acres of commercial thinning, 92 acres of alternative 

mistletoe treatment, and 1,079 acres of fuels treatments utilizing small diameter thinning, shrub mowing 

and/or prescribed underburning. None of the commercial treatments would occur within stands currently 

functioning as goshawk nesting habitat. The small diameter thinning (<8 inches diameter) would not 

negatively affect nesting habitat because the large and dominant overstory trees provide the greatest 

contribution toward canopy cover. The mowing and/or underburning in the ponderosa pine stands would 

also have no impact on goshawk nesting habitat. 

Marten

Only 41 acres (unit 975) of the 230 acres planned for commercial treatment is mapped as denning habitat. 

None of the 92 acres of alternative mistletoe treatment would occur in marten denning habitat. Unit 975 

(41acres) is mapped as denning habitat and the commercial treatment would likely reduce the canopy 

cover in the range of 30-35 percent defined as denning habitat based on Raphael and Jones marten study 

(1997). There would be a reduction in stand diversity with less canopy layering, though snags and down 

wood would not be reduced. Post-harvest this unit should still maintain its capability to support a 

denning female marten. 

Approximately 200 of the 1,079 acres of fuels treatments are located mid-slope on the OGMA and within 

mapped marten denning habitat. Activities proposed include small diameter thinning (<8 inches 

diameter) and brush mowing or prescribed burning. The small trees that would be removed are not large 

enough to act as a den site though they do contribute to stand structural diversity and provide additional 

protection from avian predation. The mowing and/or burning would have the capability to reduce small 

mammal habitat (snowshoe hares, squirrels, chipmunks) that provide a prey base for marten.

Raphael and Jones (1997) conducted a study of marten on the adjacent Winema National Forest and 

estimated male marten home ranges at 4,272 acres and 1,392 acres for females. Based on these estimates, 

the Walker Mountain OGMA by itself is not large enough to support one male marten home range but 

may support several female home ranges that overlap with adjoining National Forest lands. The 200 

acres of fuels treatments in denning habitat would reduce prey availability for martens but would be 

partially mitigated with the retention of no treatment blocks averaging 15 percent in each unit. These 

would continue to function as foraging areas for marten and denning habitat would still be available to 

support individual animals. 

Three-toed Woodpecker

Within the 230 acres of commercial treatment, the 92 acres of alternative mistletoe treatment (removing 

all heavily infected trees less than 21 inches diameter and creating snags of infected trees greater than 21 

inches diameter) are not defined as nesting habitat. The remaining 138 acres are dominated by ponderosa 

pine but has an understory component of lodgepole pine of varying sizes capable of supporting nesting 

three-toed woodpeckers. A Goggans et al. (1989) study of black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers on 

the Deschutes National Forest showed three-toed woodpeckers nested exclusively in lodgepole pine with 

heartrot with nest trees ranging from 7-17 inches diameter. The commercial treatment would remove 

lodgepole large enough to function as a nest tree. However, mitigation measures for 15-25 percent no 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 241 of 528

harvest retention areas in each treatment unit would maintain some lodgepole pine presence and be 

available for nesting three-toed woodpeckers. Goggans et al. (1989) also determined that home range size 

of three male three-toed woodpeckers ranged from 131 to 751 acres and was not related to the amount of 

unlogged areas or the amount of mature and immature forest present.

The 1,079 acres of fuels only treatments would focus on small diameter thinning of green trees less than 

eight inches in diameter which is at the lower diameter range described by Goggans et al. (1989) used by 

three-toed woodpeckers for nesting. Therefore, the fuels treatments would only have a minimal impact 

on three-toed woodpeckers because the majority of the potential nest-sized lodgepole pine trees would be 

retained. Because there are an estimated 1,692 acres of three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat in the 

OGMA, planned actions should not result in any reduction of number of nesting pairs of three-toed 

woodpeckers utilizing the Walker Mountain. 

Walker Rim OGMA

Goshawk

Implementation of Alternative E would result in 783 acres of commercial treatment, including 188 acres 

of alternative mistletoe treatment, 68 acres of commercial thinning, 488 acres of improvement cuts, and 

39 acres of aspen enhancement. There would also be 387 acres of fuels only activities, totaling 1,170 

acres of treatments in this OGMA. Within the mapped 996 acres of goshawk nesting habitat, there would 

be approximately 148 acres of commercial treatment, including 24 acres of alternative mistletoe treatment 

and 195 acres of ‘fuels only’ activities, totaling 343 acres.

The majority of the commercial treatment effects would be similar to those described for other 

alternatives and OGMAs in that post-treatment canopy cover is expected to be below the 40 percent 

threshold defined as the minimum for nesting stands. This would be short-term effect lasting several 

decades or until canopy growth of the residual trees meets measures at least 40 percent. In the alternative 

mistletoe treatment acreage, all trees under 21 inches diameter heavily infected with mistletoe would be 

removed and those trees over 21 inches diameter with heavy mistletoe would have induced mortality to 

reduce the likelihood of the infection spreading. These 24 acres would also not have enough canopy 

cover to provide goshawk nesting habitat and would have a longer return interval (more than two to three 

decades) before returning to nesting capability. For both treatments, the mitigation measure for 15-25 

percent unharvested acreage in each unit could continue to function as a block of nesting habitat in the 

OGMA. 

The approximately 195 acres of fuels only treatments in goshawk nesting habitat would only remove 

green trees <8 inches diameter followed by brush mowing and/or prescribed underburning. These actions 

are not expected to negatively affect nesting habitat because the largest and dominant overstory trees 

provide the greatest contribution toward canopy cover. While 148 acres of goshawk nesting habitat 

would be converted into potential foraging habitat, the remaining 848 acres of goshawk nesting habitat 

would be fully capable of supporting nesting goshawks. 

Marten

Implementation of Alternative E would result in 783 acres of commercial treatment, including 188 acres 

of alternative mistletoe treatment, 68 acres of commercial thinning, 488 acres of improvement cuts, and 

39 acres of aspen enhancement. There would also be 387 acres of fuels only activities, totaling 1,170 

acres of treatments in this OGMA. Within the mapped 517 acres of marten denning habitat, there would 

be approximately 24 acres of commercial treatment and 160 acres of fuels activities totaling 184 acres. 

Unit 621 (39 acres in the OGMA, and 20 acres in marten denning habitat) is an aspen enhancement unit 

designed to remove conifers less than 21 inches diameter in five small openings up to two acres each to 

reduce competition to the existing aspen trees. Two, 2-acre openings would be created in marten denning 

habitat, with the remaining 16 acres having understory thinning. The small openings would not function 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Old Growth Management

Page 242 of 528

as denning habitat though the commercial thinning portion (16 acres in unit 621 plus four acres in unit 

630) would have canopy cover reduced to about 30-35 percent, what was defined as marten denning 

habitat based on the Raphael and Jones marten study on the adjacent Winema National Forest (1997). 

There would be a reduction in stand diversity with less canopy layering, though snags and down wood 

would not be reduced. Post-harvest the thinned acreage of these units should still maintain their 

capability to support a denning female marten. 

Approximately 160 acres of fuels treatments would occur on the flats and lower slopes of the OGMA 

within mapped marten denning habitat. Activities proposed include small diameter thinning (<8 inches 

diameter) and brush mowing or prescribed burning. The small trees that would be removed are not large 

enough to act as a den site though they do contribute to stand structural diversity and provide additional 

protection from avian predation. The mowing and/or burning would have the capability to reduce small 

mammal habitat (snowshoe hares, squirrels, chipmunks) that provide a prey base for marten.

Raphael and Jones (1997) conducted a study of marten on the adjacent Winema National Forest and 

estimated male marten home ranges at 4,272 acres and 1,392 acres for females. Based on these estimates, 

the Walker Rim OGMA by itself is not large enough to support one male marten home but may support 

several female home ranges that may extend onto adjoining National Forest lands. The 160 acres of fuels 

treatments would reduce prey availability for martens but would be partially mitigated with the retention 

of no treatment blocks averaging 15 percent in each unit. These blocks would continue to function as 

foraging areas for marten and denning habitat would still be available to support individual animals. 

Three-Toed Woodpecker

Implementation of Alternative E would result in 783 acres of commercial treatment, including 188 acres 

of alternative mistletoe treatment, 68 acres of commercial thinning, 488 acres of improvement cuts, and 

39 acres of aspen enhancement. There would also be 387 acres of fuels only activities, totaling 1,170 

acres of treatments in this OGMA. Within the mapped 1,692 acres of three-toed woodpecker nesting 

habitat, there would be approximately 83 acres of commercial treatment, including four acres of 

alternative mistletoe treatment, and 240 acres of ‘fuels only’ activities, totaling 323 acres.

The commercial treatment would occur in largely mixed conifer forest dominated by ponderosa pine, 

white fir, Douglas-fir, and a few aspen trees and a ponderosa pine stand with a component of lodgepole 

pine. A Goggans et al. (1989) study of black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers on the Deschutes 

National Forest showed three-toed woodpeckers nested exclusively in lodgepole pine with heartrot. They 

also determined that home range size of three male three-toed woodpeckers ranged from 131 to 751 acres 

and was not related to the amount of unlogged areas or the amount of mature and immature forest present.

The commercial treatment would remove lodgepole that is potentially large enough diameter (7-17 

inches) described by Goggans et al. (1989) as used for nesting. Mitigation measures for 15-25 percent no 

harvest retention areas in each treatment would maintain some lodgepole pine presence and be available 

for nesting purposes. The 240 acres of ‘fuels only’ treatments would focus on small diameter thinning of 

green trees less than eight inches in diameter which is at the lower diameter range described by Goggans 

et al. (1989) used by three-toed woodpeckers for nesting. Therefore, the fuels treatments would only have 

a minimal impact on three-toed woodpeckers because the majority of the potential nest-sized lodgepole 

pine trees would be retained. There should be no reduction in the number of nesting pairs of three-toed 

woodpeckers utilizing the Walker Rim OGMA based on the 1989 Goggans et al. study. 

Cumulative Effects To All Action Alternatives

Table 19 was reviewed for project actions that have a similar zone of influence and overlap in time and 

space with the Rim-Paunina vegetation management project. The zone of influence is defined as the 

40,000 acre project area. There are no projects in the table that overlap and therefore, additive cumulative 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Old Growth Management

Page 243 of 528

effects are not anticipated to occur. The approximately 106 acres of private land acreage within the 

planning area is within the Two River North rural housing subdivision. It is assumed very little habitat 

would be available for goshawk, marten, or three-toed woodpeckers because of land owners’ abilities to 

manage their properties as they wish. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 244 of 528

Forested Vegetation

The following incorporates the forested vegetation specialist report in its entirety. The Zone of Influence 

for assessing effects is at the project scale.

Management Direction

The Rim-Paunina planning area is managed under direction provided by the Deschutes National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Regional 

Forester’s Plan Amendment 2, Interim Riparian, Ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards (Eastside Screens). 

Eastside Screens has the following direction relating to forested vegetation:

Historical Range of Variability: Characterize the proposed timber sale and its associated watershed for 

patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment and compare to the Historical Range of Variability 

(HRV). 

Timber Sale within Late and Old Structure (LOS): 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 (Eastside Screens, Appendix B, Scenario A, page 9).

Within a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, if the single, existing late and old 

structure (LOS) stage is within or above HRV, or if both types of LOS stages occur and both are within or 

above HRV, then timber harvest can occur within these stages as long as LOS conditions do not fall 

below HRV (Eastside Screens, Appendix B, Scenario B, page 13). The Rim-Paunina project proposes 

activity within LOS stands. There would be no net loss of LOS stands for all action alternatives. 

Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees greater than 21 inches in diameter that 

currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities (Eastside Screens, Appendix B, page 10).

Methodology of Analysis and Sources of Information

Sources of vegetation information and data used in this analysis are: IMAP, PI data, Deschutes National 

Forest Plant Association Map, 2009 infrared and color aerial photography, walk-through stand exams and 

diagnosis (2008-2009), and Mistletoe surveys (2010). Computer modeling includes the following:

IMAP

The Interagency Mapping and Assessment Project (IMAP) provides maps of existing forest vegetation 

and land cover across all land ownerships in the Pacific Coast States (Oregon, Washington, and parts of 

California). The mapping is integrated with ongoing sample-based forest inventories conducted by the 

Forest Inventory and Analysis program (FIA) at the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Station, and Current 

Vegetation Survey of Region 6, USDA Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 

western Oregon. Gradient imputation (Gradient Nearest Neighbor, or GNN; Ohmann and Gregory 2002) 

is used to map detailed vegetation composition and structure for areas of forest and woodland. GNN uses 

multivariate gradient modeling to integrate data from FIA field plots with satellite imagery and mapped 

environmental data. A suite of fine-scale plot variables is imputed to each pixel in a digital map, and 

regional maps can be constructed for many of the same vegetation attributes available for FIA plots. All 

GNN map products are grid-based at 30-m spatial resolution. This data along with field reconnaissance 

and Viable Ecosystem Modeling was used to determine existing and predicted future conditions within 

the analysis area. Since the IMAP data was gathered for this analysis, a small amount of precommercial 

thinning has occurred in existing plantations; however this would not greatly alter the analysis. 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 245 of 528

Photo Interpretation GIS Layer

Individual stands were delineated for the entire Deschutes National Forest using photo interpretation 

between 1997 and 2000 (Forest Data Inc. 2001).

Viable Ecosystem Model

The Viable Ecosystem model provides a process to apply ecosystem standards to project-level planning. 

Originally developed for the Ochoco National Forest, it has since been modified for use on the Deschutes 

National Forest. This system compares existing vegetation with site potential (or biophysical 

environment). The model focuses on relationships between combinations of vegetation structure and 

species composition, and habitat requirements for animals, insects, and plants. The Viable Ecosystem 

model stratifies the environmental gradient using plant associations. The Viable Ecosystems 

Management Guide (Simpson 1994) was used within the Rim-Paunina planning area to characterize and 

compare seral structural conditions to HRV (and contains a description of Viable Ecosystem and analysis 

methods and tools used to conduct the analysis). Table 74 displays the attributes modeled. 

Table 74. Seral/Structural Matrix and Definitions (Seral Structural Stages) 

Structure Class

Species Composition

Early Mid Late

Grass, forb, shrub (trees may be present but not dominant) E1 M1 L1

Seedling, sapling (less than 4.9 inches in diameter) E2 M2 L2

Pole (between 5 and 8.9 inches in diameter), high density E3a M3a L3a

Pole, low density E3b M3b L3b

Small (between 9 and 20.9 inches in diameter), high density E4a M4a L4a

Small, low density E4b M4b L4b

Medium/large (21 inches in diameter and larger), high density E5a M5a L5a

Medium/large, low density E5b M5b L5b

Forest Vegetation Simulator – Southern Oregon Northern California Variant

The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) is an individual-tree, distance-independent growth and yield 

model. It has been calibrated for specific geographic areas (variants) of the United States. FVS can 

simulate a wide range of silvicultural treatments for most major forest tree species, forest types, and stand 

conditions. 

Limitations 

Given the uncertainty of any modeling exercise, the results are best used to compare the relative effects of 

the alternatives, rather than as an indicator of absolute effects. 

Assumptions and Methods

Due to the complexities of modeling thousands of pixels, treatments were characterized by the 

estimated percent of basal area removed from either above (starting with the dominant or 

codominant crown class or largest trees) or below (starting with the suppressed crown classes or 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 246 of 528

smallest trees). This causes more of an average over a landscape scale where site-specific 

vegetative prescriptions are accomplished prior to layout for activity.

Project planning refers to individual timber sales or other activities.

The viable outputs of dense and open stands are corollaries for multi and single story stands. The 

medium/large structure class is equivalent to Late and Old Structure (LOS), as identified in the 

Eastside Screens, in all plant associations other than lodgepole. The small and medium/large 

structure class is equivalent to lodgepole LOS.

Hawksworth (1977) rating system was utilized to determine infestation levels of dwarf mistletoe 

severity (see Figure 36).

Current and future vegetation structure and condition GNN data was obtained for the RimPaunina planning area and processed using FVS to simulate treatments and future growth for each 

alternative. FVS results were categorized by Viable Seral/Structural states.

Determining locations of LOS stands the GNN pixilated data was aggregated into stand level 

values in order to determine areas of LOS and other structural and compositional characteristics. 

Using a Geographic Information System (GIS) software package, the GNN data was overlaid on 

the Photo Interpretation stands. The values of each pixel in every stand were counted and the 

value which was most common was assigned to the entire stand.

Conditions common to all Plant Association Groups (PAGs) are as follows:

Past clearcuts and shelterwood regeneration cuts are common in all but high elevation mountain 

hemlock and whitebark pine plant associations. These are typically stocked with ponderosa pine 

or lodgepole pine, that are mostly twenty years old or more. These stands have been accounted 

for in the modeling and existing condition discussion.

Small trees in many of the regenerated stands have been thinned. Standard practice on the 

Crescent Ranger District is to retain at least ten percent of the unit unthinned for diversity.

Stumps of trees cut in the 1950s are common on most ponderosa pine and mixed conifer areas 

that did not have regeneration cuts. Generally, these were ponderosa pine cut to meet the Keen’s 

Risk Tree Classification (Miller and Keen 1960) based on age and vigor, to remove the trees most 

highly susceptible to western pine beetle.

During the 1970s, it was common in this area to fall large dead trees (snags) and leave them lying 

on the ground. This was done to reduce the chance of lightning-caused fires since the thinking of 

the day was that these large snags could attract lightning similar to a lightning rod. This most 

often was done to the largest and oldest snags since they could be spotted from a distance, were 

generally the taller trees in the stands, and they were the result of endemic bark beetle activity in 

these stands rapidly becoming overstocked. 

Shrubs are common in disturbed areas on most of the sites. In the dry lodgepole pine and 

ponderosa pine, bitterbrush is a common shrub that can eventually dominate the ground 

vegetation until shaded out by a closed canopy of conifers. Snowbrush ceanothus and greenleaf 

manzanita are common in the mixed conifer dry and ponderosa pine wet stands. Golden 

chinquapin is also a common shrub in some of the higher productivity areas. Upland willow can 

be found in some mixed conifer areas. 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 247 of 528

Current Conditions

While there is no ideal reference condition for any ecosystem or landscape (Temperton et al. 2004) 

historical range of variability or HRV can provide a useful yardstick for current and possible future 

conditions. HRV value is based on the premise that it is likely to support a diverse array of species, even 

those we know little about, and due to the enormous complexity of ecosystems HRV is a practical way to 

measure effects on ecosystems (Landres 1999; Keane 2009). 

The forests of central Oregon and the Rim-Paunina planning area are dynamic and ever changing. Their 

structure and composition affect many things valued by society. Two of the most prominent in the RimPaunina planning area are varied wildlife habitats and wood fiber based products available to the local 

economy. It is important to not only look at these currently or immediately following potential treatments 

but also into the future. Forest structure and composition is also affected by disturbance processes. The 

relationship of structure to wildlife habitats is further discussed in the Wildlife section of this chapter. 

Wood fiber based products and their effects associated with the local economy are disclosed in the SocialEconomic section of this chapter.

Bark Beetles

Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and Western pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevicomis) 

have been the two most prevalent bark beetles in the Rim-Paunina area. Mountain pine beetle’s preferred 

host is lodgepole pine but is also active in ponderosa pine and sugar pine. Western pine beetle is 

primarily active in ponderosa pine and is in epidemic proportions on the bordering Fremont-Winema 

National Forests. It is also present in several stands north of the project area on the Bend-Ft. Rock 

Ranger District near the Cascade Mountains. In central Oregon, mountain pine beetle becomes a risk in 

lodgepole pine stands when they have more than 100 trees per acre over nine inches in diameter (Eglitis 

2010). Outbreaks can cause mortality in large swaths that have this condition. This usually happens 

when the stand is around 100 years old. In ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands, bark beetles become 

active around 60 percent of maximum Stand Density Index23 or SDI (Cochran et al. 1994). Many of the 

stands within the Rim-Paunina project area have reached this density. Mortality tends to occur in various 

sized pockets that center around the largest, most stressed trees in a stand. Trees with more than 2/3 of 

the crown infected with dwarf mistletoe also have a higher risk of bark beetle attack (Eglitis 2010). Using 

these assumptions, currently 17 percent of the Rim-Paunina planning area is at risk of bark beetles.

Existing Conditions

Descriptions of the current vegetative condition are grouped by plant association groups, or PAGs. The 

plant associations have been evaluated for common characteristics and grouped together to form the 

PAGs. A very brief description of each PAG begins each section. Detailed PAG biophysical descriptions 

can be found in Plant Associations of the Central Oregon Pumice Zone (Volland 1988). 

Lodgepole Pine - includes the lodgepole pine dry and a minor component of the lodgepole pine wet plant 

association groups. Totaling approximately 17,000 acres and 43 percent of the planning area, lodgepole 

pine is the largest plant series in the Rim-Paunina planning area. Lodgepole pine is characterized by 

stands dominated by lodgepole pine in some of the lower productivity plant associations located at the 

lowest or highest elevations of the planning area. Lodgepole pine wet plant associations are characterized 

by stands dominated by lodgepole pine in some of the moister plant associations, typically along streams 

or wet areas. There are less than 200 acres of these stands (lodgepole pine wet) in the Rim-Paunina area.

 

23 Stand Density is a degree of crowding of trees, well correlated with stand volume and growth. It is an index or 

measure of stocking of a stand based upon a number of trees per unit area and diameter of the average basal area. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 248 of 528

Vegetation is characterized by lodgepole pine dominating the conifer component. The regenerated stands 

tend to be very dense with natural regeneration often supplementing any planted trees to the point where 

several thousand trees per acre may be found.

During the 1980s, a mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreak killed most of the 

lodgepole pine overstories throughout most of central Oregon in the lower elevations. Thousands of acres 

of salvage activities in these stands have been completed since then, but some areas in the analysis area 

remain that had very little or no active management. These areas are characterized by “jackstrawed” 

remains of the fallen overstory trees, remaining overstory trees usually less than eight inches in diameter, 

most often with very poor crowns, and dense natural regeneration from the residual overstory trees.

With respect to mistletoe, past salvage activities focused on the removal of the dead component only. 

Live trees, regardless of health, were generally retained. This created ideal conditions for dwarf mistletoe 

to spread throughout the stand. Many overstory trees infected with dwarf mistletoe are now infecting the 

seedlings below. This is likely more prevalent than historically found due to the lack of fire following the 

insect outbreak. 

Figure 20 shows the current structure and composition of lodgepole pine within the project area. The “X” 

axis progresses from left to right from early to late structural stages. Notice most structures are within the 

minimum and maximum HRV, except L5a (late) and L5b (late). These stages are defined as 

“medium/large trees 21 inches in diameter and larger” for both low and high density stands. Although 

there are a few lodgepole pine in the project area of that size, the abundance is due to scattered ponderosa 

pine which is a minor component of these stands. 

Figure 20. Current Structure and Composition of Dry Lodgepole Pine

Lodgepole pine is generally within its HRV. Its disturbance history was marked by episodic insect 

outbreaks and fire creating a broad range of conditions. The excess in large structure is likely a result of 

fire exclusion. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

 E1 L2a L2b L3a L3b L4a L4b L5a L5b

Percent 

Current Condition

Min_HRV

Max_HRV
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 249 of 528

Ponderosa Pine - accounts for approximately 15,500 acres and 39 percent of the planning area. These 

stands tend to be in locations that are elevated above areas of cold air drainage, the lower slopes of the 

Cascade Range, and Walker Rim. 

The largest overstory trees are 200 to 400 years old. Fire scars are common. Understory trees are 

ponderosa pine, with lodgepole pine often outnumbering them. The dense stands of ponderosa pine 

regeneration can often stagnate rather than show much competition-induced mortality. 

Figure 21 shows current structural stage of ponderosa pine within the project area. Notice the over 

abundance of dense/multistory stands (E3a, M3a, L3a, L5a) and a lack of open/ single story stands,

especially in the large structure classes (M5b, L5b). This is most likely caused by fire exclusion and past 

harvest practices that generally did not lower the density in the smaller size classes.

Figure 21. Current Structure and Composition of Ponderosa Pine

(Note that only the labels for the open “b” stages are shown while the dense “a” stages are unlabeled)

Ponderosa pine is primarily showing an over abundance of dense/multistory stands and a lack of open/ 

single story stands, especially in the large structure classes. This is most likely caused by fire suppression 

and past harvest practices.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

 E1 E2b E3b E4b E5b M2b M3b M4b M5b L2b L3b L4b L5b

Percent

Seral/Structural stage

Current Condition

Min_HRV

Max_HRV
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 250 of 528

Mixed Conifer - This PAG includes Mixed Conifer Dry (MCD) of approximately 7,000 acres and 18

percent of the planning area. These stands are typically located on mid-elevation slopes ranging from 

about 4,500 feet to over 6,000 feet in elevation. Stands are dominated by a variety of conifer species. 

Ponderosa pine, sugar pine and, in some areas, Douglas-fir comprise the oldest and usually the largest 

trees in the overstories of these stands. Fire scars, scorched bark, and scattered charcoal on the ground are 

very common on these sites. Mid and understories are usually dominated by true firs in dense, pole-sized 

thickets. Lodgepole pine is a common component of the mid and understories of these stands as well. 

Down and dead lodgepole pine is a common component of these stands.

At the higher elevations, the true firs are dominated by Shasta red fir, which is fairly common on the 

Crescent Ranger District. Grand fir/white fir dominates the mid and lower elevations. Douglas-fir is 

common as is ponderosa pine, but both are definitely subordinate in stocking to the other species. 

Isolated mountain hemlock is also present in many of these stands.

As shown in Figure 22, Mixed Conifer Dry is lacking large trees in the mid and late seral stages primarily 

in the open/ single story structure stages. The early seral shrub/forb stage (E1) is also below HRV. Fire 

exclusion and past harvest practices are the most likely cause of these departures.

Figure 22. Current Structure and Composition of Mixed Conifer Dry

0

5

10

15

20

25

Title

Current Condition

Min_HRV

Max_HRV
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 251 of 528

Late and Old Structure (LOS)

Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer 

The following figures (Figure 23 and Figure 24) show the current condition for LOS by PAG for general 

information on the structure and abundance as well as for determination of compliance with the Eastside 

Screens. Lodgepole pine is currently within HRV for both single story and multistory LOS categories;

therefore it is not depicted here. Notice the over abundance of dense LOS and a lack of open as well as 

total LOS for ponderosa pine and to a lesser extent, mixed conifer, which is within the total HRV. There 

are currently no stands in the Ponderosa PAG classified as “open” within the Rim-Paunina area.

Figure 23. Current Condition of Ponderosa Pine in Rim-Paunina Project Area

Figure 24. Current Condition of Mixed Conifer in the Rim-Paunina Project Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Closed Open Total

Percent of PAG

Ponderosa Pine Current Condition

MIN_HRV

MAX_HRV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Closed Open Total

Percent of PAG

Mixed Conifer Current Condition

MIN_HRV

MAX_HRV
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 252 of 528

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the 

analysis area. No active management to place appropriate stands into a condition for a frequent lowintensity fire regime would occur. Custodial activity would continue, such as routine maintenance, and 

response to environmental emergencies, such as suppression of a wildfire, would continue. The shift in 

stand composition with fire intolerant species in competition with the larger trees would persist. Also, 

LOS as depicted in Figure 23 and Figure 24 for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer would continue to 

move from open to dense, which eventually results in mortality and reduced overall total late and old 

structure. Bark beetle risk, currently at 17 percent, would likely increase as stands become more dense. 

A passive management scenario would continue the path of disturbance identified in the District-wide 

1998 Landscape Analysis Process. In the Rim-Paunina area, the gap between the current habitat 

condition for white-headed woodpeckers, as well as other species that depend on large diameter 

ponderosa pine trees in open conditions and what is desired would become greater. Overcrowding and 

competition with the larger trees which is now evident would result in a mortality level that is expected to 

increase faster than large diameter trees can develop. The presence of dense understory trees and high 

levels of brush increase the risk of white-headed woodpecker nests being preyed upon by squirrels and 

chipmunks. There will be substantially fewer large trees within the next two decades thus further 

diminishing an important habitat component for this woodpecker.

Action Alternatives (B-E)

The following are descriptions of the activities associated with the various action alternatives: 

Thinning (HTH) for all action alternatives

Within the Rim-Paunina Project area and most prevalent in ponderosa pine plant association, HTH is

cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest 

health, or recover potential mortality (Helms 1998). Trees would be thinned to a density within the 

management zone24 with thought to future growth within the next 20 or 30 years before the next likely 

opportunity for a commercial treatment. This would primarily be achieved by thinning from below – the 

removal of trees from the lower crown classes to favor those in the upper crown classes (Helms 1998). 

After thinning, stands would average as low as 20 percent canopy cover and 50 square feet of basal area 

in lodgepole pine and up to 40 percent canopy cover and 180 square feet of basal area in mixed conifer 

plant associations.

Improvement Cutting (HIM) for all action alternatives

HIM is the removal of less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or larger trees, primarily to 

improve composition and quality (Helms 1998). Improvement cutting activities are primarily proposed in 

lodgepole pine stands that were affected by the mountain pine beetle outbreak of the 1980s. The 

proportion of their overstories that exhibit poor crowns and/or heavily-infected mistletoe would be 

removed. These trees have poor growth rates and potential for infecting the understory with mistletoe is 

high. These stands would have fewer remaining overstory trees than in those stands that are thinned 

(HTH). The understory would contribute considerably to future growth. 

 

24 The management zone is a benchmark with upper and lower limits that essentially define when competition with 

other trees presents as mortality. The HTH prescriptions in the Rim-Paunina area target the lower end of the 

management zone in order to maximize the time frame density reduction is effective while ensuring that trees fully 

occupy a site. 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 253 of 528

Group Selections (HSG) for Alternative D

Areas of high mistletoe occurrence and severe infection from dwarf mistletoe are proposed for this 

treatment. Within a stand, two to five acre openings would be created totaling 15-30 percent of the total 

stand area to prevent reinfection of dwarf mistletoe from above. In these openings, all trees regardless of 

size and with visible infection would be removed. The remainder of the stand would be thinned similar to 

HTH. Ponderosa pine seedlings would be the preferred tree species that would be planted to facilitate 

future replacement of the stand. 

Alternate Mistletoe Treatments (AltMist) for Alternative E

These are alternative prescriptions to treat severely infected stands where all dwarf mistletoe-infected 

trees less than 21 inches would be removed. Mortality of the remaining infected trees 21 inches and 

above may be accelerated using techniques such as prescribed fire, topping, or blasting to create 

“openings” to prevent reinfection of dwarf mistletoe from above. All trees 21 inches and larger where 

mortality was induced by alternative methods would be retained onsite. Then the “openings” would be 

planted with ecologically appropriate trees species, primarily ponderosa pine. Where live infected 

ponderosa pine remain, alternate species would be planted within 30 feet of the infected tree’s dripline to 

prevent reinfection of the understory. Generally, dwarf mistletoe is not transmitted between tree species. 

Aspen Treatments for all action alternatives

Unit 621 is proposed for aspen treatment in all action alternatives. This is a 43 acre unit containing two 

small draws which, under a historical fire regime, would have had a greater hardwood component. The 

current condition of dense conifers has resulted in existing aspen and other hardwoods being crowded out 

as well as hardwood regeneration being suppressed. Treatment would consist of creating five openings of 

up to two acres in size, where all conifers less than 21 inches in diameter would be removed, which would 

facilitate the restoration of native species such as aspen and willow. Two of the openings would be 

located adjacent to an existing aspen patch toward the north end of the unit in order to allow it to expand. 

Additional openings would be placed within small draws that have a moist micro climate suitable to these 

species. Regeneration may also be assisted through a variety of means including prescribed fire, root 

cutting, or planting. Seedlings and saplings would be protected using wood, metal, or plastic fences until 

the crown is above the area susceptible to browse from large ungulates. Trapping of gophers may also be 

required. The remaining portion of the unit would be thinned following the HTH treatment guidelines.

Direct and Indirect Effects Associated with the Action Alternatives

Bark Beetle Risk

Figure 25 shows an approximate 25 percent reduction in the area at risk of bark beetle outbreak between 

all action alternatives and the no action alternative. This is due to the similar acres and treatments that 

reduce density in the action alternatives. With the reduction, more large trees are expected to remain on 

the landscape and in turn increase the area of expected LOS over time in all action alternatives compared 

to the no action.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 254 of 528

Figure 25. Comparison of Bark Beetle Risk Between No Action Alternative and Alternatives B-E

0

10

20

30

40

50

Current 2018 2058

Percent of Planning Area

Year

Bark Beetle Risk

No Action

Alt B

Alt C

Alt D

Alt E
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 255 of 528

Projected Structure, Composition, and HRV for Lodgepole Pine for All Alternatives

Figure 26 and Figure 27 depict lodgepole pine structure and composition for all alternatives through time. 

It remains largely within its HRV for all alternatives. The largest size class is above HRV, but 

contributing to that is likely ponderosa pine which may be a minor component of the stands. 

Figure 26. Projection of Structure and Composition for Lodgepole Pine in Year 2018 for All Alternatives 

Figure 27. Projection of Structure and Composition for Lodgepole Pine in Year 2058 for All Alternatives

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

 E1 L2A L2B L3A L3B L4A L4B L5A L5B

Percent

Structure/Stage

Lodgepole Pine 2018

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. E

MIN HRV

MAX HRV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

 E1 L3a L3b L4a L4b L5a L5b

Percent

Structure/Stage

Lodgepole pine 2058

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. E

MIN HRV

MAX HRV
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 256 of 528

Projected Structure, Composition, and HRV for Ponderosa Pine for All Alternatives

Figure 28 and Figure 30 depict ponderosa pine structure and composition for all alternatives through time. 

Figure 29 shows progress from active management in moving from closed to open stands in LOS, as well 

as improvement in the total by year 2018 as compared to the current condition (Figure 21). Notice in 

Figure 28 the action alternatives begin to shift from an over abundance of closed/multistory structure to 

more open/single story structure (L5a to L5b and M5a to M5b) in year 2018. However, Figure 31 shows 

that by year 2058 the progress of shifting from more dense to more open stands having grown much 

slower, or stalled. This is due to a dynamic stand condition modeled without disturbance processes such 

as mechanical thinning or implementation of a frequent, low-intensity fire regime. In reality, the action 

alternatives begin the process of establishing an 8-15 year interval for a low-intensity/frequent fire 

regime. This would likely contribute to less dense stand conditions in a stand by year 2058.

Figure 28. Projection of Structure and Composition for Ponderosa Pine in Year 2018 for All Alternatives 

Figure 29. Ponderosa Pine LOS in Year 2018 for All Alternatives 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

 E1

E2A

E2B

E3A

E3B

E4A

E4B

E5A

E5B

M2A

M2B

M3A

M3B

M4A

M4B

M5A

M5B

L2A

L2B

L3A

L3B

L4A

L4B

L5A

L5B

Percent

Structure/Stage

Ponderosa Pine 2018

No Action

Alt B

Alt. C

Alt. d

Alt. e

MIN HRV

MAX HRV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Closed Open Total

Percent of PAG

Ponderosa Pine 2018

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. E

Min_HRV

MAX_HRV
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 257 of 528

Figure 30. Projection of Structure and Composition for Ponderosa Pine in Year 2058 for All Alternatives 

Figure 31. Ponderosa Pine LOS in Year 2058 for All Alternatives 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Percent

Structure Stage

Ponderosa Pine 2058

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. E

MIN HRV

MAX HRV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Closed Open Total

Percent of PAG

Ponderosa Pine 2058

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. E

MIN_HRV

MAX_HRV
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 258 of 528

Mixed Conifer (Dry) Changes over Time for All Alternatives

Figure 32 and Figure 34 depict the mixed conifer (dry) plant association structure for all alternatives and 

composition through time. Notice the figures show a more varied pattern of departure from HRV than the 

ponderosa pine. Due to the relatively small amount of activity planned in this plant association, there are 

few effects to discuss at a landscape scale. Reference the Fire and Fuels Management section for 

additional detail regarding benefits associated with small diameter thinning in Mixed Conifer (Dry) stands 

along Walker Rim. 

Figure 32. Projection of Structure and Composition for Mixed Conifer (Dry) in Year 2018 for All 

Alternatives 

Figure 33. Mixed Conifer (Dry) LOS in Year 2018 for All Alternatives 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent

Structure/Stage

Mixed Conifer 2018

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. E

MIN HRV

MAX HRV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Closed Open Total

Percent of PAG

Mixed Conifer 2018

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt D

Alt. E

MIN_HRV

MAX_HRV
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 259 of 528

Figure 34. Projection of Structure and Composition for Mixed Conifer (Dry) in Year 2058 for All 

Alternatives

Figure 35. Mixed Conifer (Dry) LOS in Year 2058 for All Alternatives 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

 E1 E3a E3b E4a E4b E5a E5b M3a M4a M4b M5a M5b L4a L4b L5a L5b

Percent

Structure/Stage

Mixed Conifer 2058

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. E

MIN HRV

MAX HRV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Closed Open Total

Percent of PAG

Mixed Conifer 2058

No Action

Alt. B

Alt. C

Alt. D

Alt. E

MIN_HRV

MAX_HRV
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 260 of 528

Large infected trees perpetuate infection and reduce 

success of sanitation attempts. Regenerating trees that 

soon become infected, then mature under a canopy of 

infected overstory trees, would not likely contribute to 

LOS of large diameter trees (USDA PNW BMZ-96-07, 

1996).

Key Issue #2 Related to Forest Disease – Western Dwarf Mistletoe

Both Western dwarf mistletoe (WDM) (Arceuthobium campylopodum), which occurs in ponderosa pine 

(Pinus ponderosa), and Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium americanum) are prevalent 

diseases in the Rim-Paunina project area. Lodgepole pine dwarf mistletoe is proposed to be treated with 

vegetative prescriptions (HIM and HTH) to control its abundance. However, the focus of this section is 

to display the effects of mistletoe-related treatments in ponderosa pine as it is related to Key Issue #2 to 

address a diminishing large tree component in the project area. Field surveys within the project area 

revealed that Western dwarf mistletoe, when present, was in all size classes and throughout the tree 

crowns (2010 survey data in Table 77 and Table 78).

Initial walk through surveys in the Rim-Paunina Project area identified approximately 5,600 acres where 

dwarf mistletoe in ponderosa pine could impede development or maintenance of LOS. This included

3,000 acres on Walker Rim (Figure 38). Because of the steepness of the terrain and the necessity for 

advanced harvest systems, these acres were deferred from further assessment. A gridded survey was then 

conducted on the areas of the concern along the Rim which refined the area proposed for focused 

mistletoe control in Alternative E to approximately 1,900 acres. This was followed by more detailed 

information gathering on a random subset of the grid survey points. Plots were placed on a subset of 11 

stands with 55 plots. Tree information (including dwarf mistletoe rating) was gathered at each plot. 

Average trees per acre per size class and dwarf mistletoe rating was then determined from this data.

Background

Ponderosa pine infected with WDM exhibits reduced volume and height growth (Hawksworth 1996; 

Maffei and Jacobi 1986), reduced viable seed set and cone production (Hawksworth 1996), increased 

susceptibility to fire caused mortality (Conklin and Geils 2008), and increased susceptibility to successful 

western and mountain pine beetle attack (Miller and Keen 1960; Eglitis 2010, personal communication). 

These effects are proportional to increasing levels of infection. A stand heavily infected with dwarf 

mistletoe has a decreased likelihood of developing into Late and Old Structure (Hopkins 1992). 

Outbreaks of mountain pine beetle may increase the proportion of infected trees by killing the uninfected 

trees and increasing the rate of spread of mistletoe. Thus, management objectives for both beetles and 

dwarf mistletoes need to be taken into account (Edmonds, Agee, and Gara 2011). 

Dwarf mistletoes possess one of the most effective hydrostatically controlled, explosive mechanisms of 

seed dispersal known to flowering plants (Hawksworth, USDA Agricultural Handbook 709, 1996). 

Maximum dispersal distance is about 48 feet, but dispersal distances of 30 feet or less are more typical. 

Studies of three species of dwarf mistletoes have indicated about 40 percent of dispersed seeds are 

intercepted by trees (Hawksworth 1965b; Smith 1985). For example, an adjoining tree within 18 to 27 

feet of an infected host would intercept 90 percent of the seeds dispersed in its direction. Germination is 

largely determined by environmental factors, but most temperate species germinate in the spring 

following fall dispersal. Once infection is established, an incubation period of two to five years elapses 

before young shoots appear and the cycle of infection continues. In single-storied stands, spread is 

estimated to be two to three feet per year. 

Spread in multi-storied stands (which is 

largely the stand structure in the RimPaunina area) is more rapid because the 

understory trees are exposed to infection 

from the overstory (Forest Insect and 

Disease Leaflet, USDA 2003). 

It is believed that incidence of dwarf mistletoe is elevated from historical conditions within the project 

area. Frequent, low-intensity fire played a large role in moderating its presence. These fires reduced tree 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 261 of 528

density and severely infected trees were more likely to torch with subsequent mortality. This created gaps 

where mistletoe spread between trees was unlikely. In this region, fire plays an important role in the 

development of dwarf mistletoes, especially in pine forests. The historically frequent low-intensity fires 

here killed small infected trees and reduced the rate of spread. Fire suppression has caused increased 

infection in these stands and the incidence of infection is now much higher than natural levels (Edmonds, 

Agee, and Gara 2011). However, due to the rarity of stand replacing events, mistletoe was seldom 

eliminated from stands (Hessburg et al. 1994). Before fire suppression, associated with a fire exclusion 

policy, low-intensity fire killed many of the infected small trees (Hessburg et al. 2008). Prior 

management practices beyond fire exclusion may have also played a role in increasing the rate of 

infection. Early harvest practices emphasized removal of mature, large diameter ponderosa pine which 

were at high risk of attack by western pine beetle. Smaller, understory trees were often retained. Where 

fire would have killed many of those that were infected with western dwarf mistletoe, they now would 

remain and languish (Znerold 1989). Adding to the mechanism for infection, an emphasis on retention of 

large trees with uneven-aged management prescriptions plus the implementation of the Revised 

Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards 

for Timber Sales (Eastside Screens), created ideal stand conditions where young understory trees would 

become rapidly infected due to their position in the canopy. 

Severity of infection from dwarf mistletoe is measured with a Dwarf Mistletoe Rating (DMR) scale from 

1 (light) to 6 (severe). Individual trees with a DMR of 3 or less and stands with an average rating of less 

than or equal to 2 have a higher likelihood of being effectively managed through thinning treatments and 

attaining Late and Old Structure (LOS). Figure 36 illustrates how to assess the severity of infection using 

visible infections in the crown (Hawksworth 1977).

Figure 36. Determining Dwarf Mistletoe Ratings (DMR) using the 6-class Dwarf Mistletoe Rating System 

To treat light to moderate mistletoe infections in the project area, Alternatives B through E propose 

commercial thinning (HTH) in ponderosa pine stands. Roth and Barrett (1985) investigated the response 

after thinning ponderosa pine in central Oregon. Dependent upon the site potential of the stand, they 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 262 of 528

found that if crowns enlarged at a faster rate than dwarf mistletoe propagates, thinned trees would grow 

quite productively. They found that while the population of dwarf mistletoe plants increases dramatically 

following thinning, it does so at about the same rate as the increase in the size of the tree crown. The ratio 

of number of plants to crown size stays relatively constant. The net result was no detectable height 

growth in an even-aged stand. Barrett and Roth (1986) also investigated the response of a thinned stand 

of mistletoe-infected immature 40- to 70-year old ponderosa pine, and response of a thinned stand of 

mistletoe-infected immature ponderosa pine that had recently had a removal of mature mistletoe-infected 

overstory. Conclusions of these studies demonstrate that by regulating stand density, trees in even-aged 

stands are able to tolerate light to medium levels of dwarf mistletoe and grow at or near rates of 

uninfected trees. 

However, in uneven-aged stands with numerous scattered infections, conditions undoubtedly deteriorate 

over time (USDA PNW BMZ-96-07, 1996). Dwarf mistletoe is most apt to spread, intensify, and cause 

damage under uneven-aged conditions. Where infection severity renders stand conditions unmanageable, 

more aggressive stand-replacing harvests may be called for (Gill and Hawksworth 1954; Hadfield and 

Russell 1978; Hawksworth 1978). Given its persistent nature, the best way to control dwarf mistletoe is 

to prevent infection by protecting young tree regeneration (Conklin 2000). Prevention can mean stand 

replacement or clearcutting. Spot treatment for protecting regeneration in irregular, uneven-aged sites can 

help provide a more sustainable condition by reducing or delaying infection. As a regeneration method in 

uneven-aged management, group selection intuitively provides better mistletoe control than single-tree 

selection, since the regeneration occurs in openings rather than directly beside infected trees. Treatment 

blocks should include groups of infected trees and a buffer of 100 feet beyond visibly infected trees. To 

minimize invasion of young pine stands by dwarf mistletoe from bordering infected trees, the ratio of 

perimeter to area of clearcuts should be as low as possible. That is, cut openings should be roughly 

circular and not long, narrow strips (Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet, USDA 2003). Two- to four-acre 

gaps in heavily infected uneven-aged stands are the recommended size to allow ponderosa pine 

regeneration to be free to grow in a relatively infection-free environment25.

Table 75 and Table 76 illustrate findings from a 1990 Hawksworth Study (“How Long Do MistletoeInfected Ponderosa Pine Live?”) on the relationship of tree growth and mortality in Arizona ponderosa 

pine to dwarf mistletoe infection. In the study, Dwarf Mistletoe Rating (DMR) was tracked by diameter 

class over a 30 year period. From the data in the tables, notice that the mean dwarf mistletoe rating 

increases faster for trees under nine inches than for those over nine inches. Also, those trees under nine

inches with a DMR of 5 or 6 did not survive 30 years (Table 75). 

Retained in a passive management scenario without a frequent fire regime, dwarf mistletoe severity 

increases within the stand and it spreads laterally to uninfected areas of the stand at a rate of one to two 

feet per year (Hawksworth 1996). This relationship is magnified for stands with a considerable unevenaged structure and a large tree component. These effects are intensified, or more pronounced when the 

overstory trees are infected, causing not only a lateral, but also a vertical vector for spreading infection 

onto susceptible understory trees. Infected overstory trees are less likely to develop into mature trees as 

shown in Table 76, especially if the level of infection is severe (rated 5 or 6). Severe infection levels also 

serve as ladder fuel (facilitating transition from a low-intensity ground fire into a more lethal crown fire 

event), reduce the vigor of the older trees through competition, and make them more susceptible to attack 

from western and mountain pine beetle. These factors taken together reduce the potential for a stand to 

achieve LOS in the portion of the stand where the overstory infection occurs. 

 

25 Conversation with Hessburg at the Dry forest Workshop: Creating Stand-Level Prescriptions to Integrate 

Ecological & Fuel Management Objectives for Dry Forests of the Eastern Cascade Range, 2009.
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 263 of 528

Table 75. Trees/acre of Ponderosa Pines and 32-year Intensification in Relation to Original Dwarf Mistletoe 

Infection Rating Class and Diameter (from Hawksworth, 1990 on Arizona Ponderosa Pine)

Tree Diameter

Under 9 Inches in Diameter 9 inch Diameter and Over

1950 DMR Class Trees/acre Alive in 

1982

Mean DMR in 

1982

Trees/acre Alive in 

1982

Mean DMR in 

1982

0 88 1.8 199 1.1

1 19 4.3 53 3.7

2 14 5.1 40 4.9

3 4 5.5 25 5.2

4 2 6.0 16 5.4

5 0 - 15 5.8

6 0 - 3 6.0

Table 76. Trees/acre of Ponderosa Pines and Percent Survival after 11, 20, and 32 years in Relation to 

Original Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Rating Class and Diameter (from Hawksworth, 1990 on Arizona 

Ponderosa Pine)

Tree Diameter

Under 9 Inches in Diameter 9 Inches Diameter and Over

1950 

DMR 

Class

Trees/acre 

Alive in 

1982

Percent Alive Trees/acre 

Alive in 

1982

Percent Alive

1961 1970 1982 1961 1970 1982

0-1 119 99 97 90 259 98 98 97

2-3 42 90 81 43 78 91 90 83

4-5 15 60 40 13 93 82 63 33

6 6 16 16 0 58 48 36 5

Figure 37 illustrates growth of trees correlated to the dwarf mistletoe rating over the course of 100 years. 

(Growth rates from Hawksworth, USDA Agricultural Handbook 709, 1996). An assumed linear growth 

rate of an uninfected tree that takes 100 years to reach 21 inches is compared to expected growth rates of 

differing DMR severity. Dwarf mistletoe not only reduces the number of trees that reach 21 inches but 

also increases the time for individual trees to reach that size. 

Figure 37. Relative Growth of Ponderosa Pine of Differing Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Ratings

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tree Diameter

Decade

Uninfected

DMR 4

DMR 5

DMR 6
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 264 of 528

Figure 38. Surveyed Dwarf Mistletoe Presence and Severity in the Rim-Paunina Project 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 265 of 528

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the progression of dwarf mistletoe in infected stands would continue and likely 

spread to currently uninfected stands. Infected stands would continue to have increased susceptibility to 

western and mountain pine beetle due to reduced vigor induced by dwarf mistletoe. 

Using the 1990 Hawksworth research and the dwarf mistletoe rating, predicted growth and mortality rates 

over time were extrapolated for surveyed trees in the Rim-Paunina project area. Table 77 shows the 

number of ponderosa pine trees 21 inches and larger in the survey areas with predicted survival; notice 

the mortality rate of large trees with a dwarf mistletoe rating of 4 to 6. The loss of these trees would 

mean a decrease in LOS conditions.

Table 77. Predicted Survival of Surveyed Ponderosa Pine Trees 21 Inches and Greater with Dwarf Mistletoe 

by DMR Rating in the Rim-Paunina Project Area

Year Dwarf Mistletoe Rating

0-1 2-3 4-5 6

2010 5,327 4,293 2,660 1,140

2020 5,220 3,907 2,181 547

2030 5,220 3,863 1,676 410

2040 5,167 3,563 878 57

Table 78 displays trees per acre from surveys in the Rim-Paunina area by size class and predicted 

mortality. Within the nine to 21 inch size class, notice the mortality rate of trees in the higher dwarf 

mistletoe ratings; approximately two out of five would not survive to the third decade. These are the trees 

that would be in line to replace the large trees (21 inches or greater) in the near term and provide LOS 

conditions. Trees measuring nine inches and under are the most vulnerable to mistletoe infection, are the 

most likely to be infected from the overstory, and are trees that are important for achieving sizes of 21 

inches and over in the long term.

Table 78. Mistletoe-infected Ponderosa Pine Predicted Survival by DMR and Size Class in the Rim-Paunina 

Project Area

Tree Diameter

Under 9 Inches in Diameter 9-21 Inches Diameter and Over

DMR 

Class

Trees/

acre 

Alive in 

2010

Number Predicted Alive Trees/

acre Alive 

in 2010

Number Predicted Alive

2020 2030 2040 2020 2030 2040

0-1 137 136 133 123 17 17 17 16

2-3 27 24 22 12 9 8 8 7

4-5 53 32 21 7 12 10 8 4

6 6 1 1 0 3 1 1 0

Alternatives B and C

Alternatives B and C would reduce the density of Ponderosa Pine on 2,593 acres of severely infected 

stands using commercial thinning (HTH) without removing any trees over 21 inches. Trees with 

moderate to high mistletoe rating would be preferentially removed but many infected trees would remain 

resulting in a rating of “moderate” effectiveness in comparison to the other action alternatives. None of 

the action alternatives would improve the mortality rate of the infected trees 21 inches and greater. 

Although density reduction would have the potential to increase available resources such as sunlight and 

water (and thus a slight improvement in prolonging mortality), for the larger trees the effect would be so 

small that the difference between alternatives is not meaningful. Similarly, although small diameter 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Forested Vegetation

Page 266 of 528

thinning and prescribed burning would have some tangible benefits on 3,000 acres of infected stands on 

Walker Rim for reducing risk associated with an unwanted wildfire event, it would not appreciably

change the growth or mortality rate of infected stands. 

Barrett and Roth (1986) found that by regulating stand density, trees in even-aged stands are able to 

tolerate light to medium levels of dwarf mistletoe and grow at or near rates of uninfected trees. Although 

the site potential of the Barrett and Roth study in central Oregon was likely more productive than areas 

selected for treatment in the Rim-Paunina area, there would be benefits to thinning in Alternatives B and 

C. In light to moderately infected stands the results may not release the trees to grow at or near 

uninfected rates, but it would slow down the progression of infection and somewhat maintain 

achievement and recruitment of LOS. In the most severely infected stands, thinning would delay the 

inevitable loss of LOS on approximately 2,593 acres. Uneven-aged stands found in the Rim-Paunina area 

as opposed to the even-aged conditions found in the Barrett and Roth study would also temper expected 

results. 

Alternative D

Alternative D would use a group selection (HSG) prescription to address 2,593 acres of mistletoe 

infection. Under the HSG prescription, two to five acre openings would be placed in the most effective 

places where sources of reinfection, as well as the number of trees 21 inches and over to be cut, are both 

minimized. Ponderosa pine seedlings would then be planted in a relative mistletoe-free environment. 

This would occur on approximately 30 percent of infected stands, or 778 acres. The remaining ‘light’ to 

‘moderate’ infected stands (1,815 acres), would be treated using an HTH prescription similar to 

Alternatives B and C. Alternative D responds to Key Issue #2 by focusing on the long term for whiteheaded woodpecker habitat. While Alternatives A, B, and C do not adequately address the potential gapin-time that can span decades before larger trees are available in severely infected areas, Alternative D 

would shorten this gap by breaking the cycle of infection in the most severely infected areas. The 

effectiveness for this strategy is categorized as “high”.

Alternative E

Alternative E responds to Key Issue #2 by taking a different approach to the most heavily-infected 

mistletoe stands than Alternative D. All infected trees less than 21 inches would be removed and an 

ecologically appropriate non-host species would be planted within the infection radius of the remaining 

infected trees over 21 inches to prevent spread. This would be accomplished on approximately 1,920 of 

the most seriously infected acres, which were determined during field survey in 2010. To minimize the 

continued cycle of mistletoe “raining” down from remaining infected trees 21 inches and greater, several 

techniques could be used to hasten their mortality and providing recruitment for snags. Depending on site 

specific appropriateness, prescribed fire or other methods such as mechanical shearing or blasting could 

be used. An additional 586 acres of ‘light’ to ‘moderate’ infected stands would be treated using an HTH 

prescription similar to Alternatives B and C.

The effectiveness for this strategy is categorized as “high”. Table 79 summarizes the composite ranking 

of dwarf mistletoe treatment effectiveness, by alternative, with a ranking of 1 indicating the most 

effective alternative.
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Forested Vegetation

Page 267 of 528

Table 79. Composite Ranking of Dwarf Mistletoe Treatment Effectiveness by Alternative 

Alternative Vegetative 

Prescription Acres treated Effectiveness Composite Ranking

B

Commercial 

Thinning (HTH) 2,593 Moderate 3

C

Commercial 

Thinning (HTH) 2,593 Moderate 3

D

Group selections 

(HSG) 778 High

2

Commercial 

Thinning (HTH) 1,815 Moderate

E

Alternative 

Mistletoe 

Treatment 

(AltMist)

1,920 High

1

Commercial 

Thinning (HTH) 586 Moderate

Cumulative Effects

Past timber harvests of various forms and fire exclusion have affected forested vegetation in the RimPaunina area. Meanwhile, tree growth, ecological succession, disturbance, and other processes have 

continued to act upon the landscape. Over time this has made it impossible to separate out the specific 

effects of any one event. The total of these effects is reflected in the current condition and it’s relation to 

the Historic Range of Variability (HRV) and is further explained in the HRV part of this section. 

No foreseeable future actions are expected to affect forested vegetation in any Rim-Paunina treatment 

units. The Crescent Ranger District annually authorizes a district-wide precommercial thinning program 

of roughly 500 acres/yr. Some as yet unimplemented thinning units from prior years overlap with the 

Rim-Paunina project area. In the event that a precommercial thinning unit overlaps with a Rim-Paunina 

treatment unit, management activities would only be conducted once, creating no cumulative effect on the 

ground. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 268 of 528

Fire and Fuels Management

The following is the specialist report provided in its entirety. Records of the modeling performed for this 

analysis are found in the administrative record at the Crescent Ranger District. The goal of fuels 

reduction activities is to reduce the undesired effects of a wildfire within the project area; which includes 

increasing fire suppression options with strategies and tactics to reduce risk to life, property, and 

important resources such as nesting habitat for the white-headed woodpecker. The goal is also to 

facilitate a low-intensity frequent fire regime in appropriate stands within the area, which is made up of 

one of the most contiguous large and fire resistant stands of ponderosa pine on the Ranger District. 

The strategy within the Rim-Paunina area would be a landscape approach to strategically target stands 

with techniques to lower the fire behavior characteristics. This would be accomplished by vegetation 

manipulation of the entire fuels stratum which includes surface fuels, canopy base height, crown density, 

and shifting stand composition towards retention of fire resistant trees. This tactic to reduce the entire 

fuel stratum to achieve overall lower fire behavior characteristics is supported by Agee and Skinner

(2005). An integrated vegetative prescription that reduces surface fuels, rearranges the continuity, and

lowers flame lengths can reduce rates of spread. Coupled with elevation of the canopy base height and 

removal of ladder fuels, ground fires are more likely to remain on the forest floor and not transition to a 

much more lethal crown fire event. If a fire gets into the crowns of trees, it is a desired stand condition to 

limit the extent of the event to single trees and not a sustained and widespread episode. Reduction of the 

canopy bulk density or simply spacing the crowns of trees farther apart inhibits initiation of such an event 

(Agee 2002; Hessburg and Agee 2003).

Within areas that are indicated for active management, the specific fuels–related prescriptions include:

To reduce canopy bulk density and ladder fuels, thin trees less than eight inches in diameter 

with a minimum spacing of 18 feet if no larger trees are present. This approximates 135 trees per 

acre of smaller diameter trees. Also, prune remaining trees to a maximum of eight feet canopy 

base height and/or retain at least a third of the crown.

To reduce surface fuel loading and break up fuel continuity, several stages of hazard 

reduction activities would be completed with the end result of prescribed underburning in 

appropriate stands. First, removal and utilization of any available forest products such as post 

and pole material, firewood, or biomass would be encouraged in excess of down wood 

requirements. After utilization, piling by grapple on existing skid trails and landings would occur 

mostly in activity units where small diameter thinning occurs. One pass off existing skid trails is 

allowed in areas of high concentrations of slash. In visual corridors along Highways 58 and 97 

and where brush reduction is required prior to introduction of prescribed underburning, slash 

mastication by low pressure and tracked machines would occur. Handpiling of activity-generated 

slash would occur on the rim units and steeper slopes where machinery is not desired. The final 

step would be careful application of prescribed underburning in appropriate stands which also 

favors retention of fire resistant species. 

In units that are deficient in down woody material, slash would be lopped and scattered.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 269 of 528

Down Wood Requirements 

The intent is to retain all existing levels of down wood nine inches and greater in all Plant Association 

Groups26. Only activity-created slash below these diameters would be piled and utilized or disposed. The 

minimum pile size is 6 feet by 6 feet by 4 feet in handpile units. This requirement can be waived if sitespecific monitoring determines adequate levels of down wood are met in all units regardless of location. 

While retaining down wood in place is preferred, it is recognized that some manipulation may be needed 

to meet stand prescription objectives. In all units, down wood may be manipulated (shifted, clumped, 

grouped, driven over, etc.) only as necessary to meet objectives. In all units, if sufficient size classes are 

not present, then the largest available down logs would be substituted.

Walker Range Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)

Signed in January of 2012, the Walker Range Fire Protection District Community Fire Plan in Northern 

Klamath County is a partnership between local, state, and federal agencies, community organizations, and 

individuals. It is used to identify wildfire risks, develop priorities for funding, and develop programs to 

reduce the risk of wildfires to citizens and communities in Northern Klamath County. These include 

communities and surrounding areas of the Crescent, Crescent-Odell Lakes, Chemult, Oregon Outback 

Rural Fire Protection Districts, and the Walker Range Fire Patrol Association. Although reducing the 

threat of wildland fire is the primary motivation behind this plan, managing the forests and rangelands for 

hazardous fuel reduction and fire resilience is only one part of the larger picture. Residents and visitors 

have said they want healthy, fire-resilient forests that provide habitat for wildlife, recreation opportunities, 

and scenic beauty (CWPP 2005). 

The goals of the Walker Range Community Wildfire Protection Plan are to increase public understanding 

of living in a fire-adapted ecosystem, instill a sense of personal responsibility for taking preventative 

actions regarding wildland fire, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and improve the landscape’s fire 

resilience while protecting other social and ecological values. To achieve these goals, the plan includes 

the following objectives to assess the risk and hazard of wildland fire on all lands within the plan 

boundary: 1) identify priorities for fuel reduction projects; 2) examine emergency operations within the 

plan area and identify areas to improve community response and preparedness for wildland fire; 3) create 

an action plan that prioritizes actions to reduce hazardous fuels; 4) enhance emergency response; and 5) 

strengthen public education and prevention activities.

The plan covers all lands and ownerships within the boundaries of the plan area, which includes the RimPaunina project area. Adjacent to the Rim-Paunina project area, there are five communities-at-risk. A 

community-at-risk is an interface community (as defined in the Federal Register notice of January 4, 

2001) or a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities and 

collectively maintained transportation routes) in or adjacent to federal land, which has conditions 

conducive to large-scale wildland fire or faces a significant threat to human life or property as a result of a 

wildland fire (USDA Forest Service, DOI Bureau of Land Management 2004). There is a small amount 

of Wildland Urban Interface overlap with the project area. Also, due to relatively recent fuels reduction 

activities in these WUI areas, there are few acres within the Rim-Paunina area proposed for treatment.

Table 80. Communities-at-Risk in the Rim-Paunina Project Area 

Schoonover and Vicinity 

Cluster

Two Rivers North/Little 

Deschutes River Cluster

Cascade Estates Two Rivers North

Marsha Way

Schoonover

Tall Pines

 

26 Minimum down wood requirements are Plant Association Group specific for dependent wildlife species. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 270 of 528

Figure 39. Walker Range Community Wildfire Protection Plan Area

The following are terms and definitions used in this analysis in the discussion of fuels and suppression:

Fuels

The term “fuels” refers to the vegetative material, both living and dead, that is capable of carrying a fire 

across a landscape. Fuels can include conifer needles, fallen limbs, and slash remaining after timber 

harvest, living trees with crowns that are close to the ground, and standing dead or fallen trees. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 271 of 528

Canopy Base Height: The height above the ground of the first canopy layer where the density of the 

crown mass within the layer is high enough to support vertical movement of a fire. Low canopy base 

heights have been shown to initiate crown fire behavior (Alexander 1988).

Canopy Bulk Density: The mass of canopy fuel per unit of canopy volume. The critical canopy bulk 

density required to sustain a crown fire is measured at 0.0069 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3) per acre 

(Sando and Wick 1972; Harrod et al. 1998). Contemporary stands, such as those in the Rim-Paunina 

area, can be as high as 1,400 percent of the critical threshold value.

Extended Attack: When a fire has not been contained by the initial attack resources dispatched to the 

fire, will not have been contained within the management objectives that are established for that zone or 

area, and has not been contained within the first operational period. Wildland and Prescribed Fire 

Management Policy-Implementation Procedures Reference Guide (Run Cards).

Initial Attack: Initial attack is the fire suppression effort that takes place as soon as possible following a 

wildland fire report. Initial attack is conducted by preplanned suppression resources; the type and number 

of available resources change depending on the fire danger of the day. More information on initial attack 

resources can be found in the Wildland and Prescribed Fire Management Policy-Implementation 

Procedures Reference Guide (Run Cards).

Ladder Fuels: Fuels that provide vertical continuity between the ground and tree crowns, thus creating a 

pathway for a surface fire to move into the overstory tree crowns (R8-TP-11, 1989).

Trees per Acre: The number of trees of a specific diameter on an acre of land. Small diameter trees 

contribute to fire behavior.

Fuel Models: Fuel models are a tool used to standardize discussion of fuel conditions on a landscape. 

Fuel conditions, defined by quantity and arrangement, have been categorized into 40 standard descriptive 

fuel models (Scott and Burgan 2005).

Fire Regime 

Because of the controversy and simplicity of using Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) (Morrison and 

Smith 2005), FRCC was not used as the primary basis for decision making. However, fire regimes were 

used as a reference condition to determine ecological capability and departure. 

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 (historical) fire regimes have been 

developed by Hardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et al. (2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels management 

by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The five natural (historical) fire regimes are classified based on average 

number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of replacement) of the 

fire on the dominant overstory vegetation.

These five regimes include:

I – 0-35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity;

II – 0-35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity;

III – 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity;

IV – 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity; and

V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 272 of 528

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a measure for ecological trends and not a hazard metric. It is 

useful for comparing existing to reference conditions and the role of fire to the disturbance process. 

FRCC is performed for large scales at a watershed or larger. To draw conclusions on a stand basis would 

not be an accurate use of FRCC. A Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a landscape classification 

that describes the amount of departure from the natural (historical) fire regime. It includes three condition 

classes for each fire regime. This departure results in changes to one (or more) of the following 

ecological components: 

• Vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, 

and mosaic pattern);

• Fuel composition;

• Fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and

• Other associated disturbances (e.g. insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought).

The three condition classes are based on low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 2), and high (FRCC 3) 

departure from the central tendency of the natural regime. These are determined on a large landscape 

scale and are not appropriate at the stand level. 

Low departure is considered to be within the natural range of variability, while moderate and high

departures are outside. Characteristic vegetation and fuel conditions are considered to be those that 

occurred within the natural fire regime. Uncharacteristic conditions are considered to be those that did 

not occur within the natural fire regime. Determination of amount of departure is based on comparison of 

a composite measure of fire regime attributes, as listed above. Table 81 displays the Fire Regime 

Condition Classes, their descriptions, and the risk potential associated with each condition.

Table 81. Fire Regime Condition Classes 

Fire Regime

Condition 

Class

Description Potential Risk

Condition 

Class 1

Within the natural (historical 

range of variability of vegetation 

characteristics; fuel 

composition; fire frequency, 

severity and pattern; and other 

associated disturbances.

• Fire behavior, effects, and other associated

disturbances are similar to those that occurred prior 

to fire exclusion (suppression) and other types of 

management that do not mimic the natural fire 

regime and associated vegetation and fuel 

characteristics.

• Composition and structure of vegetation and fuels 

are similar to the natural (historical) regime.

• Risk of loss of key ecosystem components (e.g. 

native species, large trees, and soil) is low.

• Fire behavior, effects, and other associated

disturbances are moderately departed (more or less 

severe).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 273 of 528

Fire Regime

Condition 

Class

Description Potential Risk

Condition 

Class 2

Moderate departure from the 

natural (historical) regime of 

vegetation characteristics; fuel 

composition; fire frequency, 

severity and pattern; and other 

associated disturbances.

• Fire behavior, effects, and other associated 

disturbances are moderately departed (more or less

severe).

• Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel 

are moderately altered.

• Uncharacteristic conditions range from low to 

moderate.

• Risk of loss of key ecosystem components is 

moderate.

• Fire behavior, effects, and other associated 

disturbances are highly departed (more or less 

severe).

Condition 

Class 3

High departure from the natural 

(historical) regime of vegetation 

characteristics; fuel 

composition; fire frequency, 

severity and pattern; and other 

associated disturbances.

• Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel 

are highly altered.

• Uncharacteristic conditions range from moderate 

to high.

• Risk of loss of key ecosystem components is high.

The following fuel models were identified within the Rim-Paunina area.

Table 82. Fuel Models within the Rim-Paunina Project 

Fuel Model Description

TL3 (183) Mixed Conifer, 

Lodgepole Pine and 

Mountain Hemlock

The primary carrier of fire in TL3 is moderate load conifer litter, light load of coarse 

fuels. Spread rate is very low (0-2 ch/hr; flame length low (1-4’).

TL4 (184) Lodgepole Pine

The primary carrier of the fire is a moderate load of fine litter and small diameter 

downed logs. Spread rate is low (2-5 ch/hr); flame length low (1-4’).

TL5 (185) Mixed Conifer

The primary carrier of fire in TL5 is high load conifer litter; light slash or mortality 

fuel. Spread rate is low (2-5 ch/hr); flame length low (1-4’).

TL6(186) Ponderosa Pine

The primary carrier of the fire is moderate load long needle litter. Spread rate is 

moderate (5-20 ch/hr); Flame length is low (1-4’).

TL9 (189) Ponderosa Pine

The primary carrier of fire in TL9 is very high load, fluffy broadleaf litter. TL9 can 

also be used to represent heavy needle-drape. Spread rate is moderate (5-20 ch/hr); 

flame length moderate (4 – 8’).

Fuels Conditions Current and Historic by Plant Association Group within the Project Area

Ponderosa Pine

15,522 acres (39 percent of the planning area)

Fire Regime I Condition Class II 

Important changes have occurred in these forests since 1900 due to several factors, but mainly due to fire 

exclusion policies. Nonlethal fire has decreased while lethal fire has increased. The general result has 

been a shift of the composition of tree species from fire tolerant to fire intolerant and the biophysical 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 274 of 528

environment of stands has changed from large trees and single strata to large trees and multiple strata. 

Overly dense stands competing for limited water and nutrients has resulted in slow growth and poor 

vigor. Growth stagnation has rendered the dominant trees highly vulnerable to mortality in epidemics of 

bark beetles, defoliating insects, diseases such as dwarf mistletoe, and various root rots (Biondi 1996; 

Byler and Zimmer-Grove 1991; Cochran and Barrett 1998). These successional changes have resulted in 

a buildup of understory or ladder fuels that facilitate less lethal ground fires to more easily transition into 

more lethal and sustained stand-replacing crown fires. Coupled with the normally dry climate and 

frequent lightning- and human-caused ignitions, this has resulted in a dramatic increase of severe 

wildfires in the ponderosa pine type in recent decades (Arno 1996; Williams 1995). 

Prior to 1900 ponderosa pine communities experienced frequent fires as a result of highly combustible 

leaf litter, an abundance of cured herbaceous vegetation, and a long season of favorable burning weather. 

Stands had an open, park-like appearance, dominated by large old, fire-resistant trees. Shrubs, understory 

trees, and downed logs were sparse, as testified to by dozens of historical photographs and narrative 

accounts (Cooper 1960; Leiberg 1899; Wickman 1992).

The most comprehensive fire history for the Pacific Northwest ponderosa pine series is based on data 

from the vicinity of Bend, Oregon (Bork 1985). Fire historically reduced dwarf mistletoe infection by 

pruning dead branches and consuming individual tree crowns that had low-hanging witches’ brooms 

(Harrington and Hawksworth 1990; Koonce and Roth 1980). Non-sprouting shrubs, such as bitterbrush,

that used to be much more limited in cover because of frequent underburning are now widespread. 

Although bitterbrush can sprout after light spring burning (Martin and Driver 1983), fire often kills it. 

Frequent light burning allowed bunchgrasses and most forbs to recover rapidly (Wright et al. 1979), so 

herbaceous vegetation dominated the understory. The natural landscape pattern of ponderosa pine forests 

was seemingly unbroken parkland of widely spaced tree clumps and continuous herbaceous understory 

(Agee 1994; Gruell et al. 1982). In most stands, duff depth probably averaged only about half an inch 

(Keane et al. 1990).

It is commonly recognized that wildfires are a natural and desirable characteristic of forested landscapes, 

especially on the east slope of the Cascade Range (Agee 1994). Although this condition has changed as 

evidenced in several recent fires on the Deschutes National Forest, fires in ponderosa pine and dry, 

mixed-conifer forests historically burned fine fuels (e.g. grasses and litter on the forest floor) at regular 

intervals. These surface fires rarely killed large, fire resistant trees, but did kill smaller trees of all 

species, thereby helping to maintain sparse, open stands (Noss et al. 2006 pg 482 citing Veblen et al. 

2000; Eyerdahl et al. 2001; Stephens and Collins 2004). 

Lodgepole Pine

17,204 acres (43 percent of the planning area)

Fire Regime III Condition Class II

Sierra lodgepole pine, which is very similar to the lodgepole pine in central Oregon, is fire sensitive 

(Atzet et al. 1990; Rundel et al. 1977). After stand-replacing fire, it typically establishes from winddispersed seed. Agee (1981) reported that establishment of lodgepole pine in Crater Lake National Park

Oregon, was favored by fires of moderate to high severity. Fire-return intervals in lodgepole pine forests 

vary. On the eastern slope where drier conditions prevail, such fires may occur at intervals of less than 20 

years (Atzet et al. 1990). Stand-replacing fires are related to insect attacks, particularly by mountain pine 

beetle, and declining vigor and high fuel loading in older stands (Atzet et al. 1990; Dickman and Cook 

1989; Heinrichs 1983). Currently, the Crescent Ranger District is bordered by a wide scale mountain pine 

beetle infestation event in lodgepole pine to the north and south along the Cascade Mountain Crest. 

Mortality is most evident from Diamond/Crater Lake north through the Three Creeks area (Sisters) up to 

Mount Jefferson and west to the Willamette National Forest. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 275 of 528

In this moderate severity fire regime, a typical disturbance scenario includes selective removal of about a 

third of the stands every 60 years, either by insects, fire, or a combination of the two (Agee 1994). Stuart 

(1984) documented a 60-year fire return interval on the Fremont National Forest. Agee (1981) also found 

a 60-year interval at Crater Lake National Park, and Chappell (1991) found a 40-year fire return interval 

in a California red fir (Abies magnifica A. Murr.) forest directly adjacent to a lodgepole pine flat. The 

magnitude of natural fires ranges from crown fires to “cigarette burns,” where fires slowly burn along 

jackstrawed log corridors composed of beetle-killed trees (Agee 1994).

Mixed conifer 

7,135 acres (18 percent of the project area)

Fire Regime IV Condition Class II

This is a diverse group of forests that have a stand-replacement fire regime and are dispersed throughout 

much of the Interior West, usually at middle elevations in the mountains. In the Rim-Paunina area, most 

are on the slope of the rim with a western aspect. Principal tree species are white fir and grand fir 

(potential climax), interior Douglas-fir (seral or climax), and larch, lodgepole pine, and aspen (early seral 

associates). In the project area, white, ponderosa and sugar pine are also a component. These forests 

commonly develop dense stands with accumulations of ladder fuels and they often occupy steep slopes on 

cool aspects. The forest floor fuels are primarily a compact duff layer that does not support low-intensity 

surface fires. However, stands within the Rim-Paunina area more closely resemble the ponderosa pine 

biophysical environment. When down woody or ladder fuels accumulate and severe burning conditions 

arise, they can support a stand replacing surface or crown fire. Such fires occurred at intervals averaging 

between 70 and 200 years. Similar compositional types in other geographic areas or on different 

topographic situations are associated with mixed fire regimes. 

The relative amounts of these types in mixed and stand-replacement fire regimes are unknown (Brown et 

al. 1994). Also, the factors that determine whether one of these forests would have a mixed or standreplacement regime is not known, but lack of receptiveness of surface fuels to burning, characteristically 

dense stands, steep slopes, and frequent strong winds probably favor the stand-replacement fire regime.

Photo comparison and fire history studies suggest that fire exclusion has allowed a greater proportion of 

these inland forests on the landscape to develop as dense stands. The spatial continuity of these stands 

may allow insect and disease epidemics and stand-replacement fires to become larger than in the past 

(Arno and Brown 1991; Byler and Zimmer-Grove 1991; Gruell 1983). At the same time seral grassland 

species, shrubs, aspen, and seral conifers are being replaced by thickets of shade tolerant conifers, as 

evidenced in Rim-Paunina unit 621 with the loss of aspen and other unique herbaceous species. 

Table 83 displays the current condition of fuels in the plant association groups (PAGs) most frequently 

found in the Rim-Paunina analysis area. For a detailed description of the species and plant association 

groups present, refer to the “Forested Vegetation” section of Chapter 3.

All past activities have been included in this description and subsequent modeling. 

Historic Fire Weather and Fire Occurrence 

This section of the fuels analysis was conducted using FireFamily Plus computer model. FireFamily Plus 

is a software system for summarizing and analyzing historical daily fire weather observations and 

computing fire danger indices based on the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS). Historic 

weather observations and wildland fire data were obtained for 1991 to 2004 for the Deschutes National 

Forest. All data inputs were collected from the project area and can be found within the project file. 

The current condition of eastside forests is markedly different from the historic condition of the 

landscape, and recent wildfires are showing an increasing tendency to become “problem fires.” 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 276 of 528

Table 83. Summary of Existing Forest Structure in the Rim-Paunina Project Area 

Ponderosa Pine Lodgepole Pine Mixed Conifer

Total Acres 15,522 17,204 7,135

Fuel Model TL8 TL4 TL5

Canopy Bulk 

Density27 ~.0104 lb/ft3

/ac ~.0161 lb/ft3/ac ~.0161 lb/ft3/ac

Fire Regime 

Condition Class I/2 III/2 IV/2

Fire Behavior Active Crown Active Crown Active Crown

Canopy Base 

Height

1’ (60%) 

6’ (40%)

1’ (80%) 

3’ (20%)

1’ (60%) 

6’ (40%)

Trees Per Acre 

<6” Diameter 

(average)

600 2100 1400

Fire Danger Rating 

Historical Fire Danger is based on weather conditions and probability analysis using the National Fire 

Danger Rating System (NFDRS) fuel model G, (Short Needle Pine, Heavy Dead) with standard model 

fuel loadings. The primary carriers of a fire in this fuel type are the heavy ground fuels. The fire season 

for the National Forests in Oregon has historically been from May 1 to October 31. The Energy Release 

Component of fires for the fire seasons from 1991 to 2004 were analyzed, and the average number of 

days in each Fire Danger Rating category was calculated (Table 84).

Table 84. Average Days of Oregon Fire Season by Fire Danger Rating (1991-2004)

Fire Danger

Rating28

Number of Days in 

Season Percent

Low 23 16%

Moderate 69 48%

High 41 29%

Extreme 10 7%

Fire Size

Table 85 displays the historical fire occurrence by class, number, and acres consumed from 1980 through 

2007. “A” fires are zero to 0.25 acres, “B” fires are 0.26 to 9.9 acres, “C” fires are 10 to 99.9 acres, “D” 

fires are 100 to 299.9 acres, “E” fires are 300 to 999.0, “F” fires are 1,000 to 3,000 acres, and “G” fires 

are over 3,000 acres. A vast majority of fires in the project area (see Table 85) are between 0.25 and 9.9 

acres in size as determined by using ArcMap data for the period from 1980 through 2007. The only 

recent large fire within the Rim-Paunina project area was approximately 100 acres along Highway 97 and 

caused by the railroad in 1978. 

Table 85. Historical Fire Occurrence in the Rim-Paunina Area by Class, Number, and Acres Consumed 

from 1980 through 2007 

Class Number of Fires Acres Consumed

A 91 9

B 18 14

 

27 The critical canopy bulk density required to sustain a crown fire is measured at 0.0069 pounds per cubic foot 

(lb/ft3) per acre.

28 Based on the Energy Release Component (ERC) which is an NFDRS output estimating potential available energy 

released per unit area in the flaming front of a fire.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 277 of 528

Fire Cause 

Lightning is the leading cause of fire and was associated with nearly 60 percent of fire starts from 1980 to 

2007 (Figure 40). 

Figure 40. Leading Causes of Fire between 1980 to 2007

Problem Fires

Problem fires are wildfires that, because of extreme fire behavior, present a high risk to human safety and 

loss of forest resources. Generally, fire behavior includes:

Rates of spread greater than 12 chains/hour (800 ft/hour)

Active crown fire; and

Flame lengths greater than eight feet.

Problem fires limit suppression strategy and tactic options because:

Rates of spread are so high that the fire cannot be contained by initial attack suppression 

personnel.

Crown fires cannot be attacked directly; suppression personnel must use indirect tactics with 

burnout operations or wait until the crown fire drops back to the ground and meets appropriate 

flame length and rate of spread criteria before direct attack can be initiated.

Flame lengths greater than four feet are too intense for direct attack and handlines cannot be 

relied on to hold fire.

Flame lengths greater than eight feet may present serious control problems so that control efforts 

at the head of the fire will probably be ineffective.

Other management issues associated with problem fire are:

Problem fires pose a high risk to public and firefighter safety.

Problem fires have the potential to create extensive resource damage.

Problem fires require multiple days and/or months to contain and control and are very expensive 

to manage.

61

4

17

10

0

3

7 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of fires
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 278 of 528

The 2003 Davis Fire is a recent example of a local problem fire. Situated on the Crescent Ranger District,

it was fueled by vegetative conditions that are similar to those present over much of the Rim-Paunina 

project area. The Davis Fire was human-caused; the ignition location was in the West Davis Lake 

dispersed camping area, and it started relatively early in the fire season (June 28). It nearly burned into 

the community of La Pine, Oregon, and was essentially stopped by Wickiup Reservoir and actions by 

firefighters at the edge of Wickiup Acres, a small community. Suppression costs on the Davis Fire were 

in excess of eight million dollars. It is estimated that at its most extreme, the Davis Fire had flame 

lengths of up to 50’ and burned several miles in length in less than an hour. Suppression activities went 

on for 12 weeks before firefighters could contain it, and continued for another two weeks before control 

could be declared. The fire burned about 21,000 acres with complete mortality of vegetation over 

approximately 80 percent of the fire area. While hemlock burned within historic conditions during the 

Davis Fire, ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (typically fire-resistant species) and lodgepole pine stands in 

the fire area experienced much higher mortality than is typical under historic conditions.

Fire Severity The following figure (Figure 41) shows a change in fire severity between historic (pre1900) and current conditions (post 1900) for Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

administered forested potential vegetation groups in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins (Quigley et al.1996). 

Figure 41. A Comparison of Historic and Current Fire Severity 

Predicted Fire Behavior 

To show fire behavior comparisons between the fuel models and fuel loads, weather inputs and 

topographic inputs must be consistent. Black Rock is a Remote Automatic Weather Station (RAWS) and 

its observations were used because it is the closest and the most reflective of weather conditions within 

the project area. FireFamily Plus was used to analyze weather observations from the Black Rock weather 

station from 1991 to 2004. Weather observations at the 98th percentile ranking29 were obtained for this 

analysis to calculate extreme fire behavior. Table 86 displays weather data used to calculate outputs for 

comparative fire behavior runs:

 

29 The 98th percentile weather observation is the weather conditions which yields extreme (98th) fire danger ratings. 

Davis Fire Burn Severity Actual and Historical

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Lethal Nonlethal Lethal Nonlethal

Davis Fire Historical

% of area burned

Davis Fire Lethal

Davis Fire Nonlethal

Historical Lethal

Historical Nonlethal

Columbia River Basin Study Fire Regimes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lethal Mixed Nonlethal

Historic

Current

Percent of Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 279 of 528

Table 86. Modeled Inputs for Fire Behavior in the Rim-Paunina Project Area 

Flammap31 describes three different kinds of wildfire behavior:

1.-Surface fire that is carried primarily by surface fuels and remains on the ground

2.-Passive crown fire that can torch individual or small groups of trees, but is driven by a surface 

fire

3.-Active crown fire that produces a solid flaming front in the crowns of trees but can be 

independent of a surface fire.

Table 87. Existing Stand Characteristic by Plant Association Group (PAGs) Proposed for Treatment 

Ponderosa pine 

group

Mixed conifer 

group

Lodgepole pine 

group

Tons per Acre 32 31 28

Trees per acre < 6” Diameter 600 1400 2100

Bulk Density ~.0104 lb/ft3

~.0161 lb/ft3~.0161 lb/ft3

Canopy Base Height 1’ (60%) 6’ (40%) 1’ (80%) 3’ (20%) 1’ (60%) 6’ 

(40%)

Fuel Model TL9 TL5 TL4

Predicting Fire Behavior

Given information on fuel models and weather conditions, fire behavior can be predicted. It is assumed if 

the canopy base height is one foot or lower, surface fire flame lengths of one foot or greater would initiate 

a crown fire. Table 88 displays predicted fire behavior in the fuel models found in the Rim-Paunina

project area in three weather conditions. 

 

30 Also recorded weather witnessed during Davis Fire exhibiting extreme fire behavior 

31 Flammap is a model used to simulate fire runs with various fuel types and weather parameters

Fire Weather

1hr. fuel 

moisture 

(%)

10hr. fuel 

moisture 

(%)

100hr. 

fuel 

moisture 

(%)

1000hr. 

fuel 

moisture 

(%)

Herbaceous 

fuel 

moisture 

(%)

Woody 

fuel 

moisture 

(%)

Midflame 

wind 

speed 

(mph)

16-89th

Percentile 

(“Average” fire 

season 

weather)

5 6 12 13 45 89 2

90-97th

Percentile 

(“High” fire 

season 

weather)

3 4 8 9 33 70 2

98th

Percentile 

(Problem Fire 

Weather)30

2 3 7 9 33 70 17
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 280 of 528

Table 88. Predicted Fire Behavior Associated with Fuel Models in the Rim-Paunina Project Area 

Fuel 

Model

16-89th Percentile Weather 90-97th Percentile Weather 98th Percentile 

(Problem Fire)Weather

Flame 

Length

(ft)

Rate of

Spread

(chains/

hour)*

Fire 

Type

Flame 

Length

(ft)

Rate of

Spread

(chains/

hour)

Fire 

Type

Flame 

Length

(ft)

Rate of

Spread

(chains/

hour)

Fire Type

TL3 0.7 0.7 Surface 0.8 0.8 Surface 2.1 6.4

Active 

Crown

(6’CBH32

Surface)

TL4 0.9 0.9 Surface 1.0 1.1 Surface 3.1 11.9

Active 

Crown

(6’CBH 

Surface)

TL5 1.3 1.6 Surface 1.6 2.0 Surface 6.1 35.4 Active 

Crown

TL6 1.7 2.0 Surface 2.0 2.5 Surface 8.3 53.5 Active 

Crown

TL8 2.2 2.3 Surface 2.5 2.8 Surface 9.6 47.1 Active 

Crown

TL9 3.1 3.4 Surface 3.6 4.1 Surface 13.6 69.1 Active 

Crown

*One chain is 66 feet.

Resource Values at Risk in the Rim-Paunina Project Area 

The Rim-Paunina project area is composed of an approximately 40,000-acre watershed, 106 acres of 

which is private land. It also abuts the Gilchrist State Forest to the northeast.

The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan categorizes the Deschutes National Forest by 

Management Area. There is a mix of management areas within the project area, they include 

Management Area (MA) 8 (General Forest), MA-9 (Scenic Views), and MA-15 (Old Growth). The 

Desired Future Condition (DFC) of these lands would feature fire regimes back to their historic levels. 

Private land is composed of residences, old growth parcels managed by private ownership, and the newlycreated Gilchrist State Forest which was formerly intensively-managed timber owned by both private and 

industrial landholders.

Fuel Treatments within Ground-based Harvest units

Harvest activities would be accomplished by either yarding with top attached to top log or “whole tree”. 

Several stages of hazard reduction activities would be staged with the end result of prescribed 

underburning in appropriate stands. First, utilization of any available forest products such as post and 

pole material, firewood, or biomass would be encouraged in excess of down wood requirements. After 

utilization, piling by grapple or mastication/slashbusting would occur. Grapple piling would occur on 

existing skid trails and landings would occur mostly in activity units where small diameter thinning 

occurs. The amount of area unreachable by grapple depends on the skid trail spacing but it is estimated 

that 30 to 40 percent of each unit would not be reachable. Mowing/slashbusting would be allowed one 

pass off existing skid trails and landings. Typically low pressure and tracked machines would be utilized 

on existing slash and slashbusting would be utilized in visual corridors along the highways. The final 

step would be careful application of prescribed underburning in appropriate stands which also favors 

retention of fire resistant species. In some units, unmerchantable trees up to eight inches would be felled. 

 

32 CBH= Crown Base Height
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 281 of 528

Harvest activity is usually followed by post sale thinning of the smaller material which also reduces 

ladder fuels and lowers the overall density of the canopy.

Pruning of the remaining trees is proposed to reduce ladder fuels and increase crown base height of all 

trees. Pruning would be to a height of eight feet or one third of the crown height. It is anticipated that 

pruning would be applied to about 80 percent of each unit.

Prescribed fire would focus on reducing concentrations of dead and down material through piling with the

piles disposed by either removal or burning. Prescribed fire would also be applied to fire dependent 

ecosystems through underburning to reduce dead and down material and reintroduce fire into fire 

dependent ecosystems. It is anticipated that prescribed fire would be applied to about 80 percent of each 

unit.

Fuels Treatment Units where no Commercial Harvest occurs

The purpose of these fuel reduction treatments would be to alter fuel profiles on the surface and to 

increase the crown base height or vertical continuity of fuels to reduce the possible initiation of a crown 

fire event. The goal would be to restore fire tolerant stands to a low-intensity, frequent fire regime. 

Basically, two methods would be utilized and coded as “Fuels Only”. Integrated with the commercial 

fuel reduction activities, they have been strategically placed adjacent to private lands, the Gilchrist State 

Forest, and electronic facilities on Walker Rim. 

The first non-commercial activity would occur mostly on the Walker Rim units where slopes are over 30 

percent. Fuel reduction activities include hand felling of understory live trees up to eight inches in 

diameter. Also, removal of lower limbs (pruning) would occur on trees to a height of eight feet, or one 

third of the crown height on approximately 80 percent of each activity area. Handpiling and disposal of 

activity-generated slash would occur on the rim units and steeper slopes where machinery is not desired. 

Followed by prescribed underburning, the focus would be to reduce concentrations of dead and down 

material, or “jackpot” burning for stands that have missed several fire return intervals. 

The second activity to facilitate return of a frequent, low-intensity fire regime would be in stands that 

need very little preparation except for brush mastication prior to reintroduction of fire. In order to 

maintain fuels at the desired level and to remain effective through time, prescribed burning as a 

maintenance tool would be evaluated every 8-15 years after an appropriate National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) review. 

In units that are deficient in down woody material, slash would be lopped and scattered.

Direct and Indirect Effects

BehavePlus is a personal computer (PC) based application used to generate fire behavior outputs such as 

rate of spread, flame length, fireline intensity, tree mortality, and scorch height. The strength of this 

model is the ability to compare potential wildland fire behavior outputs among the fuel models and by 

weather conditions for each alternative. The outputs reported in this section describe the potential 

behavior of a single point ignition wildland fire which is free to burn and develop into a headfire which is 

also described in Table 88.

This analysis uses a (PC-based) two-dimensional fire growth model that calculates fire growth and 

behavior by searching for the set of pathways with minimum spread times from a point, line, or polygon 

ignition source, keeping environmental conditions (fuel moistures and winds) constant for the duration of 

the simulation. The model was run four hours for each alternative without suppression action to display a 

“real time” scenario when multiple ignitions are common and detection and suppression action may be 

delayed. The four-hour model displays which fires could be successfully suppressed with initial actions 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 282 of 528

and which fires would likely require an extended attack. This is the timeframe in which an Incident 

Commander can make an informed decision on the probability of a fire being contained with suppression 

resources on scene (Boucher pers. comm. 2006). The model also displays whether a fire has exceeded 

initial action and where the likely burn path is located. Fires that exceed initial action usually require 

days to contain, are expensive to suppress, are much more dangerous, and have the highest potential for 

resource loss. The ignition points were chosen randomly downwind of the treatment units. Weather 

conditions and fuel moistures were used to replicate the 2003 Davis Fire, a local example of a “problem 

fire” where suppression efforts were ineffective. Using observations from the Davis Fire weather, a 

midflame wind speed of 17 mph and a wind azimuth of 240 degrees were used. 

Alternative A 

Modeling for alternative A (Table 89) predicted a spread rate up to 87 feet per minute and a flame length 

up to 14 feet. From a landscape perspective, this places the identified resource values at the greatest risk. 

Using Flammap, modeling for all three weather conditions displayed a high intensity and severe fire 

behavior. It also showed favorable conditions for a sustained crown fire which typically causes mortality 

in most trees and shrubs in the wildfire’s path. This correlates with results experienced in the Davis Fire 

where approximately 80 percent of the trees within the timbered stands were killed (Powers pers. comm.

2006). As seen in other high-severity wildfires, few surface fuels exist because they are consumed and 

the stand is set back to an earlier successional stage. Following the wildfire event, for the first 5 to 10 

years, the fuel model would be either a shrub or timber litter model, dependent upon ceanothus 

establishing as the first pioneer species. Surface fuels would be comprised of large down wood, tree 

regeneration, and shrubs. Between 10 and 20 years when the fire-killed snags begin falling over, the fuel 

model would become a slash-blowdown fuel model. The canopy bulk density would not likely change 

over time. Dead and fallen trees would reduce the mass of canopy, but would be offset by the 

regeneration of young trees. This condition also maintains a static canopy base height.

Table 89. Potential Fire Behavior Outputs for Alternative A 

16%-89% Weather 90%-97% Weather 98%-Problem Fire Weather

TL4

LP

TL5

MC

TL8

PP

TL4

LP

TL5

MC

TL8

PP

TL4

LP

TL5

MC

TL8

PP

Flame 

Length 1’ 1’ 2’ 1’ 2’ 3’ 3’ 6’ 10’

Rate of 

Spread 

(CH./HR.

1.0 1.6 2.5 1.1 2.0 3.0 11.4 35.4 46

Fire Type Surface Surface Active Crown Active Crown
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 283 of 528

Figure 42. Results of Alternative A Fire Pathway Analysis

Under Alternative A, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. 

Response to environmental emergencies, such as suppression response to a wildfire would continue. The 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 284 of 528

condition class would continue to move from moderate to high departures from the central tendency of 

the historical regime. In Figure 42 notice the elongated pathway, particularly onto Walker Rim, the 

adjacent Gilchrist State Forest and private entities as compared to the Action Alternatives.

An important and safer suppression tactic of direct attack for flaming fronts of four feet high or less 

would not be an option under this scenario. This equates to a considerable decrease of firefighter and 

public safety as fire is more likely to become a crown fire and have long distance spotting, both of which 

provide little chance for a direct attack and limit suppression options. Also, over time, wildfire behavior 

is expected to become more severe as the landscape fuel profile continues to follow unaltered stand 

succession. Fire effects show an increase in tree mortality, soil exposure, and duff consumption. All 

three major stand types would shift toward a TU5 and TL9. TU fuel models is forest litter in combination 

with herbaceous or shrub fuels and TL fuel models is dead and downed woody fuels.

Fire Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Timing of Slash Cleanup

In general, harvest and temporary road building operations break up the continuity of fuels strata resulting 

in a reduction of fire severity. However, there may be an elevated level of fine fuels (one year or less) in 

the short-term between harvest operations and post-harvest activities. The primary risk in these areas 

would be from a human-caused ignition. Typically, during the summer months, contract operations are 

suspended during the times of highest industrial fire precaution levels, or mitigated through additional 

equipment on site, shut down times, and fire patrol. Historical records have shown that risk of a fire 

ignition as a result of harvest operations is much lower than from the recreating public, and should a fire 

result, a successful suppression is much more likely due to equipment and personnel on site. This risk 

was accounted for in the modeling; specifically the human-caused ignitions. 

Thinned stands of trees can have a shortened time lag for drying fuels and potential increases in surface 

winds relative to more closed stands. This effect becomes less of a factor for fire behavior as 

summertime weather progresses. Although closed stands take longer to reach low fuel moistures than 

open sites, as less moisture recovery occurs in July, August, and September, fuel moistures in closed 

stands reach equilibrium with open sites relatively quickly. When this occurs, crown-driven wildfires are 

much easily initiated. The closed sites have more available flammable fuel due to higher levels of 

biomass across the fuels strata and live tree fuel moisture at its lowest level. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would implement activities on a total of 12,036 acres, facilitating a return of an appropriate 

frequent, low-intensity fire interval on 8,506 acres. It would directly reduce the severity of fire behavior 

within the activity units, plus 5 to 15 percent of the area downwind of activity units. Within the activity 

units, fire behavior modeling (Table 90) of post-treatment conditions shows an average spread rate of less 

than eight feet per minute and an average flame length of two feet or less, except under “Problem Fire” 

conditions where expected rates of spread are no greater than 52 feet per minute and an average flame 

length of no greater than nine feet. Under all but problem fire weather conditions, expected fire behavior 

allows a greater chance of a successful initial attack with fewer resources than in Alternative A. Within 

activity units, a successful initial attack is probable on nearly all 161 days of a fire season. This equates 

to a considerable increase of firefighter and public safety as fire is more likely to remain on the ground 

and can be directly attacked with direct handline. 

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would also create conditions that provide more suppression 

options, including use of water to establish fireline, backfiring from control lines, or using natural 

barriers. As evidenced by the Davis Fire, areas where the fuel stratum was modified provided an 

opportunity for placement and control of fireline along the edge of a wildfire suppression effort. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 285 of 528

The following Table 90 displays the potential fire behavior outputs for Alternative B, compared to 

Alternative A in parenthesis. In Figure 43, notice the shorter four hour fire pathway to Walker Rim, the 

adjacent Gilchrist State Forest, and private entities from the ignition points along Highways 97 and 58 as 

compared to Alternative A. However, the fire pathway from the ignition point at the electronic site onto 

the adjacent Fremont-Winema National Forest did not decrease. A corresponding lower risk of crown fire 

in Alternative B than in Alternative A increases the likelihood of large trees surviving a wildfire event. 

Table 90. Potential Fire Behavior Outputs for Alternative B Compared to Alternative A 

16%-89% Weather 90%-97% Weather 98%-Problem Fire Weather

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

Flame 

Length 1’(1’) 1’(1’) 1’(1’) 1’(2’) 1’(2’) 1’(3’) 2’(3) 2’(6’) 2’(10’)

Rate of 

Spread 

(CH./HR.

0.8

(1.0)

0.8

(1.8)

0.8

(2.5)

0.9

(1.2)

0.9 

(2.2)

1.0

(3.0)

6.0

(11.4)

6.0

(34.4)

6.0

(46.6)

Fire Type Surface Surface Surface

Acres of 

risk 

reduction 

activities

4547 988 6500 4547 988 6500 4547 988 6500
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 286 of 528

Figure 43. Results of Alternative B Fire Pathway Analysis 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 287 of 528

Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D would both implement activities on a total of 14,777 acres, facilitating a return of an 

appropriate frequent, low-intensity fire interval on 12,762 acres. The design of both of these alternatives

responds to Key Issue #4 by expanding application of prescribed fire on 4,256 more acres than the 

proposed action. The difference between the two alternatives includes options for addressing severe 

dwarf mistletoe in stands; however, modeling and effects in this resource section display similarity 

because the modeling techniques are not sensitive to dwarf mistletoe infections. A comparison of how 

the action alternatives respond to Key Issue #4 and opportunities to restore ponderosa pine with a frequent 

low-intensity fire regime is displayed in Table 93.

Effects related to fire behavior expressed in Table 91 for Alternatives C and D are similar to those

described for Alternative B, except for acres treated. Comparing fire pathways to Alternative B, 

Alternatives C and D provide a greater alteration of the fire pathway, affording greater risk reduction for 

the adjacent Gilchrist State Forest, the electronic site on Walker Rim, and onto the adjacent FremontWinema National Forests. This is mainly due to an emphasis on strategic placement of activities that 

facilitate return of a frequent fire regime in the ponderosa and mixed conifer plant association groups. It 

also is attributed to the non-mechanical small diameter thinning on Walker Rim. 

Table 91. Potential Fire Behavior Outputs for Alternatives C and D Compared to Alternative A 

16%-89% Weather 90%-97% Weather 98%-Problem Fire Weather

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

Flame 

Length 1’(1’) 1’(1’) 1’(1’) 1’(2’) 1’(2’) 1’(3’) 2’(3) 2’(6’) 2’(10’)

Rate of 

Spread

CH/HR*

0.8(1.0) 0.8(1.8) 0.8(2.5) 0.9(1.2) 0.9(2.2) 1.0(3.0) 6.0(11.4) 6.0(34.4) 6.0(46.6)

Fire Type Surface Surface Surface

Acres of 

Risk 

Reduction 

Activity

3669 2891 8217 3669 2891 8217 3669 2891 8217

*CH/HR is chains per hour, one chain equals 66 feet
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 288 of 528

Figure 44. Results of Alternatives C and D Fire Pathway Analysis 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 289 of 528

Alternative E

Due to the scope and placement of activities designed to modify potential fire behavior, this alternative 

affords the greatest risk reduction on a landscape scale; particularly to the resources at risk along the north 

and east edges of the planning area. It implements activities on a total of 16,221 acres and facilitates a 

return of an appropriate frequent, low-intensity fire interval on 13,491 acres. 

As described for Alternatives B through D, Alternative E fire behavior effects displayed in Table 92 show 

similar outputs for flame length, rate of spread, and fire type. The difference between Alternative E and 

the other action alternatives lies in the acres of risk reduction activity category and the effect on fire path 

at a landscape scale (Figure 45).

Table 92. Potential Fire Behavior Outputs for Alternative E Compared to Alternative A 

16%-89% Weather 90%-97% Weather 98%-Problem Fire Weather

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

TL3

LP

TL3

MC

TL3

PP

Flame 

Length 1’(1’) 1’(1’) 1’(1’) 1’(2’) 1’(2’) 1’(3’) 2’(3) 2’(6’) 2’(10’)

Rate of 

Spread

CH/HR

0.8(1.0) 0.8(1.8) 0.8(2.5) 0.9(1.2) 0.9(2.2) 1.0(3.0) 6.0(11.4) 6.0(34.4) 6.0(46.6)

Fire Type Surface Surface Surface

Acres of 

Risk 

Reduction 

Activity

4265 3019 8937 4265 3019 8937 4265 3019 8937
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 290 of 528

Figure 45. Results of Alternative E Fire Pathway Analysis 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Fire and Fuels

Page 291 of 528

Table 93. Comparison of how Action Alternatives Respond to Key Issue #4

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Acres Available for 

Return of an Appropriate 

Fire Interval Following 

Activity

8,506 12,762 12,762 13,491

Cumulative Effects

The modeling and related discussions under the direct and indirect effects section included data imputed 

for BehavePlus and FlamMap from private land ownership and all past and present activities, using the 

District activity layers in the Forest Activity Tracking System (FACTS). The zone of influence is 

characterized as the Little Walker Watershed because it originates near the crest of the Cascade 

Mountains and terminates on Walker Rim, which simulates the most logical path for a wildfire that could 

potentially threaten the resources at risk within and adjacent to the Rim-Paunina area. All past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (Table 19) were reviewed and it was determined that their affect 

to landscape scale processes was either included in the modeling or their effects were small enough to be 

dismissed. There are no foreseeable future actions that overlap in area. Remaining underburning units 

from an earlier decision (2005 Maintenance Burn Fuels Reduction Project: Railroad-Rimrose and East 

Slope Units) that have not been implemented were included in the proposed maintenance burning 

activities for Alternatives C through E.

The Forest Service voluntarily follows the guidelines assigned by Oregon Smoke Management to limit 

state-wide exposure on a cumulative basis, in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Therefore, thresholds 

are assigned for any incursions that may overlap into Rim-Paunina project area. For more discussion on 

this topic, reference the section under Air Quality and the Clean Air Act in Chapter 3.

The Three Trails OHV project represents a reasonably foreseeable action that has potential to supplement

the effects discussed for this project. The Three Tails OHV EIS (December 2010) describes the effects on 

fire and fuels from the proposed action as: 

“Within a planned trail system, the number of potential ignition sources would increase 

from a potential 2.5 to 5.6 percent annual increase in visitors per year. Directing use to 

established and designated locations allows fire management personal to focus future 

hazard reduction activities in strategic areas...The closing of roads or converting roads to 

trails could increase response time, strategies, and tactics used. This could result in fire 

suppression being more expensive as aerial forces are employed. However, road closures 

to offset trail construction would concentrate forest users and could lower the risk of 

human-caused fires. Planned closures were well coordinated in an interdisciplinary 

manner. Therefore, administrative access is planned to match the appropriate risk in 

consideration of response times and suppression forces available by season. Overall, 

with the planned location of routes and designation of staging areas, risk is reduced 

because fire prevention efforts can be targeted to specific areas along with a 

comprehensive education program. Campfires in staging areas would be limited to 

approved fire pits, or not at all. Monitoring and education programs such as checking 

spark arrestors and updating visitors on summertime hazards can be accomplished in a 

few, targeted locations. (Three Trails OHV EIS, pg. 419)”

Overlapping actions between the Three Trails OHV project and hazards as discussed in the Rim-Paunina 

project do not change the effects disclosed under direct and indirect effects. Directing use to a designated 

trail system and the hazard from increased use in conjunction with road closures is offset by the benefits 

of public education and fire prevention strategies targeted in specific areas. Vegetation manipulation in 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Fire and Fuels

Page 292 of 528

the Rim-Paunina project and the temporary hazard associated with timing of slash cleanup would result in 

a landscape scale reduction of risk, which does not change with a designated motorized trail system. 

Project Design Features have been developed (Chapter 2) to address timber sale activities and potential 

overlap of OHV trail segments in the Walker Rim area.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 293 of 528

Soil Quality

The Rim-Paunina project area is located in the southern portion of the Crescent Ranger District of the 

Deschutes National Forest. The planning area contains approximately 40,000 acres of National Forest 

System land. Management Direction for the planning area is provided by the Deschutes National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; U.S. Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Regional 

Forester’s Amendment 2, Interim Riparian, Ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards (Eastside Screens). This 

report incorporates the soil specialist analysis in its entirety. 

The proposed actions would authorize vegetation management and fuel reduction treatments to provide a 

variety of stand structures and habitats for a variety of species (flora and fauna) across and reduce the 

spread of dwarf mistletoe. There is also a need to contribute to the local and regional economies by 

providing timber and other wood fiber products. The same types of treatments would be used for each 

action alternative but the overall extent and locations of activity areas would be somewhat different. 

Management activities would include mechanical harvest and skidding of commercial size trees, noncommercial thinning using mechanical harvesters or by hand felling small-diameter trees with chainsaws, 

machine and/or hand piling and burning of slash materials, mowing brush, and the use of prescribed fire 

to reduce hazardous fuel accumulation and restore historic fire disturbance regimes across the landscape.

Commercial harvest would likely be accomplished using modern, track-mounted machines equipped with 

a felling head (harvester shear), and felled trees would be whole-tree yarded to designated skid trail 

networks and transported to landings using grapple skidders. Mechanical harvesters would only be 

allowed to make a limited number of equipment passes on any site-specific area. Skidders would be 

restricted to designated skid trails at all times. Main skid trails would be spaced approximately 100 feet 

apart on average. Most of the slash generated from harvest activities would be machine piled and burned 

on log landings and/or main skid trails. 

There would be no new construction of roads that would remain as classified system roads. Temporary 

roads would be constructed to allow access to some activity areas, but these roads would be closed and 

rehabilitated upon completion of harvest activities. Some currently closed roads may be opened to 

provide necessary access, but these roads would be re-closed following harvest activities. Soil restoration 

treatments (subsoiling) may be used to rehabilitate temporary roads and some of the primary skid trails 

and log landings; however, before this restoration treatment is prescribed additional soil investigations 

would be made to determine whether this treatment would be appropriate on these soil types.

Affected Environment

Landscape Characteristics

Landforms within the Rim-Paunina planning include areas within the lower eastern flanks of the volcanic 

Cascade Range as well as a portion of the Walker Rim escarpment and ridge. In these areas all 

landforms, rocks, and soil materials are products of volcanism, glaciations, and major earth movements. 

Elevations range from approximately 6,800 feet on the top of Walker Rim to 4,400 feet on the landscape 

to the west. Mean annual precipitation increases with elevation and ranges from 20 inches to greater than 

50 inches at higher elevations. Slopes within the Rim-Paunina planning area range from greater than 60

percent on the Walker Rim escarpment to a relatively flat landscape in the valley below. Dominant 

overlaying soils have developed from volcanic ash and pumice deposits that vary from 20 to 40 inches 

thick and consist of loose, sand to gravel size pumice particles with little or no structural development.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 294 of 528

Soil Quality

The planning area contains 19 landtype units based on similarities in landforms, geology, and climatic 

conditions that influence defined patterns of soil and vegetation (Soil Resource Inventory, Larsen 1976). 

A map of these landtype units and their acreages within the planning are shown in Figure 46. The 

biophysical characteristics of these landtype units can be interpreted to identify hazards, suitabilities, and 

productivity potentials for natural resource planning and management.

Soils on the Forest are derived from volcanic ash and pumice deposits and tend to be non-cohesive (loose) 

and have very little structural development due to the young geologic age of the volcanic parent materials. 

These soil types have naturally low soil bulk densities and vary in their ability to support equipment 

operations without being altered.

Soils within the Rim-Paunina planning area have developed in deposits of coarse Mazama pumice. Soil 

Resource Inventory mapping units within the Rim-Paunina planning area identify soils having between 20 

and 40 percent coarse pumice fragments that are up to two inches in diameter (Larson 1976). Field 

investigations confirmed the existence of relatively large amounts of coarse pumice in the soil profiles of 

the planning area. These materials are coarser than most of the other Mazama pumice and ash deposits 

found on the Forest. 

In an investigation of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine seedling development in coarse pumice 

materials, Cochran (1971) identified a physical condition that was termed particle bridging. Particle 

bridging describes a condition in which coarse pumice particles are bridged together to form a semi-rigid 

structure in the soil profile. While particle bridging can impede seedling root development it can also 

increase the soils ability to support equipment operations without the soil being altered (Craigg 2000). 

Recent soil monitoring within the Rim-Paunina planning area has confirmed that, compared to many of 

the soils on the Forest, the soils within the Rim-Paunina planning area are less sensitive to alterations 

resulting in soil compaction. The increase in resistance of these soils to compaction is attributed to 

particle bridging of coarse pumice particles in the soil profile (Soil Monitoring Report 2010).

The sandy-textured surface layers are also easily displaced by equipment operations, especially during dry 

moisture conditions. The maneuvering of equipment is most likely to cause soil displacement damage on 

the steeper landforms. Due to their lack of plasticity and cohesion, the dominant sandy-textured soils

within the project area are not susceptible to soil puddling damage.

The coarse textures of the ash/pumice-influenced soils in the planning area have high water infiltration 

and percolation rates that readily drain excess moisture over much of the planning area. The underlying 

residual soils and bedrock materials have a moderate capacity to store water. Most of the water yielded 

from these lands is delivered to streams as deep seepage and subsurface flows. There are, however, 

several intermittent and ephemeral streams channels within the planning area.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 295 of 528

Figure 46. Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) Soil Types within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 296 of 528

Land Suitability and Inherent Soil Productivity

The suitable lands database for the Deschutes National Forest LRMP identifies areas of land which are 

considered to be suitable for timber production using criteria affecting reforestation potential (FSH 

2490.13). This data was developed to designate a broad-scale timber base area for forest-wide planning 

purposes. Lands that do not meet these criteria are considered unsuitable or partially suitable for timber 

harvest due to regeneration difficulties or the potential for irreversible damage to resource values from 

management activities. Dominant landtypes within the Rim-Paunina planning area generally have 

moderate productivity ratings. All activity areas proposed for commercial timber harvest and noncommercial thinning treatments meet the criteria for land suitability that would allow them to be 

regenerated or resist irreversible resource damage.

Figure 47. Inherent Soil Productivity and Land Suitability

Sensitive Soil Types

Based on criteria for identifying soil that are sensitive to management (Deschutes LRMP, Appendix 14, 

Objective 5), sensitive soils within the planning area include: 1) wet meadows, 2) high elevation 

drainages, 3) low areas that receive heavy frost, 4) low productivity high elevation slopes, 5) landscapes 

with slopes greater than 30 percent. Mapping units in the Deschutes Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) and 

concerns/opportunities within these soil types are displayed in Table 94 and Figure 48. Proposed

treatments in areas of sensitive soil areas are discussed under the direct and indirect effects of 

implementing the management activities under the proposed action.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 297 of 528

Table 94. Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) Mapping Units Containing Sensitive Soils within the Rim-Paunina 

Planning Area (Soil Resource Inventory, Deschutes National Forest 1976)

SRI Map Unit 

Symbol

Geomorphology 

(Representative landforms) Management Concerns/Opportunity

WH, 44, WG Wet meadows and soils with 

seasonal high water tables 1&2

2

High elevation drainages with 

seasonal high water tables 1&2

15, PH Lodgepole basins with a high 

frost hazard 3

9B, 9W

Low productivity higher 

elevation side slopes, lava 

plains, and plateaus

4

10, 9B, 9N, 9R, 

9W, PE, PG

Landscapes with slopes greater 

than 30% 5

Management Assumptions on Sensitive Soils 

1) There would be no tracked mechanized equipment operations on any wetted soils; permanent or 

seasonally. Storage and refueling requirements and other intoxicants for equipment is regulated 

by contract provision and would occur outside of RHCAs (INFISH RA-4).

2) Activities on soils within riparian areas have the potential for increased sediment delivery 

following soil disturbance. The only activities within riparian resources planned for the RimPaunina project is for the Five Mile Draw restoration and one area near Boundary Springs. Five 

Mile Draw is a very low velocity intermittently wet area with no connection to a flowing body of 

water; therefore it has a very low to non-existent potential for sediment transport.

3) There may exist an opportunity to enhance these areas and provide additional habitat for 

vegetation types that are rare on this landscape yet adapted sites that have soils with a high frost 

hazard.

4) Vegetation regeneration may be difficult in these areas due to shallow soils, cold temperatures 

and a short growing season.

5) Equipment operations on slopes greater than 30 percent has the potential to cause excessive soil 

displacement. Walker Rim is categorized as the portion of the Rim-Paunina Project where most 

of the 30 percent and steeper ground is to be found. All activities planned on Walker Rim are 

prescribed as “fuels only” and would consist of hand thinning of small diameter trees, hand piling 

and disposal followed by prescribed underburning. There would be no tracked mechanized 

equipment on Walker Rim.

6) Post sale activities (such as small diameter cutting and piling, post and poles, and fire wood) 

would not add to detrimental soils conditions calculated for Table 136 to Table 139 in Appendix 

C because operations would be on detrimentally disturbed areas and machinery is allowed one 

pass off of the designated system without causing additional compaction or displacement.

7) No sharp turning off of the skid trail for slashbusting machinery to minimize natural resource 

damage. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 298 of 528

Figure 48. Sensitive Soils Areas

Soil Productivity

Maintenance of soil productivity is an objective for management of National Forest lands. When the 

forest is disturbed using equipment, soil can become displaced and compacted. The removal of trees and 

other vegetation can also potentially cause adverse changes in organic matter levels.

Background: The long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems depends on the productivity and 

hydrologic functioning of soils. Ground disturbing management activities directly affect soil properties, 

which may adversely change the natural capability of soils and their potential responses to use and 

management. A detrimental soil condition as defined in the US Forest Service Region 6 Soil Quality 

Standards (SQS) often occurs where heavy equipment or logs displace surface organic layers or reduce 

soil porosity and/or increase soil strength through compaction. These detrimental soil disturbances in turn 

reduce the soils ability to supply nutrients, moisture, and air that support soil microorganisms and the 

growth of vegetation. The biological productivity of soils relates to the amount of surface organic matter 

and coarse woody debris retained or removed from affected sites. Therefore, an evaluation of the 

potential effects on soil productivity is essential for integrated management of forest resources.

Measures:

1) Change in extent of detrimental soil conditions following proposed harvest and mitigation 

treatments within the individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 299 of 528

2) Amount of coarse woody debris (CWD) and surface organic matter that would likely be retained 

to protect mineral soil from erosion and provide both short and long-term nutrient supplies for 

maintaining soil productivity on treated sites.

3) The probable success in project design and implementation of management requirements and 

mitigation measures that would be applied to minimize adverse impacts to soil productivity.

Scope of the Analysis

This section describes the rationale used to determine environmental effects in the soil section of the RimPaunina Environmental Analysis. The analysis is based upon an Environmental Effects Writing Training 

that was conducted by the US Forest Service in Bend, Oregon in March of 2007 (Glasford 2007). The 

focus of the training was to improve the documentation of environmental effects in project analysis, 

including conducting and documenting cumulative effects.

ACE Model (Action/Change/Effect)

The long term sustainability of forest ecosystems is dependent at least in part on the productivity and 

hydrologic functioning of soils. Forest thinning and fuel reduction treatments have the potential to cause 

soil disturbance and in turn affect the long term sustainability of forest ecosystems. Ground disturbing 

management activities directly affect soil properties, which may adversely change the natural capability 

of soils and their potential responses to use and management. A detrimental soil condition often occurs 

where heavy equipment or logs displace surface organic layers or reduce soil porosity and water 

infiltration through compaction. Detrimental disturbances can reduce the soils ability to supply nutrients, 

moisture, and air that support soil microorganisms and the growth of vegetation. The biological 

productivity of soils also relates to the amount of surface organic matter and coarse woody debris retained 

or removed from affected sites. Therefore, an evaluation of the potential effects on soil productivity is 

essential for integrated management of forest resources.

Magnitude of Disturbances (Extent/Distribution/Degree/Duration)

Effects of soil disturbances on site productivity or hydrologic function of watersheds is dependent on the 

extent, distribution, degree and duration of the disturbance (Froehlich 1976; Snider and Miller 1985; 

Clayton et al. 1987; Seybold et al.1999). Extent refers to the amount of land surface occupied by the 

disturbance expressed as a percentage of a specified area. Distribution of soil disturbance within a 

management area may likely be more important than the actual estimated extent. The distribution of a 

soil disturbance can occur as small evenly disturbed polygons, or in large polygons in one or a few 

locations and that can have very different effects on the soil’s ability to function. Degree refers to the 

amount of change in a particular soil property such as soil porosity, bulk density, or strength and the 

depth to which that change occurs, and the duration of a disturbance is the length of time disturbance 

effects persist. 

Extent, distribution, and in some instances, degree of disturbance can be mitigated by imposing 

management constraints such as limiting season of operation, spacing of skid roads and trails, and number

of equipment passes (Froehlich 1976). Degree and duration of effects are largely determined by inherent 

soil properties that influence resistance to, and ability to recover from, disturbance (Seybold et al. 1999). 

In some cases soil restoration activities are performed to shorten the duration of soil impacts. An example 

of a soil restoration activity would include subsoiling of compacted soils to accelerate their recovery 

(Powers et al. 1999).

Bounding Spatial and Temporal Changes within the Zone of Influence

The soil resource may be directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affected within each of the activity areas 

proposed for treatment within the planning area. An activity area is defined as “the total area of ground 

impacted by an activity and its feasible unit for sampling and evaluating” (FSM 2520 and LRMP p. 4-71). 

For this project proposal, activity area boundaries are considered to be the smallest identified area where 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 300 of 528

the potential effects of different management practices would occur. This is referred to as the “zone of 

influence.” The discussion of soil effects and soil quality standards will be focused on the units proposed 

for treatments. There are 211 activity areas within the planning area ranging in size from four to 408

acres. Where appropriate and relevant, the effects discussion is expanded to the planning area to provide 

additional context and intensity.

Methodology and Assumptions

Quantitative analyses, literature reviews, and professional judgment were used to evaluate the issue 

measures by comparing existing conditions to the anticipated conditions which would result from 

implementing the proposed actions. The temporal scope of the analysis is defined as short term effects 

that include changes to soil properties that would generally revert to pre-existing conditions within five

years or less. In addition the analysis considered the effectiveness and probable success of implementing 

the management requirements, mitigation measures, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) which are 

designed to avoid, minimize, or reduce potentially adverse effects to soil productivity.

Existing Condition of the Soil Resource 

The current conditions of soils in the Rim-Paunina planning area are directly related to soil porosity and 

the quantity and quality of surface organic matter within the project area (Powers and Avery 1995). 

Ground-disturbing management activities (i.e., timber harvest, road building, recreation use, and livestock 

grazing) have caused some adverse changes to soil quality in previously managed areas, especially where 

mechanical disturbances removed vegetative cover, displaced organic surface layers, or detrimentally 

compacted the soil. The following measures were used to evaluate the existing and predicted amounts of 

detrimental soil conditions for each individual activity area planned for treatment.

Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Natural Events

There is currently no evidence of detrimental soil conditions from natural disturbance events within the 

Rim-Paunina planning area. No recent large wildfires have occurred within the planning area. Although 

fires have occurred in the past, enough time has passed since their occurrence that existing vegetation and 

forest litter are providing an adequate source of ground cover to protect mineral soil from water and wind 

erosion. There are no recent natural or management related landslides within the planning area. 

Therefore, natural soil disturbances were not included as existing sources of detrimental soil conditions 

within any of the activity areas proposed for this project.

Management Related Soil Disturbances

The degree, extent, distribution and duration of soil disturbance can vary with the size and type of 

equipment used for forest vegetation management, the volume and type of material being removed, 

frequency of entries, soil type and the soil conditions when the activity takes place (Froehlich 1976; 

Adams and Froehlich 1981; Gent et al. 1984; Snider and Miller 1985; Clayton et al. 1987; Miller et al. 

1986; Page-Dumroese 1993). Soil monitoring on local landtypes and similar soils have shown that 

typically around 20 percent of an activity area can be detrimentally disturbed by ground-based harvest 

systems (Deschutes Soil Monitoring Reports 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2005). 

The primary sources of detrimental soil conditions are associated with the transportation systems used for 

timber harvest and yarding activities. Temporary roads, log landings, and primary skid trails were 

constructed and used to access individual harvest units of past timber sales. Most project related impacts 

to soils occurred on and adjacent to these heavy use areas. Mechanical disturbances include the removal 

of vegetative cover, displacement of organic surface soils, or compaction of the soil. Research studies 

and local soil monitoring have shown that soil compaction and soil displacement account for the majority 

of detrimental soil conditions resulting from ground based logging operations (Page-Dumroese 1993; 

Geist 1989; Powers 1999; Deschutes Soil Monitoring Reports). Due to the process of soil particle 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 301 of 528

bridging, described under the Affected Environment section, soils within the Rim-Paunina planning area 

are expected to be more resistant to soil compaction compared to other soils on the Forest. Thus a real 

extent of detrimental soil conditions within Rim-Paunina planning area is not expected to be as extensive 

as in other planning areas on the Forest.

Within the last decade a number of fuel treatment projects have been implemented within the planning 

area. Treatments have included the mowing of brush and the use of prescribed burning to both reduce 

fuels and provide a forest structure that would be more resistant to wildfires. Equipment used for these 

treatments is considerably smaller than that used to harvest timber and typically does not result in 

detrimental impacts to the soil resource. While prescribed burning does remove some of the surface 

organic matter, this process is a natural part of these ecosystems that historically experienced lowintensity fire. These types of treatments also help to reduce the risk of impacts to the soil resource that 

can result from a high intensity uncharacteristic fire that could occur as a result of lack of active 

management.

Based on the proportionate extent of overlap of previously disturbed areas and areas proposed for 

treatments, percentages of predicted detrimental soil conditions were determined and are displayed in 

Appendix C.

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter (SOM)

The effects of management activities on soil productivity as well as other desired soil functions also 

depend upon the amounts of coarse woody debris (CWD) and surface organic matter (SOM) retained or 

removed on affected sites. It is expected that adequate amounts of coarse woody debris and surface 

organic matter currently exist to protect mineral soil from erosion and provide nutrients for maintaining 

soil productivity within the majority of activity areas within the larger planning area. There are some 

older activity areas, prior to LRMP direction (1990), where management activities likely resulted in less 

than desired amounts of CWD and SOM. In other portions of the project area, fire suppression has 

resulted in vegetation conditions that have fuel loadings in excess of historic conditions. Although 

current levels of CWD and SOM are not known for all activity areas, it is expected that previously 

managed areas have been improving towards optimum conditions as additional woody materials have 

accumulated through mortality, windfall, and recruitment of fallen snags over time. In addition, annual 

leaf and needle fall, small diameter branches, twigs and other forest litter have increased organic matter 

levels for soil nutrient cycling.

Due to the historical frequent fire occurrence within the ecological types in the planning area, most likely,

there were historically not large amounts of CWD and SOM on these sites. Observations of prescribed 

burns indicate that recruitment of CWD and SOM is a significant process for maintaining adequate levels 

for desired soil functions. Prescribed fires commonly burn CWD on the ground while recruiting new 

materials through the killing of some trees as well as causing dead standing trees to fall to the ground. 

Observations indicate that through these processes CWD is maintained at an adequate level in areas of 

prescribed burns.

Conserving surface organic matter (i.e., organic materials such as pine needles, twigs and branches less 

than three inches in diameter) is also important for protection of mineral soil from erosion, buffering the 

effects of soil compaction, and supplying nutrients that support the growth of vegetation and native 

populations of soil organisms. The management goal is to provide a balance between fuel management 

objectives that would reduce the risk of soil impacts that may result from wildfire and the maintenance of

enough surface litter to maintain soil functions. 

A balance between fuel management objectives and ensuring adequate amounts of CWD and SOM is an 

important goal for maintaining long term soil productivity. Using mycorrhizal fungi as a bio-indicator of 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 302 of 528

productive forest soils, research studies were used to develop conservative recommendations for leaving 

sufficient CWD following management activities (Graham et al. 1994; Brown et al. 2003). A minimum 

of 5 to 10 tons per acre of CWD (greater than three inches in diameter) should be retained on dry, 

ponderosa pine sites and 10 to 15 tons of CWD per acre on mixed conifer sites to maintain soil 

productivity. A sufficient number of standing dead snags and/or live trees should also be retained for 

future recruitment of organic matter.

Project Design and Mitigation

Cumulative levels of existing and predicted amounts of soil disturbance need to be considered to 

determine whether soil quality standards will be met following project implementation. For activity areas 

that have already been affected by previous management, project plans need to include options for 

avoiding, reducing, and mitigating adverse effects for project activities to meet the Regional Soil Quality 

Standards described below.

Management Direction

The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) specifies that management activities are 

prescribed to promote maintenance or enhancement of soil productivity by leaving a minimum of 80 

percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable productivity potential following land management 

activities (LRMP p. 4-70, SL-1 and SL-3). This is accomplished by following Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines to ensure that soils are managed to provide sustained yields of managed vegetation without 

impairment of the productivity of the land. Standard and Guideline (SL-4) directs the use of 

rehabilitation measures when the cumulative impacts of management activities are expected to cause 

damage exceeding soil quality standards and guidelines on more than 20 percent of an activity area. 

Standard and Guideline (SL-5) limits the use of mechanical equipment in sensitive soil areas. Operations 

would be restricted to existing logging facilities (i.e., skid trails, landings) and roads, whenever feasible.

The Pacific Northwest Region developed soil quality standards and guidelines that limit detrimental soil 

disturbances associated with management activities (FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1). This 

Regional guidance supplements LRMP standards and guidelines, which are designed to protect or 

maintain soil productivity. Detrimental soil effects are those that meet the criteria described in the Soil 

Quality Standards listed below.

Detrimental Compaction in volcanic ash/pumice soils is an increase in soil bulk density of 20 percent, or 

more, over the undisturbed level.

Detrimental Puddling occurs when the depth of ruts or imprints is six inches or more.

Detrimental Displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon from an area greater 

than 100 square feet, which is at least five feet in width.

Severely Burned soils are considered to be detrimentally disturbed when the mineral soil surface has been 

significantly changed in color, oxidized to a reddish color, and the next one-half inch blackened form 

organic matter charring by heat conducted through the top layer.

The Regional supplement to the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1) 

provides policy for planning and implementing management practices which maintain or improve soil 

quality. This Regional guidance is consistent with LRMP interpretations for Standards and Guidelines 

SL-3 and SL-4 that limit the extent of detrimental soil conditions within activity areas.

When initiating new activities:
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 303 of 528

1. Design new activities that do not exceed detrimental soil conditions on more than 20 percent of 

an activity area (This includes the permanent transportation system).

2. In activity areas where less than 20 percent detrimental soil impacts exist from prior activities, the 

cumulative amount of detrimentally disturbed soil must not exceed the 20 percent limit following 

project implementation and restoration.

3. In activity areas where more than 20 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior 

activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration must, at 

a minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move conditions 

toward a net improvement in soil quality.

Target Landscape Condition

The primary goal for managing the soil resource is to maintain or enhance soil conditions at acceptable 

levels without impairment of the productivity of the land. The extent of detrimental soil disturbances is 

minimized through the application of Project Design Features, management requirements, and mitigation 

measures designed to minimize, avoid, or eliminate potential effects or rectifying effects in site-specific 

areas by restoring the affected environment. The land effectively takes in and distributes water, and 

erosion rates are controlled to near-natural levels. The biological productivity of soils is ensured by 

management prescriptions that retain adequate supplies of surface organic matter and coarse woody 

debris without compromising fuel management objectives and the risk of soil damage from large-scale 

stand replacement wildfire.

Environmental Effects

Introduction

The best information about the proposed actions was used in conjunction with the location of activities to 

analyze the potential effects on the soil resource. The potential for detrimental changes to soil physical 

properties was quantitatively analyzed by the extent (surface area) of temporary roads, log landings, and 

designated skid-trail systems that would likely be used to facilitate yarding activities within each of the 

activity areas proposed for commercial harvest. Professional judgment was used to evaluate changes in 

the amount and composition of coarse woody debris and surface organic matter. This analysis also 

considered the effectiveness and probable success of implementing the management requirements, project 

design elements, and mitigation measures which are designed to avoid, minimize, or reduce potentially 

adverse effects to soil productivity.

The following section provides a discussion of the potential effects on soil physical properties and 

biological conditions from implementing the various vegetation and fuel reduction treatments proposed 

under the action alternatives. After this discussion, the environmental effects are presented and tracked 

by the issue measures {detrimental soil disturbance, coarse woody debris (CWD), and surface organic 

matter (SOM)} used to evaluate the estimated effects on soil productivity.

Important Interactions

The proposed management activities include commercial and non-commercial harvest of forest stands 

combined with fuel reduction treatments to reduce stand densities and hazardous fuels. Trees would most 

likely be harvested mechanically using track-mounted harvesters and skidders with grapples used to drag 

trees along a skid trail. The thinning of non-commercial trees would either be accomplished manually 

using chainsaws or with the use of specialized low ground pressure machinery. Most of the slash 

generated from these activities would be machine piled and utilized and/or prescribed burned at the log 

landings. Management activities also include mechanical shrub and small tree treatments (mowing or 

mastication). These activities can be used interchangeably and the effects described would not change. 

The use of prescribed fire to reduce fuel loadings and treat the shrub layer is typically of low-intensity 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 304 of 528

with very few associated effects to the soil resource to display. Existing snags and down ponderosa pine 

logs would be retained in a mosaic of varying densities across the landscape for wildlife and soil 

productivity needs.

There would be no new construction of roads that would remain as classified system roads. Estimated 

distances of temporary road needed to allow access to some of the activity areas proposed for mechanical 

vegetation treatments are listed in Table 95. Many of these spur roads would consist of reopening short 

segments (100-10,000 feet) of old access roads from previous entries. These temporary roads would be 

closed and in some cases may be obliterated upon completion of the vegetation management activities. 

In unit 25 there is approximately one mile of a non-system road of indiscriminate age that would be 

obliterated as it is tied to the meadow enhancement/restoration activities in Five Mile Draw. These nonsystem road restoration activities would not occur on any wetted portion of the RHCA, thus they would 

not change water quality or yield. The full effects are discussed in the Fisheries and Aquatics section of 

Chapter 3.

Table 95. Estimates for Miles of Temporary Road to be Constructed for the Various Alternatives in RimPaunina 

Alternative Temporary Miles of Roads Constructed

B 9.2 Miles

C 6.5 Miles

D 6.5 Miles

E 8.3 Miles

The effects of ground-based logging disturbances on soil productivity vary based on the soil type, types of 

silvicultural treatments, the duration of activities, and the amount of ground disturbance with each entry. 

The cumulative amount of soil effects also depends on the existing conditions prior to entry, the ability to 

reuse previously established landings and skid trail systems, types of equipment, amount of material 

removed from treatment areas, operator experience, and contract administration. Soil productivity 

monitoring on the forest has shown that detrimental soil conditions increase each time a stand is treated 

with mechanical equipment (Deschutes Soil Monitoring Reports 1996, 1997, and 1999). Even with 

careful planning and implementation of project activities, the extent of detrimental soil conditions has 

been shown to increase by 5 to 10 percent with each successive entry into a stand (Craigg 2000).

Under all action alternatives a combination of various fuel treatments would be implemented to reduce 

the potential for intense wildfires. Fuel treatments include thinning trees, mechanical piling, hand piling, 

burning slash materials, mechanical shrub/slash treatments (mowing and mastication), and the use of 

prescribed fire.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The magnitude and duration of potential effects, both physical and biological changes in soil productivity, 

depend on the intensity of site disturbance, the timing and location of activities, and the inherent 

properties of the volcanic ash-influenced soils within affected activity areas. Direct effects occur at 

essentially the same time and place as the actions that cause soil disturbance, such as soil displacement. 

Indirect effects occur sometime after or some distance away from the initial disturbance, such as 

increased runoff and surface erosion from previously compacted areas. Cumulative effects include all 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that cause soil disturbance within the same activity areas 

proposed with this project.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 305 of 528

Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Under Alternative A (No Action), the management activities proposed in this document would not take 

place. No additional land would be removed from production to build roads or logging facilities for 

harvest and yarding operations. There would be no cumulative increase in detrimental soil conditions 

above existing levels. Although disturbed soils would continue to recover naturally from the effects of 

past management, the current extent of detrimental soil conditions would likely remain unchanged for an 

extended period of time. 

Soil productivity would not change appreciably unless future stand-replacing wildfires cause intense 

ground-level heating that results in severely burned soils. Detrimental changes to soil properties typically 

result from extreme surface temperatures of long duration, such as the consumption of large diameter logs 

on the forest floor. Although hazardous fuels have been reduced in some previously managed areas, fire 

exclusion has resulted in undesirable vegetation conditions and excessive fuel loadings in other portions 

of the project area (see Fire/Fuels Section). Alternative A would defer fuel reduction opportunities at this 

time.

If a large amount of fuel is present during a future wildfire, soil temperatures can remain high for an 

extended period of time and excessive soil heating would be expected to produce detrimental changes in 

soil chemical, physical, and biological properties. Severe burning may cause soils to repel water, thereby 

increasing surface runoff and subsequent erosion. The loss of protective ground cover would also 

increase the risk for accelerated wind erosion on the loose, sandy textured soils which are widespread 

throughout the project area.

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter

In the short term, the amount of coarse woody debris and surface litter would gradually increase or remain 

the same. In forested areas, coarse woody materials would continue to increase through natural mortality, 

windfall, and recruitment of fallen snags over time. Short-term nutrient sources would also increase 

through the accumulation of small woody material from shrub and tree branches, annual leaf and needle 

fall, and decomposition of grass and forb plant materials. 

In the long term, the accumulation of CWD and forest litter would increase the potential for intense 

wildland fires which may completely consume heavy concentrations of fuel and ground cover vegetation. 

High-to-extreme fire hazard and potential for excessive soil heating exists when downed woody debris 

exceeds 30 to 40 tons per acre (Brown et al. 2003). Intense ground-level fire would likely create areas of 

severely burned soil and increase the potential for accelerated wind erosion. The loss of organic matter 

would adversely affect ground cover conditions and the nutrient supply of affected sites. Over time, 

burned areas would have increased levels of CWD as fire killed trees are recruited to the forest floor. 

Project Design and Resource Protection Measures

Under Alternative A, there would be no cumulative increase in detrimental soil conditions from the 

proposed management activities. Implementation of Project Design Features and mitigation measures

would not be necessary.

Alternatives B, C, D, and E – Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed management activities are identified in the Alternative Descriptions. Action alternatives 

use silvicultural treatments to provide a diversity of habitats for Management Indicator Species more in 

line with historical conditions to maintain and enhance existing late and old-structured stand 

characteristics, and encourage the development of such characteristics. The alternatives also apply 

prescribed fire to these fire-dependent ecosystems to create habitat conditions that allow fire to perform

its natural ecological function and more closely mimic natural processes. Alternative treatments vary in 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 306 of 528

their habitat manipulation in that some alternatives favor species that prefer open ponderosa pine stands 

and others favor species that prefer denser, multi-layered stand conditions. The alternatives also vary in 

the way they address heavy infestations of dwarf mistletoe. The nature of the effects to the soil resource 

was previously described under the Environmental Effects section.

Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E the amount of disturbed soil associated with log landings and skid 

trails would be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve management objectives. Project Design 

Features, management requirements, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) built into alternatives are 

all designed to avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to the soil resource. Compliance with 

LRMP standard and guideline SL-5 (LRMP 4-70) is addressed by using advanced logging systems on 

slopes greater than 30 percent, restricting numbers of equipment passes, using existing harvest 

transportation systems, and seasonal restrictions on wet areas. Best Management Practices for Timber 

Management and Road Systems would be applied to protect the soil surface and control erosion on and 

adjacent to roads and logging facilities that would be used during project implementation. These 

conservation practices would be implemented during and following project activities to meet the stated 

objectives for protecting and maintaining soil productivity. The Ranger District and Forest has had 

success using these practices and is assured they can be implemented by contract provision.

Soil restoration treatments would be applied to rectify impacts by reducing the amount of detrimentally 

compacted soil dedicated to specific management areas of the proposed activity areas. Restoration 

treatments, such as subsoiling, are designed to promote maintenance or enhancement of soil quality. 

These conservation practices comply with LRMP interpretations of Forest-wide standards and guidelines 

SL-3 and SL-4 (Final Interpretations, Document 96-01, Soil Productivity, 1996), and Regional policy 

(FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1) for planning and implementing management activities. 

Under Alternative B, detrimental soil conditions would remain on 1,196 acres, followed by 1,163 acres in 

Alternative C; 1,160 acres in Alternative D; and 1,329 acres in Alternative E. These estimates are very 

conservative. All activities would be consistent with Forest and Regional standards and guidelines for 

soil productivity with no units that exceed the 20 percent disturbance standards (Table 136 to Table 139

in Appendix C). It is expected that enough fallen trees and other organic materials would be available 

after harvest activities to meet recommended guidelines for coarse woody debris retention in the shortterm. Therefore, the proposed actions comply with Regional and LRMP standards and guidelines for 

maintaining soil productivity within all proposed activity areas without restoration (subsoiling).

Detrimental Soil Disturbance

The use of ground-based equipment for vegetation management treatments would increase the amount 

and distribution of soil disturbance within the proposed activity areas. However, due to the inherent 

resistance of the soils in this area to soil compaction and the design of all action alternatives practices, 

none of the activities areas would exceed the Forest plan standard of 20 percent detrimental soil 

disturbance following proposed treatment (Appendix C). The development and use of temporary roads, 

log landings, and skid trail systems are the primary sources of new soil disturbance that would result in 

adverse changes to soil productivity. Most soil impacts would occur on and adjacent to these heavy-use 

areas where multiple equipment passes typically cause detrimental soil compaction. Mitigation and 

resource protection measures would be applied to avoid or minimize the extent of soil disturbance in 

random locations between main skid trails and away from log landings. Non-commercial thinning by 

hand felling small-diameter trees with chainsaws would not cause additional soil impacts because 

machinery would not be used for yarding activities.

Soil displacement from harvest activities occurs when soil organic layers are scraped or pushed away by 

equipment or gouged by logs during skidding operations. This type of soil disturbance is most likely to 

occur on the steeper portions of harvest units. In order to avoid soil displacement disturbance, activity 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 307 of 528

area boundaries would be adjusted to prohibit equipment operations in portions of activity areas that 

contain extensive areas with slopes steeper than 30 percent (see Project Design Features for description of 

operations within small areas of slopes greater than 30 percent). It is expected that many of these 

sensitive areas would be included as untreated patches within and adjacent to the proposed units to meet 

wildlife objectives. The majority of proposed activity areas are located on gentle to moderately sloping 

terrain where the maneuvering of equipment generally does not remove soil surface layers in areas that 

are at least five feet in width (FSM 2520). Smaller areas of soil displacement or the mixing of soil and 

organic matter would not constitute detrimental soil displacement. There would be no new construction 

of temporary roads or logging facilities on steep slopes or sensitive soils.

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter

The measure for CWD and surface organic matter was evaluated qualitatively based on the probable 

success of implementing appropriate Best Management Practices and recommended guidelines that 

address adequate retention of these important landscape components to meet soil productivity and wildlife 

habitat objectives (see Wildlife Section and Chapter 2 Mitigation). A minimum amount of 5 to 10 tons 

per acre of CWD on ponderosa pine sites and 10 to 15 tons per acre on mixed conifer or lodgepole pine 

sites is recommended to ensure desirable biological benefits for maintaining soil productivity without 

creating an unacceptable fire hazard. 

The proposed harvest activities would reduce potential sources of future CWD, especially where 

mechanized whole-tree yarding is used in activity areas. However, harvest activities also recruit CWD to 

the forest floor through breakage of limbs and tops during felling and skidding operations. Existing down 

woody debris would be protected from disturbance and retained on site to the extent possible. Understory 

trees, damaged during harvest operations, would also contribute woody materials that provide ground 

cover protection and a source of nutrients on treated sites. It is expected that enough broken branches, 

unusable small-diameter trees, and other woody materials would likely be available after mechanical 

thinning activities to meet the recommended guidelines for CWD retention. 

Fuel reduction treatments would potentially reduce CWD and some of the forest litter by burning logging 

slash and natural fuel accumulations. Most of the logging slash generated from commercial harvest 

would be machine piled and burned on log landings and/or main skid trails. Post-harvest review by fuel 

specialists would determine the need for prescribed underburn treatments, especially where fine fuel 

accumulations increase the risk of wildfire to unacceptable levels. If prescribed fire is recommended, 

burning would occur during moist conditions to help ensure adequate retention of CWD and surface 

organic matter following treatment. Fuel reductions achieved through planned ignitions usually burn with 

low-to-moderate intensities that increase nutrient availability in burned areas. Low-intensity fire does not 

easily consume material much larger than three inches in diameter, and charring does not substantially 

interfere with the decomposition or function of coarse woody debris (Graham et al. 1994). Any dead 

trees killed from prescribed burn treatments would eventually fall to the ground and become additional 

sources of CWD. Depending on the rate of decay and local wind conditions, many of the small-diameter 

trees (less than 10 inches) would be expected to fall within the short-term (less than five years). 

A cool-temperature prescribed burn would remove some of the surface litter and duff materials without 

exposing extensive areas of bare mineral soil. Some of the direct and indirect beneficial effects to the soil 

resource include: 1) a reduction of fuel loadings and wildfire potential, 2) increased nutrient availability in 

localized areas, and 3) maintenance of organic matter that supports biotic habitat for mycorrhizal fungi 

and microorganism populations. 

Project Design and Resource Protection Measures for All Action Alternatives

The management requirements, mitigation measures, and project design elements built into the action 

alternatives are all designed to avoid, minimize, or rectify potentially adverse effects to the soil resource 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 308 of 528

from ground-disturbing management activities. Operational guidelines for equipment use are included in 

Project Design Features (PDFs) to provide options for limiting the amount of surface area covered by 

logging facilities and controlling equipment operations to locations and ground conditions that are less 

susceptible to soil impacts in random locations of activity areas.

Grapple skidders would only be allowed to operate on designated skid trails spaced on average 100 feet 

apart (11 percent of the unit area). The short-term effects of only two passes by specialized machinery off 

designate skid trails to cut trees are not expected to qualify as a detrimental soil condition. Natural 

processes, such as frost heaving and freeze-thaw cycles, can offset soil compaction near the soil surface.

All of the action alternatives propose mechanical harvest treatments on landtypes that contain sensitive 

soils. Table 94 lists landtypes that contain sensitive soil types. It is emphasized that only a portion of 

these landtype areas actually contain sensitive soils. Areas with sensitive soils are typically confined to 

specific segments of the dominant landform and they are generally too small to delineate on maps.

Figure 48 shows locations where portions of the proposed activity areas overlap with sensitive soil areas. 

Equipment operations within areas of sensitive soils would be modified to protect these soils from 

excessive disturbance.

On gentle to moderately sloping terrain, the maneuvering of equipment generally does not remove soil 

surface layers in large enough areas to qualify as detrimental soil displacement. On steep pitches (slopes 

of 30 percent or steeper) less than 100 feet long, equipment would be permitted to make one pass out and 

one pass back to harvest trees. In other areas, directional felling of trees to skidtrails and/or line pulling 

would be utilized to harvest trees in areas of slopes greater than 30 percent.

Most of the slash generated from commercial harvest would be machine piled and burned on log landings 

and/or main skid trails. Equipment used for machine piling would operate predominately from existing 

skid trails to minimize additional soil disturbance caused by equipment leaving the trail, however, there 

would be occasions in which the equipment would be allowed to leave the trail and make one pass to pile 

large concentrations in areas that cannot be reached from existing trails. Small concentrations of slash 

that cannot be reached from the existing trail would be left in the unit and therefore off trail travel to pile 

slash concentrations is expected to be of limited extent thereby minimizing additional soil disturbance.

Proposed management activities also include hand treatments for reducing fuel accumulations. The hand 

pile-and-burn method would be used to burn small concentrations of slash materials that are welldistributed within these activity areas. This non-mechanical fuels treatment does not cause soil 

displacement or compaction damage. Due to the relatively small size of both machine piles and hand 

piles, ground-level heating is usually not elevated long enough to detrimentally alter soil properties that 

affect long-term site productivity. These activities are conducted at times and under conditions that 

reduce the risk of resource damage, including impacts to soils and understory vegetation.

Conservative estimates were used in Appendix C to account for the cumulative amount of surface area 

that could be potentially affected within activity areas. The cumulative effects to soils from this activity 

would be minor in comparison to harvest and yarding activities. Therefore, the overall extent of 

detrimental soil conditions is not expected to increase above the predicted levels in any of the activity 

areas proposed for this post-harvest treatment.

Specialized machinery with attachments for mowing or grinding would be used in some units to reduce 

the height of tall shrubs and small trees to within four to six inches of the ground. Only brush and light 

fuels would be mowed leaving any large-diameter downed logs in place. Brush mowing activities would 

not cause detrimental soil displacement and increases in soil bulk density are inconsequential. The 

primary factors that limit soil compaction are the low ground pressure of the tractor and mowing heads, 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 309 of 528

the limited amount of traffic (one equipment pass), and the cushioning effect of surface organic matter. 

These activities have been monitored in the past, and results show that increases in soil displacement and 

compaction do not meet the criteria for detrimental soil conditions (Soil Monitoring Report 1997).

Prescribed burning would be used to both reduce fuel loads and reintroduce fire for resource benefits. 

Prescribed burning activities are conducted at times and under conditions that maximize benefits while 

reducing the risk of resource damage. The degree of soil heating depends upon fuel type (grass, brush, 

trees), fuel density, nature of the litter and duff layers (thickness and moisture content), and burn 

conditions at the time of ignition. For the treatment areas proposed with this project, natural fuel 

accumulations consist mainly of fine fuels (i.e. decadent brush, tree branches, and needle cast litter) that 

typically do not burn for long duration and cause excessive soil heating. Much of the down-and-dead, 

firm lodgepole pine would be mechanically removed during commercial harvest operations. Ponderosa 

pine logs and existing snags would be retained to meet coarse woody debris requirements for wildlife 

habitat and soil productivity.

Prescribed burn plans would comply with all applicable LRMP standards and guidelines and Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) prior to initiation of burn treatments. Soil moisture guidelines would be 

included in burn plans to minimize the risk of intense ground-level heating. Duff moisture levels of 

approximately 50 percent are typical during light intensity underburns. Soil heating during spring burns 

would be negligible because higher moisture levels at this time of year generally result in cooler burns 

with lower potential for causing severely burned soil. Fall burning would be conducted following brief 

periods of precipitation. Prescribed underburns in timber stands would be accomplished under carefully 

controlled conditions to minimize damage to standing trees.

It is anticipated that mechanical fuel breaks would be used in conjunction with existing roads and natural 

barriers to effectively control the spread of fire within treatment units. Hand lines may also be used to 

create smaller blocks within the larger activity areas. The extent of disturbed soil would be limited to the 

minimum necessary to achieve fuel management objectives.

Prescribed fire activities are planned to meet fuel and visual management objectives without exposing 

extensive areas of bare mineral soil through the complete consumption of surface organic matter. It is 

expected that adequate retention of coarse woody debris and fine organic matter (duff layer) would still 

exist for protecting mineral soil from erosion and supplying nutrients that support the growth of 

vegetation and populations of soil organisms. Therefore, it is expected that there would be no detrimental 

changes in soil properties. The successful implementation of prescribed underburning would likely result 

in beneficial effects by reducing fuel loadings and wildfire potential as well as increasing nutrient 

availability in burned areas.

Project Design Features Common to all Action Alternatives

The following implementation guidelines are designed to avoid or minimize potentially adverse effects to 

soils by controlling equipment operations to locations and conditions that are less susceptible to resource 

damage. This type of mitigation is built into the action alternatives as part of the project design.

1. If site specific investigation determines soils that are mapped for seasonally wet are inaccurate, 

then restrictions on mechanical methods may be lifted. 

2. Non-fish bearing streams and ephemeral streams would have one standard tree height or a 150 

foot no-harvest buffer placed on either side of the stream except for those units specifically 

designed for riparian enhancement and restoration activities. In these areas, the Riparian 

Management Objective is to maintain the unique values associated with wet meadow habitats in 

the Five Mile Draw area. To accomplish this, some dead and downed material, as well as 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 310 of 528

encroaching lodgepole pine would need to be removed (“Exceptions” TM-1a and b, INFISH A7). 

3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) (USDA 1988) apply. Specific BMPs are for Timber 

Management (pp. 1-21), Road Systems (pp. 22-42), Fire Suppression and Fuels Management 

(pp.43-47), Watershed Management (pp. 48-55), and Vegetative Manipulation (pp. 71-73). 

These practices maintain the physical integrity of the aquatic system and in cooperation with the 

State of Oregon, are required to be followed in accordance with the Clean Water Act. For a 

complete list, see Appendix A, Management Direction. 

4. Use old landings and skidding networks whenever possible. Assure that water control structures 

are installed and maintained on skid trails that have gradients of 10 percent or more. Ensure that 

erosion control structures are stabilized and working effectively (LRMP SL-1; Timber 

Management BMP T-16, T-18). 

5. In all proposed activity areas, locations for new yarding and transportation systems would be 

designated prior to the logging operations. This includes temporary roads, spur roads, log 

landings, and primary (main) skid trail networks (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; Timber Management 

BMP T-11, T-14 & T-16). 

6. Minimize potential erosive effects of concentrated water through the proper design and 

construction of temporary roads (Road BMP R-7). 

7. Conduct regular preventive maintenance to avoid deterioration of the road surface and minimize 

the effects of erosion (Road BMP R-18, R-19).

8. Retain adequate supplies of large woody debris (greater than 3-inches in diameter) to provide 

organic matter reservoirs for nutrient cycling following completion of all project activities 

(LRMP SL-1). It is recommended that a minimum of 5 to 10 tons per acre of coarse woody 

debris (CWD) be retained on dry, ponderosa pine sites and 10 to 15 tons of CWD per acre on 

mixed conifer sites to help maintain long-term site productivity. 

9. The objective is to maintain existing sources of unburned or partially consumed, fine organic 

matter (organic materials less than 3-inches in diameter; commonly referred to as the duff layer) 

over a minimum of 50 percent of the prescribed burn unit. (LRMP SL-6; Fuels Management 

BMP F-2; Timber Management BMP T-13). 

10. Maintain spacing of 100 to 150 feet for all primary (main) skid trail routes, except where they 

converge at landings. If closer spacing is necessary due to complex terrain, the Timber Sale 

Administrator must provide advance approval. Main skid trails spaced 100 feet apart will 

maintain soil quality on 89 percent of the unit area. For larger activity areas (greater than 40 

acres) that can accommodate wider spacing distances, it is recommended that distance between 

main skid trials be increased to 150 feet to maintain soil quality on 93 percent of the unit area 

(Froehlich 1981; Garland 1983). This would reduce the amount of surface area where restoration 

treatments, such as subsoiling, may be required to mitigate impacts and to achieve soil 

management objectives. 

11. Restrict grapple skidders to designated areas (i.e., roads, landings, designated skid trails) at all 

times, and limit the amount of traffic from other specialized equipment off designated areas. The 

use of harvester machines will be authorized to make no more than two equipment passes on any 

site-specific area to accumulate materials. 

12. Avoid equipment operations during times of the year when soils are extremely dry and subject to 

excessive soil displacement.

13. Avoid equipment operations during periods of high soil moisture, as evidenced by equipment 

tracks that sink deeper than during dry or frozen conditions. An indication of potential 

detrimental disturbance would be identifiable when ruts, or indentations in the ground after 

equipment travel appears six inches in depth or greater. 

14. When possible, operate equipment over frozen ground or a sufficient amount of compacted snow 

to protect mineral soil. Equipment operations should be discontinued when frozen ground begins 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Soil Quality

Page 311 of 528

to thaw or when there is too little compacted snow and equipment begins to cause soil-puddling 

damage (rutting). 

15. Prevent additional soil effects in random locations of activity areas, between skid trails and away 

from landings, by machine piling and burning logging slash on existing log landings and skid 

trails that already have detrimental soil conditions. Equipment used for machine piling would

operate predominately from existing skid trails to minimize additional soil disturbance caused by 

equipment leaving the trail, however, there would be occasions in which the equipment would be 

allowed to leave the trail and make one pass to pile large concentrations in areas that cannot be 

reached from existing trails. 

16. On steep pitches (slopes of 30 percent or steeper) less than 100 feet long, equipment would be 

permitted to make one pass out and one pass back to harvest trees. In other areas, directional 

felling of trees to skid trails and /or line pulling should be utilized to harvest trees. This method 

applies to units that have a small amount of slopes over 30 percent in less than 10 percent of the 

unit area:

17. Reclaim or properly close all temporary roads by applying appropriate soil restoration treatments. 

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative A (No Action), the extent of detrimental soil conditions would not increase above 

existing levels because no additional land would be removed from production to build temporary roads 

and logging facilities. The effects of past and current management activities were previously described 

under Existing Condition of the Soil Resource. Appendix C displays existing percentages of detrimental 

soil conditions for each of the activity areas. The overall amount of detrimentally disturbed soil 

combined with soil resource commitments to management facilities would remain at current levels 

(Appendix C). This alternative would defer opportunities for soil restoration treatments that reduce 

existing effects and help move conditions toward a net improvement in soil quality.

Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Implementation of Alternatives B, C, D, or E would cause some new soil disturbances where groundbased equipment is used for mechanical harvest and yarding activities during the current entry. The 

combined effects of past and current disturbances and those anticipated from implementing the proposed 

actions were previously addressed under existing conditions and in the discussion of direct and indirect 

effects. The primary source of detrimental soil conditions from past management are associated with 

existing roads and ground-based logging facilities which were used for past harvest activities. Likewise, 

the majority of project-related soil effects from this entry would also be confined to known locations in 

heavy use areas (such as roads, log landings, and main skid trails). Estimates of existing and predicted 

amounts of detrimental soil conditions are displayed in Appendix C. The net change in detrimental soil 

conditions is associated with additional logging facilities that would be retained following harvest or postharvest soil restoration treatments.

The combined effects of slash disposal and other fuel reduction treatments are not expected to cause 

cumulative increases in detrimental soil conditions. Fuel reductions would mainly be accomplished by 

whole tree yarding and most of the logging slash would be piled and burned on log landings. Machine 

piling and burning of slash materials on temporary roads or main skid trails would not cause cumulative 

increases in soil disturbance because the piling and burning would occur on previously disturbed soils. 

Mechanical shrub and slash treatments would be accomplished using low ground-pressure machinery and 

soil disturbances form these activities are not expected to qualify as a detrimental soil condition. 

Monitoring results have shown that brush mowing activities would not increase the cumulative amount of 

detrimental soil conditions within activity areas (Soil Monitoring Report 1997). Slash disposal by hand 

piling and burning would not cause a measurable increase in detrimental soil conditions because 

machinery would not be used and burning small concentrations of slash materials is not expected to cause 

severely burned soil. Fuel reductions achieved through prescribed underburning in timber stands are 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Soil Quality

Page 312 of 528

conducted at times and under conditions that result in low-to-moderate intensity burns that do not cause 

detrimental changes in soil properties.

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter

Under Alternative A, the amount of coarse woody debris and surface organic matter would gradually 

increase over time. In the long term, the accumulation of CWD and forest litter would increase the risk 

for wildland fires.

As previously described for the direct and indirect effects, it is expected that the action alternatives would 

comply with the recommended management guidelines that ensure adequate retention of snags, CWD, 

and fine organic matter for surface cover, biological activity, and nutrient supplies for maintaining soil 

productivity on treated sites.

Foreseeable Actions Common to All Alternatives

Foreseeable future activities include continued recreation use, standard road maintenance, and prescribed 

maintenance burning to reduce fuel densities and the risk for future wildland fires.

The effects of recreation use would be confined mainly to small concentrated areas that would have a 

relatively minor effect on overall site productivity. Effects for dispersed recreation activities are usually 

found along existing roads and trails where vegetation has been cleared on or adjacent to old logging 

facilities in past harvest areas. Soil disturbances from future recreation use are expected to occur in 

similar locations. Incidental disturbances from hikers and mountain bikers are not expected to have a 

measurable effect on site productivity within the individual activity areas proposed for this project. There 

are minor soil-related concerns associated with the combined effects of these future activities.

Road maintenance activities would reduce accelerated erosion rates where improvements are necessary to 

correct drainage problems on specific segments of existing road. Surface erosion can usually be 

controlled by implementing appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce the potential for 

indirect effects to soils in areas adjacent to roadways. There are no major soil-related concerns associated 

with the combined effects of these future activities.

The effects of prescribed maintenance burning would be similar to those described for the direct and 

indirect effects common to all action alternatives. These complimentary activities would be conducted 

under carefully controlled conditions that maximize benefits while reducing the risk for resource damage. 

Prescribed burn plans would comply with all applicable LRMP standards and guidelines and BMPs prior 

to initiation of burn treatments. Soil moisture guidelines would be included in burn plans to minimize the 

risk of intense heating of the soil surface. The successful implementation of these proposed activities 

would likely result in beneficial effects by reducing fuel loadings and wildfire potential as well as 

increasing both water and plant nutrient availability in burned areas.
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Recreation

Page 313 of 528

Recreation

Existing Condition/Facilities

The following is a discussion of the recreation specialist report in its entirety. The zone if influence for 

the direct and indirect effects is the Rim-Paunina project area. 

There are limited developed recreation opportunities within the Rim-Paunina project area compared to 

other more heavily visited places on the Crescent Ranger District. The only developed recreation site is at 

Boundary Springs near Walker Rim, which has a bathroom and user-defined sites. There are no other 

amenities such as picnic tables or fire pits. Although it is depicted as a developed site on the Deschutes 

National Forest Recreation map, visitors experience dispersed camping with no fees and few restrictions. 

The site receives seasonal use, mostly with OHV enthusiasts in the springtime and big game hunters in 

the fall/winter. It is apparent that the local community is fond of the area and in addition to periodic visits 

from the Forest Service field rangers, the campers perform a certain amount of stewardship activities such 

as picking up litter and prevention of vandalism associated with other similar remote areas on the forest. 

Immediately adjacent to the east are lands designated for Old Growth Management in a mixed conifer 

plant association along Walker Rim, and to the north is the new Gilchrist State Forest interspersed with 

lands that are privately owned and managed in trust for Old Growth values associated with ponderosa 

pine.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) in the Boundary Springs site is for Roaded Natural and 

Semi-Primitive Motorized dependent upon the season of use. Roaded Natural is characterized by a 

predominately natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of 

humans. Semi-Primitive Motorized is characterized by a setting that is natural-appearing, concentration 

of users is low, and the area is managed with minimum on site controls.

In addition to Boundary Springs developed site, the most popular recreation experience visitors seek in 

the Rim-Paunina area is likely dispersed camping, which includes 23 inventoried traditional use sites 

(Figure 49). Visitation is considered high during hunting season and holidays (especially Fourth of July, 

Labor Day, and Memorial Day). The camping experience within the dispersed sites is largely unregulated 

with no fee and few restrictions. In Figure 49, Rim-Paunina proposed activity areas are overlaid onto the 

traditional camping sites. The Boundary Springs campground is in the vicinity of the northeast corner of 

the project area. Typically, the campers that traditionally camp in the Walker Rim area are very aware of 

forest management practices because they may live nearby National Forest system lands, and/or are 

employed in a forest industry job. Although active forest management on private and federal lands has 

recently overlapped the camping season, the Crescent Ranger District has received very few (if any) 

documented complaints from campers as a result of ongoing forest activities such as thinning and fire 

management.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Recreation

Page 314 of 528

Figure 49. Inventoried Dispersed Traditional Camping Sites in the Rim-Paunina Project Area

The Three Trails OHV area is a designated motorized trail that overlaps the Rim-Paunina area with Class 

I, II, and III trails. These trails vary from dual use roads to trails and routes that are scheduled to begin 

construction in 2012. There are 87 miles of trail planned in the vicinity of the Two Rivers North 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Recreation

Page 315 of 528

subdivision area and 14 miles in the Walker Mountain area for a total of 101 miles. The following 

estimates the use in the two segments that overlap the Rim-Paunina Project: 

“... in the Two Rivers North area, there are approximately 100 riders during average summertime 

weekends. This estimate is based on numbers of vehicles with trailers parked in established 

areas, number of people with OHVs observed camping, interviews with local business owners 

and OHV club members, and the number of residents that likely ride from their residences. On 

the holiday weekends of Memorial Day, the 4th of July, and Labor Day, it is estimated that rider 

numbers double to approximately 200 riders as people visit those that have a house in the 

subdivision as well as non-local riders that disperse camp or stay in a developed campground 

around Crescent Lake. It also is estimated eighty percent of them originate from the Two Rivers 

North subdivision with the remainder from non-local areas. 

In the Walker Mountain area, use outside of hunting season is estimated to be 50 riders on a 

typical weekend. These users originate from the communities of Crescent/Gilchrist and from 

Chemult to the south. Local riders also traverse the area on their way to the Fremont-Winema 

National Forests. Other than local use, some use originates from mostly self-contained 

recreational vehicles (RVs) campers using the Boundary Springs camping area. The Forest 

Service estimates that use doubles to around 100 riders during the hunting season (OctoberNovember), when approximately 21 inventoried dispersed sites east of Highway 97 and at the 

base of Walker Mountain are occupied with multiple OHV machines (Three Trails OHV Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, pages 88-89, 2010).”

Snowmobile use is also prevalent particularly along road 5835 that is maintained and groomed as the 

Chemult Run trail and road 5840 that is called the Deer Creek Loop trail. Currently, the 2009 Deschutes 

National Forest Commercial Road Rules list road 5835 as restricted for plowing and vehicle use from 

December 1 through March 31. Road 5840 does not have those restrictions. 

Although mushroom habitat is limited in the Rim-Paunina area, harvesters in the fall use road 94 for 

access to commercial picking on both the Deschutes and the Fremont-Winema National Forests. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

Alternative A would continue the status quo for vegetation within the analysis area. Custodial activities 

such as suppression of wildfires and maintenance of roads would continue. The public who use the area 

for dispersed camping and activities associated with motorized use in winter and summer seasons would 

not be affected by this alternative.

Alternatives B-E

At Boundary Springs, there are no overlapping commercial harvest or prescribed underburning units 

within the camping site. However, all of the action alternatives have activity planned for the perimeter of 

the campground for a potential duration of approximately five years. In Alternatives B through E, there 

would be a prescription in unit 640 for an improvement cut (HIM). This would increase the prevalence of 

ponderosa pine while decreasing the lodgepole pine component. Then, prescribed fire would be applied 

with a likely periodic return every 8 through 15 years. Prescriptions would maintain the largest trees and 

would appear more open than in the current condition. 

For some visitors that use the Boundary Springs area, there may be a perception the quality of their 

recreation experience has somewhat diminished because of the nearby forest management activities 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Recreation

Page 316 of 528

planned in the action alternatives. However, for most visitors that have used the site in the past, their 

recreation experience would not likely change, as they are knowledgeable of active forest management 

practices. As recent as the fall of 2010, thinning of stands similar to those activities proposed in RimPaunina was accomplished by an adjacent private land holder. Also, throughout the Walker Mountain 

area, execution of prescribed burning operations on federal lands frequently overlaps periods when 

visitors are using dispersed camping sites. The following Project Design Features were developed to 

maintain safety and a quality recreation experience for those visiting the Walker Mountain area. They 

have proven to be effective in the past with similar forest activities as proposed in the Rim-Paunina area:

During rifle hunting season, all hauling associated with timber harvest would honor agreements 

with the green dot system and access management restrictions for motorized vehicles. 

Prescribed burning operations are generally discouraged during rifle season and overlapping high 

visitation weekends such as Memorial Day and Fourth of July.

To maintain a quality camping and hunting experience, during the green dot road closure period 

associated with two-week rifle deer season, harvest operations and prescribed burning would be 

suspended in the immediate vicinity of designated campgrounds, including Boundary Springs 

(Unit 640). 

Sign Boundary Springs campground, motorized trails at appropriate locations, and at staging 

areas.

Utilize the physical presence of field rangers at key locations, especially during firing and mopup phases.

Utilize public notification in media, the Forest Service Web Portal, the COHVOPS website, and 

other appropriate venues such as organized motorized vehicle clubs.

Warning signs would be posted at prominent road junctions to inform the public of prescribed 

burning operations, and would remain in place until there is no visible smoke. If feasible, roads 

and trails may be temporarily closed for the protection of public safety.

As part of the plan to inform the public, notify local businesses prior to the burning season and on 

the day of planned prescribed burning operations. Also, notify adjacent landowners of burning 

operations conducted in units within 1⁄4 mile of their property. 

Coordinate with appropriate partners, such as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to 

incorporate information regarding prescribed burning operations in publications such as the 

hunting regulations and hunter booth hand outs.

Of the 23 inventoried dispersed camping sites, between 15 and 17 of them (depending on alternative)

would be overlapped by commercial thinning operations and/or prescribed burning. In addition to the 

prescribed burning education and information system in place, a Project Design Feature was designed to 

maintain the character of inventoried dispersed camping sites (Figure 49) by retaining the largest trees 

onsite and locating landings and skid trails away from the dispersed sites. Similar to effects disclosed for 

Boundary Springs, those camping in a dispersed site overlapped by ongoing forest management would 

likely continue to use the site because of familiarity with forest management practices and Project Design 

Features that would maintain the features that would draw a traditional camper year after year. 

Reference the Big Game section in this chapter for a discussion how Rim-Paunina activities affect 

Executive Order 13443 intended to enhance hunting opportunities on federal public lands. 

In addition to those activities predicted to overlap dispersed camping, some activities also have potential 

to affect motorized travel, both snowmobile and OHV. Snowmobile use is prevalent in the area 

particularly along road 5835 that is maintained and groomed as the Chemult Run trail and road 5840 that 

is called the Deer Creek Loop trail. A mitigation measure would be implemented to seasonally restrict 

(between December 1 and March 31) harvest operations and haul routes in units accessed by Forest 
Rim-Paunina Project Chapter 3 – Recreation

Page 317 of 528

Service roads 5835 and 5840 to protect access and quality of winter snowmobile trails and to maintain 

safety of users. 

If portions of the Three Trails OHV designated trail system and shared use roads overlap felling and 

hauling operations, they may be temporarily closed during operational periods of the timber harvest for a 

period up one year. If the overlap occurs during prescribed burning operations, portions of the trail 

system would be closed on burn days due to reduced visibility and hazards associated with potential 

exposure to fire and equipment. Project Design Features include a strategy to notify potential visitors by 

posting information on the central Oregon website, signing, and presence of field rangers at staging areas 

and affected trail systems until the hazard is abated. Although these activities have the potential to 

displace visitors, there would be more than approximately 2/3 of the trail system remaining for their use. 

In addition, a mitigation measure would be implemented to include coordination between the resource 

specialists, presale specialists, and the Central Oregon Off-Highway Vehicle Operations (COHVOPS) 

specialist to ensure adequate buffers and ‘pivot’ trees are retained prior to harvest and/or burning 

activities to ensure the long-term quality of the Three Trails OHV trail system.

Active forest management activities also have potential to change the scenery as viewed from the 

motorized trail system. Stands using prescriptions for thinning (HTH) and improvement (HIM) would 

appear more open with discrimination towards retention of individual trees with full crowns. Also, larger 

ponderosa pine would be a more dominant component, especially where lodgepole pine and other fire 

intolerant species are intermixed. Particularly in Alternative D, approximately 778 acres of openings 

ranging from 2-5 acres created by aggressive mistletoe prescriptions would remove every visibly infected 

tree regardless of size. In these areas, evidence of active forest management would be the most apparent 

to all visitors, with a duration of approximately 10 years until the stand is successfully regenerated with 

trees and other vegetation. 

Cumulative Effects

There are no other past, present, or foreseeable actions that overlap the project area in space and time with 

potential to affect recreation. Implementation of the Travel Management Project would affect how users 

access the area; however the Rim-Paunina project does not affect access except for relatively short-term 

and localized closures associated with public safety. Effects described under the heading Direct and 

Indirect would not change. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Botany TES

Page 318 of 528

Botany 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Plant Species

Introduction

The following analysis for botanical resources hereby incorporates the specialist report in its entirety. 

The zone of influence for bounding the effects is the project area.

Sensitive plants are those species identified by a U.S. Forest Service Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern, as evidenced by a significant current or predicted downward trend in

either population numbers or density, or in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing 

distribution (Forest Manual 2670.5). The sensitive species list for Region 6, Pacific Northwest, was last 

updated on January 31, 2008. This list includes vascular plants and non-vascular species such as 

bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), fungi (e.g. mushrooms), and lichens. 

Threatened and endangered plants are those species whose viability is of concern and have been identified 

as such by either State and/or Federal agencies. Within Oregon, the State and Federal designations for 

rare plants are listed by the following agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon 

Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Management Direction

The purpose of the Biological Evaluation (BE) is to comply with requirements of the Forest Service 

Manual (USFS 1995b), the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Deschutes National Forest 

(LRMP) (USFS 1990), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. These documents state that 

habitat for sensitive plant and animal species shall be managed or protected to ensure that the species do 

not become threatened or endangered. The Forest Service Manual also states that habitats for all existing 

native and desired non-native plants, fish, and wildlife should be managed to maintain at least viable 

populations for each species (USFS 1995a). The Rim-Paunina planning area is outside of the boundaries 

for the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP USDA/USDI 1994); therefore Survey and Manage requirements do 

not apply for this planning area. 

Pre-field Review

The pre-field review consisted of checking existing records for documented occurrences of any 

endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species. The pre-field review incorporated the following data 

sources:

Regional Forester’s (R-6) Sensitive Plant Species List (updated January 31, 2008)

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center: Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of 

Oregon(OBIC 2010)

NRIS (Natural Resource Inventory System) database for the Deschutes National Forest: Element 

Occurrence records for TES plants and noxious weeds (updated November 2011)

Geographical Information System (GIS) Sensitive Plant and Noxious Weed layer for the 

Deschutes National Forest (updated 3/1/2010)

Botany Survey Records, Crescent Ranger District (updated November 2011)

Pre-field reviews of existing records were conducted in March 2009 for the Rim-Paunina planning area. 

The results of these reviews indicated there were no documented occurrences of Federal proposed, 

endangered, or threatened plant species within the project area. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Botany- TES

Page 319 of 528

Survey Methods and Results

Botanical surveys of the Rim-Paunina planning area were conducted during July and August of 2006 and 

2007. The intuitive-controlled method was used to survey for sensitive plant species that were 

documented or suspected to occur on the Deschutes National Forest, as listed in Table 96. Surveys were 

conducted within the designated treatment units for the project, with noxious weed surveys conducted 

simultaneously. No TES plant species were documented during these surveys.

On April 15, 2010, an incidental field survey of the wet meadow area within Rim Paunina Unit 205 

resulted in the discovery of tomentypnum moss (Tomentypnum nitens), which is a Region 6 Sensitive 

species. It is estimated that several thousand individuals of this species were in a wetland area 

approximately 1⁄4 acre in size.

Existing Conditions

Potential Habitat for Sensitive plant species

In reviewing the Sensitive plant list and associated habitats, it was determined that the following species 

had moderate habitat potential within the Rim-Paunina planning area: Alpova alexsmithii (fungus), 

Astragalus peckii (Peck’s milkvetch), Castilleja cholorotica (green-tinge paintbrush), Eucephalus 

gormanii (Gorman’s aster), Tomentypnum nitens (moss), and Ramaria amyloidea (coral mushroom). 

With the exception of the sequestrate (e.g. fruiting below-ground) Alpova alexsmithii species, these are 

plant and fungal species that are found above-ground and can be easily seen during field surveys. 

Extensive botany surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2007. Of the six species listed above, only the fen 

moss Tomentypnum nitens was found. 

Known Sensitive Plant Occurrences

Of the 74 species listed on the Deschutes/Ochoco Sensitive Plants list, there are two species that have 

been documented within the project area: pumice grape-fern (Botrychium pumicola) and tomentypnum 

moss (Tomentypnum nitens). A discussion on the ecology and existing condition of these species is 

provided below.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Botany TES

Page 320 of 528

Table 96. Pre-Field Review Summary of 2008 Sensitive Plant List for the Rim-Paunina Planning Area 

(Note: The species highlighted in grey have documented occurrences within the project area; those species listed in bold have 

moderate habitat potential, but no known occurrences.)

R6 Sensitive Plant Species 

Documented or Suspected 

on the Deschutes National 

Forest

Range Habitat

Known 

Occurrence 

within 

Project 

Area? 

Within the 

District?

Probability of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area

Agoseris elata

(vascular plant)

Washington and Oregon 

Cascades

Forest openings and forest edges 

adjacent to wet/moist meadows, 

lakes, rivers, and streams

No/No Low; habitat 

marginal

Alpova alexsmithii

(fungus) 

Cascades, Central OR 

to WA

Associated with various Pinaceae

sp., incl. Pacific silver fir, 

lodgepole, Engelmann spruce, 

and mountain hemlock

No/Yes

Moderate; 

suitable habitat 

present

Arabis suffrutescens var.

horizontalis

(vascular plant)

South-Central Oregon Meadows, woods, summits, ridges, 

and exposed rock outcrops 

No/No Low; outside 

known range

Arnica viscosa

(vascular plant)

South-Central Oregon 

Cascades, California

Scree, talus gullies, lava flows and 

slopes w/ seasonal runoff. May be in 

moraine lake basins or crater lake 

basins 

No/No Low; habitat 

marginal

Astragalus peckii

(vascular plant) South-Central Oregon Basins, benches, gentle slopes, and meadows. No/Yes

Moderate; 

possible habitat 

with B. pumicola

Barbilophozia 

lycopodiooides

(liverwort) 

Circumboreal, south to 

Oregon and Idaho High elevation peaks, peaty soil No/No None; no habitat present

Botrychium pumicola

(vascular plant) Central Oregon

Alpine-subalpine ridges, slopes, and 

meadows. Lodgepole forests in 

basins with frost pockets, pumice 

flats

Yes/Yes

14 known 

occurrences in 

Rim area

Brachydontium olympicum

(moss) 

Alaska through Oregon, 

Cascade Mountains

Subalpine to alpine boulder fields, 

moraines and cliff faces No/No None; no habitat present 

Calamagrostis breweri

(vascular plant)

Oregon North Cascades 

and California

Non-forest moist-to-dry subalpine 

and alpine meadows, open slopes, 

streambanks, lake margins

No/No None; no habitat 

present

Carex abrupta

(vascular plant) 

Oregon, California, 

Nevada

Montane, forests, meadows and 

open slopes. Usually dry soils No/No Low, habitat marginal

Carex capitata

(vascular plant) Circumboreal Wet meadows, fens and bogs No/Yes Low; no work in riparian areas

Carex diandra

(vascular plant) 

Circumboreal, south to 

California

Swamps, sphagnum bogs, lake 

margins No/No Low; no work in riparian areas

Carex lasiocarpa var. 

Americana

(vascular plant) 

S Cascades of 

Washington, Idaho, 

Montana, Utah, 

irregularly to Oregon

Mid elevation swamps and wet 

meadows No/Yes Low; no habitat present

Carex livida

(vascular plant)

Oregon Washington, 

California, Idaho

In peatlands, including fens and 

bogs; wet meadows with still or 

channeled water

No/No Low; no work in 

riparian areas 

Carex retrorsa

(vascular plant) 

Nevada, Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho, to 

the north and east

Bogs, swamps, wet meadows, 

stream margins No/No Low; no work in riparian areas

Carex vernacula

(vascular plant) 

Washington, Oregon, 

California, Idaho Alpine, moist meadows, open slopes No/No None; no habitat present

Castilleja chlorotica

(vascular plant) Oregon east Cascades

LP-PP, mixed conifer forest 

openings. PP at lower and LP at 

mid, and mixed conifer at highest 

elevations

No/No

Moderate; 

suitable habitat 

may be present 

Cheilanthes feei

(vascular plant) 

Widespread western 

states, barely in Oregon Limestone rocky areas No/No Low; no work on rocky outcrops

Chyloscyphus gimmiparis

(liverwort) Oregon, Alaska, Utah High elevation montane streams, aquatic No/No Low; no habitat present
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Botany- TES

Page 321 of 528

R6 Sensitive Plant Species 

Documented or Suspected 

on the Deschutes National 

Forest

Range Habitat

Known 

Occurrence 

within 

Project 

Area? 

Within the 

District?

Probability of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area

Collomia mazama

(vascular plant)

South-Central 

Cascades, Oregon

Meadows (dry to wet, level to 

sloping); stream banks and bars, 

lakeshores and vernal pool margins; 

forest edges and openings; alpine 

slopes

No/No Low; outside 

known range

Conostomum tetragonum

(moss) 

Circumboreal; from BC 

through California

Subalpine to alpine boulder fields, 

moraines, and cliff ledges No/No None; no suitable habitat 

Cyperus acuminatus

(vascular plant) 

Western states, west 

cascades Oregon Margins wet areas, lake edges No/Yes Low; no work in riparian areas 

Cyperus lupulinus 

ssp.lupulinus

(vascular plant) 

Idaho, Eastern 

Washington, Oregon

Rocky slopes adjacent to streams, 

low elevation No/No Low; marginal habitat

Dermatocarpon luridum

(lichen) Oregon, Washington

On rocks or bedrock in streams or 

seeps, usually submerged or 

inundated for most of the year

No/No Low; no work in 

riparian areas

Elatine brachysperma

(vascular plant) 

Washington, Oregon, 

California, Nevada Wet to drying muds No/No Low; no work in riparian areas 

Eucephalus gormanii

(vascular plant)

Northern West 

Cascades

Rocky ridges, outcrops, or rocky 

slopes No/No

Moderate; 

suitable habitat 

may be present

Gastroboletus vividus

(fungus)

Rogue River N.F., 

Crater Lake NP, CA

Associated with the roots of 

Pinaceae sp. such as Shasta red fir 

and mountain hemlock

No/No Low; outside 

known range

Gentiana newberryi var.

newberryi

(vascular plant) 

Oregon east and west 

Cascades, California

Wet to dry alpine, subalpine, and 

mountain mixed conifer zones, in 

forest openings and meadows, 

commonly with tufted hairgrass

No/No Low; habitat 

marginal

Helodium blandowii

(moss) 

Circumboreal, south 

through Cascades to 

Sierra Nevada, and 

through Rockies to 

Arizona

Montane fens with calcareous 

groundwater. No/Yes None; restricted to fen habitats

Heliotropium 

curassavicum

(vascular plant) 

Western United States Alkaline, saline playas, receding 

ponds and clay soils No/No Low; no work in riparian areas 

Helvella crassitunicata

(fungus) 

Cascades, central 

Oregon to northern WA

On soil, along trails in montane 

regions with sp. such as Pacific 

silver fir, grand fir, and mountain 

hemlock

No/No Low; suitable 

habitat not present

Hygrophorus caeruleus

(fungus) 

Cascades, central 

Oregon (Jefferson Co.) 

to central WA

On soil in association with roots of 

Pinaceae sp. near melting 

snowbanks

No/Yes Low; outside 

known range

Leptogium cyanescens

(lichen) Oregon, Washington

Generally riparian but recently 

documented in upland settings on 

vine maple, big leaf maple and 

Oregon white oak

No/No Low; no work in 

riparian areas 

Lipocarpha aristulata

(vascular plant) 

Washington, Oregon, 

California, Idaho

Low elevation streamsides, gravel 

bars No/No Low; no work in riparian areas

Lobelia dortmanna

(vascular plant)

Oregon East Cascades, 

Washington

Shallow water at margins of lakes, 

ponds, and rivers or in standing 

water of bogs and wet meadows

No/No Low; no work in 

riparian areas

Lycopodiella inundata

(vascular plant)

Oregon, Idaho, 

California, Montana –

Circumboreal

Deflation areas in coastal 

backdunes; montane bogs, including 

sphagnum bogs; less often wet 

meadows

No/Yes Low; restricted to 

lakeshore habitats

Lycopodium complanatum

(vascular plant)

Oregon, Idaho, 

Washington 

Edges of wet meadows; dry forested 

midslope with >25% canopy cover No/No

Low; habitat 

marginal, outside 

known range

Muhlenbergia minutissima

(vascular plant) Western United States Thin lava soils, associated with Typha, sedges No/No Low; habitat unlikely
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Botany TES

Page 322 of 528

R6 Sensitive Plant Species 

Documented or Suspected 

on the Deschutes National 

Forest

Range Habitat

Known 

Occurrence 

within 

Project 

Area? 

Within the 

District?

Probability of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area

Ophioglossum pusillum

(vascular plant)

Oregon, Washington, 

California, Idaho 

Dune deflation plains; marsh edges; 

vernal ponds and stream terraces in 

moist meadows

No/No Low; no work 

riparian areas

Penstemon peckii

(vascular plant)

Central Oregon east 

Cascades

PP openings, open PP forests; 

mixed conifer openings; recovering 

fluvial surfaces

No/Yes Low; outside 

known range

Pilularia americana

(vascular plant) Oregon, California 

Alkali and other shallow vernal 

pools, not recently used stock 

ponds, reservoir shores

No/No Low; no work in 

riparian areas

Polytrichum 

sphaerothecium

(moss) 

East Asia-Western 

North America through 

Alaska to Oregon; 

highest Cascade peaks

Subalpine to alpine, forming green 

to brown sods on igneous rocks in 

exposed or sheltered sites.

No/No Low; no suitable 

habitat 

Potamogeton diversifolius

(vascular plant)

Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, 

California Aquatic, Pond edges, No/No Low; no work in riparian areas

Pseudocalliergon trifarium

(moss) 

Circumboreal; British 

Columbia, Alberta, 

Montana, Oregon

Montane fens, submerged to 

emergent or on saturated ground, 

usually in full sunlight

No/No Low; restricted to 

fen habitats

Ramaria amyloidea

(fungus) 

Central OR Cascades 

(Willamette and DES 

NF); WA Cascades, 

NW CA

Mycorrhizal with true firs, 

Douglas fir, and western hemlock 

in humus or soil.

No/Yes

Moderate, 

suitable habitat 

may be present

Rhizomnium nudum

(bryophyte) Oregon, Washington 

Moss found in moist coniferous 

forests. On DNF associates include 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, 

mountain hemlock, and western 

white pine 

No/Yes Low; suitable 

habitat not present 

Rorippa columbiae

(vascular plant)

Oregon, California, 

Washington

Wet to vernally moist sites in 

meadows, fields, playas, lakeshores, 

intermittent stream beds, banks of 

perennial streams, along irrigation 

ditches, river bars and deltas, 

roadsides. 

No/Yes Low; suitable 

habitat unlikely

Rotala ramosior

(vascular plant) 

Washington, Oregon, 

California, Idaho

Low elevation low gradient shores, 

pond edges, river bars No/No Low; restricted to riparian areas

Scheuchzeria palustris 

var. americana

(vascular plant)

Oregon, Washington, 

California, Idaho 

Open to canopied bogs, fens, and 

other wetlands where often in 

shallow water

No/No Low, restricted to 

fen habitats 

Schistostega pennata

(bryophyte) 

Oregon, Washington, 

circumboreal

Mineral soil in crevices on lower and 

more sheltered parts of root wads of 

fallen trees near streams or other 

wet areas

No/Yes

Low; restricted to 

specific damp, 

rootwad habitat 

Schoenoplectus 

subterminalis

(vascular plant)

Oregon, Washington, 

California, Idaho 

Generally submerged to emergent in 

quiet water 2-8 decimeters deep, in 

peatlands, sedge fens, creeks, 

ditches, ponds and lakes

No/Yes Low; restricted to 

aquatic habitats 

Scouleria marginata

(bryophyte) 

Pacific Northwest 

endemic; Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho, 

northern California, 

southwestern British 

Columbia

Exposed or shaded rocks in 

streams; seasonally submerged or 

emergent

No/No Low; restricted to 

aquatic habitats

Splachnum ampullaceum

(moss) 

Circumboreal; from 

Alaska through Oregon, 

and Alberta

Peatlands, wetlands, on old 

ungulate dung No/No Low; restricted to wetlands

Texosporium sancti-jacobi

(lichen) Western North America In Oregon, late seral dry shrub/grassland No/No Low; no habitat in project area 

Tomentypnum nitens

(moss)

Circumboreal, Alaska 

through Oregon

Montane fens at slightly elevated 

(stumps, logs, hummocks) Yes/Yes Low; restricted to 

fen habitats 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Botany- TES

Page 323 of 528

R6 Sensitive Plant Species 

Documented or Suspected 

on the Deschutes National 

Forest

Range Habitat

Known 

Occurrence 

within 

Project 

Area? 

Within the 

District?

Probability of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area

Trematodon boasii

(moss)

British Columbia 

through California, 

Japan, Newfoundland

Subalpine stream, trail and pond 

edges. No/No Low; no suitable habitat present

Tritomaria exsectiformis

(liverwort)

Alaska through Oregon, 

to Montana, Wyoming 

and Colorado

Open to shaded coniferous forest 

along perennial flowing water from 

springs and seeps

No/Yes Low; no fen habitat 

Utricularia minor

(vascular plant) 

Western United states 

north through Canada

Aquatic plant of pools, ponds, bogs, 

marshes, wet meadows No/Yes Low; restricted to aquatic habitats 

Pumice grape-fern 

Ecology 

Pumice grape-fern is a diminutive plant (2 – 6 inches tall) that is endemic to central Oregon and found 

nowhere else in the world. It has a leathery, pale-green leaf on one stalk, with a second stalk that holds 

small bunches of ‘grape-like’ structures that contain spores. Pumice grape-fern is closely associated with 

the loose, volcanic soils of Central Oregon. It is found in pumice soil in two habitat types: on open, frost 

pockets within montane lodgepole (Pinus contorta), and on rocky summit slopes on alpine ridges (Powers 

2008). 

Pumice grape-fern is a perennial plant that does not appear above ground every year. The plants 

generally emerge above ground in mid-May; the spores mature and separate from the plant in late July. 

After the spores have been released, the plant dies back, and overwinters about two inches underground. 

For the spores to develop, they require complete darkness, as well as a mycorrhizal (i.e. fungal) partner 

(Johnson-Groh et al. 2002). This is essential for the plant to receive carbohydrates, minerals, and water 

critical to its survival. Without this mycorrhizal connection, the grape-fern plant would not live. Because 

of this fungal connection, the grape-fern is able to live underground for one to three years without sending 

up an above-ground, photosynthetic portion with no apparent loss of size or other negative effects 

(Johnson-Groh et al. 2002). It may take 5-8 years for a grape-fern’s life cycle process to occur (i.e. for a 

spore to turn into an above-ground spore-bearing plant), according to research conducted on other 

Botrychium species (Johnson-Groh 1998). 

The disturbance ecology of pumice grape-fern is not well understood. There has been only one 

documented study (Amsberry 2003) that has examined the effects of disturbance on this species. The 

results of this study found that plant burial is detrimental, while clipping and shading do not affect plant 

emergence. The study also found that recovery from mild scraping and compaction is possible. From 

observations made by botanists over the past decade, it appears that pumice grape-fern is not maintained 

by disturbance, but can recover from mild site disturbance, if the soil horizons are not displaced and the 

disturbance is not recurring (Powers 2008).

Existing Condition

There are about 548 occurrences of pumice grape-fern in Central and South-Central Oregon, with the total 

number of plants estimated at a conservative 26,882 (Powers 2008). Pumice grape-fern is listed as 

Threatened by the Oregon Department of Agriculture, and is on the Oregon Natural Heritage Program’s 

(2004) list 1: “taxa which are endangered or threatened throughout their range or which are presumed 

extinct”.

On the Deschutes National Forest, there are 433 documented occurrences of pumice grape-fern, with 

approximately 16,360 individuals (Powers 2008). The majority of these sites are on the Bend Ft. Rock 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Botany TES

Page 324 of 528

District, with occurrences on Broken Top, Mt. Bachelor, Newberry Crater, and the Katai Basin. On the 

Crescent Ranger District, occurrences of pumice grape-fern are located under the Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA) powerline near Highway 97, and in a lodgepole matrix near Highway 31 near the 

Katai Basin of the Bend Ft. Rock Ranger District (USFS 2001). 

Within the Rim-Paunina project area, there are 14 known occurrences of this species. All these 

occurrences are centered under the BPA powerline. Botanical records from the late 1990’s had 

documented a total of 97 individual plants at these sites (NRIS 2009). Focused surveys in 2008 of these 

same sites documented several hundred plants. 

The abundance of pumice grape-fern under the BPA powerline is due to the amount of available habitat 

for this species. BPA keeps the powerline area clear of vegetation through manual tree and brush cutting, 

which maintains the open habitat that pumice grape-fern prefers. There is an existing road (Forest 

Service road 012) that runs underneath the powerline, and is used for OHV and 4x4 travel. Observations 

made during 2008 botany surveys did record evidence of vehicle disturbance (tread marks) at one of the 

pumice grape-fern sites. No other signs of human-caused disturbance were seen at the other grape-fern 

sites. 

Tomentypnum moss

Ecology and Existing Condition

This moss species is found exclusively in moist, fen habitats of mid to high elevation coniferous forests 

(NatureServe Explorer 2010). Tomentypnum nitens is one of the more conspicuous of several species of 

so-called "brown mosses" that occur in mineral-rich fens. It is distinguished from other fen mosses by its 

golden-brown leaves and feathered appearance. T. nitens forms loose or dense sods or is intermixed with 

other bryophytes in medium to rich montane fens where it favors slightly elevated sites such as logs, 

stumps, or hummocks formed by bog blueberry (Vacccinium uliginosum) and bog birch (Betula 

occidentalis). 

There is scant scientific literature concerning the ecology of T. nitens, especially in terms of potential 

threats. The growth of T. nitens is controlled by the balance between evaporation rate and transport of 

water from the water table to the canopy surface (Busby et al. 1978). Because this species is restricted to 

wetland habitats, the most obvious threat would be the loss of habitat or disruption of site hydrology. 

Other potential threats to the global population include livestock grazing, commercial peat harvesting, and 

conversion of peatlands to forest (Christy 2007). 

T. nitens is a circumboreal species, being rare south of the Canadian border in Oregon and Washington, 

where it is at the southern edge of its range in the Pacific Northwest (Christy 2007). This species has 

been documented on the Deschutes, Fremont-Winema, and Umpqua National Forests, and at Crater Lake 

National Park. On the Deschutes National Forest, there are 22 documented sites of T. nitens, all of which 

are restricted to fen habitats (NRIS 2011). On the Crescent Ranger District, new occurrences of this 

species have recently been discovered in numerous fen habitats throughout the District, including RimPaunina unit 205.

Matsutake Mushroom (Plant Species of Concern)

The matsutake mushroom (Trichloma magnivelare) is an important commercial product on the Crescent 

Ranger District. Because of this commercial importance, effects to matsutake are considered for projects 

that occur within habitat for this species. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 – Botany- TES

Page 325 of 528

Ecology33

American matsutake is an edible and highly sought-after mushroom that grows throughout the Pacific 

Northwest. It ranges from southeast Alaska through the coastal pine forests and the eastern crest of the 

Cascade Range in Washington and Oregon, to the Siskiyou and Klamath mountains of southwest Oregon 

and northwest California (Pilz et al. 1996). 

Matsutake is associated with a number of tree hosts, including lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Douglasfir, mountain hemlock, and true firs. In the southern Oregon Cascades highly productive matsutake sites 

occur in mixed conifer and pine habitat between 4430 and 6560 feet elevation (Hosford et al. 1997). 

On the Crescent District, matsutake occurs primarily in the lodgepole, bitterbrush, and needlegrass plant 

association that is common in the southwestern region of the District. 

There are numerous factors (both natural and anthropogenic34) that can affect the production and fruiting 

of matsutake. Such factors include weather, disturbance events, forest management practices, and 

mushroom harvesting (Pilz et al. 1999; Amaranthus et al. 2001; Luoma et al. 2006). Natural fire and 

prescribed fire both influence ectomycorrhizal community dynamics and succession in coniferous forests 

to varying degrees depending on intensity, time of fire, and length of time since fire (Dahlberg et al. 

2001). 

Existing Condition

The commercial harvest of American matsutake is a highly valuable industry in the Pacific Northwest

with thousands of tons of mushrooms harvested annually (Molina 1993). Some of the most productive 

matsutake habitat is located on the Deschutes (Crescent Ranger District), Fremont-Winema (Chemult 

District), and the Umpqua (Diamond Lake District) Forests (Hosford et al. 1997). On the Crescent 

Ranger District an average of 287 commercial permits are purchased each harvesting season, at an annual 

value of $41,400 (this based on Crescent permit sales from 1989 to 2007). Data on the amount of 

matsutake mushrooms harvested from the Crescent District is not collected, so there is a lack of 

information of the cumulative volume (i.e. total weight) of mushrooms that are harvested annually. 

Habitat for matsutake is primarily within the southwest region of the District. Within the Rim-Paunina 

planning area there is very little harvesting, due to the lack of available habitat. Instead, mushroom 

harvesters use the 94 road to access harvest areas within the neighboring Fremont-Winema Forests (T. 

Kerr, per. comm. 2010). 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Sensitive Species (tomentypnum moss and pumice grape-fern) 

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative, the existing management conditions would continue within the project planning 

area. There would be no effects to tomentypnym moss or pumice grape-fern as a result of the current 

management scenario.

 

33 A detailed review of the matsutake ecology and disturbance effects can be found in Chapter 3 of the EIS document for the BLT 

project (USFS, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District 2009).

34 Relating to or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature. Merriam-Webster Dictionary Jan 2012
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3 –Botany TES

Page 326 of 528

Alternatives B-E

None of the alternatives propose activities within the wet meadow habitat portion of unit 205 where a 

population of tomentypnum moss was documented. The proposed tree thinning adjacent this area would 

not have a detrimental effect on this population.

The project does include several treatment units that border known occurrences of pumice grape-fern 

along the BPA powerline (Table 97). To protect these occurrences from any ground disturbance 

associated with treatment activities, appropriate Project Design Features such as: “Known sites of pumice 

grape-fern would be flagged for avoidance prior to equipment work within the following treatment units: 

655, 680, 755, 795, 796, 800, 805, 815, 820 and 870” and “No equipment or vehicles would be staged or 

parked within these flagged areas to protect pumice grape-fern plant” have been incorporated so that the 

project would have no effect on the pumice grape-fern.

Table 97. Location of Pumice Grape-fern Sites near Rim-Paunina Project Units

Unit # NRIS Site # Location Comments

655

680 06010200507 between units

755 06010200508

06010200509

along eastern unit boundary

along eastern unit boundary

795

796

06010200510

06010200511

06010200512

between units

800

805

06010200512

06010200513

06010200514

between units

815 06010200515 along eastern unit boundary

820 06010200098 along northeast corner of unit

870 06010200171 between western edge of unit boundary and 

railroad track berm

Plant Species of Concern (matsutake mushroom)

Common to All Alternatives 

Because only marginal matsutake habitat is found within the planning area, there would be no 

quantifiable effect to matsutake production as a result of either a passive or active management scenario.

Cumulative Effects

Table 19 was reviewed for project actions that have a similar zone of influence and overlap in time and 

space with the Rim-Paunina vegetation management project. It was determined that there are no other 

past, present, or foreseeable actions that overlap the project area in space and time with potential to affect 

botanical resources. In addition, since there are no direct or indirect effects on botanical resources 

associated with activities in the Rim-Paunina project, there can be no cumulative effects associated with 

past, present, and foreseeable actions. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Botany- Invasive Plants

Page 327 of 528

Invasive Plants

Introduction

Non-native invasive plants are those species that have been introduced into an environment in which they 

did not evolve and usually have no natural enemies to limit their reproduction and spread (Westbrooks 

1998). The term ‘noxious weed’ refers to any plant classified by a State or national agriculture 

department as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or any public or private property 

(ODA 2010). For the purpose of this environmental report, the terms ‘invasive plants’ and ‘noxious 

weeds’ will be used interchangeably.

Invasive plants are aggressive species capable of degrading environmental quality or causing economic 

harm (USFS 2007). Such species have a number of physiological characteristics that permit them to 

rapidly invade into new areas and out-compete native vegetation (Westbrooks 1998). These traits include 

early maturation and rapid growth, profuse seed or vegetative reproduction, allelopathic toxins, and lack 

of natural enemies within invaded areas. 

Invasive plants are especially undesirable in forest ecosystems because they tend to displace native plants, 

degrade habitat for wildlife species, contribute to soil erosion, and potentially reduce the value of 

recreational experiences (Westbrooks 1998; USFS 2007). 

Management Direction

National Direction 

The Noxious Weed Management Act (1974) contains provisions to prevent the dissemination of noxious 

weeds. Other provisions in the act authorize the cooperation of Federal agencies with agencies of State, 

districts, farmers’ associations and similar organizations or individuals in carrying out operations or 

measures to eradicate, suppress, control, or retard the spread of any noxious weed. In addition, 36 CFR 

222.8 acknowledges the Agencies’ obligations to work cooperatively in identifying noxious weed 

problems and developing control programs in areas where National Forest System lands are located.

Executive Order 13112 implemented on February 3, 1999 requires Federal agencies to use relevant 

programs and authorities to prevent the introduction of invasive species and not authorize or carry out 

actions that are likely to cause the introduction or spread of invasive species unless the agency has 

determined, and made public, documentation that shows that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh 

the potential harm, and all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will need to be taken 

in conjunction with the actions. The USDA Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices

(July 2001) supports implementation of Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species.

Regional Direction

Region 6 of the Forest Service has prepared an Invasive Plant Environmental Impact Statement (R6 IP 

EIS). The Final EIS was released in June 2005 and the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in October 

2005; implementation began March 1, 2006. The R6 Invasive Plant EIS applies to non-native invasive 

plant species. Standards and Guidelines in the R6 IP EIS are incorporated into Forest Plans in the region. 

Forest Direction

The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is amended to incorporate 

Standards and Guidelines from the R6 IP EIS. 

In 1998, the Deschutes National Forest Noxious Weed Control Environmental Assessment (DNF Weed 

EA) with its supplemental Deschutes National Forest Integrated Weed Management Plan (IWMP) was 

completed in accordance with the Regional Vegetation Management FEIS and Mediated Agreement. The 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Botany- Invasive Plants

Page 328 of 528

Decision Notice from the DNF Weed EA selected an alternative that allows a variety of noxious weed 

treatments, including herbicides (USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, 1998). 

The DNF Weed EA and IWMP identify and promote actions within the noxious weed management 

strategies of prevention, early treatment, maintenance, and awareness. Implementation of management 

strategies include analyzing the risk of noxious weed invasion during the project planning process and 

developing tactics to avoid introduction or spread of noxious weeds, clean equipment provisions in 

contracts, actions to prevent weed introduction and spread, and suggestions for increasing awareness of 

noxious weeds and the risks they pose, both within the Forest Service and with the public.

Since the early 1990s, gathering information of location and size of infestations for all known noxious 

weed sites has been underway. This information has been entered into the Natural Resource Inventory 

System (NRIS) database for the Forest Service and GIS Invasives layer for the Deschutes Forest.

Under the authority of the DNF Weed EA, noxious weeds have been treated within the Crescent District 

starting in 1999 using manual control (e.g. hand-pulling). 

Existing Condition

A pre-field review was conducted using the GIS Invasives layer (updated 1/28/2009) and the NRIS 

Invasives database (updated11/12/11) for the Deschutes National Forest. There are five occurrences 

(database records) documenting the presence of eight species of invasive plants that have been found 

within the Rim-Paunina project area. With the exception of one site, all of these occurrences were 

documented along Highways 58 and 97 (Table 98). Most of these sites are of historic weed infestations,

which are weeds sites that were found and treated and now are monitored annually to ensure that the 

weeds have not re-emerged. There is only one infestation site within a treatment unit, which is an historic 

(found in 1997) site of bull thistle within Rim Paunina unit 775 (Figure 50). This site was re-surveyed on 

April 15 2010, and no bull thistle plants were found. 

In unit 25 there is approximately one mile of a non-system road of indiscriminate age that would be 

obliterated as it is tied to the meadow enhancement/restoration activities in Five Mile Draw. There are no 

known invasive plants.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Botany- Invasive Plants

Page 329 of 528

Figure 50. Invasive Species Locations within the Rim-Paunina Treatment Areas

The active (treated annually) weed sites consist of isolated infestations consisting of one to several dozen 

plants of the following weed species: spotted and diffuse knapweeds, Dalmatian toadflax, and St. John’s 

wort. Below is a summary of the ecology and existing condition of these invasive plants:

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii, formerly named Centaurea maculosa) is one of the 

most dominant weed species in the western United States. Throughout central Oregon, knapweed 

(both spotted and diffuse) are readily seen along roadways and in empty lots in midsummer to 

late fall, where it is identified by its purple flowers and bushy growth form. Spotted knapweed 

reproduces readily by seeds, which are dispersed by wind, vehicles, animals, or humans. 

Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) like spotted knapweed, is a biennial or short-lived 

perennial plant that blooms mid-summer to fall. It is also recognized from its bushy growth form 

(up to 3 feet tall) and pale pink to purple flowers. Like other knapweeds, diffuse knapweed is a 

highly competitive and aggressive plant that forms dense colonies. It is especially adept at 

spreading along right-of-ways and can spread rapidly. Disturbed lands are prime candidates for 

colonization, but diffuse knapweed will also invade undisturbed grasslands, shrublands, and 

riparian communities.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Botany- Invasive Plants

Page 330 of 528

Both spotted and diffuse knapweeds are the most problematic weeds in upland settings on the 

Deschutes National Forest. On the Crescent Ranger District, small infestations of spotted 

knapweed are found every year and hand-pulled along Highways 58 and 97.

Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) is a perennial herb that is easily recognized by its showy 

yellow flowers, which resemble snapdragon plants. This species is a persistent, aggressive 

invader capable of forming colonies through creeping root systems. Toadflax primarily occurs on 

roadsides, railroads, pastures cultivated fields, range lands, and within clearcuts. Because of its 

spreading root system, toadflax is capable of invading relatively undisturbed and open native 

plant communities. Within the Crescent Ranger District, small infestations of common and 

Dalmatian toadflax have been documented and hand-pulled along Highways 58 and 97.

St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) is also known as goatweed or Klamath weed. It is a 

perennial plant, 1-3 feet tall, and is distinguished by its abundant yellow flowers and gland-dotted 

leaves. This species is listed as an invasive plant in over 20 countries, and is a common weed 

throughout the Pacific Northwest. Infestations of St. John’s wort spread rapidly on disturbed, 

well drained sites such as roadways, trails, ski slopes, overgrazed rangeland, and logged areas.

Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) is a common weed of the Pacific Northwest that reproduces solely 

from seeds that are dispersed by wind, water, animals, and human activities (ODA 2010). 

Disturbed areas are prime habitat for bull thistle to invade. On the Crescent Ranger District, bull 

thistle commonly invades logging landings, skid trails, and burned areas. Anecdotal observations 

of bull thistle seem to indicate that this species inhabits a disturbed site temporarily, then 

decreases and disappears when native vegetation regains its pre-disturbance levels. In areas that 

are continually disturbed, such as roadsides, bull thistle may invade and persist if not controlled. 

Due to a combination of limited funds and noxious weed species of higher priority, bull thistle is 

only treated in limited areas (logging landings, etc.) on the Deschutes National Forest. 

Common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) is a biennial or short-lived perennial from Europe that can 

reach heights of five feet or more. It is easily recognized by its large, woolly leaves and tall spike 

of yellow flowers. Mullein readily invades disturbed areas with bare ground such as roadsides, 

burned areas, logging sites, and pastures (Invasipedia 2010). Mullein is an ephemeral species that 

is eventually displaced by other vegetation, and is easily outcompeted by intact vegetation 

communities. It is a common weed on the Deschutes National Forest, and is only treated in 

specific project areas. On the Crescent District, mullein is commonly found along roadways, in 

tree thinning units, logging landings, and burned areas. 

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) is a perennial, rhizomatous thistle that is distinguished by its 

small, purple flowerheads. Contrary to its name, this species is native to Europe and was 

introduced into North America in the early 17th century. Canada thistle is primarily a weed of wet 

areas such as meadows, canal edges, and riparian areas. In the past, small occurrences of this 

species have been removed along Hwy 97 within the Rim Paunina planning area. 

Yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) is a highly aggressive, adaptable weed that inhibits the 

growth of native and agriculture plants in forest, pasture, rangeland, and wasteland areas. There 

has been one occurrence of this weed that was found and removed along Hwy 97.

Kochia (Kochia scoparia) is a highly weedy annual, native to Eurasia that is found widely in 

disturbed environments such as pastures, roadsides, abandoned lots, and agriculture fields. It 

easily reproduces by seed from dispersal by wind and water, especially when the entire plant 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Botany- Invasive Plants

Page 331 of 528

detaches into a ‘tumbleweed’ and is rolled by the wind. Isolated infestations of this species have 

been found and treated along Highway 97 within the Rim-Paunina planning area. 

Although all of the above-mentioned species are listed on the weed list for the Deschutes Forest, not all 

have the same treatment priority. For example, mullein and bull thistle are common weeds found in 

recently disturbed areas (i.e., logging landings, road edges, etc.) on the Forest. Because these are 

ephemeral weeds that eventually get replaced by native vegetation, mullein and bull thistle are a low 

priority for treatment. Other species, such as the knapweeds and toadflaxes, are a high treatment priority 

because of their ability to rapidly spread into forest plant communities.

As part of the District’s Invasive Plant Program, Highways 58 and 97 are routinely monitored during each 

summer field season, with all weed infestations either manually removed via hand-pulling or though 

herbicide application along the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) easement on the highway 

margins. Through this program, all the major highways and roads, as well as recreational sites, have been 

monitored and treated annually for weeds since 1999. Although all plants are removed each year, weed 

material is dispersed from passing vehicles, which causes new infestations that need to be treated. 

Table 98. Known Occurrences of Invasive Plant Species within the Rim-Paunina Planning Area 

*Historic site – infestation no longer present, site monitored annually; Active site – treated annually to contain or eliminated infestation 

Risk Assessment and Environmental Consequences 

Risk Ranking 

The following factors are used to determine the level of noxious weed risk (low, moderate, and high) 

associated with the Rim-Paunina project: 

Presence of known weed populations and whether or not those populations can be avoided 

Level of disturbance 

Resource value 

Introduction vectors 

Risk Assessment Effects

The risk of the introduction and spread of invasive plants for the Rim-Paunina project is low for 

Alternative A (No Action), and high for all other proposed Alternatives. This risk assessment is based 

upon the listed risk factors, as ranked for each alternative (

Table 99). Common to all action alternatives are Factors 1, 3, and 4. Factor 2 is the level of disturbance 

associated with each alternative, and is the factor that varies among the alternatives. Higher treatment 

acres and greater disturbance associated with a particular alternative would lead to a higher risk factor for 

invasive plants. Such disturbance would include the miles of temporary road construction, road 

maintenance, and commercial hauling routes (Table 100). 

NRIS Site 

Number Species Location or Unit # Historic or Active Site*

6120042 Bull thistle Unit 755 H

6120101 Canada thistle Hwy 58 H

6120052 Canada thistle Hwy 58 H

6120100 Yellow starthistle, kochia, Hwy 97 H

6120100 Spotted and diffuse knapweeds, Dalmatian 

toadflax, St.John’s wort Hwy 97, Hwy 58 A
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Botany- Invasive Plants

Page 332 of 528

Because of the assessed high risk of the all the proposed alternatives, any ground-disturbing activities 

would have the required Project Design Features to lessen the risk from invasive plants. 

Table 99. Risk Assessment for the Proposed Rim-Paunina Alternatives 

 

 

 

Table 100. Ground Disturbance Associated with each Alternative 

Cumulative Effects

There are two foreseeable actions that have the potential to intensify direct and indirect effects. The first 

is the implementation of the Three Trails OHV project, which plans to create a designated OHV route and 

staging areas overlapping the planning area. Although the risk rating is categorized as “High” for the 

action alternatives in Rim-Paunina, the Three Trails OHV project would add another potential vector for 

weed introduction and spread. This risk is partially offset by limiting motor vehicles to designated routes, 

where it would be feasible to monitor and treat weed infestations. Given the associated risk of 

overlapping projects, other similar situations on the Ranger District have demonstrated a successful 

prevention program in limiting spread or introduction of new invasive populations (i.e. post-Davis Fire 

monitoring).

The other foreseeable action is the finalizing of the Environmental Impact Statement for Invasive Plants 

for the Deschutes and Ochoco Forests. This document tiers to the Region 6 Invasive Plant Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, and would control invasive plants on approximately 15,000 acres across 

both Forests. Currently the Invasive Plant EIS is in draft form and is being revised by Deschutes and 

Ochoco Forest staff. Although there are no identified invasive plant populations to be treated within the 

Rim-Paunina area, the rapid response element of the preferred alternative would augment the current 

ability to control and eradicate new weed infestations.

Project Design Features

Project Design Features (PDFs) are specific activities that are incorporated into each alternative for the 

purpose of protecting natural resources within the project area. These design features are considered 

routine and effective, have been used in similar projects, and are incorporated into contract provisions or 

accomplished by the appropriate resource specialists. 

For invasive plants, the focus is on PDFs that prevent the introduction and spread of such species. These 

PDFs are taken from the national Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices (USFS 2001), the Region 

Factors

Alternatives Existing 

Infestations

Disturbance 

Level

Resource 

Value

Introduction 

Vectors Total

A Low Low High Low Low

B Low High High High High

C Low High High High High

D Low High High High High

E Low High High High High

Action Alt. A Alt. B Alts. C & D Alt. E

Commercial thinning 

(acres) 0 12,036 9,792 11,236

Prescribed fire (acres) 0 8,506 12,762 13,490

Temp road construction 

(miles) 0 9.2 6.5 8.3

Disturbance level Low High High High
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Botany- Invasive Plants

Page 333 of 528

6 Invasive Plant EIS, and the Deschutes and Ochoco national Forests Invasive Plant Prevention 

Guidelines. 

The following Project Design Features are required for the Rim-Paunina project:

1. Remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from all heavy equipment that will operate outside the limits 

of the road prism prior to entering NFS lands AND before moving into a new or different 

analysis area. Cleaning must occur in areas where removed weed seeds will not create additional 

problems. Requirement R6 Standard #2.

2. Require all Forest Service employees to inspect, remove, and properly dispose of weed seed and 

plant parts found on their clothing and personal equipment prior to leaving a project site infested 

with weeds. Guideline

3. 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 are judged to be weed free by District or 

Forest weed specialists. Requirement R6 Standard #7
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 334 of 528

There are no, threatened, proposed, candidate or sensitive aquatic 

species or their habitat within the Rim-Paunina planning area. This 

is attributed to the lack of perennial or fish bearing water bodies.

Also, there are no State of Oregon 303(d) listed impaired water 

bodies within the planning area. The water quality analysis area for 

the Rim-Paunina project is limited to intermittent and ephemeral 

draws (such as Five Mile Draw and Boundary Springs). 

Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

The following section summarizes the specialist report in its entirety. This Biological Evaluation (BE) 

documents the review and findings of the Forest Service planned programs and activities for possible 

effects on species (1) listed or proposed for listing by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as 

Threatened or Endangered; or (2) designated by the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester as Sensitive; or 

(3) required consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation Act (MSA). It is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 2630.3, FSM 2672.4, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) 

(Subpart B; 402.12, Section 7 Consultation). 

The following analysis addresses the potential effects of implementing the Rim-Paunina vegetation 

management project on threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species as well as other aquatic 

resources. This determination, 

required by the Interagency 

Cooperation Regulations (Federal 

Register, January 4, 1978), 

ensures compliance with the ESA. 

Changes to the R-6 Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

were instituted on November 28, 

2000. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (MSA) does not apply as there are no perennial or fish 

bearing streams, no anadromous fish or their habitat in the project area.

The following table displays the threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species considered in the 

analysis of the Rim-Paunina Vegetative Management Project. 

Table 101. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species

Aquatic Species Scientific Name Status Occurrence Effects

Determination

Columbia River Bull 

Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened No Habitat No Effect

Interior Redband Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.

Regional 

Forester 

Sensitive

No Habitat No Impact

Methodology

To estimate hydrological conditions within the project area, the following resources were utilized: 

Geographical Information System (GIS), aerial photos, field reconnaissance, and best available research. 

GIS analysis was conducted utilizing National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Waterbody and United States 

Geological Society (USGS) Hydrological Boundaries (HUC) layers. 

Assumptions

The coarse textures of the ash/pumice have high water infiltration and percolation rates that 

readily drain excess moisture.

Underlying residual soils and bedrock have a moderate capacity to store water, therefore most of 

the water from these lands is delivered to streams as deep seepage and subsurface flows.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 335 of 528

Deep, highly drained pumice soils of the area are not prone to convey overland flow which could 

deliver sediment from upslope sources.

Overland flow does not generally occur from a reduction in evapo-transpiration when trees are 

harvested because infiltration rates often exceed precipitation rates. 

The nearest perennial water body is the Little Deschutes River which lies over 2,000 feet away to 

the west from the project boundary.

There would be relatively few (if any) quantifiable effects associated with riparian resources due 

to prohibition of tracked or rubber-tired machinery on wetted surfaces.

Introduction

The Rim Paunina project proposes vegetative management, including commercial timber harvest and 

fuels reduction, across an approximately 40,000 acre project area. The proposal addresses forest health

and hazardous fuels concerns on National Forest System land of the Deschutes National Forest. The 

Zone of Influence is at the 5th and 6th field watershed scale. The project area lies almost entirely (99

percent) within the Little Walker Mountain Watershed (Table 102 and Figure 51), and thus the area for 

this fisheries and aquatics analysis has been confined to this watershed. There are no perennial streams or 

water bodies within the planning area. 

All proposed units lie under the direction of INFISH and East Side Screens as the project area is primarily 

located south of Hwy 58, on each side of Hwy 97 (T: 25-26 S., R: 6 1⁄2 E, T: 25-26 S, R: 7 E, T: 24 S, R: 

8E.). 

The Clean Water Act requires the State of Oregon to develop water quality standards that protect the 

beneficial uses of the water. The act also requires the state to establish a list of water bodies that do not 

meet such standards. Beneficial uses and the associated water quality standards are generally applicable 

drainage wide. At a minimum, uses are considered attainable wherever feasible or wherever attained 

historically. There are no State of Oregon 303(d) listed water bodies within the planning area. 

The United States Geological Society (USGS) has recently redrawn and renamed watershed and 

subwatershed boundaries for the state of Oregon. Within this project planning area to maintain 

consistency when comparing actions associated with this project and past analysis projects, such as the 

recent Three Trails OHV project, the old subwatershed names and boundaries have been used throughout 

this analysis. 

Table 102. Acres by Subwatershed (SWS) in the Rim-Paunina Analysis Area

Watershed (5th field) Subwatershed (6th field) SWS 

Acres

Acres in Project 

Area Boundary

NFS acres

In Project

Area Boundary

Little Walker 

Mountain

Corral Springs 12,792 2,637 2,637

Crescent Butte 13,151 4,534 4,534

Little Walker Mountain 14,044 12,628 12,598

North Paunina 12,945 10,282 10,214

North Walker 22,661 1,061 1,061

South Paunina 10,865 8,495 8,488

Sellers Creek Upper Sellers Creek 9,950 19 19

Klamath Marsh/

Jack Creek Jack Creek 59,948 271 271

Total 96,460 39,928 39,823
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 336 of 528

Figure 51. Rim-Paunina Area with 6th Field Subwatersheds, RHCAs with Treatment (orange), and Roads and Trails from Three Trails OHV Project
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 337 of 528

Management Direction

All federal land management activities in the Rim-Paunina project area must follow standards and 

guidelines (S&Gs) listed in the 1990 Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of 

Land Management 1994) and INFISH (USDA 1995), and in accordance with Best Management Practices 

(WT-5; USDA Forest Service 1998a) and the Clean Water Act (WT-1). All National Forest lands in the 

Rim-Paunina project area fall under the guidance of the INFISH. 

Direction for managing water quality, water quantity, and riparian areas on the Deschutes National Forest 

are found in the Forest Service Manual, Title 2500 - Watershed and Air Management (FSM), Forest 

Service Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment (INFISH), General Water Quality Best 

Management Practices (BMP), the Clean Water Act (CWA), Executive Orders 11988, 11990 and 12088,

and the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource and Management Plan (LRMP).

1990 Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended

Riparian Areas/Wetlands, Streamside Management Units, and Flood Plains 

Riparian areas are managed to protect fish habitat, water quality, and conditions required by wildlife 

species which depend upon or utilize them. Riparian areas occur along the interface between aquatic and 

terrestrial ecosystems. These water oriented ecosystems are surrounded by drier upslope ecosystems. 

They make up a minor portion of the landscape but are extremely important in regard to land management 

and land use. Five Mile draw is an old streambed under Mazama ash and is now an ephemeral stream in 

the planning area.

A detailed description of riparian area standards and guidelines are provided in the Forest Plan (USDA 

LRMP 1990 p. 4-61-4-66). The relevant direction:

RP-1 Riparian areas will be managed in context of the environment in which they are located. 

Specifically, Forest policy shall be based on the following guidelines:

RP-2 Maintain or enhance riparian areas and the riparian dependent resources (water quality and 

quantity, fish and certain wildlife and vegetation that owe their existence to riparian areas) associated 

with these areas.

RP-4 Manage riparian areas under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, while emphasizing 

protection of riparian dependent resources. Outputs of non-riparian dependent resources (timber 

harvest, grazing, recreation, special uses) can be pursued as long as they do not conflict with the 

objectives and needs of riparian dependent resources

RP-5 Identify and pursue opportunities in riparian areas for enhancement of fisheries and wildlife 

habitat.

INFISH

The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) was amended in 1995 by 

the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH). 

The interim direction is in the form of riparian management objectives, standards and guidelines, and 

monitoring requirements. Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) describe good habitat for inland 

native fish and anadromous fish and interim guidance would apply where Watershed Analysis has not 

been completed. INFISH provides standards and guidelines for RHCAs that prohibit or regulate activities 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 338 of 528

that retard the attainment of Riparian Management Objectives at a watershed scale. The primary focus of 

monitoring is to verify that the standards and guidelines were applied during the project implementation. 

Priority watersheds were identified to help prioritize restoration, monitoring, and watershed analysis for 

areas managed by INFISH. All portions of subwatersheds in the Rim-Paunina project boundary are “nonpriority watersheds.” There are no Tier One or Key watersheds in or overlapping the planning area. 

Another essential piece of INFISH is the delineation of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) 

which “include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help 

maintain the integrity of the aquatic ecosystems by (1) influencing the delivery of coarse sediment, 

organic matter, and woody debris to streams, (2) providing root strength for channel stability, (3) shading 

the stream, and (4) protecting water quality” (USDA 1995). Riparian Reserve widths under the 

Northwest Forest Plan area based on average maximum tree height (150 feet), 100 year floodplain, extent 

of riparian vegetation, and unstable and potentially unstable lands. These same adjustments to Riparian 

Reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area should also be applied to RHCA for subwatersheds 

in the Rim-Paunina analysis area that follow under the guidance of INFISH.

Table 103. Relevant Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Widths that Apply in the Rim-Paunina 

Analysis Area

Category Stream 

Class Description

Riparian Reserve width 

(slope distance (feet) from 

edge of channel)

3 NA Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands > 1 ac 150 feet

4 4

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, 

wetlands < 1 ac, landslides, and landslide-prone 

areas

Non-priority = 70 feet

Table 104. The Four Categories* of Stream or Water Bodies and Standard Widths for each 

Category Standard Widths

Category 3 – Ponds, lakes, 

reservoirs, and wetlands 

greater than 1 acreInterim RHCAs consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the 

outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally 

saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly 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 maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds 

and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is 

greatest.

Category 4 – Seasonally 

flowing or intermittent 

streams, wetlands less than 

1 acre, landslides, and 

landslide-prone areas

This category includes features with high variability in size and site-specific 

characteristics. At a minimum the interim RHCAs must include:

a. The extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas

b. The intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner 

gorge

c. The intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer 

edges of the riparian vegetation

d. For Priority Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream 

channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance 

equal to the height of one-site potential tree, or 100 feet slope 

distance, whichever is greatest

e. For watersheds not identified as Priority Watersheds, the area from 

the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslideprone area to a distance equal to the height of one-half site potential 

tree, or 50 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest

*In non-forested rangeland ecosystems, the interim RHCA width for permanently flowing streams in 

Categories 1 and 2 is the extent of the 100-year floodplain.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 339 of 528

INFISH Riparian Goals 

The goals establish an expectation of the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, 

and associated fish habitats. INFISH identifies several goals for watershed, riparian, and stream channel 

conditions. The goals35 are to maintain or restore:

Diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native plant communities in riparian 

zones;

Riparian vegetation, to:

o Provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems;

o Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the riparian and 

aquatic zones; and 

o Help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristic 

of those under which the communities developed.

Habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desired non-native plant, 

vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of ripariandependent communities (INFISH; pg. A-1 to A-2).

Natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows and wetlands

Water quality, to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems;

Stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime...under which the riparian 

and aquatic ecosystems developed;

Instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, the stability and effective function 

of stream channels, and the ability to route flood discharges; and

Riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved 

within the specific geo-climatic region.

INFISH Standards and Guidelines 

Project and site-specific standards and guidelines listed below would apply to all Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and to projects and activities in areas outside RHCAs that are identified 

through NEPA analysis as potentially degrading RHCAs. The combination of the standards and 

guidelines for RHCAs specified below with the standards and guidelines of existing forest plans and Land 

Use Plans would provide a benchmark for management actions that reflects increased sensitivities and a 

commitment to ecosystem management (INFISH; pg. A-6).

Timber Management, TM-1 “Prohibit timber harvest, including fuelwood cutting, in Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas, except where noted below:

a) Apply silviculture practices for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas to acquire desired 

vegetation characteristics where needed to attain Riparian Management Objectives. Apply 

silviculture practices in a manner that does not retard attainment of Riparian Management 

Objectives and that avoids adverse effects on inland native fish.

TM-1 allows for the vegetative manipulation in the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas when treatments 

are designed to improve riparian conditions by restoring natural diversity and native riparian dependent 

vegetation as described under the INFISH riparian goals above.

 

35 The four goals highlighted are the most relevant to the Five-Mile draw area in the Rim-Paunina project.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 340 of 528

Also, INFISH Standards and Guidelines for achieving Riparian Management Objectives for Roads

Management (RF-1 through RF-5), Fire and Fuels Management (FM-1 through FM-5), General Riparian 

Area Management (RA-1 through RA-50), and Watershed And Habitat Restoration (WR-1 through WR2) apply.

Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) 

RMOs provide the criteria against which attainment or progress toward attainment of the riparian goals is 

measured. RMOs would not apply to the Little Walker Mountain watershed as it does not contain native 

fish as stated in INFISH (pA-3) ‘Under this strategy, interim RMO’s would apply to watersheds occupied 

by inland native fish.” 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) 

RHCAs are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis, and 

management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines (Table 102). RHCAs include 

traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the 

integrity of aquatic ecosystems by (1) influencing the delivery of coarse sediment, organic matter, and 

woody debris to streams, (2) providing root strength for channel stability, (3) shading the stream, and (4) 

protecting water quality (INFISH; pg. A-4 to A-6).

Best Management Practices for Water

Best Management Practices are the primary mechanism to enable the achievement of water quality 

standards. Inherent in prescribing project-level management requirements is recognition of specific water 

quality objectives which BMPs are designed to achieve. A detailed description of water-BMP standards 

and guidelines (WT-1 through WT-7) are provided in the Forest Plan (LRMP; pg. 4-69 to 4-70). 

However, WT-1 states: “State requirements will be followed in accordance with the Clean Water Act for 

protection of waters of the State of Oregon (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 3 40-41) through 

planning, application, and monitoring of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in conformance with the 

Clean Water Act, regulations, and federal guidance issued thereto” (USDA 1990). Appendix B of this 

document has a list of BMPs used.

Hydrologic Processes

Precipitation

Precipitation in the project area ranges from 50 inches a year in the southwest corner to 24 inches per year 

in the northeast (1971-2000 annual average precipitation). Elevations in the project area range from 

4,500 feet to 7,080 feet, therefore, most precipitation falls as snow as the area is above the rain-on-snow 

zone (approx. 3,500-5,000 feet). Within the project area, approximately two-thirds of the precipitation 

occurs between October and March. A secondary peak of precipitation occurs between May and August 

and falls as high, intensity thunder showers. Although portions of these subwatersheds experience a 

significant amount of precipitation and some high intensity storms, there is very little surface channel 

flow, as is evidenced by the low drainage density. 

Overland Flow

The low drainage density in these subwatersheds is due to the soils and underlying geology. Soils in the 

analysis area are primarily volcanic ash with rapid infiltration rates. These course materials allow water 

to move quickly through the soil and rock profile and down into the groundwater. As water moves 

through the soil profile in these areas, it may become perched and move laterally across the outwash and 

till and emerge as springs. As a result of rapid infiltration and high permeability rates, overland flow is 

rare in the analysis area. 

Within the analysis area, overland flow does not generally occur from a reduction in evapotranspiration 

when trees are harvested because infiltration and permeability rates often exceed precipitation rates. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 341 of 528

However, overland flow can occur in areas where infiltration rates are reduced, such as rain-on-snow 

zones and road surfaces. The greatest influence on overland flow in the analysis area is roads (USDA 

Forest Service 1998). 

Roads and Trails

The Rim-Paunina area utilizes the least amount of road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for 

administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest Lands. Figure 51 shows the overlay of roads 

and trails and the proximity to the RHCAs. For a more detailed discussion of the entire road system, 

reference the Transportation section in this chapter. 

Portions of the Rim-Paunina project and the Three Trails Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) project overlap. 

All crossings of wet features utilize existing Forest Service roads designed with Best Management 

Practices except in the Three Trails OHV Project (10-mile Loop Trail) where the trail follows an existing 

user-created trail which crosses four ephemeral draws that are truncated at a railroad grade downstream. 

There is no surface connection to perennial streams or fish bearing water. Also, there are no overlapping

activity units from Rim-Paunina. If avoidance of these four riparian segments is not possible, an elevated 

tread would be constructed to reduce the impacts on the riparian feature and the underlying tread in the 

swale would be decompacted to facilitate water percolation and reduce puddling. They also would be 

designed as to not interfere with surface or subsurface flow of water. These crossings would have no 

quantifiable effect to water quality or resident fish or their habitat because these draws are ephemeral and 

terminate within 1,000 feet at a railroad prism, the drainages do not have surface connection to any body 

of water, and the Project Design Features in the Three Trails OHV Project are proven to be effective. 

According to the document, “Determining Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from 

Multiple Activities” (USDA Forest Service 1993), road densities in the Little Walker Mountain and South 

Paunina subwatersheds are considered high (Table 105). Although road density is high, only roads 

adjacent to streams, crossing streams, or hydrologically connected to streams via road ditches have an 

influence on streamflow or water quality (USDA Forest Service 1998). In these two subwatersheds, the 

relatively higher densities are attributed to access to private lands, County and State roads (Highways 58 

and 97) as well as access for recreation, suppression, and other resource management. 

Table 105. Road Densities Including OHV Trails in the Rim-Paunina Water Quality Analysis/Project Area 

6th Field 

Watershed

6th 

Acres

Density 

Total 

Roads 

Mi/Mi2

Density 

Total 

Open 

Roads 

Mi/Mi2

Density 

FS 

Open 

Roads 

Mi/Mi2

OHV 

Trails 

Miles

Total FS "Open" 

Motorized (Total 

non-level 1 + 

OHV Trails) 

Miles

Density Total 

FS "Open" 

Motorized (nonlevel 1+ OHV 

Trails) Mi/Mi2

Corral 

Springs 12,791.6 5.90 5.61 0.42 7.53 15.84 0.79

Crescent 

Butte 13,150.8 6.30 4.34 1.03 0.00 21.19 1.03

Little 

Walker 

Mountain

14,044.0 5.29 2.95 2.07 33.21 78.62 3.58

North 

Paunina 12,944.5 5.37 3.86 1.75 2.49 37.89 1.87

North 

Walker 22,661.1 3.86 3.72 0.04 0.00 1.37 0.04

South 

Paunina 10,865.1 5.04 3.55 2.28 23.35 62.08 3.66
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 342 of 528

Streamflow

Perennial streams in the Rim-Paunina water quality analysis area are non-existent. There are 

intermittent36 and ephemeral37 streams, particularly in the Five Mile Draw area. Rather than a defined 

stream channel, stream corridors are typically just a valley bottom supporting riparian dependent

vegetation. Stream channels, where they exist on the landscape, are generally poorly defined and

development is minimal. Typically water is present on the surface during spring snowmelt season, where 

it ponds up and creates wet meadow features. Water movement is very low velocity and therefore erosion 

is not common as the water lacks stream power necessary to mobilize and transport suspended sediments 

or bedload.

Wet meadow systems are extremely important features on the landscape. They contain a diversity of 

plant species and provide forage and habitat for terrestrial species. Compaction or diversion of flows in 

these areas can negatively affect water storage by impeding water infiltration through the soil. Therefore 

a Project Design Feature, common to all action alternatives, would exclude tracked or wheeled equipment 

from entering meadows or operating on fragile soils. There are no named water features in the planning 

area (Table 106).

Table 106. Streams and their Flow Regime in the Rim-Paunina Analysis Area

Subwatersheds Perennial stream 

miles in SWS

Intermittent 

stream miles in 

SWS

Ephemeral 

stream miles in 

SWS

Total 

stream 

miles

Within Planning 

Area

Corral Springs 0 2.1 4.4 6.5 1.5

Crescent Butte 0 0 0 0 0

Little Walker 

Mountain 0 0.4 32.4 32.8 30.2

North Paunina 0 12.9 18.9 31.8 25

North Walker 0 0 6.3 6.3 0.7

South Paunina 0 5.1 19.2 24.3 19.6

Total in Analysis 

Area 0 20.5 81.2 101.7 76.9

Temperature

There is no water temperature data available within the planning area as there are no perennial water 

bodies or fish present. 

Hydrologic Cycle

The hydrologic cycle represents the processes and pathways by which water is circulated from land and 

water bodies to the atmosphere and back again. The hydrologic functioning of a watershed depends on its 

ability to receive, store, and transmit water and is strongly correlated with vegetation and soil 

disturbances (Neary et al. 2005). 

 

36 Intermittent streams: ‘streams that carry water a considerable portion of the time, but which cease to flow 

occasionally or seasonally when bed seepage and evapotranspiration exceeds the available water supply.” Free 

Dictionary 2011.

37 Ephemeral streams: streams that only flow during and immediately after precipitation. Wikipedia 2011
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 343 of 528

Central Oregon is unique as it has a thick layer of Mount Mazama volcanic ash soil (20 to 40 inches thick 

in the planning area). Infiltration rates are high in the porous, ash soils and there is no documented 

evidence of changes in peak and/or base flows within the project area. Also, water is typically expressed 

on the surface during the spring snowmelt after which water, where present, is found in isolated small 

pools or ponds. 

Figure 52. The Hydrological Cycle (USDI GS 2009) 

Fire affects water quality characteristics through the changes that the burning causes in the hydrologic 

cycle and stream flow regimes. The effects to water quality and quantity are largely dependent on the 

size, intensity, and severity of the fire, the condition of the watershed when rainfall starts, and the 

intensity, duration, and total amount of rainfall. When fire destroys vegetation and organic matter on the 

soil surface, interception and evapo-transpiration and infiltration decrease, and overland flow and 

subsurface flow can increase (DeBano et al. 1998; Neary et al. 2005; Zwolinski 2000). 

Prescribed fire with low to moderate burn severity such as the type proposed in the Rim-Paunina Project 

rarely produces adverse hydrologic effects on watershed condition, especially if best management 

practices are utilized. Prescribed burning would reduce the risk of a lethal wildfire and would simulate 

the beneficial effects of fire on the landscape and avoid detrimental effects (USFS Press 2008). 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

The loss of riparian and/or wetland complexes would continue, particularly within the Five Mile Draw 

area. Mainly due to a lack of disturbance associated with fire exclusion, riparian associated vegetation is 

being replaced by encroaching lodgepole pine and other drier plant species. 

Alternatives B - E

Table 107 shows both total acres of proposed activity and the number of acres proposed for treatment that 

overlap RHCAs by subwatershed and by alternative. These areas of overlap fall into two categories. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 344 of 528

First, some RHCA acres in each alternative (approximately 107 acres in Alt B, 98 acres in Alts C and D, 

and 134 acres in Alt E), although appearing in the GIS layer, may potentially not exist on the ground 

(based on overlaid satellite imagery). In these units, field verification would occur prior to any treatment, 

and if the presence of riparian areas is confirmed, these areas would be buffered and marked during 

layout. Only areas determined to be outside of RHCAs on the ground would be treated. 

Table 107. Acres of Proposed Treatment that Overlap Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA)

Watershed Subwatershed Alt B RHCA Alt C RHCA Alt D RHCA Alt E RHCA

Little 

Walker 

Mountain

Total

Coral Springs 3,780 0 789 0 789 0 820 0

Crescent Butte 2,952 0 2,308 0 2,308 0 2,952 0

Little Walker 

Mountain 3,259 0.4 5,425 0.4 5425 0.4 5,615 0.4

North Paunina 2,891 107.6 3,204 65.2 3,204 65.2 3,452 83.5

North Walker 356 18.3 832 20.6 832 20.6 832 20.6

South Paunina 2,181 167.2 2,177 143.7 2,177 143.7 2,508 161.8

12,019 293.5 14,754 229.8 14,754 229.8 16,195 266.2

Second, all action alternatives include overlap with selected riparian areas to be restored (Table 108). The 

objective is to return the project area to a greater proportion of open meadow habitat and increase 

herbaceous diversity. Although restoration activities overlap onto RHCAs as shown on Figure 51 they 

would not change water quality or yield. Typical activities would include the thinning and removal of 

most encroaching lodgepole pine and other conifers eight inches diameter or less. Remaining eight-inch 

diameter at breast height (dbh) trees and greater would provide sufficient tree structure and basal area to 

maintain the current amounts and timing of runoff during precipitation events, and to provide future wood 

recruitment. After examining the location, timing, and design of the activities, it was determined that 

effects would likely be localized and would not have any direct and indirect effects to water quality and 

water quantity. The timing, duration, or magnitude of overland flow or runoff would not change because 

of the existing soil characteristics and the lack of mechanisms for soil transport, even during a severe 

precipitation event. This is due to an extremely low velocity of water plus lack of connection to a 

perennial water body. 

Thinning of lodgepole pine within these RHCAs would be implemented by non-mechanical means and 

would not result in areas of exposed soil prone to mobilization to the stream channel. Project Design 

Features common to all action alternatives would be incorporated that would restrict mechanized 

equipment to the edge of sensitive soils, and prohibit tracked mechanized equipment associated with 

harvest operations on any wetted soils; permanent or seasonally. These features have been used 

numerous times on the forest and have proven effective. Deep and highly drained pumice soils of the 

area are not prone to convey overland flow which could potentially deliver sediment from upslope 

sources. This has been witnessed throughout the district within projects such as the Davis Fire Recovery, 

Crescent Lake Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction, Seven Buttes, and Seven Buttes Return. This 

potential is further reduced as there are no perennial streams within the planning area.

In addition to vegetation manipulation and prescribed burning, restoration activities include 

approximately one mile of restoration of a non-system road within the RHCA in Unit 25. Restoration 

activities include subsoiling, camouflaging and decompaction activities in the roadbed in order to 

encourage vegetation and restore proper hydrologic function. Restoration activities would not occur on 

any wetted portion of the RHCA. Typically, subsoiling activities use a self-drafting attachment pulled 

behind machinery that fractures the compacted layers of soil beneath the surface while minimizing 

surface disturbance.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 345 of 528

The combination of removal of encroaching small diameter trees, restoring a frequent and low intensity 

fire regime in appropriate places and road rehabilitation activities would likely move the area closer to a 

more historical proportion of meadow habitats and improve storage and delayed release of water into the 

riparian systems. 

Table 108. Units within the Rim-Paunina Project Area with Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) 

Proposed for Treatment

Unit Included in 

Alternatives

RHCA Acres 

for Treatment Objectives

15 B,C,D,E 6.3 Remove all lodgepole pine 8” and less from riparian areas to 

restore meadow habitat. 

20 B,C,D,E 3.3

Remove all lodgepole pine 8” and less from riparian areas to 

restore meadow habitat. Retain dead and down logs within 150 

feet from riparian below 9758 road and upstream to the 400 road 

to prevent potential erosion by reducing water velocity during the 

times of year when water is present.

25 B,C,D,E 1.1

Remove all lodgepole pine 8” and less from riparian areas to 

restore meadow habitat. To provide big game security, maintain a 

visual buffer between the 9758 road and Five Mile Draw. For 

habitat diversity, retain 25 percent of dense vegetation in an 

unmanaged condition. Retain a 20-acre unthinned patch at north 

end of unit near Five Mile Draw. Restoration activities include 

subsoiling of non-system road.

35 B 55.5

Clean up dead and down material. Leave all wood that comes 

into contact w/ channel to prevent potential erosion by reducing 

water velocity during the times of year when water is present. For 

habitat diversity, retain 20 percent of dense vegetation with 

downed wood in an unmanaged condition.

240 B,C,D,E 57.9 Remove all lodgepole pine 8” and less from riparian areas to 

restore meadow habitat. 

285 B,C,D,E 15.9 Remove all lodgepole pine 8” and less from riparian areas to 

restore meadow habitat. 

286 B,C,D,E .9 Remove all lodgepole pine 8” and less from riparian areas to 

restore meadow habitat. 

355 B,C,D,E 28.2 Remove all lodgepole pine 8” and less from riparian areas to 

restore meadow habitat. 

610 B,C,D,E 18.3

Near Boundary Springs, use improvement cut (HIM) prescription 

except where it overlaps seasonally wetted soil, then nonmechanical removal of small diameter trees to open up the stand 

for herbaceous diversity. 

Total 187.4

In the uplands, a combination of active management that would include thinning trees from below, 

mechanical treatment of small trees and brush, and prescribed burning would restore conditions favorable 

to a frequent, low intensity fire regime (where appropriate). Potential for surface erosion results primarily 

from the exposure of mineral soil by yarding operations, prescribed fire, and the disruption of natural 

drainage patterns by skid trails and road construction. Although no new road construction is proposed, 

implementation of the action alternatives would require up to10 miles of temporary road construction. 

These would be constructed outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Area Buffers and with Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), such as proper drainage structures. Following their intended use, they 

would be restored to proper hydrological condition. Reference the soil quality and transportation sections 

for more discussion regarding temporary roads. A discussion of restoration of a non-system road within 

the RHCA and its effects is contained within this analysis.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 346 of 528

Observations from past harvest activities on the forest have shown that potential erosion and 

sedimentation from harvest operations is usually minor when compared to road construction. Thinning 

activities outside of RHCAs would utilize ground-based equipment with surface erosion being limited to 

the extent and continuity of bare areas that are typically small and localized (Rice et al. 1972). Activities 

associated with the restoration of the non-system road would not remove any additional vegetation.

In addition, in the uplands, activities to restore appropriate stands to a frequent, low intensity fire regime 

do not substantially alter watershed condition. Water quantity or streamflow responses to prescribed fire 

are generally smaller in magnitude, or almost nonexistent in instances of low severity fire, as compared to 

a wildfire since it is not the purpose of prescribed burning to completely consume extensive areas of litter 

and other decomposed organic matter on the soil surface (USFS Press 2008). Of the nine units located 

within the RHCAs prescribed fire would be applied to units 25, 240, 285, and 286 whereas the remaining 

units (units 15, 20, 35, 355, and 610) are adjacent to areas where prescribed fire would be applied. A 

Project Design Feature to retain at least 50 percent of the duff layer in prescribed burning units has been

incorporated.

Assessing the complete suite of activities within the watershed that would occur in the uplands down to 

the RHCAs, due to relatively flat terrain, landscape level filtering mechanisms (including Project Design 

Features that retain duff), Best Management Practices for maintaining water quality, and lack of 

connection to deliver sediment, there would be no quantifiable effect to water quality or quantity.

Cumulative Effects

Since there are no direct or indirect effects associated with activities associated with the Rim-Paunina 

project, there can be no cumulative effects associated with past, present, and foreseeable actions. The 

Three Trails OHV project was referenced in the Affected Environment discussion related to existing 

water crossing of roads and trails because this was the most informative and logical place.

Forest Plan Consistency

Alternatives B through E would be consistent with the Forest Plan, specifically Timber Management 

(TM-1) because the two most relevant Standards and Guidelines are:

Prohibit timber harvest, including fuelwood cutting, in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, except 

where noted below:

a) Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in 

degraded riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuelwood cutting in Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas only where present and future woody debris needs are met, where cutting 

would not retard or prevent attainment of other Riparian Management Objectives, and where 

adverse effects can be avoided to inland native fish. For Priority watersheds, complete watershed 

analysis prior to salvage cutting in RHCAs.

b) Apply silviculture practices for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas to acquire desired 

vegetation characteristics where needed to attain Riparian Management Objectives. Apply 

silviculture practices in a manner that does not retard attainment of Riparian Management 

Objectives and that avoids adverse effects on inland native fish.

The Rim-Paunina action alternatives are consistent with TM-1(a) because:

Under TM-1(a) it is not a catastrophic event that has resulted in the degradation of riparian habitats, but 

the chronic result of a fire exclusion policy over the past 100 years. Because of this condition and 

reduced beaver activity, riparian areas have become encroached upon by lodgepole pine. This has 

resulted in a reduction in open meadow habitat as well as riparian dependent grasses, forbs, and shrubs 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 347 of 528

within the draws. INFISH woody debris needs are based upon habitat components within fish bearing 

streams. Because there are no fish bearing streams in the project area, woody debris needs would not be 

affected by this project. However, under all action alternatives, downed wood would not be removed 

from within one tree height of existing channel features. Retaining current as well as future wood 

recruitment would protect the intermittent and ephemeral channel features from excessive erosional 

forces, caused by intense precipitation events, and reduce the potential for eroding banks. Trees 

measuring eight inches and greater in diameter would be retained for future recruitment. 

Under TM-1 (b) silvicultural practices would be used to achieve vegetation characteristics in areas where 

open meadow habitat has been lost or degraded by encroachment. The desired characteristic for these 

select areas is to remove small diameter (eight inches and less) lodgepole pine and restore conditions for 

riparian vegetation such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Removal of the encroaching small diameter 

lodgepole pine would be similar to conditions following a fire when competition with the pine trees 

would be decreased, making water and sunlight available to the riparian dependent vegetation underneath. 

This approach has been successfully used in several stringer meadow projects across the forest to restore 

riparian vegetation in areas such as Five Mile Draw, Spruce Creek, and Big Marsh.

In those units that have been identified for activity to reduce small diameter lodgepole pine encroachment 

to restore meadow habitat, the project was designed to exclude mechanized equipment from wetted and 

riparian associated vegetation areas. There would be no areas of exposed soil prone to mobilization. 

Removal of coniferous encroachment would restore meadows to a more historic condition and would be 

beneficial for the recovery of riparian vegetation and hydrologic function (storage and delayed release of 

water in soils) and maintain a greater diversity of meadow/riparian vegetation for dependent species. 

Road Management: The project area contains no inland native fish or their habitats. There is no 

construction of permanent or temporary roads within the RHCAs. A Forest-wide inspection, operation 

and maintenance plan for road management is in place in cooperation with applicable partners and has 

been designed with Best Management Practices found in Appendix B.

Fire and Fuels Management: The closest prescribed fire activity is within four units (units 25, 240, 285, 

and 286) and borders five others (15, 20, 35, 355, and 610) and the effects associated with the use of 

prescribed fire and its site-specific effects on the vegetation characteristics for RHCAs is disclosed in this 

document. Fire suppression and its policies are not an element of this project’s proposed activities.

General Riparian Area Management: There are no instream flows. Woody debris objectives have been 

met and exceeded; reference the Wildlife and Soil Quality sections for specific details. Mechanical 

equipment associated with activities within RHCAs is excluded from wetted soils; storage and refueling 

requirements and other intoxicants for equipment is regulated by contract provisions and would occur 

outside of RHCAs (Project Design Feature).

Watershed and Habitat Restoration: The restoration activities for all action alternatives have been 

specifically designed to meet and attain RMOs and are detailed in the Aquatic Resources section. There 

are no INLAND native fish within the project area and it has been determined that wild ungulate impacts 

are not a contributor to the decline in abundance of meadow habitats nor contribute to non-attainment of 

vegetation characteristics. 

There are no Tier One or Key Watersheds in the planning area.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Fisheries and Aquatics

Page 348 of 528

Clean Water Act and Executive Order 12088 

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of all waters to protect the beneficial uses as documented according to Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) criteria. 

Action alternatives follow State of Oregon requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act for 

protection of waters because application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) were selected and 

designed using site-specific conditions. The interdisciplinary team has reviewed and incorporated 

applicable BMP water quality objectives in the design of alternatives and their mitigation measures (also 

see Appendix A). The Inland Native Fish Strategy was developed (in part) to maintain and restore 

aquatic ecosystems for dependent species.

It has been concluded there would be no measureable effect to water quality and quantity and the reasons 

are documented in the Aquatic Resources section in Chapter 3. There are no State of Oregon 303(d) 

water bodies listed as impaired within the planning area.

Executive Orders 11988 & 11990 of May 24, 1977

Protection of Floodplains and Wetlands

Executive Order 11988 requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and to take action to (1) 

minimize adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and reduce risks of 

flood loss, (2) minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and (3) restore and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11990 requires the 

Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.

All action alternatives utilize non-mechanical means to remove small diameter (eight inches and less) 

conifer encroachment to restore open meadows habitats where they once likely existed. Project Design 

Features were designed 1) to leave all wood that comes in contact with a channel and 2) non-fish bearing 

and ephemeral streams would have a one standard tree height or 150 foot no-harvest buffer placed on 

either side of the steam except for those units specifically designated for riparian enhancement and 

restoration activities. In this analysis area, riparian area activities are defined as floodplains and wetlands; 

therefore, all action alternatives comply with the intent of Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, and USDA 

Departmental Regulation 9500-3. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 349 of 528

Transportation

Existing Condition

The following section has been incorporated from the transportation specialist report in its entirety. 

Within the boundary of the Rim-Paunina analysis area there are approximately 345 miles of road under 

various private and public jurisdictions that include federal, state, county, and private entities. The 

existing road system is in general evenly distributed throughout the analysis area, with a somewhat 

greater abundance of roads being found in the southwest and northeast portions of the analysis area in the 

vicinity of the Two Rivers North subdivision and between U.S. Highway 97 and Walker Rim. 

The majority of roads in the analysis area are located on relatively gentle terrain, with ground slopes 

rarely exceeding 15 percent. A few roads can be found in midslope positions on slopes up to or even 

beyond 30 percent; these roads are primarily located along the western face of Walker Rim.

Within the analysis area, there is one Cooperative Road Management Area established by agreement 

between the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and USDA-Forest Service and adjacent industrial 

forest land owners. The Walker Rim Green Dot system establishes a network of open and closed roads 

during the fall rifle-hunting season in the southeastern portion of the analysis area east of U.S. Highway 

97.

Age and Development History of the Transportation System

The majority of roads within the analysis area have been in existence for more than 40 years, with few 

additions constructed in the recent past. Some portions of the system dating back to early railroad logging 

in the early 20th Century are centered on the historic sawmill facility at Mowich, which was sited north of 

the Two Rivers North subdivision. Some roads that are currently part of the transportation system served 

in earlier days as locations for railroad grades.

With limited exceptions (and excluding State and County highways), roads in the Rim-Paunina analysis 

area have been constructed for access to timber harvest areas. A few roads were constructed specifically 

in support of railroad and utility corridor rights-of-way and a small number of roads on private land have 

been developed as infrastructure in support of developing subdivisions. 

Road Use Patterns over Time, Now, and in the Future

The majority of roads within the analysis area, and in particular those roads under Forest Service 

jurisdiction, have a general pattern of use common to low-standard forest roads in the absence of 

residential enclaves or developed recreation. With the exception of roads in the vicinity of subdivisions 

such as Two Rivers North – where off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and in particular Class 1 All-Terrain 

Vehicle (ATV) use, is extensive – or of the arterial roads and major collector through routes such as 

Forest Roads 5835, and 94 or Highways 58 and 97 most roads see little use other than administrative 

traffic through the spring and summer. Timber sale activity can contribute substantially to daily traffic 

numbers, but the pattern of such activity is usually isolated in one particular area at any given time.

There was a small use attributed to grazing allotments but that has ended with the abandonment of the 

allotments. The bulk of use for the majority of roads is in the late summer and fall with the 

commencement of deer and elk hunting seasons and the matsutake mushroom picking season.

The existing road system is also used by the Union Pacific Railroad road use permits to maintain access 

to their main rail line running through the analysis area and Mid-State Electric Cooperative to service 

their electrical lines passing through the analysis area. In addition, certain roads provide access to 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 350 of 528

Burlington Northern Railroad and Klamath Northern Railroad lines, access to a natural gas transmission 

pipeline that is located in the south-eastern portion of the analysis area, as well as access to Bonneville 

Power Association (BPA) and Midstate powerlines that run north to south through the planning area east 

of Hwy 97. These uses, although not a significant component of the total usage, have occurred for many 

years and would continue into the foreseeable future.

The anticipated future use patterns would be somewhat reflective of current trends of administrative and 

timber sale-related use during the summer. However, summer use may change with an increase in ATV 

traffic, especially on weekends, with the implementation of the Three Trails OHV project which is 

predicted to increase ridership by up to approximately 5.6 percent per year. 

Primary Destinations of Road System Users

The bulk of the roads within the analysis area do not generally serve any particular destinations, but 

instead provide access to areas of interest for various users. For land managers and contractors, these 

roads serve as access to areas where vegetative management or other land management activities are 

ongoing or planned. For matsutake mushroom pickers, they provide entry into a number of picking areas 

in the southwest portion of Crescent Ranger District. These roads also provide access to popular hunting 

areas such as the Walker Rim area. 

Existing Maintenance Levels and Road Surface Types

Maintenance Levels define the degree of maintenance required for a specific road and the level of service 

which that road provides, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria (FSH 

7709.58, Transportation System Maintenance Handbook). The five maintenance levels are defined as: 

Maintenance Level 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular 

traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage 

to adjacent resource to an acceptable level 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 Level 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 Level 1, they are physically closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and 

suitable for non-motorized uses. 

Maintenance Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is 

not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of 

administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this 

level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or 

(2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles. 

Maintenance Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard 

passenger car. 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 either 

"encourage" or "accept" passenger cars. "Discourage" or "prohibit" strategies may be employed for 

certain classes of vehicles or users; unless otherwise specifically authorized, non-street-legal OHV use is 

prohibited. 

Maintenance 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 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 351 of 528

management strategy is "encourage" passenger cars. However, the "prohibit" strategy may apply to 

specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times; unless otherwise specifically authorized, non-streetlegal OHV use is prohibited.

Maintenance Level 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. 

Normally, roads are double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The 

appropriate traffic management strategy is "encourage", except that, unless otherwise specifically 

authorized, non-street-legal OHV use is prohibited.

The majority of roads, approximately 90 percent, within the Rim-Paunina analysis area are native-surface 

roads. Those under Forest Service jurisdiction are managed as either being open for high-clearance 

vehicle traffic (Maintenance Level 2) or as being physically closed so that traffic is eliminated and the 

roads are in a basic custodial status (Maintenance Level 1) but not prohibited (by Forest Order). The 

native-surface roads in Maintenance Level 2 status are not maintained on a recurring basis but are instead 

periodically reviewed to determine maintenance needs necessary to protect adjacent resource values. 

Some of the native-surface roads in the analysis area are on private land and are variably open to public 

access, depending on the wishes of those individual landowners or the existence of public rights of way 

(as in the case of subdivisions within the analysis area). 

An additional seven percent of the roads are either categorized as improved native or aggregate-surfaced. 

Road 94, to the top of Walker Mountain, is maintained to allow passenger car use (Maintenance Level 3), 

while most of the others are not specifically maintained for passenger car use but are generally readily 

usable by such vehicles under most circumstances. 

The remaining three percent of roads are asphalt or bituminous-surfaced facilities, including State Route 

58, and US Highway 97. Most of these routes are under the jurisdiction of entities other than the USDAForest Service, but all of the asphalt-surfaced routes are maintained to standards that are represented by 

Maintenance Levels 4 and 5. Under these maintenance levels, passenger car use is encouraged and the 

primary emphasis is on traveler comfort, convenience, and safety.

Table 109. Miles of Roads by Road Surface Type 

Surface Type Mileage Percent of Total

Asphalt 12 3

Crushed Aggregate 9 3

Improved Native Material (Cinders) 13 4

Native Surface Road 312 90

Table 110. Miles of Roads by Maintenance Level 

Operational Maintenance Level Miles

Unclassified Other Jurisdiction 70

M/L 1 (Closed) 189

M/L 2 (High Clearance Vehicles Allowed) 143

M/L 3 (Passenger Car Allowed; Low Speed) 1

M/L 4 (Passenger Car Accepted; Moderate Speed) 0

M/L 5 (Passenger Car Encouraged; High Speed) 12
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 352 of 528

Existing Road Management Objectives

The existing management objectives for roads within the analysis area are generally managed primarily 

for land management and administrative purposes; public access is generally allowed but is a secondary 

consideration except in areas where subdivisions are located or where there is a specific recreation 

emphasis. Arterial and collector routes (two- and four- digit roads) are generally managed to facilitate a 

mix of commercial, administrative, and public use, although a few of the collector (four-digit) routes can 

be designated as single-user routes during timber harvest activity.

With the exception of those roads providing access to recreational facilities or recreational/permanent 

residences, the seven-digit local road component is managed, when open, to be primarily used by highclearance vehicles, including OHVs. Passenger car operation is possible on many of these routes, but no 

special consideration is given to allowing such use. During timber harvest activity, most of these roads 

are intended to be single-user facilities, given that their combination of narrow travel ways and a lack of 

frequent, intervisible turnouts preclude opportunities to safely provide for mixed commercial/public 

traffic. 

Road Densities

The vast majority of the Rim-Paunina project area (over 99 percent) lies within six different twelfth-field 

subwatersheds of the Little Walker Mountain Watershed, and this is the area that was used for this

transportation analysis. The total road density in all six subwatersheds is 5.1 miles per square mile; total 

open road density is 4.0 miles per square mile. Total road density of roads under Deschutes National 

Forest jurisdiction in these subwatersheds is 2.3 miles per square mile and total Deschutes National Forest 

open road density is 1.1 miles per square mile. 

Table 111. Road Density – Subwatershed Basis (Mile/Square Mile) 

Subwatershed

Name

Operational Open

Road Density

Total

Road Density

Corral Springs

(All Roads)

5.6 5.9

Corral Springs

(FS Roads Only)

0.4 0.7

Crescent Butte

(All Roads)

4.3 6.3

Crescent Butte

(FS Roads Only)

1.0 3.0

Little Walker Mtn.

(All Roads)

3.0 5.3

Little Walker Mtn.

(FS Roads Only)

2.1 4.4

North Paunina

(All Roads)

3.9 5.4

North Paunina

(FS Roads Only)

1.8 3.4

North Walker

(All Roads)

3.7 3.9

North Walker

(FS Roads Only)

0.1 0.2

South Paunina

(All Roads)

3.6 5.1

South Paunina

(FS Roads Only)

2.3 3.8
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 353 of 528

Desired Transportation System Conditions

Management Direction

The desired condition is to provide a road system that is safe, affordable, has minimal ecological effects, 

and meets immediate and projected long-term public and resource management needs.

The current direction for management of the road system is found in the 1990 Deschutes National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). According to the LRMP, the goal of the Forest’s 

transportation system is “to plan, design, operate, and maintain a safe and economical transportation 

system providing efficient access for the movement of people and materials involved in the use and 

protection of National Forest Lands” (LRMP pg. 4-71).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the existing road system would experience no changes in its current status and 

condition. Roads that are currently in custodial status (Maintenance Level 1) would remain closed and 

open roads would continue to provide access for recreational, commercial, and administrative functions in 

the same manner that they currently do. Open roads would receive no maintenance beyond that which is 

normally scheduled, which is generally devoted to the higher standard roads.

Action Alternatives B, C, D, and E

The Rim-Paunina area is limited to intermittent and ephemeral steams and well drained soils; therefore 

potential effects to water quality from roads is very low to non-existent (reference the Fisheries and 

Aquatics section in this Chapter for more details). As a function of use during harvest activities, road 

maintenance activities would be conducted on roads designated for use. As a direct effect, some roads 

that do not receive recurring maintenance, primarily low standard roads in the Maintenance Level (M/L) 2 

category, would see some improvements in both safe drivability and in their ability to handle surface 

runoff and the resultant sediment. Native surface Maintenance Level 2 roads, as a result of use and 

infrequent blade maintenance, tend to develop shallow ruts in their wheel tracks, which can concentrate 

shallow flow and lead to increased sediment rates (Foltz 1991). Post-haul maintenance that would occur 

on these roads would restore flat road surfaces (without ruts) that would be capable of producing less 

sediment than their rutted counterparts; post-haul waterbarring would also remove surface runoff from the 

erosive road surfaces.

The type of work that would be expected to be performed as maintenance in timber sale contract

provisions include:

Brushing for improved sight distances

Removal of hazard trees

Blading and shaping of traveled way

Restoring existing surface drainage features, such as drain dips or outlet ditches

Cleaning culverts and ditches

Installing water bars after periods of haul

Dust abatement, primarily using water as the dust palliative, would be performed as necessary to maintain 

safe driving conditions. This would have a secondary effect of maintaining a relatively well-bonded road 

surface free of the highly erosive pulverized ash “flour” that can occur on native surface roads under 

heavy use conditions.

A portion of the commercial hauling would be occurring on roads managed by the Fremont-Winema 

National Forests. In particular, hauling activities would occur on the Fremont-Winema segments of roads 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 354 of 528

5835, 94, 9753, 9755, and 9774. The maintenance requirements on these roads would be the same for 

those Deschutes National Forest roads being used to implement planned activities within the Rim-Paunina 

planning area. In addition to this, fees would be collected from commercial haulers on Road 94 and the 

segment of Road 9774 from its junction with US 97 to its junction with Road 5835. These fees, which 

are intended to offset the commercial haulers’ commensurate share of the cost to replace road surface 

rock worn down by use, is currently assessed by the Fremont-Winema National Forests at 

$0.42/mbf/mile.

Table 112. Haul Road Miles (Forest Service Jurisdiction) by Maintenance Level 

Operational Maintenance Level

Length

Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

1 – Basic Custodial Care (Closed) 58.1 55.7 55.7 58.1

2 – High Clearance Vehicles 110.0 103.4 103.4 110.0

3 – Suitable For Passenger Cars 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

4 – Moderate Degree of User Comfort 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Alternative B

Commercial haul activities and other vegetative treatments proposed in this alternative would result in the 

use of approximately 170 miles of system roads under U.S.D.A.-Forest Service jurisdiction. During the 

course of activities, 58 miles of roads currently closed and in custodial status as Maintenance Level 1

roads would be opened. This would result in some potentially short-term increase (five years or less) in 

open-road densities. The majority of maintenance work would be performed on the 168 miles of 

Maintenance Level 1 and 2 roads used for commercial activities, in particular blading and brushing. 

Alternatives C and D

Under these alternatives, 161 miles of system roads would be used for commercial haul activities and 

other vegetative treatment proposals. Activities would result in the opening of 56 miles of Maintenance 

Level 1 roads, resulting in a short-term increase in open road density, but – as with Alternative B – not all 

roads would be opened at the same time and all would be closed at the end of activities. Under these

Alternatives, approximately 159 miles of Maintenance Level 1 and 2 roads would receive the majority of 

maintenance effort, in particular the native surface roads. 

Alternative E

Commercial haul activities and other vegetative treatments proposed in this Alternative would result in 

the use of approximately 170 miles of system roads under U.S.D.A.-Forest Service jurisdiction. During 

the course of activities, 58 miles of roads currently closed and in custodial status as Maintenance Level 1 

roads would be opened. The majority of maintenance work would be performed on the 168 miles of 

Maintenance Level 1 and 2 roads used for commercial activities, in particular blading and brushing. 

Temporary Roads

The relatively gentle topography within the analysis area has led to a tradition of employing ground-base 

yarding systems to remove logs to landings. Temporary roads have customarily been constructed to 

provide access to those landings that were within the interior of units or otherwise not immediately 

adjacent to existing portions of the transportation system. Older temporary roads that had not revegetated 

were added to the transportation system in the late 1970’s in response to a directive that all existing 

wheeltracks be inventoried. With the advent of the requirement in The National Forest Management Act 

of 1976 that temporary roads be revegetated within 10 years, more attention has been paid to improving 

circumstances for revegetation on compacted temporary road surfaces, and within the last decade they 

have been aggressively treated by decompaction with tractor-mounted winged subsoiling tools.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 355 of 528

Temporary roads would be constructed primarily on flat ground (slopes less than 10 percent) and 

excavation and construction of embankments would be negligible. Temporary roads would be built to 

low construction standards, with constraints of grade, curve radius, compaction, surfacing, and width 

being tailored to the minimum capabilities of the intended user vehicles. 

Temporary roads, by their nature, are not intended for mixed vehicle use, nor are they intended to remain 

as identifiable facilities after the administrative need for their use has ended. At the completion of harvest 

and post-harvest activities (treatment of residual slash), all temporary roads would be barricaded to 

eliminate motor vehicle access and would be restored by decompaction as part of post-harvest soil 

remediation activities to facilitate their return to vegetative productivity.

Effects of temporary roads stem directly from compaction and include loss of infiltrative capacity, 

increased erosion potential, and dramatically reduced vegetative productivity. Compaction results in 

increased bulk density and reduced porosity, primarily through the loss of macropores, leading to reduced 

aeration and drainage, as well as disruption to microbial populations that causes that reduced productivity 

and increased erosion potential (Elliot et al. 1999). Bulk density has been shown in several studies to 

reduce tree growth not only within the compacted area itself, but also for trees adjacent to the compacted 

area because of root zone compaction (Froehlich 1979; Heilman 1981; Helms and Hipkin 1986; Conlin 

and van den Driessche 1996) as a result of increased root impedance and disrupted microbial processes. 

Natural recovery from compaction can be variable, with the more dramatic reduction in bulk density 

coming near the surface of the soil profile, but in general the rate of natural, unassisted recovery is slow 

(Froehlich et al. 1985). These effects would be reduced by subsoiling so that they generally apply only 

over the short term – five years or less. Because of the moderate ground slopes and high to excessive 

infiltration rates of the soils adjacent to these temporary road beds, sedimentation effects would be 

localized to upland areas immediately adjacent to the roads. 

Temporary road construction is sometimes required to facilitate the economical harvest of trees from a 

particular harvest unit. Under Alternative A, there would be no treatments within the analysis area and no 

temporary roads would be built. Previously constructed temporary roads that were not treated by 

subsoiling and have not naturally recovered would continue to provide some effect to vegetative 

productivity, surface/groundwater hydrology, and sediment production although the generally gentle 

ground slopes and the nature of the surrounding soil types would localize these effects. Such effects 

would be slowly diminishing as these compacted roadbeds slowly decompact.

Within the Rim-Paunina analysis area, implementation of Alternatives B, C, D, or E would result in the 

construction of temporary roads and would result in the irretrievable commitment of acreage to use as 

road beds (Figure 53). Under the Action Alternatives there would be, over time, a baseline of untreated 

temporary roads having been constructed within the analysis area as individual units are harvested by 

various timber sales with a certain degree of erosion potential and reduced vegetative productivity. As 

roads are treated by subsoiling, erosion potential would decline. The productive capability would 

increase over time, subsequent to subsoiling as subsidence returned the soil profile to a more natural ratio 

of macroporosity and microporosity. Mileage of temporary road construction per Alternative is shown in 

the table below.

Table 113. Temporary Road Estimate by Alternative 

Alternative Estimated Mileage

Alternative B 9.2

Alternative C 6.5

Alternative D 6.5

Alternative E 8.3
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 356 of 528

Cumulative Effects

There would be no incremental or additive effects that overlap the analysis area except for the 

implementation of the Deschutes National Forest Travel Management Project, released in August, 2011. 

Under Travel Management, motorized access off of designated routes (shown on the Motor Vehicle Use 

Map associated with the Travel Management project) is prohibited, as is off-road travel (unless in a 

designated area). The Rim-Paunina decision has no effects associated with public access. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Chapter 3- Transportation

Page 357 of 528

`

Figure 53. Rim-Paunina Potential Temporary Road Construction
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Cultural

Page 358 of 528

Cultural Resources

Management Direction

Management direction for cultural resources is found in the Deschutes National Forest Resource 

Management Plan, in the Forest Service Manual section 2360, in Federal Regulations 36CR64 and 

36CFR800 (amended December 2000), and in various federal laws including the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended), the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National 

Forest Management Act.

In general, the existing management direction asks the Forest to consider the effects on cultural resources 

when considering projects that fall within the Forest’s jurisdiction. Further direction indicates that the 

Forest will determine what cultural resources are present on the forest, evaluate each resource for 

eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and protect or mitigate effects to 

resources that are eligible.

Relevant Forest Plan Standards and Guides include:

CR-2, which states that cultural resource properties located during inventory will be evaluated for 

eligibility to the National Register.

CR-3, which states that in concert with inventories and evaluations, the Forest will develop thematic 

National Register nominations and management plans for various classes of cultural resources.

CR-4, which indicates that project level inventories or the intent to conduct such shall be documented 

through environmental analysis for the project.

Desired Condition

The desired condition would be to know the location and extent of all cultural resources, to have 

evaluated each one for eligibility to the National Register, and to have developed management plans for 

all eligible properties.

Existing Condition

New survey was conducted on approximately 381 acres of proposed treatment areas where there was no 

previous inventory survey documented. This inventory included areas on ridges and associated spurs. No 

new cultural resource sites were identified during the new survey. This brings the total amount of survey 

coverage within the project planning area to 36,447 acres, or 91 percent of the project area.

Sixty five cultural resource sites are present within the planning area. Forty-four of the sites have been 

evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Of these, 10 are eligible and 

34 are not eligible. The remaining 21 sites have not been evaluated for eligibility. There are 30 sites 

dating from the historic era (at least 50 years old). Thirty-five sites are prehistoric in age (inferred from 

the presence of stone tool technologies).

Sites from the historic period include refuse dumps, refuse scatters, historic structure remains, a utility 

corridor, culturally modified trees, remains of historic era railroad construction camps, historic town sites, 

and pumice mines. Prehistoric site types represented include lithic scatters, lithic scatters with flaked 

stone tools, lithic scatters with ground stone tools, possible rock shelters, and vision quest sites.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Cultural

Page 359 of 528

Review of spatial and tabular data for the 65 sites indicates that one eligible and 11 unevaluated sites are 

located within proposed treatment units where fuels or vegetation treatments or both are planned.

Direct and Indirect Effects

No Action

There would be no change to the current condition and no Federal action; therefore there would be no 

direct, indirect, or cumulative effect on cultural resources. Custodial management of forest resources 

such as road maintenance and wildfire suppression would continue.

Action Alternatives

Due to the sensitive nature of the information regarding cultural resources, the report submitted to the 

State Historic Preservation Office is on file at the Forest headquarters, the Crescent District office, and at 

the State office.

Following guidelines in a 2003 Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA) among USDA-Forest Service, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO), a finding of “Historic Properties Avoided” was determined under Stipulation III(B)2 of the PA. 

The Forest finds that there are historic properties but the undertaking will have no effect on them as 

defined by 36 CFR 800.16(i). In addition to avoidance, this finding is based upon a Mitigation Measure

to “pre-treat” the buffer around identified stacked rock feature sites by removing fuels prior to 

implementation of prescribed fire. The intent is to lessen the risk of prescribed fire in the vicinity of this 

site type. These areas would be identified in the implementation plan following the decision and would 

be coordinated between the district archaeologist, timber sale administration, and all post sale work 

accomplished by contract and force account workers. This measure has been used with success through 

the forest on similar sites and has been highly effective and reliable.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Scenery

Page 360 of 528

Scenery

Existing Condition

For the purposes of this analysis, the existing Forest Plan direction on scenic quality has been used. 

However, whenever possible, Scenic Integrity Objectives have also been displayed and discussed. 

Further direction regarding scenery management is found in Forest Service Manual 2380 (Landscape 

Management). Also, only effects to the foreground area are discussed, because proposed vegetation 

changes to middleground would not be noticeable as viewed from the selected viewer locations, which 

have been identified as Highways 58 and 97 in the vicinity of Walker Rim. 

The areas along these highways are classified in the Deschutes Forest Plan as “Partial Retention” or on 

the corresponding scenery management system as “slightly altered landscape with Medium Scenic 

Integrity Level.” 

The scenery in the Rim-Paunina analysis area is undergoing a gradual but noticeable change, particularly 

in the ponderosa pine that borders the highway. Fire exclusion has allowed smaller trees to obstruct the 

view of large ponderosa pine trees. Also, lack of periodic, low-intensity fire has likely exacerbated 

conditions where an endemic disease called dwarf mistletoe is spreading throughout the stands. Despite 

what is viewable from the highway, many of the large ponderosa trees do not appear healthy and 

mortality is apparent throughout the stands. This condition is contrary to visitor expectations for scenic 

views of central Oregon’s high desert forests. 

Large trees make up a desired component of scenic quality and they likely represented a greater portion of 

the landscape in the past. In the past two decades, understory thinning projects have begun to be 

implemented along the scenic view areas in an effort to change this trend. However, remaining in the 

foreground, especially along Walker Rim are landscapes where lodgepole pine and other fire intolerant 

species have encroached into ponderosa pine stands, blocking views and preventing the development of 

large diameter trees which historically dominated these forests. 

In stands of lodgepole pine in the project area, there are generally two types of scenic views of forests 

observable from the highways. One type has experienced bark beetle infestations in the 1990s and trees 

have died and fallen over with signs of wood cutting or salvage activity. The other has experienced 

relatively little management activity and could be characterized as dense, with sparse crowns and pockets 

of insect and disease, appearing near the end of a normal 80 to 100-year life cycle.

On a larger landscape, large wildfires and other forest disturbance processes are especially visible and 

accessible to the forest visitor along major travel corridors to the north. These include the Davis Fire 

(Highway 46), Road 18 and Bessie Butte Fires (Highway 97), Awbrey Hall Fire (Highway 46 near Bend), 

and the Skeleton Fire, B&B, Cache Mountain and Link Fires (Highway 20). These events tend to change 

the landscape character to “distinctive,” altering scenery to a degree that is perceived by many to have 

deviated from the landscape characteristics that are valued for their aesthetic quality (that is, it no longer 

appears as natural, or whole). Landscapes are primarily viewed by two types of public: casual forest 

visitors who mainly are from outside the Central Oregon area, and local residents who tend to be more 

familiar with forest succession and processes.

Table 114 displays the Scenic Views categories (by Visual Quality Objective or VQO) within the RimPaunina analysis area. Most of the “Partial Retention Foreground” is located along Highways 58 and 97. 

Most of the Partial Retention Middleground is found along Walker Rim.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Scenery

Page 361 of 528

Table 114. Acres of Scenic Views Management Area by Visual Quality Objective in the Rim-Paunina 

Analysis Area 

Visual Quality Objective Acres

Partial Retention Foreground 4,164

Partial Retention Middle ground 994

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

This alternative maintains the status quo and would continue along the current trajectory toward a stand 

replacement event under a passively managed landscape. Along Highways 58 and 97, dense stands with 

large trees would continue to be at risk to a large-scale disturbance, blocking views into the stands as the 

understory develops. The higher density of ponderosa pine stands masks the appearance of large trees 

and delays the development of fire tolerant cohorts by many decades. 

In lodgepole pine, although this relatively short-lived species evolves with disturbance processes that 

reinitiate stand renewal approximately every century, the stands within the scenic travel corridor would 

continue to appear unhealthy to many visitors. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Prescriptions for the action alternatives are designed to thin the understory and retain the largest trees and 

healthiest-appearing crowns. Table 116 displays total treatment acres proposed within Partial Retention 

Foreground areas. Table 117 displays the proposed acres in more detail, showing the type of treatment.

For understory thinning (HTH) within the immediate foreground area in ponderosa pine, large yellowbarked overstory trees would be dominant throughout this viewshed and compliment adjacent areas that 

have implemented similar vegetative treatments. Within the scenic corridor, all larger trees 21 inches and 

greater would remain. Fifteen percent retention areas with younger trees would result in greater diversity 

for scenic views, as well as prescriptions that incorporate heterogeneity.

Within the lodgepole pine stands and improvement harvest units (HIM), stands that lack visual diversity 

would improve over time as younger trees regenerate after tree removal. Stands would appear healthier 

with fuller crowns, as most of the dominant trees most likely would remain. 

Alternatives D and E respond to Key Issue #2 and have a focused long-term strategy to address dwarf 

mistletoe in the overstory, primarily in stands where ponderosa pine is the dominant species. In these 

stands, vegetative prescriptions and management-induced mortality to the overstory trees has the potential 

to affect scenic views for the short-term when viewed from the highways. Unit 775 is the only potentially 

visible unit identified for a prescription for mistletoe reduction and it is within 1⁄4 mile of Highway 97, 

although it does not border the roadway. This stand was evaluated as having a “moderate” level of 

mistletoe infection. It also is comprised of several species of overstory trees, including ponderosa pine.

Visual impact assessment of on-site conditions has determined this unit would not be visible and would 

not alter the scenery as viewed by the traveling public because of screening from the site topography. 

Also, there are suitable healthy overstory species such as sugar pine to be retained. 

The scenic resource objective is to lessen the evidence of human activity throughout Foreground areas; 

therefore the proposed activities have been designed to be subordinate to the larger landscape in order to 

be consistent with the standards and guidelines for scenic views within the Deschutes Forest LRMP. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Scenery

Page 362 of 528

Project Design Features have incorporated measures such as design and layout of skid trails and landings 

to minimize visibility. Landings closer than 200 feet to scenic travel corridors and access roads would be 

reviewed and approved on a case by case basis. To minimize soil contrast, all visible slash would be 

handpiled and disposed within two years, or a slashbuster would be utilized, which would also minimize 

potential smoke on the highway from prescribed burning operations. No marking paint, tags, ribbons, or 

boundary signs would be visible following project completion. Large diameter trees (21 inches and 

greater) would not be harvested unless they meet specific criteria related to forest health and public 

safety, as described in the Forest Plan. These measures have been used on the nearby Davis Fire 

Recovery Project as well as numerous other sales on the forest. They have proven to be highly effective 

and practical to implement. 

In all Action Alternatives the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Deschutes Land and 

Resource Management Plan to utilize prescribed fire in larger than five acre blocks of Partial Retention 

Foreground areas of Scenic Views along Highways 58 and 97 (LRMP M9-90) for seven units. Table 115

gives a brief description of the units affected by the Forest Plan Amendment and their locations along the 

highway, the unit numbers, as well as the approximate number of acres per unit that would be visible. 

This would not likely change how travelers view the landscape. Since the 1990 Forest Plan was 

implemented, viewers have become more knowledgeable on the role and benefits associated with a 

frequent, low intensity fire regime in the appropriate places. All other Standards and Guidelines 

associated with the Forest Plan and scenery (M9-90) such as low intensity fire and limited scorch heights 

would be consistent. A Forest Service landscape architect has met on-site with the Crescent District 

Silviculturist to review these proposed actions. 

Table 115. Description of Areas for Alternatives B, C, D, and E where the Inventoried Visual Quality 

Objectives is Partial Retention (Scenic View Foreground Management Area) and Underburning is Proposed

Unit Description

Treatment Acres proposed for use of 

prescribed fire Gross 

Unit 

Acres Approximate Scenic View 

Acres Visible from Hwy

Total Scenic 

View Acres

SV-2 Partial Retention Foreground

70 West side of Highway 97 at mile marker 

193 35 140 176

115 Northeast side of Highway 58 between mile 

markers 83 and 84 18 18 18

145 West side of Highway 97 between mile 

marker 194 and the Highway58/97 junction. 18 18 18

430 West side of Highway 97 at mile marker 

198 10 67 101

865 East side of Highway 97 between mile 

markers 193 and 194 25 51 51

870 East side of Highway 97 between mile 

marker 194 and the Highway 58/97 junction 29 64 145

3015* Southwest side of Highway 58 between 

mile markers 83 and 84. 27 110 127

Total 162 468 636

* This unit is not in Alternative B

In Partial Retention Middleground areas on Walker Rim, “Fuels Only” prescriptions include small 

diameter thinning by hand, disposal of piles, and prescribed burning. The remaining “Fuels Only”

prescriptions would include maintenance of a frequent fire regime including slashbusting and mastication 

of brush followed by prescribed burning. None of the activities would be evident from the highway 

because all activities would be below the tree canopy and most of the structure seen from the highway 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Scenery

Page 363 of 528

would remain the same. There would be no human-caused openings (Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines M9-19 and M9-46). Slash from thinning and tree removal activities, or other visible results of 

management activities will be obvious to the casual forest visitor within two years following activity 

(Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines M9-18 and M9-44).

Table 116. Active Management in Scenic Views by Acres

Visual Quality Objective Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Partial Retention Foreground 1,380 1,270 1,270 1,435

Alternative B units:

HIM: 50, 55, 60, 65, 90, 110, 130, 135, 140, 150, 155, 165, 166, 167, 235, 415, 775, 780, 860, 940, 945, 

1050, 1051. 

HTH: 70, 95, 115, 145, 160, 400, 405, 410, 425, 430, 865, 870, 1045.

Alternative C: 

HIM: 50, 60, 65, 90, 110, 135, 140, 155, 165, 166, 167, 235, 775, 860, 940, 945, 1050, 1051.

HTH: 70, 115, 145, 160, 400, 405, 410, 425, 430, 865, 870, 1045.

Fuels Only: 3015, 3040, 3050

Alternative D:

HIM: 50, 60, 65, 90, 110, 135, 140, 155, 165, 166, 167, 235, 860, 940, 945, 1050, 1051.

HTH: 70, 115, 145, 160, 400, 405, 410, 425, 430, 865, 870, 1045.

HSG: 775

Fuels Only: 3015, 3040, 3050

Alternative E:

HIM: 50, 55, 60, 65, 90, 110, 135, 140, 150, 155, 165, 166, 167, 235, 415, 860, 940, 945, 1050, 1051.

HTH: 70, 95, 115, 145, 160, 400, 405, 410, 425, 430, 865, 870, 1045.

AltMist: 775

Fuels Only: 3015, 3040, 3050

Table 117. Prescriptions in Foreground Retention by Acres

Treatment Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Lodgepole Improvement (HIM) 836 593 575 710

Understory Thinning (HTH) 544 514 514 544

Mistletoe Treatments (HSG and 

AltMist) 0 0 18 18

Fuels Treatments only 0 164 164 164

Total 1,380 1,270 1,270 1,435

Cumulative Effects

There are no past, present, or foreseeable actions along the scenic travel corridors throughout central 

Oregon that have the potential to change or intensify the effects disclosed in this analysis. North of the 

project area from La Pine to the city of Bend on Highway 97, the Lava Cast project has thinned “black 

bark” ponderosa pine and the result has been improved scenic views to a landscape where larger trees are 

highlighted and views to the Cascade mountain range are opened. Also, in ponderosa pine, similar 

prescriptions to those planned for Rim-Paunina are planned for the BLT Project north along Highway 58 

and Odell Butte. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Public Health and Safety

Page 364 of 528

Public Health and Safety

Under each action alternative, danger trees would be removed from along all haul routes. The signing of 

project activity areas in addition to notification of additional project-related traffic would promote a safe 

environment for forest visitors during project implementation. Implementation of action alternatives 

would increase the potential for encounters on roadways between forest visitors and equipment associated 

with harvest. This elevated level of risk would be present for the short-term (approximately five years). 

Safety measures such as informational signing, flaggers, and road maintenance activities, such as 

brushing roads for increased visibility, would be enforced through the timber sale contract provisions.

The work environment during all phases of harvest operations would be physically demanding and 

potentially hazardous; effects to worker health and safety would be possible. Activities with the highest 

potential for serious injury would include tree felling and potential helicopter operations (helicopter may 

be used for prescribed fire ignition). All project activities carried out by Forest Service and Forest 

Service contract employees would comply with State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) standards. All Forest Service project operations would be consistent with Forest 

Service Handbook 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code).

People who suffer from breathing ailments may experience some difficulty during periods of prescribed 

burning, especially during atmospheric conditions that do not favor dispersion of smoke. The greatest 

risk of exposure to airborne toxins from prescribed fires or wildfires would be to firefighters and forest 

workers implementing the prescribed burning. Although OHV riders and dispersed campers may 

encounter prescribed burning operations while on an overlapping designated trail, it is unlikely any 

members of the general public would be exposed to toxin levels adverse to human health. This is because 

the implementation of prescribed burning operations in the Rim-Paunina analysis area would be relatively 

far from populated areas and burn prescriptions are designed to lessen the release of particulate matter. 

Also, Project Design Features were developed in order to reduce risk to visitors as a result of fuel hazard 

abatement activities. Slash treatment directly adjacent to the highways is limited to methods that do not 

include prescribed fire. Acceptable methods may include hauling piles away, or mastication (e.g. "slash 

busting"). 

The Forest Service voluntarily follows the guidelines assigned by Oregon Smoke Management to limit 

state-wide exposure on a cumulative basis, in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Forest workers and 

firefighters can face unhealthy levels of smoke when patrolling or holding fire lines on the downward 

edge of a wildfire or prescribed fire, or while mopping intense hot spots. In most cases, measures such as 

education on the effects of short and long term exposure, rotation out of the smoke, and the use of 

respirators can reduce exposure levels. OSHA regulates exposure to hazardous materials in the 

workplace. All project activities carried out by Forest Service and Forest Service contract employees are 

designed to comply with State and Federal OSHA standards.

The Clean Air Act lists 189 hazardous air pollutants to be regulated. Some components of smoke, such as 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are known to be carcinogenic. Probably the most carcinogenic 

component is benzo-a-pyrene (BaP). Other components, such as aldehydes, are acute irritants. In 1994 

and 199738, air toxins were assessed relative to the exposure of humans to smoke from prescribed and 

wildfires. The five toxins most commonly found in prescribed fire smoke were:

 

38 Results of an April 1997 conference to review the results of health studies and develop a risk management plan for the 

protection of fire crews were published by Missoula Technology Development Center in Health Hazards of Smoke, Technical 

Report 9751-2836-MTDC.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Public Health and Safety

Page 365 of 528

Particulate matter - Particulates are the most prevalent air pollutant from fires, and are of the most 

concern to regulators. Research indicates a correlation between hospitalizations for respiratory problems 

and high concentrations of fine particulates (PM2.5, fine particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter or 

less). Particulates can carry carcinogens and other toxic compounds. Overexposure to particulates can 

cause irritation of mucous membranes, decreased lung capacity, and impaired lung function. Particulate 

matter is analyzed for each alternative in Chapter 3, Air Quality.

Acrolein - An aldehyde with a piercing, choking odor. Exposure severely irritates the eyes and upper 

respiratory tract.

Formaldehyde - Low-level exposure can cause irritation of the eyes, nose and throat. Long-term 

exposure is associated with nasal cancer.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) - reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, a reversible effect. Low 

exposures can cause loss of time awareness, motor skills, and mental acuity. Also, exposure can lead to 

heart attack, especially for persons with heart disease. High exposures can lead to death due to lack of 

oxygen.

Benzene - Benzene causes headache, dizziness, nausea and breathing difficulties, as well as being a potent 

carcinogen. Long-term exposure can cause anemia, liver and kidney damage, and cancer. 

The closest Designated Area (population centers or other areas requiring protection under State or federal 

air quality laws or regulations) to the analysis area is the city of Bend, Oregon; the communities of 

Crescent, Sunriver, and La Pine are closer to the analysis area but are not as highly populated.

.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Social and Economic Analysis

Page 366 of 528

Social and Economic Analysis

Social and economic elements, which are interrelated and interdependent with ecological elements, 

comprise the human components of the ecosystem.

The implications of resource management decisions for the Rim-Paunina Project to social and economic

values are of interest to the residents, business owners, and users of the area. These people have made 

their interests known through an organized collaborative group directed by the Central Oregon 

Intergovernmental Council and represent a broad array of interests (Public Participation, Chapter 1).

Their interests, issues, and concerns have been incorporated into the NEPA process through the 

development of issues and disclosure of effects in Chapter 3.

This section focuses on:

1. A review of the social and economic conditions of Klamath County, Oregon, using the latest 

census and other sources of data.

2. A review of key social and economic relations between the communities and the uses and 

services provided by the Federal lands in the Rim-Paunina analysis area.

3. A discussion about how the alternatives affect pertinent and relevant economic factors that are 

important to the community.

General Social and Economic Features

The primary area of consideration is Klamath County, Oregon. According to the US Census 2006 

estimate, the population of Klamath County was 66,438. The county covers an area of 6,136 square 

miles: the population density is currently 11 persons per square mile. The population growth of the 

county compared to the state, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Economic 

Information System (BEA REIS 2006) Table CA30 was 31 percent from 1970 to 2006. County 

population growth did not keep pace with state and national growth.

For the population in the 40-54 age bracket (Baby Boom in 2000) in Klamath County, grew the most 

from 1990 to 2000. The percentage of young people under age 20 declined slightly while the percentage 

of people 65 years and older increased slightly.

By far, whites are the most numerous ethnic group. Next are Hispanic at 7.8 percent of the population 

followed by a little over 4 percent American Indian and Alaska Native.

Economic Conditions

Historically, Klamath County has devoted its economic base to farming, timber, and wood products 

manufacturing. Although these industries provide a smaller contribution to the county’s current economic 

activity than they once did; they are still important in community identity and local politics. 

The largest employer in the area is Sky Lakes Medical Center; however, few or no residents of Crescent 

or Gilchrist are employed there. In Klamath County, the Medical Center is followed by Klamath County 

School District and Jeld-Wen, a company that manufactures windows and doors. Recreation – including 

fishing, hunting, and hiking – contribute to the appeal of the area and its economy. Crater Lake National 

Park, which attracts approximately half a million visitors a year, also contributes to the local economy. 

Employment

From 2001 to 2008, total employment in Klamath County increased from 32,576 jobs to 34,439 jobs. The 

principal industrial sectors in Klamath County remain the same. They are government and government 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Social and Economic Analysis

Page 367 of 528

enterprises. The second largest is retail trade followed by health care and social assistance. Between 

2001 and 2008, government and government enterprises lost a few jobs, while retail trade gained more 

than 150 jobs. The health care and social assistance sector gained more than 700 jobs. Other important 

employment sectors in Klamath County are the manufacturing, accommodation and food services sector, 

farm employment, and construction. A major change over the five years from 2001 to 2008 was the 

decline in jobs in the forestry, fishing, and related activities sector. This sector declined by 17 percent to 

628 jobs.

Table 118. Klamath County Employment 

Full and Part-time Employment by 

Year

2001 2004 2006 2008

Total employment 32,576 33,219 35,441 34, 439

Farm employment 2,038 2,078 2,065 1,752

Nonfarm employment 30,538 31,141 33,376 32,867

Forestry, fishing, related activities, other 1/ 755 741 628 NA

Mining 1/ 14 30 78 NA

Utilities 92 121 122 130

Construction 1,933 1,706 2,213 1,855

Manufacturing 2,740 2,754 2,872 2,473

Wholesale trade 769 788 919 951

Retail trade 3,983 3,974 4,198 4,152

Transportation and warehousing 1,015 972 1,060 1,037

Finance and insurance 919 1,256 869 930

Real estate and rental and leasing 1,151 1,182 1,435 1,652

Professional and technical services 1/ 1,036 1,036 1,073 NA

Management of companies and enterprises 1/ 1,213 722 1,121 NA

Administrative and waste services 1/ 284 1,047 1,700 1,772

Health care and social assistance 3,216 3,777 3,998 3,947

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 667

Accommodation and food services 2,508 2,448 2,744 2,668

Other services, except public administration 1,812 1,917 2,072 2,035

Government and government enterprises 5,547 5,561 5,451 5,469

Federal, civilian 894

1/ Some REIS data is unavailable due to disclosure of confidential information. Where shown, it is estimated using IMPLAN 

data. These data are indicated by bold italics. NA=Not Available

Source: Most recent and available Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA REIS), U.S. 

Department of Commerce (Table CA25 NAICS).

The poverty rate for Klamath County is higher than that of the state. Approximately 17 percent of 

individuals had income that was below the poverty line in 2008. The percentage in Oregon as a whole 

was 13.5 percent.

From 1970 to 2006, average earnings per job, adjusted for inflation, have fallen from $36,288 in 1970 to 

$32,470 in 2006. In 2006, average earnings per job in Klamath County, Oregon ($32,470) were lower 

than the state ($40,818) and the nation ($47,286).

Per capita income, adjusted for inflation, has risen from $19,812 in 1970 to $26,908 in 2006. That is 

lower than the state average of $33,299 and the national average of $36,714 in 2006.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Social and Economic Analysis

Page 368 of 528

In the last 36 years, non-labor sources of income grew at an annual rate of 3.6 percent, outpacing labor 

sources which grew at a 0.7 percent rate. In 2006, 44.0 percent of total personal income was from nonlabor sources. These sources include dividends, interest, and rent as well as transfer payments from 

governments to individuals, such as Medicare, Social Security, unemployment, and disability insurance. 

In 2006, welfare represented 8.4 percent of transfer payments and 2.1 percent of total personal income. 

From 1970 to 2006, 72.1 percent of new income was from non-labor sources. 

In 2007, the unemployment rate was 7.0 percent compared to 5.2 percent in the state and 4.6 percent in 

the nation. Since 1990, the unemployment rate varied from a low of 6.7 percent in 2006 to a high of 10.4 

percent in 1993. Monthly unemployment rates are higher in the winter compared to the summer.

Figure 54. Annual Average Unemployment Rate Compared to the State and the Nation

Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA REIS), U.S. Department of Commerce 

(Table CA25 NAICS).

Primary Uses of Forest Lands

Timber Harvest

Oregon is the nation’s leader in softwood lumber production. The forest sector is the second largest

contributor to Oregon’s economy behind high tech. The forest sector accounts for 6.9 percent of

Oregon’s total industrial output. Oregon’s primary wood products (lumber, veneer and plywood), 

secondary wood products (doors and windows), and forestry services (firefighting, reforestation)

contribute $12.6 billion annually to the state’s economy. Forestry products and services employ over

85,000 people directly in Oregon and are critical to Oregon’s rural communities. Annual wage income 

adds up to $3.5 billion. The primary forest products sector pays an average wage of $49,800 — 45 

percent higher than the state’s average wage of $34,400 (Oregon Forest Resources Institute, July 2010).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Social and Economic Analysis

Page 369 of 528

Timber harvesting has been a key use of forests in Klamath County. Production in the 1980s was nearly 

half a billion board feet per year. For example, in 1986, a total of 462 million board feet were harvested. 

Of that, 281 million board feet, about 61 percent, was harvested from Forest Service land. During the 

1990s harvest levels declined sharply. In 2006, approximately 152 million board feet were harvested in 

Klamath County. Of that total, 29 million board feet, or 19 percent, was harvested from Forest Service 

land. 

Klamath Falls has two mills that process logs. One is Thomas Lumber, which produces lumber for JeldWen, a manufacturer of windows and doors; the other produces dimensional lumber. Timber cut from the 

Crescent and Chemult Ranger Districts is rarely or never sent to the dimensional lumber mill in Klamath 

Falls. The closest mill to Crescent and Chemult is Interfor Pacific in Gilchrist. Wood from the Crescent 

and Chemult Ranger Districts is also sent to two mills in John Day, a dimensional mill for pine in Warm 

Springs, and two mills in White City/Medford and Roseburg. There are some small manufacturing mills 

that produce windows and doors in Prineville and Redmond. There is also a small molding mill in the 

town of Crescent that employs about 10 people. It is dependent on byproduct from the local mill.

Non-timber Forest Products 

Matsutake mushrooms are a valuable commercial special forest product that grows on the Crescent and 

Chemult Ranger Districts. The mushroom harvesting season runs from September to November and the 

harvesting community has been vocal in their concerns that disturbance to the soil or activities that open 

the tree canopy could reduce either matsutake habitat or productivity. However, in the Rim-Paunina area

habitat for matsutake is limited and primarily within the southwest region of the District. Instead, 

mushroom harvesters use the 94 road to access harvest areas within the neighboring Fremont-Winema 

Forests (T. Kerr, per. comm. 2010). For more information on habitat, reference the Botany section of this 

chapter.

Local businesses enjoy a ‘mini boom’ with the influx of up to 1,000 harvesters for the two month harvest 

season, purchases of miscellaneous consumables and fuel increases. The local community at Crescent 

Lake Junction also has the opportunity to rent ‘buying station’ spots to the commercial buyers for the 

duration of the harvest season.

Recreation

Recreation, including fishing, hunting, and hiking, adds to the appeal of the area and its economy. Crater 

Lake National Park, which has approximately half a million visitors a year, contributes to the local 

economy.

Hunting plays a big part in the local economy, based on figures from Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife and Travel Oregon, contracted with Dean Runyan and Associates. In 2008, an economic 

analysis by county of Fishing, Hunting, Wildlife Viewing, and Shellfishing Recreation in Oregon (“2008 

Trip Characteristics and Expenditure Estimates”) was conducted. Survey results are showed in Table 

119.

Table 119. Amounts Spent by Hunting and Wildlife Viewing in Deschutes, Klamath, and Lake Counties

County Hunting Wildlife Viewing

Deschutes $8,480,000 $44,291,000

Klamath $4,214,000 $14,931,000

Lake $2,773,000 $ 4,940,000

Total $15,467,000 $64,162,000

State Total Percent 11.4% 13%

State Total $136,042,000 $495,260,000

Courtesy of ODFW and Dean Runyan and Associates 2008
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Social and Economic Analysis

Page 370 of 528

In Klamath County, hunting for deer on Walker Rim, both bow and arrow and rifle (eight weeks total), 

brings a potential economic boost every fall, not only from the hunting license fees but food, gas and 

other amenities. There are eight campsites at Boundary Springs (a primitive designated camping area) 

and 13 other dispersed sites along major green dot roads up along the Walker Rim, and each campsite 

usually averages two ATVs. The cost of gas to the vehicle to haul the ATVs and other hunting gear, plus 

usually a camper or RV for the hunters to sleep in means local gas stations and small stores benefit. 

Local motels in Gilchrist, Crescent, and Crescent Lake Junction also see an increase in use during the fall 

hunting season.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives

Proposed management scenarios assume that society’s interests in public forests are best served by 

maintaining stand structure and biological diversity as well as by even flows of forest products through 

time. This analysis deals with many variables in the economy, in project design and implementation, and 

in the social responses of diverse publics. The analysis strives to estimate the effects as accurately as 

possible using the best available data, making reasoned assumptions and focusing on key components. 

The issue of absolute accuracy does not affect the utility of this analysis since the alternatives are all 

developed, analyzed, and compared in the same manner.

The following section includes discussions of both social and economic impacts as well as economic 

efficiency. Both impact analysis and efficiency analysis are important to trade-off assessment. Impact 

analysis addresses the distribution of costs and benefits. It identifies who gets how much of what and 

who pays the cost. This includes the distribution of jobs and income resulting from goods and services 

produced by each alternative, impacts to businesses, and changes to social variables. These distributional 

costs and benefits can be described in monetary, or other quantitative and qualitative measures. 

Efficiency is about the cost of producing or doing something and comparing that cost to the resulting 

change in values. Typical measures include benefit cost ratios and net present value. Such measures are 

useful to determine if timber sale projects are below or above cost. Not all efficiency measures can or 

need to be expressed monetarily. Other quantitative and qualitative measures are also useful.

Social and Economic Effects

The social and economic effects are evaluated using several indicators, including harvest volume, jobs, 

income, and physical and social environmental health (e.g. environmental justice). 

The purpose and need for this project includes contributions to local and regional economies by providing 

timber and other wood fiber products. Alternative D produces the most timber volume at approximately 

25.3 million board feet. Alternative C produces the least at 15.3. The assumptions are that one half of the 

volume is in ponderosa pine; 80 percent are likely to be saw logs suitable for processing at a mill. The 

next species is lodgepole (35 percent) with fir (15 percent) comprising the remaining volume. 

Timber industry response coefficients and timber related job estimates were produced using state-wide 

estimates based on log consumption by industry, employment, and labor income for 1998 (Gebert et al. 

1998) and conversation with Mike Cloughesy (July 2010) with the Oregon Forest Resources Institute. 

The project area and closest mill (Interfor Pacific LTD in Gilchrist) is situated in Klamath County;

however, potential bidders could be from any county east or west of the Cascade Mountains. Therefore, a 

statewide perspective was used to determine the potential economic effect of the project on jobs. In 2007, 

the Oregon Employment Department attributed 63,539 jobs to the forestry sector with 3.79 billion board 

feet produced39. A comparison of jobs created by the Rim-Paunina project area by million board feet can 

 

39 http://www.oregonforests.org/FactsAndResources/Publications.html
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Social and Economic Analysis

Page 371 of 528

be extrapolated using a coefficient of 17 jobs per million board feet. This is for comparison only. The 

following Table 120 displays potential jobs created by the Rim-Paunina project.

Table 120. Potential Jobs in the Timber Industry per Million Board Feet Created by Rim-Paunina Project 

Timber Industry 

Response 

Coefficients **

Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Jobs/MMBF Volume Jobs Volume Jobs Volume Jobs Volume Jobs

17 19.9 338 15.3 260 25.3 430 24.1 410

** a coefficient of 17 jobs per million board feet

Table 121. Cash Flow Analysis by Alternative 

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Volume (Million Board Feet) 0 19.9 15.3 25.3 24.1

Total benefits $3,993,536 $3,329,174 $5,504,095 $5,243,907

Total costs40 $4,176,144 $4,285,937 $4,898,799 $4,833,813

Net Potential Value -$233,401 -$872,727 $408,603 $202,095

Benefit Cost Ratio41 0.94 0.77 1.10 1.05

Biomass and Small Diameter Utilization

Approximately 20 percent of the volume in ponderosa pine and 40 percent in lodgepole pine is 

attributable to “other” products such as biomass, chips, post and poles, and firewood. There are few local 

markets for fiber beyond JTS animal bedding material in Redmond, therefore, most chips are either 

processed in LaPine and go on to secondary markets, or are trucked directly to Roseburg, Oregon or 

White City, Idaho. It is likely a local biomass plant in Klamath Falls would be nearly on line by the time 

Rim-Paunina project is implemented. 

The Crescent Ranger District is one of the largest suppliers of post and pole material in the State of

Oregon (personal conversation with Phil Chang, Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, 2010). The 

Rim-Paunina area is expected to go a long way in filling the demand created by the local post and pole 

mill and others suppliers. 

Big Game and Hunting

The big game hunting opportunities on Walker Rim and available habitat is relatively small compared to 

the much larger Ft. Rock Unit which overlaps the Fremont-Winema Forest and BLM lands. As a result of 

the implementation of both the Rim-Paunina project and the Three Trails OHV project, there would be no 

loss of hunting acreage or motorized access within National Forest System lands in the analysis area. 

However, the proportion of the hunting public that prefers a less motorized landscape and a higher quality 

hunting experience would likely have a decreasing degree of satisfaction. Conversely, those hunters 

seeking areas with a high degree of motorized use would continue to benefit from a general lack of 

regulated access. Legal and illegal harvest of deer and elk would be expected to continue at the same rate 

or slightly increase as more user-created motorized routes are established, though this would also be 

 

40 Total costs include planning, required mitigation, and essential and non-essential sale improvement projects such 

as prescribed burning, disposal of slash, and restoration activities such as small diameter thinning and prescribed 

burning.

41 A benefit cost ratio is the discounted benefits divide by the discounted costs. A benefit cost ratio less than one (1) 

indicates a below cost sale. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Social and Economic Analysis

Page 372 of 528

subject to other factors negatively affecting big game populations. For more disclosure on the cumulative 

effects on big game, reference the Wildlife-Big Game discussion from this chapter.

Project Design Features (Chapter 2) have been developed to maintain the character and experience for 

dispersed camping by minimizing change to the setting. The largest trees onsite would be retained with 

landings, skid trails, and soil decompaction activities located away from camping areas. Also, during rifle 

hunting season, all harvest activities would honor agreements with the green dot system and access 

management for motorized vehicles.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Air Quality

Page 373 of 528

Air Quality

The 1970 Federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 and 1990 (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.), is a legal 

mandate designed to protect human health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards are 

defined in the Clean Air Act as levels of “criteria” pollutants above which may result in detrimental 

effects on human health and welfare. These criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 

oxides, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, and sulfur dioxide.

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are adopted by each state to implement the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. State Implementation Plans describe the state’s actions to achieve and maintain National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards. If an area consistently does not meet or “attain” the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards, it is designated as a non-attainment area and must demonstrate to the public and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) how it would meet standards in the future. The Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality regulates and monitors air quality for the State.

Section 160 of the Federal Clean Air Act also requires measures to “preserve, protect, and enhance the air 

quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other 

areas of special national or regional natural, scenic, or historic value.” Class I airsheds include Forest 

Service and Fish and Wildlife Service Wilderness areas over 5,000 acres that were in existence before 

August 1977, and National Parks in excess of 6,000 acres as of August 1977. Designation of Class I 

airsheds allows only very small increments of new pollution above existing air pollution levels, Class I 

airsheds have the highest air quality protection standards, in part, because visibility was identified as an 

important value while Class II airsheds have a moderate level of protection. Airsheds within the RimPaunina project area are described below. 

Affected Environment

Smoke produced from wildland or prescribed fires potentially can affect urban landscapes. 

Approximately 75,000 people live in the surrounding communities. Many of the residents in the area live 

in the large city of Bend, or small towns such as Sunriver, La Pine, Crescent, Gilchrist, and Crescent Lake 

Junction; however, a significant percentage of the populations live in the wildland/urban interface in the 

countryside surrounding these cities and towns.

Class 1 Airshed

Class I airsheds are protected by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program and include 

national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of 

special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value. Diamond Peak Wilderness and 

Mount Thielsen Wilderness are Class I airsheds (OAR 340-204-0050). They are also considered a 

“smoke sensitive area.” Mt. Thielsen Wilderness is approximately one mile to the west of the project 

area. Diamond Peak Wilderness is approximately thirteen miles to the northwest of the project area

(Figure 55).

Class 2 Airshed

Class II areas are attainment areas that are neither industrialized nor meet the specific requirements for 

classification as Class I areas. They are protected by the PSD program. The Rim-Paunina planning area 

is a Class 2 airshed. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Air Quality

Page 374 of 528

Designated Area

Those areas identified as principal population centers or other areas of requiring protection under state or 

federal air quality laws or regulations. The Rim-Paunina Project area is located approximately 50 miles 

southwest of Bend, Oregon. Bend is classified as a “Designated Area” by the Oregon Smoke 

Management Report. 

To date, the urban and industrial centers adjacent to the Deschutes National Forest are attaining National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (OAR 340-204-0030 and OAR 340-204-0040). Sources of local criteria 

air pollution on the Deschutes National Forest, include (but are not limited to) construction equipment, 

vehicles (off-highway and highway legal), wildfires, and forest management activities (i.e., prescribed 

fires, wildland fire use, pile burning).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

Although this alternative would not have any activity-generated smoke emissions, it carries the highest 

likelihood for a wildfire with a “Problem Fire’ scenario. Table 122 to Table 126 illustrates that emissions 

and subsequent effect to air quality from a wildfire such as the recent Davis Fire are far greater than 

through management actions prescribed in Alternatives B through E.

Alternatives B, C, D, E, and Wildfire

Prescribed burning operations associated with all action alternatives would incorporate Project Design 

Features (listed in Chapter 2) intended to minimize effects to air quality. Potential effects to human 

health are displayed in the section titled “Public Health and Safety” in Chapter 3.

The First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) is a computer program developed to predict and plan for 

fire effects. Development of FOFEM involved a search for fire effects literature for predictive 

algorithms. These algorithms were screened to evaluate their predictions over a range of conditions. 

Thus, a major internal component of FOFEM is a decision key that selects the best available algorithm for 

the conditions specified by a user.

Analysis of the Rim-Paunina alternatives used FOFEM to generate Table 122 to Table 126 which 

summarize fuel consumption and smoke emission information. Alternative A was modeled under a 

problem fire scenario. Alternatives B, C, D, and E include emissions from planned pile disposal and 

prescribed underburning. These estimates are conservative for the action alternatives because the market 

demand for biomass could utilize piles instead of burning for disposal. This would lower the emissions 

and carbon output.

The prevailing winds are out of the southwest and normally would push the smoke east away from the 

Wilderness areas (Mt Thielsen and Diamond Peak) and from population centers like Bend.

Cumulative Effects

The Forest Service voluntarily follows the State of Oregon Smoke Management Plan. This plan regulates 

cumulative smoke outputs daily in airsheds regardless of ownership and uses existing and predicted 

weather forecasts. Any burning adjacent to or with the potential to affect the smoke produced by 

prescribed burning in the Rim-Paunina area would be regulated in this manner. Burn days and emissions 

are assigned on a cumulative basis. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Air Quality

Page 375 of 528

Table 122. Potential Emissions for a “Problem Fire” Scenario 

Table 123. Alternative B Prescribed Fire Emissions (12, 036 acres)42

Emissions Pounds per Acre Total /Tons

PM10 174 1047

PM 2.5 148 891

CH4 85 443

CO 1,793 9,527

CO2 17,138 103,136

NOX 19 114

SO2 12 72

Total Tons Emission 125,200

Table 124. Alternative C Prescribed Fire Emissions (14,751 acres) 

Emissions Pounds per Acre Total /Tons

PM10 174 678

PM 2.5 148 1283

CH4 85 627

CO 1793 13,224

CO2 17,138 126,401

NOX 19 140

SO2 12 89

Total Tons Emission 141,764

Table 125. Alternative D Prescribed Fire Emissions (14,751 acres) 

Emissions Pounds per Acre Total /Tons

PM10 174 678

PM 2.5 148 1,283

CH4 85 627

CO 1793 13,224

CO2 17,138 126,401

NOX 19 140

SO2 12 89

Total Tons Emission 141,764

 

42

 PM10: Particulate Matter that is 10 micrometers or smaller in size; PM2.5: Particulate Matter that is 2.5 

micrometers or smaller in size; CH4: Methane; CO: Carbon Monoxide; CO2: Carbon Dioxide; NOX: Nitrogen 

Oxide; SO2: Sulphur Dioxide.

Emissions Pounds per Acre

PM10 413

PM2.5 350

CH4 204

CO 4,371

CO2 35,976

NOX 33

SO2 24

Total Tons Emission 880,809
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Air Quality

Page 376 of 528

Table 126. Alternative E Prescribed Fire Emissions (16,193 acres) 

Emissions Pounds per Acre Total /Tons

PM10 174 1,409

PM 2.5 148 1,198

CH4 85 688

CO 1793 14,517

CO2 17,138 138,612

NOX 19 154

SO2 12 97

Total Tons Emission 156,672
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 377 of 528

Wilderness, Potential Wilderness Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, 

and Other Undeveloped Lands

Introduction

This section of the EIS discloses the affected environment and environmental consequences for 

wilderness areas, potential wilderness areas (PWAs), Inventories Roadless Areas (IRAs) and other 

unroaded or undeveloped lands.43 Appendix D of this Environmental Impact Statement discloses 

additional narrative and maps in support of these analyses for the potential wilderness inventory analysis. 

The area for each of these analyses is the approximately 40,000 acre Rim-Paunina project area, where 

over the past several decades fire exclusion has altered natural ecological processes. Suppression of fire 

in these areas has helped create the stand composition and structure that is now present. In the dry upland 

forest, stands once dominated by open park-like stands of ponderosa pine have closed in with shade 

tolerant species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir. The amount of this situation across this landscape is 

uncharacteristic (un-natural) and unwanted. The Rim-Paunina project proposes to affect a change in these 

conditions through vegetative treatments and prescribed burning.

The vast majority of the area, especially on lands less than 30 percent slope, has been managed in the 

past. This area has been harvested and roaded except on the steeper slopes of Walker Rim and in land 

allocations such as Wilderness and Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA).

Wilderness

Affected Environment

A wilderness area is designated by congressional action under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and other 

wilderness acts. Wilderness is undeveloped Federal land retaining primeval character and influence 

without permanent improvements or human habitation (Deschutes Forest Plan, page G-16). The Mt. 

Thielsen Wilderness was designated by Congress through the Oregon Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public law 

98-328). Approximately 6,400 acres of the 55,100 acre wilderness are located on the Deschutes National 

Forest. The rest of the wilderness is located on the Fremont-Winema and Umpqua National Forests 

(Deschutes Forest Plan, Appendix 4).

Environmental Consequences – All Alternatives

There are no designated wilderness areas within, nor directly adjacent to the project planning area. The 

closest designated wilderness is the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness approximately one mile to the west. 

Diamond Peak Wilderness is approximately 13 miles to the northwest of the planning area (Figure 55). 

The Rim-Paunina project activities would have no effect on the wilderness character, including solitude, 

on either wilderness because of the distance to the nearest treatment unit (approximately one mile). No 

activities would occur adjacent or within any designated wilderness.

 

43 The term ‘other undeveloped lands’ is presented and used in this document to provide a consideration for lands 

that do not contain roads and evidence of timber harvest.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 378 of 528

Oregon Cascades Recreation Area

Affected Environment

The Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA) was established as part of the Oregon Wilderness Act of 

1984 (Public Law 98-328), extends along the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range from the Diamond 

Peak Wilderness to within 1⁄4 mile of the northern boundary of Crater Lake National Park on the Umpqua 

National Forest. The designated area encompasses 157,000 acres on three National Forests: the 

Deschutes, Umpqua, and Willamette. It is an area exhibiting rich diversity in landform and wildlife, and 

also provides a variety of recreational experiences (Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan, 

Appendix 4 p. 4-30). 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A

The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural processes. Biological and 

ecosystem functions would continue. The landscape would likely continue developing complex fuel 

loads. A wildfire may burn more extensively and kill more trees within upland forest stands which would 

result in larger acreages of blackened landscapes compared to prescribed fires. 

Alternative B 

The Rim-Paunina project is adjacent to the boundary of the OCRA however no activities are planned in 

the OCRA. Alternatives B has units 480 (85 acres), 475 (167 acres) and 490 (266 acres) that are adjacent 

to the east and south sides of the OCRA boundary. Thinning (harvest improvement cuts) in these three 

units is designed to remove the less desirable trees and improve stand composition and quality would 

potentially reduce wildfire intensity as well as crown fire potential outside the OCRA. Prescribed 

underburning following thinning would reduce slash and fuel loading on the ground contributing to a 

more natural fuel break further reducing a wildfire from spreading into the OCRA. Prescribed burning 

would create smoke for several days that may be seen or smelled by people recreating in the OCRA 

adjacent to the boundary. Unit 490 is separated from the OCRA by Forest Service road 5840 and all 

harvest activities would utilize this road for hauling. Unit 480 would utilize the existing 420 road which 

is adjacent to the OCRA boundary and Unit 475 would utilize a short section of temporary road extending 

southwest from the 5835-600 to haul east to Forest Service road 5835 (see Figure 53). None of these 

activities would occur within the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area and all activities adjacent to the 

OCRA are on existing roads therefore there would be no effects to the vegetation characteristics within 

the OCRA.

Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D have unit 490 that is adjacent to the southwest corner of the Oregon Cascades 

Recreation Area. Approximately 266 acres would be thinned however no roads (temporary or permanent) 

would be constructed within or adjacent to the OCRA. There would be no effects from the Rim-Paunina 

project on the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area.

Alternative E

The Rim-Paunina project is adjacent to the boundary of the OCRA however no activities are planned in 

the OCRA. Alternative E has units 480 (85 acres) and 490 (266 acres) that are adjacent to the east and 

south sides of the OCRA boundary. Thinning (harvest improvement cuts) in these two units is designed 

to remove the less desirable trees and improve stand composition and quality thereby potentially reducing 

wildfire intensity as well as crown fire potential outside the OCRA. Unit 490 is separated from the 

OCRA by Forest Service road 5840 and all harvest activities would utilize this road for hauling. Unit 480 

would utilize the existing 420 road which is adjacent to the OCRA boundary. None of these activities 

would occur within the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area therefore there would be no effects.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 379 of 528

Common to Alternatives B, C, D and E 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E have harvest units adjacent to the boundary of the Oregon Cascades 

Recreation Area. Machinery noise and dust associated with harvest activities would be heard by people 

recreating near the OCRA boundary along Forest Service road 5840 to access to the OCRA and Mt.

Thielsen Wilderness however, this condition would only exist for the duration of the harvest activities. 

Cumulative Effects

The Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation 

of a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. The closest proposed OHV trail to 

the Oregon Cascade Recreation Area is over two miles away therefore there would be no effects to the 

OCRA.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads or harvest or cut trees, therefore 

there are no cumulative effects.

Figure 55. Designated Wilderness, Oregon Cascades Recreation Area and their Proximity to Rim-Paunina 

Project Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 380 of 528

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Affected Environment

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) are areas identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a 

set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, which are held at the National 

headquarters office of the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision of those maps (36 CFR 

294.11). These areas were set aside through administrative rulemaking and have provisions, within the 

context of multiple use management, for the protection of inventoried roadless areas. Most IRA 

boundaries are substantially identical to those identified as ‘Roadless Areas’, referred to in the 1982 

planning rule (36 CFR 219.17) and identified by the Forest Plan and the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS), Appendix C; however some localized, minor differences in boundaries may exist.

All roadless area acres were allocated to various management area strategies as disclosed in the Deschutes 

Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix C. Some management area strategies were intended to retain the 

undeveloped roadless character of the roadless area and some management area strategies were intended 

to develop the lands with timber harvest and road building activities; thus forgoing roadless character if 

these activities occurred.

Environmental Consequences – All Alternatives

There are no inventoried roadless areas within, nor directly adjacent to the project planning area. The 

closest inventoried roadless area is the Mt. Thielsen IRA approximately four miles to the southwest on the 

Fremont-Winema National Forests. The closest inventoried roadless area on the Deschutes is the Maiden 

Peak IRA approximately 15 miles to the northwest (Figure 56). Due to the distance to the nearest IRA, 

the Rim-Paunina project would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any inventoried roadless 

areas.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 381 of 528

Figure 56 Inventoried Roadless Areas and their Proximity to Rim-Paunina Project Planning Area

Potential Wilderness Areas

Affected Environment

Potential wilderness areas are identified using inventory procedures found in Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 71. The inventory is conducted by the Forest Service with the purpose of 

identifying potential wilderness areas in the National Forest System. The National Forest System Land 

and Resource Management Planning Rule (currently the 1982 Rule, 36 CFR §219.17) directs that 

roadless areas be evaluated and considered for wilderness recommendation during the forest planning 

process. 

Potential wilderness areas (PWAs) are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or impart any 

particular level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation of potential wilderness 

(Chapter 72), and lastly they are not preliminary administrative recommendations for wilderness 

designation (Chapter 73). The inventory of PWAs does not change the administrative boundary of any 

inventoried roadless area (IRA).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 382 of 528

Typically, PWAs substantially overlap, and/or are contiguous with inventoried roadless areas. PWAs 

may also be contiguous with designated wilderness. Some newly inventoried PWAs may be stand alone 

areas that were not identified as ‘roadless areas’ in Appendix C of the 1990 Deschutes Forest Plan and 

‘inventoried roadless areas’ as identified in a set of maps in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

(RACR). PWAs overlap inventoried roadless areas only where those acres of land are consistent with the 

inventory criteria (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71) and may extend beyond IRA and wilderness boundaries 

consistent with inventory criteria.

Methodology for Potential Wilderness Inventory for the Rim-Paunina Project

The Rim-Paunina project area and an adjacent two miles were inventoried utilizing the criteria in FSH 

1909.12, Chapter 71. Areas qualify for placement on the potential wilderness inventory if they meet the 

statutory definition of wilderness. Areas are evaluated and are eligible for inclusion in the inventory if the 

area meets either criteria 1 and 3, or criteria 2 and 3 below: 

1. Areas contain 5,000 acres or more.

2. Areas contain less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following:

a. Areas can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions.

b. Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively 

managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

c. Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administrationendorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless 

of their size.

3. Areas do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads, 

except as permitted in areas east of the 100th meridian (see FSH 1909.12, section 71.12).

Additionally, the Handbook provides guidance when it is acceptable to include areas with past 

management actions. FSH 1909.12, section 71.11 (9) states that timber harvest areas where logging and 

prior road construction are not evident may be included in the inventory.

For the Rim-Paunina project area, information regarding past harvest and tree cutting operations and 

previous and existing road construction was gleaned from corporate databases to determine if areas were 

qualified to be included in the inventory using the criteria described above. Additionally, satellite 

imagery was utilized to determine if previously harvested areas and roads were present but not captured in 

the corporate databases. Geographic Information System analysis was utilized to identify areas with no 

previous tree cutting operations, including any roadside hazard tree removal or firewood cutting, and with 

no evidence of road building. The area of analysis was extended to approximately two miles beyond the 

Rim-Paunina project boundary to determine if larger areas meeting the inventory criteria were present 

adjacent to the project area. 

Any polygons not containing evidence of past harvest or tree cutting operations or evidence of prior road 

construction were compared with the inventory criteria above and given a polygon number for ease of 

tracking the disposition of each polygon over one acre. Additional ground reconnaissance was also done 

to field verify as several parcels of land mostly to the west and north of the project area was obtained in a 

land exchange with Crown Pacific Limited Partnership in the late 1990’s. This resulted in several 

polygons being removed from inventory consideration or had boundaries adjusted as there was evidence 

of past harvest activities. Polygons were also edited if a portion of the polygon created an isthmus or 

other shape that did not lend itself to being maintained as one polygon. The Fremont-Winema National 

Forests borders the project area on the south and east side so their timber sale polygons and roads layer 

were included in the analysis. Satellite imagery from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 

were utilized and overlaid with harvest unit polygons to look for evidence of stumps and roads. Once all 

data was reviewed and updated into the GIS analysis, a final listing of all polygons one acre or larger was 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 383 of 528

identified as not having any previous evidence of tree cutting or road construction. Each polygon was 

then compared against the criteria from the Handbook and a determination was made for final inclusion in 

the potential wilderness inventory for the Rim-Paunina project effects analysis (see Table 141 Appendix 

D).

Appendix D

Appendix D of this document describes the methodology and rationale used to inventory and identify 

areas eligible for inclusion in the PWA inventory within the approximately 40,000 acre Rim-Paunina 

project planning area. Maps included in Appendix D show a visual progression of the inventory process, 

final results, and proposed project activity, if any, that would occur in these areas. Potential wilderness 

areas included in this inventory are displayed in Figure 57.

The analysis resulted in five polygons identified for inclusion in the potential wilderness areas inventory. 

The five polygons (147, 219, 237, 405, and 444) are displayed in Table 127 below and Figure 57. 

Table 127. Polygons meeting FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71 for Inclusion in Potential Wilderness Inventory

Polygon ID PWA acres

147 328

219 1,145

237 2,545

405 1,636

444 364

Total 6018

Inventory

Polygons 147, 237, and 444, containing 3,237 acres, are all outside of the Rim-Paunina Project boundary 

but would be included in the inventory as they are contiguous with the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness. Polygon 

147 is also adjacent to the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area. As there are no projects or activities 

planned within these three polygons, there would be no effects to these polygons and they would still be 

eligible for inclusion in a potential wilderness inventory in the future.

The remaining two polygons (219 and 405) are along Walker Rim in the southern part of the District. 

They contain 2,781 acres of which 2,148 are within the project boundary and the remaining 633 acres are 

on the Chemult District of the Fremont-Winema National Forests (see Figure 57). 

Polygon 75 appears contiguous to the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness but is separated by Forest Service road 

5840 and spurs and contained evidence of harvest activities once the Chemult timber sale polygons were 

included, thus it was not included in the potential wilderness area inventory.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 384 of 528

Figure 57. Rim-Paunina Project Area with Two Mile Buffer and Five Potential Wilderness Inventory Areas 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 385 of 528

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A- No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects

There would be no direct/indirect effects to the five polygons identified as eligible for inclusion in the 

potential wilderness inventory because no activities would occur in the project planning area with the 

implementation of this alternative. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural 

processes. Biological and ecosystem functions would continue. The landscape would likely continue 

developing complex fuel loads. A wildfire may burn more extensively and kill more trees within upland 

forest stands which would result in larger acreages of blackened landscapes compared to prescribed fires. 

Proposed Management Actions and Effects 

Common to All Action Alternatives

Environmental Consequences – Vegetation Management

Direct / Indirect Effects – Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

A number of different vegetative prescriptions are proposed for the Rim-Paunina project. Harvest 

thinning cut (HTH) is thinning from below designed to reduce stand density and improve basal area for 

the remaining trees. Harvest improvement cuts (HIM) are designed to remove the less desirable trees and 

improve stand composition and quality. Harvest group selection (HSG) would create two to five acre 

openings in areas of high mistletoe infestations. Alternative Mistletoe Treatments (AltMist) would also 

create mistletoe-free openings, but the larger trees (over 21 inches) would be retained; however, their 

mortality would be accelerated by techniques such as prescribed fire or blasting. All methods reduce the 

tree density and would utilize prescribed underburning after harvest to varying degrees. Harvesting these 

areas would leave readily evident stumps, skid roads, and landings precluding the availability of these 

harvested areas from being included in the potential wilderness inventory after treatment. For a more 

thorough description of these prescriptions, refer to Chapter 2 or the Forested Vegetation section of 

Chapter 3. Table 128 through Table 131 describes each action alternative by harvest unit, polygon 

identification number, prescription, and acres that overlap the potential wilderness areas.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would built roads or harvest or cut trees. The 

Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation of a 

motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. No roads would be constructed with 

the Three Trails OHV project, therefore there would be no additional or additive effect of road building 

that would remove additional acreages from the polygons eligible for inclusion in the potential wilderness 

inventory.

Harvest units 690 and 895 propose to utilize HTH prescription in Alternatives B and C, HSG in 

Alternative D and AltMist in Alternative E. All action alternatives show these two units as having less 

than one acre that overlaps the edges of the potential wilderness inventory area. The effects of such a 

small overlap would be negligible on the 2,148 acres of potential wilderness in polygons 219 and 405 and 

would not preclude either polygon from being added to the potential wilderness area inventory in the 

future after treatments.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 386 of 528

Environmental Consequences – Prescribed burning

Direct / Indirect Effects – Alternatives C, D, and E 

Prescribed burning within the fuels only44 areas that overlap the PWAs would change composition and 

structure of vegetation (EIS, Chapter 3). For a few years burned areas would display a blackened color 

until grasses, brush, and herbaceous species recover. Dead trees, particularly small trees (saplings to 

poles), would be evident over a 5 to 10-year period. Few overstory trees are expected to be killed. 

Outside the burned areas, the conditions described in the affected environment for both PWAs would 

remain unchanged except by natural processes and ongoing management activities such as hunting.

Prescribed burning would require the construction of handline which would include the cutting of some 

small diameter trees, snags that pose a hazard to workers, and the limbing-up (pruning) of other trees 

incidental to prescribed burning activities. This could cumulatively change density, composition, and 

structure of vegetation on approximately 744 acres in PWA polygons 219 and 405 for fuels only 

treatment units for Alternatives C, D, and E. Trees cut during handline construction would not be 

removed from the site. The sight of some random tree stumps left after handline construction incidental 

to prescribed burning activities could affect the natural appearing landscape and affect the ability of these

acres along the fireline where tree cutting occurred to be included in a future potential wilderness area 

inventory along the fireline. The majority of the acreages in the polygons would still be eligible for 

inclusion in a future potential wilderness inventory.

Proposed Management Actions and Effects by Alternative

Alternative B- Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B has eight harvest units with a total of 100 acres that overlap the 2,148 acres of potential 

wilderness in polygons 219 and 405. Of the eight units, four have an acre or less of overlap, thus effects 

would be so small they would not be measureable. The four larger units (975, 610, 710 and 740; total 99 

acres) are scheduled for harvest activities. Harvest activities would remove these 99 acres from 

consideration from a future potential wilderness inventory but their combined total is less than five 

percent of the total 2,148 acres, would result in a more solid unfragmented core, and would not preclude 

the majority of acreage in polygons 219 and 405 from being included in a potential wilderness area 

inventory in the future. 

Alternative B has no ‘fuels only’ acres that would overlap the potential wilderness area polygons and 

would not change the characteristics (such as no roads, no evidence of harvest activities) of the potential 

wilderness areas polygons 219 and 405, thus all acres outside the harvested areas identified above would 

still be available for consideration in a future inventory of potential wilderness (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 

71). 

 

44 Fuels only treatment is a noncommercial activity designed to use fire to reduce fuel loading in areas over 30 

percent slope and/or areas along the Walker Rim steeper slopes where machinery is not desired to help facilitate the 

return of frequent fire regimes.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 387 of 528

Table 128. Alternative B Acres that Overlap Potential Wilderness Areas

ALT Polygon ID Harvest Unit ID Prescription Acres that 

Overlap PWA

B 219 895 HTH 0

B 219 975 HTH 31

B 405 610 HIM 7

B 405 630 HTH 0

B 405 650 HTH 1

B 405 690 HTH 0

B 405 710 HIM 55

B 405 740 HIM 6

Total Acres: 100

Cumulative Effects

The Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation 

of a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. No roads would be constructed 

with the Three Trails OHV project, therefore there would be no additional or additive effect of road 

building that would remove additional acreages from the polygons eligible for inclusion in the potential 

wilderness inventory.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads or harvest or cut trees.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 388 of 528

Figure 58. Alternative B Harvest and Fuels Only Units that Overlap Potential Wilderness Inventory Areas in Rim-Paunina Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 389 of 528

Alternative C – Direct / Indirect Effects

Alternative C has five harvest units (895, 610, 650, 690, and 710) with a total of 63 acres that overlap the 

2,148 acres of potential wilderness in polygons 219 and 405. Of the five units, three have an acre or less 

of overlap, thus effects would be so small they would not be measureable. The two larger units (62 acres 

total) scheduled for a harvest activities are finger extensions surrounded on three sides by roads. Harvest 

activities would remove these 62 acres from consideration from a future potential wilderness inventory 

but their combined total is less than three percent of the total 2,148 acres, would result in a more solid 

unfragmented core, and would not preclude the majority of acreage in polygons 219 and 405 from being 

included in a potential wilderness area inventory in the future.

Alternative C has 744 acres of prescribed burning units that would overlap the potential wilderness area 

polygons. Prescribed burning would not change the characteristics (such as no roads, no harvest 

activities) of the potential wilderness areas (219 and 405). Although prescribed burning could 

cumulatively change density, composition, and structure of vegetation on these 744 acres (due to hazard 

tree removal and the potential to cut some smaller diameter trees when building fireline) the effects would 

be minor and all acres outside of the harvest units described above would still be available for inclusion in 

a potential wilderness inventory in the future (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71). 

Cumulative Effects

The Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation 

of a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. No roads would be constructed 

with the Three Trails OHV project, therefore there would be no additional or additive effect of road 

building that would remove additional acreages from the polygons eligible for inclusion in the potential 

wilderness inventory.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads or harvest or cut trees.

Table 129. Alternative C Acres that Overlap Potential Wilderness Areas

ALT Polygon ID Harvest Unit ID Prescription Acres that 

Overlap PWA

C 219 895 HTH 0

C 219 905 Fuels Only 151

C 219 910 Fuels Only 47

C 219 925 Fuels Only 25

C 219 930 Fuels Only 189

C 219 935 Fuels Only 36

C 219 970 Fuels Only 48

C 219 4025 Fuels Only 0

C 219 4035 Fuels Only 0

C 219 4055 Fuels Only 5

C 405 610 HIM 7

C 405 615 Fuels Only 172

C 405 625 Fuels Only 64

C 405 650 HTH 1

C 405 690 HTH 0

C 405 710 HIM 55

C 405 3000 Fuels Only 7

Total Acres: 807
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 390 of 528

Figure 59. Alternative C Harvest and Fuels Only Units that Overlap Potential Wilderness Inventory Areas in Rim-Paunina Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 391 of 528

Alternative D – Direct / Indirect Effects

Alternative D has five harvest units (895, 610, 650, 690 and 710) with a total of 63 acres that overlap the 

2,148 acres of potential wilderness in polygons 219 and 405. Of the five units, three have an acre or less 

of overlap, thus effects would be so small they would not be measureable. The two larger units (62 acres 

total) scheduled for a harvest activities are finger extensions surrounded on three sides by roads. Harvest 

activities would result in stumps and skid roads that would be highly evident on the landscape and would 

remove these 62 acres from consideration from a future potential wilderness inventory. Their combined 

total is less than three percent of the total 2,148 potential wilderness inventory acres, would result in a 

more solid unfragmented core, and would not preclude the majority of acreage in polygons 219 and 405 

from being included in a potential wilderness area inventory in the future.

Alternative D has 744 acres of prescribed burning units that would overlap the potential wilderness area 

polygons. Prescribed burning would not change the characteristics (such as no roads, no harvest 

activities) of the potential wilderness areas (219 and 405). Although prescribed burning could 

cumulatively change density, composition, and structure of vegetation on these 744 acres (due to hazard 

tree removal and the potential to cut some smaller diameter trees when building fireline) the effects would 

be minor and all acres outside of the harvest units described above would still be available for inclusion in 

a potential wilderness inventory in the future (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71). 

Cumulative Effects

The Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation 

of a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. No roads would be constructed 

with the Three Trails OHV project, therefore there would be no additional or additive effect of road 

building that would remove additional acreages from the polygons eligible for inclusion in the potential 

wilderness inventory.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads or harvest or cut trees.

Table 130. Alternative D Acres that Overlap Potential Wilderness Areas

ALT Polygon ID Harvest Unit ID Prescription Acres that 

Overlap PWA

D 219 895 HSG 0

D 219 905 Fuels Only 151

D 219 910 Fuels Only 47

D 219 925 Fuels Only 25

D 219 930 Fuels Only 189

D 219 935 Fuels Only 36

D 219 970 Fuels Only 48

D 219 4025 Fuels Only 0

D 219 4035 Fuels Only 0

D 219 4055 Fuels Only 5

D 405 610 HIM 7

D 405 615 Fuels Only 172

D 405 625 Fuels Only 64

D 405 650 HSG 1

D 405 690 HSG 0

D 405 710 HIM 55

D 405 3000 Fuels Only 7

Total Acres: 807
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 392 of 528

Figure 60. Alternative D Harvest and Fuels Only Units that Overlap Potential Wilderness Inventory Areas in Rim-Paunina Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 393 of 528

Alternative E

Alternative E has eight harvest units (610, 630, 650, 690, 710, 740, 895, and 975), with a total of 100 

acres that overlap the 2,148 acres of potential wilderness in polygons 219 and 405. Of the eight units, 

four have an acre or less of overlap, thus effects would be so small they would not be measureable. The 

four larger units (100 acres total) scheduled for a harvest activities are finger extensions surrounded on 

three sides by roads. Harvest activities would remove these 100 acres from consideration from a future 

potential wilderness inventory but their combined total is less than five percent of the total 2,148 acres, 

would result in a more solid unfragmented core, and would not preclude the majority of acreage in 

polygons 219 and 405 from being included in a potential wilderness area inventory in the future.

Alternative E has 744 acres of prescribed burning units that would overlap the potential wilderness area 

polygons. Prescribed burning would not change the characteristics (such as no roads, no harvest 

activities) of the potential wilderness areas (219 and 405). Although prescribed burning could 

cumulatively change density, composition, and structure of vegetation on these 744 acres (due to hazard 

tree removal and the potential to cut some smaller diameter trees when building fireline) the effects would 

be minor and all acres outside of the harvest units described above would still be available for inclusion in 

a potential wilderness inventory in the future (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71). 

Cumulative Effects

The Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation 

of a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. No roads would be constructed 

with the Three Trails OHV project, therefore there would be no additional or additive effect of road 

building that would remove additional acreages from the polygons eligible for inclusion in the potential 

wilderness inventory. 

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads or harvest or cut trees.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 394 of 528

Table 131. Alternative E Acres that Overlap Potential Wilderness Areas

ALT Polygon ID Harvest Unit ID Prescription Acres that 

Overlap PWA

E 219 895 AltMist 0

E 219 905 Fuels Only 151

E 219 910 Fuels Only 47

E 219 925 Fuels Only 25

E 219 930 Fuels Only 189

E 219 935 Fuels Only 36

E 219 970 Fuels Only 48

E 219 975 HTH 31

E 219 4025 Fuels Only 0

E 219 4035 Fuels Only 0

E 219 4055 Fuels Only 5

E 405 610 HIM 7

E 405 615 Fuels Only 172

E 405 625 Fuels Only 64

E 405 630 HTH 0

E 405 650 AltMist 1

E 405 690 AltMist 0

E 405 710 HIM 55

E 405 740 HIM 6

E 405 3000 Fuels Only 7

Total Acres: 844
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 395 of 528

Figure 61. Alternative E Harvest and Fuels Only Units that Overlap Potential Wilderness Inventory Areas in Rim-Paunina Planning Area
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 396 of 528

Unroaded Areas or Undeveloped Lands

These acres of land have no history of harvest activity, do not contain forest roads45, and are not 

designated as a wilderness area. They are areas that are unique on the landscape, especially in the RimPaunina project area where larger blocks of land occur without previous management activities. These 

areas have values associated with them such as scenery, cultural resource values, and unfragmented 

habitat. These acres have no previous roads or harvest activities located in them.

The Environmental Impact Statement discloses impacts to a number of resources sensitive to the 

construction of new forest roads or from our system of existing roads. A road is defined and criteria and 

methods for inventorying a road conform to agency policy. Definitions and inventory criteria do not 

change project to project, Forest to Forest; they are common agency-wide.

Background

The Rim-Paunina Project planning area has two areas along Walker Rim that have no known harvest 

activities or roads. Most of this is along the steeper portions of Walker Rim (over 30 percent slope) and 

potential wilderness area polygons 405 and 219 overlay much of this terrain (Figure 57). 

Polygon 405 (1,024 acres in the project area) is long and slender following the contour of the Rim to the 

north while polygon 219 (1,124 acres) is more concentrated along the southern portion of the Rim, 

surrounding and to the north of the Walker Mountain Electronic Site. Both unroaded areas along Walker 

Rim are surrounded by existing Forest Service system roads and motorized use is apparent (these two 

polygons are bisected by Forest Service road 9756). Opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of 

adventure and awareness, serenity, and self-reliance are limited by the size and shape of the unroaded 

areas. The modern Klamath Tribal people (currently and in the past) use these areas for religious 

practices. The view from Highway 97 (a scenic north/south corridor east of the Cascade crest) shows an 

uninterrupted ridge of older, large trees making up a desired component of scenic quality and they likely 

represented a greater portion of the landscape in the past. This stretch along the Rim is unfragmented 

core and provides habitat for goshawk, Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks. Big Game utilize the Rim 

more for security and hiding cover than an actual migration corridor due to the steepness.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A

No changes would occur to the areas identified as unroaded. Habitat conditions and areas of solitude 

would remain the same as the current condition. Biological and ecosystem functions would continue. 

The landscape would likely continue developing complex fuel loads. A wildfire may burn more 

extensively and kill more trees within upland forest stands which would result in larger acreages of 

blackened landscapes compared to prescribed fires. Cultural resources would remain the same and 

travelers along Highway 97 would continue to view an uninterrupted ridge of older, large trees.

Environmental Consequences – Vegetation Management

Alternatives B, C, D, and E

Harvesting would remove portions of the unroaded polygons, mostly along the edges of the core unroaded 

area. Units scheduled for harvest activities are finger extensions surrounded on three sides by roads. 

Harvest activities would remove between 62 and 100 acres of unroaded area along Walker Rim, but their 

combined total is less than five percent of the total 2,148 acres and would result in a more solid

 

45 Forest road – A road wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National Forest System that the Forest Service 

determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and 

development of its resources. Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36CFR 

§212.1).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS_ _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 397 of 528

unfragmented core. Stumps and skid trails would be evident in the 62 to 100 acres where harvest would 

occur and evidence would likely last for 5-10 years. Cultural resources would remain unchanged with 

Project Design Features in place that if any new cultural sites are discovered during harvest activities they 

would be flagged and all operations in the area avoided until reviewed by an archaeologist, as well as 

buffering all know sites (Chapter 2). 

Walker Rim has a scenic/visual quality objective of Partial Retention Middleground (Scenery Chapter 3). 

None of the harvest activities would be evident from the highway because all activities would be below 

the tree canopy and most of the structure seen from the highway would remain the same.

For big game harvest activities would open these stands along the edges of the core unroaded area which 

would increase the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor and result in increased growth potential to 

forage species. This would include antelope bitterbrush and where prescribed burning would occur, an 

increase in native bunch grasses. This opening would also result in the loss of hiding cover for the first 

few years, thus mitigation measures has been included in Chapter 2 to increase the size of the ‘no 

treatment’ retention areas specifically to provide hiding cover for big game. 

Environmental Consequences – Prescribed Burning

Alternative B

Alternative B has no ‘fuels only’ acres that would overlap the unroaded polygons and would not change 

the characteristics (such as no roads) of polygons 219 and 405. 

Environmental Consequences – Prescribed Burning

Alternatives C, D, and E

Prescribed burning within the ‘fuels only’ areas that overlap the unroaded areas would change 

composition and structure of vegetation (EIS, Chapter 3). The “Fuels Only” prescriptions include small 

diameter thinning by hand and disposal of piles and prescribed fire. For a few years burned areas would 

display a blackened color until grasses, brush, and herbaceous species recover. Dead trees, particularly 

small trees (saplings to poles), would be evident over a 5 to 10-year period. Few overstory trees are 

expected to be killed, although some may exhibit scorching in the form of blackened bark and red needles 

for approximately 2-5 years after burning. Outside the burned areas, the conditions described in the 

affected environment for both unroaded areas would remain unchanged except by natural processes and 

ongoing management activities such as hunting.

Prescribed burning would require the construction of handline which would include the cutting of some 

small diameter trees, snags that pose a hazard to workers, and the limbing-up (pruning) of other trees

incidental to prescribed burning activities. This could cumulatively change density, composition, and 

structure of vegetation on approximately 744 acres in unroaded polygons 219 and 405 for “Fuels Only” 

treatment units for Alternatives C, D, and E. Trees cut during handline construction would not be 

removed from the site. The sight of some random tree stumps left after handline construction incidental 

to prescribed burning activities could affect the natural appearing however, these would not be evident to 

the casual passer-by from Highway 97. 

For big game the prescribed underburning would result in the reduction in tree densities that would open 

the forested stands resulting in increased visibility and loss of hiding cover for big game. Prescribed 

burning would also result in a short-term loss of forage and cover currently provided by dense patches of 

ceanothus and manzanita near the base of Walker Rim. The total acres of this condition are unknown 

although burning would likely kill most of their above ground vegetation however; immediate resprouting would occur providing desirable forage in the first few years after burning.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 398 of 528

Cumulative Effects

Action Alternatives

Polygon 219 surrounds the approximately 1.9 acre designated Walker Mountain Electronic Site and its 

access road (DLRMP 1990 Appendix 7). The site itself and the access road were buffered and although 

there has been construction activity on the site it is contained within the electronic site footprint. 

Currently there is construction activity planned for summer 2012 and the resulting machinery noise and 

dust associated with construction could affect the opportunities for a feeling of solitude along portions of 

the Rim near the Electronic site. However, this condition would only exist for the duration of the 

construction activities, or approximately 60 days. No roads, harvest or cutting of trees would overlap the 

unroaded area. Therefore actions authorized at the electronic site would not affect the use of the unroaded 

areas by Tribes or any cultural elements in the unroaded area. Unfragmented habitat would not be 

cumulatively changed because all actions would occur within the designated electronic site. 

The Three Trails OHV project (ROD Dec 2010) is a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina 

planning area. There is a portion of the trail system in the Walker area but it is on existing roads and to 

the south of the Walker Mountain Electronic site and there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects as it is outside the unroaded polygons.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads, harvest or cut trees or 

otherwise change the potential unroaded characteristics in polygons 219 and 405.

Citizen Identified Unroaded Areas

In the early 2000s Oregon Wild, an Oregon State interest group, conducted their own inventory across 

Oregon, including the Deschutes National Forest, using inventory criteria they developed for their 

purposes. An initial map of Oregon Wild’s unroaded areas were provided in response to the scoping 

letter for the proposed action for the Rim-Paunina project in May 2009. In December 2011 a second 

contact was made to Oregon Wild to obtain their most current version of their unroaded areas (Figure 62).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS_ _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 399 of 528

Figure 62. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas Overlaid on the Rim-Paunina Planning Area Including the Two-mile Buffer
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 400 of 528

Figure 63. Oregon Wild Unroaded Area within the Rim-Paunina Project Area along Walker Rim
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS_ _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 401 of 528

Alternative A

There would be no actions implemented in the Oregon Wild unroaded area with this alternative, therefore 

the affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural processes. Biological and 

ecosystem functions would continue. The landscape would likely continue developing complex fuel 

loads. A wildfire may burn more extensively and kill more trees within upland forest stands which would 

result in larger acreages of blackened landscapes compared to prescribed fires.

Proposed Management Actions and Effects 

Common to All Action Alternatives

Environmental Consequences – Vegetation Management

Direct / Indirect Effects – Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

A number of different vegetative prescriptions are proposed for the Rim-Paunina project. Harvest 

thinning cut (HTH) is thinning from below designed to reduce stand density and improve basal area for 

the remaining trees. Harvest improvement cuts (HIM) are designed to remove the less desirable trees and 

improve stand composition and quality. Harvest group selection (HSG) would create two to five acre 

openings in areas of high mistletoe infestations in addition to thinning from below outside the openings. 

Alternative Mistletoe Treatments (AltMist) would also create openings but the larger trees (over 21 

inches) would be retained, however their mortality would be accelerated by techniques such as prescribed 

fire or blasting. All methods reduce the tree density and would utilize prescribed underburning after 

harvest to varying degrees. Stumps would be evident for 10-30 years in the area to be harvested. Skid 

trails would also be evident until regeneration obliterated them in approximately 20-30 years. The created 

openings in HSG and AltMist would be evident on the landscape for 80 years. For a more thorough 

description of these prescriptions, refer to Chapter 2 or the Forested Vegetation section of Chapter 3. 

Table 132 through Table 134 describes each action alternative by harvest unit, prescription, and acres that 

overlap the Oregon Wild unroaded areas. 

Environmental Consequences – Prescribed Burning

Direct / Indirect Effects – Alternatives C, D, and E 

Prescribed burning within the fuels only46 areas that overlap Oregon Wild unroaded areas would change 

the composition and structure of vegetation (EIS, Chapter 3). For a few years burned areas would display 

a blackened color until grasses, brush, and herbaceous species recover. Dead trees, particularly small 

trees (saplings to poles), would be evident over a 5 to 10-year period. Few overstory trees are expected to 

be killed. Outside the burned areas, the conditions described in the affected environment for Oregon Wild 

unroaded areas would remain unchanged except by natural processes and ongoing management activities 

such hunting.

Prescribed burning would require the construction of handline which would include the cutting of some 

small diameter trees, snags that pose a hazard to workers, and the limbing-up (pruning) of other trees 

incidental to prescribed burning activities. This could cumulatively change density, composition, and 

structure of vegetation on approximately 267 acres in Oregon Wild unroaded area for ‘fuels only’

treatment units for Alternatives C, D, and E. Trees cut during handline construction would not be 

removed from the site. The sight of some random tree stumps left after handline construction incidental 

to prescribed burning activities could affect the natural appearing landscape. 

 

46 Fuels only treatment is a noncommercial activity designed to use fire to reduce fuel loading in areas over 30 

percent slope and/or areas along the Walker Rim steeper slopes where machinery is not desired to help facilitate the 

return of frequent fire regimes.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 402 of 528

Alternative B

There are 15 harvest units overlapping the Oregon Wild unroaded polygon totaling 291 acres of harvest

treatments (Figure 64 and Table 132). This treatment would result in stumps being evident on the 

landscape for 20-30 years. Additionally, skid trails would also be evident for 20-30 years until 

regeneration started obliteration the evidence of mechanical operations.

There are two small areas (3 acres) along the boundary of the project area and the Oregon Cascades 

Recreation Area that Oregon Wild has included in their unroaded areas. There are two harvest units along 

this boundary (475, 480) where the treatment activities are thinning (harvest improvement cuts (HIM)) in 

these two units is designed to remove the less desirable trees and improve stand composition and quality 

followed by prescribed underburning would potentially reduce wildfire intensity as well as crown fire 

potential outside the OCRA. 

There are no ‘fuels only’ treatment units in Alternative B however, there is some prescribed burning after 

treatment that would result in varying degrees of burned areas that would display a blackened color until 

grasses, brush, and herbaceous species recover. Dead trees, particularly small trees (saplings to poles), 

would be evident over a 3 to 5-year period. Few overstory trees are expected to be killed. 

Table 132. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas that Overlap the Rim-Paunina Project Area for Alternative B

ALT Harvest Unit ID Prescription

Acres that overlap 

Oregon Wild’s 

Unroaded Area

B 610 HIM 11

B 620 HTH 24

B 621 Aspen 14

B 630 HTH 63

B 640 HIM 1

B 650 HTH 0

B 690 HTH 0

B 700 HIM 40

B 710 HIM 67

B 720 HTH 4

B 725 HTH 8

B 730 HIM 1

B 735 HTH 12

B 740 HIM 17

B 2010 HTH 28

Total 291

Cumulative Effects 

The Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation 

of a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. No roads would be constructed 

with the Three Trails OHV project in the Walker Rim area, therefore there would be no additional or 

additive effect of road building that would remove additional acreages from the Oregon Wild unroaded 

areas.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads or harvest or cut trees. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS_ _ Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 403 of 528

Figure 64. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas in Relation to Alternative B Harvest and Burn Units
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 404 of 528

Alternatives C and D

There are 14 harvest units overlapping the Oregon Wild unroaded polygon totaling 273 acres of harvest 

treatments (Figure 65 and Table 133). This treatment would result in stumps being evident on the 

landscape for 20-30 years. Additionally, skid trails would also be evident for 20-30 years until 

regeneration started obliteration the evidence of mechanical operations. 

There are two small areas (3 acres) along the boundary of the project area and the Oregon Cascades 

Recreation Area that Oregon Wild has included in their unroaded areas. There are no harvest units in this 

area for Alternatives C and D thus there would be no effects to these three acres.

Table 133. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas that Overlap the Rim-Paunina Project Area for Alternatives C and 

D

ALT Harvest Unit ID Prescription

Acres that overlap 

Oregon Wild’s Unroaded 

Area

C and D 610 HIM 11

C and D 615 Fuels Only 180

C and D 620 HTH 24

C and D 621 Aspen 14

C and D 625 Fuels Only 73

C and D 630 HTH 63

C and D 640 HIM 1

C and D 650 HTH 0

C and D 690 HTH 0

C and D 700 HIM 40

C and D 710 HIM 67

C and D 720 HTH 4

C and D 725 HTH 8

C and D 730 HIM 1

C and D 735 HTH 12

C and D 2010 HTH 28

C and D 3000 Fuels Only 14

Total 540

Cumulative Effects 

The Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation 

of a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. No roads would be constructed 

with the Three Trails OHV project in the Walker Rim area, therefore there would be no additional or 

additive effect of road building that would remove additional acreages from the Oregon Wild unroaded 

areas.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads or harvest or cut trees.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 405 of 528

Figure 65. Oregon Wild Unroaded Areas in Relation to Alternatives C and D Harvest and Burn Units
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 406 of 528

Alternative E

There are 15 harvest units overlapping the Oregon Wild unroaded polygon totaling 290 acres of harvest 

treatments (Figure 66 and Table 134). This treatment would result in stumps being evident on the 

landscape for 20-30 years. Additionally, skid trails would also be evident for 20-30 years until 

regeneration started obliteration the evidence of mechanical operations. 

There are two small areas (3 acres) along the boundary of the project area and the Oregon Cascades 

Recreation Area that Oregon Wild has included in their unroaded areas. There is one harvest unit along 

this boundary (480) where the treatment activity is thinning (harvest improvement cuts (HIM)) designed 

to remove the less desirable trees and improve stand composition and quality followed by prescribed 

underburning would potentially reduce wildfire intensity as well as crown fire potential outside the 

OCRA. 

Table 134. Oregon Wild’s Unroaded Areas that Overlap the Rim-Paunina Project Area for Alternative E

ALT Harvest Unit ID Prescription

Acres that overlap 

Oregon Wild’s Unroaded 

Area

E 610 HIM 11

E 615 Fuels Only 180

E 620 HTH 24

E 621 Aspen 14

E 625 Fuels Only 73

E 630 HTH 63

E 640 HIM 1

E 650 HTH 0

E 690 HTH 0

E 700 HIM 40

E 710 HIM 67

E 720 HTH 4

E 725 HTH 8

E 730 HIM 1

E 735 HTH 12

E 740 HIM 17

E 2010 HTH 28

E 3000 Fuels Only 14

Total 557

Cumulative Effects 

The Three Trails OHV project is implementing Alternative E (ROD Dec 2010) which is the designation 

of a motorized trail system that overlaps the Rim-Paunina project area. No roads would be constructed 

with the Three Trails OHV project in the Walker Rim area, therefore there would be no additional or 

additive effect of road building that would remove additional acreages from the Oregon Wild unroaded 

areas.

Table 19 has been reviewed for relevancy and there are no other known past, present, or foreseeable 

projects proposed in the Rim-Paunina project area that would build roads or harvest or cut trees.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 407 of 528

Figure 66. Oregon Wild Unroaded in Relation to Alternative E Harvest and Burn Units
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 408 of 528

Other Disclosures

Climate Change

The impacts on forests from climate change and the effects on climate from forest management are 

complex and difficult to predict. Although El Nino/Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal 

Oscillation comprise the primary factors for climate variability in the Pacific Northwest (Climate Impacts 

Group47), the influence from global climate change is a growing concern. According to the Climate 

Impacts Group, based out of the University of Washington, climate modeling for the Pacific Northwest 

predicts a future rate of warming of approximately 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade for the Pacific 

Northwest through at least 2050, relative to the 1970-1999 average temperature. Temperatures are 

projected to increase across all seasons, although most models project the largest temperature increases in 

summer (June-August), and the average temperatures could increase beyond the year-to-year variability 

observed in the Pacific Northwest during the 20th century as early as the 2020s.

The proposed and approved research addresses climate change as a research question: What is the longterm influence of climate change interacting with a set of density reduction/thinning prescriptions and fuel 

reduction on vegetation dynamics and forest structure? Climate change is a form of disturbance that has 

not been adequately addressed in past thinning and fuel reduction research. This portion of central 

Oregon has gone through at least five distinct periods of warming climate over the past 110 years (NASA 

Global Climate Change Website http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov). In the Western United States and at the 

continental scale (1 km), long-term satellite data shows consistently earlier onsets of spring greening and 

corresponding increases in length of growing season associated with projected climate change (Forest 

Service Climate Change Resource Center: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc). The ability to downscale current 

large scale projections to specific project-scale sites remains limited; therefore there is relative little 

confidence in most projections. Small changes in growing season duration may result in expansion of 

species that have relatively narrow habitat requirements. 

The Rim-Paunina project area is topographically simplistic and contains essentially uniform or 

homogenous soils (deep pumice derived from the explosion of Mt. Mazama). It contains several 

relatively clear and distinct ecotones (boundaries between easily recognized plant associations) near the 

elevational break of the plant associations on Walker Rim. It also has two distinct zones of treatments.

Vegetation manipulation would occur on essentially two areas differentiated by elevation zones 

(approximately 4,200 feet (1,280 m) in the bottom of the rim ranging up to about 5,400 feet (1,636 m) 

with a western/southwestern aspect on the break. The working hypothesis is that initial or early 

indications of vegetation dynamics are most likely to become apparent in the shrub and herbaceous strata, 

and these dynamics would manifest as expansion of species from drier sites to those that are currently 

more moist as conditions become increasingly stressed. This means that shrubs and herbaceous species 

that dominate in plant associations on the flat topography near Highways 97 and 58, such as antelope 

bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), would expand upward in elevation. Under this hypothesis, the niche 

space of individual species and entire assemblages of species would shift from the lower elevations to the 

rim. Shifts can be expected where disturbance, such as the small diameter thinning and return of a more 

frequent fire regime in the mixed conifer would provide access and growing space. As in the Pringle 

Falls Experimental Forest, this would provide a validity assessment for current efforts to downscale 

vegetation dynamic projections to 80 m resolution, and would provide insights into the effects of climate 

change at the community scale, presenting managers much needed information on the restructuring of 

 

47 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their reports (2007) provide the authoritative scientific 

basis for subsequent Forest Service analysis of the phenomenon. Information specific to the Forest Service can be 

found in the latest Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4.24.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 409 of 528

This contrast in survival has led to the notion 

that fuel treatments offer a carbon benefit: 

removing some carbon from the forest may 

protect the remaining carbon (Issues in 

Ecology, Report #13, Michael G. Ryun et al. 

2010).

plant composition as a result of regional climate interacting with legacies of past management. These 

insights would inform management options to better incorporate these changes. 

Carbon Storage

The Forests play a major role in the carbon cycle. Carbon stored in live biomass, dead plant material, and 

soil represents the balance between CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere and its release through respiration, 

decomposition, and burning. Over longer time periods forests would continue to absorb carbon. Forests 

are biological systems that continue to gain and lose carbon via processes such as photosynthesis, 

respiration, and combustion; whether forests show a net gain or loss of carbon depends on the balance of 

species (Issues in Ecology, Report #13, Michael G. Ryun et al. 2010). 

The Forest Service recognizes that carbon and sequestration are important issues both nationally and 

regionally. Currently, Forest Service national policy and guidance for managing carbon and sequestration 

does not exist. The tools for estimating carbon and sequestration are not fully developed at this time. A 

quantitative analysis and comparison between the alternatives of trade-offs between the amount of carbon 

stored or greenhouse gases emitted is not possible at the current project scale. It would be very difficult 

to determine the effects of this project on greenhouse gases directly, and therefore climate change 

indirectly, as there are currently no Federal statutes, regulatory standards, or policy direction on such 

effects. Until the agency adopts meaningful thresholds against which to weigh any project-related green 

house gas emissions, it would not be possible to determine a specific project’s effects on GHGs or climate 

change. Attempts to place this project in the context of global warming would have to focus on portions 

related to carbon fixing, storing, and releasing. The scale of this action will likely be immeasurable when 

considered at a global scale.

It can be said, though, that thinning of stands under both alternatives, reduce competition for resources 

and favoring drought-tolerant species (ponderosa pine) would reduce the impacts of future drought cycles 

on tree mortality, and increase resistance to insect and fire mortality (Ritchie 2008). Also, if a crown fire 

burns through a forest that was thinned to a low density, the fire may change from a crown fire to a 

surface fire in which many trees can often survive the fire. In contrast, many or all of the trees in an 

unthinned stand would be killed by a crown fire. 

A common comment that is received from 

members of the public suggests that thinning is 

likely to remove more carbon than would be 

saved by avoiding fire and that we should 

consider the conclusions of Mitchell, Harmon, 

and O’Connell (2009) before attributing carbon 

benefits to fuel reduction. The interdisciplinary 

team has reviewed the paper; it does not support the notion that the Rim-Paunina project is likely to 

remove more carbon by harvest and return of periodic fire than would be saved by avoiding fire. The 

paper by Mitchell, Harmon, and O’Connell (2009) is the result of simulation exercises with three Pacific 

Northwest forest types: the east Cascades ponderosa pine forests, the west Cascades western hemlockDouglas-fir forests, and the Coast Range western hemlock-Sitka spruce forests. Treatments simulated for 

the east Cascade ponderosa pine forests were similar to those proposed in Rim-Paunina (understory 

removal, prescribed fire, understory removal, and prescribed fire). Based on a forest ecosystem 

simulation model, the authors suggest that fuel reduction treatments in these ecosystems consistently 

reduced fire severity. For the east Cascade ponderosa pine forests, there was little or no trade-off incurred 

by managing these forests for both fuel reduction and carbon sequestration. The authors speculate that 

the removal of highly flammable understory vegetation led to a reduction in overall fire severity that 

consequently lowered overall biomass combustion, thereby allowing increased overall carbon storage.

Published research suggests that management action can have a positive effect on carbon storage. 

Hurteau et al. (2008) points out that in forests where fire exclusion has caused fuel accumulation (such as 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 410 of 528

at Walker Rim) tree density and forest fuel reduction activities can diminish the risk of stand-replacing 

fire, thereby promoting carbon storage. The basis for this work is four large recent fires, including the 

Biscuit Fire in southwest Oregon and the Hayman Fire in Colorado. The authors also point out that 

thinning treatments such as those proposed in the Rim-Paunina project would, by exposing more ground, 

snow, grass, etc., increase surface albedo48, thereby increasing surface reflectance leading to a net cooling 

effect. 

Forest Plan Amendments

Four Forest Plan Amendments are required.

There are four site-specific amendments to the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended for the proposed Rim-Paunina Project on the Crescent 

Ranger District. Three are for the Eastside Screens, harvest of trees over 21 inches and two related to 

Historical Range of Variability (HRV) and Late and Old Structure (LOS) scenarios, and the fourth is for 

the use of prescribed fire exceeding five acres within scenic views.

Proposed Amendments

The following identifies the apparent need for site-specific amendments to the Forest Plan (Interim 

Eastside Screens) followed by a section that explains the proposed change and the need for that change.

1. Cutting of Trees over 21 Inches in Diameter

In Alternative D, the project proposes a site-specific amendment to the Interim Eastside Screens Appendix 

B 6(2.a) ‘Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees greater to or equal to 21 

inches in diameter that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities.” The proposed 

amendment would allow a timber sale to cut and remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inches in 

diameter.

Need for Amendment and the Change Being Proposed

Approximately 2,000 acres of ponderosa pine-dominated stands in all size classes along Walker Rim are 

heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe which is identified as a key issue that drove the development of 

Alternative D. Alternative D emphasizes a focused strategy to reduce the length of time in which large 

trees are absent from those areas most heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe (Key Issue #2). A very 

detailed on-the-ground inventory of presence of the disease emphasized the need to break the cycle of 

continual infection in pockets. This would be accomplished by creating openings in portions of the most 

heavily infected stands where ponderosa pine seedlings have little chance to advance beyond a 

seedling/sapling stage. In two to five acre openings (approximately778 acres total) in both LOS and 

younger stands, all trees, including those over 21 inches in diameter would be cut and removed followed 

by planting of appropriate species. In addition to addressing the future health of the stands, these 

openings would serve to create a mosaic of different tree sizes and densities within each stand. This 

silvicultural technique would also mimic historic stand variability. Facilitation of return to a frequent and 

low-intensity fire regime is also a component of this alternative (Key Issue #4). 

In Alternative D, the project proposes a site specific amendment to the Interim Eastside Screen Appendix 

B 6 (2.a) “Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees ≥ 21” dbh that currently exist 

within stands proposed for harvest activities.” The proposed amendment would allow a timber sale to cut 

and remove trees greater than or equal to 21 inch diameter trees. This removal of equal to or over 21 inch 

diameter trees would occur only within the group selection 2-5 acre openings. 

 

48 The albedo is the fraction of the incoming solar radiation reflected by the land surface, integrated over the whole 

viewing directions.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 411 of 528

Alternative E proposes a similar prescription; however, the trees greater than or equal to 21 inches in 

diameter would not be removed by a timber sale and therefore would not need an Eastside Screen 

amendment. Mortality to trees greater than 21 inches in diameter would be induced by either prescribed 

fire or other methods such as blasting.

2 and 3. Eastside Screen Appendix B 6(d) Scenario A and Harvest Activities in Late and Old Stands 

Appendix B 6 (d) Scenario A of the Eastside Screens states “If either one or both late and old structural 

stages falls BELOW HRV in a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, then there should 

be NO NET LOSS from that biophysical environment. Do not allow timber harvest activities to occur 

within LOS stages that are BELOW HRV.” Two site-specific amendments to the Eastside Screens are 

proposed to:

Allow a net loss of 145 acres of LOS for two biophysical environments in Alternative D 

(Table 135). 

Allow a timber sale to occur within LOS stages that are below HRV for all Action 

Alternatives.

Need for Amendment and the Change Being Proposed

Amendment #2 – Alternative D proposes to address severe mistletoe infection through a group selection 

prescription, removing all trees including those over 21 inches, which would result in a net loss of 145

acres of LOS in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer biophysical environments (Table 135). Given its 

persistent nature, the best way to control dwarf mistletoe is to prevent infection by protecting young tree 

regeneration (Conklin 2000). Alternative D proposes to facilitate young tree regeneration by creating 2-5 

acre openings through the most severely infected stands, removing mistletoe and allowing young trees to 

grow in a relatively mistletoe-free environment. Therefore, a site-specific amendment to Appendix B 

6(d) Scenario A is needed to allow a net loss in LOS acreage in order to create these mistletoe-free 

openings. 

Amendment #3 - In response to Key Issue #2, all Action Alternatives propose a timber sale within the 

mixed conifer single-stratum biophysical environment, in which LOS is currently below HRV. 

Treatments (thinning, improvement cuts, and mistletoe treatment) are proposed in areas where the 

development of large trees is currently impeded, or existing large trees are at risk from fire or insects and 

disease. The objective of these treatments would be to improve conditions for the development and/or 

maintenance of large trees, thus retaining or enhancing LOS acreage in the long-term. All Action 

Alternatives would need to be able to employ a commercial timber sale to accomplish objectives. 

Therefore, a site-specific amendment to Appendix B 6(d) Scenario A is needed to allow timber harvest in

LOS stages that are currently below HRV. All treated areas (except for those acres in Alternative D noted 

in Amendment #2) would remain in an LOS condition with no net loss of LOS. 

Table 135. Existing LOS and Changes in Alternative D

Changes in LOS for Alternative D

Ponderosa Pine (Dry) Mixed Conifer (Dry)

Existing Acres 

LOS

Acres Treated no 

longer LOS

Existing Acres 

LOS

Acres Treated no 

longer LOS

Single Stratum, 

Large Trees

0

(Below HRV) 0

1,536

(Below HRV) 46

Multi-Stratum, 

Large Trees 

2,698

(Within HRV) 89 1,597(Within HRV) 10
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 412 of 528

4. Prescribed Underburning More than 5-Acres in Scenic Views Foreground

Under all action alternatives, the project proposes a site specific amendment to the Deschutes Land and 

Resource Management Plan Scenic Views M9-90 to allow prescribed burns in Foreground areas that are 

visible to the public in larger than 5-acre blocks.

Need for Amendment and the Change Being Proposed

The current Land and Resource Management Plan standards and guidelines for maintaining visual quality 

restrict the activities that can be visible to the “casual observer” within certain areas, including scenic 

view zones of retention and partial retention in the Scenic Views management allocations that occur along 

the corridors of State Highways 58 and 97. 

The scenery in the Rim-Paunina analysis area is undergoing a gradual but noticeable change, particularly 

in the ponderosa pine that borders the highway. Fire exclusion has allowed smaller trees to obstruct the 

view of large ponderosa pine trees. An overstocked understory with smaller trees is resulting in 

overcrowding and increased competition with the larger trees, creating a mortality rate in the large trees 

that surpasses expected large tree replacement. In addition, dwarf mistletoe infestations are severe in 

several stands that contain large ponderosa pine trees. Thinning would be followed by slash busting and 

prescribed underburning including units along Highways 58 and 97. These units are considered part of 

the visual component in Scenic Views “Partial Retention Foreground.”

M9-90 (LRMP page 4-131) states: Low-intensity prescribed fires will be used to meet and promote the 

Desired Visual Condition within each stand type. Prescribed fire and other fuel management techniques 

will be used to minimize the hazard of a large high intensity fire. In foreground areas, prescribed fires 

will be small, normally less than 5 acres, and shaped to appear as natural occurrences. If burning 

conditions cannot be met such that scorching cannot be limited to the lower 1/3 of the forest canopy, then 

other fuel management techniques should be considered.

Limiting acreage for the use of prescribed fire to five acres or less in foreground areas of Scenic Views 

would not meet the goal of reducing wildfire risk, providing safety corridors for the public, or creating a 

defensible fuel break for an advancing fire. It is necessary to amend the five acre limitation for fuels 

treatments to meet stand and fire management objectives. These areas would remain at substantial risk to 

mortality from wildfire without a more comprehensive and intensive system of treatments, including 

prescribed fire. 

The project proposes up to approximately 468 acres of prescribed fire within foreground areas of Scenic 

Views MA (depending on alternative chosen), with up to approximately 162 acres visible from the 

highways (Table 115). To maintain scorching below 30 percent of the crown, treatments would be based 

on the following:

If stand density is too dense to burn without substantial mortality, thinning with follow-up slash 

pile and burning.

If shrubs are present and stand density is low, slash busting49 would be followed with prescribed 

burning. Some mortality could occur.

If stand density is low and no shrubs are present, the area would be assessed to determine if 

treatment is needed.

To achieve underburning objectives, more than one season of burning may be necessary.

Ecologically, the reintroduction of fire is consistent with the restoration concept of more frequent lowintensity fire on the landscape. Historically, fire played the bigger role in influencing forest succession. 

 

49 SB = Slash busting (brush mastication) with no pile disposal or handpile with disposal in scenic areas 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 413 of 528

Interfering with one disturbance agent (fire) has increased the influence of other disturbance agents 

(insect and disease; Gara 2000). These agents now exhibit their influence over entire landscapes in 

episodes lasting decades, which is a result of replacing open stands of shade intolerant tree species with 

dense, closed stands of shade-tolerant species (Agee 1993).

For the Determination of Significance

The Secretary of Agriculture’s implementing regulation indicates the determination of significance is to 

be “[b]ased on an analysis of the objectives, guidelines, and other contents of the forest plan” (36 CFR 

219.8). The Forest Service has issued guidance for Plan amendments when using planning regulations in 

effect before November 9, 2000. This guidance, in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1926.51 describes nonsignificant amendments as: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and 

resource management; 

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further 

on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals 

and objectives for long-term land and resource management; 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines; and/or 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescriptions. 

Four additional factors were considered in this analysis: timing; location and size; goals, objectives, and 

outputs; and management prescriptions. An analysis of these four factors is presented below.

Timing

The Forest Service Planning Handbook (1909.12, 5.32) indicates that a change is less likely to result in a 

significant plan amendment if the change is likely to take place after the plan period (the first decade). 

All four of these plan amendments would take place in the 22

nd year of the Forest Plan, would take place 

immediately, and are specific to this project. 

Location and size: 

This factor takes into account the location and size of the area involved in the change and the affected 

area’s relationship to the overall planning area. Generally, the smaller the area affected, the less likely 

the change is to be a significant change in the Forest Plan.

The first Forest Plan Amendment (FPA) would allow cutting of trees over 21 inches in diameter in 

mistletoe-infested ponderosa pine stands along Walker Rim. This would be accomplished through the 

creation of two to five acre openings on approximately 778 acres. 

The second FPA would allow a net loss of LOS for two biophysical environments in Alternative D. This 

would occur on approximately 145 acres of 5,831 acres of existing LOS (2.5 percent) in the Ponderosa 

Pine (dry) and Mixed Conifer (dry) PAGs (Table 135).

The third FPA would allow for a timber sale within late and old structural stages (LOS) that are below 

HRV for all Action Alternatives. This would occur on 619 acres in Alternative B, 556 acres in 

Alternatives C&D, and 619 acres in Alternative E.

The fourth FPA would allow for prescribed burning in Scenic Views Foreground areas that are visible to 

the public in larger than 5-acre blocks. This would occur on only 162 acres scattered across parts of 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 414 of 528

seven units visible from along Highways 58 and 97, and is so small (0.01 percent) that it would be 

impractical to assess in comparison to the 1.6 million acres of the Deschutes National Forest.

Goals, Objectives and Outputs: 

This factor examines whether the change alters long-term relationships between the levels of goods and 

services projected by the Forest Plan. In most cases, changes in outputs are not likely to be a significant 

change in the Forest Plan unless the change would forego the opportunity to achieve an output in later 

years.

For all of the Forest Plan Amendments, these are minor changes in one interim standard that would not 

alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. The Eastside 

Screens were intended to avoid management activities in the interim that would move conditions away 

from the HRV. The proposed thinning, including removing trees greater than or equal to 21 inch 

diameter would shorten the gap-in-time where large disease-free trees are absent on the landscape and 

provide the planted seedlings with more resilient conditions that would allow development of old-growth 

structural characteristics with trees able to survive for centuries.

Once treated, 145 acres would no longer remain in LOS however; the associated thinning prescriptions 

follow direction in Interim Wildlife Standard (6. d. 2. c.) to encourage the development and maintenance 

of large diameter, disease-free, open-canopy structure. The thinning will also follow direction to 

“manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet LOS conditions in a matter that moves it towards 

these conditions because thinning in the mid-seral structural stages (that are above HRV for both of the 

PAGs) will move the stands towards LOS.” 

Prescribed fire on the landscape would address the past fire exclusion policy that has created an 

overcrowded, dense understory with little or no ponderosa pine regeneration. Also the lack of periodic, 

low-intensity fire has likely exacerbated conditions where the endemic disease dwarf mistletoe has spread 

throughout the stands. The lack of live, healthy large ponderosa pine is contrary to what visitors expect 

along a scenic corridor in central Oregon’s high desert forests. The goal is to reestablish a frequent, lowintensity fire regime appropriate for the Rim-Paunina area. 

Management Prescriptions: 

This factor accounts for whether the change in a management prescription is only for a specific situation 

or whether it would apply to future decisions throughout the planning. It evaluates how the change alters 

the desired condition of the land and resources or the anticipated goods and services to be produced.

These four amendments are being proposed to manipulate a very small segment of the forest towards a 

long-term, healthy, disease-free environment. These amendments to the Interim Eastside Screens and the

Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan standards and guidelines would not change the desired 

future condition for land and resources from that contemplated by the existing management direction in 

the Land and Resource Management Plan, which has a management strategy dealing with multiple levels 

of dwarf mistletoe infections, listed in Table 4-29 (DLRMP p. 4-39), from ‘eliminate inoculums by 

regeneration harvest” to “remove overstory and thin understory to maintain infections at low levels.” 

Allowing greater visual evidence of prescribed burning in scenic corridors achieves the desired conditions 

for greater prominence of low-intensity, frequent fire in appropriate stands. None of these Forest Plan 

Amendments apply to future decisions.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 415 of 528

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, 

this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a 

manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under 

which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

The Multiple Use- Sustained Yield Act of 1960 requires the Forest Service to manage National Forest 

System lands for multiple uses (including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range and watershed). All 

renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are there for future generations. Thinning 

activities that provide a commercial product, or use of standing timber, can be considered a short term use 

of a renewable resource. As a renewable resource, trees can be re-established and grown in again if the 

productivity of the land is not impaired.

Maintaining the productivity of the land is a complex, long-term objective. All alternatives protect the 

long-term objective of the analysis area through the use of specific Forest plan Standards and Guidelines, 

mitigation measures, and BMPs. Long-term productivity could change as a result of the various 

management activities proposed in the alternatives. Timber management activities would have a direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effect on the economic, social, and biological environment. Those effects are 

disclosed in Chapter 3 of this analysis.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Beneficial and adverse effects on the human environment that might result from implementation of the

Action Alternatives, which are considered in detail, are analyzed earlier in this Chapter. The National 

Environmental Policy Act requires disclosure of “...any adverse environmental effects which cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be implemented....” (40 CFR 1502.16).

Several adverse effects, including some that are minimal and/or short term were identified during the 

analysis. Adverse effects are associated with all alternatives, including the No Action and the Action 

Alternatives. Resource protection measures or mitigations were identified for each adverse effect 

associated with an Action Alternative as a means to lessen or eliminate such effects on specific resources.

See the section titled “Resource Protection Measures” in Chapter 2 of this EIS. Resource areas 

determined to be potentially adversely affected (resulting for any of the alternatives- including the No 

Action and the Action Alternatives) are documented within the appropriate Environmental Consequences 

section of each resource in Chapter 3. The following is a summary of some of the resource areas that may 

suffer adverse effects associated with the action alternatives.

Wildlife

The complexity of analysis shows that there are trade-offs when managing wildlife habitat but wildlife 

species are not necessarily winners if habitat is gained or losers if habitat is lost. Treatments result in a 

more resilient landscape, more closely resembling the historic range of variability that the species 

developed in and a landscape returning to a more frequent fire regime reducing risk to all habitats and in 

which all species benefit in the long term. Reference discussions in Chapter 3 under “Wildlife” for 

disclosure of effects for Threatened and Endangered Species, Management Indicator Species, Regional 

Forester Sensitive Species, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Big Game.

Soils

Under Alternative B, detrimental soil conditions would remain on 1,196 acres, followed by 1,163 acres in 

Alternative C; 1,160 acres in Alternative D; and 1,329 acres in Alternative E. These estimates are very 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 416 of 528

conservative. All activities would be consistent with Forest and Regional standards and guidelines for 

soil productivity with no units that exceed the 20 percent disturbance standards (Table 136 to Table 139

in Appendix C). It is expected that enough fallen trees and other organic materials would be available 

after harvest activities to meet recommended guidelines for coarse woody debris retention in the shortterm. Therefore, the proposed actions comply with Regional and LRMP standards and guidelines for 

maintaining soil productivity within all proposed activity areas without restoration (subsoiling).

Invasive Species Plants

Invasive plants sources come from existing sources already within the Rim-Paunina project area as well 

as outside of the National Forest, and cannot therefore be completely mitigated with any action confined 

to Forest Service authority. Project Design Features designed to reduce the introduction and spread of 

invasive weeds either within or into the Rim-Paunina project area are listed in Chapter 2. A relative risk 

rating is disclosed for each action alternative.

Recreation

Overlapping Forest management activities may change the recreation experience for some forest visitors.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time 

such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power 

line rights of-way or road.

The action alternatives have the potential to create effects that could cause irreversible damage to soil 

productivity. There is low risk for mechanical disturbance to cause soil mass failures (landslides) due to 

the inherent stability of dominant land types and the lack of seasonally wet soils on steep slopes. Careful 

planning and application of Best Management Practices and project design elements would be used to 

prevent irreversible losses of the soil resource.

The development and use of temporary roads and logging facilities is considered an irretrievable loss of 

soil productivity until their functions have been served and disturbed sites are returned back to a 

productive capacity. The action alternatives include soil restoration activities (subsoiling) to improve the 

hydrologic function and productivity on detrimentally disturbed soils.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The Council on Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy

Act requires, “When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the 

human environment in an environmental impact statement and there is incomplete or unavailable 

information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking.” (40 CFR 1502.22) 

The Rim-Paunina analysis is consistent with this requirement within each resource area, as there are no 

critical pieces of missing information.

Energy Requirements

For environmental impact statements, NEPA requires a discussion of the energy requirements and 

conservation potential of proposed alternatives and mitigation measures [40 CFR 1502.18 (e)]. Under the 

Action Alternatives, additional consumption of fossil fuels and human labor would be expended for the 

use of vehicles transporting Forest workers, chainsaws, heavy equipment and trucks. Fossil fuel would 

not be a retrievable resource. There are no irregular energy requirements involved in implementing any 

of the action alternatives.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 3- Other Disclosures

Page 417 of 528

USDA Civil Rights Policy

The Civil Rights Policy for the USDA, Departmental Regulation 4300-4 dated May 30, 2003, states that 

the following are among the civil rights strategic goals; (1) managers, supervisors, and other employees 

are held accountable for ensuring that USDA customers are treated fairly and equitably, with dignity and 

respect; and (2) equal access is assured and equal treatment is provided in the delivery of USDA 

programs and services for all customers. This is the standard for service to all customers regardless of 

race, sex, national origin, age, or disabilities.

Disparate impact, a theory of discrimination, has been applied to the Rim-Paunina planning process in 

order to reveal any such negative effects that may unfairly and inequitably impact beneficiaries regarding 

program development, administration, and delivery. The objectives of this review and analysis are to 

prevent disparate treatment and minimize discrimination against minorities, women and persons with 

disabilities and to ensure compliance with all civil rights statutes, Federal regulations, and USDA policies 

and procedures.

The project alternatives, given the size of potential social and economic effects, are not likely to result in 

civil rights impacts to Forest Service employees or customers of its program.

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land

The Secretary of Agriculture issued memorandum 1827 which is intended to protect prime farm lands and 

rangelands. The Rim-Paunina analysis area does not contain any prime farmlands or rangelands. Prime 

Forest Land, as defined in the memorandum, is not applicable to lands within the National Forest System.

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972

The Rim-Paunina Project is consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (as amended) 

because collaboration consisted of a diverse group of stakeholders ranging from members whose 

advocacy was for forest conservation, timber industry, wildlife, and recreation. The group was convened 

through a third party member of the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC). After the initial 

collaborative scoping meeting, eight collaborative process meetings were held over an 11 month period 

and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public process was used to weigh in. All input from 

the collaborative group also followed the same requirements as the concurrent NEPA public involvement 

process. All meetings were open to the public, were held outside of Forest Service facilities, and 

followed Federal Advisory Committee Act guidelines. The goal for the Forest Service was to provide a 

more transparent process from scoping to decision and to build relationships for potential future 

collaboration. It was also to achieve quality feedback and to ensure all possible alternatives were 

explored.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Consultation and Coordination

Page 418 of 528

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and nonForest Service persons during the development of this environmental impact statement:

Preparers

Joe Bowles, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Silviculturist / 

Data Analyst

Contribution: Silvicultural analysis

Education: BS Forest Resources, Minor in fire ecology and management, University of Idaho, 2005

Experience: Since 2000, USFS work in fire, timber, and silviculture

Kevin Carlson, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Fuels 

Planner

Contribution: Fire and Fuels analysis; modeling

Experience: Fire and Fuels, 14 years

Terry Craigg, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Sisters Ranger District, Soil Scientist

Contribution: Soil, Hydrology, Water Quality

Education: BA Biology and Chemistry, Chico State University; MS Soil Science, University of 

California Davis

Experience: Forest Service 22 years in Soil; USDA Soil Conservation Service 2 years.

Lillian Cross, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, NEPA 

Writer/Editor

Contribution: Writer-Editor

Education: BS Forest Resources, minor in fisheries and aquatics, University of Washington 2008.

Experience: Forest Service three years; 30 years with the Federal government

Gery Ferguson, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Supervisors Office, Natural 

Resource Planner

Contribution: NEPA oversight

Education: BS in Wildlife Management, Michigan State University, 1980

Experience: 30 years employed by US Forest Service; working in NEPA quality control, appeals, 

litigation, wildlife and resource management, reforestation and timber stand 

improvement, timber sale planning and implementation, and recreation planning

Tim Foley, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Environmental 

Coordinator

Contribution: NEPA review and oversight

Education: BA Environmental Policy, Colby College, 2000; MS Environmental Management, Duke 

University, 2009

Experience: 12 years experience in air quality, timber, and planning
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Consultation and Coordination

Page 419 of 528

Robert Gentry, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Recreation 

Lands and Minerals Team Leader

Contribution: Recreation

Education: BS Plant & Soil Science, MS Forestry (Wilderness Management) Southern Illinois 

University

Experience: 20 years in Municipal Recreation, Forestry, and Project Management

Leslie Hickerson, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, 

Archaeologist

Contribution: Heritage Program Input

Education: BS Anthropology with “High Scholarship”, Oregon State University 1976; MA 

Anthropology, University of Arizona 1989

Experience: Forest Service Archaeologist since 1986; District Archaeologist since 1991

Holly Jewkes, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent District Ranger

Contribution: Project Oversight

Education: BS Environmental Affairs, University of New Hampshire 1995; MS Natural Resource 

Management, University of Alaska Fairbanks 1999

Experience: Forest Service since 2000; positions include fire and fuels, recreation planning and 

management, special uses, lands, and District Ranger

Joan Kittrell, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Wildlife 

Biologist

Contribution: Wildlife Oversight and Review

Education: BS Wildlife, Washington State University 1981

Experience: Forest Service 30 years; including positions in silviculture and timber, biologist with 

Forest Service 18 years

Ken Kittrell, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest, Forest Transportation 

Planner 

Contribution: Transportation planning

Education: BS Fisheries Biology, University of Idaho, 1978

Experience: Forest Service since 1978; positions include Road Survey Technician, Project Engineer, 

Soil/Watershed Specialist, Transportation Planner and Road Manager

Kristen McBride, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Natural 

Resources Team Leader

Contribution: Oversight

Education: BS Environmental Science, Northern Arizona University 1994; MS Range Science and 

Management, University of Arizona 2001

Experience: Forest Service since 1997; positions include Biological Science Technician, Monitoring 

Team Coordinator, Ecologist (Forest Plan Revision Team) and Natural Resources Team 

Leader

Chris Mickle, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, 

Environmental Coordinator (retired August 2011)

Contribution: NEPA review and oversight

Experience: Forest Service 30 years including positions in Fire/Fuels and Planning
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Consultation and Coordination

Page 420 of 528

Paul Miller, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Wildlife 

Biologist

Contribution: Wildlife analysis-Big Game, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species, Old Growth, 

Fragmentation

Education: BS Wildlife Biology, Washington State University

Experience: Forest Service 28 years including positions in fire, recreation, and 22 years as a biologist

Joe Monroe, USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forests, Geographic Information 

Systems

Contribution: GIS analysis, maps

Education: BS Forest Management, Oregon State University 1985

Experience: Forest Service 25 years including positions in Recreation, Silviculture and

10 years in GIS Support

Regina O’Brien, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Wildlife 

Technician

Contribution: Wildlife analysis- Birds of Conservation Concern, Landbirds

Education: BS Zoology; BS Fisheries, Oregon State University 1986

Experience: Forest Service 22 years as a biologist

Paul Powers, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Fisheries 

Biologist

Contribution: Fisheries analysis, water quality

Education: BS, Oregon State University 1996

Experience: Fisheries work with Forest Service and USGS Biological Research Lab since 1995

Carina Rosterolla, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, 

Wildlife Biologist

Contribution: Wildlife analysis-Management Indicator Species, Viable Modeling, GIS Arcmap 

Analysis and maps

Education: BS Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University 2005

Experience: Forest Service biologist for 4 years; 6 years with the Federal government

Christina Veverka, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, 

Ecologist / Botanist

Contribution: Botany, Invasive Plant Strategy

Education: BA Biology, University of San Diego; MA Biology, Idaho State University

Experience: 16 years experience in vegetation, ecology, botany and restoration.

Vincent Voelker, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Roads 

Manager 

Contribution: Transportation planning

Experience: Forest Service since 2006; includes positions in trail/roads survey and design, 

transportation planning and project management
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Distribution of EIS

Page 421 of 528

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest Service consulted with or received project comments from individuals, agencies, tribes, and 

non-Forest Service persons during the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Federal Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State Government

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

State Historic Preservation Office

Tribes

Burns Paiute Tribe

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

The Klamath Tribes

Organizations

Rim-Paunina Collaborative group

Oregon Wild

Individuals
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Distribution of EIS

Page 422 of 528

List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the 

Statement are Sent

The following requested to receive a copy (hardcopy or CDROM) of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement.

Federal Agencies

Environmental Protection Agency- Region 10

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

USDA National Agricultural Library

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State Government

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Department of Forestry

Tribes

The Klamath Tribes

Organizations

Oregon Chapter, Sierra Club

Oregon Wild

The Nature Conservancy

Individuals

RD Buell

Chuck Burley

Phil Chang

Karen Coulter

Tim English

CeCe Headley

Tim Lillebo

Marilyn Miller

Joni Mogstad

Mike Morris

Larry Pennington

Ben and Kay Sunderland

Carl Wilmsen
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 423 of 528

Literature Cited

Abbe, T.B., A.P. Brooks, and D.R. Montgomery. 2003. Wood in river rehabilitation and management. 

Pages 367-389 in S.V. Gregory, K.L. Boyer, and A.M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and management of 

wood in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda Maryland.

Adams, P.W., and H.A Froehlich. 1981. Compaction of forest soils. Pacific Northwest Extension 

Publication-PNW 217. 13p.

Agee, James K. 1999. Fire Effects on Landscape Fragmentation in Interior West Forests. In: Rochelle 

James A., L.A. Lehmann, and J. Wisniewski. 1999. Editors. Forest Wildlife and Fragmentation: 

Management Implications.

Aldrich, J.W. 1968. Population characteristics and nomenclature of the hermit thrush. Proc. U.S. Natl. 

Museum. 124(3637): 1-33 in Marshall, David B., M.G. Hunter and A.L. Contreras. 2003. Birds Of 

Oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Altman, Robert. 2000. Conservation Strategy For Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains 

in Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Prepared for the Oregon-Washington Chapters of Partners in 

Flight. 81 pp.

Amaranthus , M.P., D. Pilz, A. Moore, R. Abbott, and D. Luoma. 2001. American Matsutake across 

Spatial and Temporal Scales. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-4178.USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 

Amsberry K. and R. J. Meinke. 2003. Responses of Botrychium pumicola to habitat manipulations in 

forested sites in south-central Oregon. Unpublished report prepared for the USDA Forest Service 

(Deschutes, Fremont, and Winema National Forests) and USDI Bureau of Land Management (Prineville 

District).

Anglin, Ron. 2010. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Presentation at a mule deer workshop in 

Bend, Oregon in February 2010.

Anthony R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat Use by Nesting and 

Roosting Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Pp. 332-342 in: Transactions of the 47th North American 

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Ardt, Glen. 2011. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Biologist. Bend Field Office, 

Bend, Oregon. Personal communication.

Ardt, Glen. 2009. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Biologist. Bend Field Office, 

Bend, Oregon. Personal communication.

Aubry, Keith B., K.S. McKelvey, and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and Broadscale Habitat 

Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 

71(7):2147-2158.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 424 of 528

Aubry, K.G., and C.M. Raley. 2006. Ecological Characteristics of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in the 

Southern Oregon Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Olympia, Washington, USA. 

Aubry, Keith B. and Jeffrey C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) 

in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (2003) 

79-90.

Aubry, Keith J. and Catherine Raley. 2002. Ecological Characteristics of Fishers in the Southern Oregon 

Cascade Range. Final Progress Report.

Aubry, K.B. and D.B. Houston. 1992. Distribution and status of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in 

Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 73:69-79. In: Powell, Roger A. 1993. The Fisher Life History, 

Ecology, and Behavior. University of Minnesota Press. 

Barbour, Roger W.; Davis, Wayne H. 1969. Bats of America. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press 

286 p. In: Christy, Robin E., and Stephen D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-308. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 28 p. (Huff, Mark.: Holthausen, Richard M.: Aubrey, Keith B., Tech. coords. 

Biology and management of old growth forests).

Beedy, E. C., and W. J. Hamilton III. 1999 Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In: The Birds of 

North America, No. 423 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of N. Am., Inc., Philadelphia, PA. P. 580 

In: Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 Pp.

Beschta, R. L. 1978. Long term patterns of sediment production following road construction and logging

in the Oregon Coast Range. American Geophysical Union. Paper number 8W0584.

Bilby, Robert E. 2003. Decomposition and nutrient dynamics of wood in streams and rivers. Pages 135-

148 in S.V. Gregory, K.L. Boyer, and A.M. Gurnell, Editors. The ecology and management of wood in 

world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland.

Biosystems Analysis, Inc. 1989. Endangered Species Alert Program Manual: Species Accounts and 

Procedures. Southern California Edison Environmental Affairs Division. In: Nature Serve Explorer: An 

online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Available at 

http://www.naturserve.org/explorer. Accessed December 2009.

Bishop, Jeff. 2008. Crescent Ranger District Assistant Fire Management Officer. Personal 

communication.

Boucher, Karin. 2009. Crescent Ranger District Wildlife Technician. Personal communication.

Boucher, Karin. 2008. Crescent Ranger District Wildlife Technician. Personal communication.

Boyer D.E., D.D. Dell, 1980. Fire effects on pacific northwest forest soils. Forest Service USDA Pacific 

Northwest Region Watershed Management and Aviation and Fire Management R6 WM 040 1980.

Branum, Wayne. 2008. Biological Science Technician, Crescent Ranger District, Crescent, Oregon. 

Personal communication regarding Oregon spotted frog occurrence.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 425 of 528

Brown, George W.; Krygier, James T. 1970. Effects of clear-cutting on stream temperature. Water 

Resources Research 6: 1133-1139.

Brown J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, K.A Kylie, 2003. Coarse woody debris: managing benefits and fire hazard 

in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16p.

Bruner, H. 1997. Habitat use and productivity of Harlequin ducks in the central Cascade Range of 

Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. P. 116 In: Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. 

Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

OR. 768 Pp.

Bryan, T. and E.D. Forsman. 1987. Distribution, abundance, and habitat of Great Gray Owls in 

southcentral Oregon. Murrelet 68:45-49.

Buck, S.G., Mullis, C., Mossman, A.S., Show, I., Coolahan, C., 1994. Habitat use by fishers in adjoining 

heavily and lightly harvested forest. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G. Powell, R.A., 

editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. In: 

Aubry, Keith B. and Jeffrey C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) 

in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (2003) 

79-90.

Bull, E. L., and T. W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American marten in northeastern 

Oregon. Northwest Science 74:179-185.

Bull, E.L., A.L. Wright and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Nesting habitat of flammulated owls in Oregon. J. 

raptor res. 24: 52-55.

Bull., E.L. and M. G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the Great Gray Owl. General Technical Report PNWGTR-265. USDA Forest Service; Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Bull, E. L. and A. K. Blumton. 1999. Effects of fuels reduction on American marten and their prey. 

Research Note PNW-RN-539. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Bunnell, F.L., Kremsater, L.L. and R.W. Wells. 1997. Likely consequences of forest management on 

terrestrial, forest-dwelling vertebrates in Oregon. Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, Oregon. 

Cited in: Rochelle J.A. et al. 1999. Forest Fragmentation: wildlife management implications (conference 

summary editor). Rochelle Environmental Consulting. Portland, Oregon. 

Burger, J. and M. Gochfeld. 1998. Effects of ecotourism on bird behavior at Loxahatchee national 

wildlife refuge, Florida. Environmental conservation 25:13–21.

Busby, John R., L.C. Bliss, and C. D. Hamilton. 1978. Macroclimate control of growth rates and habitats 

of the boreal forest mosses, Tomenthypnum nitens and Hylocomium splendens. Ecological Monographs 

48: pp. 95-110.

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. Martin. Pages 7-37 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, 

L. Jack Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 184 p.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 426 of 528

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283-296 

in Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: 

biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y. In Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 

1994. Martin. Pages 7-37 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L. Jack Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, 

eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: 

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p.

Buskirk, Steven W.; Ruggiero, Leonard F. 1994. Chapter 2: American marten. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; 

Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds. The scientific basis 

for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United 

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. p. 7-37.

Buskirk, S.W. and Powell, R.A. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: Buskirk, 

S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G. Powell, R.A., editors. Martens, sables and fishers biology and 

conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. P. 283-296

Busse, M.D. 2010. Research scientist Region 5 Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Busse, Matt D. and Gregg M. Reigel. 2008. Response of antelope bitterbrush to repeated prescribed 

burning in Central Oregon ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 257. 

Butler, Brett J., J.J. Swenson, and R.J. Alig. 2003. Forest Fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest: 

quantifications and correlations. Forest Ecology and Management 189 (2004) 363-373.

Chapin, T.G., D.M. Philips, D.J. Harrison and E.C. York. 1997. Seasonal selection of habitats by resting 

martens in Maine. In: Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, and Management (Ed. by G. Proulx, H.N. 

Bryant & P.M. Woodard), pp. 437–451. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Chitwood, Larry. 2010. Deschutes National Forest geologist

Christy, John. 2007. Species facts sheet for Tomentypnum nitens. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive 

Species program website http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/flora-bryophytes.shtml

(Accessed February 2009)

Christy, Robin E., and Stephen D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-308. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 28 p. (Huff, Mark.: Holthausen, Richard M.: Aubrey, Keith B., Tech. coords. Biology 

and management of old-growth forests).

Claar, J. J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, M. Cherry, B. Conard, R. Hompesch, S. Miller, G. Olson, H. Ihsle 

Pac, J. Waller, T. Wittinger, H. Youmans. 1999. Carnivores. Pages 7.1– 7.63 in Joslin, G. and H. 

Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. 

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.

Clayton, J.L., Kellogg, G., Forrester, N. 1987. Soil disturbance-tree growth relations in central Idaho 

clearcuts. Res. Note INT-372. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. 6 p
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 427 of 528

Cochran, PH. 1992. Stocking Levels and Underlying Assumptions for Uneven-Aged Ponderosa Pine 

Stands. Res. Note PNW-RN509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 10 p.

Cochran P.H., T. Brock. 1985. Soil compaction and initial height growth of planted ponderosa pine. 

Pacific Northwest Extension Publication-PNW 434. 3p.

Cochran P.H., 1971. Pumice particle bridging and nutrient levels affect lodgepole and ponderosa pine 

seedling development. Research Note Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station PNW150.

Coe, Priscilla K., Bruce K. Johnson, and Kelly M. Stewart, and John G. Kie. 2001. Spatial and Temporal 

Interactions of Elk, Mule Deer, and Cattle. In: Wisdom , M.J. technical editor. 2005. The Starkey Project: 

a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, 

Kansas, USA. 

Conklin, D. A. and Geils, B. W. 2008. Survival and Sanitation of Dwarf Mistletoe-Infected Ponderosa 

Pine Following Prescribed Underburning. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(4) 216-222.

Conlin, T. S. S. and R. van den Driessche. 1996. Short-term effects of soil compaction on growth of 

Pinus contorta seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 26: 727 – 739.

Contreras, A. 1988. Northern Waterthrush summer range in Oregon. West. Birds 19:41-42.

Cook, J.G., Bruce K. Johnson, Rachael C. Cook, Robert A Riggs, Tim DelCurto, Larry D. Bryant, and 

Larry L. Irwin. 2005. Nutrition and Parturition Date Effects on Elk: Potential Implications for Research 

and Management. Pages 13-126 In Wisdom , M.J. technical editor. 2005. The Starkey Project: a synthesis 

of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. 

Copeland, Jeffrey P., J.M. Peek, C.R. Groves, W.E. Melquist, K.S. McKelvey, G.W. McDaniel, C.D. 

Long, and C.E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal Habitat Associations of the Wolverine in Central Idaho. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 71(7):2201-2212.

Craigg, T. 2006. Evaluation of methods used to assess forest soil quality. Masters of Science Thesis,

University of California Davis.

Cristea, Nicoleta, Janisch, Jack. 2007. Modeling the effects of riparian buffer width on effective shade 

and stream temperature. Publication No. 07-03-028. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program. 64 p.

Cushman, Kathleen A. and Christopher A. Pearl. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon 

Spotted Frog (Rana Pretiosa). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon and Washington.

Dahlberg A., J. Schimmel, J. Taylor, and H. Johannesson. 2001, Post-fire legacy of ectomycorrhizal 

fungal communities in the Swedish boreal forest in relation to fire severity and logging intensity. 

Biological Conservation 100:151-161.

Dalquist, W.W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Publ. 

2:1-444 In: Christy, Robin E., and Stephen D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-308. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 428 of 528

Northwest Research Station. 28 p. (Huff, Mark.: Holthausen, Richard M.: Aubrey, Keith B., Tech. coords. 

Biology and management of old-growth forests).

Dawson W.R., C. carey, C.S. Adkisson and R.D. Ohmart. 1979. Responses of brewer’s and chipping 

sparrow to water restriction. Physiological Zoology 52: 529-541

DeBano, Leonard F.; Neary, Daniel G.; Folliott, Peter F. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. New York: 

John Wiley & Sons. 333 p

DeGraaf, Richard M. and J.H. Rappole. 1995. Neotropical migratory birds: natural history, distribution 

and population change. Cornell Univ. Press. 676 pp.

Deschutes Basin FLIR Report. 2002. Watershed Sciences Aerial Surveys in the Deschutes River Basin. 

Thermal Infrared and Color Videography. February 11, 2002.

Deschutes National Forest, Sisters District, 2005. Unpublished soil monitoring data from the Lower Jack 

Contract Re-offer Salvage sale.

Deschutes National Forest, Soil Monitoring Reports, 1994-2001. Unpublished soil monitoring reports on 

file at the Deschutes National Forest Supervisor’s office. 

Dobbs, R.C., P.R. Martin and T.E. Martin. 1998. Green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus). In: The birds of 

North America, no. 368 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). The birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA

Duncan, N.; T. Burke; S. Dowlan et al. 2003. Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage terrestrial Mollusk 

Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. IM OR 2003-44.

Duncan, J.R. 1997. Great Gray Owls (Strix nebulosa nebulosa) and forest management in North America: 

a review and recommendations. J. Raptor Res. 31(2):160-166.

Dwire, Kathleen A.; Rhoades, Charles C.; Young, Michael K. [N.d.]. Potential Effects of fuel 

management activities on riparian areas. 55 p. In: Elliot, W.J.; Audin, L.J., eds. 2007. Cumulative 

watershed effects of fuels management in the Western United States. Unpublished report. On file with: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe. (13 March 2009).

Eaglin, Gregory S., W.A. Hubert. 1993. Effects of logging and roads on substrate and trout in streams of 

Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13:844-

846, 1993.

Edmonds, Robert L, Agee, James K and Robert I Gara. 2011. Forest Health and Protection. Waveland 

Press, Inc. Long Grove, Illinois. 667p.

Eglitis, A. 2010. Forest Entomologist. Forest Health Protection, USDA Forest Service, Central Oregon 

Service Center. Deschutes National Forest, Bend, Oregon

Elliot, W.J.; Page-Dumroese, D.; Robichaud, P.R. 1999. The effects of forest management on erosion and 

soil productivity. Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil Quality and Erosion Interaction, Keystone, CO, 

July 7, 1996. Ankeney, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society. 16 p.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 429 of 528

Federal Register. 2008. Vol. 73, No. 48/Tuesday March 11, 2008. Twelve month finding on a petition to 

list the North American wolverine as Endangered or Threatened.

Federal Register. 2007. Vol. 72, No. 130/Monday July 30, 2007. Announcement by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife to de-list the bald eagle.

Federal Register. 2004. Vol. 69, No. 68, April 8, 2004. The USFWS announces a finding that the petition 

to list the West Coast distinct population of the fisher is warranted but precluded by higher priority action. 

Fettig, Christopher J.; Klepzig, Kier D.; Billings, Ronald F.; Munson, A. Steven; Nebeker, T. Evan; 

Negron, Jose F.; Nowak, John T. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for 

prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United 

States. Forest Ecology and Management. 238(1-3): 24-53.

Fisher R.F., D. Binkley. 2000. Ecology and management of forest soils, Third Edition. 489p.

Fies 1996. ODFW Upper Deschutes Subbasin Management Plan. ODFW, Klamath Falls, Oregon.

Fix, D. personal comment, in Marshall, David B., M.G. Hunter and A.L. Contreras. 2003. Birds Of 

Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Fletcher, R. J., Jr., S. T. McKinney, and C. E. Bock. 1999. Effects of recreational trails along riparian 

corridors on wintering diurnal raptors in a Colorado grassland. Journal of Raptor Research 33:233-239. 

Tremblay Ellison 1979.

Foltz, R. B. 1991. Sediment processes in wheel ruts on unsurfaced forest roads. Moscow, ID: 

University of Idaho. 177 p. Ph. D. thesis.

Forest Data Incorporated, 2001. A Guide to Understanding the Design, Implementation & Database of the 

PI Vegetation Mapping Project

Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. 

France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. 

Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 481 pp.

Frenzel, Richard W. 2002. Nest-sites, Nesting Success, and Turnover Rates of White-Headed 

Woodpeckers on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon in 2002. Oregon Natural Heritage 

Program, Portland, Oregon. Unpubl. Report. 35 pp. plus tables and figures.

Froehlich, H.A., D.W.R. Miles and R.W. Robbins. 1986. Growth of young pinus ponderosa and pinus 

contorta on compacted soil in central Washington. Forest Eco. And Management, 15:285-294. 

Froehlich, H.A.., D.W.R. Miles, and R.W. Robbins. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on compacted skid 

trails in central Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:1015-1017. 

Froehlich, H. A. 1979. Soil compaction from logging equipment: effects on growth of young ponderosa 

pine. Jour. of Soil and Water Cons. V. 34(6) Nov.- Dec., 1979: 276-278.

Froehlich, H.A. 1976. The influence of different thinning systems on damage to soil and trees. 

Proceedings, XVI IUFRO World Congress Division IV, UUFRO Norway. pp. 333-344.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 430 of 528

Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of Oregon. Oregon State College, Corvallis. (Reprinted in 

1970 as Birds of the Pacific Northwest by Dover Publ., New York.) In Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, A.L. 

Contreras. 2003. Birds of Oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 

pp.

Gaines, William L.; Singleton, Peter H.; Ross, Roger C. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear 

recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station 79p

Gaines, E. 1997. Personal communication on western big-eared bat populations in Oregon as cited In: 

Natureserve 2008.

Gebert, Krista M. et al., 1998. Utilization of Oregon’s Timber Harvest and Associated Direct Economic 

Effects, PNW-GTR-532).

Geist, M.J., J.W. Hazard, and K.W. Seidel. 1989. Assessing physical conditions of Pacific Northwest 

volcanic ash soils after forest harvest. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:946-950. 

Gent, J.A., R. Ballard, A.E. Hassan, D.K. Cassel, 1984. Impact of harvesting and site preparation on 

physical properties of Piedmont forest soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:173-177. 

George, Steve. 2010. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Bend, Oregon. Personal 

communication on big game population trends.

Ghalambor, Cameron K. and Robert C. Dobbs, 2006. Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea): a technical 

conservation assessment. Dept of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, 621 

Parker St., Fort Collins, CO 80525

Gilbert, J.H., J.L. Wright, D.J. Lauten and J.R. Probst. 1997. Den and rest-site characteristics of American 

marten and fisher in northern Wisconsin. In: Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, and Management 

(Ed. by G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant & P.M. Woodard), pp. 437–451. Provincial Museum of Alberta, 

Edmonton, AB.

Gill, J.A., A.R. Watkinson and W.J, Sutherland. 1996. The impact of sugar beet farming practice on 

wintering pink-footed goose populations. Biological Conservation, 76, pp95-100.

Gilligan, J.; M. Smith; D. Rogers; et al. 1994. Birds of Oregon Status and Distribution. Cinclus 

Publications.

Goggans, R.; R. D. Dixon; L. C. Seminara. 1989. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed 

woodpeckers on the Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Non-game Report. 87-3-02. Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. 49 pp.

Goggans, R. 1986. Habitat use by flammulated owls in northeastern Oregon. Master’s thesis, Oregon 

State University, Corvallis, OR.

Gomez, A., R.F. Powers, M.J. Singer, W.R. Horwath. 2002. Soil compaction effects on growth of young 

ponderosa pine following litter removal in California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Sci. Soc. Am J. 66:1334-

1343. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 431 of 528

Graham R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, DS. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing 

coarse woody debris in forest of the Rocky Mountains. Intermountain Research Station, Research Paper 

INT-RP-477

Graham, Russell T.; Rodriguez, Ronald L.; Paulin, Kathleen M.; Player, Rodney L.; Heap, Arlene P.; 

Williams, Richard. 1999. The northern goshawk in Utah: habitat assessment and management 

recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-22. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 48 p.

Greacen E.L., R. Sands 1980. Compaction of forest soils. Aust. J. Res., 18:163-189.

Greenwald, D. Noah, D. Coleman Crocker-Bedford, Len Broberg, Kieran F. Suckling, and Timothy 

Tibbits. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for 

forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(1): 120-129.

Gregory, S.V., K.L. Boyer, and A.M. Gurnell, editors. 2003. The ecology and management of wood in 

world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland.

Gucinski, Hermann; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H. 2001. Forest roads: a 

synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.

Haggard, M and W.L. Gaines. 2001. Effects of stand-replacement fire and salvage logging on 

cavitynesting bird community in eastern Cascades, Washington. Northwest Science 75(4);387- 396.

Hamann B., H. Johnston, J. Gobielle, M. Hillis, S. Johnson, L. Kelly, P. McClelland. 1999. Chapter 3 

Birds. Pages 3.1 - 3.34 In G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky 

Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana 

Chapter of Wildlife Society. 307 pp.

Harmon, Mark. 2005. Research scientist Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hawkins, C.P., J.N. Hogue, L.A. Decker, and J.W. Feminella. 1997. Channel morphology, water 

temperature, and assemblage structure of stream insects. Journal of the North American Benthological 

Society 16:728-749.

Hawksworth, F.G. 1977. The 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating system. US Forest Service General Technical 

Report RM-48. 7p. in: Conklin, D. A. and Geils, B. W. 2008. Survival and Sanitation of Dwarf 

Mistletoe-Infected Ponderosa Pine Following Prescribed Underburning. Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 23(4) 216-222.

Hawksworth, F.G., Geils B. 1990. How Long Do Mistletoe infected Ponderosa Pine Live? Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 5(2) 47-49.

Hawksworth, F.G., Wiens, D. 1996. Dwarf Mistletoes: Biology, Pathology, and Systematics. Agriculture 

Handbook 709. USDA Forest Service. 410 p. 

Hayden, J., G. Ardt, M. Fleming, T.W. Keegan, J. Peek, T.O. Smith, and A. Wood. 2008. Habitat 

Guidelines for Mule Deer: Northern Forest Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. USA.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 432 of 528

Hayward, G. D., and J. Verner, (eds.). 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United 

States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Report RM-253. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 214 pp.

Heath, Corey. 2010. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Presentation at a mule deer workshop in 

Bend, Oregon in February 2010.

Hedricks, MaryJo. 2010. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Silver Lake, Oregon. 

Personal communication regarding mule deer population trends.

Heilman, Paul. 1981. Root penetration of Douglas-fir seedlings into compacted soil. Forest Sci. Vol. 

27(4): 660-666.

Hejl, S.J. 1994. Human-induced changed in bird populations in coniferous forests in western North 

America during the past 100 years. In Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornith. Soc.; 15:232-246. In

Wisdom, M.J., S. Richard, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, R.D. Rich, M.M. 

Rowland, J.W. Murphy, M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the 

Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Vol 2-group level results. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR_485. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, PNWR 

Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, T.M, tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: 

scientific assessment).

Helms, J.A., and C. Hipkin. 1986. Effects of soil compaction on height growth of a California ponderosa 

pine plantation. Western J. Appl. For. 1(4). 

Heninger R., W Scott, A. Dobkowski, R. Millar, H. Anderson, S. Duke 2002. Soil disturbance and 10-

year growth response of coast Douglas-fir on non-tilled and tilled skid trails in the Oregon Cascades. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32 (2): 233-246

Henny. C.J. and R.G.Anthony. 1989. Bald eagle and osprey National Wildlife Federation. Sci. Tech. Ser. 

No. 12.

Henry, S.E., E.C. O’Doherty, L.F. Ruggiero and W.D. Van Sickle. 1997. Maternal den attendance patters 

of female American marten. In: Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, and Management (Ed. by G. 

Proulx, H.N. Bryant & P.M. Woodard), pp. 437–451. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Hessburg, P.F., Mitchell, R.G., Filip, G.M. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in 

eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, General Technical Report PNW-327, 72 pp.

Hessburg, P.F., Povak, N.A., Salter, R.B. 2008. Thinning and prescribed fire effects dwarf mistletoe 

severity in an eastern Cascade Range dry forest, Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 255 

(2008) 2907-2915.

Hickerson, Leslie. 2008. Crescent Ranger District Heritage Program Manager. Personal communication.

Hillis, J.M., J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner. 1991. Defining elk security: the Hillis paradign In: 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on elk: 

Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdon, M.J., technical editor, The 

Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 

Transactions Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 433 of 528

Holmes, T. L., R. L. Knight, L. Stegall, and G. R. Craig. 1993. Responses of wintering grassland raptors 

to human disturbance. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:461-468.

Hopkins, B., Simon, S., Schafer, M., Lillybridge, T. 1992. Region 6 Interim Old Growth Definition for 

Ponderosa Pine Series. 

Hosford, D., D. Pilz, R. Molina, and M.P. Amaranthus. 1997. Ecology and Management of the 

Commercially Harvested American Matsutake Mushroom. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-412.USDA, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Houslet, Brad and Hollister. 1990. USFS Crescent Creek Stream Survey Report 

Howes, S., J. Hazard, M.J. Geist, 1983. Guidelines for sampling some physical conditions of surface 

soils. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Publication R6-RWM-146-1983. 34p 

Hutchins, H.E. and R.M. Lanner. 1982. The central role of Clark nutcracker in the dispersal and 

establishment of whitebark pine. Oecologia, 55:192-201. In Lorenz, T.J. and K. A. Sullivan. 2007. 

Seasonal differences in space use by Clark’s nutcrackers in the Cascade Range. The Condor 111(2):326-

340. 2009

Invasipedia. Online invasive species encyclopedia by The Nature Conservancy and University of 

California, Davis. http://invasipedia.ucdavis.edu/doku.php/species_resources [Accessed March 2010]

Isaacs, Frank B. and Robert G. Anthony. 2007. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Bald Eagle Nest 

Locations and History of Use in Oregon and the Washington portion of the Columbia River Recovery 

Zone, 1971-2007.

Janes, Stewart W. 1984. Influences of Territory Composition and Interspecific Competition on RedTailed hawk Reproductive Performance. Ecology: 65(3). Pp. 862-870.

Jehle, Gretchen, J.A. Savidge and N.B. Kotliar, 2006. Green-tailed towhee response to prescribed fire in 

montane shrubland. The Condor, 108(3): 634-646.

Johnsgard, Paul A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Biology and Natural History. 

Smithsonian Institution Press. 403 p.

Johnson, Bruce K., Alan A. Agar, James H. Noyes, and Norman J. Cimon. 2004. Elk and Mule Deer 

Responses to Variation in Hunting Pressure. Pg. 127-138 In Wisdom , M.J. technical editor. 2005. The 

Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Alliance Communications Group, 

Lawrence, Kansas, USA. 

Johnson, B.K., J.W. Kern, M.J. Wisdom, S. L. Findholt, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Resource selection and 

spatial separation of elk and mule deer in spring. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:685-697.

Johnson-Groh, C.L., C. Reidel, C. Schoessler, and K. Skogan 2002. Below ground distribution and 

abundance of Botrychium gametophytes and juvenile sporophytes. American Fern Journal 92(2):80-92.

Jones, J.L. and Garton, E.O. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north-central Idaho. In: 

Aubry, Keith B. and Jeffrey C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 434 of 528

in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (2003) 

79-90.

Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A 

Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife 

Society. 307pp.

Keane, Robert E.; Hessburg, Paul F.; Landres, Peter B.; Swanson Fred J. 2009. The use of historical range 

and variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology and Management. 258: 1025-1037.

Kendall, W.L., B.G. Peterjohn and J.R. Sauer. 1996. First –time observer effects in the North American 

breeding bird survey. The Auk, 113:4 October in Wisdom, M.J., S. Richard, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V. 

Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, R.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, J.W. Murphy, M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats 

for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management 

implications. Vol 2-group level results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR_485. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, PNWR Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, T.M, tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). 

Knick, S.T. and J.T. Rotenberry. 1995. Ghosts of habitat past: contribution of Landscape change to 

current habitats used by shrubland birds. Ecological Society of America 8:220-227

Kremsater, L.L. and F.L. Bunnell. 1999. Edges: Theory, evidence and implications to management of 

West coast forests. In: Rochelle et al. 1999. Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and Management 

Implications.

Landres, Peter B.; Morgan, Penelope; Swanson, Fredrick J. 1999. Overview of the use of Natural 

Variability Concepts in Managing Ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1179-1188. 

Lanner, R.M. 1996. Made for each other: A symbiosis of birds and pines. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 

In: Marshall, David B., M.G. Hunter and A.L. Contreras. 2003. Birds Of Oregon: a general reference. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Larsen, D.M. 1976. Soil Resource Inventory: Deschutes National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region.

Lee, J. A. 1981. Habituation to Human Disturbance in Nesting Accepters. Raptor Res. 15: 48-52.

Li, H., and J.E. Reynolds. 1993. A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. 

Landscape Ecology. 8 155-162 In: Butler, Brett J., J.J. Swenson, and R.J. Alig. 2003. Forest 

Fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest: quantification and correlations. Forest Ecology and Management 

189 (2004) 363-373.

Little S.N., L.J. Shainsky. 1992. Distribution of biomass and nutrients in lodgepole pine/bitterbrush 

ecosystems in central Oregon. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Research Paper PNW-RP-454. 

Luoma, D. L., J.E. Eberhart, R. Abbott, A. Moore, M.P. Amaranthus, and D. Pilz. 2006. Effects of 

mushroom harvest technique on subsequent American matsutake production. Forest Ecology and 

Management 236:65-75. 

MacDonald, Lee H. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams 

in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Library of Congress Catalog Number 91-73312.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 435 of 528

Maffei, H.M., and Jacobi, W.R. 1986. The effect of dwarf mistletoe infection on growth 

and mortality rates of ponderosa pine growing in uneven aged-irregular stands in Colorado. Proceedings 

of the 34th Annual Western International Forest Disease Work Conference, Juneau, AK. September 9-12.

Magoun, A. J. and J. P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 62(4):1313-1320.

Marshall, D.B.; M. G. Hunter; A. L. Contreras. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 Pp.

Masters, R.D. 1980. Daytime resting sites of two Adirondack pine martens. Journal of Mammalogy 

61:157.

McCullough, D.G., R.A. Werner, and D. Neumann.1998. Fire and insects in northern and boreal forest 

ecosystems of North America. Annual Rev. Entomol. 43:107-127. In Marshall, D.B.; M. G. Hunter; A. L. 

Contreras. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

768 Pp.

McGurk, Bruce J. 1989. Predicting stream temperature after riparian vegetation removal. In: Abell, Dana 

L., tech coord. Proceedings of the California riparian systems conference: protection, management, and 

restoration for the 1990s. 1988 September 22-24. Davis, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. Berkeley, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 

157-158.

Mellen-McLean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, 

Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the 

decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests 

of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific 

Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Miller, Jeffrey C. and Paul C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and Moths of Pacific Northwest Forests and 

Woodlands: Rare, Endangered, and Management Sensitive Species. Forest Health Technology Team, 

Technology Transfer Species Identification. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2006-07.

Miller, J. M.; Keen, F. P., 1960. Biology and control of the western pine beetle. Misc. Publ. 800

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 381 p.

Miller, J.H., D.L. Sirois. 1986. Soil disturbance by skyline yarding vs. skidding in a loamy hill forest. 

Soil Science Society of America Journal 50:1579-1583. 

Miller, R.E., W. Scott, R.W. Hazard. 1996. Soil compaction and conifer growth after tractor yarding and 

three coastal Washington locations. Can. J. For. Res. 26:225-236. 

Molina, R., T. O’Dell, and D. Luoma. 1993. Biology, ecology, and the social aspects of wild edible 

mushrooms in the forests of the Pacific Northwest: a preface to managing the commercial harvest. Gen, 

Tech. Report PNW-GTR-309. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 

Montgomery David R. Collins B.D. Buffington J.M. and Abbe T.B. 2003. Geomorphic effects of wood 

in rivers. Pages 21-48. in S.V. Gregory, K.L. Boyer, and A.M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 436 of 528

management of wood in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda, Maryland

Moore, Kevin R. and C. J. Henry. 1983. Nest Site Characteristics of Three Coexisting Accipiter Hawks in 

Northeastern Oregon. Raptor Research 17(3):65-76

Mule Deer Working Group. 2004. North American Mule Deer Conservation Plan. Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

NatureServe. 2011. Nature Serve Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Arlington, 

Virginia, USA: Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer [Accessed November 2011]

NatureServe Explorer. An online encyclopedia of life. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer [Accessed 

March 2010]

NatureServe. 2009. Nature Serve Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Arlington, 

Virginia, USA: Available at http://www.naturserve.org/explorer. 

Neary, Daniel G.; Ryan, Kevin C.; DeBano, Leonard F., eds. 2005. (revised 2008). Wildland fire in 

ecosystems: effects on fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Nelson, M.D., D.H. Johnson, B.D. Linkhart and P.D. Miles, 2009.Flammulated owl (Otis flammeolus) 

breeding habitat abundance in ponderosa pine forests of the United States. Proceedings of the Fourth 

International Partners in Flight conference: Tundra to Tropics. 71-81 pp.

O’Doherty , E.C., L.F. Ruggiero and S.E. Henry. 1997. Home- range size and fidelity of American 

martens in the Rocky Mountains of southern Wyoming. In: Martes: Taxonomy, Ecology, Techniques, and 

Management (Ed. by G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant & P.M. Woodard), pp. 437–451. Provincial Museum of 

Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

Opler, Paul A., Harry Pavulaan, Ray E. Stanford, Michael Pogue, coordinators. 2006. Butterflies and 

Moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: Mountain Prairie Information Node.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. Plant Division, Noxious Weed Control. Noxious weed list for the 

State of Oregon. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/profile_spottedknapweed.shtml

[Accessed March 2010]

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Announcement of the discovery of three North American 

wolverines detected in the Eagle Cap Wilderness of northeastern Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Upper Deschutes River Management Plan.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2002a. Consolidated assessment and list in methodology 

for Oregon’s 2002 303(d) list of water quality limited water bodies and integrated 305(b) report. 

www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2002b. Final 2002 303(d) database. 

www.odeq.state.or.us/wq/wqldata/searchchoice02.htm
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 437 of 528

Oregon Department of Transportation. 2006. Web-site de-icing information. 

http://www.tripcheck.com/Pages/RCMap.asp?mainNav=RoadConditions&staticNav=WinRoadMain

[Accessed January 2011]

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. Rare plant field guides. 

http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/plants/view_plants2.php [Accessed March 2010].

Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 2004. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon. 105 pp.

Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1993. Susceptibility of volcanic ash-influenced soil in northern Idaho to mechanical 

compaction. Res.Note INT-409. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Res. Station., Ogden, UT. 5p

Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in the Pacific 

Northwest. Pp. 83-96 in Pagel, J.E. (ed). Proceedings; symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific 

Northwest. Rogue River National Forest.

Pearl, C.A. and M.P. Hayes. 2004. Habitat associations of the Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa): a 

literature review. Final Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. In: 

Cushman, Kathleen A. and Christopher A. Pearl. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon 

Spotted Frog (Rana Pretiosa). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Oregon and Washington.

Pelren, E.C. and J.A. Crawford. 1999. Blue grouse nesting parameter and habitat associations in 

northeastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist. 59(4). 368-373 pp. In Marshall, David B., M.G. Hunter and 

A.L. Contreras. 2003. Birds Of Oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

OR. 768 pp.

Pelren, E.C. 1996. Blue grouse winter ecology in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State 

Univ., Corvallis. In Wisdom, M.J., S. Richard, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, 

R.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, J.W. Murphy, M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of 

focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Vol 2-group level 

results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR_485. Portland, OR: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

PNWR Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, T.M, tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: 

scientific assessment).

Perkins, J. Mark; Levesque, Connie. 1987. Distribution, status and habitat affinities of Townsend’s bigeared bats (Plecotus townsendii) in Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

nongame wildlife program; technical report 85-5-01. 49 p.

Pilz, D. and R. Molina, eds. 1996. Managing forest ecosystems to conserve fungus diversity and sustain 

wild mushroom harvest. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-371. Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Pollock, Michael M., Heim M., Werner D. 2003. Hydrologic and Geomorphic Effects of Beaver Dams 

and Their Influence on Fishes. Pages 213-233 in S.V. Gregory, L.L. Boyer and A.M. Gurnell, editors. 

The ecology and management of wind in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, 

Bethesda Maryland.

Popper, Kenneth J. 2004. Yellow Rail Surveys in south central Oregon, 2003 and 2004. Unpublished 

report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Field Office and the Deschutes 

National Forest, Crescent, Oregon.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 438 of 528

Popper, Kenneth J. 2000. Abundance and distribution of yellow rails in the Deschutes and northern great 

basins of south central Oregon. Unpublished. Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State 

Office.

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, 

L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, editors. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United 

States. U.S. Forester Service General Technical Report. RM-254.

Powell, Roger A. 1993. The Fisher Life History, Ecology, and Behavior. University of Minnesota Press. 

Powell, R. A. 1982. The fisher: Natural history, ecology, and behavior. University of Minnesota Press, 

Minneapolis. 217pp. In Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky 

Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation Wildlife, Montana 

Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307pp.

Powell, R. A. 1979. Fishers, population models and trapping. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 7:149-154. In Joslin, G. 

and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for 

Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307pp.

Powers, Charmane. 2008. Draft pumice grape-fern (Botrychium pumicola) Conservation Strategy. 

Unpublished draft report for USDA Forest Service Region 6, Deschutes National Forest, Bend Ft. Rock 

Ranger District. 

Powers, R.F., T.M. Alves, T.H. Spear. 1999. Soil Compaction: Can it be mitigated? Reporting a work in 

progress. In: “Healthy Forests for the 21st Century. New Technologies in Integrated Vegetation 

Management. Proceedings, Twentieth Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, January 19-

21, 1999; Redding, CA. Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Redding, CA.

Powers R.F.,P.E. Avers 1995. Sustaining forest productivity through soil quality standards: A 

coordinated U.S. effort. P. 147-190. In C.B. Powter et al. (de.) Environmental soil science: 

Anthropogenic chemicals and sol quality criteria. Canadian Soc. Soil Sci., Brandon, Manitoba.

Radek. K.J. 2001. Monitoring soil erosion following wildfires in North Central Washington State

Raphael, Martin and Teresa Lorenz, 2011. Clark’s Nutcracker and whitebark pine: can the birds help the 

embattled high-country pine survive? Science Findings, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Issue 130, 

February.

Raphael M.G. and L.L.C. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of Resting and Denning Sites of American Marten 

in Central Oregon and Western Washington. Pp. 146-165 In: Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and 

management. G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, editors. 1997. Provincial Museum of Alberta, 

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Reid, Leslie M., T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources 

Research, Volume 20, No 11, Pages 1753-1761. November.

Reich, Michael, J.F. Kershner, and R.C. Wildman. 2003. Restoring streams with large wood: a 

synthesis. Pages 355-366 in S.V. Gregory, K.L. Boyer, and A.M. Gurnell, editors. The ecology and 

management of wood in world rivers. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 37, Bethesda Maryland.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 439 of 528

Reynolds, Richard T.; R. T. Graham; M. H. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern 

goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217, Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Range Experiment Station.

Reynolds, Richard T. 1983. Management of Western Coniferous Forest Habitat for Nesting Accipiter 

Hawks. GTR-RM-102. Fort Collins, CO.

Reynolds, Richard T.; E. C. Meslow; H. M. Wight. 1978. Nesting habitat of coexisting accipiter in 

Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 46(1):124-138.

Rice, R.M., J.S. Rothacher and W.F. Megahan. 1972. Erosional consequences of timber harvesting: an 

appraisal. National Symposium on Watersheds in Transition. Proceedings of a symposium on 

“Watersheds in Transition” held at Fort Collins, CO. June 19-22, 1972.

Robichaud, P.R., R.E. Brown. 1999. What happened after the smoke cleared: Onsite erosion rates after a 

wildfire in Eastern Oregon. Revised (November 2000) in Olsen, D.S., and J.P. Potyondy (Eds.). 

Proceedings AWRA Specialty Conference: Wildland Hydrology, Bozeman, Montana. 419-426

Rochelle James A., L.A. Lehmann, and J. Wisniewski. 1999. Editors. Forest Wildlife and 

Fragmentation: Management Implications.

Rogers J. A. Jr., and H. T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human 

disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9:89-99.

Romain-Bondi, K.A. 2009. Wildlife species and habitat assessment of proposed trails in Mount Spokane 

State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 64 pp.

Rosgen, Dave, H. Silvey. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Copyright 1996 by Wildland Hydrology 

1481 Stevens Lake Road, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Rosgen, Dave and L. Silvey. 1998. Field Guide for Stream Classification. Wildland Hydrology.

Rosterolla, Carina. 2009. Crescent Ranger District Wildlife Technician. Personal communication.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on Elk: 

Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. : In The Starkey Project: A Synthesis of long-term 

studies of elk and mule deer. Michael J. Wisdom, Technical Editor. Alliance Communications Group 

2005. 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of Roads on Elk: 

Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resource Conference 69: 491-508.

Rowland, M., M.J.Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and remodeling in relation 

to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:672-684.

Ruggiero, L.F.; K. B. Aubry; S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, W.J. Zielinski, tech eds. 1994. The Scientific 

Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western 

United States. General Tech. Report RM-254, Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 440 of 528

Saab, Victoria A.; Dudley, Jonathan G. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand replacement fire 

and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP11. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 17 p.

Sarr, Daniel et al. 2005. Riparian Zone Forest Management and Protection of Biodiversity: A Problem 

Analysis. Technical Bulletin No. 908. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, T.J. Fallon and G. Gough. 1999. The North American breeding bird survey: 

results and analysis. Version 98.1. Patuxent Wildlife Res. Center, Laurel, MD. In Altman, B. 2000. 

Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and 

Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 81 pp.

Sauer, J.R.; Peterjohn, B.J.; Schwartz, S.; Hines, J.E. 1996. The North American breeding bird survey 

home page; version 95.1. Laurel, MD; Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bss/bsold.html. In: Wisdom, Michael J.;Richard S.; Wales, Barbara C.; Hargis, Christina 

D.; Saab, Victoria.; Lee, Danny C.; Hann, Wendel J.; Rich, Terrell D.; Rowland, Mary M.; Murphy, 

Wally J.; Eames, Michele R. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior 

Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. Volume 2-Group level results. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project: scientific assessment).

Schmitt, Craig L. and Lia H. Spiegel. 2008. White paper on Johnson’s Hairstreak butterfly and dwarf 

mistletoe in the Blue Mountains. USDA. Forest Service, Blue Mountains Pest Management Service 

Center, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, La Grande, Oregon.

Schmitt, C.L. 1996. BMPMZ Management Guide, Management of Ponderosa Pine Infected with 

Western Dwarf Mistletoe in Northeastern Oregon. Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone. WallowaWhitman National Forest. BMZ-96-07.

Seybold, C.A., J.E. Herrick, and J.J. Brejda 1999. Soil resilience: a fundamental component of soil 

quality. Soil Sci. 164, (4) 224-234. 

Simon, T.L. 1980. An ecological study of the marten in the Tahoe National Forest, California. M.S. 

Thesis, University California, Berkley. 121pp. In Spencer, W.D.1987. Seasonal rest-site preference of 

pine marten in the northern Sierra Nevada. The Journal of Wildlife Management 51(3): 616-621.

Simpson, Mike, Dave Zalunardo, Andy Eglitis, Donald C. Wood, Debra Roy, and Susan Johnson, 1994. 

Viable Ecosystem Management Guide, Ochoco National Forest

Skagen, S. K., R. L. Knight, and G. H. Orians. 1991. Human disturbances of an avian scavenging guild. 

Ecol. Appl. 1:215-225.

Skagen, S. K. 1980. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity on the Skagit River, 

Washington. Pages 231-241 in R. L. Knight, G. T. Allen, M. V. Stalmaster, and C. W. Servheen, eds. 

Proc. of the Washington bald eagle symposium. The Nat. Conserv., Seattle, Wash.

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto and B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance 

of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological Applications 15:1535–1549. [Available at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/04-1353] 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 441 of 528

Snider, M.D., R.F. Miller. 1985. Effects of tractor logging on soils and vegetation in eastern Oregon. 

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:1280-1282. 

Snyder, G. G., H. F. Haupt, and G. H. Belt Jr. 1975. Clearcutting and burning slash alter quality of 

stream water in northern Idaho. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-168. Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 34p.

Spencer, W.D.1987. Seasonal rest-site preference of pine marten in the northern Sierra Nevada. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management 51(3): 616-621.

Squires, John R., J.P. Copeland, T.J. Ulizio, M.K. Schwartz, and L.F. Ruggiero. 2007. Sources and 

Patterns of Wolverine Mortality in Western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2213-2220.

Stednick, John A. [N.d.]. Effects of fuel management practices on water quality. 21 p. In: Elliot, W.J.; 

Audin, L.J., eds. 2007. Cumulative watershed effects of fuels management in the Western United States. 

Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe. (13 March 2009).

Stevenson F.J., 1994. Humus Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 496p.

St. Pierre, M. 2008. Travel Management Project: Biological Evaluations & Other Wildlife 

Considerations. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

Sussmann, P. 2004. Lower Jack contract modifications soil monitoring report. Sisters, OR: USDA Forest 

Service. Unpublished report, on file with Sisters Ranger District, P.O. box 249, Hwy 20 & Pine st., 

Sisters, OR 97759.

Temperton, V.M., Hobbs, R.J., Nuttle, T., Halle, S. (Eds.), 2004. Assembly Rules and

Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice. Island Press, Washington, DC, 

USA

Teti, Pat. 2004. Shade and Stream Temperature. Watershed Management Bulletin, Streamline. Volume 

7, No. 4, Winter 2003/04.

Thomas, J. W., M. G. Raphael, R. G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A. G. Gunderson, R. S. Holthausen, B. G. 

Marcot, G.H. Reeves, J. R. Sedell, and D. M. Slois. 1993. Viability Assessment and Management 

Considerations for Species Associated With Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. The Repost of the Scientific Analysis Team.

Tomback, D.F. 1998. Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga Columbiana), no. 331. In: Marshall, David B., M.G. 

Hunter and A.L. Contreras. 2003. Birds Of Oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Three Trails Off-Highway Vehicle Project and Forest Plan Amendments 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment For 

Federal Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s Administered by the Deschutes and 

Ochoco National Forests. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 442 of 528

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Press, Cari. Hydrology report for Fly Creek Stewardship Project. Sisters 

Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Meeting the Challenge: Invasive Plants in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-694. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS, Appendix B.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Upper Little Deschutes Watershed Analysis. Crescent Ranger District, 

Deschutes National Forest, Crescent, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Upper Little Deschutes Roads Analysis. Crescent Ranger District, 

Deschutes National Forest, Crescent, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 2001. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Amendments to the 

Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Final SEIS for the Northwest Forest 

Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Conservation Strategy for the Pumice Grape Fern Botrychium pumicola on

the Deschutes, Fremont, and Winema National Forests and Prineville District, Bureau of Land 

Management, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Environmental Assessment Gunnison National Forest: Travel Plan Interim 

Restrictions. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/final_gunn_dn.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan.

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 1998. Environmental Impact Statement for Invasive 

Plants.

USDA Forest Service, 1998. Whychus Watershed Analysis. Sisters Ranger District, Deschutes National 

Forest, Sisters, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Management of Ponderosa Pine Infected with Western Dwarf Mistletoe in 

Northeastern Oregon. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone, 

BMZ-96-07, April 1996, PP.25

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest.1995a. Forest Service Manual 2670.5

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 1995b. Forest Service Manual. 

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and 

Southeastern Washington. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Res. Note PNW-RN513. Portland, OR. 21 

p. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 443 of 528

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Related Species 

within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Volume II-Appendices. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service 1993. Unpublished report on goshawk nest stand structure and characteristics on 

the Deschutes National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, 1991. FSH 2509.18 Soil Management Handbook, chapter 2 Soil Quality 

Monitoring. WO Amendment 2509.18-91-1. Effective 9/3/91. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest service, Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Meyer Stream Survey of Rabbit Creek

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Deschutes National Forest (LRMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the LRMP

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Stream Survey of Swamp Creek.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Platz Stream Survey of Basin Creek

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Stream Survey of Hemlock Creek

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Stream Survey of Spruce Creek.

USDA Forest Service, 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest 

Region.

USDA, Forest Service. 1984. Watershed and Air Management, Section 2500. Forest Service Manual. 

Washington, D.C.

USDA (Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS). 2008. Plant website at 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile

USDI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.

USDI (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. Northern Spotted Owl Five-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon.

USDI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan – 2004. High Priority 

Shorebirds – 2004. Unpublished report. USFWS 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MBSP 4107, Arlington, VA, 

22203 USA. 5 pp.

USDI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. USFWS. Portland, 

OR. 160 p.

USDI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973. Endangered species act of 1973, as amended through the 

108th Congress. Dept of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 20240. 41 pp.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2005. Ospreys in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. USGS Forest and 

Rangeland. Ecosystem Science Center. USGS fact Sheet 153-02, Revised September 2005. 

http://fresc.usgs.gov/products/fs/fs-153-02.pdf
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 444 of 528

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2003. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Columbia Spotted 

Frog, Rana luteiventris and Oregon Spotted Frog, Rana pretiosa. Website: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/narcam/idguide/rpret/htm. 

Volland, Leonardo A. 1988. Plant Associations of the Central Oregon Pumice Zone, USDA Forest 

Service, Portland, Oregon

Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, wolverine, and fisher in the western United States: Research assessment and 

agenda. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station Contract No. 43-0353-2-0598. Missoula, 

Montana. In Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain 

wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the 

Wildlife Society. 307pp.

Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal Interagency 

Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds. Washington, D.C. 

Weir,R.D. 1995. Diet, spatial organization, and habitat relationships of fishers in southcentral British 

Columbia (MS thesis). Burnaby (BC): Simon Fraser University. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004. 

Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment for the Fisher, West Coast Distinct Population 

Segment (DPS).

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson, 2004. Effects of off- road 

recreation on mule deer and elk. Transactions of the 69th North America Wildlife and National Resources 

Conference, p. 531-550.

Wisdom, M.J., N.J. Cimon, B.K. Johnson, E.O Garton, and J.W. Thomas. 2004. Spatial Partitioning of 

Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Traffic. Pg 53-66 In Wisdom, M.J., technical editor, The Starkey 

Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions 

Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Wisdom, Michael J.; Richard S.; Wales, Barbara C.; Hargis, Christina D.; Saab, Victoria.; Lee, Danny C.; 

Hann, Wendel J.; Rich, Terrell D.; Rowland, Mary M.; Murphy, Wally J.; Eames, Michele R. 2000. 

Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends 

and Management Implications. Volume 2-Group level results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, 

Thomas M.,tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Wiemeyer et al. 1980. S.N. Wiemeyer, T.G. Lamont and L.N. Locke, Residues of environmental 

pollutants and necropsy data for Eastern United States ospreys, 1964–1973. Estuaries, 3 (1980), pp. 155–

167.

Zielinski, William J. 2008. USDA Forest Service Research Wildlife Biologist, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Berkeley, California. Announcement of an apparent North American wolverine 

discovery near Truckee, California. February 2008.

Zielinski, W.J., Slauson, K.M., Bowles, A.E. 2007. Effects of off-highway vehicle use on the American 

Marten. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(7): 1558-1571.

Znerold, M. 1989. A New Integrated Forest Resource Plan for the Deschutes National Forest. White 

paper 10 p.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Chapter 4- Literature Cited

Page 445 of 528

Zwickel, F.C. 1992. Blue Grouse, Dendrogaphus obscurus. In Marshall, David B., M.G. Hunter and A.L. 

Contreras. 2003. Birds Of Oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

768 pp.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 446 of 528

Glossary

Access Management- Management of the ingress and egress of people on National Forest System lands. 

Generally used to describe motorized use allowed.

Access Rights- A privilege or right of a person or entity to pass over or use another person’s or entity’s 

travel way. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 5460.5- Rights of Way Acquisition, FSM 7700- Transportation System).

Activity - A measure, course of action, or treatment that is undertaken to directly or indirectly produce, 

enhance or maintain forest outputs or achieve administrative or environmental quality objectives 

(Deschutes LRMP).

Adaptive Management- A type of natural resource management that implies making decisions as part of 

an on-going process. Monitoring the results of actions would provide flow of information that may 

indicate the need to change a curse of action. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also 

indicate the need to adapt resource management to the new information.

Administrative Use - Motorized use of a road, trail or area for limited administrative use by the Forest 

Service; use of any fire, military, emergency or law enforcement vehicle for emergency purposes. 

Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicles for national defense purposes; Law 

enforcement response to violations of the law, including pursuit; and, permitted use and occupancy of 

National Forest System lands (USDA- Forest Service. 2004. 36 CFR part 212, 251, 261, and 295).

Advanced Regeneration - Small trees, usually less than one inch in diameter, that are growing under 

mature trees prior to planned harvest activities.

Affected Environment - The natural environment that exists at the present time in an area being 

analyzed.

Air Shed- A geographical area that, because of topography, meteorology and climate, shares the same air.

Alternative- One of several policies, plans or projects proposed for the decision-making.

Aquatic Ecosystem-The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water, biotic communities and the habitat 

features that occur within.

Archaeological- A term used to describe any cultural resources deposited on or in soil strata from past 

human activities. However, these cultural deposits generally must be at least 50 years old to be 

considered archaeological.

Area- A discrete, specifically delineated space that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, than a 

Ranger District.

Arterial Road- A forest road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with other 

arterial roads or public highways. (FSH 7709.54 – Forest Transportation Terminology Handbook, no 

longer in print).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 447 of 528

Bald Eagle Management Areas (BEMAs)- Areas managed under the Deschutes National Forest land 

and Resource Management Plan for protection of the threatened northern bald eagle. BEMAs provide 

nesting and roosting habitat for the species.

Best Management Practices (BMP)- Practices designed to prevent or reduce water pollution. Also 

referred to as Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs).

Big Game- Those species of large mammals normally managed for sport hunting.

Biological Diversity- The number and abundance of species found within a common environment. This 

includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems and ecological processes that connect everything in a 

common environment.

Biota- The plant and animal life of a particular region.

Borrow Source- An area from which sand, gravel or stone is taken for use in another area.

Bridge- A road or trail structure, including supports, erected over a depression or obstruction such as 

water, a road, trail or railway and having a deck for carrying traffic or other loads.\

Canopy- the uppermost spreading branchy layer of a forest.

Canopy Base Height- The height above the ground of the first canopy layer where the density of the 

crown mass within the layer is high enough to support vertical movement of a fire. Low canopy base 

heights have been shown to initiate crown fire behavior.

Canopy Bulk Density- Canopy bulk density (CBD) describes the density of available canopy fuel in the 

stand. It is defined as the mass of available canopy fuel per canopy volume unit.

Capability- The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services and to allow 

resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management 

intensity. Capability depends on 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.

Chain- A standard measurement for rate of fire spread (approximately 66’)

Classified Road- Road wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System lands that are 

determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, county roads, 

privately owned roads, national Forest System roads and other roads authorized for motor vehicle use 

pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705 -

Transportation System). A road under Forest Service jurisdiction.

Clean Air Act - (42 U. S. C. 7609). Section 309 provides authority for the Environmental Protection 

Agency to review other agency environmental impact statements.

Closed Roads- Roads on the Forest Transportation system available for motorized administrative or 

emergency use, but not open to public motorized use. Also called long-term intermittent and is classified 

as a Maintenance Level I road.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 448 of 528

Collector Road- A forest road that serves smaller land areas than an arterial road. Usually connects 

forest arterial roads to local forest roads or terminal (FSH 7709.54- Forest Transportation Terminology 

Handbook, no longer in print).

Concentrated Use Area- An area identified by the Forest Service characterized by recurring frequent and 

relatively dense dispersed recreation and where some continuing site impacts have been recorded. 

Concern- (Also management concern). An issue, problem or condition which constrains the range of 

management practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process.

Condition Classes- A function of the degree of departure from historical fire regimes. Condition Class I 

is within or near historical conditions; Class III is significantly altered from historical regimes.

Connectivity (of habitats)- The linkage of similar but separated vegetation stands by patches, corridors 

or ‘stepping stone’ of like vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to which similar habitats are 

linked.

Corridor- Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside vegetation may create a 

corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows where wildlife feed.

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)- The Council issues regulations binding all federal agencies, 

to implement the procedural provisions of the national Environmental Quality Act (NEPA). The 

regulations address the administration of the NEPA process, including the preparation of Environmental 

Impact Statements (EIS) for major federal actions which significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment.

Cover- Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. Cover may be dead or live vegetation, boulders, or 

undercut streambanks. Animals use cover to escape from predators, rest or feed.

Critical Habitat- Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species.

Crop Trees- Trees which are considered suitable to meet long term management objectives for an 

analysis area. These may also be referred to as healthy or manageable trees. This may include both the 

physical make-up of the tree as well as the species.

Cross-country Travel- Travel over terrain not on designated roads and/or trails.

Cryic- Soils in this temperature regime have a mean annual temperature higher than 0°C but lower than 

8°C.

Cultural Resource- An umbrella term used to describe a variety of resources, including archaeological or 

historic remains, folklore and oral traditions and geographic areas traditionally ascribed to have historical 

significance to a given culture.

Cumulative Effects or Impacts- The impact on the environment that results from incremental impact of 

an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such other action. Cumulative effects or impacts can result from individual 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 449 of 528

Cycle-Applied to uneven-aged management, it is the time interval between harvest entries. It should be 

noted that harvest entries in uneven-aged management are to leave residual levels of growing stock which 

should not need treatment for at least one cycle length.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)- The draft version of the Environmental Impact 

Statement that is released to the public and other agencies for review and comment. 

Designated road, trail or area- A National Forest System road, a National Forest System trail, or an area 

on National Forest System lands that is designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to §212.51 on a motor 

vehicle use map.

Desirable species- Any species of plant or animal which is considered to be compatible with meeting 

management goals and objectives.

Detrimental Soil Disturbance- Compacted, displaced, eroded or burned soil conditions incurred by 

management, recreational or natural activities that are capable of reducing the productivity of the soil 

resource.

Developed Recreation- recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated use of the 

area. For example, skiing requires ski lifts, parking lots, buildings and roads. Campgrounds require 

roads, picnic tables and toilet facilities.

Dispersed Recreation- Recreation with few developed amenities such as structures, developed campsites 

or toilets. Dispersed recreation is generally less directly constrained by management controls on 

movement or by enforcement activities, but must comply with posted orders or restrictions for areas under 

management. Dispersed campers for instance, can choose to camp in places that are underdeveloped, so 

long as they meet the general posted rules for site protection. The term dispersed recreation usually 

implies lower visitor use densities. Dispersed recreation may be motorized or non-motorized. 

Disturbance- Events that such as a forest fire or insect infestation that alters stand structure composition 

or function of an ecosystem.

Diurnal – Active during the daytime, resting at night.

Early Seral- Plants which inhabit a disturbed site within the first few years subsequent to the disturbance.

Ecosystem- An arrangement of living and nonliving things and the forces that move among them. Living 

things include plants and animals. Non-living parts of ecosystems may be rocks and minerals. Weather 

and wildfire are two of the forces that act within ecosystems.

Effects- Environmental consequences as a result of a proposed 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, water and other natural 

systems including ecosystems.

Emergency Need- An urgent maintenance need that may result in injury, illness, or loss of life, natural 

resource or property; and must be satisfied immediately. Emergency needs generally require a 

declaration of emergency or disaster, or a finding by a line office that an emergency exists.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 450 of 528

Endangered Species-Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of the Interior and 

endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

Endangered Species Act- The Act which requires consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if 

practices on National Forest System lands may impact a threatened or endangered plant or animal species.

Engineering Analysis- An analysis and evaluation conducted by a qualified engineer or under the 

supervision of a qualified engineer of a NFS road, road segment or road being considered for mixed 

motorized use. The analysis and evaluation may include recommended mitigation measures. The 

analysis may simply be simply documentation of engineering judgment or maybe a more complex 

engineering report that includes many factors related to mixed motorized use.

Environmental Analysis- An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable long and short-term 

effects. Environmental analysis include physical, biological, social and economic factors.

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) of 1969 and released to the public and other agencies for comment and 

review. It is a formal document that must follow the requirements of NEPA, the Council for 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines and directives of the agency responsible for the project 

proposal.

Excess Trees- Trees which are considered not needed in the stand in order to meet management 

objectives.

Extended Attack- When a fire has not been contained by the initial attack resources dispatched to the 

fire, would not have been contained within the management objectives that are established for that zone 

or area, and have not been contained within the first operational period.

Extirpated- Local extinction.

Facilities- Transportation planning, road management and operation, fleet equipment and engineering 

services (for example: administrative buildings, water and sanitation systems, sanitary landfills, dams, 

bridges and communication systems).

Fauna- The animal life of an area.

Fire Management- All activities required for the protection of resources from fire and the use of fire to 

meet land management goals and objectives.

Fire Regime- A function of the historical frequency of fire and the degree of severity of those fires.

Flood Plain- A lowland adjoining a watercourse. At a minimum the area is subject to a 1% or greater 

chance of flooding in a given year.

Flora- The plant life of an area

Forage- All browse and non-woody plants that are eaten by wildlife or livestock.

Forb- A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody material in it.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 451 of 528

Forest Road or Trail- A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, and 

utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources.

Forest Supervisor- The official responsible for administering National Forest lands on an administrative 

unit, usually consisting of one or more Ranger Districts which comprise the National Forest. The Forest 

Supervisor reports to the Regional Forester.

Fuels- Vegetative matter, dead or alive, that burns in a fire. It is broadly categorized by the following 

categories:

Surface or ground fuels are within a foot of the ground.

Ladder fuels exist when you have a continuous vertical arrangement of fuel that easily allows fire 

to go from ground level into the tree canopy.

Crown fuels are the tree limbs and leaves that can burn with enough heat and/or wind.

Live fuels are the green (live) herbs and shrubs.

Fuel Models- Fuel models are a tool used to standardize discussion of fuel conditions on a landscape. 

Fuel conditions, defined by quantity and arrangement, have been categorized into 40 standard descriptive 

fuel models (Scott and Burgan 2005). 

Fuel Treatment- Manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or lessen 

potential damage and resistance to control (e.g. lopping, pruning, chipping, crushing, mastication, piling 

and burning). 

Game Species- Any species of wildlife or fish that is harvested according to prescribed limits and 

seasons.

Geographical Information Systems (GIS)- GIS is a computer technology that uses a geographic 

information system as an analytic framework for managing and integrating date, solving a problem or 

understanding a past, present or future situation. (http://www.gis.com/whatisgis/index.html, 2006)

Group Selection- A stand management method in which silviculturalists identified groups of trees which 

need to be removed from a stand of trees in order to meet management objectives.

Habitat- The area where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions.

Habitat Capacity- The ability of a land area or plant community to support a given species of wildlife.

Hiding Cover- The vegetation that would hide ninety percent of an elk from the view of a human at a 

distance of 200 feet or less. The distance which the animal is essentially hidden is called sight distance.

High Clearance Vehicle- Generally a truck, pickup truck, SUV or ATV with a road clearance that allows 

travel on low standard roads without vehicle damage. Usually greater clearance than a standard passenger 

vehicle.

Highway Legal Vehicle- Any motor vehicle that is licensed or certified under state law for general 

operation on all public roads in the state. Operators of highway-legal vehicles are subject to state traffic 

law including requirements for operating licensing.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 452 of 528

Historic Property- Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the National Register for 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 for Historic Places criteria.

Hydric Soils- Soils indicative of wetland area, usually characterized by high organic contents that decay 

slowly due to lack of oxygen. They frequently contain zones of marked discoloration of varying types 

due to altered or changing oxygenation conditions.

Hydrology- The science of dealing with the study of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and 

underlying rocks and in the atmosphere.

Hydrophytic (wetland) Vegetation- Plants that are adapted to wet conditions. Willows, sedges and 

rushes are common hydrophytic plants. 

Hyporheic- is a region beneath and lateral to the streambed, where there is mixing of shallow 

groundwater ad surface water. The flow dynamics and behavior in this zone (termed hyporheic flow) is 

recognized to be important for surface/groundwater interactions, as well as fish spawning, among other 

processes.

Hypoxic- reduced dissolved oxygen content of a body of water that is detrimental to aerobic organisms.

Individual Tree Selection- A stand management method in which the silviculturalist identified 

individual trees that need to be removed from a stand of trees. In these method specific types, sizes, or 

qualities of trees are identified for either removing from the stand or remaining in the stand.

Initial Attack- The fire suppression effort that takes place as soon as possible following a wildland fire 

report.

Interdisciplinary Team- A team of individuals with skills from different disciplines that focuses on the 

same task or project.

Intermittent Stream- A stream that goes dry at some point each year but flows continuously at least 30 

days a year when it received water, usually from a seasonal groundwater, but may also include some 

surface source more persistent than a rainstorm, such as melting snow.

Invasive Species- A plant species moving into areas outside of its former range.

Inventories Roadless Area- (West of the 100th meridian). An area which meets the statutory definition 

of wilderness, does not contain improved roads maintained for travel by standard passenger type vehicle 

and meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Contains 5,000 acres or more

2. Contains less than 5,000 acres but:

a. Due to physiography or vegetation, is manageable in a natural condition

b. Is a self-contained ecosystem such as an island

c. Is contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive area, Administration-endorsed wilderness 

or roadless area in other Federal ownership, regardless of size.

Irretrievable- Applies to losses of production, harvest or commitment of renewable natural resources. 

For example, some of the timber production from an area is irretrievably lost during the time an area is 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 453 of 528

used as a winter sports site. If the use I changed, the timber production can be resumed. The production 

lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible.

Irreversible- Applies primarily to the use of non-renewable resources, such as minerals or cultural 

resources or to those factors that are renewable only over long time spans, such as soil productivity. 

Irreversible also includes loss of future options.

Issue- A point, matter or question of public discussion or interest to be addressed or decided through the 

planning process. Preliminary issue is an issue identified early in the scoping phase and is sometimes 

referred to as a tentative issue. Significant issue is an issue within the scope of the proposed action which 

is used to formulate alternatives in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS).

Jackstraw-haphazardly arranged down logs of all sizes

Ladder Fuels - Fuels that provide vertical continuity between the ground fuels and tree crowns, thus 

creating a pathway for the surface fire to move into the overstory tree crowns.

Legal Notice- A notice of a decision which can be appealed that is published in the Federal Register or in 

the legal notice section of a newspaper or general circulation.

Lek- An area used habitually by grouse species where the males display for the females each spring. 

Number of males are counted on the lek each spring to estimate general population trends.

Maintenance Level- Defines the level of service provided by and maintenance required for a specific 

road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. (FSH 7709.58, Sec 12.3-

Transportation System Maintenance Handbook).

Maintenance Level 1- Assigned to intermittent service roads during times they are closed to vehicular 

traffic. The closure period must exceed one year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep 

damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and 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 maintenance strategies are 

‘prohibit’ and ‘eliminate’. Roads receiving Level 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 Level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but maybe 

open and suitable for non-motorized uses.

Maintenance Level 2- Assigned to roads open for se by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is 

not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of 

administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. 

Appropriate traffic management strategies are either: 1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or 2) accept 

or discourage high clearance vehicles.

Maintenance Level 3- Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by prudent driver in a standard 

passenger car. 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 either 

‘encourage’ or ‘accept’. ‘Discourage’ or ‘prohibit’ strategies maybe employed for certain class of 

vehicles or users.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 454 of 528

Maintenance 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 surface. However, 

some roads maybe single lane. Some roads maybe paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic 

management strategy is ‘encourage’. However, ‘prohibit’ strategy may be apply to specific classes of 

vehicles or users at certain times.

Maintenance Level 5- Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. 

Normally, roads are double lane, paved facilities. Some maybe aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The 

most appropriate traffic management strategy is ‘encourage’.

Matrix- The least fragmented, most continuous pattern element of a landscape; the vegetation type that is 

most continuous over a landscape.

Mechanical Thinning- Reducing the number of trees in a stand using a factor which is independent of 

tree quality. The use of spacing for thinning is one type of mechanical treatment. For example, the 

closest tree to the points of a 15’x 15’ grid would be left, regardless of tree quality. 

Mesic- Characterized by or adopted to a wet environment.

Mitigation Measures- Modifications of actions taken to:

1. Avoid impacts by not taking a certain action or parts of an action,

2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

3. Rectify impacts by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment;

4. Reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life 

of the action; or,

5. Compensate for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Mixed Use – Roads on which both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles are operating.

Monitoring- A process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated or assumed 

results of a management plan are being realized or if implementation is proceeding as planned. 

Motor vehicle - Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: (1) a vehicle operated on rails; and (2) 

any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is batter-powered, that is designed solely for use by 

a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.

Motor vehicle use map (MVUM)- A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System.

Motorized Mixed Use- Designation of a National Forest System (NFS) road for use by both highwaylegal and non-highway legal motor vehicles (FSM Engineering 7700-30).

Motorized Trail-A route over 50 inches in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and 

managed as a trail.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)- An Act passed in 1969 to declare a national policy that 

encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment, promotes efforts 

that prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere, stimulates the health and welfare of 

humanity, enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 

nation, establishes a Council on Environmental Quality.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 455 of 528

National Forest Management Act- A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring preparation of Forest Plans and the preparation of 

regulations to guide that development.

National Forest System- All National Forest land reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the 

U.S.; 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; and all other lands. Waters, interests therein that are administered by the Forest Service or 

are designated for administration though the Forest Service as part of the system (36 CFR 212.1).

National Forest System Road- A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally 

documented right-of-way held by State, county or other local public road authority.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (amended in 1992)- is the primary federal law governing 

the preservation of historical and archaeological sites in the Unites States. This Act (signed into law 

October 15, 1966) created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic 

Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices.

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE)- Part of the National Recreation Survey 

(NRS) program that was started in 1960

National Forest Visitor Use Monitoring (NUVM)- A permanent, ongoing sampling system which 

measures national forest visitor demographics, experiences, preferences and impressions. A stratified 

random sample is done for 25 percent of the national Forest system each year according to a national 

research protocol. NVUM responds to the need to better understand the use and importance, satisfaction 

with, national forest recreation opportunities.

National Register of Historic Places- A register of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects 

significant in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture. The register was established by 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.

Native Species- With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that other than as a result of 

introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem (Executive Order 13122, 2/3/99).

Non-Motorized Travel- Modes of travel include hiking, equestrian and mountain bikes and exclude all 

motorized use.

Noxious Weeds (Invasive species)- Non-native plants listed by the State that generally have either 

economic or ecosystem impacts, or are poisonous to wildlife and/or livestock. They aggressively invade 

disturbed areas such as fires, road slides, landslides and construction areas.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV) - A characteristic of rivers or sections of rivers in the 

national Wild and Scenic River System. In order for a river to be included in the system, it must possess 

at least one ‘outstandingly remarkable’ value, such as scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, 

historic, cultural or other similar features. ORV’s are values or opportunities in a river corridor which are 

directly related to the river and which are rare, unique or exemplary from a regional or national 

perspective.

Perennial - A plant species having a life span of more than two years.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 456 of 528

Percentile Weather- The weather conditions that can be expected of X% of days during the fire season. 

The standard percents are Low (0%-15%), Moderate (16%-89%), High (90%- 96%) and Extreme (97% 

+). So low percentile weather is the average suite of weather conditions that would occur less than 15% 

of the time.

Prescribed Fire - Fire which is planned and used as a tool to meet specific management objectives.

Problem Fire- Problem fires are wildfires that, because of extreme fire behavior, present a high risk to 

human safety and loss of forest resources

Project Design Criteria (PDC)- A set of required, implementation design criteria applied to projects to 

ensure that the project is done according to environmental standards ad adverse effects are within the 

scope of those predicted in this environmental impact statement. 

Proposed Species- Any plant or animal species that is proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service or 

NOAA Fisheries in the Federal Register notice to be listed as threatened or endangered.

Ranger District- An administrative subdivision of a national forest, supervised by a district ranger who 

reports to the forest supervisor.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)- A framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor 

recreation based on environments, activities and experience opportunities. The settings, activities and 

opportunities for obtaining experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into seven 

classes: primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Roaded 

Modified, Rural and Urban.

Recreational Rivers- A classification within the national Wild and Scenic River System. Recreational 

rivers are 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.

Reserved Rights- Rights tribes kept, or reserved during the treaty-making out of a greater number of 

rights they already owned.

Resolved Issue- Significant issues identified by the public that have been fully mitigated during the 

development of alternatives or project design criteria.

Restoration- Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery and management of ecological 

integrity. Ecological integrity includes a critical range of variability in biodiversity ecological processes 

and structures, regional and historical context and sustainable cultural practices.

Revegetation- The re-establishment of plants on a site. The term does not imply native or nonnative; 

does not imply that the site can ever support any other types of plants or species and is not at all 

concerned with how the site ‘functions’ as an ecosystem.

Rill – is a narrow and shallow incision into topsoil layers, resulting from erosion by overland flow or 

surface runoff that has been focused into a thin thread by soil surface roughness.

Right-of-Way- An accurately located strip of land with defined width, beginning of point and point of 

ending. It is the area within which the user has the authority to conduct operations approved or granted 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 457 of 528

by the landowner in an authorizing document, such as a permit, easement, lease, license or Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU).

Riparian Area- A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that 

directly affect it.

Riparian Reserves- Areas along live and intermittent streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes and unstable and 

potentially unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis. Riparian 

Reserves are important to the terrestrial ecosystem as well, serving as dispersal habitat for certain 

terrestrial species

.

Road - A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.

Road Maintenance- Maintaining or keeping an existing constructed road in an acceptable condition so as 

to continue to provide acceptable service and achieve its expected life (FSM 7712.3).

Road Maintenance Objective- defines the intended purpose of an individual road based on management 

area direction and access management objectives, Road management objectives contain design criteria, 

operations criteria and maintenance criteria (FSH 7709.55 Sec 33- Transportation Planning Handbook).

Rotation- A pre-determined time frame in which an even-aged forest stand would reach maturity and be 

harvested.

Salvage- Activity, usually removal or chipping, of material killed by a disturbance event such as insects, 

fire, wind etc. Where possible, this material is used as some form of forest product of commercial value, 

such as firewood, pulp, and/or chips.

Scenic- Of or relating to landscape scenery; pertaining to natural or natural-appearing scenery; 

constituting or affording pleasant views of natural landscape attributes or positive cultural elements.

Scenic Integrity- State of naturalness, or conversely, the state of disturbance created by human activities 

or alteration. Integrity is stated in degrees of deviation from existing landscape character in a National 

Forest.

Scenic Quality- the essential attributes of landscape that when viewed by people elicit psychological and 

physiological benefits to individuals and society as a whole.

Scenic River- A classification within the national Wild and Scenic River System. Scenic rivers are those 

rivers, or sections of rivers, that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely 

primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible by roads.

Seasonal Closures- A route or area closed part of the year. The season of closure is defined by the 

reason for the closure (e.g. winter range, snow etc.).

Sediment- Any material carried in suspension by water that would ultimately settle to the bottom.

Sediment has two main sources: from the channel area itself and from disturbed sites.

Sensitive Species- Species identified by the Regional Forester for which population variability is a 

concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trend in population numbers or 

density; or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 458 of 528

Seral Stages- Seral stages describe the phase of development of a plant community. Early seral species 

are those species you would expect to find on a site soon after a major disturbance, like fire. These are 

species such as pines, Douglas-fir, snowbrush, fireweed etc. They are generally shade intolerant species. 

Late seral are the species under a fully developed vegetative canopy, such as true firs, prince’s pine, 

lichens etc.

Shared use- Locally derived term for mixed use routes that are designated to be component routes of the 

trail system.

Silviculture- The theory and practice of directing forest establishment, composition and growth for the 

production of forest resources to meet specific management objectives. The word is derived from the 

Latin word sylva, which means ‘forest’ and from cultura, which means ‘to develop and care for.’ So, it is 

the development and caring for the forest.

Site- A specific location where management activity is considered, planned or operating.

Site Potential- The specific ability of a site to grow vegetation. It includes soil, topographic, and climatic 

conditions that determine resources available for growing vegetation.

Site preparation- The removing or rearranging of vegetation or woody debris to meet specific 

management objectives. Most often it is used to describe the process(es) used to expose mineral soil 

areas suitable for planting or seeding desirable species of plants.

Stand Dynamics-The changes in forest stand structure with time, including stand behavior during and 

after disturbances (Oliver 1996).

Stand Structure- The physical and temporal distribution of trees and other plants in a stand (Oliver 

1996).

State Historic Preservation Office- Established in 1967 to manage and administer programs for the 

protection of the state’s historic and cultural resources.

Subnivean- Living beneath snow.

Thinning- Any cutting or removal of vegetation (trees, brush etc.) resulting in a reduction of competition 

for water, light, and/or nutrients between individual plants. Thinning is commonly referred to as 

commercial thinning and small tree thinning.

Commercial thinning refers to removing material that has an established dollar value on the 

open market and can be sold with at least a minimal net value sufficient to pay for thinning 

activity.

Small tree thinning/Ladder fuel reduction may or may not have a dollar value and usually 

includes the need to pay someone to accomplish the work. This is sometimes called small-tree 

thinning because the trees are smaller than sizes that have a commercial value.

Thrifty Trees-Trees which have at least 40 percent live crown ratio and with little or no evidence of 

disease or insects are called thrifty. They should also show evidence of good growth with long leaders 

and a good color, usually dark green.

Travel Management Rule of 11/2/2005 (36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261 and 295)- Regulations that directs 

each national forest in the country to designate roads, trails and areas that would be open to motor vehicle 

use by vehicle class. The result of this process would be a standardized map which designates roads and 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 459 of 528

trails that are open to motorized use. After a map is produced all other areas are closed to motorized use. 

The map would be updated annually. (Referred to as the Final Travel Management Rule).

Trees per acre-The amount of trees of a specific diameter on an acre of land.

Tribe- term used to designate a federally-recognized group of American Indians and their governing 

body. Tribes may be comprised of one or more Band.

Tribal and Treaty Rights- Native American treaty or other rights or interests recognized by treaties, 

statutes, laws, executive orders, or other government action, or federal court decisions.

Treaty- A contract or compact between nations. It is an agreement that is binding upon nations that sign 

the treaty.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)- The federal agency that is the listing authority for species 

other than marine mammals and anadromous fish under the ESA. 

U.S. Forest Service (USDA FS or USFS)- The federal agency responsible for management of the 

nation’s National Forest lands.

Underburn- Using prescribed fire under the canopy of an existing stand of trees.

Undesirable Species- Any species of plant or animal which is NOT considered to be compatible with 

meeting management goals and objectives.

Ustic- A soil moisture regime in which moisture is limited but is present at a time when conditions are 

suitable for plant growth.

Viability- Ability of a wildlife or plant population to maintain sufficient size to persist over time in spite 

of normal fluctuations in numbers, usually expressed as a probability of maintaining a specific population 

for a specified period.

Viable Population- A wildlife or plant population that contains an adequate number of reproductive 

individuals appropriately distributed on a planning area to ensure long-term existence of the species.

Viewshed- Total visible area from a single observer position, or total visible area from multiple observer 

positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen-areas from highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, cities or 

other viewer locations. Examples are: corridor, feature, or basin viewsheds.

Visual Quality Objective- A desired level of excellence based on physical and sociological 

characteristics of an area. Refers to the degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape. 

Watershed- A land area that contributes all its water to one drainage system, basin, stream, or river. 

Watersheds can be described at multiple levels.

Wetland- An area that is regularly saturated by surface or ground water and subsequently is characterized 

by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples include: 

swamps, bogs, fens, marshes and estuaries. 

Wild and Scenic River System- The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 established a system of 

selected rivers in the United States, which possess outstanding remarkable values, to be preserved in a 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Glossary

Page 460 of 528

free-flowing condition. Within the national system of rivers, three classifications define the general 

character of designated rivers: Wild, Scenic and Recreational. Classifications reflect levels of 

development and natural conditions along a stretch of river. Classifications are used to help develop 

management goals for the river.

Wilderness- Areas designated by Congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness is 

defined as undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent 

improvements or human habitation. Wilderness areas 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 for a 

primitive and confined type of recreation; including at least 5,000 acres, or are of 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 ecological and geologic interest.

Wildland Fire- Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. There are three types of wildland fire: 

wildfire, wildland fire use and prescribed fire.

Wildfire- An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped 

wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland ire where the objective is 

to put the fire out.

Winter Range- A range, usually at lower elevation, used by migratory deer and elk during the winter 

months; usually better defined and smaller than summer range.

Woody Debris- Dead pieces of woody vegetation such as stems, limbs, or leaves which are on a site.

Xeric- A soil moisture regime in which soil is dry for 45 or more consecutive days in the 4 months 

following the summer solstice, and moist for 45 or more consecutive days in the 4 months following the 

winter solstice.
Rim-Paunina Project Index

Page 461 of 528

Index

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated, 77

Big Game, 29, 30, 68, 81, 87, 91, 95, 209, 214, 

215, 216, 219, 228, 318, 373, 374, 399, 418, 

423, 450, 471

Clean Air Act, 293, 366, 375, 450, 467

Climate Change, 110, 411, 412

Collaboration, 28

Cumulative Effects, 83, 97, 105, 115, 120, 124, 

138, 148, 159, 170, 181, 184, 186, 189, 190, 

191, 192, 199, 200, 202, 204, 206, 207, 222, 

226, 229, 245, 269, 293, 306, 313, 319, 328, 

334, 348, 358, 365, 376, 381, 389, 391, 393, 

396, 401, 405, 407, 409, 451

DecAID, 88, 89, 90, 101, 102, 116, 117, 141, 

145, 146, 162, 164, 165, 166, 176, 177, 178, 

438

Dwarf Mistletoe, vi, 29, 31, 47, 55, 77, 78, 81, 

91, 93, 121, 122, 129, 136, 144, 148, 158, 

167, 169, 183, 228, 248, 249, 250, 255, 262, 

263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 276, 289, 295, 308, 

362, 363, 413, 414, 415, 417, 434, 435, 438, 

443

Endangered Species Act, x, 96, 193, 320, 336, 

453, 467

Fire Regime Condition Class, x, 273, 274, 278

Forest Plan Amendments, 1, vii, 32, 413, 417, 

444

Forested Vegetation, 158, 246, 269

Fuels Conditions, 275

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH), 339

Invasive Plants, ix, 72, 228, 329, 330, 331, 333, 

334, 335

Key Issues, 29, 81

Management Indicator Species, iii, v, vi, x, 22, 

23, 24, 33, 40, 55, 87, 93, 97, 106, 110, 112, 

113, 115, 125, 182, 194, 195, 196, 211, 232, 

307, 418, 423, 474

Mitigation Measures, 25, 73, 195, 218, 225, 445, 

457

Old Growth Management Areas, 55, 67, 70, 225, 

229, 230, 231

Potential Wilderness Areas, 379, 383, 385, 387, 

388, 391, 393, 396, 503, 504, 507, 509, 510, 

530

Potential Wilderness Inventory, 379, 384, 385, 

387, 388, 389, 391, 393, 396, 503, 504, 507, 

508, 509, 514

Project Design Features, 25, 28, 64, 73, 75, 98, 

102, 115, 117, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 145, 

147, 156, 165, 166, 170, 177, 178, 179, 180, 

181, 182, 184, 188, 192, 195, 218, 220, 224, 

294, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 318, 319, 

328, 334, 335, 343, 346, 348, 350, 364, 366, 

374, 376, 400, 419, 475

Proposed Action, iii, v, vi, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 

40, 55, 81, 83, 84, 91, 92, 96, 106, 214, 289, 

293, 298, 401, 452, 453, 456, 467

Public Involvement, 27

Purpose and Need, 22, 23, 24, 77, 78, 80

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, ix, 340, 

341, 342, 346, 347, 348, 475, 478

Road Density, 212, 213, 343, 354, 356

Scenic Integrity Objectives, 362

Sensitive Soils, 299, 300

Temporary roads, 227, 295, 302, 356, 357

Threatened, Endangered, and Federal Candidate 

Wildlife Species, 96, 97
Rim-Paunina Project Index

Page 462 of 528

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) 

Plant Species, 320

Threatened, Endangered, And Sensitive Fish 

Species, 336
Rim-Paunina Project_ _ Appendix

Page 463 of 528

Appendices
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Other Disclosures

Page 464 of 528

Appendix A – Consistency with Current Laws and Management 

Direction

Effects on Laws, Regulations, Plans, Policies, and Procedures

The National Environmental Policy Act 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.” This section includes a brief summary of those 

laws, policies, and executive orders that are relevant to the proposed actions considered in this EIS.

The American Antiquities Act of 1906

This Act makes it illegal to appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or 

monument or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned by the Government of the United States, 

without permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the 

lands on which said antiquities are situated.

Multiple-Use Sustained –Yield Act of 1960

The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 requires the Forest Service to manage National Forest 

Systems lands for multiple use (including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and watershed). All 

renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. The 

harvesting and use of standing timber can be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. As a 

renewable resource, trees can be re-established and grown again if the productivity of the land is not 

impaired.

All lands proposed for active management in the Rim-Paunina analysis are classified “suitable.” Actions 

proposed comply with LRMP standards and guidelines SL-3 and SL-4, and Regional policy (FSM 2520, 

R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1) for maintaining soil productivity (Chapter 3, Soil Quality).

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

This Act requires Federal agencies to consult with American Indian Tribes, State and local groups before 

nonrenewable cultural resources, such as archaeological and historic structures, are damaged or are 

destroyed. Section 106 of this Act requires Federal agencies to review the effects proposed projects may 

have on the cultural resources of the analysis area.

Following guidelines in a 2003 Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA) among USDA-Forest Service, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO), a finding of “Historic Properties Avoided” was determined under Stipulation III(B)2 of the PA. 

The Forest finds that there are historic properties but the undertaking will have no effect on them as 

defined by 36 CFR 800.16(i).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended

The purposes of this Act are “To declare a national policy which would encourage productive and 

enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts which would prevent or 

eliminate damaged to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to 

enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nations; and to 

establish a Council on Environmental Quality” (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321). The law further states “it is the 

continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation, to use all practicable means and measures, 

including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general 

welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, 
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Other Disclosures

Page 465 of 528

and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of the present and future generations of 

Americans. This law essentially pertains to public participation, environmental analysis, and 

documentation.

The Rim-Paunina project followed the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and 

documentation. The entire process of preparing this environmental impact statement was undertaken to 

comply with NEPA. Cumulative effects were assessed and displayed where they occur in the manner 

most informative and logical to display. Also, the depth of analysis was tailored to the degree of effect. 

Therefore, a brief discussion is most useful to decision makers and the public to reduce paperwork and the 

accumulation of extraneous background data and to emphasize real environmental issues and alternatives 

(CEQ, 1500.2b). In many instances within this analysis, past and present activities, including timber 

sales, were included in the existing condition. Foreseeable actions were also addressed if there was a 

proposed action and if it is in the public domain.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

The regulations in this subpart set forth a process for developing, adopting, and revising land and resource 

management plans for the National Forest System as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended (hereafter, RPA). These regulations prescribe how land and 

resource management planning is to be conducted on National Forest System lands. The resulting plans 

shall provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the National Forest System 

in a way that maximizes long term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner

The Rim-Paunina Project followed the 1982 planning rule and specifically in the proposed amendments

of the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Rim-Paunina project 

activities are consistent with the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan and the associated 

amendments for Late Successional Reserves, Old Growth, and General Forest including the Eastside 

Screens, as displayed in Chapter 3 and Appendix A. The Rim-Paunina project is outside the Northwest 

Forest Plan zone of influence. 

Endangered Species Act

Effects to Threatened, Endangered species are evaluated in the Fisheries, Native Plants, and Wildlife

sections of Chapter 3 of this EIS. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that actions of federal

agencies do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally-listed species. A Biological

Evaluation has been completed for threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish, plant, and terrestrial 

species.

The purposes of this Act are to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species 

and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such 

endangered and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purpose of 

the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.” The Act also states “It is further 

declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve 

endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes 

of this Act.”

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would have “No Effect” the northern spotted owl and northern spotted owl 

critical habitat. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would have “No Impact” on the Oregon spotted frog and 

California wolverine. Alternatives B, C, D, and E would result in a determination of “May Impact 

Individuals or Habitat, But Would Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Toward Federal Listing or 

Loss of Viability to the Population or Species” for the Pacific fisher. 
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Other Disclosures

Page 466 of 528

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

The purposes of this Act are “to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to 

promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population; to initiate and 

accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air 

pollution; to provide technical and financial assistance to state and local governments in connection with 

the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs; and to encourage 

and assist the development and operation of regional air pollution prevention and control programs.” 

Clean Water Act

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of all waters to protect the beneficial uses as documented according to Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) criteria. A beneficial use is a resource or activity that would be directly

affected by a change in water quality or quantity and are defined on a basin scale in the Oregon

Administrative Rules for water quality. 

Action alternatives follow State of Oregon requirements in accordance with the Clean Water Act for 

protection of waters. Application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are selected and designed on 

site-specific conditions for waters potentially affected in the Rim-Paunina analysis area. The 

interdisciplinary team has reviewed and incorporated applicable BMP water quality objectives in the 

design of alternatives and their mitigation measures. Standards and Guidelines for the Inland Native Fish 

Strategy where developed (in part) to maintain and restore aquatic ecosystems for dependent species 

(Chapter 3, Fisheries and Aquatics). These standards and guidelines afford the same or greater protection 

of stream courses as direction found in the 1988 USDA publication “General Water Quality – Best 

Management Practices

Under Section 319 of the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments, states are required to determine those 

waters that would not meet the goals of the Clean Water Act, determine those non-point source activities 

that are contributing pollution, and develop a process on how to reduce such pollution to the “maximum 

extent practicable.” Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that a list be developed of all 

impaired or threatened waters within each state. The ODEQ is responsible for compiling the 303(d) list, 

assessing data, and submitting the 303(d) list to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for federal 

approval.

There are no perennial or fish-bearing streams or waterbodies within the Rim-Paunina Project area. There 

is no threatened, proposed, candidate, or sensitive aquatic species or their habitat within the Rim-Paunina 

planning area. There are no 303(d) listed water bodies in the Rim-Paunina planning area.

Executive Orders

11988 & 11990 of May 24, 1977

Protection of Floodplains and Wetlands

Executive Order 11988 requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and to take action to (1) 

minimize adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and reduce risks of 

flood loss, (2) minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and (3) restore and 

preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11990 requires the 

Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Other Disclosures

Page 467 of 528

All alternatives comply with the intent of Executive Order 11990 and USDA Departmental Regulation 

9500-3. See discussions related to this topic in Hydrology, Fisheries, and Soil resource sections in 

Chapter 3 for more information.

12898 of February 11, 1994

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations

Executive Order 12898 directs the agency to identify and address, “...as appropriate, disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations....” The intent of the order is to assure the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement and consideration of all people. Fair treatment means that no 

group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of 

the negative environmental consequences resulting from the execution of a federal actions. Outreach and 

public involvement for this project has been extensive and at various scales within various communities 

of interest (Chapter 1, Public Participation)

The subsets of the general population include ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, the elderly, and 

low-income groups. Environmental Justice is defined as the pursuit of equal justice and protection under 

the law for all environmental statutes and regulations, without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or 

socioeconomic status. The minority and low income population groups living in counties surrounding the 

project area work in diverse occupations. Some minorities, low income residents, and Native Americans 

may rely on forest products or related forest activities for their livelihood. This is especially true for those 

individuals that most likely reside in the rural communities adjacent to National Forest Lands, such as La 

Pine, Crescent, and Gilchrist, Oregon. 

The no action alternative would continue the local economic situation as described in the section titled 

Social-Economics. Opportunities for employment of minority and low income workers may arise 

through contract activities for various forest work such as thinning, hand piling, and various small 

business contracts related to work outside the project area, but there are no known disproportionately high 

effects to any ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and low-income groups. 

Under all action alternatives there would be no known adverse effects that would be disproportionately 

high to any ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and low-income groups as a result of 

implementation of any action alternative in the Rim-Paunina project. Within the social context presented, 

the action alternatives developed for this project have the potential to bring in workers from the outside to 

perform logging and post harvest activities such as small tree thinning and hand piling. While the outside 

workforce is more likely to be racially diverse than the local resident population, the residents have

worked effectively with and supported anticipated fluctuations in the workforce expected with the 

implementation of an action-based alternative. The primary services needed by the workers would be 

food and shelter. Local businesses that can supply food (grocery stores and restaurants) and other 

services would capture most of the money being spent by the workers in the area. Since these businesses 

have supported similar workforces in the past, capitol expansion would probably not be required. 

As a result of outreach and scoping (public involvement) processes, there were no potentially 

disproportionately high and adverse human-health, environmental, or social effects to minority or lowincome populations identified. Based on the social and economic analysis presented in Chapter 3, there is 

no known potential for disparate or disproportionate effects on minority or low-income populations. 

There would be no change to how people recreate within the project area (Recreation, Chapter 3).
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Other Disclosures

Page 468 of 528

Forest Order 12962 (Aquatic systems and recreational fisheries)

This 1995 order’s purpose is to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased 

recreational fishing opportunities nationwide. It requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects of

federally funded actions on aquatic systems and document those effects relative to the purpose of this 

order. There are no perennial or fish-bearing streams or waterbodies within the Rim-Paunina planning 

area. Reference Aquatic Resources, Chapter 3 for more detail.

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive species)

This 1999 order requires Federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of invasive species to 

identify those actions and within budgetary limits: “(i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) 

detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species... (iii) monitor invasive species 

populations... (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have 

been invaded;...(vi) promote public education on invasive species... and (3) not authorize, fund, or carry 

out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species... 

unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency had determined and made public... that 

the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all 

feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm would be taken in conjunction with the actions.”

There is a low to high risk for spreading or introducing noxious weeds for all action alternatives in this 

project. The risk is proportional to the area of ground disturbance and miles of roads used in each action 

alternative. Highest risk is for the Action Alternatives (B through E) with a low risk for Alternative A. 

Weeds are already present in the analysis area, along Highways 58 and 97. There is one known historic 

bull thistle site within activity unit 775 where infestation is no longer present, but the site is monitored 

annually. The Region 6 Invasive Plant Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Record of Decision 

(ROD) (USDA Forest Service, 2005) adopted Standards and Guidelines that would be followed (Chapter 

3, Invasive Plants).

13186 of January 10, 2001, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

The purpose of this Act is to establish an international framework for the protection and conservation of 

migratory birds. The Act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, 

deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, 

transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, including in this 

Convention...for the protection of migratory birds...or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC 

703). The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great 

Britain (for Canada). Later amendments implemented treaties between the United States and Mexico, 

Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia).

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds

Executive Order 13186, signed January 10, 2001, directs federal agencies to protect migratory birds by

integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or

minimizing, to the extent practical, adverse impacts on migratory birds’ resources when conducting 

agency actions. This order directs agencies to further comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other pertinent statutes. This analysis is compliant with the 

National Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds (USDA 2008g). 

The Rim-Paunina project area is not expected to result in any additive effects to the Golden Eagle because 

they are not known to nest in the project area and habitat is limited. There are no overlapping project in 

the Rim-Paunina analysis area, thus there would be no cumulative effects.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Other Disclosures

Page 469 of 528

For the Bald Eagle there are no known nests, roosts, nor any designated Bald Eagle Management Areas 

(BEMAs) within the Rim-Paunina project area. The closest BEMA is approximately 10 miles to 

northwest of the project area. The combination of actions proposed would result in a determination of 

“No Impact” to the bald eagle and consequently, there would also be no cumulative effects. 

For a more detailed analysis see Wildlife- TES and MIS sections in Chapter 3.

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation

This order directs federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on 

public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management to facilitate the expansion and 

enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat.

This DEIS and the associated specialist reports have considered the management of wildlife habitats 

trends in and effects on hunting opportunities, and economic and recreational values of hunting. 

Resource specialists have considered the programs and plans of other state and federal wildlife agencies, 

have worked collaboratively with them in their professional roles, and have coordinated with them in 

development of Rim-Paunina project. These other agencies have been kept abreast of these proposed 

actions. The Deschutes National Forest currently has in place various cooperative seasonal motorized use 

closures, including winter range motorized closure areas and the so-called “Green Dot” hunting season 

road closures. 

Executive Order 13443 (Hunting opportunities)

Executive Order 13443 was signed by President Bush on August 13, 2007 and is intended to enhance 

hunting opportunities on federal public lands. The stated purpose of the Executive Order is to “...direct 

federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measureable effect on public land 

management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the department of the Interior and 

the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and 

the management of game species and their habitats.” Hunting opportunities are disclosed in Chapter 3, 

Recreation and Wildlife- Big Game.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Management Direction DLRMP

Page 470 of 528

Management Direction 

Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

The 1990 Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, 

guides all natural resource management activities and provides standards and guidelines for the Deschutes 

National Forest. The Standards and Guidelines apply where the amendments (Northwest Forest Plan and 

revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem, and Wildlife 

Standards for Timber Sales) provide no particular guidance or where the Forest Plan provides more 

restrictive direction than that found in the amendment.

The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan; page 4-2) contains 

three Forest Management Goals that are particularly relevant to this project:

1. Maintain and enhance vigor of the forest ecosystem through the control of forest pests.

2. Provide old-growth tree stands for (1) preservation of natural genetic pools, (2) habitat for plants 

and wildlife species associated with over-mature tree stands, (3) contributions to the diversity 

spectrum, (4) aesthetic appeal.

3. Provide an optimum level of timber production consistent with various resource objectives, 

environmental constraints, and economic efficiency.

All alternatives considered in detail in this EIS are consistent with the Deschutes National Forest Plan. 

The following Forest Plan Management Areas are found in the project area: Old Growth Management, 

General Forest, and Scenic Views (see Figure 67).

.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Management Direction- DLRMP

Page 471 of 528

Figure 67. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Allocations within the RimPaunina Project Area

M8: General Forest (28,344 acres) – This Management Area emphasizes timber production while 

providing forage production, visual quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities for public use 

and enjoyment. While adhering to the Eastside Screens these are the areas of the Forest Plan where a 

broad spectrum of goods and services would be available to contribute to the local and regional economic 

well-being.

M9: Scenic Views (6,844 acres) – The goal of Scenic Views management areas is to provide high quality 

scenery that represents the natural character of Central Oregon. Landscapes seen from selected travel 

routes and use areas would be managed to maintain or enhance their appearance. To the casual observer, 

results of activities either would not be evident, or would be visually subordinate to the natural landscape. 

All activities planned in Alternatives B, C, D, and E are consistent with Goals, Objectives, and Standards 

and Guidelines in the Deschutes National Forest Plan because in Foreground areas, all activities are 

designed and located to blend into the natural landscape and are not visually apparent to the casual forest 

visitor (High Scenic Integrity). Also in Partial Retention, activities remain subordinate to the natural 

landscape (Medium Scenic Integrity). There is a Forest Plan Amendment to allow prescribed burning in
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix A- Management Direction DLRMP

Page 472 of 528

Scenic Views in an area larger than five acres. For more information, reference the Scenic Quality and 

Other Disclosures sections in Chapter 3.

M15: Old Growth (5,043 acres) – The goal of this Management Area (MA) is to provide naturally 

evolved old growth forest ecosystems for the following purposes: habitat for plant and animal species 

associated with old growth forest ecosystems; representations of landscape ecology; public enjoyment of

large, old-tree environments; and the needs of the public from an aesthetic spiritual sense. There are five

designated old growth areas within the project area. 

Management Indicator Species – This is not a specific management area; however, the Deschutes LRMP

identifies a group of wildlife species as management indicator species (MIS). These species were 

selected because their welfare could be used as an indicator of other species dependent upon similar 

habitat conditions. The species selected for the Deschutes National Forest include the Red-tail hawk, 

golden eagle, osprey, peregrine falcon, northern bald eagle, northern spotted owl, northern goshawk, 

Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, three-toed woodpecker, American marten, osprey, woodpeckers, 

great gray owl, great blue heron, waterfowl, wolverine, elk, mule deer, Townsend big-eared bat, species 

associated with logs and down woody debris, and species associated with various plant communities and 

successional stages. Reference the MIS section in Chapter 3 for a detailed analysis.

Inventories Roadless Areas – The analysis area does not contain any Inventoried Roadless Areas. The 

western boundary of activity abuts the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, which may be considered 

unroaded for large portions. The closest designated Inventoried Roadless Areas are the Mt. Thielsen IRA 

approximately four miles to the southwest of the project area on the Fremont-Winema National Forests 

and the Maiden Peak IRA on the Deschutes National Forest approximately 15 miles to the northwest of 

the Rim-Paunina project area.

Other Ownership (106 acres) – Consisting of private landowners in two areas in the Rim-Paunina project 

area. 

Wilderness – This is not a specific management area however, the Deschutes Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) identified in Appendix A all the Wildernesses in the Deschutes National 

Forest. The very western edge of activity is over a mile from the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness Area. There is 

no wilderness in the Rim-Paunina Project area.

.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix B- BMPs

Page 473 of 528

Appendix B

Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices for Protection of Soil and 

Water Quality

The following Deschutes National Forest Standards and Guidelines and Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) are applicable to the sites in the analysis area where management activities are proposed. These 

Standards and Guidelines and BMPs would protect soil productivity, maintain slope stability and all 

stream courses would be protected. All levels of instream large woody material would not change and 

would be protected. There are no harvest units proposed within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.

Deschutes National Forest Standards and Guidelines

SL-1 Soil Productivity "Land management activities shall be planned and conducted to maintain 

or enhance soil productivity and stability.”

SL-3 Leave a minimum of 80 percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable productivity 

potential for trees and other managed vegetation following land management activities. Including 

all system roads, landing, spur roads, and skid roads.

SL-4 Any sites where this direction cannot be met will require rehabilitation. Applicable Best 

Management Practices include T-9 and T-11.

SL-5 The use of mechanical equipment in sensitive soil areas will be regulated to protect the soil 

resource. Operations will be restricted to existing trails and roads when feasible.

SL-6, which provides ground cover objectives to minimize accelerated erosion rates on disturbed 

sites with unprotected soils. 

Guidelines (FSM 2500, R-6 supplement 2500-98-1) describe conditions detrimental to soil productivity 

and outlines Soil Quality Standards to limit the extent of these conditions to less than 20 percent of an 

activity area. Detrimental soil conditions are described in the Soil Quality Standards as follows:

Detrimental soil compaction in volcanic ash/pumice soils is an increase in soil bulk density of 20 

percent or greater over the undisturbed level.

Detrimental puddling occurs when the depth of ruts or imprints is six inches or greater.

Detrimental displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon from an area 

greater than 100 (10’ x 10’) square feet and at least 5 feet in width. 

Detrimental burn damage requires significant color change of the mineral soil surface in an area 

greater than 100 (10’ x 10’) square feet to an oxidized reddish color, with the next one-half inch 

below blackened from organic matter charring as a result of heat conducted from the fire. 

Detrimental erosion requires visual evidence of surface loss over an area greater than 100 (10’ x 

10’) square feet, rills or gullies, and/or water quality degradation from sediment or nutrient 

enrichment. 

Under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, the amount of disturbed soil associated with log landings and skid 

trails would be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve management objectives. Project Design 

Features, management requirements, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) built into the alternatives

are all designed to avoid or minimize potentially adverse impacts to the soil resource. Compliance with 

LRMP standard and guideline SL-5 (LRMP 4-70) is addressed by using advanced logging systems on 

slopes greater than 30 percent, restricting numbers of equipment passes, using existing harvest 

transportation systems, and seasonal restrictions on wet areas. Best Management Practices for Timber 

Management and Road Systems would be applied to protect the soil surface and control erosion on and 

adjacent to roads and logging facilities that would be used during project implementation. These 

conservation practices would be implemented during and following project activities to meet the stated 
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix B- BMPs

Page 474 of 528

objectives for protecting and maintaining soil productivity. The Ranger District and Forest has had 

success using these practices and is assured they can be implemented by contract provision.

Under Alternative B, detrimental soil conditions would remain on 1,196 acres, followed by 1,163 acres in 

Alternative C; 1,160 acres in Alternative D; and 1,329 acres in Alternative E. These estimates are very 

conservative. All actives would be consistent with Forest and Regional standards and guidelines for soil 

productivity with no units that exceed the 20 percent disturbance standards (Tables 71-74 Appendix C). 

It is expected that enough fallen trees and other organic materials would be available after harvest 

activities to meet recommended guidelines for coarse woody debris retention in the short-term. 

Therefore, the proposed actions comply with Regional and LRMP standards and guidelines for 

maintaining soil productivity within all proposed activity areas without restoration (subsoiling).

Best Management Practices Applied in the Rim-Paunina Analysis Area

Best Management Practices were utilized in designing the proposed activities in the Rim-Paunina analysis 

area, with the following requirements in place:

1. Select and design BMPs based on site-specific conditions, technical and economic feasibility, and 

water quality standards for those waters potentially impacted.

2. Implement and enforce BMPs.

3. Monitor BMPs to ensure correct application and effectiveness as designed in attaining water quality 

standards.

4. Mitigate to minimize impacts caused by activities when BMPs do not perform as expected.

5. Adjust BMPs when there is evidence that beneficial uses are not protected and water quality standards 

are not achieved. Evaluate the adequacy of water quality criteria for assuring protection of beneficial 

uses. Recommend adjustments to water quality standards as appropriate.”

Timber Harvest Best Management Practices:

T-2 Title: Timber Harvest Unit Design

Objective: To ensure that timber harvest unit design will create favorable conditions of water 

flow, water quality, and fish habitat. 

T-3 Title: Use of Erosion Potentials Assessment for Timber Harvest Design.

Objective: To prevent downstream water quality degradation by the timely identification of 

areas with high erosion potential and adjustment of harvest unit design.

T-4 Title: Use of Sale Area Maps for Designating Water Quality Protection Needs.

Objective: To delineate location of protection areas and available water sources as a guide for 

both the Purchaser and the Sale Administration.

T-5 Title: Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale Activities.

Objective: To ensure that the purchaser conducts operations in a timely manner, within the 

time period specified in the Timber Sale Contract.

T-6 Title: Protection of Unstable Lands

Objective: To provide for identification and appropriate management prescription for 

unstable lands.

T-7 Title: Streamside Management Unit Designation

Objective: To designate a riparian area or zone along streams and wetlands where 

prescriptions are made that will minimize potential effects from logging and related land 

disturbance activities on water quality and beneficial uses.

T-8 Title: Stream Course Protection

Objectives: (1) To protect the natural flow of streams, (2) to provide unobstructed passage of 

streamflow and (3) to prevent sediment and pollutants from entering streams. 

T-10 Title: Log Landing Location.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix B- BMPs

Page 475 of 528

Objective: To located landings in such a way as to minimize creation of hazardous watershed 

condition.

T-12 Title: Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvest.

Objectives: 1. To protect soils from excessive disturbance, and 2. Maintain the integrity of the 

Riparian Reserve Areas and other sensitive areas. 

T-13 Title: Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Timber Sale Operations.

Objective: To ensure the Purchaser's operations shall be conducted to minimize soil erosion.

T-14 Title: Revegetation of Areas Disturbed by Harvest Activities.

Objective: To establish a vegetation cover on disturbed sites and to prevent erosion and 

sedimentation. 

T-15 Title: Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control.

Objective: To reduce the impacts of erosion and subsequent sedimentation, on log landings, 

by use of mitigation measures.

T-18 Title: Erosion Control Structure Maintenance.

Objective: To ensure that the constructed erosion control structures are stabilized and 

working.

T-19 Title: Acceptance of Timber Sale Erosion Control measures Before Sale Closure.

Objective: To assure the adequacy of required erosion control work on timber sales.

T-22 Title: Modification of the Timber Sale Contract.

Objective: To modify the Timber Sale Contract if new circumstances or conditions arise and 

indicate that the timber sale will irreversibly damage soil, water or watershed values.

Road System Best Management Practices:

R-1 Title: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads.

Objective: To located and design roads with minimal resource damage. 

R-2 Title: Erosion Control Plan

Objective: To limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation through effective planning prior 

to initiation of road constructions activities and through effective contract administration 

during construction.

R-3 Title: Timing of Construction Activities.

Objection: To minimize erosion by conducting road construction operation during minimal 

runoff periods.

R-6 Title: Dispersion of Subsurface Drainage Associated with Roads.

Objective: To minimize the possibilities of roadbed and cut or fill slope failure and 

subsequent production of sediment:

R-9 Title: Timely Erosion Control Measures on in completed Roads and Stream Crossing.

Objective: To minimize erosion of and sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete 

projects.

R-13 Title: Diversion of Flow Around Construction Sites

Objective: (1) To ensure all stream diversion are carefully planned, (2) to minimize 

downstream sedimentation, (3) to restore stream channels to their natural grade, condition, 

and alignment as soon as possible. 

R-18 Title: Maintenance of Roads.

Objective: To maintain roads in a manner which provides for water quality protection by 

controlling the placement of waste material, keeping drainage facilities open, and by 

repairing ruts and failures to reduce sedimentation and erosion. 
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix B- BMPs

Page 476 of 528

Prescribe Fire Best Management Practices

F-2 Title: Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Prescribed Fire Prescriptions.

Objective: To provide for water quality protection while achieving the management 

objectives through the use of prescribed fire.

F-3 Title: Protection of Water Quality during Prescribed Fire Operations.

Objectives: To maintain soil productivity.

These Best Management Practices (BMPs) are the closest match for the roads and designated trails and 

would be used to design proposed activity area in the Rim-Paunina project area. 

Promote and apply approved best management practices, as described in General Water Quality Best 

Management Practices (USDA FS 1988), to all management activities as the method for control of nonpoint sources of water pollution, and for compliance with established state or national water quality goals 

(USDA FS 1984). The Deschutes Forest Plan states that BMPs will be selected and designed into project 

plans in accordance with the Clean Water Act for protection of waters of the State of Oregon (Forest Plan

4-69).

Specific BMPs commonly used to minimize the effects of road systems, fuels and timber management 

activities on the water resource are briefly described for this project proposal.

Water quality objectives are established prior to preparation of the burn plan to provide for water 

quality protection while achieving the management objectives through the use of prescribed fire 

(LRMP RP-35; Fuels Management BMP F-2 and F-3).

Water diversions on fire lines will be constructed to drain water into areas with sufficient 

ground cover to avoid sediment transport to stream channels.

A protective strip of undisturbed ground surface will be provided between prescribed 

burn areas and riparian transitional areas if sediment movement to stream channels is 

likely.

Road and trail maintenance shall be performed on a frequency necessary to maintain drainage 

efficiency at all runoff control and drainage structures, e.g., dips and culverts. Road management 

objectives shall include direction to minimize soil erosion. Dispersal of runoff can reduce peak 

downstream flows and keep water in its natural drainage area (LRMP RP-22 and RP-23; Road 

Systems BMP R-7 and R-18 thru R-20; Timber Management BMP T-7 and T-8).

Forest Service road 1170-400 crosses an unnamed intermittent stream and will require 

immediate maintenance to minimize the erosive effects of water, disperse runoff from or 

through this road, and too minimize the sediment generated from this road. A number of 

measures can be used, alone or in combination, to minimize possible detrimental effects 

of surface drainage. Dispersal of runoff from roads can be accomplished by rolling the 

grade, insloping with cross drains, outsloping, crowning, installation of water spreading 

ditches, contour trenching, etc. 

Opportunities to relocate, close, or obliterate existing roads in riparian areas shall be pursued 

(LRMP RP-24; Road Systems BMP R-23).

Forest Service roads 1170-900, 1100-980, 1129-874, 1129-875, and 1129-876 have been 

identified for decommissioning and/or closure. Any road being closed and/or 

decommissioned shall have sufficient drainage to provide for hydrologic function and 

reduce sedimentation.

There will be no scheduled timber harvest in the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). 

(LRMP RP-11; Timber Management BMP T-7, T-8, T-10, T-11, T-13, T-15, T-21).

Determination of RHCA size and/or width is in accordance with RHCA standards and 

guidelines (Table 2).
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix B- BMPs

Page 477 of 528

Use sale area maps for designating water quality protection needs (Timber Management BMP T4).

The following features shall be designated on the sale area map, which is an integral part 

of the timber sale contract:

a. Location of stream courses to be protected

b. Wetlands (meadows, lakes, bogs, etc.), if any, to be protected

c. Boundaries of harvest units

d. Specified roads

e. Roads where log hauling is prohibited or restricted

f. Structural improvements

g. Areas for different skidding, felling, and yarding methods

h. Sources of rock for road work, riprapping, etc.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 478 of 528

Appendix C - Soils

Appendix C displays existing and predicted amounts of detrimental soil conditions for each of the 

individual activity areas planned for mechanical vegetation, fuel reduction, and soil restoration treatments 

under all of the action alternatives.

Table 136. Alternative B: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest by Activity 

Areas

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities50

5 HTH 77 4.6 6% 7.7 10%

6 HIM 20 2.0 10% 2.7 14%

10 HTH 7 0.7 10% 1.0 14%

15 HIM 16 1.3 8% 1.9 12%

20 HIM 30 3.0 10% 4.2 14%

25 HTH 306 12.2 4% 24.5 8%

30 HIM 57 3.4 6% 5.7 10%

35 HIM 137 5.5 4% 11.0 8%

40 HIM 197 7.9 4% 15.8 8%

45 HIM 70 7.0 10% 9.9 14%

50 HIM 17 1.7 10% 2.4 14%

55 HIM 31 1.8 6% 3.1 10%

60 HIM 95 3.8 4% 7.6 8%

65 HIM 17 1.4 8% 2.0 12%

70 HTH 176 10.5 6% 17.6 10%

75 HTH 38 2.3 6% 3.8 10%

80 HIM 48 3.9 8% 5.8 12%

85 HTH 29 2.3 8% 3.5 12%

90 HIM 47 4.7 10% 6.6 14%

95 HTH 74 3.0 4% 6.0 8%

110 HIM 28 1.1 4% 2.3 8%

115 HTH 18 1.5 8% 2.2 12%

120 HTH 70 7.0 10% 9.7 14%

125 HIM 31 1.2 4% 2.4 8%

130 HIM 184 11.1 6% 18.4 10%

135 HIM 34 1.4 4% 2.7 8%

 

50 All Activities includes: biomass removal (firewood, post and poles etc.), prescribed burning, post sale fuel 

reduction activities and pile disposal.
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 479 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities50

140 HIM 55 2.2 4% 4.4 8%

145 HTH 18 0.7 4% 1.4 8%

150 HIM 53 5.3 10% 7.5 14%

155 HIM 13 0.8 6% 1.3 10%

160 HTH 9 0.4 4% 0.7 8%

165 HIM 15 0.9 6% 1.5 10%

166 HIM 7 0.4 6% 0.7 10%

167 HIM 4 0.3 6% 0.4 10%

170 HIM 26 1.6 6% 2.6 10%

171 HIM 22 0.9 4% 1.8 8%

180 HTH 113 9.0 8% 13.5 12%

185 HTH 24 1.5 6% 2.4 10%

190 HTH 22 1.3 6% 2.2 10%

195 HTH 82 6.5 8% 9.8 12%

200 HTH 10 0.4 4% 0.8 8%

205 HTH 50 2.0 4% 4.0 8%

215 HIM 15 0.6 4% 1.2 8%

220 HIM 23 0.9 4% 1.9 8%

225 HIM 65 5.2 8% 7.8 12%

235 HIM 52 4.1 8% 6.2 12%

240 HIM 250 10.0 4% 20.0 8%

245 HIM 24 2.4 10% 3.4 14%

250 HIM 23 0.9 4% 1.9 8%

255 HTH 52 3.1 6% 5.2 10%

260 HIM 65 2.6 4% 5.2 8%

265 HIM 49 2.0 4% 3.9 8%

270 HIM 55 5.5 10% 7.8 14%

275 HTH 98 9.8 10% 13.8 14%

285 HIM 29 1.2 4% 2.3 8%

286 HIM 12 0.5 4% 1.0 8%

290 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8%

295 HIM 80 3.2 4% 6.4 8%

300 HTH 72 2.9 4% 5.7 8%

305 HIM 31 2.5 8% 3.7 12%

310 HIM 113 9.1 8% 13.6 12%

330 HIM 70 5.6 8% 8.4 12%

335 HTH 62 2.5 4% 5.0 8%
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 480 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities50

345 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8%

350 HTH 79 4.8 6% 7.9 10%

355 HIM 123 4.9 4% 9.8 8%

370 HTH 51 2.0 4% 4.0 8%

385 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8%

390 HTH 300 24.0 8% 36.1 12%

395 HIM 36 2.9 8% 4.3 12%

400 HTH 26 1.0 4% 2.1 8%

405 HTH 43 1.7 4% 3.4 8%

410 HTH 143 5.7 4% 11.4 8%

415 HIM 64 6.4 10% 9.0 14%

425 HTH 33 3.3 10% 4.7 14%

430 HTH 101 4.0 4% 8.1 8%

435 HIM 32 1.3 4% 2.6 8%

445 HTH 190 15.2 8% 22.8 12%

460 HIM 13 1.0 8% 1.6 12%

465 HTH 9 0.5 6% 0.9 10%

470 HIM 29 1.2 4% 2.3 8%

475 HIM 167 6.7 4% 13.3 8%

480 HIM 85 8.5 10% 11.9 14%

490 HIM 266 26.6 10% 37.2 14%

495 HIM 47 1.9 4% 3.7 8%

510 HIM 66 2.7 4% 5.3 8%

605 HTH 26 2.1 8% 3.2 12%

610 HIM 48 3.8 8% 5.8 12%

620 HTH 65 2.6 4% 5.2 8%

621 Aspen 43 1.7 4% 3.5 8%

630 HTH 68 5.5 8% 8.2 12%

640 HIM 166 6.6 4% 13.3 8%

645 HIM 296 11.8 4% 23.7 8%

650 HTH 54 2.2 4% 4.3 8%

655 HTH 185 14.8 8% 22.2 12%

660 HIM 14 0.6 4% 1.1 8%

665 HTH 214 21.4 10% 30.0 14%

670 HIM 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

675 HIM 52 4.2 8% 6.3 12%

680 HTH 58 5.8 10% 8.2 14%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 481 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities50

685 HTH 121 7.2 6% 12.1 10%

690 HTH 120 4.8 4% 9.6 8%

700 HIM 67 2.7 4% 5.3 8%

710 HIM 105 4.2 4% 8.4 8%

720 HTH 17 1.0 6% 1.7 10%

725 HTH 32 1.3 4% 2.6 8%

730 HIM 73 7.3 10% 10.2 14%

735 HTH 67 2.7 4% 5.4 8%

740 HIM 339 27.1 8% 40.6 12%

745 HIM 168 13.5 8% 20.2 12%

750 HTH 95 3.8 4% 7.6 8%

755 HTH 106 4.3 4% 8.5 8%

765 HIM 370 14.8 4% 29.6 8%

770 HIM 165 6.6 4% 13.2 8%

775 HIM 235 23.5 10% 32.9 14%

780 HIM 100 4.0 4% 8.0 8%

785 HTH 199 8.0 4% 15.9 8%

795 HTH 22 0.9 4% 1.8 8%

796 HTH 40 1.6 4% 3.2 8%

800 HTH 69 4.2 6% 6.9 10%

805 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8%

810 HTH 149 6.0 4% 11.9 8%

815 HTH 92 3.7 4% 7.4 8%

820 HIM 164 6.5 4% 13.1 8%

825 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8%

830 HTH 60 2.4 4% 4.8 8%

835 HTH 18 0.7 4% 1.4 8%

850 HTH 27 2.2 8% 3.3 12%

855 HTH 33 2.7 8% 4.0 12%

860 HIM 9 0.4 4% 0.7 8%

865 HTH 51 2.0 4% 4.1 8%

870 HTH 145 14.5 10% 20.4 14%

875 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8%

876 HTH 40 1.6 4% 3.2 8%

880 HTH 84 3.4 4% 6.7 8%

885 HTH 30 1.2 4% 2.4 8%

890 HTH 21 1.2 6% 2.1 10%
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 482 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities50

895 HTH 92 9.2 10% 12.9 14%

940 HIM 150 15.0 10% 21.0 14%

945 HIM 106 4.2 4% 8.5 8%

965 HTH 33 1.3 4% 2.6 8%

975 HTH 41 1.6 4% 3.3 8%

980 HTH 37 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

1025 HTH 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

1030 HTH 97 3.9 4% 7.8 8%

1040 HIM 28 2.2 8% 3.4 12%

1045 HTH 105 4.2 4% 8.4 8%

1050 HIM 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

1051 HIM 7 0.7 10% 1.0 14%

1056 HIM 11 0.4 4% 0.9 8%

1060 HTH 66 2.6 4% 5.3 8%

1065 HTH 102 10.2 10% 14.2 14%

1070 HTH 43 1.7 4% 3.4 8%

1085 HTH 70 2.8 4% 5.6 8%

1090 HIM 20 0.8 4% 1.6 8%

1095 HTH 74 4.4 6% 7.4 10%

1096 HTH 24 1.0 4% 1.9 8%

2000 HTH 72 5.8 8% 8.6 12%

2005 HTH 83 3.3 4% 6.6 8%

2010 HTH 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 483 of 528

Table 137. Alternative C: Estimates of Detrimental Soils Conditions following Mechanical Harvest by 

Activity Areas 

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of Unit 

with Detrimental 

Soil Conditions 

after All 

Activities51

5 HTH 77 4.6 6% 7.7 10%

6 HIM 20 2.0 10% 2.8 14%

10 HTH 7 0.7 10% 1.0 14%

15 HIM 16 1.3 8% 1.9 12%

20 HIM 30 3.0 10% 4.2 14%

25 HTH 306 12.2 4% 24.5 8%

30 HIM 57 3.4 6% 5.7 10%

40 HIM 197 7.9 4% 15.8 8%

45 HIM 70 2.8 4% 5.6 8%

50 HIM 17 1.7 10% 2.4 14%

60 HIM 95 3.8 4% 7.6 8%

65 HIM 17 1.4 8% 2.0 12%

70 HTH 176 10.5 6% 17.6 10%

80 HIM 48 1.9 4% 3.9 8%

85 HTH 29 1.7 6% 2.9 10%

90 HIM 47 3.8 8% 5.7 12%

110 HIM 28 1.1 4% 2.3 8%

115 HTH 18 1.5 8% 2.2 12%

120 HTH 70 7.0 10% 9.7 14%

135 HIM 34 1.4 4% 2.7 8%

140 HIM 55 2.2 4% 4.4 8%

145 HTH 18 0.7 4% 1.4 8%

155 HIM 13 0.8 6% 1.3 10%

160 HTH 9 0.4 4% 0.7 8%

165 HIM 15 0.9 6% 1.5 10%

166 HIM 7 0.4 6% 0.7 10%

167 HIM 4 0.3 6% 0.4 10%

170 HIM 26 1.6 6% 2.6 10%

180 HTH 113 9.0 8% 13.5 12%

185 HTH 24 1.5 6% 2.4 10%

190 HTH 22 1.3 6% 2.2 10%

 

51 All Activities includes: biomass removal (firewood, post and poles etc.), prescribed burning, post sale fuel 

reduction activities and pile disposal.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 484 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of Unit 

with Detrimental 

Soil Conditions 

after All 

Activities51

195 HTH 82 4.9 6% 8.2 10%

200 HTH 10 0.4 4% 0.8 8%

205 HTH 50 2.0 4% 4.0 8%

225 HIM 65 5.2 8% 7.8 12%

235 HIM 52 4.1 8% 6.2 12%

240 HIM 250 10.0 4% 20.0 8%

250 HIM 23 0.9 4% 1.9 8%

255 HTH 52 3.1 6% 5.2 10%

260 HIM 65 2.6 4% 5.2 8%

265 HIM 49 2.0 4% 3.9 8%

275 HTH 98 9.8 10% 13.8 14%

285 HIM 29 1.2 4% 2.3 8%

286 HIM 12 0.5 4% 1.0 8%

290 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8%

295 HIM 80 3.2 4% 6.4 8%

300 HTH 72 2.9 4% 5.7 8%

345 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8%

350 HTH 79 4.8 6% 7.9 10%

355 HIM 123 4.9 4% 9.8 8%

370 HTH 51 4.0 8% 6.1 12%

385 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8%

390 HTH 300 24.0 8% 36.1 12%

400 HTH 26 1.0 4% 2.1 8%

405 HTH 43 1.7 4% 3.4 8%

410 HTH 143 5.7 4% 11.4 8%

425 HTH 33 3.3 10% 4.7 14%

430 HTH 101 4.0 4% 8.1 8%

445 HTH 190 15.2 8% 22.8 12%

465 HTH 9 0.5 6% 0.9 10%

470 HIM 29 1.2 4% 2.3 8%

490 HIM 266 26.6 10% 37.2 14%

495 HIM 47 1.9 4% 3.7 8%

510 HIM 66 2.7 4% 5.3 8%

605 HTH 26 2.1 8% 3.2 12%

610 HIM 48 3.8 8% 5.8 12%

615 Fuels Only 182 7.3 4% 14.5 8%

620 HTH 65 2.6 4% 5.2 8%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 485 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of Unit 

with Detrimental 

Soil Conditions 

after All 

Activities51

621 Aspen 43 1.7 4% 3.5 8%

625 Fuels Only 76 3.0 4% 6.0 8%

630 HTH 68 5.5 8% 8.2 12%

640 HIM 166 6.6 4% 13.3 8%

645 HIM 296 11.8 4% 23.7 8%

650 HTH 54 2.2 4% 4.3 8%

655 HTH 185 14.8 8% 22.2 12%

660 HIM 14 0.6 4% 1.1 8%

665 HTH 214 21.4 10% 30.0 14%

670 HIM 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

680 HTH 58 5.8 10% 8.2 14%

685 HTH 121 7.2 6% 12.1 10%

690 HTH 120 4.8 4% 9.6 8%

700 HIM 67 2.7 4% 5.3 8%

710 HIM 105 4.2 4% 8.4 8%

720 HTH 17 1.0 6% 1.7 10%

725 HTH 32 1.3 4% 2.6 8%

730 HIM 73 5.8 8% 8.7 12%

735 HTH 67 2.7 4% 5.4 8%

750 HTH 95 3.8 4% 7.6 8%

755 HTH 106 4.3 4% 8.5 8%

765 HIM 370 14.8 4% 29.6 8%

770 HIM 164 6.6 4% 13.2 8%

775 HIM 235 23.5 10% 32.9 14%

785 HTH 199 8.0 4% 15.9 8%

795 HTH 22 0.9 4% 1.8 8%

796 HTH 40 1.6 4% 3.2 8%

800 HTH 69 4.2 6% 6.9 10%

805 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8%

815 HTH 92 3.7 4% 7.4 8%

820 HIM 164 6.5 4% 13.1 8%

825 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8%

830 HTH 60 2.4 4% 4.8 8%

835 HTH 18 0.7 4% 1.4 8%

850 HTH 27 2.2 8% 3.3 12%

855 HTH 33 2.7 8% 4.0 12%

860 HIM 9 0.4 4% 0.7 8%
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 486 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of Unit 

with Detrimental 

Soil Conditions 

after All 

Activities51

865 HTH 51 2.0 4% 4.1 8%

870 HTH 145 14.5 10% 20.3 14%

875 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8%

876 HTH 40 1.6 4% 3.2 8%

880 HTH 84 3.4 4% 6.7 8%

885 HTH 30 1.2 4% 2.4 8%

890 HTH 21 1.2 6% 2.1 10%

895 HTH 92 9.2 10% 12.9 14%

905 Fuels Only 173 6.9 4% 6.9 4%

910 Fuels Only 47 1.9 4% 1.9 4%

925 Fuels Only 47 1.9 4% 1.9 4%

930 Fuels Only 199 7.9 4% 7.9 4%

935 Fuels Only 37 1.5 4% 1.5 4%

940 HIM 150 15.0 10% 21.0 14%

945 HIM 106 4.2 4% 8.5 8%

965 HTH 33 1.3 4% 2.6 8%

970 Fuels Only 49 2.0 4% 2.0 4%

980 HTH 37 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

1020 Fuels Only 86 3.4 4% 3.4 4%

1025 HTH 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

1030 HTH 97 3.9 4% 7.8 8%

1040 HIM 28 2.2 8% 3.4 12%

1045 HTH 105 4.2 4% 8.4 8%

1050 HIM 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

1051 HIM 7 0.7 10% 1.0 14%

1060 HTH 66 2.6 4% 5.3 8%

1065 HTH 102 10.2 10% 14.2 14%

1070 HTH 43 1.7 4% 3.4 8%

1080 Fuels Only 92 3.7 4% 3.7 4%

1085 HTH 70 2.8 4% 5.6 8%

1095 HTH 74 4.4 6% 7.4 10%

1096 HTH 24 1.0 4% 1.9 8%

2000 HTH 72 5.8 8% 8.6 12%

2005 HTH 83 3.3 4% 6.6 8%

2010 HTH 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8%

3000 Fuels Only 219 8.7 4% 8.7 4%

3005 Fuels Only 138 5.5 4% 5.5 4%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 487 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of Unit 

with Detrimental 

Soil Conditions 

after All 

Activities51

3010 Fuels Only 128 5.1 4% 5.1 4%

3015 Fuels Only 127 5.1 4% 5.1 4%

3020 Fuels Only 206 8.3 4% 8.3 4%

3025 Fuels Only 142 5.7 4% 5.7 4%

3030 Fuels Only 37 1.5 4% 1.5 4%

3035 Fuels Only 20 0.8 4% 0.8 4%

3040 Fuels Only 55 2.2 4% 2.2 4%

3045 Fuels Only 18 0.7 4% 0.7 4%

3050 Fuels Only 107 4.3 4% 4.3 4%

3055 Fuels Only 5 0.2 4% 0.2 4%

3060 Fuels Only 91 3.7 4% 3.7 4%

3065 Fuels Only 144 5.8 4% 5.8 4%

3070 Fuels Only 68 2.7 4% 2.7 4%

3075 Fuels Only 15 0.9 6% 0.9 6%

3080 Fuels Only 43 1.7 4% 1.7 4%

3085 Fuels Only 14 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

3090 Fuels Only 14 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

3095 Fuels Only 41 1.6 4% 1.6 4%

4000 Fuels Only 16 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

4005 Fuels Only 7 0.3 4% 0.3 4%

4010 Fuels Only 27 1.1 4% 1.1 4%

4015 Fuels Only 13 0.5 4% 0.5 4%

4020 Fuels Only 60 2.4 4% 2.4 4%

4025 Fuels Only 8 0.3 4% 0.3 4%

4030 Fuels Only 78 3.1 4% 3.1 4%

4035 Fuels Only 153 6.1 4% 6.1 4%

4040 Fuels Only 146 5.8 4% 5.8 4%

4045 Fuels Only 80 3.2 4% 3.2 4%

4050 Fuels Only 292 11.7 4% 11.7 4%

4055 Fuels Only 108 4.3 4% 4.3 4%

4060 Fuels Only 63 2.5 4% 2.5 4%

4065 Fuels Only 14 0.5 4% 0.5 4%

4070 Fuels Only 62 2.5 4% 2.5 4%

4075 Fuels Only 42 1.7 4% 1.7 4%

4080 Fuels Only 11 0.4 4% 0.4 4%

4085 Fuels Only 79 3.2 4% 3.2 4%

4090 Fuels Only 7 0.3 4% 0.3 4%
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 488 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of Unit 

with Detrimental 

Soil Conditions 

after All 

Activities51

4095 Fuels Only 393 15.7 4% 15.7 4%

5000 Fuels Only 58 2.3 4% 2.3 4%

5005 Fuels Only 56 2.2 4% 2.2 4%

5010 Fuels Only 9 0.4 4% 0.4 4%

5015 Fuels Only 39 1.6 4% 1.6 4%

5020 Fuels Only 18 0.7 4% 0.7 4%

5025 Fuels Only 19 0.8 4% 0.8 4%

5030 Fuels Only 22 0.9 4% 0.9 4%

5035 Fuels Only 408 16.3 4% 16.3 4%

5040 Fuels Only 46 1.8 4% 1.8 4%

5045 Fuels Only 35 1.4 4% 1.4 4%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 489 of 528

Table 138. Alternative D: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest by Activity 

Areas 

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities52

5 HTH 77 4.6 6% 7.7 10.0%

6 HIM 20 2.0 10% 2.8 14.0%

10 HTH 7 0.7 10% 1.0 14.0%

15 HIM 16 1.3 8% 1.9 12.0%

20 HIM 30 3.0 10% 4.2 14.0%

25 HTH 306 12.2 4% 24.5 8.0%

30 HIM 57 3.4 6% 5.7 10.0%

40 HIM 197 7.9 4% 15.8 8.0%

45 HIM 70 2.8 4% 5.6 8.0%

50 HIM 17 1.7 10% 2.4 14.0%

60 HIM 95 3.8 4% 7.6 8.0%

65 HIM 17 1.4 8% 2.0 12.0%

70 HTH 176 10.5 6% 17.6 10.0%

80 HIM 48 1.9 4% 3.9 8.0%

85 HTH 29 1.7 6% 2.9 10.0%

90 HIM 47 3.8 8% 5.7 12.0%

110 HIM 28 1.1 4% 2.3 8.0%

115 HTH 18 1.5 8% 2.2 12.0%

120 HTH 70 7.0 10% 9.7 14.0%

135 HIM 34 1.4 4% 2.7 8.0%

140 HIM 55 2.2 4% 4.4 8.0%

145 HTH 18 0.7 4% 1.4 8.0%

155 HIM 13 0.8 6% 1.3 10.0%

160 HTH 9 0.4 4% 0.7 8.0%

165 HIM 15 0.9 6% 1.5 10.0%

166 HIM 7 0.4 6% 0.7 10.0%

167 HIM 4 0.3 6% 0.4 10.0%

170 HIM 26 1.6 6% 2.6 10.0%

180 HTH 113 9.0 8% 13.5 12.0%

185 HTH 24 1.5 6% 2.4 10.0%

190 HTH 22 1.3 6% 2.2 10.0%

 

52 All Activities includes: biomass removal (firewood, post and poles etc.), prescribed burning, post sale fuel 

reduction activities, and pile disposal.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 490 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities52

195 HTH 82 4.9 6% 8.2 10.0%

200 HTH 10 0.4 4% 0.8 8.0%

205 HTH 50 2.0 4% 4.0 8.0%

225 HIM 65 5.2 8% 7.8 12.0%

235 HIM 52 4.1 8% 6.2 12.0%

240 HSG 250 10.0 4% 20.0 8.0%

250 HIM 23 0.9 4% 1.9 8.0%

255 HTH 52 3.1 6% 5.2 10.0%

260 HIM 65 2.6 4% 5.2 8.0%

265 HIM 49 2.0 4% 3.9 8.0%

275 HTH 98 9.8 10% 13.8 14.0%

285 HIM 29 1.2 4% 2.3 8.0%

286 HIM 12 0.5 4% 1.0 8.0%

290 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8.0%

295 HIM 80 3.2 4% 6.4 8.0%

300 HTH 72 2.9 4% 5.7 8.0%

345 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8.0%

350 HTH 79 4.8 6% 7.9 10.0%

355 HIM 123 4.9 4% 9.8 8.0%

370 HTH 51 4.0 8% 6.1 12.0%

385 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8.0%

390 HTH 300 24.0 8% 36.1 12.0%

400 HTH 26 1.0 4% 2.1 8.0%

405 HTH 43 1.7 4% 3.4 8.0%

410 HTH 143 5.7 4% 11.4 8.0%

425 HTH 33 3.3 10% 4.7 14.0%

430 HTH 101 4.0 4% 8.1 8.0%

445 HTH 190 15.2 8% 22.8 12.0%

465 HTH 9 0.5 6% 0.9 10.0%

470 HIM 29 1.2 4% 2.3 8.0%

490 HIM 266 26.6 10% 37.2 14.0%

495 HIM 47 1.9 4% 3.7 8.0%

510 HIM 66 2.7 4% 5.3 8.0%

605 HTH 26 2.1 8% 3.2 12.0%

610 HIM 48 3.8 8% 5.8 12.0%

615 Fuels Only 182 7.3 4% 14.5 8.0%

620 HSG 65 2.6 4% 5.2 8.0%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 491 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities52

621 Aspen 43 1.7 4% 3.5 8.0%

625 Fuels Only 76 3.0 4% 3.0 4.0%

630 HTH 68 5.5 8% 8.2 12.0%

640 HIM 166 6.6 4% 13.3 8.0%

645 HIM 296 11.8 4% 23.7 8.0%

650 HSG 54 2.2 4% 4.3 8.0%

655 HSG 185 14.8 8% 22.2 12.0%

660 HIM 14 0.6 4% 1.1 8.0%

665 HTH 214 21.4 10% 30.0 14.0%

670 HIM 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

680 HTH 58 5.8 10% 8.2 14.0%

685 HSG 121 7.2 6% 12.1 10.0%

690 HSG 120 4.8 4% 9.6 8.0%

700 HIM 67 2.7 4% 5.3 8.0%

710 HIM 105 4.2 4% 8.4 8.0%

720 HTH 17 1.0 6% 1.7 10.0%

725 HTH 32 1.3 4% 2.6 8.0%

730 HIM 73 5.8 8% 8.7 12.0%

735 HSG 67 2.7 4% 5.4 8.0%

750 HSG 95 3.8 4% 7.6 8.0%

755 HSG 106 4.3 4% 8.5 8.0%

765 HSG 370 14.8 4% 29.6 8.0%

770 HSG 164 6.6 4% 13.2 8.0%

775 HSG 235 23.5 10% 32.9 14.0%

785 HSG 199 8.0 4% 15.9 8.0%

795 HTH 22 0.9 4% 1.8 8.0%

796 HTH 40 1.6 4% 3.2 8.0%

800 HSG 69 4.2 6% 6.9 10.0%

805 HSG 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8.0%

815 HTH 92 3.7 4% 7.4 8.0%

820 HSG 164 6.5 4% 13.1 8.0%

825 HSG 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8.0%

830 HTH 60 2.4 4% 4.8 8.0%

835 HTH 18 0.7 4% 1.4 8.0%

850 HSG 27 2.2 8% 3.3 12.0%

855 HSG 33 2.7 8% 4.0 12.0%

860 HIM 9 0.4 4% 0.7 8.0%
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 492 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities52

865 HTH 51 2.0 4% 4.1 8.0%

870 HTH 145 14.5 10% 20.3 14.0%

875 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8.0%

876 HTH 40 1.6 4% 3.2 8.0%

880 HTH 84 3.4 4% 6.7 8.0%

885 HSG 30 1.2 4% 2.4 8.0%

890 HSG 21 1.2 6% 2.1 10.0%

895 HSG 92 9.2 10% 12.9 14.0%

905 Fuels Only 173 6.9 4% 6.9 4%

910 Fuels Only 47 1.9 4% 1.9 4%

925 Fuels Only 47 1.9 4% 1.9 4%

930 Fuels Only 199 7.9 4% 7.9 4%

935 Fuels Only 37 1.5 4% 1.5 4%

940 HIM 150 15.0 10% 21.0 14.0%

945 HIM 106 4.2 4% 8.5 8.0%

965 HTH 33 1.3 4% 2.6 8.0%

970 Fuels Only 49 2.0 4% 2.0 4.0%

980 HTH 37 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

1020 Fuels Only 86 3.4 4% 3.4 4.0%

1025 HTH 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

1030 HTH 97 3.9 4% 7.8 8.0%

1040 HIM 28 2.2 8% 3.4 12.0%

1045 HTH 105 4.2 4% 8.4 8.0%

1050 HIM 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

1051 HIM 7 0.7 10% 1.0 14.0%

1060 HTH 66 2.6 4% 5.3 8.0%

1065 HTH 102 10.2 10% 14.2 14.0%

1070 HTH 43 1.7 4% 3.4 8.0%

1080 Fuels Only 92 3.7 4% 3.7 4.0%

1085 HTH 70 2.8 4% 5.6 8.0%

1095 HTH 74 4.4 6% 7.4 10.0%

1096 HTH 24 1.0 4% 1.9 8.0%

2000 HTH 72 5.8 8% 8.6 12.0%

2005 HTH 83 3.3 4% 6.6 8.0%

2010 HTH 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

3000 Fuels Only 219 8.7 4% 8.7 4%

3005 Fuels Only 138 5.5 4% 5.5 4%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 493 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities52

3010 Fuels Only 128 5.1 4% 5.1 4%

3015 Fuels Only 127 5.1 4% 5.1 4%

3020 Fuels Only 206 8.3 4% 8.3 4%

3025 Fuels Only 142 5.7 4% 5.7 4%

3030 Fuels Only 37 1.5 4% 1.5 4%

3035 Fuels Only 20 0.8 4% 0.8 4%

3040 Fuels Only 55 2.2 4% 2.2 4%

3045 Fuels Only 18 0.7 4% 0.7 4%

3050 Fuels Only 107 4.3 4% 4.3 4%

3055 Fuels Only 5 0.2 4% 0.2 4%

3060 Fuels Only 91 3.7 4% 3.7 4%

3065 Fuels Only 144 5.8 4% 5.8 4%

3070 Fuels Only 68 2.7 4% 2.7 4%

3075 Fuels Only 15 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

3080 Fuels Only 43 1.7 4% 1.7 4%

3085 Fuels Only 14 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

3090 Fuels Only 14 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

3095 Fuels Only 41 1.6 4% 1.6 4%

4000 Fuels Only 16 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

4005 Fuels Only 7 0.3 4% 0.3 4%

4010 Fuels Only 27 1.1 4% 1.1 4%

4015 Fuels Only 13 0.5 4% 0.5 4%

4020 Fuels Only 60 2.4 4% 2.4 4%

4025 Fuels Only 8 0.3 4% 0.3 4%

4030 Fuels Only 78 3.1 4% 3.1 4%

4035 Fuels Only 153 6.1 4% 6.1 4%

4040 Fuels Only 146 5.8 4% 5.8 4%

4045 Fuels Only 80 3.2 4% 3.2 4%

4050 Fuels Only 292 11.7 4% 11.7 4%

4055 Fuels Only 108 4.3 4% 4.3 4%

4060 Fuels Only 63 2.5 4% 2.5 4%

4065 Fuels Only 14 0.5 4% 0.5 4%

4070 Fuels Only 62 2.5 4% 2.5 4%

4075 Fuels Only 42 1.7 4% 1.7 4%

4080 Fuels Only 11 0.4 4% 0.4 4%

4085 Fuels Only 79 3.2 4% 3.2 4%

4090 Fuels Only 7 0.3 4% 0.3 4%
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 494 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities52

4095 Fuels Only 393 15.7 4% 15.7 4%

5000 Fuels Only 58 2.3 4% 2.3 4%

5005 Fuels Only 56 2.2 4% 2.2 4%

5010 Fuels Only 9 0.4 4% 0.4 4%

5015 Fuels Only 39 1.6 4% 1.6 4%

5020 Fuels Only 18 0.7 4% 0.7 4%

5025 Fuels Only 19 0.8 4% 0.8 4%

5030 Fuels Only 22 0.9 4% 0.9 4%

5035 Fuels Only 408 16.3 4% 16.3 4%

5040 Fuels Only 46 1.8 4% 1.8 4%

5045 Fuels Only 35 1.4 4% 1.4 4%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 495 of 528

Table 139. Alternative E: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest by Activity 

Areas 

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities53

5 HTH 77 4.6 6% 7.7 10.0%

6 HIM 20 2.0 10% 2.7 14.0%

10 HTH 7 0.7 10% 1.0 14.0%

15 HIM 16 1.3 8% 1.9 12.0%

20 HIM 30 3.0 10% 4.2 14.0%

25 HTH 306 12.2 4% 24.5 8.0%

30 HIM 57 3.4 6% 5.7 10.0%

40 HIM 197 7.9 4% 15.8 8.0%

45 HIM 70 7.0 10% 9.9 14.0%

50 HIM 17 1.7 10% 2.4 14.0%

55 HIM 31 1.8 6% 3.1 10.0%

60 HIM 95 3.8 4% 7.6 8.0%

65 HIM 17 1.4 8% 2.0 12.0%

70 HTH 176 10.5 6% 17.6 10.0%

80 HIM 48 3.9 8% 5.8 12.0%

85 HTH 29 2.3 8% 3.5 12.0%

90 HIM 47 4.7 10% 6.6 14.0%

95 HTH 74 3.0 4% 6.0 8.0%

110 HIM 28 1.1 4% 2.3 8.0%

115 HTH 18 1.5 8% 2.2 12.0%

120 HTH 70 7.0 10% 9.7 14.0%

125 HIM 31 1.2 4% 2.4 8.0%

135 HIM 34 1.4 4% 2.7 8.0%

140 HIM 55 2.2 4% 4.4 8.0%

145 HTH 18 0.7 4% 1.4 8.0%

150 HIM 53 5.3 10% 7.5 14.0%

155 HIM 13 0.8 6% 1.3 10.0%

160 HTH 9 0.4 4% 0.7 8.0%

165 HIM 15 0.9 6% 1.5 10.0%

166 HIM 7 0.4 6% 0.7 10.0%

167 HIM 4 0.3 6% 0.4 10.0%

 

53 All Activities includes: biomass removal (firewood, post and poles etc.), prescribed burning, post sale fuel 

reduction activities, and pile disposal.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 496 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities53

170 HIM 26 1.6 6% 2.6 10.0%

171 HIM 22 0.9 4% 1.8 8.0%

180 HTH 113 9.0 8% 13.5 12.0%

185 HTH 24 1.5 6% 2.4 10.0%

190 HTH 22 1.3 6% 2.2 10.0%

195 HTH 82 6.5 8% 9.8 12.0%

200 HTH 10 0.4 4% 0.8 8.0%

205 HTH 50 2.0 4% 4.0 8.0%

215 HIM 15 0.6 4% 1.2 8.0%

220 HIM 23 0.9 4% 1.9 8.0%

225 HIM 65 5.2 8% 7.8 12.0%

235 HIM 52 4.1 8% 6.2 12.0%

240 AltMist 250 10.0 4% 20.0 8.0%

245 HIM 24 2.4 10% 3.4 14.0%

250 HIM 23 0.9 4% 1.9 8.0%

255 HTH 52 3.1 6% 5.2 10.0%

260 HIM 65 2.6 4% 5.2 8.0%

265 HIM 49 2.0 4% 3.9 8.0%

270 HIM 55 5.5 10% 7.8 14.0%

275 HTH 98 9.8 10% 13.8 14.0%

285 HIM 29 1.2 4% 2.3 8.0%

286 HIM 12 0.5 4% 1.0 8.0%

290 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8.0%

295 HIM 80 3.2 4% 6.4 8.0%

300 HTH 72 2.9 4% 5.7 8.0%

310 HIM 113 9.1 8% 13.6 12.0%

330 HIM 70 5.6 8% 8.4 12.0%

345 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8.0%

350 HTH 79 4.8 6% 7.9 10.0%

355 HIM 123 4.9 4% 9.8 8.0%

370 HTH 51 2.0 4% 4.0 8.0%

385 HTH 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8.0%

390 HTH 300 24.0 8% 36.1 12.0%

400 HTH 26 1.0 4% 2.1 8.0%

405 HTH 43 1.7 4% 3.4 8.0%

410 HTH 143 5.7 4% 11.4 8.0%

415 HIM 64 6.4 10% 9.0 14.0%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 497 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities53

425 HTH 33 3.3 10% 4.7 14.0%

430 HTH 101 4.0 4% 8.1 8.0%

445 HTH 190 15.2 8% 22.8 12.0%

460 HIM 13 1.0 8% 1.6 12.0%

465 HTH 9 0.5 6% 0.9 10.0%

470 HIM 29 1.2 4% 2.3 8.0%

480 HIM 85 8.5 10% 11.9 14.0%

490 HIM 266 26.6 10% 37.2 14.0%

495 HIM 47 1.9 4% 3.7 8.0%

510 HIM 66 2.7 4% 5.3 8.0%

605 HTH 26 2.1 8% 3.2 12.0%

610 HIM 48 3.8 8% 5.8 12.0%

615 Fuels Only 182 7.3 4% 7.3 4.0%

620 AltMist 65 2.6 4% 5.2 8.0%

621 Aspen 43 1.7 4% 3.5 8.0%

625 Fuels Only 76 6.0 8% 3.0 4.0%

630 HTH 68 5.5 8% 8.2 12.0%

640 HIM 166 6.6 4% 13.3 8.0%

645 HIM 296 11.8 4% 23.7 8.0%

650 AltMist 58 2.3 4% 4.6 8.0%

655 HTH 178 14.2 8% 21.4 12.0%

660 HIM 14 0.6 4% 1.1 8.0%

665 HTH 214 21.4 10% 30.0 14.0%

670 HIM 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

675 HIM 52 4.2 8% 6.3 12.0%

680 HTH 58 5.8 10% 8.2 14.0%

685 AltMist 121 7.2 6% 12.1 10.0%

690 AltMist 123 4.9 4% 9.9 8.0%

700 HIM 67 2.7 4% 5.3 8.0%

710 HIM 105 4.2 4% 8.4 8.0%

720 HTH 17 1.0 6% 1.7 10.0%

725 HTH 32 1.3 4% 2.6 8.0%

730 HIM 73 7.3 10% 10.2 14.0%

735 AltMist 67 2.7 4% 5.4 8.0%

740 HIM 339 27.1 8% 40.6 12.0%

745 HIM 168 13.5 8% 20.2 12.0%

750 AltMist 95 3.8 4% 7.6 8.0%
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 498 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities53

755 AltMist 106 4.3 4% 8.5 8.0%

765 HTH 408 16.3 4% 32.7 8.0%

770 AltMist 113 4.5 4% 9.1 8.0%

775 AltMist 235 23.5 10% 32.9 14.0%

785 AltMist 127 5.1 4% 10.1 8.0%

786 HTH 86 8.6 10% 12.0 14.0%

795 HTH 22 0.9 4% 1.8 8.0%

796 HTH 40 1.6 4% 3.2 8.0%

800 AltMist 69 4.2 6% 6.9 10.0%

805 AltMist 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8.0%

810 HTH 149 6.0 4% 11.9 8.0%

815 HTH 92 3.7 4% 7.4 8.0%

820 AltMist 164 6.5 4% 13.1 8.0%

825 AltMist 68 2.7 4% 5.4 8.0%

830 HTH 60 2.4 4% 4.8 8.0%

835 HTH 18 0.7 4% 1.4 8.0%

850 AltMist 27 2.2 8% 3.3 12.0%

855 AltMist 33 2.7 8% 4.0 12.0%

860 HIM 9 0.4 4% 0.7 8.0%

865 HTH 51 2.0 4% 4.1 8.0%

870 HTH 145 14.5 10% 20.4 14.0%

875 HTH 57 2.3 4% 4.6 8.0%

876 HTH 40 1.6 4% 3.2 8.0%

880 HTH 84 3.4 4% 6.7 8.0%

885 AltMist 30 1.2 4% 2.4 8.0%

890 AltMist 21 1.2 6% 2.1 10.0%

895 AltMist 92 9.2 10% 12.9 14.0%

905 Fuels Only 173 6.9 4% 6.9 4%

910 Fuels Only 47 1.9 4% 1.9 4%

925 Fuels Only 47 1.9 4% 1.9 4%

930 Fuels Only 199 7.9 4% 7.9 4%

935 Fuels Only 37 1.5 4% 1.5 4%

940 HIM 150 15.0 10% 21.0 14.0%

945 HIM 106 4.2 4% 8.5 8.0%

965 HTH 33 1.3 4% 2.6 8.0%

970 Fuels Only 49 2.0 4% 2.0 4.0%

975 HTH 41 1.6 4% 3.3 8.0%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix C- Soil

Page 499 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities53

980 HTH 37 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

1020 Fuels Only 86 3.4 4% 3.4 4.0%

1025 HTH 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

1030 HTH 97 3.9 4% 7.8 8.0%

1040 HIM 28 2.2 8% 3.4 12.0%

1045 HTH 105 4.2 4% 8.4 8.0%

1050 HIM 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

1051 HIM 7 0.7 10% 1.0 14.0%

1060 HTH 66 2.6 4% 5.3 8.0%

1065 HTH 102 10.2 10% 14.2 14.0%

1070 HTH 43 1.7 4% 3.4 8.0%

1080 Fuels Only 92 3.7 4% 3.7 4.0%

1085 HTH 70 2.8 4% 5.6 8.0%

1090 HIM 20 0.8 4% 1.6 8.0%

1095 HTH 74 4.4 6% 7.4 10.0%

1096 HTH 24 1.0 4% 1.9 8.0%

2000 HTH 72 5.8 8% 8.6 12.0%

2005 HTH 83 3.3 4% 6.6 8.0%

2010 HTH 38 1.5 4% 3.0 8.0%

3000 Fuels Only 219 8.7 4% 8.7 4%

3005 Fuels Only 138 5.5 4% 5.5 4%

3010 Fuels Only 127 5.1 4% 5.1 4%

3015 Fuels Only 127 5.1 4% 5.1 4%

3020 Fuels Only 206 8.3 4% 8.3 4%

3025 Fuels Only 142 5.7 4% 5.7 4%

3030 Fuels Only 37 1.5 4% 1.5 4%

3035 Fuels Only 20 0.8 4% 0.8 4%

3040 Fuels Only 55 2.2 4% 2.2 4%

3045 Fuels Only 18 0.7 4% 0.7 4%

3050 Fuels Only 107 4.3 4% 4.3 4%

3055 Fuels Only 5 0.2 4% 0.2 4%

3060 Fuels Only 91 3.7 4% 3.7 4%

3065 Fuels Only 144 5.8 4% 5.8 4%

3070 Fuels Only 68 2.7 4% 2.7 4%

3075 Fuels Only 15 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

3080 Fuels Only 43 1.7 4% 1.7 4%

3085 Fuels Only 14 0.6 4% 0.6 4%
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix C- Soil

Page 500 of 528

EIS Unit 

Number

Proposed 

Activity

Unit 

Acres

Existing 

Acres 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Existing 

Percentage 

Detrimental 

Soil 

Conditions

Estimated Acres 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

Harvest

Estimated 

Percentage of 

Unit with 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions after 

All Activities53

3090 Fuels Only 14 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

3095 Fuels Only 41 1.6 4% 1.6 4%

4000 Fuels Only 16 0.6 4% 0.6 4%

4005 Fuels Only 7 0.3 4% 0.3 4%

4010 Fuels Only 27 1.1 4% 1.1 4%

4015 Fuels Only 13 0.5 4% 0.5 4%

4020 Fuels Only 60 2.4 4% 2.4 4%

4025 Fuels Only 8 0.3 4% 0.3 4%

4030 Fuels Only 78 3.1 4% 3.1 4%

4035 Fuels Only 153 6.1 4% 6.1 4%

4040 Fuels Only 146 5.8 4% 5.8 4%

4045 Fuels Only 80 3.2 4% 3.2 4%

4050 Fuels Only 292 11.7 4% 11.7 4%

4055 Fuels Only 108 4.3 4% 4.3 4%

4060 Fuels Only 63 2.5 4% 2.5 4%

4065 Fuels Only 14 0.5 4% 0.5 4%

4070 Fuels Only 62 2.5 4% 2.5 4%

4075 Fuels Only 42 1.7 4% 1.7 4%

4080 Fuels Only 11 0.4 4% 0.4 4%

4085 Fuels Only 79 3.2 4% 3.2 4%

4090 Fuels Only 6 0.3 4% 0.3 4%

4095 Fuels Only 393 15.7 4% 15.7 4%

5000 Fuels Only 58 2.3 4% 2.3 4%

5005 Fuels Only 55 2.2 4% 2.2 4%

5010 Fuels Only 9 0.4 4% 0.4 4%

5015 Fuels Only 39 1.6 4% 1.6 4%

5020 Fuels Only 18 0.7 4% 0.7 4%

5025 Fuels Only 19 0.8 4% 0.8 4%

5030 Fuels Only 22 0.9 4% 0.9 4%

5035 Fuels Only 408 16.3 4% 16.3 4%

5040 Fuels Only 46 1.8 4% 1.8 4%

5045 Fuels Only 35 1.4 4% 1.4 4%
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 501 of 528

Appendix D –Potential Wilderness Inventory

Background

This document describes the process and rationale used to inventory for and identify potential wilderness 

areas within and near the Rim-Paunina project, Crescent Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest. The 

inventory is based on, and consistent with, criteria found at Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Ch.

71.

Each step of the inventory process is visually documented as a map (see map discussion below). These 

maps can be found at the end of this Appendix. The Forest Service used professional judgment and local 

knowledge regarding unique, site-specific conditions of each area being considered for placement in the 

inventory of potential wilderness areas.

Examples of typical situations that required applications of professional judgment included, but are not 

limited to:

1. Placement of Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) boundaries along permanent natural or

semi-permanent human-made features such as ridges, streams, topographic breaks, past 

harvest, or forest roads to facilitate easy on the ground identification;

2. Whether to proceed through an isthmus (or pinch point) created between two roads or two

harvest areas or place a PWA boundary across the isthmus; and

3. Whether to locate a PWA boundary around a peninsula or place the boundary through the

peninsula.

The scope of this potential wilderness inventory included all acres contained within the project planning 

area boundary and lands outside the boundary sufficient to consider contiguous inventoried roadless areas,

Oregon Cascades Recreation Area, adjacent wildernesses, adjacent federal lands, and acres immediately

adjacent (within two miles) to the boundary that do not contain forest roads and substantially recognizable 

stumps. Polygons that met this situation were examined as an entire unit (both portions that occur inside 

and outside of the planning area) against the potential wilderness area criteria found at FSH 1909.12 

Chapter 71.1.

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA) Areas of potential wilderness identified using inventory 

procedures found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Chapter 71 are called potential

wilderness areas. The inventory is conducted with the express purpose of identifying all lands

that meet the criteria for being evaluated for wilderness suitability.

Potential wilderness areas are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or impart any

particular level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation of potential

wilderness (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 72), and lastly they are not preliminary administrative 

recommendations for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 73). The inventory of potential

wilderness does not change the administrative boundary of any inventoried roadless areas (IRAs),

any congressionally established wilderness, or any forest plan management areas.

Typically, PWAs substantially overlap and/or are contiguous with inventoried roadless areas. PWAs

may also be contiguous with designated wilderness. Some newly inventoried PWAs may be stand 

alone areas that were not identified as ‘roadless areas’ in Appendix C of the 1990 Deschutes Forest 

Plan and ‘inventoried roadless areas’ as identified in a set of maps in the 2001 Roadless Area

Conservation Rule (RACR). PWAs overlap inventoried roadless areas only where those acres of 
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 502 of 528

land are consistent with the inventory criteria (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71) and may extend beyond 

IRA and wilderness boundaries consistent with inventory criteria.

Methodology

The inventory process was conducted through a sequence of Geographic Information System (GIS)

analyses and application of professional judgment. The judgment applied was situational and instance by

instance. In some cases field reconnaissance was utilized to verify and augment GIS corporate data for 

previously harvested areas and areas with evidence of old roads or skid trails. 

Each map (Appendix map D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, and D-5) documents the outcome of the application of

specific inventory criteria. Inventory criteria were applied in a different order than appears in FSH 

1909.12 Chapter 71 but all criteria were considered and accounted for as described below under the Map

D1 – D-5 headings. Table 141 was used to account for and display all polygons as described in Map D4. Map D-6 is a summary map that depicts all five maps on one map to aid the readers understanding of 

this inventory process.

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70

To comply with requirements established in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70, Wilderness Evaluation, the Forest 

Service is required to conduct an inventory to identify potential wilderness areas following the criteria 

found in Chapter 71.1. The inventory is conducted to assess whether project related actions have impacts 

on the ability of an undeveloped area to be considered in a future potential wilderness inventory. In an 

effort to streamline the inventory and analysis, a Geographic Information System (GIS) model was built 

considering corporate data in Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) and INFRA (short for 

infrastructure for an integrated data management system) to draw information regarding past tree cutting 

activities and to identify roads, major elements to be considered while conducting an inventory. The 

process is composed of GIS analysis with validation of the model utilizing satellite imagery, local 

knowledge, field reconnaissance, and or a combination of the above. The GIS model produces a 

preliminary layer of polygons without past tree cutting activities and outside of a road effect area. A road 

effect is defined as an area adjacent to the road where impacts from firewood cutting, danger tree 

removal, brushing and other road maintenance activities have most likely occurred considering 

topography, vegetative conditions, and soil characteristics. Further site specific analysis is needed, 

polygon by polygon, to make a final determination if the polygon meets the criteria established in Chapter 

71.1. The model also includes tables for data entry to capture the disposition of each polygon on whether 

it meets the criteria for inclusion in the potential wilderness inventory. It should be noted that wilderness 

evaluation is not to be conducted with this analysis, only the inventory.

Analytical Process Utilizing the PWA Inventory GIS tool

Geographic Information System (GIS) experts run the model with assistance from planners utilizing site 

specific project boundaries. Specific instructions for running the model, including metadata is attached to 

this document for use by GIS specialists. Each step of the analysis produced a corresponding map and 

these maps are described along with the corresponding step in the analysis process that helped create it.

Step 1 – Determines federal ownership within the analysis area 

This step removes all private and other non-federal ownership from the Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) 

analysis. The model ran data on the Rim-Paunina project boundary and added a two mile buffer to help 

identify all Federal lands and other federal land ownership adjacent to the PWA analysis area. The 

Fremont-Winema National Forest Lands were added to the inventory area within this buffer due to their 

proximity/adjacency to the Rim-Paunina area on the Crescent Ranger District. By including the buffer of 

adjacent federal lands it allows larger polygons outside the project boundary to be analyzed. In addition, 

if the project boundary is adjacent to Inventoried Roadless Areas or other predominately undeveloped 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 503 of 528

areas, the analysis area may need to be expanded to cover a two mile buffer around these areas to capture 

the entire polygon and potential adjacent undeveloped areas that could meet PWA criteria. 

Map D-1

Map D-1, which displays existing conditions of the Rim-Paunina project planning boundary, the two mile 

buffer, and forest roads. The planning area is approximately 40,000 acres.

Figure 68. Map D-1 Removal of Non-Federal Lands

Step 2 – Determines “Stump Producing Activities” 

Data stored in the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) data base for the Crescent Ranger 

District as well as any timber sale polygons from sales prior to the inception of FACTS to record timber 

sale data was utilized to remove polygons that had evidence of past harvest/stump producing activities 

(FACTS looks at codes that infer tree cutting activities have taken place in the past). FACTS and timber 

sale polygons from the Fremont-Winema National Forests were also taken into account and polygons 

from the Fremont-Winema that showed evidence of for removal of stump producing/past harvest 

activities or roads were removed from further examinations (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71 Section 11(9)).
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 504 of 528

Map D-2

Map D-2 displays the Rim-Paunina project planning boundary, forest roads and past harvest activities. 

The entire planning area was overlain with the district's GIS harvest layer which displays locations of

timber harvest over the past 60 years. Past timber harvest included activities from clear-cuts to thinning 

units. The past timber harvest layer also includes lands where local knowledge and field visits were

utilized to verify past timber harvest (notes and pictures from field verification can be found in the RimPaunina project record). In all cases, past timber harvest resulted in features such as stumps, skid trails

etc. which are evident; therefore, all acres (approximately 36,577 acres) depicted in this map do not meet

FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71 Section 11(9) inventory criteria and would be removed from the inventory in

Map D-3.

Figure 69. Map D-2 Removes Stump Producing Activity
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 505 of 528

Step 3 – Determines “Road effect area” 

Data stored in the INFRA (short for infrastructure for an integrated data management system) database 

was utilized to identify all system and non-system roads, including closed roads and decommissioned 

roads within and adjacent to the Rim-Paunina project area. On the Deschutes, it is estimated that because 

of previous danger tree removal, firewood cutting, and other roadside harvest activities, the area along the 

roads would not meet the criteria for inclusion in the wilderness inventory. Not all roadsides have been 

impacted with activities but local knowledge of firewood cutting activities, tree heights, and to facilitate 

easier analysis, it was estimated that within 300 feet each side of the road contained elements that would 

preclude inclusion in the potential wilderness inventory. These same criteria were applied to the 

Fremont-Winema National Forests roads layer that was utilized, especially in the two mile buffer, to help 

define areas along the roads that would not meet the criteria for inclusion in the wilderness inventory.

Map D-3

Map D-3 displays the Rim-Paunina project planning boundary; forest roads; acres with evidence of 

recognizable stumps, skid trails, and uneven canopy closure. The entire planning area was overlain with

the district's GIS forest roads layer. Forest roads have associated permitted uses and maintenance. Road

maintenance and many permitted uses have removed trees and created visible stumps in the corridor. 

These activities are expected to continue into the future.

During initial road construction trees were felled within a clearing limit to provide for safe and efficient 

construction and future operational safety of road users. Clearing distances away from the edge of a 

road varied by many factors including tree height, topographic slope, and other factors. Past clearing of 

trees along forest roads created stumps that are evident and recognizable.

Road maintenance occurs to varying degrees along each road according to an assigned maintenance 

level and available funding. Road maintenance includes the periodic clearing of brush and the falling of 

danger trees that present a hazard to forest visitors, employees, and contractors as defined by the Region 

6 Danger Tree Policy (2007). The distance of the hazard removal away from a road varies by tree 

height, topographic slope, and other factors. Past removal of danger trees along forest roads created 

stumps that are evident and recognizable.

We recognize stumps are not present along every mile of forest road; for example roads adjacent to a

meadow, talus, lava beds, or a lake. The judgment we applied in setting a PWA boundary balanced

inventory criteria regarding excluding past harvest and facilitating easy on-the-ground identification.

Based on local knowledge, and professional judgment regarding the evidence of recognizable stumps, 

skid trails, etc. which occur to varying degrees adjacent to forest roads (as described above) and to

facilitate easy on-the-ground identification of a uniform, measurable boundary along a semi-permanent,

human-made feature; the boundary was set as 300 feet each side of the forest road.

This boundary is fully consistent with and supported by the following inventory criteria.

o FSH 1909.12 at Chapter 71.1(3); potential wilderness areas do not contain forest roads

therefore all acres that are a forest road will be removed from the inventory in Map D-4.

o FSH 1909.12 at Chapter 71.1(9); acres with evidence of past logging and roads will be removed

from the inventory in Map D-4.

o FSH 1909.12, at Chapter 71; locate potential wilderness area boundaries at semi-permanent,

human-made features to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification of a boundary.

Therefore, highlighted acres along forest roads (approximately 25,932 acres) in Map D-3 would be

removed from the inventory in Map D-4.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 506 of 528

Figure 70. Map D-3 Removes Areas Adjacent to Roads with Evidence of Stumps

Step 4 – Determines the Preliminary Potential Wilderness Areas

The GIS model incorporates results from the previous steps and identifies polygons with no past tree 

cutting and outside the road effect area. Each polygon is numbered to be able to track the polygon 

through its entire disposition. This is the preliminary step to identification of the potential wilderness area 

within the analysis area. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviews the status of the polygons and 

validates the data depicted on the maps and tables generated by the GIS tool. It’s important to utilize 

local knowledge to determine if the GIS model has captured all data needed to finalize the inventory. A 

final determination is made for each polygon based on the inventory criteria in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71, 

to include the polygon in the potential wilderness inventory or not.

Many different things are considered when the Interdisciplinary Team looked at each polygon. They 

considered whether or not the area contained roads, showed evidence of past harvest activities, did all 

the land belong to the federal government or a was some owned by a private entity, did all the layers of 

data get brought into the model (FACTS, timber polygons used before FACTS came into being), were 

there any recently signed NEPA decisions that would include harvest activities in any of these areas, was 

aerial photography and satellite imagery brought in, was there any local knowledge of past harvest 

activities not already incorporated, was the adjacent National Forest layers brought in for roads, logging 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 507 of 528

activity etc. and was a review of the potential wilderness inventory categories (FSH 1909.12 chap 71.1) 

conducted to see if any apply? 

Polygon data was evaluated against satellite imagery and aerial photographs to additionally find areas 

inconsistent with GIS corporate data. Local knowledge of historical timber sales (over 20 years ago) 

and a land exchange with Crown Pacific in the late 1990’s resulted in the need for field verification as 

much of Crown Pacific’s land was heavily harvested in the past and an accurate on-the-ground 

accounting was necessary. 

Map D-4

Map D-4 displays the Rim-Paunina project planning boundary, forest roads, and acres that do not contain 

evidence of past harvest or forest roads. Approximately four hundred forty seven (447) individual

polygons were evaluated. Two individual polygons less than one acre in size were eliminated from

further study. The removal of these polygons resulted in four hundred forty five (445) individual 

polygons, ranging in size from one acre to approximately 2,545 acres, covering 30,020 acres.

Map 4 displays 445 polygons, each with its own unique, numeric identifier. Five polygons did meet the 

inventory criteria at (FSH) 1909.12 chapter 71.1 and will be discussed below. The remaining polygons

do not have substantially recognizable stumps, do not contain forest roads, and each polygon boundary is

greater than or equal to 300 feet from a forest road. Individual polygons are part of a larger ecosystem 

and none are separate, self-contained ecosystems, such as found on an island surrounded by water. None

of the four hundred forty polygons can be separately preserved due to a physical terrain or a natural

condition in part because of their small size and in part because they are each part of a larger, overall

continuous ecosystem condition distributed throughout and beyond the project area. Based on the 

discussion above, local knowledge, and professional judgment none of these individual polygons met 

inventory criteria at 71.1 2a, 2b, or 2c and therefore would not be brought forward as potential wilderness 

areas. 

None of the four hundred forty five polygons (445) are contiguous with inventoried roadless areas as the 

closest inventoried roadless area is four miles to the southwest (Mount Thielsen IRA on the FremontWinema National Forest, or 15 miles to the northwest Maiden Peak IRA (see Figure 56). 

Three polygons (147, 237, and 444) are contiguous with Mount Thielsen Wilderness Area. Polygon 147 

also shares part of a border with the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area. These polygon acres generally

met criteria 71.1 (2c) however, some contiguous acres were removed from the inventory based on 

professional judgment when locating a boundary at a prominent natural or semi-permanent human-made 

feature to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification. When this occurred, new polygons were made and 

added to the analysis of other remaining undeveloped lands (polygon 445). The Forest Service interpreted

‘prominent natural or semi-permanent human-made’ to include features such as, but not limited to,

topographic breaks, streams, ridges, vegetative breaks, and the existing administrative boundaries. These 

judgments are documented in Table 141 and associated maps/documents in the potential wilderness 

portion of the Rim-Paunina project file. The remaining contiguous acres are retained in the inventory and 

are displayed in Map D-5 and in Table 141.

The current model in GIS is set up to query FACTS from the Deschutes National Forest only. Although 

not displayed on Map D-2 (the remove stump producing activities map) the Chemult District FACTS 

layer and timber sale polygons were brought in as the south and east portions of the project area borders 

the Fremont-Winema National Forests and are displayed on Map D-4. Polygon 75 appears contiguous to 

the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness but is separated by and includes Forest Service road 5840 and spurs as well 

as evidence of harvest activities once the Chemult timber sale polygons were included.
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 508 of 528

Figure 71. Map D-4 Depicts Acres not Containing Evidence of Stumps or Roads

Step 5 – Final Potential Wilderness Area Inventory 

At this step, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviews the status of the polygons and validates the data 

depicted on the maps and tables generated by the GIS tool. It’s important to utilize local knowledge to 

determine if the GIS model has captured all data needed to finalize the inventory. A final determination 

is made for each polygon based on the inventory criteria, to include the polygon in the inventory or not.

Final Determination of Potential Wilderness Area Inventory - Utilize 1909.12 Chapter 71 to 

determine if polygons meet or fail to meet the criteria for consideration during the PWA 

inventory process (reference criteria 1,2a, 2b, 2c and 3 in Table 141). 

Map D-5

Map D-5 displays the Forest Service’s completed inventory of potential wilderness areas within and

adjacent to the Rim-Paunina project planning area. The five potential wilderness areas included in the 

inventory are Polygons 147, 219, 237, 405 and 444. Polygons 147, 237, and 444 containing 3,237 acres 

are all outside the project boundary and no activities are planned in them, but would be included in the 

inventory as they are contiguous to the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness. Polygons 219 and 405 (along Walker 

Rim) include approximately 2,781 acres with about 2,148 acres within the Rim-Paunina project boundary 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS _ Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 509 of 528

and 633 acres outside the project boundary on the Fremont-Winema National Forests. Aerial 

photographs from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) were utilized and overlaid with 

harvest unit polygons to look for evidence of stumps and roads. Boundaries and smaller polygons 

along the north and west edges of polygons 219 and 405 were field verified as there were several parcels 

of land obtained in a Crown Pacific land exchange in the late 1990’s in this vicinity along Walker Rim. 

This resulted in the removal of several polygons from being included in the inventory as there was 

evidence of past harvest activities (Table 141). Polygons 219 and 405 as amended would be included in 

the inventory as displayed in Map D-5. 

Figure 72. Map D-5 Potential Wilderness Inventory Acres
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 510 of 528

Table 140. Summary of Potential Wilderness Acres Removed by each Analysis Step 

Potential Wilderness Area Acreage Summary

Total acres inventoried 103,908

Map D-2 acres removed from inventory 36,577

Map D-3 acres removed from inventory 25,932

Map D-4 acres removed from inventory 31,020

Map D-5 acres of Potential Wilderness

Areas within the Rim-Paunina project 

planning area

6,018

Map D-6 - Potential Wilderness Inventory polygons

Map D-6 is a summary map that displays the results of all five maps. These maps are described along 

with the corresponding step in the analysis process that helped to create it. 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS_ _ Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 511 of 528

Figure 73. Map D-6 Overview of All Five Maps Depicting Analysis Steps One to Five to Reach Potential Wilderness Area Inventory in Rim-Paunina 

Project Area
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 512 of 528

Table 141. Rim-Paunina Potential Wilderness Inventory- Polygon by Polygon

Rim-Paunina Potential Wilderness Inventory

The following inventory for the Rim-Paunina Project planning area was created using the inventory criteria found in Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.12 chapter 71.1. Each polygon from D-6 (described above) was examined against the criteria from FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71. Areas 

must meet Criteria 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 to be included in the potential wilderness inventory. 

(1) Area is more than 5,000 acres in size

(2) Area contains less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following criteria:

2a. Area can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions

2b. Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as islands, that can be effectively managed as a separate unit of the national 

Wilderness Preservation System

2c. Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration-endorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in 

other Federal ownership, regardless of their size.

3. Areas do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized roads, except as permitted in areas east of the 

100th meridian (section 71.12)

The Forest Service relied on local knowledge and judgment regarding unique, site-specific conditions of each area being considered for 

placement on the inventory of potential wilderness. When delineating areas for potential wilderness inventory; boundaries were located using 

prominent natural or semi-permanent human-made features to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification.

Note 1: The following narrative is a comment that applies to all 445 polygons (except polygons 147, 219, 237, 405, and 444) in Table 141. ‘This 

individual polygon displayed on Map D-4 is part of a larger ecosystem and is not a separate, self-contained ecosystem, such as found on an island 

surrounded by water. This polygon cannot be separately preserved due to physical terrain or natural condition because of the small size and 

shape of this polygon in relation to the setting of its physical terrain. While there are no roads or past timber harvest evident in this polygon, 

this condition alone is not a sole indication of a natural condition. For example, policies over the past 50 years have excluded fire disturbance 

from much of the area surrounding this polygon creating a context of uncharacteristic or un-natural conditions. In addition, this individual 

polygon cannot be effectively managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.’
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 513 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

1 1 7 No No No No

2 2 7 No No No No

3 3 6 No No No No

4 4 28 No No No No

5 5 16 No No No No

6 6 41 No No No No

7 7 30 No No No No

8 8 14 No No No No

9 9 15 No No No No

10 10 36 No No No No

11 11 270 No No No No

12 12 53 No No No No

13 13 275 No No No No

14 14 124 No No No No

15 15 291 No No No No

16 16 159 No No No No

17 17 17 No No No No

18 18 9 No No No No

19 19 420 No No No No

20 20 99 No No No No

21 21 3 No No No No

22 22 7 No No No No

23 23 172 No No No No

24 24 4 No No No No

25 25 359 No No No No

26 26 23 No No No No

27 27 2 No No No No

28 28 15 No No No No

29 29 27 No No No No

30 30 15 No No No No

31 31 3 No No No No

32 32 12 No No No No

33 33 362 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 514 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

34 34 4 No No No No

35 35 34 No No No No

36 36 1 No No No No

37 37 15 No No No No

38 38 13 No No No No

39 39 120 No No No No

40 40 34 No No No No

41 41 103 No No No No

42 42 10 No No No No

43 43 37 No No No No

44 44 88 No No No No

45 45 1 No No No No

46 46 193 No No No No

47 47 22 No No No No

48 48 5 No No No No

49 49 6 No No No No

50 50 113 No No No No

51 51 6 No No No No

52 52 3 No No No No

53 53 83 No No No No

54 54 8 No No No No

55 55 12 No No No No

56 56 2 No No No No

57 57 8 No No No No

58 58 76 No No No No

59 59 73 No No No No

60 60 32 No No No No

61 61 35 No No No No

62 62 14 No No No No

63 63 5 No No No No

64 64 7 No No No No

65 65 63 No No No No

66 66 500 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 515 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

67 67 6 No No No No

68 68 175 No No No No

69 69 15 No No No No

70 70 75 No No No No

71 71 27 No No No No

72 72 5 No No No No

73 73 1 No No No No

74 74 5 No No No No

75 75 2,345 No No No No

Separated by 5840 road from Wilderness and 

evidence of stumps and roads when the FremontWinema Chemult District timber harvest polygons 

were brought in.

76 76 25 No No No No

77 77 1 No No No No

78 78 2 No No No No

79 79 2 No No No No

80 80 592 No No No No

81 81 49 No No No No

82 82 5 No No No No

83 83 35 No No No No

84 84 27 No No No No

85 85 5 No No No No

86 86 20 No No No No

87 87 6 No No No No

88 88 1,619 No No No No

89 89 37 No No No No

90 90 22 No No No No

91 91 11 No No No No

92 92 8 No No No No

93 93 1 No No No No

94 94 2 No No No No

95 95 21 No No No No

96 96 2 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 516 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

97 97 1 No No No No

98 98 10 No No No No

99 99 4 No No No No

100 100 26 No No No No

101 101 2 No No No No

102 102 3 No No No No

103 103 3 No No No No

104 104 61 No No No No

105 105 22 No No No No

106 106 24 No No No No

107 107 4 No No No No

108 108 46 No No No No

109 109 214 No No No No

110 110 7 No No No No

111 111 31 No No No No

112 112 9 No No No No

113 113 6 No No No No

114 114 22 No No No No

115 115 3 No No No No

116 116 8 No No No No

117 117 1 No No No No

118 118 3 No No No No

119 119 2 No No No No

120 120 1 No No No No

121 121 4 No No No No

122 122 2 No No No No

123 123 149 No No No No

124 124 1 No No No No

125 125 128 No No No No

126 126 37 No No No No

127 127 3 No No No No

128 128 12 No No No No

129 129 5 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 517 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

130 130 2 No No No No

131 131 27 No No No No

132 132 61 No No No No

133 133 12 No No No No

134 134 16 No No No No

135 135 2 No No No No

136 136 5 No No No No

137 137 39 No No No No

138 138 6 No No No No

139 139 1 No No No No

140 140 2 No No No No

141 141 6 No No No No

142 142 9 No No No No

143 143 3 No No No No

144 144 3 No No No No

145 145 25 No No No No

146 146 1,077 No No No No

147 147 328 No No No Yes Contiguous to Mt. Thielsen Wilderness. Added to 

inventory

148 148 4 No No No No

149 149 5 No No No No

150 150 36 No No No No

151 151 47 No No No No

152 152 437 No No No No

153 153 1 No No No No

154 154 4 No No No No

155 155 39 No No No No

156 156 2 No No No No

157 157 191 No No No No

158 158 11 No No No No

159 159 3 No No No No

160 160 2 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 518 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

161 161 17 No No No No

162 162 2 No No No No

163 163 2 No No No No

164 164 6 No No No No

165 165 5 No No No No

166 166 12 No No No No

167 167 3 No No No No

168 168 3 No No No No

169 169 15 No No No No

170 170 66 No No No No

171 171 10 No No No No

172 172 3 No No No No

173 173 1 No No No No

174 174 1 No No No No

175 175 2 No No No No

176 176 1 No No No No

177 177 8 No No No No

178 178 7 No No No No

179 179 3 No No No No

180 180 22 No No No No

181 181 808 No No No No

182 182 31 No No No No

183 183 12 No No No No

184 184 3 No No No No

185 185 1 No No No No

186 186 1 No No No No

187 187 2 No No No No

188 188 44 No No No No

189 189 1 No No No No

190 190 15 No No No No

191 191 12 No No No No

192 192 3 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 519 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

193 193 2 No No No No

194 194 4 No No No No

195 195 2 No No No No

196 196 7 No No No No

198 198 1 No No No No

199 199 8 No No No No

200 200 15 No No No No

201 201 67 No No No No

202 202 13 No No No No

203 203 1 No No No No

204 204 4 No No No No

205 205 4 No No No No

206 206 11 No No No No

207 207 73 No No No No

208 208 3 No No No No

209 209 4 No No No No

210 210 8 No No No No

211 211 6 No No No No

212 212 8 No No No No

213 213 65 No No No No

214 214 7 No No No No

215 215 9 No No No No

216 216 5 No No No No

217 217 3 No No No No

218 218 6 No No No No

219 219 1,145 No Yes No No Added to inventory

220 220 11 No No No No

221 221 22 No No No No

222 222 12 No No No No

223 223 2 No No No No

224 224 126 No No No No

225 225 3 No No No No

226 226 5 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 520 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

227 227 62 No No No No

228 228 17 No No No No

229 229 14 No No No No

230 230 7 No No No No

231 231 26 No No No No

232 232 64 No No No No

233 233 39 No No No No

234 234 2 No No No No

235 235 4 No No No No

236 236 6 No No No No

237 237 2,545 No No No Yes Contiguous to Mt. Thielsen Wilderness. Added to 

inventory

238 238 2 No No No No

239 239 4 No No No No

240 240 183 No No No No

241 241 6 No No No No

242 242 54 No No No No

243 243 14 No No No No

244 244 9 No No No No

245 245 10 No No No No

246 246 7 No No No No

247 247 7 No No No No

248 248 35 No No No No

249 249 2 No No No No

250 250 4 No No No No

251 251 1 No No No No

252 252 36 No No No No

253 253 12 No No No No

254 254 1 No No No No

255 255 4 No No No No

256 256 4 No No No No

257 257 8 No No No No

258 258 118 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 521 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

259 259 9 No No No No

260 260 9 No No No No

261 261 34 No No No No

262 262 3 No No No No

264 264 19 No No No No

265 265 11 No No No No

266 266 1 No No No No

267 267 290 No No No No

268 268 6 No No No No

269 269 4 No No No No

270 270 1,787 No No No No

271 271 112 No No No No

272 272 7 No No No No

273 273 1 No No No No

274 274 8 No No No No

275 275 1 No No No No

276 276 18 No No No No

277 277 19 No No No No

278 278 3 No No No No

279 279 7 No No No No

280 280 11 No No No No

281 281 179 No No No No

282 282 175 No No No No

283 283 1 No No No No

284 284 7 No No No No

285 285 27 No No No No

286 286 37 No No No No

287 287 45 No No No No

288 288 10 No No No No

289 289 1 No No No No

290 290 1 No No No No

291 291 3 No No No No

292 292 4 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 522 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

293 293 9 No No No No

294 294 9 No No No No

295 295 11 No No No No

296 296 1 No No No No

297 297 1 No No No No

298 298 19 No No No No

299 299 7 No No No No

300 300 2 No No No No

301 301 2 No No No No

302 302 44 No No No No

303 303 33 No No No No

304 304 5 No No No No

305 305 14 No No No No

306 306 65 No No No No

307 307 3 No No No No

308 308 19 No No No No

309 309 35 No No No No

310 310 182 No No No No

311 311 13 No No No No

312 312 19 No No No No

313 313 2 No No No No

314 314 35 No No No No

315 315 3 No No No No

316 316 163 No No No No

317 317 16 No No No No

318 318 7 No No No No

319 319 3 No No No No

320 320 11 No No No No

321 321 10 No No No No

322 322 3 No No No No

323 323 42 No No No No

324 324 182 No No No No

325 325 6 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 523 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

326 326 1 No No No No

327 327 40 No No No No

328 328 2 No No No No

329 329 3 No No No No

330 330 1 No No No No

331 331 2 No No No No

332 332 10 No No No No

333 333 9 No No No No

334 334 49 No No No No

335 335 119 No No No No

336 336 28 No No No No

337 337 14 No No No No

338 338 3 No No No No

339 339 3 No No No No

340 340 2 No No No No

341 341 11 No No No No

342 342 45 No No No No

343 343 56 No No No No

344 344 12 No No No No

345 345 3 No No No No

346 346 3 No No No No

347 347 7 No No No No

348 348 7 No No No No

349 349 23 No No No No

350 350 5 No No No No

351 351 107 No No No No

352 352 3 No No No No

353 353 67 No No No No

354 354 34 No No No No

355 355 64 No No No No

356 356 27 No No No No

357 357 13 No No No No

358 358 2 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 524 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

359 359 17 No No No No

360 360 3 No No No No

361 361 3 No No No No

362 362 11 No No No No

363 363 5 No No No No

364 364 1,453 No No No No

365 365 19 No No No No

366 366 4 No No No No

367 367 108 No No No No

368 368 19 No No No No

369 369 12 No No No No

370 370 7 No No No No

371 371 43 No No No No

372 372 1 No No No No

373 373 15 No No No No

374 374 6 No No No No

375 375 1 No No No No

376 376 7 No No No No

377 377 19 No No No No

378 378 2 No No No No

379 379 96 No No No No

380 380 192 No No No No

381 381 45 No No No No

382 382 7 No No No No

383 383 2 No No No No

384 384 9 No No No No

385 385 3 No No No No

386 386 1 No No No No

387 387 373 No No No No

388 388 1 No No No No

389 389 12 No No No No

390 390 3 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 525 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

391 391 12 No No No No

392 392 1 No No No No

393 393 3 No No No No

394 394 95 No No No No

395 395 5 No No No No

396 396 3 No No No No

397 397 4 No No No No

398 398 10 No No No No

399 399 65 No No No No

400 400 1 No No No No

401 401 5 No No No No

402 402 1 No No No No

403 403 62 No No No No

404 404 384 No No No No

405 405 1,636 No Yes No No Added to Inventory

406 406 2 No No No No

407 407 1 No No No No

408 408 2 No No No No

409 409 5 No No No No

410 410 14 No No No No

411 411 182 No No No No

412 412 71 No No No No

413 413 110 No No No No

414 414 4 No No No No

415 415 20 No No No No

416 416 48 No No No No

417 417 2 No No No No

418 418 4 No No No No

419 419 58 No No No No

420 420 27 No No No No

421 421 15 No No No No

422 422 166 No No No No

423 423 35 No No No No
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 526 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

424 424 9 No No No No

425 425 7 No No No No

426 426 7 No No No No

427 427 14 No No No No

428 428 7 No No No No

429 429 2 No No No No

430 405 42 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405

431 405 2 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405

432 405 97 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405

433 405 58 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps

434 405 8 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps

435 405 2 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps

436 405 5 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps and roads

437 405 2 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps and roads

438 405 80 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps and roads

439 405 7 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps and roads

440 405 1 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps

441 405 13 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps

442 405 15 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps

443 405 8 No No No No Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 405. 

Field verification stumps

444 237 364 No No No Yes Contiguous to Mt. Thielsen Wilderness. Added to 

inventory 
Rim-Paunina Project DEIS Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 527 of 528

Polygon 

ID

Parent 

Polygon 

ID

Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b)

FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c)

Comments

Note 1 applies to all 440 polygons except 147, 219, 

237, 405 and 444 in this Table.

445 237 188 No No No No

Created during boundary adjustment of Polygon 237. 

Area is surrounded by roads and due to size and shape 

cannot be effectively managed as a separate unit 

(Little Deschutes River corridor)
Rim-Paunina Project Appendix D- Potential Wilderness Inventory

Page 528 of 528

Inventory Results

In summary the following areas meet the inventory criteria as potential wilderness areas and are 

displayed in Map D-5.

Table 142. Five Potential Wilderness Polygon Identifiers with Acreage and Inventory Criteria

Potential Wilderness Identifier Acreage (rounded) Inventory Criteria

147 328

2c. Areas are contiguous to existing 

wilderness, primitive areas, Administrationendorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness 

in other Federal ownership, regardless of 

their size.

219 1,145

2a. Area can be preserved due to physical 

terrain and natural conditions

237 2,545

2c. Areas are contiguous to existing 

wilderness, primitive areas, Administrationendorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness 

in other Federal ownership, regardless of 

their size.

405 1,636

2a. Area can be preserved due to physical 

terrain and natural conditions

444 364

2c. Areas are contiguous to existing 

wilderness, primitive areas, Administrationendorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness 

in other Federal ownership, regardless of 

their size.

Total 6,018