APPENDIX F 

CONSISTENCY WITH EASTSIDE SCREENS 

 
Cobbler II Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project FEIS 

F-1 

APPENDIX F 

Cobbler II Timber Sale and Fuel Reduction Project 

Consistency with Eastside Screens

Summary:

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment #11 (also known as 

Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2) requires that certain categories of timber sales be 

screened to evaluate their potential impact on riparian habitat, historical vegetation patterns, and 

wildlife fragmentation and connectivity. 

The riparian screen will be met by implementing the PACFISH riparian habitat conservation area 

requirements (Umatilla National Forest Plan Amendment #10). 

In Cold Upland Forest, no harvest is proposed. 

In Moist Upland Forest, harvest is allowed in late and old structure because the amount of LOS is 

above the historical range. The Ecosystem and Wildlife screens are met because all stands 

entered for harvest are less than 100 acres each, and the requirements for LOS connectivity, snag 

and down wood habitat, and goshawk are met. 

In Dry Upland Forest, one type of LOS is below the historical range. The Ecosystem and 

Wildlife screens are met because there will be no net reduction in the amount of late or old 

structure, and no trees greater than or equal to 21 inches DBH will be harvested in dry forest. 

The requirements for LOS connectivity, snag and down wood habitat, and goshawk are also met. 

The Eastside Screens 

The Eastside Screens consist of six items: three general standards, a riparian standard, an ecosystem 

standard, and a wildlife standard. 

General Standards (items 1-3 in FP Amendment #11) 

General standards define which types of projects are covered by the Eastside Screens. Because the 

Cobbler II project includes the use of a timber sale to accomplish the stated objectives, the Eastside 

screens will apply. 

Riparian Standard (item 4) 

Item 4 of the Eastside Screens directs that timber sales (green and salvage) will not be planned or located 

in riparian areas. 

Umatilla National Forest policy is that by applying PACFISH, the Eastside Screens riparian standard is 

met. PACFISH uses a buffer concept to establish riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) along both 

sides of streams, rivers, lakes and other wetlands. RHCA widths extend from the edge of the active stream 

channel and they vary with stream class and whether a stream is fish bearing or not. RHCAs can be 

established using specified feet of slope distance (300 feet on either side of perennial, fish-bearing 

streams) or in numbers of “site potential tree heights” (2 site-potential tree heights for perennial, fishbearing streams). The interim RHCA widths established by the PACFISH environmental assessment 
Cobbler II Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project FEIS 

F-2 

could be adjusted during watershed analysis or after site-specific analysis presenting a rationale for 

RHCA modifications. 

None of the forest vegetation proposed actions (timber harvest, fuels treatments) will occur in riparian 

habitat conservation areas established using PACFISH (Forest Plan amendment #10). 

Ecosystem Standard (item 5)

The ecosystem standard requires a landscape-level assessment of the historical range of variability (HRV) 

for structural stages, including a comparison of current structural stage amounts with their historical 

ranges. An HRV analysis of stand structure classes (equivalent to “structural stages” in the Eastside 

Screens) was prepared for the Cobbler II project planning area. 

 PVG 

UPLAND FOREST STRUCTURAL STAGES 

 SI SEOC SECC UR YFMS OFMS OFSS 

Cobbler II Project 

planning area

COLD UPLAND 

FOREST 

Historical% 

1-30 0-5 5-35 5-25 5-50 1-60 0-10 

Current% 8 16 61 0 0 0 15 

MOIST UPLAND 

FOREST 

Historical% 

1-15 0-5 1-25 5-25 20-60 10-60 0-5 

Current% 14 52 3 1 10 21 0 

DRY UPLAND 

FOREST

Historical% 

5-15 5-20 0-10 0-10 5-25 5-20 15-70 

Current% 15 14 25 8 10 22 6 

Wildlife Standard (item 6) 

The wildlife standard has two possible scenarios to follow based on HRV results for late-old structural 

stages (LOS). LOS is defined as “multi-stratum with large trees” and “single stratum with large trees” 

structural stages. Scenario A is to be used whenever either one of the LOS stages is below HRV. If both 

LOS stages occur within a single biophysical environment and one is above HRV and one is below, 

Scenario A is to be used. Scenario B (item 6 e) is to be used only when both LOS stages for a particular 

biophysical environment are within or above HRV. 

Biophysical 

Environment

LOS 

Component 

Historical 

Range (%) 

Current 

Percent Comparison 

Wildlife 

Standard 

Results 

Cold Upland 

Forest 

SSLT 0 – 10 15 Above HRV 

Scenario A 

MSLT 1 - 60 0 Below HRV 

Moist 

Upland 

Forest 

SSLT 0 – 5 0 Within HRV 

Scenario B 

MSLT 10 – 60 21 Within HRV 

Dry Upland 

Forest 

SSLT 15 – 70 6 Below HRV 

Scenario A 

MSLT 5 – 20 22 Above HRV 
Cobbler II Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project FEIS 

F-3 

Since the Cobbler II project planning area is within HRV in moist forest, Scenario B may be applied to 

moist forest stands. In dry forest, Scenario A applies. 

Dry Upland Forest, Scenario A: 

Scenario A includes four major items and many sub-items as described below. 

1. Item 1 allows some timber sale activities to occur within late/old structure (LOS) stages that 

are within or above HRV in order to maintain or enhance LOS in a particular biophysical 

environment. 

Result: 120 acres of thinning is proposed within Dry Upland Forest late/old structure. These 

stands will be converted to single story structure typical of dry forest historically. 

2. Remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees ≥ 21" DBH” should be retained. 

Many types of timber sale activities are permissible outside of LOS, with the intent of 

maintaining or enhancing LOS components; that manipulation of vegetative structure not 

meeting LOS standards should occur in such a way that conditions are moved toward 

LOS structure; and that maintenance or restoration of open, park-like structure should be 

emphasized whenever appropriate. 

Result: No trees > 21 inches DBH would be removed in dry upland forest, except for danger 

trees. 

3. Item 3 involves maintaining or enhancing the current level of connectivity between LOS stands 

and between Forest Plan old-growth areas, reducing fragmentation of existing LOS stands, 

and not applying even-aged regeneration cutting methods or group selection to non-LOS 

stands surrounded by LOS stands. 

Result: Connective corridors have been mapped according to forest plan requirements. 

Harvest proposed within connective corridors would leave fully stocked stands and 

connectivity of LOS stands would be maintained (Wildlife Report). 

4. Item 4 involves retention of snags, green-tree replacements, and down logs. It also addresses 

goshawk habitat by requiring protection of known goshawk nests (both active and historical), 

requires 30 acres of goshawk nesting habitat surrounding all active and historical goshawk 

nest trees, and provision of a 400-acre “post fledging area” around every known active nest 

site. 

Result: Snags, down logs, and green tree replacements would meet or exceed Forest plan 

standards. Since the majority of harvest involves thinning from below and will not impact 

snags to a great degree. Where down logs are below management requirements, down logs 

would not be removed in the harvest operations. 

According to the wildlife specialist report, there are no known goshawk nests in the Cobbler 

II project planning area. If a nest is discovered during project preparation or implementation, 

most-suitable nesting habitat and post-fledging area standards from this item will be applied 

at that time. 
Cobbler II Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project FEIS 

F-4 

Moist Upland Forest, Scenario B: 

Scenario B includes four major items and many sub-items as described below. 

Item 1 gives the priority of stand types in which harvest activities should occur, and 

emphasizes that harvest may occur within LOS, but preference should be given to smaller, 

isolated LOS stands <100 acres in size, and regeneration activities are not allowed within 

larger LOS stands. 

Result: All proposed treatments in LOS are in stands < 100 acres. (Planning unit 62 is

listed as 105 acres, however treatment will cover a smaller area.) Treatment in the old 

forest multistory stands is intended to make these stands more resilient to insects, disease, 

and crown fire. The stand structure will be changed from old forest multi-story to old 

forest single story. 

Item 2 involves maintaining or enhancing the current level of connectivity between LOS stands 

and between Forest Plan old-growth areas, reducing fragmentation of existing LOS stands, 

and not applying even-aged regeneration cutting methods or group selection to non-LOS 

stands surrounded by LOS stands. 

Result: Connective corridors have been mapped according to forest plan requirements. 

Harvest proposed within connective corridors would leave fully stocked stands and 

connectivity of LOS stands would be maintained (Wildlife Report). 

Item 3 involves non-fragmentation of large LOS stands > 100 acres. In the interior 

(beyond 300 ft from edge), harvest is limited to non-fragmenting prescriptions such as 

thinning, single-tree selection, or other non-regeneration activities. Group selection is 

only allowed when openings created either mimic the natural forest pattern, and/or do not 

exceed 1⁄2 acre in size. 

Result: Treatment is not proposed in LOS stands > 100 acres. All proposed harvest in 

LOS entails thinning from below. 

Item 4 contains the same wildlife guidelines provided in Scenario A, Item 4, for snags 

and down wood habitat, and Item 5 for goshawk habitat with the following exception: 

maintain 60% of the 400 acre post fledging area in an LOS condition. 

Result: Snags, down logs, and green tree replacements would meet or exceed Forest 

Plan standards. Since the majority of harvest involves thinning from below and will not 

impact snags to a great degree. Where down logs are below management requirements, 

down logs would not be removed in the harvest operations. 

According to the wildlife specialist report, there are no known goshawk nests in the Cobbler II project 

planning area. If a nest is discovered during project preparation or implementation, most-suitable nesting 

habitat and post-fledging area standards from this item will be applied at that time.