Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project

Record of Decision

United States Department of Agriculture

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

March 2017
Record of Decision

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Wallowa County, Oregon

Forest Plan Amendment #46

Legal location: T1N, R45E, S4-9;15-23;26-36, T1S, R45E, S1-11;14-18;21-23;26-28, T2N, R44E, S1-

2;11-14; 23-26;35-36, T2N, R45E, S5-8;16-20;29-33, T3N, R44E, S1;11-14;23-26;35-36, T3N, R45E, 

S1-32, T3N, R46E, S6-7;18-19, and T4N 5N and 6N.

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agency: Wallowa County 

Responsible Official: TOM MONTOYA, FOREST SUPERVISOR

1550 Dewey Ave.

Baker City, OR 97850 

For Information Contact: Kris Stein, District Ranger, Wallowa Mountains Office, 201 East Second 

St., P.O. Box 905, Joseph, OR 97846, 541-263-5501, krisstein@fs.fed.us. 

Dea Nelson, Environmental Coordinator and Planner, Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest, 1550 Dewey Ave., Baker City, OR 97850, 541-523-1216 

or email: dnelson09@fs.fed.us.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

2

Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................3

The Decision.............................................................................................................................................3

Rationale for the Decision ........................................................................................................................6

Purpose and Need .....................................................................................................................................7

Issues that Influenced the Decision ..........................................................................................................8

Tribal Consultation.................................................................................................................................12

Cooperating Agencies.............................................................................................................................12

Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................12

Alternatives Considered .........................................................................................................................14

Findings required by Law, Regulation, Policy and Other Authorities ...................................................16

Administrative Review...........................................................................................................................23

Implementation Effective Date...............................................................................................................23

Contact....................................................................................................................................................23

Responsible Official Signature...............................................................................................................23

Appendix 1- Open Road Densities..............................................................................................................25

Appendix 2- Forest Plan Amendment.........................................................................................................28

Forest Plan Amendment #46 and Determination of NFMA Significance..............................................28

Appendix 3 – Maps.....................................................................................................................................35
Record of Decision

3

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the decision and rationale for the selected alternative for the 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project (LJCRP) on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF). 

The decision considers the analysis that is documented in the LJCRP final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS), information in the project file, and input received from the Wallowa-Whitman Forest 

Collaborative, Nez Perce tribe, Wallowa County (cooperating agency), the public during the course of the 

analysis of this project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)1, as well as input 

from objectors during the objection process. 

The purpose of this project is to restore, maintain, and enhance forest resiliency to natural disturbances; 

protect natural resources at risk to uncharacteristic wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks; contribute 

to local economic and social vitality; modify fire behavior potential; and improve future forest, and fire 

management. The LJCRP area sits on the northern boundary of the WWNF, approximately 20 miles north 

of Enterprise, Wallowa County, Oregon (FEIS Map 1). The project area includes portions of the Hells

Canyon National Recreation Area. 

The Decision 

After careful review and consideration of the public comments during the 45-day comment period and the 

objection resolution period, along with the analyses disclosed in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project FEIS, it is my decision to select Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action as described in the 

FEIS pages 65-74, with the following additional modifications and clarifications. 

1. No trees >21” diameter at breast height (dbh) will be removed from LJCRP area (unless 

necessary for safety or administrative purposes).

2. Forest treatments in IRAs and Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs), including Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas (RHCAs) that fall within these areas, will be limited to stand improvement 

treatment units. 

3. The 220 acres in MA15 that falls within the Joseph Canyon IRA and was proposed for treatment 

will be dropped. 

4. Stand Improvement work within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) will be limited to generally 

small diameter trees <12 inches dbh. Utilization of this material will be limited to administrative 

or personal use only. Within IRAs, preferred techniques include hand crews with chain saws 

using existing roads. 

5. An estimated 271 acres of harvest will be dropped from PACFISH Category 4 RHCAs 

(intermittent drainages) that are also first-order drainages to Joseph, Davis and Swamp Creeks (as 

identified on the ROD Map 1).

6. Forest treatments in Category 4 RHCAs will have a 50-foot no entry buffer and leave a minimum 

of 50% canopy between 50 and 100 foot for cool/moist forests and 40% canopy between 50 and 

100 foot for dry forests. (Terms and Conditions from NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion dated 

June 15, 2016).

7. Treatment within the Category 1 Swamp Creek RHCA will occur utilizing a 25-foot variable 

width no treatment buffer. Treatment from 25 feet to 300 feet is a restoration treatment leaving 

 1

This ROD was developed according to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 

§§ 4321-4370), the Council of Environmental Quality’s implementing regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508), Forest 

Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR Part 220), Forest Service policy in Forest Service Manual 1900, Chapter 1950, 

and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

4

all trees >15”dbh and slash will be burned or removed. (Terms and Conditions from NOAA 

Fisheries Biological Opinion dated June 15, 2016).

8. A meadow restoration plan for the 31 acre Swamp Creek RHCA treatment will be produced and 

submitted to NOAA Fisheries at least 1 year prior to completing proposed timber harvest 

activities (Terms and Conditions from NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion dated June 15, 2016). 

9. Forest treatments in MA 15 will exclude 40 acres of treatment in moist forest.

10. Approximately 12 miles of road will be closed, and approximately 23 miles of road will be 

opened in the project area. See Table 2 below for the specific road decisions.

This decision also incorporates the Monitoring items on FEIS pages 62-65, Terms and Conditions 

included in the June 15, 2016 National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion pgs. 89-93, and the 

Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices included in FEIS Appendix J. The Monitoring 

section and Appendix J will be aligned to, and made consistent with, this decision, including terms and 

conditions from the Biological Opinion, prior to implementation. 

See attached Map 2 for forest vegetation treatments, and Maps 3 and 4 for the post-decision status of 

roads in the project area (Appendix 3).

Table 1: Summary of Actions included in this Decision

Action Decision

Stand Improvement in IRA and PWA 2,442 acres

Stand Improvement in Category 2 or 4 RHCAs 911 acres

Total Stand Improvement 5,428 acres

Single Tree Selection (STS) – High Intensity 4067 acres

Single Tree Selection – Moderate Intensity 4680 acres

Single Tree Selection – Low Intensity 918 acres

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Moderate Intensity 375 acres

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Low Intensity 5 acres

Group Selection (GS) – High Intensity 427 acres

Group Selection –Moderate Intensity 496 acres

Group Selection – Low Intensity 31 acres

Intermediate Treatment (IT) – High Intensity 72 acres

Intermediate Treatment – Mod Intensity 55 acres

Intermediate Treatment – Low Intensity 85 acres

Savanna* 297 acres

Meadow Restoration* (Swamp Creek) 31 acres

Prescribed burning up to 90,000 acres

Total include Group Selection, Singletree Selection, 

Intermediate, and Savanna treatments in RHCAs 911 acres

Cutting Treatment Total 16,967 acres

Forested Acres – No Cutting Treatment 38,233 acres

Total Forested Area with and without Treatment 55,200 acres
Record of Decision

5

Action Decision

Forest Plan Amendment for LOS treatments below HRV 25 acres

Close Roads 12.0 miles

Open Roads 23.0 miles

Road Reconstruction or Maintenance 82.6 miles

Temporary Road Construction 12.6 miles

Table 2: Road status changes with this Decision

Road # Decision

3000225 Open 0.4 miles

3000232 Open 0.3 miles

3000254 Open 0.6 miles

3000314 Open 0.8 miles

3000410 Open 0.6 miles

4600040 Close 0.2 miles

4600041 Close 0.2 miles

4600050 Open 3.9 miles

4600265 Close 1.0 miles

4600268 Close 0.3 miles

4600270 Open 0.6 miles

4600272 Open 0.7 miles

4600275 Open 0.01 miles

4600280 Open 0.1 miles

4600290 Open 0.01 miles

4600310 Close 0.6 miles

4600320 Close 0.8 miles

4600352 Open 1.3 miles

4600360 Open 0.01 miles

4600361 Open 0.1 miles

4600362 Close 0.9 miles

4600372 Open 1.6 miles

4600445 Open 1.1 miles

4600602 Open 0.3 miles

4600607 Open 0.01 miles

4600608 Open 1.0 miles

4600685 Open 0.01 miles

4600685 Open 0.1 miles

4600687 Open 0.01 miles

4602040 Close 2.4 miles

4605250 Close 1.0 miles

4615050 Open 0.7 miles

Road # Decision

4615090 Open 1.3 miles

4615305 Open 0.2 miles

4650030 Open 1.3 miles

4650050 Close 0.4 miles

4650120 Open 2.4 miles

4650130 Open 0.5 miles

4650130 Open 0.7 miles

4650135 Open 0.7 miles

4650150 Open 0.5 miles

4655045 Close 1.0 miles

4655050 Open 0.9 miles

4655065 Close 0.1 miles

4655102 Close 0.3 miles

4655103 Close 0.4 miles

4655115 Close 0.3 miles

4655117 Close 1.7 miles

4655160 Open 0.4 miles

*Road miles listed at 0.01 may actually be less than 

that

Note: The project record includes a road by road 

description of the actions that will occur, and the 

rationale for any changes in status from Alternative 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

6

Rationale for the Decision

I carefully considered the issues and concerns raised by those who participated and commented in this 

analysis to help make my decision. I considered six alternatives, three were analyzed in detail and three 

were considered but eliminated from detailed study for the reasons stated in the FEIS, Chapter 3, pp. 80-

81. The following narrative presents why I did not select Alternative 1 (no action) and Alternative 3. I 

also discuss how my decision responds to the purpose and need and how I considered the issues most 

relevant to me in making my decision.

Reasons for not selecting Alternative 1 (No Action)

I considered, but did not select Alternative 1 (No Action) because without active management (prescribed 

fire, forest restoration, watershed/aquatic restoration, and stand improvement) none of the needed 

ecological changes would be addressed, the forest would not be resilient, and there would be virtually no 

benefits to local economies. As such, this alternative does not address the purpose and need for action.

Inaction would leave many acres of forest in conditions outside their historic ranges. This outcome would 

present a higher risk of uncharacteristic, high-severity fire and resulting uncharacteristic fire effects, 

negative impacts to dependent wildlife, and higher risks to people and buildings. Additional NEPA 

analysis would be required to address the ecological needs and changes needed in the road system. I see 

no reason to spend additional time and money to reach a similar result.

Lastly, I did not select Alternative 1 because it would not be responsive to specific concerns regarding 

single-stratum old forest (OFSS), one of the most under-represented forest conditions in the LJCRP 

landscape. OFSS is far below desired conditions. Without treatment, the 25 acres of OFSS will soon

become old forest multi-stratum forest (OFMS); which is currently overrepresented in the Lower Joseph 

project area. Given the current susceptibility of these stands to disturbance, these 25 acres of old forest 

could be lost from the landscape. Without treatment, tree vigor and resistance to western pine beetle 

attack and future wildfire risk, maintenance and persistence of the large-tree component into the future 

cannot be ensured. 

By applying treatments designed to establish a large-tree component, resiliency of these stands to climate 

change would increase, as would the safety and effectiveness of prescribed fire applications. Keeping 

every acre of single-stratum old forest, and maintaining it into the future, is a positive benefit to the 

ecosystem and dependent wildlife species.

Reasons for not selecting Alternative 3 

I considered, but did not select Alternative 3 because I have determined it would not be as responsive to 

the purpose and need to restore ecological resilience to the project area while addressing human needs and 

uses. Treating fewer acres changes the ecosystem to a lesser degree and provides fewer potential 

economic benefits to local economies compared to Alternative 2.

Alternatives 2 and 3 are both fully consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and the Forest Plan. Both 

alternatives considered and applied current science in developing design features for each alternative with 

the intent to lessen negative effects to the environment. Current science was also used to help predict the

effects to the environment and the final EIS clearly discloses the positive and negative effects of all 

alternatives. Based on this, I believe Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide sufficient safeguards to protect 

the environment from unnecessary degradation. I recognize Alternative 3 does provide benefits to local 

economies but Alternative 2 best balances the purpose and need and protects the environment.
Record of Decision

7

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the LJCRP is to restore ecological resilience to the project area while addressing human 

needs and uses. There is a need to:

1. Increase the amount of ponderosa pine

2. Increase the amount of single-story, old forest

3. Reduce the amount of Douglas-fir and white fir in mixed stands

4. Reduce the amount of mid-story and understory of multi-story old forest

5. Improve opportunities to manage fire at characteristic frequencies and severities

6. Support local economies with raw material and jobs

Table 1 on page 6 of the FEIS displays indicators, metrics, units, existing and desired conditions to help 

address responsiveness to the six Purpose and Need statements. 

Many people agreed with our intentions to restore ecological resilience to the project area while 

addressing human needs and uses. Others equally and strongly disagreed with some of the locations and 

types of treatment, and supporting local economies in favor of other potential ecological benefits. I have 

heard and considered both of these strongly held view points. I believe that I have chosen the best course 

of action to meet the needs identified for land management. Based on the considerations discussed below, 

I believe my decision affirmatively addresses and fulfills the purpose and need for action.

Increase the amount of ponderosa pine.

This decision authorizes about 17,000 acres of forest restoration and stand improvement treatments. It is 

estimated these activities will result in an increase in the ponderosa pine cover type from the current 

condition of 13,300 acres to approximately 16,650 acres, a 6 percent increase. These activities along with 

prescribed burning authorized by this decision will create conditions suitable for ponderosa pine 

regeneration and an overall increase in ponderosa pine stocking.

Increase the amount of single-story, old forest.

The old forest, single-story (OFSS) structural stage currently makes up less than 1 percent (<250 acres) of 

the forested landscape and is well below the desired range. This decision authorizes about 25 acres of 

understory tree thinning within lands classified as OFSS with the intent to maintain these 25 acres as 

OFSS. This decision also authorizes understory tree thinning that will convert approximately 2,000 acres 

of multi-story to single-story and result in an increase in the amount single-story, old forest to 

approximately 4 percent of the forested landscape. 

Reduce the amount of Douglas-fir and white fir in mixed stands.

The approximately 17,000 acres of forest restoration and stand improvement treatments authorized by this 

decision will result in the removal of individual Douglas-fir and grand fir trees and a stocking reduction 

of these species. This will bring about an estimated overall reduction of the Douglas-fir and grand fir 

cover types within the forested landscape by 7 percent.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

8

Reduce the amount of mid-story and understory of multi-story old forest.

This decision authorizes about 3,460 acres of forest restoration and stand improvement treatments within 

areas classified as old forest, multi storied (OFMS). This activity will restore resilience and reduce the 

amount of mid-story and understory stocking.

Improve opportunities to manage fire at characteristic frequencies and severities

The approximately 17,000 acres of forest restoration and stand improvement treatments as well as the 

prescribed burning authorized by this decision will reduce fuels in appropriate locations resulting in a 

reduced probability of moderate/high severity fire. This reduction in fire risk will improve opportunities 

to manage fire at characteristic frequencies and severities. 

Support local economies with raw material and jobs.

This decision authorizes the harvest of merchantable trees on about 11,500 acres resulting in an estimated 

volume of 5-7.5 million cubic feet of raw material available for wood processing. The implementation of 

the approximately 17,000 acres of forest restoration and stand improvement treatments authorized by this 

decision will lead to supporting approximately 50 jobs associated with logging, wood manufacturing as 

well as thinning, planting and fuels treatments.

Issues that Influenced the Decision

Both individuals and groups raised issues and concerns during the development of this project, and during 

the objection period, and I considered them to help make my decision. Three significant issues which 

represent unresolved conflicts were used to develop alternatives to the proposed action. More detailed 

information concerning issues considered can be found in FEIS Chapter 3, pg. 56 and in Chapter 4, 

Environmental Consequences.

I observed that the environmental effects disclosed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS for many resource topics did 

not vary by alternative or only in minor ways. Because of this, those resource issues influenced my 

decision in minor ways and are not discussed in detail. The issues most relevant to me in making my 

decision are discussed below.

Removal of >21” Trees (Significant Issue 1)

Concern was raised about the proposal to harvest trees >21” dbh during the scoping, 45-day comment and 

objection periods. While some members of the public supported this proposal to achieve the desired 

species composition and enhance economic viability of the project, others thought that large trees provide 

wildlife habitat that is underrepresented on the landscape and should be left regardless of species 

composition. To some, it appeared that the harvest of large trees was for no other reason than to increase 

saleable timber volume. Members of the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative discussed this at length 

and included criteria for removing trees >21” dbh in their Final Recommendation for a Consensus 

Position document. Over time, not all members of the collaborative agreed with the removal of >21” dbh 

trees and consensus on this topic was not reached amongst the collaborative members.

I fully recognize that in some circumstances the removal of >21” dbh is the most effective means to 

address the species composition dilemma the project area is experiencing. I also recognize that, while not 

ideal, limiting tree removal to those trees <21” dbh will move the landscape toward the desired species 

composition. Due to the lack of consensus during objection resolution, I have decided to drop the harvest 

of >21” dbh trees from this decision. I believe the best approach on how to address the need for the 

treatments of tress >21” dbh will occur in the near future with the release FEIS and ROD for the Blue

Mountains Forest Plan Revision.
Record of Decision

9

Treatments in IRAs and PWAs (Significant Issue 2)

It is clear Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) and Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs) are valued by our 

communities for many different reasons related to social, ecological, and economic interests. IRAs 

account for almost half of the project area (46%) and for this reason I carefully evaluated the information 

in the FEIS and worked closely with all interested parties on this important topic. 

Some people expressed concern the unique values of these areas may be lost to uncharacteristic wildfire 

disturbances and they encouraged and supported management activities in these areas to reduce 

uncharacteristic fire behavior and improve ecological conditions. Others were concerned forest 

management activities within these areas would diminish the extent of undisturbed habitat and negatively 

impact social and ecological values. Several objectors felt logging could reduce the size of potential 

wilderness areas and potentially preclude consideration of these lands in future wilderness evaluations.

The Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative spent considerable time and effort considering possible 

treatments within IRAs and PWAs, eventually recommending that treatments be limited to noncommercial fuel reduction and prescribed burning, using approaches that reduce impact on the landscape 

(such as hand crews with chainsaws using existing roads). In my discussions with objectors during 

informal resolutions, most (but not all) objectors supported the Collaborative’s recommendation, 

preferring it to what I had proposed in the 2016 Draft ROD.

I believe vegetation treatments are necessary in IRAs and PWAs. Implementation of treatments in IRA 

and PWA will necessarily cause short-term, localized interruption of recreational activities; a result of the 

sights, sounds, and smells of motorized equipment. Some members of the public may choose to avoid 

these areas until activities have ceased and they may once again enjoy these areas. 

The FEIS and IRA/PWA Specialist Report revealed portions of the Wildhorse and Joseph Canyon IRAs 

exhibit evidence of past harvest and contain forest roads, with ecological conditions similar to the 

adjacent non-IRA lands of the project area landscape. Implementing stand improvements (cutting 

generally small diameter material) in IRAs using preferred techniques that include hand treatments with 

chainsaws using existing roads will lessen impacts to roadless characteristics and will be fully consistent 

with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

I think it is important to note the PWA assessment disclosed stand improvement and prescribed fire would 

not reduce the number of acres of the PWA because these activities would not create substantially 

recognizable development such as stumps or skid trails. Therefore, my decision is not expected to

preclude consideration of the PWAs in a future forest planning wilderness evaluation.

I recognize my decision for limiting treatments in the IRAs to stand improvement reduces overall acres 

treated and reduces restoration of characteristic fire regimes. This choice also increases risk of a large, 

severe wildfire, which may have negative impacts to forest resilience and social values compared to the 

shorter-term effects of the treatments I dropped from my decision. 

My decision closely aligns with the Collaborative’s recommendation, is responsive to concerns expressed 

by a majority of the objectors, and represents a means to address both social and ecological values, while 

also considering economic feasibility.

Treatments in RHCAs – (Significant Issue 2) 

Objections were raised regarding treatment in PACFISH category 4 RHCAs that are also first order 

drainages to Joseph, Davis, and Swamp Creeks. Objections were centered on the protection of steelhead 

spawning streams (Joseph, Davis and Swamp Creeks) from potential impacts of vegetation treatments that 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

10

could lead to direct inputs of sediment and warm water to these streams. Concerns about treatment in 

category 4 RHCAs are addressed by dropping 271 acres of harvest within category 4 RHCAs that are also 

first-order drainages to Joseph, Davis and Swamp Creeks, and by increasing the RHCA no-entry buffer to 

50 feet in the remaining category 4 RHCA treatments. 

These treatment are designed to enhance riparian management objectives (RMOs) and contribute to the 

overall forested landscape trajectory toward HRV. This conservative approach of minimizing RHCA 

treatments will contribute to a reduction in the threat of altered fire regimes, increase ecosystem resiliency 

and allow for continued learning about the efficacy of RHCA vegetation treatments (Term and Condition 

from NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion, project record).

Objections were raised regarding meadow restoration treatment in Swamp Creek, a PACFISH category 1 

RHCA. Concerns centered on the removal of medium and large trees within RHCAs and avoiding 

impacts to all listed fish species. I carefully reviewed discussions on this topic in the Aquatic Specialist 

Report. I concur with the need for restoration of this meadow and believe that the treatments 

proposed support the restoration objectives by restoring the meadow storage capacity, restoring riparian 

shrubs, retaining all conifers over 15 inches dbh, and providing streambank protection with a 25-foot 

variable width no-treatment buffer. 

Treatments for both the category 4 RHCAs and the category 1 RHCA in Swamp Creek were consulted on 

for federally listed Snake River Steelhead under ESA with NOAA Fisheries. The Biological Opinion 

supported treatment as defined in this decision.

There is general collaborative agreement for the proposed treatments in RHCAs, with the exception of the 

treatment of the Swamp Creek meadow. The decision is based on the long-term benefits to riparian and 

aquatic ecosystems by restoring forest structure, composition, and characteristic fire regimes; low risk of 

these treatments to currently highly viable steelhead populations; need to restore treated areas toward 

riparian management objectives for the long term persistence of aquatic species. A risk of this decision is 

that the potential effects of an uncharacteristic wildfire may be greater than the effects of ground 

disturbance in the RHCAs that are not treated.

Roads and Access (Significant Issue 3)

Access management and roads are very important to many people who use and care about the WallowaWhitman National Forest. Interest was expressed by commenters and objectors to either maintain or 

reduce motorized access based on their values, principles, and perspectives. 

Some objectors were concerned about the effects of roads, temporary roads, roads proposed for 

reconstruction or maintenance, and road densities. Concerns were also raised regarding compliance with 

the Travel Management Rule and that the forest Travel Analysis Report was not considered. Others were 

concerned specific roads important to members of the public remain available for access. Roads are 

important, whether they are open or closed, or overgrown with vegetation and abandoned. They are 

important as destinations and as recreation experiences for traveling through forested lands, by motorized 

or non-motorized means. 

I worked closely with the Nez Perce Tribe, representatives of Wallowa County, as well as members of the 

public to review many of the roads in the project area, so that we understood the current conditions of 

roads, how they were being used by the public and the Tribe (e.g. to access hunting, firewood, dispersed 

camping or sightseeing opportunities), and which specific road segments may be contributing to resource 

impacts. In many cases there was agreement on the most important roads to maintain for public and tribal 
Record of Decision

11

access, and even about which road segments may be in excess of what is needed, or are causing resources 

concerns. However, there is still some disagreement about the management of certain road segments.

I have considered the Travel Analysis Report (TAR) in making my decision regarding roads and access. I 

have compared information and recommendations in the TAR to the road proposals included in this 

decision. Recommendations from the TAR that differ from this decision have been addressed road by 

road and are identified in a spreadsheet in the project record. The spreadsheet includes the rationale for 

the decision made for those specific roads. A detailed description of the Travel Rule, the travel analysis 

process, and the purpose of the TAR can be found in the Objection Response document and Errata to the 

FEIS in the project record. 

Concern was raised regarding potential changes to the road network that may not align with previous 

NEPA decisions. Previous NEPA decisions for roads will be followed except in cases where compelling 

evidence warranted an exception and there was adequate analysis in the Lower Joseph FEIS to support the 

change, previous NEPA decisions for roads will be followed (Table - Road Status Changes from Previous 

Decisions, project record). 

I acknowledge roads and motorized travel across the forest landscapes may cause undesirable impacts to 

soils, water quality, hydrology, fish habitat and effectiveness of wildlife habitat. My decision closes, 

reconstructs or maintains roads to address impacts to forest resources in specific locations. My decision 

also includes the improvement or replacement of six culverts that are partial or full barriers to the 

upstream migration of steelhead and redband trout. Improvement of these six culverts will provide 

aquatic organism passage and reduce barriers to fish migration. These six culverts are located in Broady 

Creek, W. Fork Broady Creek, W. Fork Broady Creek tributary, E. Fork Broady Creek, Davis Creek, and 

Sumac Creek (Fisheries Biological Assessment, project record). All of these factors were considered in a

road management strategy that is consistent with forest plan open road density guidelines, with sitespecific road decisions to address both required densities for listed fish, and forest plan standards and 

guidelines for effective wildlife habitat. These actions were considered to provide similar effects for fish 

and wildlife habitat effectiveness compared to Alternative 1, while still maintaining roaded access to 

many parts of the project area. I understand these changes will reduce public access in specific areas. I 

accept these impacts balanced with the need to protect forest resources. 

I recognize roads and motorized travel are needed for forest management and important to those who 

recreate and enjoy the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. My decision opens specific roads to maintain 

or enhance administrative and public access to specific locations, particularly those that access popular 

recreation areas or areas with views of the landscape. I recognize these changes will maintain or increase

public access in specific areas. I accept these impacts knowing forest resource impacts are consistent 

with the forest plan, balanced with providing public access. With this decision, open road densities in any 

Management Area within a subwatershed will not increase beyond the Forest Plan standard, therefore this 

decision is consistent with Forest Plan standards for open road densities (ROD Appendix 1 - Open Road 

Densities). 

By closing some roads to protect locations important to fish, wildlife, soils, and opening other roads to 

provide access to locations important to the public, this decision represents a reasonable balance between 

all the alternatives by selecting a road network that addresses and balances the needs of the public with

those of wildlife, fish and other resources.

Missed Economic Opportunity Due to Prescribed Fire 

Concerns have been raised about tree mortality that could occur from the thousands of acres of prescribed 

burning proposed. Some feel fire is the most natural way of achieving restoration objectives and there is 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

12

no need for tree cutting or harvest, while others expressed concerns that prescribed fire could adversely 

impact merchantable timber. I recognize how important economic returns from timber harvest on National 

Forest lands are to the counties of Northeastern Oregon. Supporting local economies with raw material 

and jobs is an integral part of the purpose and need of LJCRP. As such, this decision authorizes the 

harvest of merchantable trees on about 11,500 acres while supporting jobs associated with logging, wood 

manufacturing, thinning, planting and fuels treatments.

The prescribed fire design has considered the location of socially and ecologically appropriate areas to 

use fire to meet the purpose and need of the LJCRP. Prior to implementation, burn plans will be 

developed in an interdisciplinary setting to maximize the ecological benefits of fire, emphasizing 

reduction of surface fuel loads and understory thinning while conserving such features as coarse wood 

and mid/overstory trees. Economic efficiency is a consideration in the development of the burn plans, as 

cost of burning is often less expensive than the cost of understory tree thinning.

My decision will retain certain tree conditions and also remove certain tree conditions from these 

landscapes. Decisions to select the right tool for the job are based on specific factors relevant to the 

situation. 

Based on this information, I feel use of timber sale and stewardship contracts and prescribed fire are 

appropriate tools to use in addressing the purpose and need. Economic value will be recouped as 

appropriate. Trees settings with marginal values or low economic values will be removed safely using 

fire. I recognize there is always potential risk of unwanted tree mortality, smoke, and other potential 

damage when using fire as a tool. Unwanted tree mortality from prescribed burning will be minimized by 

following burn plans. I accept the missed economic opportunity harvest of trees killed by prescribed fire 

could provide, while recognizing the value of these same trees for wildlife habitat.

Tribal Consultation

The aboriginal territory of the Nez Perce Tribe includes the LJCRP. Government-to-government, and 

staff-to-staff meetings and field trips were held with Nez Perce tribal members and staff throughout the 

development of the LJCRP (see FEIS, Appendix G, Tribal Consultation Record). This decision considers 

concerns raised by the Tribe (see “Rationale for the Decision”, above).

Cooperating Agencies

Wallowa County is a cooperating agency in the LJCRP per a Memorandum of Understanding signed 

January 22, 2014, and participated on the development of the LJCRP FEIS. Over twelve in-person 

meetings, field trips, and conference calls were held with Wallowa County Natural Resource Advisory 

Committee regarding the LJCRP. The Forest Service and Wallowa County co-sponsored a public scoping 

meeting in January 2014, and a public comment period meeting in December 2014 in Enterprise, Oregon. 

This decision considers concerns raised by Wallowa County (see “Rationale for the Decision”, above).

Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent to develop an EIS for the LJCRP was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 

2014, and a legal notice of the public scoping period was published in the newspaper of record (Baker 

City Herald). The Notice of Intent initiated project scoping, and asked for public comment on the 

proposal from January 9 through February 10, 2014. The Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a 90 day comment period was published in the Federal 

Register, and Baker City Herald on November 14, 2014. The DEIS comment period ended on February 

12, 2015. Fifteen public meetings organized by the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Restoration Collaborative 
Record of Decision

13

between September 2013 and May 2015 in-part focused on scoping results, methodologies used in 

alternative development, effects analyses, and collaborative consensus around the project alternatives. 

Two public field trips organized by the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative were held in the project 

area in August 2013 and June 2014, and two meetings with local grazing permittees were held during 

development of the EIS. The LJCRP first appeared in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Schedule of 

Proposed Action (SOPA) in January 2014, and has been continuously updated to date. 

Scoping resulted in 57 letters or emails; and the DEIS comment period resulted in 965 letters or emails, 

943 of which were form emails, or modified form emails. The majority of scoping and DEIS comments 

were about the potential effects of forest vegetation treatments and road management on biological 

resources, or social or economic conditions and values. Some comments raised concerns about the 

efficacy of meeting the project purpose and need without implementation of a forest plan amendment to 

allow the cutting of large trees under certain circumstances, while others raised concerns about the effects 

on wildlife habitat of harvesting large trees. Some comments raised concerns about the effects of RHCA 

treatments on in-stream aquatic habitat, while others raised concerns about the potential for 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire effects in riparian areas if left untreated. Comments also variously 

raised concerns about the potential for uncharacteristic fire behavior in IRAs and PWAs if left untreated, 

or about the potential for adversely affecting social values for these areas if disturbed by forest 

management activities. Road management also received many comments, either expressing concern about 

the effects of the existing road network on aquatic and wildlife habitat, and the need for road closures, or 

about the effects of road closures on public access to the project area. For more information, see the 

analysis of public scoping in the project record, and the summary responses to DEIS comments in the 

FEIS (Appendix I).

Objection Period

Ten individuals or groups submitted objections to the Draft Record of Decision including Dick Artley, 

Union County Commissioners, Boise Cascade, American Forest Resource Council, Wallowa County 

Board of Commissioners, Oregon Wild, WildEarth Guardians, Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council, and Blue Mountain Biodiversity Project/League of Wilderness 

Defenders. All objection letters, as well as the objection response from the regional forester are posted to 

the Forest website.

The objectors spent considerable time in discussion with the project interdisciplinary team and me, 

clarifying the details of points of concerns and of support with the draft decision. Together, over a period

spanning several months, we explored potential resolutions for key points of concern. While no objections

were officially withdrawn as a result of this process, this decision was informed by the input from all 

objectors during the resolution process.

Table 3 documents the actions that occurred during the objection period.

Table 3: Timeline of Objection Process for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Date Event/Action

July 15, 2016 Legal Notice of FEIS and Draft ROD release to public. Objection filing period ends 45 

days after publication of legal notice

August 29, 2016 Objection Filing Period Ends. Ten objections were received by the Objection Reviewing 

Officer.

October 14, 2016 Agenda for Objection Resolution Meeting with Clarifications of FEIS and Draft ROD 

sent to Objectors

October 17, 2016 Final updated Agenda and additional clarifications (including a spreadsheet and map 

of treatment acres) sent to Objectors
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

14

Date Event/Action

October 18, 2016 Objection Resolution Meeting at WWNF Supervisor’s office, Baker City, OR

October 28, 2016 Additional clarifications for acres by alternative and roads information sent to objectors

November 4, 2016 Resolution Proposals sent by Responsible Official to Objectors

December 9, 2016 Updated resolution proposals for 21” trees and IRA treatments sent to Oregon Wild, 

HCPC and Boise Cascade 

December 16, 2016 Update on resolution process sent to Objectors from Responsible Official

December 20, 2016 Update on resolution process sent to Objectors from Responsible Official

January 13, 2017 Update on resolution process sent to Objectors from Responsible Official

March 10, 2017 Objection Reviewing officer sent Objection Response document to all objectors.

Alternatives Considered

The FEIS considered six alternatives, three were analyzed in detail and three were considered but

eliminated from detailed study for the reasons stated in the FEIS, Chapter 3, pp. 80-81. A detailed 

description of the three alternatives analyzed in detail can be found in the FEIS, Chapter 2, pgs. 64-75. A 

comparison of these alternatives by activity can be found in the FEIS, Chapter 3, pgs. 81-82.

Alternative 1 – No Action

No management actions would be taken to influence the direction or rate of change for moving existing 

conditions toward desired condition. Current activities such as continued implementation of previous 

decisions, permitted grazing, dispersed recreation use, fire suppression, and scheduled road maintenance 

would continue within the project area. 

Alternative 2 – Modified Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is modified from the original Proposed Action developed by the Agency during the initial 

scoping process, and including the following activities:

1. Thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments across approximately 15,700 acres.

2. Thinning of largely younger trees across an additional 5,400 acres.

3. Silvicultural treatments in category 4 RHCAs (intermittent, non-fish bearing streams) would be 

applied where they support attainment of RMOs, and would generally correspond to adjacent 

upland treatments. Category 4 RHCAs identified for treatment would include the establishment of 

a minimum 25-foot variable width no treatment buffer where there would be no harvest or 

equipment allowed. Relative to non-mechanized stand improvement (hand thinning) and 

prescribed fire treatments, RHCAs would be treated in accordance with the Blue Mountains 

Project Design Criteria (PDC) (FEIS Table 46).

4. No treatments would occur in categories 2 or 3 RHCAs. Treatment in category 1 RHCAs would 

be limited to a 31-acre meadow restoration along Swamp Creek which is a fish-bearing stream. 

No treatments would occur in any RHCAs that are currently in an old forest structural stage.

Treatment in Swamp Creek includes cutting of encroaching trees to restore meadow features, 

hydrologic function, and aquatic habitat conditions. Riparian and flood plain restoration may also 

include road closure or modification. 

5. No trees >21” in diameter would be harvested in MA 15. 

6. Up to 90,000 acres of prescribed burning would occur across the project area.
Record of Decision

15

7. The transportation system would be managed through road reconstruction, use of temporary 

roads, and seasonal or permanent closures, as needed to support public access, proposed forest 

management activities, wildlife habitat quality, and aquatic habitat connectivity. Approximately 

86 miles of system road would be reconstructed or maintained; and 12.6 miles of temporary roads 

would be constructed to access treatment stands, where necessary and ecologically suitable. 

These temporary roads would be decommissioned following use for this project. 

8. Establishment of two Research Natural Areas (338 acre Horse Pasture Ridge and 425 acre 

Haystack Rock). 

9. The proposed action would include maintenance and enhancement of culturally significant 

resources, settings, viewsheds, and sensitive plant and animal species habitat, including those of 

interest to the Tribes. 

10. Connected actions included in the analysis include reforestation (planting), noxious weed 

treatments, bare ground revegetation, rock pit development, water source development, fireline 

construction, understory vegetation treatment (e.g. whip felling) to facilitate prescribed fire, 

erosion control features, culvert replacement to support system haul, road maintenance, and 

hazard tree cutting or removal. Fuels associated with silvicultural treatments (activity fuels) 

would be treated with a suite of available tools.

11. Project-specific Forest Plan amendment for removing trees >21” dbh.

12. Project-specific Forest Plan amendment for treating 25 acres of old forest structure (LOS) below 

historic range of variability (HRV).

Alternative 3

This alternative design is in direct response to the unresolved conflicts regarding 1) forest thinning in 

management areas of concern (Significant Issue #2,), and 2) the degree of public access to the project area

(Significant Issue #3). 

1. General forest treatments would be similar to Alternative 2-Modified, except no trees greater than 

or equal to 21” would be harvested, except for safety or administration. 

2. There would be no forest treatments in MA15, IRAs, and PWAs. Small diameter thinning could 

occur in treatment units in Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs as per Blue Mountains Project Design 

Criteria. No other vegetation treatments would occur in Category 1, 2 and 4 streams. 

3. Some previous road actions under existing decisions would not be implemented. The road 

network would meet existing public access levels for recreation, springs, firewood cutting, tribal 

resources, and other uses. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Alternative 2-Modified Proposed Action is the environmentally preferable alternative, because it would 

result in the least harm to the biological and physical environment, and best protects and preserves 

historic, cultural, and natural resources. This alternative provides the most long-term benefits for multiple 

resources. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

16

Findings required by Law, Regulation, Policy and Other 

Authorities

This decision is consistent with applicable Law, Regulation, Policy and Other Authorities. The following 

is not an all-inclusive listing, but summarizes conformance with the laws and regulations most relevant to 

this decision. 

State Air Quality Regulations

Prescribed burning of forest fuels (logging slash or natural) will comply with Oregon Administrative 

Rules (OAR) 629-048-0001 to 629-048-0500 (Smoke Management Rules) within any forest protection 

district as described in OAR 629-048-0500 to 0575. These rules establish emission limits for the size of 

particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5) that may be released during these activities.

National Forest Management Act

Forest Plan Consistency

Based on consideration of the environmental consequences of the LJCRP (FEIS, Chapter 4), this decision 

to treat areas within the LJCRP, with the inclusion of the non-significant amendment described below, is 

consistent with the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan, 1990; 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3)), as amended, and agency directives. The project was designed in 

conformance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and was designed to achieve appropriate Forest 

Plan goals for maintaining historic plant communities and maintaining ecosystem function (Forest Plan p. 

4-30); minimizing insects and disease damage (p. 4-48); minimizing the risk of fire damage (p. 4-48) and 

managing timber consistent with various resource objectives, environmental requirements and economic 

efficiencies (pp. 4-48 through 4-51). 

This project also tiers to the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) Comprehensive 

Management Plan (CMP) FEIS, where it overlaps the HCNRA (USDA Forest Service 2003). Activities 

within the HCNRA were designed to conform to guidance for CMP Selected Alternative (E-modified) 

and, therefore, comply with the HCNRA Act. The project applies generally accepted management 

activities by management area in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan. This decision also complies with the 

management direction and standards and guidelines for all relevant management areas described in the 

plan (see FEIS table 26 for the Forest Plan Management Areas within the LJCRP boundary and the extent 

of each management area within the project boundary.)

This decision is consistent with other applicable Forest Plan amendments, including Eastside Screens 

with the exception of the plan amendment described below, and PACFISH.

In addition, I have determined that this decision is consistent with the following provisions of the NFMA: 

suitability for timber production ((16 USC 1604(k)); timber harvest on National Forest Lands (16 USC 

1604(g)(3)(E)); clearcutting and even-aged management (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(F)); stands of trees are 

harvested according to requirements for culmination of mean annual increment of growth (16 USC 

1604(m)); construction of temporary roadways in connection with timber contracts, and other permits or 

leases (16 USC 1608(b)); and, standards of roadway construction (16 USC 1608(c)).
Record of Decision

17

Non-significant Forest Plan Amendment #46

This decision requires a forest plan amendment in conformance with the 1982 Planning Rule process2, 

following Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 1926.51 - January 31, 2006). The significance of the 

amendment was evaluated in accordance with FSM 1926.51 and FSM 1926.52, and found to be nonsignificant according to this policy. Opportunities for public participation and notification were provided 

as required in § 219, § 219.4 and § 219.16.

Treatment in 25 acres of OFSS will not comply with some specific direction in Eastside Screens 

(Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 – Revised Interim Management Direction Establishing 

Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales). Amendment is required to allow thinning 

and removal of trees from 25 acres within old forest, single story (OFSS) stands (FEIS page 55); OFSS is 

below HRV the LJCRP landscape. Understory tree thinning in these areas is necessary to restore and 

maintain the OFSS structure and allow the effective reintroduction of fire. This responds to the project 

purpose and need to increase the amount of single-story, old forest. This is a site specific amendment for 

purposes of implementing the LJCRP. This amendment applies only to the LJCRP activities for the life of 

the Project. Direction in Eastside Screens is amended as follows:

Standard #6(d) Scenario A, changes from “Do not allow timber sale harvest activities to occur 

within LOS stages that are below HRV.” to “Allow timber sale harvest activity in within 25 acres of 

old forest single stratum (OFSS), which is below HRV, but where treatments would only remove 

trees < 21 inches dbh, and there would be no net loss of late-old structure following the treatment 

(e.g., the units classified as OFSS structure before treatment, would also be classified as OFSS 

structure after treatment).”

The amendment will not alter multiple-use forest plan goals and objectives or adjust management area

boundaries. The amendment will not alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods 

and services originally projected for the WWNF, nor will it alter timber suitability. The amendment will 

not result in an important effect to the entire land management planning area, and is a specific, one-time 

variance for this restoration project and decision. The plan amendment that is specific to this decision will 

not impose direction on ongoing or future analyses. A detailed review of the Forest Plan amendments 

under the 1982 planning procedures outlined in Forest Service Manual 1920, Section 1926 – Land 

Management Planning Using Planning Regulations in Effect Before November 9, 2000 (see ROD 

Appendix 2). Based on this evaluation I have determined that the Forest Plan Amendment in my decision 

is not significant under the NFMA implementing regulation.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider and disclose the 

effects of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The LJCRP 

FEIS analyzes three alternatives and displays the effects in conformance with the Act (40 CFR 1500 to 

1508 and FSH 1909.15).

Endangered Species Act

This decision is compliant with the legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)). The FEIS discloses potential impacts to the federally listed, proposed, and 

 2 Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning Handbook Chapter 20 – Land Management Plan 

states: Plan amendments started after May 9, 2015, must conform to the 2012 Planning Rule requirements. Before 

that date, plan amendments may be made following the 1982 Rule process or following the 2012 Planning Rule. (36 

CFR 219.17(b)(2)). This proposed action was developed and scoped prior to May 9, 2015. The Responsible Official 

has elected to follow the 1982 Planning Rule procedures for purposes of making this amendment.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

18

candidate species. Biological Assessments have been completed for all TES plant and aquatic species. No 

proposed or federally-listed terrestrial wildlife or invertebrate species exist or have been identified as 

described for Wallowa County, which encompasses the LJCRP area (FEIS chapter 2, Wildlife). Habitat 

exists in the project area for the federally threatened plant Silene spaldingii, but no populations were 

discovered during plant surveys for threatened and endangered species. The LJCRP area includes 

federally-listed Snake River steelhead, and Snake River spring Chinook salmon and their designated 

critical habitat. Determinations were made by agency biologists that the selected alternative may affect 

and are likely to adversely affect Snake River steelhead and designated critical habitat. The selected 

alternative may affect, and are not likely to adversely affect essential fish habitat for spring Chinook 

salmon under the Magnuson-Steven Act. Details are found in the Aquatics, TES plants, and Wildlife 

sections of the FEIS, Chapter 4. 

Consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

has been completed. A Letter of Concurrence from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, dated June 5, 

2015, and a Biological Opinion, dated June 15, 2016, are located in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project record. Terms and Conditions to implement Reasonable and Prudent Measures have been issued 

by NOAA Fisheries in the Biological Opinion. These Terms and Conditions have been incorporated into 

this decision and will be implemented. Design features have been developed to protect federally 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species in the event they are detected during project implementation 

(FEIS, Appendix J). If listed species are found during project implementation, consultation may be reinitiated for this project.

The Draft ESA Recovery Plan for Northeast Oregon Snake River Spring and Summer Chinook Salmon 

and Snake River Steelhead Populations (2014) provides guidance for the protection and restoration of 

Northeast Oregon Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon and steelhead populations. The LJCRP 

intersects the Grande Ronde River major population group (MPG) of the Snake River steelhead distinct 

population segment (DPS). The steelhead population in Joseph Creek has been deemed highly viable, and 

the diversity risk is low. The LJCRP is consistent with the relevant goals of this plan relative to 

eliminating barriers to fish migration, reducing uncharacteristic fire severity risks, and restoring large 

wood to riparian systems over the long term.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Sensitive species from the December 2011 (plants) and January 2011 (wildlife) Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species lists, for which population viability is a concern were analyzed as a part of the FEIS 

(Appendices E and F). Three sensitive bryophytes and three sensitive vascular plants are suspected in the 

LJCRP’s forested habitats, and there are five sensitive plant species documented in grassland and lithosol 

habitats in the project area. The selected alternative may impact individuals or habitat of sensitive species, 

but is not likely to contribute to a trend toward federal listing, nor cause a loss of viability to listed plant, 

fish, and animal populations or species. Biological Evaluations were prepared to assess potential effects to 

sensitive species as identified by the Regional Forester. This evaluation for aquatic species, sensitive 

plants and terrestrial wildlife determined that, while activities associated with Alternative 2 may result in 

some impacts to individual sensitive species, those effects are not likely to contribute to a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of viability of the population or species (FEIS, Chapter 4). While the selected 

alternative includes modifications to Alternative 2, the effects of the harvest in this decision on these 

species will be similar to those for Alternative 2. The roads decisions provide similar effects for fish and 

wildlife habitat effectiveness compared to Alternative 1, while still maintaining roaded access to many 

parts of the project area. 
Record of Decision

19

National Historic Preservation Act

Heritage surveys have been completed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. State Historic Preservation Office consultation is guided by the Programmatic 

Agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 

(Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) regarding Cultural Resource Management on National Forests dated June 2004. All 

previously and newly identified cultural sites determined eligible, or potentially eligible, to the National 

Register of Historic Places will be protected from all project activities associated with the LJCRP (FEIS 

Appendix J). Because heritage resources will not be affected by activities under this decision, there will 

be no effect to any historic property listed in or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (FEIS, 

Chapter 4). Part III.A of the Programmatic Agreement (2004) states that “If the SHPO does not respond 

within 30 days of receipt of the Forest’s request, the Forest may assume SHPO’s concurrence in its 

findings and proceed accordingly. The Oregon SHPO did not respond within the 30 day timeframe 

resulting in concurrence of the Forest’s No Effect determination. 

Clean Water Act

The LJCRP is in compliance with the Clean Water Act and its design is consistent with the 

recommendations of the Lower Grande Ronde Subbasins TMDL (2010). By implementing and 

monitoring water quality related Best Management Practices (FEIS Appendix J), this decision will protect 

waters within the planning area and downstream from the proposed management activities. In addition to 

our water quality analysis, we conducted a thorough review of the water use permits in the analysis area. 

We found that the decision does not conflict with any beneficial uses of water.

Clean Air Act

The FEIS (Chapter 4, Physical Environment, Air Quality) addresses and discloses impacts from 

prescribed fire as required by the Clean Air Act. This decision will follow the established rules to comply 

with the Clean Air Act prior to implementing planned ignition or using unplanned ignitions to benefit 

restoration objectives. The number of acres accomplished per year will be determined by established 

emission limits negotiated with the State of Oregon and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ), funding, appropriate burn conditions, and personnel availability. In the short term, there will be 

air quality impacts during implementation of this decision. However, National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) will not be exceeded. In the long term, there will be less fuel and a lower emission 

potential once an area has received one burn. 

Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 - Wetlands and Floodplain 

Management

This decision will have no adverse impact on floodplains or wetlands and is therefore consistent with 

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. Floodplains and wetlands will be protected by applicable PACFISH 

RHCA buffers (USDA and USDI 1995), except along approximately 0.5 miles of the valley bottom 

meadow adjacent to Swamp Creek, where encroaching conifers will be cut to meet Riparian Management 

Objectives and restore structure, pattern and species composition of overstory vegetation. All other 

floodplains and wetlands will be protected by applicable PACFISH RHCA buffers.

Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice

This decision is not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on environmental justice communities. Through public meetings, community members and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

20

representatives expressed that they expect the LJCRP to improve current environmental justice 

conditions, specifically related to low-income populations and children. 

Implementation of this project is anticipated to benefit human health or environmental effects to minority 

or low-income populations in Wallowa County and northeast Oregon. Rural communities in eastern 

Oregon, such as Wallowa County, are underserved populations. The LJCRP can contribute important 

inputs into the local economy, including forest products, low-cost fuelwood, and opportunities for 

contract work for forest products and restoration businesses.

With increased job opportunities for parents, they will be able to provide better opportunities for their 

children and the expected increase in the tax base under this decision will presumably provide more 

support for schools. An increase in the tax base could also potentially increase social services for lowincome populations and help alleviate poverty. The low income populations in the LJCRP analysis area 

will not be affected by the decision’s road network since there will be little change from current 

conditions. 

The environmental justice communities expected to be impacted the most are within the Nez Perce tribe, 

since this community uses the Lower Joseph area for cultural and religious practices as well as for 

subsistence uses. In the long-term, the decision is expected to improve natural resource conditions. 

Traditional and sacred forest uses will continue under this decision (see socioeconomic and tribal and 

heritage reports).

Smoke emissions resulting from wildfires and prescribed burns can have health and quality of life 

consequences. Smoke is most likely to affect vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, and 

individuals in poor health. Limited communications technology, language barriers, and cultural 

differences may also limit the effectiveness of informing nearby residents of upcoming prescribed burns. 

These conditions will occur in all alternatives evaluated, including the no action alternative. Burn plans 

will be written for implementation of the proposed prescribed fires. The burn plans will include modeling 

to determine the most appropriate conditions under which to burn in order to minimize smoke impacts. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridor is included in the LJCRP boundaries. This 

decision is consistent with the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 

1271 et seq.), and preserves the outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values of the Joseph Creek 

WSR for the enjoyment of present and future generations. This decision is consistent with direction in the 

1994 Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (Decision Notice signed June 7, 1994, 

amending the Forest Plan). No vegetation treatments will occur in the river corridor, except the use of 

planned and/or unplanned fire, consistent with natural fire frequency and intensity. All treatments within 

view of the WSR will maintain structural diversity and the natural mosaic landscape character, and appear 

unaltered to slightly altered in the short-term, and unaltered in the long-term when viewed from the WSR. 

The project areas that overlap the WSR boundary have mitigation measures to protect soil and watershed, 

scenery, and other resources. The activities approved in this decision will help to protect potential values 

of the WSR from the effects of wildfire (see FEIS, Appendix J, scenery Project Design Criteria; and 

scenery specialist report in the project file).

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

This decision is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule (36 CFR Part 294, 

Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 9, pages 3244-3273) which established protections for inventoried roadless 

areas. The rule prohibits road construction and road reconstruction as well as cutting, sale or removal of 
Record of Decision

21

timber in IRAs with specified exceptions. There will be no construction or reconstruction of roads within 

IRA. 

This decision also meets the expectation in RACR, that the cutting and removal of timber in these areas 

will be infrequent (§219.13(b)). No other projects are proposed within the IRAs analyzed in the LJCRP. 

The analysis documented in the FEIS and specialist report indicate that one or more roadless area 

characteristics will be maintained or improved, as required (§294.13(b)(1)). Consistency with the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR part 294) is demonstrated in the FEIS, Chapter 4.

With regard to the cutting, sale or removal of timber is limited to generally small diameter timber 

(§294.13(b)(1)), the areas identified for stand improvement in the Joseph Creek and Wildhorse IRAs 

typically include young stands dominated by small trees. Evaluation of silvicultural data shows stand 

improvement treatments will result in an increase in average diameter, indicating the trees removed were 

generally small diameter relative to the remaining trees in the stand.

The purpose of treatment in LJCRP’s IRAs is to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem 

composition or structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of 

variability that will be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. 

This aligns with one of the purposes for which the cutting, sale or removal of generally small diameter 

timber is needed (36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1)(ii)). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186

This decision, with the project design features, mitigation measures, and best management practices 

described in Appendix J of the FEIS provides for adequate conservation measures for migratory birds. In 

the short-term, some nesting habitat may be lost because of logging and burning, but the scale and timing 

at which it will occur is not expected to significantly reduce Neotropical migratory bird species richness 

or abundance. Some birds may experience shifts in home ranges as habitat is altered, but treatments will

not result in their complete displacement from the project area. There is no indication that habitat changes 

from the decision will result in reduced numbers of these birds that will be meaningful at local or 

landscape scales (FEIS Chapter 4, Landbirds and Migratory Birds).

Management Indicator Species

Management Indicator Species are discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the FEIS, including a snag analysis 

(Wildlife section). All activities associated with this decision have been found to be consistent with the 

Forest Plan, as amended, for this category of species. Additionally, this decision does not result in a longterm reduction in the number of acres of available habitat for any of the management indicator species, 

and does not contribute towards a negative trend in viability on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 

For more detailed information, see the wildlife specialist’s report and aquatics specialist report in the 

project record for complete Management Indicator Species analyses.

Travel Management Rule

Since 2007, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has been building the Travel Management Plan (TMP) 

for the Forest, per the direction in the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212 Subpart B). No 

timeframe has been established because these discussions will take some time in order to ensure sound 

decisions are made and supported in the future. Until a Forest-wide TMP is finalized, access management 

is occurring on a project-by-project basis (except in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, which 

follows the HCNRA Comprehensive Management Plan), but this process does not supersede the TMP 

process. The Forest Service is working collaboratively with local communities, interest groups, Tribes, 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

22

other agencies, and Wallowa-Whitman employees, while also adhering to local, state and federal 

regulations and caring for the land. 

A roads analysis (FSH 7709.55, chapter 20) was conducted to inform the decision related to the 

designation of roads for motor vehicle use in the LJCRP area. Management of cross-country travel and 

off-highway vehicle trails was not identified as a purpose and need for this project, and was not a part of 

the EIS analysis. The LJCRP decision makes changes to the transportation system.

Permits, Licenses, and Authorizations Needed to Implement the 

Decision

• In accordance with the legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), formal consultation was conducted with NMFS, and informal consultation was 

conducted with FWS. Coordination will continue with the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA 

Fisheries throughout project implementation as treatments are completed and effects monitored.

• Initial concurrence from Oregon SHPO was received in accordance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

• Per agreement with the Nez Perce tribe, consultation will occur prior to initiating project-specific task 

orders to identify traditional use areas and, if necessary, develop project-specific mitigation measures 

to accommodate traditional use of the forest by tribal members.

• All burning will be coordinated daily with the State of Oregon. Burning will not take place on any 

portion of the project without prior approval from the State of Oregon.

Wallowa County Comprehensive Plan and Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan

Wallowa County is a cooperating agency on the LJCRP, and submitted the original project proposal in the 

form of a watershed assessment and prioritized restoration treatments. The LJCRP is consistent with the 

Wallowa County Comprehensive Plan, including the goal “to conserve forest lands for forest uses” (Goal 

4), and “to conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources” (Goal 5), and related policies. 

This decision is also consistent with Wallowa County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2006) by 

reducing fire risk and development of a fire-resilient landscape.

Interagency National Cohesive Wildfire Strategy

The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is a strategic plan to work collaboratively 

among all stakeholders and across all landscapes, and use the best science to make meaningful progress 

towards three goals: 1. resilient landscapes; 2. fire adapted communities; and 3. safe and effective wildfire 

response. This decision is consistent with all three goals of this national strategy through the development 

of a fire resilient landscape, which will also increase the safety and effectiveness of wildfire response.

Nez Perce Tribe Management Plans

The Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management Plan (2013-2028) provides direction to 

tribal staff to implement a program consistent with Nez Perce treaty-reserved rights that will: restore a 

balance with nature, bring fish populations and their habitats to healthy conditions, and provide harvest 

opportunities for tribal members. The Nez Perce Fisheries Department interacts in co-management of 

federal lands and cooperation on restoration projects, fish and habitat monitoring, operation of 

acclimation sites, facility use, harvest access, and effects of forest management actions. The goals of the 
Record of Decision

23

LJCRP are consistent, to the extent practicable within the Forest Service’s policies for multiple uses, with 

those of the Nez Perce Department of Fisheries Resources Management Plan.

The 15,325 acre Nez Perce Precious Lands Wildlife Management Area (PLWMA) is located adjacent to 

the northern boundary of the project area, and includes 3,472 acres within the Joseph Creek drainage. The 

PLWMA management plan outlines the tribe’s strategy for mitigating wildlife habitat losses incurred from 

installation of the four lower Snake River dams. The LJCRP is consistent with the objectives of the 

adjacent PLWMA to: use active management in some riparian and forest communities to reach desired 

structural and compositional conditions; thin ponderosa pine stands (particularly small diameter trees) to 

promote open, more fire-resistant conditions; use prescribed burning in some pine stands to remove fuels 

and regenerate understory browse for deer and elk; use prevention and control strategies for non-native 

invasive weeds; use prescribed fire as a management tool to remove undesirable vegetation and improve 

forage condition on big game winter range; and minimize negative impacts to riparian areas, conifer 

stands, air quality, and adjacent landowners.

Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands

The project area is not located in or adjacent to prime farmlands; therefore, there will be no impacts to 

prime farmlands. The project does not contain prime rangeland because of soils and climate, and none of 

the proposed activities in the project will convert rangelands to other uses. Therefore, there will be no 

adverse impacts on prime rangelands. The project will not convert forestlands to other uses. All lands 

designated as forested will be retained and managed as forested; therefore, there will be no negative 

impacts on prime forestland. 

Administrative Review 

The LJCRP FEIS and a Draft Record of Decision were distributed according to 36 CFR 218.7 and a 45-

day administrative review (objection) period began on July 15, 2016, and ended with the Regional 

Forester’s Objection Response and letters to objectors dated March 10, 2017 (pursuant to 36 CFR 

218.11(b)(1)). All concerns and instructions identified by the reviewing officer in the objection response 

have been addressed. Information about public involvement and the objection period are detailed above 

and in the project record.

Implementation Effective Date

Implementation may begin immediately.

Contact

For additional information concerning this project, please contact Kris Stein, District Ranger, Wallowa 

Mountains Office, by phone: 541-426-5501 or email: krisstein@fs.fed.us, or Dea Nelson, Environmental

Coordinator and Planner, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, by phone: 541-523-1216 or email: 

dnelson09@fs.fed.us. Additional information is also available on the project website at: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=43379

Responsible Official Signature

____________________________________________ ________________

TOM MONTOYA Date

Forest Supervisor, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

24

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived 

from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing

deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027,

found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter

addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the 

complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by mail to U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-

9410; fax: (202) 690-7442; or email: program.intake@usda.gov.

 
Record of Decision

25

Appendix 1- Open Road Densities
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

26

Open Road Densities by Alternative

Subwatershed 

Name

Management 

Area*

Forest 

Plan 

Standard 

Alt 1 

Open Rd 

Density 

(mi/sqmi) 

Alt 2 

Open Rd 

Density 

(mi/sqmi) 

Alt 3 

Open Rd 

Density 

(mi/sqmi) 

Record Of Decision

Open Rd Density 

(mi/sq mi)

Broady Creek 1 2.5 1.6 1.6 2.8 1.7 

3 1.5 - - 0.3 0.1 

10 1.35 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 

Cougar CreekJoseph Creek1 2.5 3.7 3.3 4.1 3.4 

3 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.9 

Davis Creek 1 2.5 4 2.9 4.4 4.0 

3 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

Horse Creek 10 1.35 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.7 

Lower Cottonwood 

Creek

10 1.35 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Lower Swamp 

Creek

1 2.5 2.6 2.6 3 2.7 

3 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 

Peavine CreekJoseph Creek1 2.5 1.1 1.1 2.1 1.8 

3 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 

Rush Creek-Joseph 

Creek

1 2.5 3.1 3.1 3.9 2.7 
Record of Decision

27

Subwatershed 

Name

Management 

Area*

Forest 

Plan 

Standard 

Alt 1 

Open Rd 

Density 

(mi/sqmi) 

Alt 2 

Open Rd 

Density 

(mi/sqmi) 

Alt 3 

Open Rd 

Density 

(mi/sqmi) 

Record Of Decision

Open Rd Density 

(mi/sq mi)

3 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 

Sumac CreekJoseph Creek1 2.5 3.5 2.9 4.1 3.5 

3 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 

Upper Cottonwood 

Creek

1 2.5 14.8 14.8 16.1 16.1 

10 1.35 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 

*MA1=Timber Production, MA3=Wildlife/Timber, MA10=HCNRA Forage Production
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

28

Appendix 2- Forest Plan Amendment

Forest Plan Amendment #46 and Determination of NFMA 

Significance

Forest Plan Background

The Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan was approved April 23, 1990 consistent with NFMA and the 1982 

planning rule. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s (WWNF) Forest Plan provides direction for 

management of activities by providing goals and objectives and forest-wide standards and guidelines for 

particular resources and their uses. It also allocates all acres of NFS lands within the WWNF to 

management areas (MA), and provides specific management direction for each. Consistent with NFMA, 

forest plans may be amended and since 1990 the WWNF Forest Plan has been amended 50 times. While 

most of these amendments apply only to activities associated with a particular project and are not 

pertinent to management within this project area, two do provide important guidance. 

On National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA), 

management is guided primarily by a Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP), approved on July 21, 

2003, which amended the 1990 Forest Plan (Amendment #29). The original CMP was authorized in 1982 

and was incorporated into the 1990 Forest Plan without modification. The 2003 CMP amended the Forest 

Plan to change some management direction for the HCNRA, where deemed necessary based upon 

analysis in the CMP Final Environmental Impact Statement. Some management did not change. “New” 

direction in the form of goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, monitoring and evaluation and 

management areas, was provided for 16 resource areas (HCNRA CMP Record of Decisions, 2003).

Proposed projects and activities must be evaluated for consistency with applicable plan components, 

following agency planning direction at 36 CFR 219.10(e) of the planning regulations in effect before 

November 9, 2000. Consistency with applicable forest-wide plan standards and with standards for 

specific MA allocations must be reviewed, in addition to standards in applicable forest plan amendments. 

The 1990 Forest Plan generally combines standards and guidelines, which are interpreted to be standards 

and therefore provide required direction. Evaluation of forest plan consistency can be found in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project (LJCRP), under 

each resource discussion in Chapter 4. Potentially needed amendments are described for each of 

alternatives analyzed in detail (FEIS pages 68-76). 

Guidance contained in two forest-wide amendments is also applicable to the LJCRP project area, on lands 

both within HCNRA and outside of it:

• Regional Forester Amendment #2 – Revised Interim Standards for Timber Sales on Eastside 

Forests – “Eastside Screens” (1995)

• Regional Forester Amendment #3 – Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing 

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California – “PACFISH” 

(1995)

The decision is fully consistent with the standards in the Forest Plan, including the two applicable 

amendments listed above, with the exception of specific direction in Eastside Screens regarding timber 

sale harvest within late, old structure (LOS) stages that are below historic range of variability (HRV). The 

proposed site-specific plan amendment is discussed below. The proposed plan amendment would apply to 

only the LJCRP and would last for the life of the LJCRP.
Record of Decision

29

Evaluation of Significance of Forest Plan Amendment Allowing Thinning 

in OFSS stands below HRV

The following documentation includes my review of the forest plan amendment included in my decision 

relative to significance under the NFMA implementing regulation. The Forest Service Land and Resource 

Management Planning Manual (Forest Service Manual 1926.51) lists that changes to the land 

management plan that are non-significant can result from:

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.

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription.

Under the 2012 Planning Rule (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219–Planning) the responsible 

official may complete and approve the plan revision in conformance with the provisions of the prior 

planning regulation, including the transition provisions of the reinstated 2000 rule (36 CFR part 299, 

published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010). The transition provisions allow the use 

of the 1982 planning procedures (see CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2000). See the following 

hyperlink for the 1982 planning procedures: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html. I 

have elected to use the 1982 procedures for the proposed forest plan amendment.

Amendment Description

The LJCRP vegetation management decision amends one standard (from Eastside Screens) in the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s 1990 Forest Plan (as amended) that prohibits timber sale harvest 

activities in late old structure (LOS) stages that are below historic range of variability (HRV). The 

amendment changes the language for the Eastside Screens amendment, Standard #6(d) Scenario A. The 

plan amendment applies only to the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area and only for the 

duration of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project. 

The current forest plan language states “Do not allow timber sale harvest activities to occur within LOS 

stages that are below HRV”.

The amended forest plan would state “Allow timber sale harvest activity within 25 acres of old forest 

single stratum (OFSS) which is below HRV, but where treatments would only remove trees < 21 inches 

dbh, and there would be no net loss of late-old structure following the treatment (e.g., the units classified 

as OFSS structure before treatment, would also be classified as OFSS structure after treatment ).”

Need for Amendment

The interim ecosystem standard in Eastside Screens requires a proposed timber sale and its associated 

watershed to be characterized for patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment and compared to 

the HRV. The difference in percent composition of the structural stages between HRV and current 

conditions is evaluated. Those combinations of structural conditions and biophysical environments that 

are outside HRV conditions must be considered when determining location of treatments and treatment 

type, to ensure that LOS stands do not fall below HRV. A 2011 letter of direction from then Forest 

Supervisor Monica Schwalbach instructed forest leadership to use forest structure information in Table 3 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

30

of the document “Range of Variation Recommendations for Dry, Moist, and Cold Forests” (David Powell 

2010) when analyzing HRV.

The Eastside Screens amendment referred to two stages of LOS as single stratum with large trees (SSLT) 

and multi-strata with large trees (MSLT). The LJCRP FEIS relies on updated terminology as directed by 

the same 2011 letter from the forest supervisor. Discussions in the FEIS refer to LOS, with two stages 

identified as old forest single story (OFSS) and old forest multi-story (OFMS). The updated terminology 

is synonymous with that used in Eastside Screens.

Interim wildlife standards follow two possible scenarios based on the outcome of the HRV analysis within 

the watershed. Across much of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, especially for the Dry Upland 

Forest potential vegetation group, existing stand conditions are best represented by Scenario A because 

one or both of the LOS stages (OFSS or OFMS) fall below HRV. Scenario B represents situations where a 

single LOS stage exists and it is at or above HRV, or if both types of LOS stages occur both are at or 

above HRV. The HRV analysis for LJCRP indicates that existing conditions are representative of Scenario 

A, with one LOS stage (OFMS) within HRV and the other (OFSS) below (FEIS page 69). 

Eastside Screens wildlife standards stipulate that under Scenario A, there shall be no timber sale harvest 

activities within LOS stages that are below HRV, and no net loss of LOS shall occur from that biophysical 

environment. In order to restore and maintain the OFSS structure longer, and allow the effective 

reintroduction of fire, thinning would occur in 25 acres. No trees greater than or equal to 21 inches dbh 

would be removed, and the stands would continue to represent OFSS post-treatment (FEIS page 70); 

therefore, there would be no net loss of LOS. Although LOS would be maintained or enhanced, it has 

been interpreted that an amendment is still appropriate in order to authorize timber sale activities in these 

stands because they are in a LOS stage currently below HRV.

Amendment is required to allow thinning and removal of trees from 25 acres within old forest, single 

story (OFSS) stands (FEIS page 55). Understory tree thinning in these areas is necessary to restore and 

maintain the OFSS structure and allow the effective reintroduction of fire. This responds to the project 

purpose and need to increase the amount of single-story, old forest.

Rationale for Amending 

Within in the project area, there are approximately 250 acres of map-able area in an OFSS structural 

stage. This structural stage is unique within the project area as it currently makes up less than 1 percent of 

the forested landscape. The forest structural stage HRV assessment estimates OFSS was 10-20 percent of 

the moist forest setting and 40-60 percent of the dry (Appendix Table 2-1). Comparing existing condition 

to HRV indicates a substantial departure from HRV for OFSS. An evaluation of these areas determined 

they are currently trending toward a multi-story condition. This amendment authorizes 25 acres of 

understory tree thinning within areas classified as OFSS with the intent to maintain this unique single 

story structure and prevent these acres from converting to an old forest multi-story (OFMS) structural 

stage. 

The understory thinning treatments proposed for these stands would address species composition, stand 

density, insect susceptibility, climate change adaptation, and fire risk considerations. As described in the 

FEIS (page 73) treatments to thin 25 acres in old forest single story (OFSS) conditions under this decision 

are designed to:

• Improve tree vigor, and resistance to western pine beetle attack and future wildfire risk, thereby 

ensuring maintenance and persistence of the large-tree component into the future. Reestablishing 

a large-tree component would also increase resiliency to climate change, and the safety and 

effectiveness of prescribed fire applications.
Record of Decision

31

• Contribute to species composition objectives for the LJCRP. Of the 25 acres of proposed 

treatments in OFSS condition in the proposed action, about 19 acres occurs in stands with a 

ponderosa pine (PP) cover type (PP is below HRV); the remaining 6 acres occurs in stands with a 

Douglas-fir (DF) cover type (DF is above HRV) (FEIS Table 12). The ponderosa pine treatments 

are designed to maintain ponderosa pine as the dominant cover type, whereas the Douglas-fir 

treatments are designed to convert Douglas-fir to a ponderosa pine cover type, thereby moving 

the landscape toward HRV.

• Contribute to stand density objectives for the LJCRP. The entire 25 acres of proposed treatment in 

OFSS are designed to reduce stand density. Low stand density is substantially below HRV (FEIS 

Table 13). In areas with wildlife habitat connectivity objectives, treatments would ensure 

maintenance of these cover objectives.

Thinning of 25 acres in OFSS stands would maintain old forest structure and would meet the intent of 

Eastside Screens wildlife standards under Scenario A to cause no net loss of late-old forest structure as a 

result of proposed treatments. In addition, preventing or retarding the natural progression of OFSS to 

OFMS on these 25 is desired because OFMS will be within HRV following treatments authorized by the 

decision and OFSS is currently under-represented within the project area. Treatments would maintain the 

25 acres as OFSS much longer compared to no treatment.

Evaluation of Significance of Amendment of Eastside Screens

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

and resource management. (Forest Plan Level)

Project activities associated with the decision would directly affect a small amount of LOS (25 acres) of 

the 311,730 acres of all LOS that exists across the forest (Appendix Table 2-1). This represents less than 

1/1000 of 1 percent of the LOS across the forest. The 25 acres represent and approximately 2/100 of 1 

percent of the 10,940 acres of OFSS forest-wide. 

Within the project area old forest single stratum stage is rare, under-represented, and thus; unique. The 

treatments are designed to maintain or enhance conditions of these stands, which are under-represented 

within the project area. The project would have some impacts on wildlife species that are dependent on 

LOS stands and snag habitat, but an assessment of cumulative effects indicates that viability for these 

species would be maintained (FEIS pages 153-154). MIS for these habitats include northern goshawk, 

pileated woodpecker and primary cavity nesters. 

In the 22 years Eastside Screens (Regional Forester’s Plan Amendment #2) has been in place, the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has authorized 11 forest plan amendments to allow harvest in LOS 

stands in stages below HRV (i.e., to standard #6(d), Scenario A). These amendments resulted in a 

cumulative total harvest on approximately 3,169 acres of the 311,730 acres of LOS on the forest 

(Appendix Table 2-2), or about 1 percent. 

The majority of LOS acres treated under past amendments were characterized as OFMS structure. OFMS 

stands occupy approximately 300,790 acres of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and are within HRV 

for all major vegetation groups, while old forest single-stratum (OFSS) stands occupy approximately 

10,000 acres and are well below HRV in all vegetation groups. In most cases, treatments in OFMS 

resulted in no net loss of LOS because harvest was specifically designed and focused to convert acres of 

OFMS into OFSS. This has resulted in an increase of OFSS across the forest. The remaining acres of 

OFMS remain within HRV and thus continue to provide desired amounts of this important structure 

across the landscape and support dependent species.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

32

Appendix Table 2-1 Existing Late and Old Structure (LOS)

and Historic Range of Variability Stand Structure Conditions

on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest by Vegetation Group

Vegetation Group

Existing Acres

Percent of Total 

Vegetation Group in 

Structure1

Historic Range of 

Variability (percent)1

Old Forest 

Multi-Stratum

Old Forest 

Single-Stratum

Old Forest 

Multi-Stratum

Old Forest 

Single-Stratum

Old Forest 

Multi-Stratum

Old Forest 

Single-Stratum

Cold Upland Forest 120,715 4,690 22 1 10 to 25 5 to 20

Dry Upland Forest 81,565 4,685 7 <1 5 to 15 40 to 60

Moist Upland Forest 98,510 1,565 19 <1 15 to 20 10 to 20

Subtotal 300,790 10,940 -- -- -- --

Total late and old structure 311,730 -- --

1/From Powell 2010, Table 3.

Only three of the 11 amendments have authorized treatment in OFSS over 22 years , authorizing harvest 

within 306 acres (FEIS page 205 and Appendix Table 2-2). Actual harvest was considerably less due to 

cancellation of the Snow Basin project prior to its completion. Goals of past and proposed treatments in 

OFSS address needs to restore stands to their historic structure (i.e. to restore and increase the amount of 

OFSS structure), enhance the health of the stands, provide for the habitat needs of old-growth associated 

wildlife species (in particular those species that rely on OFSS stand structural components), and to reduce 

fuel loading. 

The desired cumulative impact (measured at the project scale) of these 11 amendments has been to 

increase the amount of OFSS while maintaining existing OFSS.

Appendix Table 2-2. Summary of Projects with Forest Plan Amendments to Regional Forester’s Eastside Screens 

Amendment (RF-2), Standards #6(d), Scenario A for Treatment in Late and Old Structure Stands 

Project and Amendment 

Number Ranger District Decision Date Amendment Rationale

Scale of Amendment

(LOS acres)

Washington Watershed 17 Whitman February 22, 1995 Promote future oldgrowth habitat. 466 acres treated

Dry Melon 24 LaGrande July 14, 1997

Fuel reduction; 

provide more suitable 

and sustainable 

habitat 

34 acres treated

Mt. Emily Fuels 32 LaGrande December 15, 2004 Fuel reduction 110 acres treated

Mt. Emily II Fuels 34 LaGrande June 28, 2006 Fuel reduction 211 acres treated

Bald Angel Vegetation 35 LaGrande February 22, 2007

Improve long-term 

old growth 

characteristics; return 

to HRV

629 acres treated

Medical Springs WUI 37 LaGrande April 22, 2010

Fuel reduction; 

restore old growth to 

HRV

501 acres treated

(including 45 acres of 

OFSS)
Record of Decision

33

Appendix Table 2-2. Summary of Projects with Forest Plan Amendments to Regional Forester’s Eastside Screens 

Amendment (RF-2), Standards #6(d), Scenario A for Treatment in Late and Old Structure Stands 

Project and Amendment 

Number Ranger District Decision Date Amendment Rationale

Scale of Amendment

(LOS acres)

Horsefly 38 LaGrande August 18, 2008

Fuel reduction; 

restore old growth to 

HRV

124 acres treated

(including 29 acres of 

OFSS)

Sugar 39 LaGrande April 9, 2010

Fuel reduction; 

restore old growth to 

HRV

370 acres treated

Tremble Aspen 40 Whitman August 26, 2010 Aspen restoration 41 acres treated

Cove II WUI 42 LaGrande November 30, 2011 Fuel reduction 240 acres treated

Snow Basin 44 Whitman March 19, 2012 Species composition 

shift

346 acres treated

(including 232 acres 

of OFSS)

East Face 45 Whitman & 

LaGrande February 28, 2016 Fuel reduction

97 acres authorized 

(treatment not 

complete)

Total late and old structure stand acres treated Estimated 3,169

The Forest Resiliency Project, which considers treatments on the Ochoco and Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman National Forests, was scoped in January 2016. The proposed action identified broad treatment 

areas and types of treatments being considered but did not identify any details regarding forest plan 

amendments and locations of specific treatments associated with the proposed action. Therefore this 

project is not, at this time, a reasonably foreseeable future action. 

The effects from past, present and future projects must overlap temporally and spatially with this project 

to contribute to a cumulative effect. No plan amendments for Eastside Screens have been implemented, or 

are planned, within or adjacent to the LJCRP. Therefore, no cumulative effects for LOS are anticipated 

within the LJCRP project area. No amendments allowing treatment in LOS have been approved on the 

Wallowa Valley Ranger District or within HCNRA, so there is no potential for temporally overlapping 

effects at the district scale. There are no cumulative LOS effects of implementing the plan amendment 

under the decision to treat 25 acres of OFSS stands to restore structure and composition, and maintain old 

forest habitat, in combination with similar past amendments on the WWNF because none of the three 

projects overlap in space and time. Increased OFSS stand representation has been a positive outcome 

relative to the extent of the restoration need Forest-wide (FEIS page 205). 

At the scale of the WWNF, the cumulative effects of implementing the plan amendment under this 

decision in combination with similar past amendments on the WWNF are minor, but positive relative to 

the extent of the restoration need Forest-wide (FEIS page 205).

Finding – This is a site-specific amendment to Regional Forester’s Eastside Screens Plan Amendment 

(Amendment RF-2) that will apply only for the duration of, and to those actions proposed for the LJCRP. 

This site-specific amendment would not alter other multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

management on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

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.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

34

Finding - No changes or adjustments in management area boundaries or designations will occur as the 

result of this amendment. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

Finding - This is a site-specific amendment to Regional Forester’s Eastside Screens Plan Amendment 

(Amendment RF-2) that will apply only for the duration of, and to those actions proposed for the sitespecific Lower Joseph Project. The amendment would apply to 25 acres (a very small portion of the 

project area and forest) and as such, is a minor change in standards and guidelines and not significant.

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription.

Finding - This amendment will not result in additional projects or activities that will authorize exceptions 

to the management direction in the Eastside Screens. 

Determination 

Because I have opted to use the plan amendment procedures of the 1982 planning regulations, as allowed 

under the prior planning regulations as provided for by 36 CFR 219, I must make a determination of the 

amendment being significant or not significant. I have determined that the amendment I am approving for 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest LRMP is not a significant amendment. My determination is based 

on the evaluation (above) for the criteria set forth in FSM 1926.52.
Record of Decision

35

Appendix 3 – Maps
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

36

Map 1. First order tributaries into Joseph Creek, Davis Creek, and Swamp Creek
Record of Decision

37

Map 2. Record of Decision Forest Vegetation Treatments
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

38

Map 3. Road Network- North half of project area
Record of Decision

39

Map 4. Road Network- South half of project area