United States Department of Agriculture

Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Stem exclusion Dry forest gap

Post-fire snags and 

regeneration

Post-thin and 

burn with skips
Final Environmental Impact Statement

ii Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

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.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest iii

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Wallowa County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agency: Wallowa County

Responsible Official: TOM MONTOYA, FOREST SUPERVISOR

1550 Dewey Ave., Suite A

Baker City, OR 97814

For Information Contact: MARRIANNE THOMAS, TEAM LEAD 

72510 Coyote Rd.

Pendleton, OR 97801

541-278-3762

Abstract 

This analysis addresses the impacts of implementing the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

(LJCRP). Action alternatives include the Modified Proposed Action, where thinning and mechanical 

fuel treatments across approximately 15,750 acres would encourage the development of landscape 

resilience, including large tree structure, understory plant diversity, forage productivity, characteristic 

fire and insect and pathogen disturbances, natural forest patterns, and provide income and 

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

largely younger trees across an additional 5,400 acres, which are in the process of recovery after stand 

replacement disturbance, would encourage the development of spatial heterogeneity and increase the 

proportion of early seral tree species toward a more resilient condition, consistent with historical 

reference conditions. 31 acres of meadow restoration to remove encroaching trees is also proposed. 

Prescribed burning on up to 90,000 acres (48,200 high priority acres) would reduce both natural fuel 

accumulations and those resulting from thinning; increase understory productivity and diversity; allow 

fire to perform its natural ecological role; and increase resilience to disturbance. The Modified 

Proposed Action and one additional alternative respond to issues related to the transportation system 

and vegetation treatments, particularly those within large tree dominated stands, or within designated 

old growth management areas, inventoried roadless areas, and Category 4 (intermittent, non-fish 

bearing streams) riparian habitat conservation areas. 

Foreword

Joseph Creek Canyon is cut deeply into the flanks of the Blue Mountain geologic province north of the 

Wallowa Mountains. Just as deep are the closely held traditions and values of the diverse people who 

live in this rugged and remote part of the Pacific Northwest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

iv Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Located in the sparsely populated area where Idaho, Washington and Oregon touch borders, the land 

historically saw change measured in the passing of natural events including limited human use. Since 

“time immemorial”, ancestors of the Nez Perce tribe traversed the Lower Joseph Creek landscape, 

hunting, fishing and gathering in the grasslands, forests and tributaries of Joseph Creek. Today, tribal 

members continue these traditions in the LJCRP area, along with members of the recreating public. 

The practice of intentional burning to improve the abundance of native plants and forage for game 

animals is seen in the charcoal traces left in soil, snags and stumps. Through this and other types of 

analysis, scientists are able to piece together a landscape that existed in historic times: one that was 

able to sustain forest and range plants; provide shelter and food for wildlife; and enable native people 

to hunt, fish and gather food to meet their needs. 

Historic assemblages of plant communities, combined with forest stand age, structure, and the 

dispersal of plant communities are on the landscape, are considered to be indicative of optimal 

conditions for a sustainable environment. In the following document you will see this referred to as the 

“historic range of variability for potential vegetation groups” (HRV and PVG), or simply “range of 

variability” (RV). 

Over the last two hundred years, increased human use that included the building of roads, increased 

grazing, suppression of fire and harvesting timber began to take a toll on the ability of the land to 

maintain optimal, sustainable health. People who love this landscape recognize the need to find a way 

to return Lower Joseph Creek Canyon to a condition that will ensure its ability to thrive through the 

centuries to come. In such a condition, the landscape is better able to endure and survive change such 

as longer drought, invasive plants and insects, and uncharacteristic fire. This protective quality is 

called “ecosystem resilience”. Modern, forest management practices can make it possible to move 

toward this healthy, sustainable condition while also incorporating human needs and interactions. 

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

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

health, public safety, and protection of resource values. Increased forest densification and shifts in tree 

species composition are ubiquitous conditions across the PNW. Hence, in 2013, the PNW Region of 

the U.S. Forest Service established the Eastside Restoration Strategy1 (ERS). The ERS focuses on 

accelerating restoration of ecosystem resilience at ecologically-significant scales, and breaking barriers 

to restoration related to traditional planning and project implementation processes. The ERS included 

the establishment of a dedicated interdisciplinary team (Blue Mountains Restoration IDT) to plan two 

large scale, accelerated forest restoration projects in the PNW region’s first geographic priority – the 

Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. The LJCRP is one of two regionally 

sponsored projects the Blue Mountains IDT is using to increase the landscape available for restoration, 

and increase the pace of planning. This project was intentionally designed to encompass a large scale –

100,000 acres versus the typical project size of tens of thousands of acres – and consciously test new 

planning processes, learn from successes and mistakes, and adapt.

The Forest Service team that helped facilitate the discussions leading to this document has seen the 

willingness of citizens to take a broader view of the landscape they use and cherish, and consider 

compromises. Although the groups and individuals who helped put this report together represent 

diverse needs and world views, they share in common the desire to rebuild and sustain this 

magnificent canyon ecosystem for future generations. 

 

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

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

health.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest v

Chapter 1 states the purpose for the project and explains the environmental reasons (need) for the 

project. An overview of the LJCRP area introduces some of the important ecological concepts that will 

be used throughout the report.

Chapter 2 describes the landscape that would be affected by the project. You will learn about Lower 

Joseph Creek Canyon, its history, location and how it has changed from historic, desired conditions to 

the current conditions. Specific details have been included to explain these changes from the 

perspective of the physical environment (including climate, soils and streams), biological environment 

(plants, birds, animals) and social environment (the heritage, interests, impacts and needs of people). 

Chapter 3 will take you through the collaborative process applied to the development of this project. 

It will talk about the different groups who came together to work on the needs and issues described in 

chapter one; the steps that were taken to identify areas of agreement and disagreement about 

management techniques for addressing the needs of the landscape. These discussions lead to a number 

of alternative ideas for how to reach a “resilient” ecosystem. Ultimately, three alternatives were 

analyzed. Alternative one would be to take no action. Alternative two represents a modified version of 

the initial Forest Service proposal for the project area. Accordingly, this option is also referred to as the 

“modified proposed action”. Alternative three differs from two in the “key areas of disagreement” 

(roads, maximum size of harvested trees and locations of active forest management).

Chapter 4 will examine the direct and indirect consequences of following each of the alternatives. 

This information describes the specific impacts that each alternative would have on the physical, 

biological and social environments referenced in chapter one. Of the three alternatives, the Forest 

Service has selected Alternative 2 as providing the best scenario for moving the land within the Lower 

Joseph Creek Restoration Project area from current conditions to desired conditions while also 

integrating human needs, traditions and values. 

Following Chapter 4 is a section of information on the individuals, teams and other agencies that 

worked together to develop the alternatives and analyses presented in this document.

Maps are included in a separate map packet (Appendix A). Explanatory sidebars, a glossary and a list 

of acronyms are provided to help the reader obtain a fuller understanding of the project. Extensive and 

detailed background information regarding specific environmental issues is included in the appendix

and project record.

Project Record

Additional documentation, including detailed specialist reports underlying the background and 

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

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

541-426-5546.

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

(40 CFR 1502.10). This report will tell the story of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project in four 

chapters.

Summary

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

enhance forest resiliency to natural disturbances; protect natural resources at risk to uncharacteristic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

vi Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks; contribute to local economic and social vitality; modify fire 

behavior potential; and improve future forest, and fire management. 

In addition to the desired outcomes expressed in Forest Service plans and policies, the 

recommendations in this document were guided by input from tribes, cooperating governments, 

interest groups, and the public.

The Forest Service facilitated a collaborative process which identified three significant issues 

impacting management options considered for the area targeted by LJCRP:

1. Selecting the best vegetation treatments to restore forest structure and composition toward a 

more resilient condition, in-part represented by the historic range of variation (HRV; particularly 

regarding the size and species of trees to retain or harvest);

2. Choosing the type of forest management needed in designated old growth management areas 

(Management Area 15), inventoried roadless areas, and riparian habitat conservation areas to move 

toward HRV; and

3. Identifying the best network of roads to allow for recreation, harvesting forest products, fire 

management, accessing private inholdings, administration, and other uses, while also reducing or 

eliminating the adverse impacts that roads may have on forest habitats and riparian resources.

Scoping generated one alternative (Alternative 3) to the proposed action for achieving the purpose and 

addressing the needs of the project, while also addressing the significant issues noted above. The FEIS 

analyses three alternatives, including the no action (Alternative 1) and two action plans (Alternatives 2 

and 3). Key differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 include:

• The extent of upland forest thinning

• Acreage to be treated in riparian habitat conservation areas and old forest management allocations

• The number of acres treated in inventoried roadless areas

• The extent of high priority prescribed burning 

• The length of the road network for open, closed, and decommissioned roads. 

The effects of restoration and related activities were assessed between the action alternatives, and the 

beneficial and adverse effects of alternative management approaches have been summarized. 

Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest vii

Acronyms

AQI - Air Quality Index

BA – Biological Assessment

BE – Biological Evaluation

BMP – Best Management Practice

BO – Biological Opinion

CEQ – Council on Environmental Quality

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CMP – Comprehensive Management Plan 

CWPP - County Wildfire Protection Plan

DSC – Detrimental Soil Conditions

DBH – diameter breast height

DCH – Designated Critical Habitat

DecAID - Decayed Wood Advisor

DEIS – Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DOGMA – Dedicated Old Growth Management Area

DSC – Detrimental Soil Conditions

DUF – Dry Upland Forest

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

ENSO - El Nino Southern Oscillation

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

ERS – Eastside Restoration Strategy

ESA – Endangered Species Act

FEIS – Final Environmental Impact Statement

FRCC – Fire Regime Condition Class

FSH – Forest Service Handbook

GHG – Green House Gas

GIS – Geographic Information System

GS - Group selection

HCNRA – Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

HEI – Habitat Effectiveness Index

HRV – Historic Range Of Variability

ICBEMP –Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRA – Inventoried Roadless Area

IT – Intermediate treatment

LJCRP – Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

LOS - Late-Old Structural Stages

LRMP – Land and Resources Management Plan

LWD – Large Woody Debris

MA – Management Area

MCR -Middle Columbia River

MIS – Management Indicator Species

MUF – Moist Upland Forest

MVUM – Motor Vehicle Use Map

NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act

NFMA – National Forest Management Act

NTMBS - Neotropical Migratory Bird Species
Final Environmental Impact Statement

viii Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

NOI – Notice of Intent

NFPORS - National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System

NFS – National Forest System

OFMS - Old Forest Multi-Strata

OFSS - Old Forest Single Strata

OHV – Off-Highway Vehicle

PFA – Post-fledgling area (goshawk)

PCE - Primary Cavity Excavators

PVG – Potential Vegetation Group

PWA - Potential Wilderness Area

RACR - Roadless Area Conservation Rule

RHCA – Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

RMO - Riparian Management Objectives

RNA – Research Natural Area

ROD – Record of Decision

ROS – Recreational Opportunity Spectrum

RV – Range of variability

SI – Stand improvement

STS – Single tree selection

TES – Threatened and endangered species

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS – US Fish and Wildlife Service

WEPP -Water Erosion Prediction Project

WMU – Wildlife Management Unit

WUI -Wildland Urban Interface

WWNF – Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Acknowledgements

In addition to those who helped prepare this FEIS (see “Preparers”, following Chapter 4 ), 

the Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Interdisciplinary Team would like to acknowledge 

the input, collaborative efforts, inspiration, and support of the following people and 

organizations: Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative, Wallowa Resources, Blue Mountains 

Coalition of Collaboratives, Jimmy Kagan, Institute for Natural Resources, Mark Stern, The 

Nature Conservancy, Nicole Valliant, Western Wildland Environmental Threat Assessment 

Center, U.S. Forest Service Region 6 and Forest Health Protection staff, and Kevin Martin, 

Forest Supervisor, and his staff at the Umatilla National Forest.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest ix

Contents

Abstract...................................................................................................................................................iii

Foreword.................................................................................................................................................iii

Project Record .................................................................................................................................v

Summary..................................................................................................................................................5

Acronyms.................................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need for Action.............................................................................................1

Summary .............................................................................................................................................1

The Need for Restoration and Project Purpose ...................................................................................1

The Lower Joseph Creek Landscape...A story of vegetation, water and fire.....................................2

CHAPTER 2 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................7

Summary .............................................................................................................................................7

Biological Environment ......................................................................................................................7

Vegetation and Disturbance.............................................................................................................7

Physical Environment........................................................................................................................35

Climate...........................................................................................................................................35

Social Environment ...........................................................................................................................40

Socioeconomics.............................................................................................................................40

Tribal Relations .............................................................................................................................41

Heritage Resources........................................................................................................................42

Research Natural Areas .................................................................................................................43

Recreation......................................................................................................................................43

Scenery ..........................................................................................................................................44

Inventoried Roadless Areas...........................................................................................................47

Potential Wilderness Areas............................................................................................................50

Other Undeveloped Lands.............................................................................................................51

Areas Identified as Roadless by Oregon Wild (OW).....................................................................53

CHAPTER 3 Public Involvement, Issues, the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................55

Summary ...........................................................................................................................................55

Proposed Forest Plan Amendments...............................................................................................55

Significant Issues...............................................................................................................................56

Non-Significant Issues ......................................................................................................................56

Background .......................................................................................................................................58

Forest Plan Direction, Travel Management Planning, and other Key Planning Policies ..............58

Decision Framework......................................................................................................................60

Public Involvement........................................................................................................................60

Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................................................61

Alternative Development Process.....................................................................................................61

Monitoring and Learning...................................................................................................................62

Alternatives Considered in Detail .....................................................................................................65

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................................65

Alternative 2 – The Modified Proposed Action.............................................................................65

Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................................74

Summary of Key Thematic Differences between the Alternatives................................................76

Activities Common to All Action Alternatives .............................................................................77

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ..........................................................80

Summary of Alternatives...................................................................................................................81

CHAPTER 4 Environmental Consequences..........................................................................................83

Summary ...........................................................................................................................................83
Final Environmental Impact Statement

x Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects by Alternative...................................................................84

Spatial and Temporal Context for Project Level Effects Analyses ...............................................84

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions......................................................................85

Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives........................................................................................86

Alternative 1: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects....................................................................88

The Physical Environment.............................................................................................................88

The Biological Environment..........................................................................................................89

The Social Environment ..............................................................................................................101

Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................................108

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ......................................................................................................108

Alternatives 2 and 3.........................................................................................................................108

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives ....................................................................................108

The Physical Environment...........................................................................................................108

The Biological Environment........................................................................................................117

Effects Common to all Habitats...................................................................................................124

The Social Environment ..............................................................................................................134

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 .................................................................145

Short-term Uses/Long-term Productivity ....................................................................................161

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ......................................................................................................161

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.................................................................161

Alternative 2: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects..................................................................162

The Physical Environment...........................................................................................................162

The Biological Environment........................................................................................................162

The Social Environment ..............................................................................................................185

Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................................203

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ......................................................................................................209

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.................................................................209

Alternative 3: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects..................................................................209

The Physical Environment...........................................................................................................209

The Biological Environment........................................................................................................210

The Social Environment ..............................................................................................................226

Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................................233

Unavoidable Adverse Effects..........................................................................................................237

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

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Effects of Not Amending the Forest Plan ...................................................237

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

CHAPTER 5 Preparers and Contributors............................................................................................240

U.S. Forest Service Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Interdisciplinary Team ........................240

Federal, State, and Local Agencies.................................................................................................240

Tribes...............................................................................................................................................240

Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to whom Copies of the Statement were Sent..........................242

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement......................................................................242

Agencies ......................................................................................................................................242

Organizations...............................................................................................................................242

Individuals ...................................................................................................................................243

Tribes...........................................................................................................................................243

Index ....................................................................................................................................................244

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................246

Glossary...............................................................................................................................................260

Appendix A – Maps (In a separate map packet) .............................................................................306

Appendix B - Forest Plan Direction, and Other policies, Laws, Regulations, and Agreements.....307
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest xi

Tiering and Incorporating by Reference......................................................................................307

Forest Plan Management Direction .............................................................................................307

Policies, Treaties and Regulations Pertinent to the LJCRP .........................................................308

Legal Requirements and Required Disclosures...........................................................................309

Plan Amendments........................................................................................................................314

Appendix C - Landscape Modeling Methods..................................................................................317

State-and-transition Modeling Overview.....................................................................................317

Reference Condition by Land Type Association.........................................................................326

Climate Informed Modeling ........................................................................................................330

Effects of Past, Present and Projected Potential Future Forest Treatments on Large Tree Numbers

.....................................................................................................................................................336

Appendix D – Burn probability modeling methods and summary of results..................................350

Inputs ...........................................................................................................................................350

Outputs.........................................................................................................................................350

Appendix E – Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Wildlife and Aquatic Species (TES)

.........................................................................................................................................................355

Appendix F - Region 6 Sensitive Plants documented on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and 

effects calls the LJCRP....................................................................................................................360

Appendix G - Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) Consultation and Coordination Record ..............................369

Appendix H. Non-native Invasive Plants Documented in LJCRP area...........................................373

Appendix I – Response to Comments on the DEIS.........................................................................376

Content Analysis Process.............................................................................................................376

Coding Structure..........................................................................................................................377

Organized Response Report.........................................................................................................380

Summary of Comments and Responses by Category..................................................................381

Comment Letters from Agencies.................................................................................................506

Appendix J - Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices......540

Project Design Features...............................................................................................................540

Sensitive Plants............................................................................................................................540

Special Habitats...........................................................................................................................540

Noxious Weeds............................................................................................................................541

Range ...........................................................................................................................................542

Soils.............................................................................................................................................542

Tribal Relations ...........................................................................................................................544

Heritage Resources......................................................................................................................545

Scenery ........................................................................................................................................546

Wildlife........................................................................................................................................547

Vegetation Management..............................................................................................................552

Prescribed Fire.............................................................................................................................557

Best Management Practices – Water Quality ..............................................................................557

General Planning Activities.........................................................................................................557

Aquatic Ecosystems Management Activities...............................................................................560

Chemical Use Management Activities.........................................................................................566

Road Management Activities.......................................................................................................569

Facilities and Nonrecreation Special Uses Management.............................................................586

Wildland Fire Management Activities.........................................................................................587

Minerals Management Activities.................................................................................................592

Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities..........................................................................596

Appendix K – Roads Analysis.............................................................................................................606
Final Environmental Impact Statement

xii Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

List of Tables

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

Creek Restoration project area.........................................................................................................6

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

Table 3. 2004 to 2013 – Approximate acres of forest vegetation management activities and wildfire in 

the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area ...........................................................................9

Table 4. Status of ongoing projects in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project Area aside from 

forest vegetation management. ........................................................................................................9

Table 5. Description of fire regime groups (from Barrett et al 2010)....................................................12

Table 6. Desired and existing fire regimes for the major vegetation types within the project area 

(Adapted from Barrett et al. 2010 and Stine et al. 2014)...............................................................12

Table 7. Severity class and effects to upper level canopy replacement.................................................13

Table 8. Existing and desired fire severity probabilities for the dry and moist upland forest potential 

vegetation groups...........................................................................................................................14

Table 9. Prioritization scheme for identifying the highest ecological benefit to re-introduce fire. .......14

Table 10. Insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area .........16

Table 11. Distribution of forest structural stages in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area 18

Table 12. Current forest cover type distribution for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project, and 

the natural range of variation in cover types for the Blue Mountains............................................19

Table 13. Distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area .....20

Table 14. Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area..................20

Table 15. Diversity by plant communities, species richness, percent native species and Shannon 

diversity index for LJCRP .............................................................................................................21

Table 16. Wildlife management indicator species identified in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan....25

Table 17. HEI and Cover percentages for desired (Forest Plan) and existing conditions within the 

Lower Joseph project area. ............................................................................................................27

Table 18. Population Trend data Rocky Mountain Elk (ODFW 2014).................................................28

Table 19. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester’s sensitive wildlife species with habitat 

suspected or known to be in the LJCRP area, and descriptions of desired conditions..................30

Table 20. Riparian Management Objectives for the LJCRP..................................................................37

Table 21. Results of aquatic habitat surveys for streams within the Lower Joseph project area...........37

Table 22. Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

analysis area...................................................................................................................................38

Table 23. Generalized vegetation by soil type for the LJCRP...............................................................39

Table 24. Size class and acres of other undeveloped lands in the LJCRP Area ...................................52

Table 25. Acres of Oregon Wild’s roadless area that overlaps with other lands identified in LJCRP. .53

Table 26. Forest Plan Management Areas within the LJCRP boundary. .............................................59

Table 27. Acres of harvest and stand improvement by Forest Plan management area for Alternative 2.

.......................................................................................................................................................67

Table 28. Percent of amendment area (percent of 5,000 acres) by existing and projected post-treatment 

conditions.......................................................................................................................................71

Table 29. Acres of harvest and stand improvement by Forest Plan management area for Alternative 3.

.......................................................................................................................................................74

Table 30. Descriptions of alternatives for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project ......................76

Table 31. Description of forest vegetation treatment types...................................................................77

Table 32. Comparison of restoration actions and effects by alternative................................................81

Table 33. Comparison of selected effects of the alternatives ................................................................86
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest xiii

Table 34. Pileated woodpecker source habitat conditions by alternative ..............................................94

Table 35. Northern goshawk source habitat conditions by alternative..................................................95

Table 36. Source habitat for American marten by alternative ...............................................................96

Table 37. Habitat effectiveness index and cover percentages for the alternatives within the LJCRP 

area.................................................................................................................................................97

Table 38. Road densities by management area and subwatershed currently and by alternative for the 

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

Table 39. TES wildlife species effects by alternative..........................................................................100

Table 40. Nez Perce Concerns Considered for Analysis.....................................................................103

Table 41. PM10 emissions in the Grande Ronde Basin for prescribed fire and wildfire ....................116

Table 42. Relationship of treatment intensity to the desired post treatment density class...................119

Table 43. Summary of impacts to American marten habitat (acres) by alternative at the scale of the 

project area as well as the entire Wallowa-Whitman NF. ...........................................................127

Table 44. Summary of impacts to pileated woodpecker habitat by Alternative (acres of source habitat)

.....................................................................................................................................................128

Table 45. Summary of impacts to Northern Goshawk habitat (acres) by alternative..........................129

Table 46. Activity restrictions according to the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria ..................132

Table 47. High priority prescribed fire areas by action alternative. ....................................................142

Table 48. Amount of high priority prescribed fire within potential wilderness areas by action 

alternative. ...................................................................................................................................144

Table 49. Alternative 2 – Acres by cutting treatment type in the LJCRP area....................................164

Table 50. Alternative 2 - Acres by logging system ............................................................................165

Table 51. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of forest cover types in the LJCRP area ..........166

Table 52. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of forest structural stages in the LJCRP area...166

Table 53. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of tree density classes in the LJCRP area........167

Table 54. Alternative 2 – Post treatment tree size class distribution in the LJCRP area.....................167

Table 55. Alternative 2 – Post treatment insect and disease susceptibility in the LJCRP area ...........169

Table 56. Total road density by subwatershed within the Upper Joseph Watershed by alternative....175

Table 57. Total road density by subwatershed within the Lower Joseph Watershed by alternative ...175

Table 58. Percentage of treated forest in Alternative 2 where trees >21 in. dbh could potentially be 

removed. ......................................................................................................................................179

Table 59. Acres of forest treatments by potential vegetation group (PVG) within MA 15 in Alternative 

2 ...................................................................................................................................................183

Table 60. Distribution of structural stages in old growth preservation areas (MA15) currently and by 

alternative for the LJCRP area.....................................................................................................183

Table 61. Forest treatment acres within connectivity corridors by alternative for the LJCRP............183

Table 62. Present net value for Alternative 2. .....................................................................................185

Table 63. Projected employment by major industry for the proposed alternative...............................186

Table 64. Acres of harvest and stand improvement treatment by IRA in Alternative 2......................195

Table 65. Affected acres in potential Wilderness areas.......................................................................201

Table 66. Change in acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 2...............................................202

Table 67. Acres of harvest and stand improvement within unroaded areas identified by Oregon Wild

.....................................................................................................................................................203

Table 68. Alternative 3 – Acres by cutting treatment type in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area ..................................................................................................................................212

Table 69. Alternative 3 - Acres by logging system .............................................................................212

Table 70. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of forest cover types in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area...............................................................................................................213

Table 71. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of forest structural stages in the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area ....................................................................................................214
Final Environmental Impact Statement

xiv Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Table 72. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area...............................................................................................................214

Table 73. Alternative 3 - Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

area...............................................................................................................................................215

Table 74. Alternative 3 – Post treatment insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area...............................................................................................................217

Table 75. Present net value for alternative 3........................................................................................226

Table 76. Projected employment by major industry for Alternative 3 ................................................227

Table 77. Acres of harvest and stand improvement within OW outside of PWA, IRA and Other 

Undeveloped Land under Alternative 3.......................................................................................233

Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 

2Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 2Alternative 2

List of Maps (Appendix A)

Map 1. Location of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Map 2. Watershed Condition Framework ratings for the LJCRP area

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

Map 4. Droughty soils within the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

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

Map 6. Current level of connectivity between designated old groth (MA15) and other late seral old 

forest.

Map 7. Current forest canopy cover classes across the LJCRP area.

Map 8.Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 9. Soils of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Map 10. Five Panel Map illustrating application of FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71 potential wilderness 

criteria

Map 11a. Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan management areas and proposed Alternative 2 treatments 

within the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project boundaries

Map 11b. Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan management areas and proposed Alternative 3 treatments 

within the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project boundaries

Map 12. Existing condition – road status

Map 13. Alternative 1 - Road status

Map 14. Alternative 2 -Forest vegetation treatments

Map 15. Alternative 2 - Road network

Map 16. Alternative 3 - Vegetation treatments 

Map 17.Alternative 3 - Road network

Map 18. Landforms of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 19. Grazing allotments of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project and Alternative 2

vegetation treatments

Map 20. Alternative 2 - Prescribed fire priorities

Map 21. Alternative 3 - Prescribed fire priorities

Map 22. Overlap of vegetation treatments under alternatives 2 and 3 with IRA, PWA, and other 

undeveloped lands

Map 23. Overlap of vegetation treatments under alternatives 2 and 3 with areas identified as unroaded 

by Oregon Wild

Map 24. Sensitive plant surveys and locations in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest xv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Dry forest “stringers” interspersed with grasslands in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area. .............................................................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Dry old forest multistory condition in the LJCRP area. Remnant old ponderosa pine trees 

stand over recently established Douglas-fir and grand fir, illustrating increased fuel loads, and the 

vulnerability of old trees to loss to uncharacteristic fire........................................................................11

Figure 3. Description of forest structural stages....................................................................................18

Figure 4. Nez Perce Indian Claims Commission Boundary and 1855 and 1863 Treaty Lands Cessions 

(adapted from Nez Perce 2013).............................................................................................................42

Figure 5. Developed recreation within the LJCRP area. .......................................................................45

...............................................................................................................................................................78

Figure 6. Example of single tree selection and prescribed fire post-treatment in dry forest. ................78

...............................................................................................................................................................78

Figure 7. Example of a group selection about 10 years post-treatment.................................................78

Figure 8. Active restoration opportunities by seral stage for the LJCRP within and outside of IRAs.196

Figure 9: LJCRP inventory of cut and leave trees under Alternative 2 within the Joseph Canyon, 

Wildhorse, and Cook Ridge IRAs. ......................................................................................................197
Final Environmental Impact Statement

xvi Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1

CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need for Action

Summary

The purpose of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project (LJCRP) is to restore ecological 

resilience to the project area while addressing human needs and uses. The area looks different from 

historical conditions in many ways, and the most relevant changes with respect to this project are 

changes in vegetation structure, species composition, species distribution, and disturbance regimes.

The past land management practices, while considered appropriate for the time, have resulted in 

changes in the forest landscape that are now not considered healthy, resilient, or sustainable. A 

warming climate, with reduced snowpack and longer dry periods, will only accentuate the effect of 

these changes on forest health. Furthermore, the current rate of restoration of forest resilience in the 

PNW Region is not keeping pace with the rate of ecosystem degradation, creating a need to accelerate 

restoration at ecologically-significant scales.

There is an opportunity to use the tools of active forest management (excess tree removal and 

landscape burning) to restore resilience to these systems, while supporting local economies with raw 

material and jobs.

Table 1 succinctly displays the difference between the existing and desired conditions. There is a need 

to:

• Increase ponderosa pine coverage

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

• Increase the amount of single-story, old forest stands, and reduce the mid-story and understory of 

multi-story old forest stands

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

The LJCRP is on the Wallowa Valley Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

(WWNF), in the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon (Map 1, Appendix A). The project area includes 

only NFS lands within the larger analysis area. The analysis area for this FEIS encompasses the entire 

Lower Joseph Creek watershed, and portions of the Upper Joseph Creek watershed - or as defined 

specifically by resource - and defines the area considered in the evaluation of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects. Alternative management actions analyzed in this FEIS only apply to NFS lands.

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

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This 

Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts 

that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The environmental consequences of the 

agency’s proposed action and the alternative actions are compared and contrasted in Chapter 3.

The Need for Restoration and Project Purpose

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

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

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

few decades, land managers have increasingly understood the unintentional adverse consequences of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

2 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

some land management policies and tactics such as selectively harvesting the largest trees, 

overgrazing, and fire suppression, and have adjusted management techniques to be more ecologically 

appropriate. Nonetheless, the LJCRP area continues to exhibit reduced health and resiliency as a 

result of the past policies, and is in need of restoration. Local communities remain natural resource 

dependent to some degree, and need the raw material and jobs provided by restoration work and 

continued maintenance. This project is expected to move the Lower Joseph Creek landscape toward a 

more desirable, resilient condition that will support lasting human resource uses, forest structure and 

pattern, forest health, natural disturbance regimes, vegetation composition and diversity, soil 

productivity, fish and wildlife habitat, and watershed function. By applying effective land 

management techniques, the project aims to move from current to desired, sustainable environmental 

conditions for future generations.

The Lower Joseph Creek Landscape...A story of vegetation, 

water and fire

The LJCRP lies on the eastern side of the Blue Mountains ecoregion, which extends from the 

Redmond area of Central Oregon, to Hells Canyon on the Snake River. The Blue Mountains are lower 

and more open than the neighboring Cascades and Northern Rocky Mountains. 

The area sits on the northern boundary of the WWNF, approximately 20 miles north of Enterprise, 

Wallowa County, Oregon (Map 1). It is bounded by Cold Springs Ridge to the northeast, Forest Road 

46 to the east, Elk Mountain to the south, and Oregon Highway 3 on the west. The northeast side of 

the project area includes portions of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA). 

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

and southwest), federal jurisdiction in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) (to the 

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

primarily for grazing, timber production, and hunting. An analysis conducted during the Watershed 

Condition Framework Assessment by the WWNF indicate slightly more impaired watershed function 

on some adjacent private lands than that of the federal lands and those lands managed by the Nez 

Perce (Map 2). The Nez Perce are actively engaged in restoration activities on lands known as 

Precious Lands to the north of the project area (Map 1). The HCNRA has lower road densities and its 

management has been less intensive than much of the surrounding federal lands. The surrounding 

Forest Service lands have been managed with similar overall intensity and its watershed function was 

similarly classified as “functioning at risk”.

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

tributary to the Grande Ronde River (Map 3). The project area is characterized by deep forested 

canyons interspersed with very steep, grass-covered side slopes and jagged basalt outcrops. Joseph 

Canyon is the birthplace of Chief Joseph and is the traditional homeland of the Chief Joseph Band of 

the Nez Perce tribe. Prior to European settlement, the Nez Perce used the canyon bottomlands as a 

travel corridor during their seasonal rounds – the annual pattern of following food production -

traveling between summer camp sites in the Wallowa Valley to winter camp sites along the Grande 

Ronde and Snake rivers. Elk, bighorn sheep, and mule deer were plentiful, as well as native plant 

foods associated with bunchgrass habitat. 

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

area), and grasslands and shrublands (43%) (Table 2). Elevations range from about 3,600 to 5,000 feet 

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

Service management indicator species (MIS) and sensitive species, such as the northern goshawk, 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 3

pileated woodpecker, American marten, white-headed woodpecker, fringed myotis, Lewis’ 

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

tailed frog, bald eagle, Snake River steelhead, redband trout, and Columbian spotted frog. Nez Perce 

lands on the northern boundary provide similar habitat for many of the same species (Sondenaa and 

Kozusko 2003). 

Figure 1. Dry forest “stringers” interspersed with grasslands in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Project area.

Natural ecosystems have been supporting the traditional cultural and socioeconomics of human 

populations for at least 10,000 years in North America, and natural ecosystem structures and 

functions have, at the same time, been affected by humans in both beneficial and adverse ways. Prior 

to Euro-American settlement, and continuing into the treaty era and present day, the Nez Perce Tribe 

has played a significant role in shaping the physical environment of their aboriginal homelands. 

“Wild” horticulture involving intentional “firing” of forests and prairies was used to improve hunting 

and “berrying” as well as increase the quantity and quality of camas, and other root and bulb species 

(Marshall 1999). Between the 1400s and 1800s, eastern Columbia plateau Indian tribes had a 

relatively light impact due to nomadic lifeways and reliance on predictable, managed and sustainable 

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

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

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

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

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

terrain prohibited extensive agricultural production (Sondenaa and Kozusko 2003). The Wallowa 

Forest Reserve was established in 1905, and through additional reserves and consolidations of public 

lands, subsequently the area became part of the WWNF.

The LJCRP area experiences annual precipitation totals generally below 20 inches per year. Highest 

normal precipitation totals tend to be in winter and late spring. Monthly precipitation distribution is 

relatively uniform throughout the year. Drought is a common occurrence, and conditions are generally 

moisture-limited for tree growth. Annual temperature variations tend to be relatively large. Mean 

maximum temperatures are mostly in the 80's (0

F) in summer months and in the 30's in winter. The 

dry, clear summer days are usually followed by cool nights; nighttime lows generally average in the 

40's (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2014). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

4 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Climate across the project area and the greater Blue Mountains is changing, and these changes will 

influence local ecosystems and their role in human communities.

Distinctive features of the LJCRP area include:

• Joseph Creek, which is the primary drainage for the analysis area and is fed by several other 

minor tributaries before terminating in the Grande Ronde River, less than five miles before it 

meets the Snake River. Joseph Creek is a designated stronghold2 by the Nez Perce tribe for Snake 

River steelhead (Nez Perce Tribe 2013).

• Vegetation mosaics of dry and moist forest, ponderosa pine savanna, and grassland. Vegetation 

displays moderate departure from natural ranges of variation in structure and composition.

• Canyons with high runoff potential, capped by more stable and highly productive incised plateaus

with higher water infiltration, and lower runoff potential. 

• Rich mollisol soils, a temperate climate, and historically frequent low severity fire regimes, which 

in the absence of fire suppression, naturally favor largely open, fire-adapted forests and 

grasslands.

• Snake River Steelhead, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

• Five plant species listed as sensitive on the USFS Regional Forester’s sensitive species list.

• Populations of big game, such as Rocky Mountain elk, and habitat for other wildlife species of 

interest such as pileated woodpecker, American marten, northern goshawk, and flammulated 

owls. 

• Approximately 42 miles of designated Forest Service trails, and 

328 miles of NFS roads.

• Eighteen domestic grazing allotments and sources of wood fiber 

for the forest products industry.

• Remoteness from human population centers, and relatively low 

visitation. Aside from use by domestic grazing permittees, human 

use occurs mainly during the hunting season and consists 

primarily of horseback riding, hiking, firewood cutting, and 

motorized vehicle use. 

This project draws on some key ecological factors that provide a 

foundation for analysis of departure between current and desired 

conditions.

• Disturbance Regimes: Insect infestations, flood, fire and 

drought are some examples of “disturbance regimes” or categories of short-term changes that 

can have long-term environmental consequences.

• Ecosystem Resilience: Highly resilient ecosystems are better able to survive natural 

disturbances such as fire, insects, diseases, and climate change than less resilient ones (USDA 

Forest Service 2013). Ecosystems are most resilient and resistant to disturbance when they 

are similar to conditions under which they developed over the long term (Morgan et al. 1994). 

 2 Designated strongholds represent areas with historically high production, focal areas for recent tribal harvest, and are 

viewed as essential for long term population persistence.

Ecosystem 

Resilience

Resilience is 

maintained by a 

dynamic range of 

species, structure, 

vegetation patterns, 

and patch size 

distributions that 

emerge under the 

constraints of the 

climate, geology, 

disturbance regimes, 

and biota of the area.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 5

A system in which natural levels of variation have been reduced will be less resilient to 

change than one exhibiting more natural variation (Holling and Meffe 1996).

• Natural or Historic Range of Variation (RV or HRV): By restoring and maintaining 

natural ranges of ecosystem structures and functions, forest health and sustainability, and 

ecological resilience will be improved across the landscape. Information about historical 

ranges of variation often provides the best, if not the only, indication of natural, ecologically 

sustainable ranges of variation. Broad-scale assessments completed for the Blue Mountains 

physiographic province and the interior Columbia River basin suggest that upland forest 

ecosystems could be characterized as healthy, sustainable, and resilient if three of their 

ecosystem components – species composition, forest structure, and tree density – are within 

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

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

al. 1996). 

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

health and resilience. Desired conditions are based on scientifically-derived, ecologically-based 

reference conditions, when available, and desired conditions in the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest Plan. Reference conditions (natural and/or historical ranges of variation) for forested and 

riparian vegetation, wildlife habitat, and disturbance processes have been estimated for the Blue 

Mountains National Forests through literature review (Powell 2012), and localized state-andtransition simulation modeling (Appendix C). Ecologically-based references for forest patterns were 

based on literature reviews, expert opinion, and quantitative analysis of historical patch size 

distributions from aerial photographs (Hessburg et al. 1999). Chapter 2 (Affected Environment)

provides more information on the ranges in reference conditions and desired conditions used in this 

FEIS. These ranges of variation in conjunction with the Forest Plan and other policies and guidance, 

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

developing the desired conditions for the LJCRP.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 1 Purpose and Need

6 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

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

Creek Restoration Project area

Indicator Metrics Units Existing 

condition

Longterm 

desired 

condition

Vegetation 

structure and 

composition

Ponderosa pine cover type (% of dry upland 

forest) % 28 50-80

Douglas-fir cover type (% of dry upland 

forest) % 51 5-20

Old forest single story structure3 (% of dry 

upland forest) % 0 40-60

Old forest single story structure (% of moist 

upland forest) % 0 10-20

Young forest and understory reinitiation 

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

Young forest and understory reinitiation 

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

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

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

Insects and 

Pathogens

% of dry upland forest highly susceptible to 

defoliators % 39 5-15

% of dry upland forest highly susceptible to 

Douglas-fir bark beetle % 45 10-25

% of dry upland forest highly susceptible to 

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe % 47 20-35

Ecological 

resiliency – fire

% Fire regime departure (vegetation 

departure) from HRV summarized at 5th field 

watershed level

% 29-39 <33

Riparian 

management 

objectives

(RMO)

Qualitative measure of departure from HRV Categorical

Outside 

the 

acceptable

range

Meet 

RMOs

Road Network Open road density Management Area 1

Miles/sq 

mile

2.53-4.34 < 2.5

Open road density Management Area 3 0.20-1.44 < 1.5

Open road density HCNRA 0.54-1.37 < 1.35

Total road density by subwatershed 0.7-3.3 < 2.0

 3 See Figure 5 for a description of forest structural stages.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 7

CHAPTER 2 Affected Environment

Summary

This chapter summarizes the project area in terms of the physical, 

biological, and social environment. Forest ecosystems developed 

under the influence of disturbances, particularly fire, weather, 

insects, and diseases. Management practices have altered the 

influence of some of these processes, resulting in generally more 

continuous and dense stand structure, less old forests, and an 

increase in shade-tolerant, fire intolerant species. At the same time, 

there is a reduction in open forests, shrub, herb, and grassland 

habitats. Forest thinning and prescribed burning are two tools that 

can be used to restore landscape heterogeneity and resilience to 

natural and characteristic disturbances. The inherent assumption is 

that restoring the landscape toward historic, reference conditions will 

support healthier forests and more sustainable habitats for robust fish 

and wildlife populations.

The area is experiencing warmer temperatures, reduced snowpack, 

and a change in the annual distribution of precipitation compared to 

historical conditions, with effects on fire severity, stream flows and 

water temperatures, and vegetation distribution – further 

emphasizing the need to create resilient forest landscapes for the 

future. While reference conditions based on historical climate may 

be different from future reference conditions, the current conditions 

are enough departed from either reference condition that active 

management now will move the landscape toward either reference 

condition. 

Traditional, historic, and current uses of the area by humans are understood in terms of the 

importance of the area to the Nez Perce tribe and other county residents for exercising treaty rights, 

traditional recreational pursuits, and economic activity.

Biological Environment

Vegetation and Disturbance

This section describes the differences between 

desired and existing vegetation and disturbance 

conditions for the LJCRP area. One key focus of 

the project, as determined by project scoping and 

Forest Service regional and forest priorities, is the 

need for restoration of forest structure and 

composition. Other related considerations include 

the viability of threatened, endangered and 

sensitive plant, wildlife, and aquatic species;

forested habitats supporting wildlife species; and 

forested riparian habitats supporting aquatic 

Affected 

Environment

This project affects 

physical, biological, 

and social and 

economic 

environments. 

Examples of these 

include:

Physical: soils, water, 

air, and climate

Biological: trees, grasses 

and forbs, invasive 

plants, mammals, birds, 

fish, and amphibians

Social/Economic: 

recreation, jobs, forest 

access, scenery, and 

tribal and cultural 

Potential Vegetation Group

Potential vegetation is the vegetation that 

would occur in a particular place given 

the underlying environmental factors and 

natural disturbance regimes, unaltered 

by human intervention (Ramankutty, N. 

and J.A. Foley. 2010)

Potential vegetation groups define broad 

categories of vegetation with common 

species compositions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

8 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

systems and species. Table 2 summarizes the extent of potential vegetation groups (PVGs) (Powell et 

al. 2007) in the project area.

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

Physiognomic 

Type

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Acres % of Project 

Area 

(Physiognomic 

Type)

% of Project 

Area (Potential 

Vegetation 

Group)

Conifer 55,700 56%

Dry upland 

forest (DUF)

42,300 43%

Moist upland 

forest (MUF)

13,000 13%

Other 400 <1%

Non-Conifer 42,300 43%

Cold upland 

herb

30 <1%

Moist upland 

herb

4,200 4%

Dry upland 

herb

37,000 38%

Dry upland 

shrub

950 1%

Other 140 <1%

Unknown

Totals 98,000 100% 100%

Present and Foreseeable Future Vegetation Management Activities

There are no forest vegetation management, fuels treatment, or prescribed burning activities that are 

ongoing (as of 2015) or are foreseeable within the project area.

Past Vegetation Management, Wildfires, and Ongoing Management Activities

Past harvest, fuels treatment, prescribed fire and wildfire have influenced the character of the natural 

fire regimes found in the LJCRP area. Table 3 lists approximate acres of the various vegetation 

management, fuels treatment and prescribed burning activities as well as wildfires that have occurred 

within the project area from 2004 to 2013. Table 4 summarizes ongoing non-vegetation management 

activities in the LJCRP area.

Vegetation management activities that have occurred in the project area over the last ten years 

includes 159 acres of tree planting after harvest and 826 acres of precommercial thinning within 

young, post disturbance stands. Mechanical vegetation management activities have mainly consisted 

of tree thinning. This includes 1,320 acres with an emphasis on improving forest structure, health and 

growth, 113 acres of uneven-aged management thinning of all age classes, and establishment of a new 

generation of trees.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 9

Fuels treatments that have been accomplished in association with mechanical vegetation management 

treatments included 179 acres of thinning for hazardous fuels reduction, as well 583 acres of 

treatments with a primary focus of rearranging and reducing activity generated fuels (slash lopping, 

crushing, piling and jackpot burning) and 636 acres of pile burning.

Prescribed burns have been implemented on 868 acres to improve wildlife habitat, reduce natural 

fuels accumulations, and to reintroduce fire to fire adapted ecosystems. 

Wildfires from 2004 to 2013 have burned on approximately 23,800 acres of the project area. These 

fires all burned within the same vicinity on the eastside of the project area and have substantial 

overlap between them. Of the acres burned, it is estimated that the overall average burn severity to the 

forested vegetation was 20 percent high severity, 60 percent mixed severity and 20 percent low 

severity. There is wide variability among these percentages from fire to fire due to these fires burning 

the same area multiple times.

Table 3. 2004 to 2013 – Approximate acres of forest vegetation management activities and wildfire in the 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

Treatment Treatment Type Approximate Acres

Cultural Tree Planting 160

Precommercial Thin 800

Total Cultural: 960

Mechanical Vegetation 

Management

Commercial Thin 1,300

Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 40

Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 80

Sanitation Cut 3

Total Mechanical: 1,420

Fuels Treatments 

Thinning for Hazardous Fuels Reduction 180

Yarding - Removal of Fuels by Carrying or Dragging 90

Piling of Fuels, Hand or Machine 460

Rearrangement of Fuels 40

Burning of Piled Material 640

Total Fuels Treatments: 1,410

Prescribed Burn

Broadcast Burn (Majority of Unit) - Wildlife Habitat 590

Under burn (Majority of Unit) - Low Intensity 280

Total Prescribed Burn: 870

Wildfire

Jim Creek - 2006 360

Cottonwood - 2007 8,400

Cache Creek - 2012 15,000

Total Wildfire: 23,760

Table 4. Status of ongoing projects in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area aside from forest 

vegetation management.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

10 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Action or Activity Treatment Status

Range Management

18 Livestock 

Allotments

Domestic grazing (The LJCRP area is part of the Joseph 

Creek Rangeland Planning Area. The Lost Cow, Jim Creek, 

Chesnimnus, Crow Creek, and the Chico Horse Pasture 

allotments have less than 200 acres each in the project area.)

Ongoing

Recreation and Public Uses

Designated 

Campgrounds

Camping, recreational driving, hunting, collecting forest 

products Ongoing

Regulation of 

Hunting Seasons ODFW regulation of tags for the big game management units Ongoing

Dispersed 

Camping

Camping, gathering firewood, recreational driving, and 

collecting forest products Ongoing

Noxious Weed Treatment

Treatments of New 

Weed Sites

Treating new noxious weed sites with herbicides as approved 

by the WWNF Invasive Species EIS. Decision signed 2016

Treatment of 

Existing Weed 

Sites

Treating new noxious weed sites with herbicides as approved 

by the WWNF Invasive Species EIS. Decision signed 2016

Transportation

Road Maintenance Grade roads 4600, 4602, 4605, 4615, 4650, 4655, 4680,. 

Clean culverts and ditches on all roads as needed Ongoing

Natural and human-caused disturbance

Natural disturbances are those under which ecosystems developed and were maintained over the longterm (Hardy et al. 2001, Schmidt et al. 2002). Fire is the dominant natural disturbance regime in the 

project area. Disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, insects, disease, and weather events, including droughts 

and floods) can be described as a combination of frequencies and severities. Fire regime groups, 

naturally-occurring combinations of fire frequency and severity (Barrett et al. 2010) are a relevant 

way to describe fire regime conditions and effects at the scale of the LJCRP. Table 5 describes the 

characteristics of fire regime groups. Tables 5 and 6 compare desired and existing fire regimes, and 

probabilities of different fire severities for the major vegetation types within the project area. Current 

fire severity probabilities were modeled specifically for this project area (see Appendix D for 

modeling methods). This model uses historical fire ignition points and weather recorded for the day 

of the start. It does not model the 97th percentile extreme weather events that may coincide with fire 

ignition. This is especially important in the moist upland forest (13% of the LJCRP area) when 

considering the existing burn probability and the wide margin for average return intervals for each 

fire severity class (Table 5). Desired probability and average interval were derived from Landfire 

Rapid Assessment modeling and validated by local experts.

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

species, and livestock grazing, the National Forests within the Blue Mountains are substantially 

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

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

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

efforts to establish historical fire return intervals through fire and mechanical means (Hall 1977, 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 11

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

1996, Heyerdahl 1997, Olson 2000, Stephens et al. 2009, McIver et al. 2012). Dry upland forests have 

now missed several natural fire cycles due to over a century of fire exclusion and suppression, which 

has resulted in increases in fuel loadings and the number of smaller trees. The departure in dry forests 

from the range of variation (RV) in the HCNRA, in-part due to past wildfire, generally differs from 

the rest of the LJCRP area in that there is a greater abundance of younger forests in need of increased 

structural diversity and growth toward larger size classes. Additionally, historic grazing removed the 

fine fuels that carried low severity surface fires (Zimmerman and Neuenschwander 1984). Without 

competition from grasses, tree regeneration increased substantially (Kolb and Robberecht 1996). Tree 

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

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

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

resulting in a more uniform stand structure, increased ladder fuels, increased stand densities, 

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

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

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

intolerant species, such as grand fir (Figure 2). Increased stand densities have also contributed to a 

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

Figure 2. Dry old forest multistory condition in the LJCRP area. Remnant old ponderosa pine trees stand

over recently established Douglas-fir and grand fir, illustrating increased fuel loads, and the vulnerability 

of old trees to loss to uncharacteristic fire.

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

of the percentage of replacement. Table 7 shows the severity classes and their respective levels of 

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

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

ways including increasing the likelihood of replacement severity crown fire due to increased fuel 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

12 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

loading and reduction in distance between surface and canopy fuels. An increase in fire intolerant 

species results in higher fire severity ratings due to their susceptibility to mortality as a result of fire. 

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

composition. Therefore it is also variable in associated disturbance regimes (frequency, severity and 

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

topography, existing cover composition and over-riding climatic factors, such as El Nino Southern 

Oscillation (ENSO) influences. Additionally the relative juxtaposition of these forests in relation to 

lower elevation dry upland forest and non-forest (grass and shrubland) influence the composition, 

frequency of disturbance and severity to overstory vegetation. The biophysical landscape within 

LJCRP indicates a high interrelationship between dry and moist upland forest and non-forest 

disturbance. Table 8 summarizes existing and historical fire severity probabilities by PVG for the 

Blue Mountains. Relatively frequent low to mixed severity fire would be expected to occur more 

often and replacement severity fire to occur more infrequently in the LJCRP area than indicated in 

Table 8 in moist upland forest, due to the patchy pattern of moist forest within the surrounding, more 

abundant matrix of dry forest. In general, replacement severity regimes in moist upland forests 

usually result in heterogeneous landscapes. Large, high-severity fires affecting large areas (10,000-

100,000 acres) are usually rare events, and, subsequent mixed-severity fires are important for creating 

landscape heterogeneity. Within these landscapes a mix of stand ages and size classes are important 

characteristics; generally the landscape is not dominated by one or two age classes (Stine et al. 2014).

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

strategically reduced in appropriate locations. Tools available to reduce fuels include thinning toward 

more natural forest structures, and the ecologically- and socially-appropriate use of planned and 

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

Vegetation/Disturbance specialist’s report.

Table 5. Description of fire regime groups (from Barrett et al 2010).

Fire Regime Group Frequency (years) Severity Severity Description

I 0 - 35

Low / Mixed Generally low-severity fires 

replacing less than 25% of the 

dominant overstory vegetation; 

can include mixed-severity fires 

that replace up to 75% of the 

overstory

II 0 - 35

Replacement High-severity fires replacing 

greater than 75% of the 

dominant overstory vegetation

III 35 - 200

Mixed / Low Generally mixed-severity; can 

include low severity fires

IV 35 - 200 Replacement High-severity fires

V 200+

Replacement / any severity Generally replacement-severity; 

can include any severity type in 

this frequency range

Table 6. Desired and existing fire regimes for the major vegetation types within the project area (Adapted 

from Barrett et al. 2010 and Stine et al. 2014).
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 13

Vegetation 

Type

Existing 

Fire 

Regime 

(see 

table 33)

Desired 

Fire 

Regime 

(see 

table 33)

Description

Dry Upland 

Forest

Fire 

Regime 

Group III 

(IIIa)

Fire 

Regime 

Group I

Existing fire regime displays a higher proportion of the 

landscape experiencing moderate/mixed severity fire than 

characteristic of the vegetation type. Restoration of forest 

characteristics including fuel reduction would move the 

landscape toward a higher percent of low severity fire 

although some mixed and high would still be a desirable part 

of the vegetation type.

Moist 

Upland 

Forest

Fire 

Regime 

Group III

(IIIb/IIIa)

Fire 

Regime 

Group III 

(IIIa)

Existing fire regime displays a lower proportion of 

replacement severity in this vegetation type than historically

relative to the Blues as a whole; but a lower than average 

proportion may be characteristic for the LJCRP. However, 

effects would be uncharacteristic when compared to the 

desired Fire Regime Group of IIIa, which is typified by the 

majority of moist upland forest that exists in the LJCRP area 

as described by Stine et al. 2014. Fire return intervals have 

been missed but not at the same magnitude as the dry 

upland forest (DUF), however fuels accumulation rates far 

exceed DUF due to higher productivity soils and higher 

moisture availability. This means it takes fewer missed 

return intervals to create an uncharacteristic fuel loading and 

resultant fire behavior.

Non-Forest Fire 

Regime 

Group II

Fire 

Regime 

Group II

The non-forest systems are dominated by replacement 

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

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

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

shrub species, with the exception of sagebrush and 

bitterbrush are rhizomatous and root/crown sprout after fire. 

Fire effects to overstory vegetation have not departed from 

historical or desired conditions; however, grazing and 

presence of invasive species have changed the system 

such that certain areas are highly vulnerable to undesirable 

effects from fire . Fire exclusion in these areas has been 

effective in creating a similar number of missed intervals as 

the dry upland forest sites as evidenced by the intermixing 

of the landscape in grass tree mosaic and extensive lithosol 

areas. Lithosol communities produce little biomass and 

probably had less frequent fires than other grasslands, but 

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

include the rigid sage portions of the lithosols, which if 

burned take years to recover).

Table 7. Severity class and effects to upper level canopy replacement.

Severity Class Effects

No Fire Effects < 5 percent replacement

Low (non-lethal) 6 – 25 percent replacement

Mixed (mixed severity) 26 – 75 percent replacement

Replacement (stand replacement) > 75 percent replacement
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

14 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Table 8. Existing and desired fire severity probabilities for the dry and moist upland forest potential 

vegetation groups.

Fire severity class Existing Probability (% 

of all fires)

(local model)

Historical Severity 

Probability (% of all 

fires)

(LANDFIRE data)

Average Interval (years)

(LANDFIRE data)

Dry upland forest 

(DUF) 

Replacement 5 5 – 14 115 – 125

Moderate/Mixed 49 13 – 21 50 – 75

Low 46 64 – 82 8 - 25

Moist upland forest

(MUF)

Replacement 3 14 – 35 125 – 200

Moderate/Mixed 47 21 – 47 75 – 150

Low 52 18 – 64 25 – 50

A prioritization strategy for prescribed fire has been developed that identifies high, moderate, and low 

ecological priorities for re-introducing fire to the forested system (Table 9). In the proposed RNAs, as 

a general guide, extinguish as quickly as possible fires that endanger Research Natural Areas using 

means that would cause minimal damage to the area (FSM 4063.41). Allow natural fires to burn only 

within a prescription designed to accomplish objectives of the specific natural area (FSM 4063.32). 

While this prioritization can be used to locate the most socially and ecologically appropriate locations 

to use fire to meet the purpose and need of the LJCRP, it does not exclude implementing fire in the 

lower priority areas. This is particularly true where the landscape has a high degree of interaction and 

spatial connection amongst these areas. Prior to implementation, burn plans would be developed in an 

interdisciplinary setting to maximize ecological benefit providing for public and fire personnel safety 

and ease of control.

Table 9. Prioritization scheme for identifying the highest ecological benefit to re-introduce fire.

Prioritization 

Level1

Description

High All mechanical treatment acres are included in high priority for prescribed fire. 

Findings in McIver et al. (2012) indicate the importance of using prescribed fire 

and mechanical vegetation treatment together when restoration of fire adapted 

systems is part of the desired condition. 

All dry upland forest acres are included.

Moderate Acres of moist upland forest that do not receive forest vegetation treatments. 

There is growing recognition that moist forest systems, that are spatially 

influenced and interconnected with dry upland forest, exhibit similar disturbance 

regimes (Stine et al. 2014). These areas provide opportunities in the LJCRP to 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 15

Prioritization 

Level1

Description

restore fire as an ecological process that shapes composition, density, structure 

and pattern to meet desired landscape condition.

Low Acres designated as non-forest vegetation that do not have harvest or SI 

treatments. Restoration of the forested system is the objective of the LJCRP; 

hence, non-forest areas represent the lowest priority to use prescribed fire as a 

restoration tool for forest resilience. It is recognized that these areas are important 

to the overall landscape and influence fire spread and behavior, and portions 

would be included in all prescribed fire activity.

1/ Project Design Criteria also influence where prescribed fire can be used (see chapter 4 and 

Appendix J).

This prioritization scheme is related to the ecological need and objectives within the forested system

of the LJCRP. Additional information such as location to wildland urban interface, highly valued 

resources (administrative sites, campgrounds, lookouts, etc.), grazing allotment management, 

sensitive animal or plant habitat, or Forest Plan management direction would need to be considered to 

maximize ecological and social benefit and efficiently utilize limited time and resources. These 

factors would be considered during preparation of burn plans prior to implementing prescribed fire.

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

frequency and severity in the project area. Under the Blue Mountains’ normal moisture-limited 

conditions, densely-stocked stands of grand fir and Douglas-fir, while differing in some ecological 

traits, both become stressed. This increases their vulnerability to insect infestation, and in the case of 

Douglas-fir, mistletoe infestation. Similarly, on pine sites, multi-storied, densely stocked ponderosa 

pine stands are at risk of insect infestation under drought conditions. These densely stocked and 

moisture-stressed stands have become more abundant during the last half of the 20th century, and 

localized insect infestations have quickly blossomed into outbreaks covering thousands of acres (Gast 

et al. 1991). Table 10 summarizes susceptibility to insect and disease mortality for the LJCRP. 

Although insect outbreaks likely occurred prior to the time of the first Euro-American settlers, the 

frequency and size of outbreaks caused by western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) and 

possibly other insects that attack Douglas-fir and grand fir appear to have increased as a result of the 

proliferation of fir-dominated forests (Swetnam et al. 1995). Similarly, the multi-storied ponderosa 

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

outbreaks of the western and mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus brevicomis, and D. ponderosae, 

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

in some stands has exceeded 80 percent of all overstory trees (Swetnam et al. 1995). Most tree 

diseases are increasing in occurrence and severity due to changes in tree species composition 

(increased grand fir within dry upland forest), stand structures (increases in multi-storied structure), 

and increased stocking levels (Scott and Schmitt 1996). The abundance of insect-killed trees has 

substantially increased the surface fuel loads across thousands of acres in the Blue Mountains. 

Conditions have become conducive for the occurrence of large, high-intensity wildfires. Twenty years 

ago, lightning-caused wildfires burned more than 445,000 acres in the Blue Mountains. Many of these 

fires were high severity, stand-replacing events that killed most of the trees across large areas. Within 

the project area, two notable wildfire events have occurred within the last 30 years. The 1986 Joseph 

Canyon/Starvation Ridge fire burned over 40,000 acres within the project area and the 1988 Tepee 

Butte burned almost 60,000 acres of which 1/3 was in the project area. A high percentage of these 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

16 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

fires were stand replacing and resulted in the stand initiation phase of forest succession. Since 2004, 

three wildfire events occurred within the project area, burning a total of approximately 23,750 acres

(Table 3).

Table 10. Insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Agent

Susceptibility Rating - % of Forested Area

Low Moderate High

Existing RV 

Range Existing RV 

Range Existing RV 

Range

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 25%↓ 40-85% 35%↑ 15-30% 39%↑ 5-15%

Douglas-fir Beetle 15%↓ 35-75% 39%↑ 15-30% 45%↑ 10-25%

Fir Engraver 41%↓ 45-90% 45%↑ 10-25% 14%↑ 5-10%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 23%↑ 5-10% 56%↑ 15-30% 21%↓ 40-90%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 14%↓ 25-55% 39% 15-40% 47%↑ 20-35%

Root Diseases 31% 30-60% 47% 25-50% 22% 5-25%

Moist 

upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 8% 5-10% 29% 20-30% 63% 35-90%

Douglas-fir Beetle 5%↓ 30-60% 23% 20-40% 71%↑ 10-30%

Fir Engraver 19%↓ 30-70% 34% 20-35% 47%↑ 10-20%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 32%↓ 40-70% 52%↑ 15-35% 16% 5-25%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 11%↓ 30-65% 33% 20-45% 56%↑ 10-20%

Root Diseases 14% 5-15% 49% 20-50% 36% 35-75%

↓ less than RV; ↑ greater than RV

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

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

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

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

use of planned and unplanned fire. For more detail on insects and diseases of the project area, see the 

Vegetation/Disturbance specialist’s report.

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

severity, pattern, and in what remains on the landscape. Techniques to increase the similarity between 

human and natural disturbances have improved greatly over the past few decades (Diaz and Apostol

1992 , Franklin et al. 2013). 

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

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

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

fire severity, which could result from over abundant fuel loads. To reduce departure between the 

effects of human and natural disturbance processes, human-caused and natural disturbance 

frequencies, patterns, and intensities need to be more aligned. Tools available to reduce this departure 

include the use of ecologically-informed tree harvest and fire prescriptions. 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 17

Vegetation Structure and Composition

Forest Structure and Composition

The basis for the forest structure classification system used in the Blue Mountains is the four stage 

system that was developed for conifer forests located west of the Cascade Mountains (Oliver and 

Larson 1996). This system was expanded to an eight class system to include a wider spectrum of 

structural variation that exists within the drier eastside forests of Oregon and Washington (O'Hara et 

al. 1996). Figure 3 illustrates and describes the forest structural stages for this analysis, which

includes 6 structural stages.

Illustration of forest structural Stages Description of forest structural Stages

Stand Initiation (SI). Following a standreplacing disturbance such as wildfire or 

tree harvest, growing space is occupied 

rapidly by vegetation that either survives 

the disturbance or colonizes the area. 

Survivors literally survive the 

disturbance above ground, or initiate 

new growth from their underground 

organs or from seeds on the site. 

Colonizers disperse seed into disturbed 

areas, it germinates, and then new 

seedlings establish and develop. A 

single canopy stratum of tree seedlings 

and saplings is present in this stage. 

Stem Exclusion (SE). In this structural 

stage, trees initially grow fast and 

quickly occupy all of their growing 

space, competing strongly for sunlight 

and moisture. Because trees are tall 

and reduce light, understory plants 

(including smaller trees) are shaded and 

grow more slowly. Species needing 

sunlight usually die; shrubs and herbs 

may go dormant. In this stage, 

establishment of new trees is precluded 

by a lack of sunlight (stem exclusion 

closed canopy) or by a lack of moisture 

(stem exclusion open canopy).

Understory Reinitiation (UR). As the 

forest develops, a new age class of 

trees (cohort) eventually gets 

established after overstory trees begin 

to die or because they no longer fully 

occupy their growing space. Regrowth 

of understory seedlings and other 

vegetation then occurs, and trees begin 

to stratify into vertical layers. This stage 

consists of a low to moderate density 

overstory with small trees underneath. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

18 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Illustration of forest structural Stages Description of forest structural Stages

Visualize the UR illustration with another tree crown 

layer between the overstory and understory layer.

Young Forest Multi-Story (YFMS). As 

succession progresses, three or more 

tree layers have become established as 

a result of minor disturbances (including 

tree harvest) that cause progressive but 

partial mortality of overstory trees, 

thereby perpetuating a multi-layer, multicohort structure. This class consists of a 

broken overstory layer with a mix of 

sizes present (large trees are scarce); it 

provides high vertical and horizontal 

diversity

Old Forest (OF). Many age classes and 

vegetation layers mark this structural 

stage containing large, old trees. Snags 

and decayed fallen trees may also be 

present, leaving a discontinuous 

overstory canopy. The drawing shows a 

single-layer stand of ponderosa pine 

reflecting the influence of frequent 

surface fire on dry-forest sites (old forest 

single stratum; OFSS). Surface fire is 

not as common on moist sites or 

common on cold sites, so these areas 

generally have multi-layer stands with 

large trees in the overstory stratum (old 

forest multi strata; OFMS). 

Figure 3. Description of forest structural stages.

Sources: Based on O’Hara and others (1996), Oliver and Larson (1996), and Spies (1997).

Table 1 compares current and desired conditions for selected vegetation indicators. Tables 11-14 more

completely compare current conditions and the RV for structural stage distribution, composition 

(cover type), forest density, and tree size class for the LJCRP. For more detail on these vegetation 

characteristics within the project area, see the Vegetation/Disturbance specialist’s report. Existing and 

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

“Watershed, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat” within the Physical Environment section.

Table 11. Distribution of forest structural stages in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Structural 

Stage

Acres Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

OFSS 190 <1% 40-60

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

OFMS 8,300 20% 5-15
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 19

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Structural 

Stage

Acres Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

YFMS 3,400

19,100

8%

45% 5-10

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

UR 15,700 37%

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

SE 7,500 18% 10-20

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

SI 7,000 17% 15-25

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Unknown 180 0%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

OFSS 40 <1% 10-20

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

OFMS 3,900 30% 15-20

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

YFMS 2,000

4,700

15%

36% 10-20

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

UR 2,700 20%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

SE 2,300 18% 20-30

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

SI 2,000 16% 20-30

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Unknown 20 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Table 12. Current forest cover type distribution for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project, and the

natural range of variation in cover types for the Blue Mountains

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Cover Type Acres

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa 

pine 11,900 28% 50-80

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Douglas-fir 21,800 51% 5-20

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Western larch 580 1% 1-10

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Lodgepole pine 220 1% 0

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Grand fir 7,500 18% 1-10

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Engelmann 

spruce

20 0% 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

20 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Cover Type Acres

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Unknown 260 1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa 

pine 1,400 11% 5-15

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Douglas-fir 5,900 45% 15-30

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Western larch 590 4% 10-30

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Lodgepole pine 220 2% 25-45

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Grand fir 4,700 36% 15-30

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Engelmann 

spruce

130 1% 1-10

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Unknown 40 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Table 13. Distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Density 

Class

Acres Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Dry High 14,200 33% 5-15

Dry Mod 13,600 32% 15-30

Dry Low 14,300 34% 40-85

Unknown 180 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Moist High 5,800 45% 15-30

Moist Mod 3,700 28% 25-60

Moist Low 3,400 25% 20-40

Unknown 50 2%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Table 14. Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size Class (diameter 

range in inches)

Acres Current percentage of 

Potential Vegetation Group

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

<5 7,000 17%

5-10 800 2%
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 21

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size Class (diameter 

range in inches)

Acres Current percentage of 

Potential Vegetation Group

10-15 15,900 38%

15-20 11,700 28%

>20 6,700 16%

Unknown 180 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

<5 2,000 16%

5-10 780 6%

10-15 3,500 27%

15-20 3,600 28%

>20 3,000 23%

Unknown 70 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Understory Vegetation

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

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area direction, policy guidance, and literature reviews. Goals and 

objectives common to all guidance are to protect and maintain appropriate habitats to ensure 

continued existence and viability of TES, native, and other desirable plants (FSM 2672.41, WWNF

Forest Plan, HCNRA CMP, ESA). 

Table 15 shows selected potential vegetation groups as habitats. The potential vegetation groups

shown were selected because they contain habitat for TES plants. Within the selected habitats shown, 

the number of plant communities documented by the USFS Pacific Northwest (R6) ecology program 

in LJCRP is displayed. With the exception of rigid sage/Sandberg’s bluegrass, shrublands are not 

shown in the table. Dry upland shrub lands in LJCRP have a total of two plant associations 

represented. Moist upland shrub lands have five plant associations represented. There are no 

suspected or known TES plants in shrub lands in LJCRP. 

Table 15. Diversity by plant communities, species richness, percent native species and Shannon

diversity index (Shannon 1948) for LJCRP

Selected Habitats Number of Plant 

Associations 

Documented in 

Selected Habitats 

Total 

Species 

Richness

Native 

Species 

Richness

Percent 

Relative 

Cover in 

Native 

Species

Shannon 

Diversity 

Index

Rigid sage/ Sandberg’s 

bluegrass

1 60 54 90 3.6

Cold Moist Idaho fescue 7 140 123 89 4.2

Dry Upland Herbland 8 126 110 87 4.2

Moist Upland Forest 7 80 79 99 3.8
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

22 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Selected Habitats Number of Plant 

Associations 

Documented in 

Selected Habitats 

Total 

Species 

Richness

Native 

Species 

Richness

Percent 

Relative 

Cover in 

Native 

Species

Shannon 

Diversity 

Index

Dry Upland Forest 7 139 124 89 4.1

All Habitats 37 318 294 92 2.4

Rangelands

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

insuring that the basic needs of the forage and browse plants and the soil resource are met, and to 

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

resource, for wildlife (within agreed upon management objectives) and domestic livestock (within 

Forest Plan utilization standards). 

Forage production estimates by potential vegetation groups (PVG) based on Johnson and Simon 

(1987), Johnson and Clausnitzer (1992), and Johnson and Swanson (2005), were compiled for the 

Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision and were used with the number of acres in allotments to give 

rough estimates of forage production in average pounds of forage per year. The production figures 

represent the current vegetation conditions, which in the case of the forested groups are heavily 

influenced by overstory canopy cover. In general, the higher the overstory canopy cover, the lower the 

understory production. For more details on the methodology used to estimate forage production, see 

the range specialist’s report.

Vegetation conditions at a given site is determined by a complex set of interactions of past 

management, natural disturbances, soils, topography, climate, and seed sources. Countryman et al.

(2012) found that conditions had improved in the dry shrubland potential vegetation group from 30 

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

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

(Hann 1997). The Wallowa County Natural Resources Advisory Committee conducted range 

condition surveys, re-reading 28 USFS Condition and Trend (C&T) monitoring plots, and reading 28 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health plots on 

USFS land. Details on methodology and results can be found in the Lower Joseph Watershed 

Assessment (Wallowa County 2014). In general, C&T plots showed an upward trend, with better 

vegetative cover, although there was some ambiguity due to variations in how measurements have 

been recorded over the (~60 year) lifespan of the plots. Indicators of Rangeland Health plots showed 

generally positive trends for most of the allotment pastures. There were four pastures in LJCRP 

identified as having more bare soil than expected: Davis Creek allotment, Davis South pasture; 

Swamp Creek allotment, Miller pasture; Al-Cunningham allotment, Shoot Canyon pasture; and Cold 

Springs allotment, North Wildhorse Pasture. In all four pastures the soil loss was due to past 

management practices, not current management. All of the pastures identified as having greater than 

expected amounts of bare soil, except Miller pasture in the Swamp Creek allotment also had reduced 

cover in native perennials. 

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

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

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

seasonality of understory forage. 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 23

Noxious Weeds and other Non-native Invasive Plants

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

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

improve and protect public recreational opportunities and wilderness integrity; prevent negative 

impacts to human health and the economy, and protect and restore fish and wildlife populations and 

habitats (USDA Forest Service 2005). Map 5 shows non-native plant species locations, and Appendix 

H summarizes non-native plant species found within the LJCRP area. Invasive grasses and noxious 

weeds could establish following an uncharacteristic large severe burn (resulting from increased fuel 

loading) in openings where native vegetation has been reduced. New and existing populations of 

meadow hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum) is of particular concern in LJCRP. A large, 

scattered population exists in Swamp Creek meadow, including the area where restoration activities 

are planned. New populations of meadow knapweed were found during the 2014 plant surveys in 

HCNRA/Wildhorse IRA. These relatively small populations are near the 4600596 road system. 

Meadow hawkweed is a rhizomatous perennial with wind dispersed seed, and it can be spread both by 

seed and by root fragments. 

Other Invasive Non-native Species

Non-native annual grasses alter grasslands by competing with native plants for limited resources and 

increasing fine fuels. They can form heavy thatch, which may interfere with biological soil crust 

(BSC) development and alter BSC species composition and the growth of native seedlings. Nonnative annual grasses known to occur in the Lower Joseph Watershed are Japanese brome (Bromus 

japonicus), rattlesnake brome (Bromus brizaeformis), smooth brome (Bromus mollis), cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum), ventenata (Ventenata dubia), medusa-head (Taeniatherum catput-medusae), and 

annual fescue (Vulpia myuros). The extent of infestation by non-native annual grasses can only be 

speculated, as we have no maps and records are incomplete for these species. It is assumed that all 

grasslands within the project area have the potential to be infested, if not already infested. 

Some non-native pasture grasses and sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) were planted in the past, 

most notably after the 1986 Wildcat (Joseph-Starvation Ridge Complex) fire (Isley unpublished data).

Species used in the post-fire aerial seeding that are still present today are: orchard grass (Dactylis 

glomerata), intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) 

and mountain brome (Bromus carinatus x cultivar). Timothy (Phleum praetense) is also present, but 

may have been introduced at a different time, perhaps as hay at campsites. These cultivars have 

persisted and thrived since planting, and now occupy roadsides, openings and disturbed and 

undisturbed open areas throughout the project area. These species are now known to be problematic 

when used for restoration purposes (USDA Forest Service 2014a). Inventory and the history of 

planting pasture grass are incomplete. Multiple introductions may have occurred before or after the 

1986 post-fire seeding. Information regarding the 1986 post-fire seeding was lost in the 2009 fire that 

burned down the Wallowa Mountain Ranger District office. 

Threatened, Endangered and USFS R6 Sensitive Plants

Threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) plants and HCNRA biologically unique communities 

were grouped into broad habitat categories for analysis of effects: coniferous forest, grasslands, 

lithosol/shallow soils, cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus, springs and seeps, moist meadows, and wet 

meadows, riparian. Some of the species overlap into more than one habitat group. For species found 

in more than one habitat group, other habitat groups are noted in the botany specialist’s report. The 

habitat groups of most concern are: coniferous forest, where there are no documented TES plants, but 

abundant habitat and biologically unique communities of concern; grasslands, where two sensitive 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

24 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

plants as well as habitat for federally listed Spalding’s catchflyare documented; and lithosol/shallow 

soils, where three sensitive plants are documented in LJCRP.

There are two federally listed threatened plant species with potential habitat in the LJCRP area:

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei), and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). Upon 

review of field observations gathered during surveys conducted in 2003-4 and 2014, it was concluded 

that it was very unlikely that any MacFarlane’s four-o-clock would be found in the area of Joseph 

Canyon that is administered by the Forest Service. Better potential habitat for this species exists 

further down canyon closer to the Snake River where Joseph Canyon is warmer and wider (Hustafa 

2014). 

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

adjacent to the southeast portion of the LJCRP. In 2014, a total of approximately 24,000 acres were 

surveyed for TES plants (Map 6), focusing on Spalding’s catchfly high priority habitat as well as 

sensitive species suspected or known from the LJCRP area. Within the 24,000 acres surveyed, 95% of 

the Spalding’s catchfly high priority habitat was searched. High priority habitat was determined using 

a combination of the model results (Murray 2001) and professional judgment. Consultation on 

Spalding’s catchfly has been concluded with USFWS with a letter of concurrence provided for the 

LJCRP (on file in the project record).

There are five R6 Regional Forester’s listed sensitive plant species known to occur within the LJCRP 

area. These species are Wallowa needlegrass, (Achnatherum wallowaensis), green-band mariposa lily

(Calochortus macrocarpus v. maculosus), rough rabbitweed (Pyrrocoma scaberula), Snake River 

daisy (Erigeron disparipilus), and Davis fleabane (Erigeron davisii). Wallowa needlegrass, Snake 

River daisy, and Davis fleabane are found in lithosol habitats. Rough rabbitweed and greenband 

mariposa lily are found in grasslands and open dry forest margins. Appendix F summarizes the 

sensitive plant species that are known or suspected to occur in the project area by habitat type. More 

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

specialist’s report.

Biologically Unique and Rare Combinations of Outstanding and Diverse Ecosystems

The HCNRA CMP provides standards and guides to maintain biologically unique and rare 

combinations of outstanding and diverse ecosystems and parts associated therewith in an ecologically 

functioning sustainable condition. Specific communities are listed within the HCNRA CMP. The 

HCNRA portion of LJCRP contains the following biologically unique communities: Ponderosa 

Pine/Idaho Fescue and Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass, which is part of the coniferous forest 

habitat group; Mountain Big Sagebrush/Idaho Fescue, which is part of the grasslands habitat group;

and Douglas’ Buckwheat-Sandberg’s Bluegrass Plant Community Type, which is a component of the 

grassland habitat group. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) is another biologically unique 

community listed in the HCNRA CMP, but only documented from the project area outside the 

HCNRA. The Grand Fir/Pacific yew/queen’s cup beadlily plant association is not listed as an 

HCNRA Rare Combinations of Outstanding and Diverse Ecosystems, but it is only occasionally 

found in the Wallowa Snake Province (Johnson and Simon 1987), where LJCRP lies. Locally, this 

habitat is of concern due to past silvicultural practices where yew was considered to have no value 

and was removed with the goal of converting ABGR/TABR/CLUN sites to more commercially 

valuable tree species.

Wildlife Habitat

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

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species. Rather than 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 25

addressing all wildlife species, discussions in this FEIS focus on Forest Plan management indicator 

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

Management Indicator Species - Wildlife

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

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

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

under the conditions that remain most similar to those that existed in the past (Landres et al. 1999, 

Samson et al. 2003). It is assumed that maintaining habitat within HRV would provide adequate 

species population viability for the present suite of species. Individual species population viability is 

increasingly compromised as departure from HRV increases (see the Wildlife specialist’s report for 

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

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

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

tree mortality), and the degradation of habitats (e.g., ponderosa pine forest, riparian) from a number 

of factors including timber harvest, fire suppression, over-grazing, invasion of exotic vegetation, and 

human development. The loss and alteration of historic vegetation communities has impacted wildlife 

habitats and resulted in species range reductions, population declines, and some local and regional 

extirpations. In general, for moist forest types, the LJCRP area is low in the abundance of smaller 

trees, and is currently at the low end of large tree closed canopied habitat. Generally there is an 

abundance of medium and large-medium trees (10-20” dbh), and habitat >10” dbh with open canopies 

(<60% canopy closure) as compared to the reference range of variation. In dry forests, the LJCRP is 

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

the medium and large-medium (10-20” dbh), closed canopied structural stages.

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

assessed during Forest Plan implementation in order to determine the effects of management activities 

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

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

Table 16 lists the terrestrial species selected as MIS in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan, their

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

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

the analysis area is unknown. 

Table 16. Wildlife management indicator species identified in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan.

Species Representing Habitat 

Description

Habitat 

Present in 

Analysis Area

Species 

Present in 

Analysis 

Area

Primary cavity 

excavators1

Dead & defective wood 

habitat

Snags and logs Yes Yes

Pileated 

woodpecker

Old growth and mature 

forests

Closed canopy, 

late-seral 

subalpine, montane 

and lower montane 

forests

Yes Yes

American (pine) 

marten

Old growth and mature 

forests

Closed canopy, 

late-seral subalpine 

Limited Unknown
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

26 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Species Representing Habitat 

Description

Habitat 

Present in 

Analysis Area

Species 

Present in 

Analysis 

Area

and montane 

forests

Northern 

Goshawk

Old growth and mature

forests

Subalpine and 

montane forests, 

lodgepole pine, 

post-fire habitat

Yes Yes

Rocky Mountain 

Elk

Species commonly hunted Cover and forage Yes Yes

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

Williamson’s sapsuckers; black-capped, chestnut-backed, and mountain chickadees; and pygmy, red-breasted, and 

white-breasted nuthatches.

Primary Cavity Excavators

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

historical conditions, primarily due to reductions in the numbers of large snags (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

However, of the cavity excavating MIS, Breeding Bird Surveys in Oregon have only detected a 

significant decrease in populations of the northern flicker between 1966 and 2010 (Sauer et al. 2011).

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

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

WHT) ((Mellen-McLean et al. 2012)). In the EMC WHT, the landscape is deficit in snag density 

classes above 2 per acre for large (> 20” dbh) snags, as compared to reference conditions. Past 

management and fire wood cutting has likely had an influence on the current conditions of snag 

habitat. See the Wildlife specialist’s report for the conservation status of cavity excavators, and more

detailed information.

Old Forest Wildlife Habitats

Three species were selected in the Forest Plan to represent old growth habitats that have habitat in the 

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

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

Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, densities of large-diameter snags (>21 inches dbh) needed 

by these species have declined from historical to current levels (Wisdom et al. 2000, Korol et al. 

2002), and snag habitat is likely to be a limiting factor in the Eastside Mixed Conifer WHT (see the 

Wildlife specialist’s report for more information). 

Rocky Mountain Elk

Rocky Mountain elk are a management indicator species for the WWNF. Elk have been selected as an 

indicator of habitat diversity, interspersion of cover and forage areas, and security habitat provided by 

areas of low human disturbance. Elk management on the WWNF is a cooperative effort between the 

Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). The Forest Service 

manages habitat while ODFW manages populations by setting seasons, harvest limits, and goals for 

individual Wildlife Management Units (WMU). 

In general, a mosaic of forage and cover areas in a given landscape, with minimal or no motorized 

access through forage areas, results in high to optimal elk use during any given season. This would be 

the desired condition for landscapes where elk use is promoted, as identified in coordination with 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 27

state wildlife agencies. For many winter ranges, this desired condition would emphasize the 

maintenance of existing cover areas, which often compose smaller portions of these landscapes, while 

also focusing on minimizing or eliminating motorized access and uses on winter ranges during the 

winter period. For many spring, summer, and fall ranges, this desired condition would emphasize the 

maintenance of adequate forage areas close to cover and far from roads and trails open to motorized 

uses. For landscapes where hunting occurs, the desired condition would emphasize motorized access 

restrictions on roads and trails during hunting seasons to a degree that elk can effectively use cover 

and topography as security. This approach at managing the desired condition would place more 

emphasis on motorized closures of roads and trails during hunting seasons for landscapes that are flat 

and open, and less emphasis on those that are steep and have more cover, as identified in coordination 

with state wildlife agencies. 

The Forest Plan establishes standards for wildlife habitat, and more specifically elk habitat, on the 

Forest. Table 17 summarizes the habitat effectiveness index (HEI) and cover percentages for desired 

and existing conditions within the LJCRP area. The HEI model developed by Thomas et al. (1988)

relies on open road density as an indicator of relative effects from roads on elk habitat. More recent 

research in northeastern Oregon found that road density is a poor indicator of habitat effectiveness 

(Rowland et al. 2000). By contrast, the study described a strong linear increase in elk use as distance 

from roads increased. Therefore, a method using a distance-banding approach, as described by 

Rowland et al. (2005), is utilized here as an alternate indicator of road effects on elk habitat in the 

Lower Joseph project area. HEI was calculated using both the habitat effectiveness with the original 

calculation using road density, and the newer calculation using distance banding. Currently the HEI 

for the area is above the Forest Plan standard, though especially in the Lower Joseph watershed in the 

summer range (primarily MA 1, see maps 11a and 11b), habitat effectiveness is relatively low. By 

comparing the HEI calculated using the distance band analysis (0.52), to the original calculation 

(0.63) this notable change in the score indicates that there is little area far from open roads. This area 

is mostly encompassed by the Peavine Creek, Rush Creek, and Broady Creek subwatersheds.

The LJCRP area provides year round habitat for big game. Winter range lies along the northern and 

western portion of the analysis area, transitional range is mid-slope and summer range lies along the 

central portion of the analysis area.

Table 17. HEI and Cover percentages for desired (Forest Plan) and existing conditions within the Lower 

Joseph project area.

Forest Plan 

direction

Existing condition

Timber 

Emphasis 

(summer 

range)

Wildlife 

Emphasis 

(winter 

range)

Timber 

Emphasis 

(summer 

range)

Wildlife 

Emphasis 

(winter 

range)

Lower Joseph Watershed Upper Joseph Watershed

Total Cover %

MA 1 > 30% 

(summer range) 77% 23% 55% 30%

Cover:Forage 77:23 23:77 55:45 30:70

Marginal Cover % 35% 11% 26% 14%

Satisfactory Cover % 42% 13% 28% 16%

Forage % 23% 77% 45% 70%
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

28 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forest Plan 

direction

Existing condition

Timber 

Emphasis 

(summer 

range)

Wildlife 

Emphasis 

(winter 

range)

Timber 

Emphasis 

(summer 

range)

Wildlife 

Emphasis 

(winter 

range)

Lower Joseph Watershed Upper Joseph Watershed

Marginal Acres 4,634 4,078 4,408 4,134

Satisfactory acres 5,583 4,901 4,743 4,756

Forage acres 3,047 29,750 7,589 20,570

HEI

MA 1 > 0.5 

(summer range) 0.63 0.63 0.57 0.71

HEI using a distance 

band approach

MA 1 > 0.5 

(summer range) 0.52 0.56 0.58 0.64

Within the Lower Joseph project area there are parts of two WMUs: Chesnimnus and Sled Springs. 

Table 18 shows the recent trend in populations and the management objectives for the two

management units. Currently the populations and bulls/100 cows ratios are exceeding the 

management objectives set by ODFW in both management units.

According to ODFW (Matthews 2014), the Chesnimnus unit is currently 40% over the population 

management objective with up to 70% of the population occurring on Zumwalt prairie private lands. 

The ODFW is currently trying to reduce elk numbers and return the elk population to management 

objective of 3,500 by harvesting antlerless elk on Zumwalt private lands. Elk numbers on the national 

forests are much below desired levels, so very little antlerless elk harvest occurs on the national forest 

portion of the Chesnimnus unit. Managing road density is important for security areas and bull 

escapement during hunting seasons.

Table 18. Population Trend data Rocky Mountain Elk (ODFW 2014)

Management Unit Population Bulls/100 

cow

Chesnimnus

MO* 

3,500 10

2010 

3,700 13

2011 

5,300 15

2012 

5,300 13

2013 

5,200 14

2014 

5,000 14

Sled Springs MO* 

2,750 10

2010 

2,500 4
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 29

Management Unit Population Bulls/100 

cow

2011 

2,700 10

2012 

2,700 10

2013 

3,000 16

2014 

3,100 16

*MO = Management Objective (ODFW)

Research conducted at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range and associated research sites is 

providing new insights regarding the importance of maintaining adequate nutritional resources for elk

(Cook et al. 2013), and minimizing human disturbance effects through effective management of 

motorized access and cover (Rowland et al. 2000, Naylor et al. 2009). Higher nutritional resources are 

generally concentrated in elk forage areas, defined as areas with less than 40% overhead canopy 

cover. Highest nutritional resources are often particularly concentrated in areas with less than 20% 

overhead canopy cover, such as in grasslands, shrublands, and forests of the stand initiation structural 

stage, recognizing that nutritional resources in these areas will vary with season of elk use and forage 

phenology. 

Elk use of forage areas often depends on their proximity to cover areas (to forest stands with overhead 

canopy cover 40% or higher) and the distance to roads and trails open to motorized uses. Forage areas 

within 100 yards of cover areas are most heavily used by elk, as are forage areas farther than 1,000 

yards from roads or trails open to motorized uses. In addition, maintenance of adequate cover areas 

provides security for elk during hunting seasons and reduces elk vulnerability to harvest, such that 

harvest goals for elk can be met but not exceeded. Whether cover areas provide security for elk 

during hunting seasons, however, often requires motorized closures of large networks of roads and 

trails during hunting seasons. The need for motorized closures of many road and trail networks to 

provide effective security for elk during hunting seasons is higher on landscapes dominated by flat, 

open terrain, and lower in areas of steep, convex topography with more cover.

The Forest Plan direction for road densities by management areas (Maps 11a and 11b) calculated at a 

subwatershed is: MA1 <2.5 mi/mi2; MA3 < 1.5 mi/mi2; and HCNRA < 1.5 mi/mi2. The road density 

estimate does not take into account off-road vehicle use on OHV trails, cross-country travel and on 

closed roads. The current road densities by management area per subwatershed for the Lower Joseph 

project area are shown in Table 38. Currently, on seven out of 10 subwatersheds, open road densities 

are exceeding Forest Plan direction.

The sensitivity of elk to human disturbance and road management serve as an additional indicator for 

most other wildlife species. Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed 238 articles on the effects of recreation

trails and roads on wildlife and found the most commonly reported interactions included displacement 

or avoidance where animals were reported as altering their use of habitats in response to roads or road 

networks (Cassirer and Groves 1990, Klein 1993, Hutto 1995, Mace et al. 1996, 1999, Johnson et al. 

2000). Disturbance at a specific site was also commonly reported and included disruption of animal 

nesting, breeding, or wintering areas (Skagen et al. 1991, Linnell et al. 2000, Papouchis et al. 2001). 

Collisions between animals and vehicles were commonly reported and affected a diversity of wildlife 

species, from large mammals (Gibeau and Heuer 1996, Lehnert et al. 1996) to amphibians (Ashley 

and Robinson 1996). Finally, edge effects associated with roads or road networks constructed within 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

30 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

habitats, especially late-successional forests, were commonly identified (Hickman 1990, Miller et al. 

1998). 

Connectivity of Late Seral Closed Forest Habitats

Maintaining connectivity between habitats, particularly late and old structured habitat, is important 

for numerous wildlife species to allow free movement, interaction of adults, and dispersal of young. 

Management direction pertaining to maintaining connectivity between late and old structured (LOS) 

stands, in addition to designated old growth management areas (DOGMA), is provided by the 

Eastside Screens (see Chapter 3, Forest Plan Amendments, for more information on Eastside Screen 

direction). 

Eastside Screen direction is to maintain or enhance the current level of connectivity between LOS 

(OFMS/OFSS) stands and between all Forest Plan DOGMAs (MA15) by maintaining stands between 

them. Harvesting is permitted in connectivity corridors if canopy closures are maintained within the 

top one-third of site potential. Based on an interpretation made by Forest staff, canopy closures are 

considered to be within the top one-third of site potential if canopy cover is maintained at or above 

40% in the dry forest PVG, and 50% in the moist forest PVG. 

The current level of connectivity between MA15 and LOS stands varies across the project area due to 

areas of non-forested vegetation, past timber harvest, and wildfires. Stands of more contiguous forest 

in the northern portion of the project area are currently well connected (Maps 6 and 7). Major riparian 

areas, such as Swamp Creek and Davis Creek provide connectivity in the southern part of the project 

area. Pileated woodpecker, American marten and their prey, goshawk and their prey, elk, and a variety 

of other vertebrates and invertebrates are affected by the level of connectivity between their source or 

preferred habitats. This project aims to maintain connectivity, to the extent possible, between all LOS 

and MA15 stands within and outside the project area according to Forest Plan direction.

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species

Appendix E lists all proposed, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species applicable to the LJCRP

area identified in the 2015 Region 6 Regional Forester’s special status species list obtained from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No proposed or federally-listed terrestrial wildlife species were 

described for Wallowa County, Oregon. 

USFS Region 6 Sensitive Wildlife Species

Table 19 summarizes the 2011 Regional Forester’s list of sensitive wildlife species with habitat 

suspected or known to be in the LJCRP area, and their existing habitat conditions. The following 

species do not have potential habitat in the project area, and are not discussed further: Black swift 

(Cypseloides niger), Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), Black rosy finch (Leucosticte 

tephrocotis wallowa), Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus), 

Upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios), 

North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus), Silver-bordered fritillary (Boloria selene), Yuma 

skipper (Ochlodes yuma), and Fir pinwheel (Radiodiscus albietum). 

Table 19. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester’s sensitive wildlife species with habitat 

suspected or known to be in the LJCRP area, and descriptions of desired conditions
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 31

Common and 

Latin name

Habitat 

within 

planning 

area1

Desired and current habitat conditions

AMPHIBIANS

Rocky Mt 

tailed frog

D

Rocky Mountain Tailed Frogs (Ascaphus montanus) are primarily nocturnal, and 

live in fast-flowing headwater streams in old-growth forests (Nielson et al. 

2001). They occur in very cold, fast-flowing streams that contain large cobble or 

boulder substrates, little silt, and are often darkly shaded (Bull and Carter 1996). 

In the LJCRP area, tailed frogs were documented in Broady, West Fork Broady, 

East Fork Broady, and Cottonwood Creeks during Forest Service’s stream 

surveys in the 1990s. Other streams that may provide habitat for tailed frogs are 

Peavine Creek, Rush Creek, Horse Creek, Deadhorse Creek and the Cottonwood 

tributary south of Deadhorse Creek. Tailed frogs are likely to occur in RHCA 

categories 1-3 due to the species’ need for flowing water at all times. Tailed 

frogs are not likely to occur in Swamp Creek, as they are found in fast flowing, 

cold headwater streams.

Ascaphus 

montanus

Columbia 

spotted frog

S

Columbia spotted frogs are highly dependent on aquatic habitats and require 

permanent and semi-permanent wetlands that have aquatic vegetation and some 

deeper or flowing water for overwintering (Bull and Marx 2002, Pilliod et al. 

2002). The spotted frog frequents waters and associated vegetated (grassy) 

shorelines of ponds, springs, marshes, and slow-flowing streams and appears to 

prefer waters with a bottom layer of dead and decaying vegetation (Bull 2005)

are year-round residents of the Blue Mountains and occur in a number of 

locations across Northeast Oregon (Bull 2005, Reaser and Pilliod 2005). There 

have been no surveys specifically for spotted frogs within the LJCRP area but 

habitat is available and the species may exist along the perennial low gradient 

streams or ponds in the upper elevations.

Rana 

luteiventris

BIRDS

Northern bald 

eagle

S

Bald eagles are highly dependent on riparian habitats. Nesting territories are 

normally associated with lakes, reservoirs, rivers, or large streams. In the Pacific 

Northwest recovery area the preferred nesting habitat for bald eagles is 

predominately uneven-aged, mature coniferous (ponderosa pine and Douglasfir) stands or large black cottonwood trees along a riparian corridor (USDI 1986, 

NatureServe 2012). No known nest sites exist within the project area. Known 

nest sites are located more than 10 miles from the project area. The project area 

does contain potential foraging habitat and the potential for species occurrence.

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

American 

peregrine 

falcon

D

Peregrines are found in many terrestrial biomes in the Americas; none seems to 

be preferred (although perhaps greater densities in tundras and coastally). The 

most commonly occupied habitats contain cliffs, for nesting and generally open 

landscapes for foraging (Hayes and Buchanan 2002, Hays and Milner 2004). A 

source of water, such as a river, lake, marsh or marine waters is typically in 

close proximity to the nest site and likely is associated with an adequate prey 

base of small to medium sized birds (Johnsgard 1990). There is no historical 

data for peregrines in the LJCRP area. Potential nest sites have been identified 

but suitable nest ledges are limited as are larger bodies of water for prey 

concentrations. Though no longer listed as endangered, their numbers are still 

low, and managing habitat toward recovery goals is warranted.

Falco 

peregrinus 

anatum

Lewis’ 

woodpecker 

S

Three main habitats used by Lewis’ woodpecker throughout its range are burned 

or logged areas, open ponderosa pine savanna at high elevations, and riparian 

woodland dominated by large cottonwoods at low elevations (Bock 1970, 

Tobalske 1997, Saab and Dudley 1998, Saab and Vierling 2001, Abele et al.

2004). Currently there is very little recent post-fire habitat in the LJCRP area.

Melanerpes 

lewis

White-headed 

woodpecker S

The white-headed woodpecker is associated with open-canopied ponderosa pine 

forests (Bull et al. 1986, Frederick and Moore 1991, Garrett et al. 1996, Kozma 

2011). White-headed woodpeckers forage predominantly on large-diameter live 

ponderosa pine trees (Dixon 1995) with pine seeds being the most important 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

32 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Common and 

Latin name

Habitat 

within 

planning 

area1

Desired and current habitat conditions

Picoides 

albolarvatus

vegetable food item in Oregon (Bull et al. 1986, Dixon 1995). In addition, these 

woodpeckers may use areas which have undergone various silvicultural 

treatments, including post-fire areas, if large-diameter ponderosa pines (alive or 

dead) and other old-growth components remain (Raphael 1981, Raphael and 

White 1984, Raphael et al. 1987, Frenzel 2002, Wightman et al. 2010). Due to 

fire suppression in dry upland forest habitats, many areas that historically 

supported this species’ habitat - open stands of large diameter ponderosa pine -

now support closed canopied mixed species stands that no longer provide 

suitable habitat for the white-headed woodpecker. 

MAMMALS

Gray wolf

D

Habitat preference for the gray wolf appears to be more prey dependent than 

cover dependent. The wolf is a habitat generalist inhabiting a variety of plant 

communities, typically containing a mix of forested and open areas with a 

variety of topographic features (Mech et al. 1988, Witmer et al. 1998, Mladenoff 

et al. 1999). Based on data collected by the ODFW, the Imnaha pack 

(approximately 15 miles east of Joseph, Oregon) and Wenaha pack (centered 

approximately 20 miles west of Troy, Oregon) appear to be breeding, and in the 

summer of 2014 a new pack (Chesnimnus pack) was documented in the project 

area. Wolves prey primarily on large ungulates such as elk and deer (Boyd et al. 

1994, Fritts et al. 1994, Kunkel et al. 1999). Alternate prey typically consists of 

smaller mammals and birds, such as, beaver, ground squirrels, rabbits, and 

grouse (Boyd et al. 1994; Witmer et al. 1998). Individuals may take livestock as 

secondary prey when ungulates are less vulnerable or available (Witmer et al. 

1998).

Canis lupus

Fringed myotis

D

Fringed myotis occurs from sea level to 2,850 m but is most common at middle 

elevations 1200 to 2,100 m. Although the fringed myotis is found in a wide 

variety of habitats including desert scrub, mesic coniferous forest, grassland, and 

sage-grass steppe its distribution is patchy and it appears to be most common in 

drier woodlands (oak, pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine). They roost in crevices in 

buildings, underground mines, rocks, cliff faces, and bridges. Roosting in 

decadent trees and snags, particularly large ones, is common throughout its 

range in western U. S. and Canada. The fringed myotis has been identified in the 

LJCRP (Anderson 1998). In general, the greatest threat to this species’ habitat is 

human disturbance of roost sites through recreational caving and mine 

exploration, and disturbance of habitat (Weller 2005) (Keinath 2004).

Myotis 

thysanodes

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

D

Townsend’s big-eared bats have been reported from sea level to 3,300 meters in 

a wide variety of habitat types including coniferous forests, mixed meso-phytic 

forests, deserts, native prairies, riparian communities, active agricultural areas, 

and coastal habitat types (Kunz and Martin 1982, Piaggio and Sherwin 2005). 

Distribution is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like 

roosting habitat, including abandoned mines (Pierson et al. 1999, Sherwin et al. 

2000, Gruver and Keinath 2006). A survey by Anderson (1998) located this bat 

within the Lower Joseph Watershed.

Corynorhinus 

townsendii

Spotted bat

S

The spotted bat has been found from below sea level to 2,700 m elevation and 

occurs from arid, low desert habitats to high elevation conifer forests (Chambers 

and Herder 2005). Prominent rock features appear to be a necessary feature for 

roosting. This species has been found in vegetation types that range from desert 

to sub-alpine meadows, including desert-scrub, pinyon-juniper woodland, 

ponderosa pine, mixed conifer forest, canyon bottoms, rims of cliffs, riparian 

areas, fields, and open pasture. Roost sites are cracks, crevices, and caves, 

usually high in fractured rock cliffs. As with most bat species, threats include 

habitat destruction or alteration, disturbance, sensitivity to pesticides and other 

pollutants, and overexploitation. No spotted bats have been recorded on the 

WWNF, however due to the lack of intensive bat sampling it is possible that the 

spotted bat occurs there.

Euderma 

maculatum
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 33

Common and 

Latin name

Habitat 

within 

planning 

area1

Desired and current habitat conditions

INVERTEBRATES

Johnson’s 

hairstreak

S

These butterflies occur within coniferous forests which contain the mistletoes of 

the genus Arceuthobium, commonly referred to as dwarf mistletoe. These plants 

are highly specialized and are known to occur on a number of different conifers 

(Schmitt and Spiegel 2008). Old-growth and late successional second growth 

forests provide the best habitat for this butterfly, although younger forests where 

dwarf mistletoe is present also supports C. johnsoni populations (Larsen et al. 

1995, LaBonte et al. 2001, Miller and Hammond 2007). Older coniferous 

forests, especially those with a heavy component of western hemlock (Tsuga 

heterophylla) that are infected by dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense) 

appear to be its key habitat (Andrews 2010, Miller and Hammond 2007, Larsen 

et al. 1995). In Washington, it is only know to occur west of the Cascade crest 

(Larsen et al. 1995). A disjunct population occurs at the Oregon/Idaho border in 

Baker and Union counties, Oregon and Adams County, Idaho. This disjunct 

population may be a relict population isolated by climate changes (Davis and 

Weever 2011).

Callophrys 

johnsoni

Intermountain 

sulphur 

butterfly

S

This species inhabits open woodland from 3400 to 5000 feet, including 

meadows, roadsides, and open forest and is most often found on steep sunny 

slopes at the ecotone between forest and shrub steppe or grassland habitats 

(Foltz 2009). Hammond (In Foltz 2009) describes the subspecies habitat as 

sagebrush with scattered Ponderosa Pine, including both south- and east-facing 

slopes. The larvae of this subspecies feed on Lathyrus species, including L. 

brachycalix, L. lanzwertii, L. puciflorus, and. L. nevadensis (Foltz 2009). The 

Asotin County population in Washington was reported to feed on L. puciflorus 

(reviewed in Warren 2005). Adults of C. christina use a variety of plants as

nectar sources, and males may occasionally be seen frequenting mud puddles 

(Warren 2005). 

Colia Christina 

pseudochristin

a

Western 

bumblebee

S

Suitable habitat includes typically associated with sub-alpine meadows, 

coastlines, and high elevation valleys. It is known to feed on sweet clover, rabbit 

brush, thistle, buckwheat and clover (Koch et al. 2012). Bombus 

occidentalis

1/ D = Documented in LJCRP area; S = Suspected to occur

Landbird and Migratory Bird Habitats

The loss and alteration of historic vegetation communities due to past intensive timber harvesting, fire 

suppression, over-grazing, invasion of exotic vegetation, and human development has impacted 

landbird habitats and resulted in some species range reductions, population declines, and some local 

and regional extirpations. In December 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released The Birds 

of Conservation Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and populations of 

migratory and resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or endangered that 

represent the highest conservation priorities and are in need of additional conservation actions. Birds 

of Conservation Concern with habitat known or assumed to occur in the LJCRP area include: 

Brown creeper

Cassin’s Finch

Williamson's Sapsucker

Mountain chickadee

Ruffed Grouse

White-headed Woodpecker

Flammulated Owl

Calliope hummingbird

Townsend’s solitaire

Dark-eyed junco

American kestrel

Olive-sided flycatcher

Lewis's Woodpecker

Peregrine Falcon

Ferruginous Hawk

Mourning dove

Black-billed magpie

Swainson's Hawk
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

34 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Killdeer

Black Swift

Bald Eagle

Willow Flycatcher

Red-eyed vireo

Yellow warbler

Barn swallow

Common snipe
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 35

See the Wildlife specialist’s report for a summary of birds of conservation concern, and the current 

condition of their habitat for those with habitat known or assumed to occur in the LJCRP area. In

accordance with Executive Order 13186 (“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds”), it is recommended that these lists be consulted during project planning to prevent or remove 

the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation 

actions for these species.

Management actions needed to reduce departure between current and desired wildlife habitat for MIS, 

landbirds, and sensitive species include thinning of dense forest stands toward desired conditions to 

ensure their continued resistance to uncharacteristic stand replacement disturbances (wildfire; insect 

and disease outbreaks. Post-fire habitat created by characteristic intensity and extent is favored by 

some of these species), and protection of existing old forest habitat. Additional risk factors for these 

species include domestic livestock grazing, invasive plant species and road associated factors. Roadassociated factors that negatively affect some species of migratory and resident birds include: snag 

and log reduction, habitat loss and fragmentation, negative edge effects, harassment or disturbance, 

collisions with motor vehicles, displacement or avoidance of certain areas, and chronic negative 

interactions with humans (Gaines et al. 2003).

Physical Environment

Climate

Climate across the project area and the greater Blue Mountains is changing, and these changes will 

influence local ecosystems and their role in human communities. Average annual temperatures in the 

Pacific Northwest have risen by 1.5 °F since 1900. Since 1950, temperatures have risen at twice the 

rate of increase that occurred before 1950 (Mote 2003). Temperatures are expected to increase by 0.2 

to 1 °F per decade throughout the 21st century. 

Based on average data for Blue Mountains (Oregon climate zone 8), average precipitation is lower 

since 1970 for every month except April, July, and August. Cool season (October through March) 

precipitation is lower by 14 percent; warm season precipitation (April through September) is lower by 

2 percent; July and August precipitation is higher by 27 percent.

All but 2 of 34 climate measuring stations have recorded declines in April 1 snowpack since 1970, 

with an average decline of 24 percent and a range of 5 to minus 73 percent (Gecy 2010). Snowpack 

declines are expected to continue across the Blue Mountains as temperatures throughout the region 

increase. Continued warming is expected to result in more winter precipitation falling as rain rather 

than snow and less winter snow accumulation.

The projected increase in air temperatures and the resulting effect on snow pack and timing and 

magnitude of rainfall is predicted to have a considerable impact on natural resources and their 

management in the region and in the Blue Mountains. Climate-informed modeling completed for the 

Blue Mountains by the USFS PNW Research and Development program (Peterson et al. 2014)

showed a strong conversion of forested lands to arid lands in the next 9 decades (Appendix C). In 

most cases (three of four climate models), the landscape becomes dominated by big sagebrush 

communities, often with exotic grasses. Modeling also showed, under the best case climate model, 

considerably less large tree dominated forests, decreasing forest resilience to changing climates. 

Recent drought susceptibility modeling has developed maps highlighting the most at risk areas of 

drought that can help identify increased risk for disrupted disturbance processes with increased 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

36 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

severity. The current trends in climate change will lead to prolonging the late season drought, and 

increasing fire season length, and the size of annual area burned, leading to increased occurrence of 

fire potential (McKenzie et al. 2004, Westerling et al. 2006, Cansler and McKenzie 2014). This,

coupled with fire suppression policies could lead to larger more severe and uncharacteristic fires,

most obvious in the moisture-limited and dryer moist upland forest plant associations. Drought, along 

with other biophysical factors, also influences susceptibility and vulnerability to insect and disease 

disturbances (Lehmkuhl et al. 1994, Hessburg et al. 1999, Schmitt and Powell 2005). 

Increasing air temperatures, decline in snowpack and changes in the magnitude and timing of rainfall 

are expected to reduce summer streamflow, increase cool season streamflow, and increase stream 

temperatures at least during the next century throughout the Pacific Northwest. These changes in 

streamflow and temperature have the potential to directly impact aquatic habitat and organisms. 

Climate change may affect water storage and seasonal water availability in climate change scenarios

that reflect a warming climate (Mantua 2010). Snow pack will decrease in these scenarios, thus 

reducing the intensity of peak flows.

The Droughty Soils Index analysis, conducted by Oregon State University (2014), predicts the 

susceptibility of soils to drought within the LJCRP analysis area (Map 4). Their results indicate that 

soils within the proposed treatment area are particularly susceptible to a warming climate. Moving the 

landscape to a more resilient species composition and structure, described in the desired conditions

for vegetation, above, would help forests be resilient to predicted climate change scenarios. Moving 

the vegetation toward the historic range of variation and creating a more fire resilient landscape 

would mitigate some of the effects of a seasonal reduction in water storage.

Ecosystems are affected not only by climate change but also through carbon sequestration (e.g., plant 

growth) and greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., fire, organic matter decomposition, and soil respiration). 

Ecosystem functions also directly influence the global carbon cycle.

Forest management can offset greenhouse gas emissions by increasing capacity for carbon uptake and 

storage in biomass, wood products, and soils. Forests of the Blue Mountains currently store 

substantial carbon stocks. Forest management activities and disturbances, such as wildland fire, can 

either increase or reduce carbon stocks over time, depending on their type, frequency, and severity. 

Management activities carried out in response to climate change, such as thinning of forests to reduce 

the risk of stand replacing wildland fire or insects disturbances, or to reduce moisture stress on the 

remaining trees, may reduce carbon stocks in the short term, but can have long-term benefits for 

carbon sequestration (Zhang et al. 2010). In general, current Forest Service management activities are 

unlikely to affect forest carbon stocks substantially in the Blue Mountains.

The most cost-effective climate change mitigation strategies (i.e., reducing carbon emissions) in 

forestry are sustainable forest management (i.e., reducing forest fires) and afforestation, reducing 

deforestation, and producing a sustained yield of timber, wood fiber, or energy (IPCC 2014). None of 

the alternatives analyzed in this EIS would cause deforestation. Uncharacteristic fire disturbance can 

result in carbon lost to the atmosphere in the short-term. If this disturbance interacts with climate 

changes that cause shifts in vegetation from forests to other vegetation types with less carbon 

sequestration potential, it can contribute to lower carbon sequestration over the longer-term. The 

strategic goals of the 2015-2020 USDA Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service 2015a) include that 

national forests and private working lands are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate 

change, including mitigation considerations. Carbon density of forests on the WWNF are relatively 

moderate (180-240 Mg C/ha) compared to westside forests (over 300 Mg C/ha) (Heath et al. 2011).
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 37

Watershed, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitat

Watershed condition reflects a range of variability from naturally pristine (functioning properly) to 

degraded (severely altered state or impaired). Watersheds that are functioning properly have 

terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems that capture, store, and release water, sediment, wood, and 

nutrients within their range of natural variability for these processes (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 

Specific desired conditions for watershed and aquatic systems are based on Forest Plan guidance, as 

amended by PACFISH, other policy guidance, state and federal standards, literature reviews, and 

Watershed Condition Framework definitions of properly functioning watersheds (USDA Forest 

Service 2011b).

Landscape-scale interim riparian management objectives (RMOs; PACFISH 1995) describing good 

habitat for anadromous fish at the watershed scale were developed using stream inventory data for 

pool frequency, large woody debris, bank stability, and width to depth ratio. State water quality 

standards were used to define favorable water temperatures. These RMOs are stream-specific for fish 

bearing streams and do not reflect vegetation RMOs for all RHCAs and the streams within them. 

RMOs are summarized in Table 20.

Table 20. Riparian Management Objectives for the LJCRP.

Pool Frequency: (varies by wetted width)

Wetted width in feet: 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150

Number of pools/mile: 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12

Water Temperature: Compliance with state water quality standards, or maximum <68F

Large Woody debris: > 20 pieces per mile; >12 inches diameter; 35 foot length

Bank Stability: >90 percent stable

Width/Depth Ratio: <10, mean wetted width divided by mean depth

Table 21 shows the results of aquatic habitat surveys for those streams that have had habitat surveys 

completed within the project area. Aquatic habitat surveys are conducted on fish bearing streams only. 

This information was obtained from the Region 6 stream survey database and surveys are on file at 

the WWNF. Habitat survey results show the context of RMOs for fish bearing streams. Treatments of 

Category 4 RHCAs are related to the downstream RMOs (Table 20). 

Table 21. Results of aquatic habitat surveys for streams within the Lower Joseph project area.

Stream/Year Surveyed 

Survey 

Length 

(miles)

 Pools 

(#/mile) 

%Fine 

Sedimen

t 

(<64mm)

Stable 

Banks 

(%)

Width/

Depth 

Ratio

Large 

Woody 

Debris 

(LWD) 

(pcs/mi) 

Swamp Creek(2004) 15.44 8 79.5 78 22.1 6

Davis Creek (1995) 6.92 26 ND 95 9.9 67

Elk Creek (1990) 9.08 15 ND ND 17.5 25

Little Elk Creek (1990) 2.07 11 ND ND 8.2 29
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

38 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Stream/Year Surveyed 

Survey 

Length 

(miles)

 Pools 

(#/mile) 

%Fine 

Sedimen

t 

(<64mm)

Stable 

Banks 

(%)

Width/

Depth 

Ratio

Large 

Woody 

Debris 

(LWD) 

(pcs/mi) 

Joseph Creek(2005) 5.8 3 80 ND 16.8 <1

Broady Creek (1992) 6.55 23 ND ND 15.7 101

EF Broady Creek(1997) 3.14 34 53.7 99 6.6 113

Cottonwood Creek (1994) 7.15 29 ND 95 16.3 76

Cougar Creek (2005) 2.86 55 80 95 19.6 2

Peavine Creek (1998) 1.74 24.7 68.8 ND 10.9 7

ND=No Data

Without treatment, there is a greater potential for future sediment inputs from high intensity 

wildlifres. See the Aquatics specialist’s report for more detail about the affected environment in terms 

of RMOs, and sediment delivery to streams for the LJCRP. 

In general, vegetative conditions in the RHCAs (management areas defined by a set distance from a 

stream bank or floodplain) reflect the general departure from HRV across the planning area (see 

vegetation section, above). 

For Category 1 and 2 streams, the desired condition is for well stocked, closed canopy conditions. 

This desired condition allows for attainment of RMOs for stream temperature, large wood debris 

recruitment, which will maintain pool habitat values, and limit sediment delivery to stream channels. 

In some cases (e.g., Swamp Creek) the stream will not be in a forested vegetation type but in a 

meadow vegetation type that would be described as a grass forb community with little coniferous 

vegetation and limited woody vegetation. 

For Category 4 streams the desired conditions is to provide for a generally similar forest structure and 

composition as the upland forest vegetation. Olson (2000) found fire occurrence in riparian zones to 

be only slightly less frequent than on adjacent uplands in similar forest types in the Blue Mountains in 

Oregon (Wright and Agee 2004). This desired condition for Category 4 streams allows for the 

attainment of RMOs for large woody debris recruitment, limiting sediment delivery to stream 

channels and storing sediment in the channel to delay delivery downstream to fish bearing streams. 

Table 22 details water quality limited (303 (d) listed) stream reaches that may be affected by the 

LJCRP (Map 8). The desired conditions for streams within the planning area are to ensure their 

compliance with all applicable Water Quality Management Plans and maintain water quality for all 

beneficial uses. 

Table 22. Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

analysis area.

Waterbody Pollutant Season Beneficial Uses Affect by Pollutant Status (2010)

Davis Creek

Mile 0-10.7

Flow 

Modification Undefined

Resident fish and aquatic life.

Salmonid fish rearing

Salmonid fish spawning

Water quality limited not 

needing a TMDL
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 39

Waterbody Pollutant Season Beneficial Uses Affect by Pollutant Status (2010)

Swamp Creek

Mile 0-26.6

Flow 

Modification Undefined

Resident fish and aquatic life.

Salmonid fish rearing

Salmonid fish spawning

Water quality limited not 

needing a TMDL

Joseph Creek

Mile 8.1-48.2

Flow 

Modification Undefined

Resident fish and aquatic life.

Salmonid fish rearing

Salmonid fish spawning

Water quality limited not 

needing a TMDL

Joseph Creek

Mile 8.1-48.2

Habitat 

Modification

Yearround

Salmon and trout rearing and migration: 

18.0 degrees Celsius 7-day-average 

maximum

Category 4a: (delisted) 

TMDL approved - 2010.

Soils

The LJCRP area is dominated by soils with a mollic component (Map 9). These soils have organic

rich surface layers associated with ponderosa pine and are indicators that widely spaced trees with 

significant grass and forb understory occupy, or once occupied these areas. Frequent fire was an 

important mechanism in the development of these organic rich soils which dually maintained an open 

understory (Abella et al. 2013). Due to the forage production potential and shallow slope gradients on 

plateaus, mollic soils also provide high quality range and wildlife habitat. Andisols make up the 

balance of the soils in the analysis area. These soils are formed in volcanic ash, are young and 

generally have a much higher water holding capacity, which makes them some of the most productive 

soils to support forested vegetation in the Pacific Northwest. Loess derived from the Palouse, 

Mazama and Glacier Peak ash deposits supplement the soil complexes in the project (Johnson and 

Simon 1987) (Table 23).

Table 23. Generalized vegetation by soil type for the LJCRP

Residual Soils Ash/Andisols Loess/Mollic intergrades

bluebunch wheatgrass grand fir Idaho fescue

xeric shrublands subalpine fir Douglas-fir

lithosols ponderosa pine

ponderosa pine

Soil productivity is closely related to ash and loess content of soils. Ash soils have high water holding 

capacity, high infiltration rates, high detachability, and a concentration of nutrients in the upper 

surface layers. Loess soils hold a large amount of nutrients (high in base saturation) and are high in 

nutrient reserve. Productivity of plant associations found on loess soils such as Idaho fescue-prairie 

junegrass associations have nearly three times the dry weight biomass of plant associations such as 

bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg’s bluegrass, which grow on residual soils (Johnson and Simon 1987).

Soil water holding capacity has historically been extremely important in the Wallowa-Snake province, 

where summer precipitation is typically very low. Rock fragment content, depth of surface soil 

material, rooting depth, and presence of clay all influence soil water holding capacity and in turn 

contribute to vegetation composition (Johnson and Simon 1987). 

Approximately 70% of the soils on NFS lands within the analysis area have an ash component, which 

indicates higher productivity but suggests that many of the soils would be susceptible to compaction. 

Soil compaction, or an increase in soil bulk density, can alter the hydrologic function of a site and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

40 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

have adverse impacts on productivity. It decreases a soil’s infiltration rate which leads to increased 

overland flow, increased surface erosion, and, potentially, increased sediment delivered to streamss.

Dry meadows and scablands occur on plateau tops and ridges and are scattered throughout the project 

area but are not usually included in harvest units. Dry meadows and scablands are defined as having 

shallow, rocky soils with drought tolerant plants (Johnson and Simon 1987). These soils have more 

rock and clay than soils influenced by loess or volcanic ash. When located on concave surfaces, 

shallow, rocky soils are often saturated until mid to late July. In undisturbed grasslands and scablands,

biological soil crusts (BSC) form a protective layer over the soil. Biological soil crusts consist of 

bacteria (blue-green algae), algae, lichens, and bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), the sticky nature 

of the bacterial fibers combined with the bumpy, water absorbing qualities of the lichens and 

bryophytes functions to hold water and protect gaps between bunchgrasses from the impact of 

raindrops. Besides providing a roughened “skin” for the soil, BSCs fix nitrogen and act as a barrier to 

the germination of annual invasive grasses. Disturbance from the hooves of native and domestic 

ungulates can disrupt the biological soil crust resulting in exposed bare ground, loosened surface 

rock, and a decline in principle grass species. Loss of BSCs can take years or decades to re-establish. 

When you lose BSCs, increases in non-native annual grasses and other invasive non-native plant 

species can happen more easily.

Compaction, erosion and water quality related effects associated with livestock management across 

the LJCRP area have improved over the last couple decades. These improvements are results of 

restoration activities, and improved range management practices.

Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSC) directly impact soil productivity by displacement, compaction, 

loss of organic matter, rutting, erosion and loss of porosity. Land management activities, such as road 

construction and heavy equipment operation have the greatest potential to create detrimental soil 

conditions. As described in PDC Soils-7 and Soils-8 (Appendix J), there are existing DSCs from past 

activities. Each of these methods has an expected impact to the DSC (Bennett 1982, Archuleta 1997, 

Siskiyou National Forest 1997, Archuleta 1999, Reeves et al. 2011), which can influence 

sedimentation. 

Social Environment

Socioeconomics

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; government; and retail trade sectors contain the largest 

shares of employment in Wallowa County. In addition, logging jobs make up two percent of total 

employment in Wallowa County (Minnesota IMPLAN Group 2014). Wallowa County holds about 

one percent of the jobs in the logging sector for the state of Oregon. Of the approximate 8,500 jobs in 

the logging sector in Oregon, 97 of those jobs are located in Wallowa County. Employment in the 

wood manufacturing sector only accounts for 16 jobs in Wallowa County, or 0.1 percent of the wood 

manufacturing jobs in the state. Although the logging sector makes up about two percent of total jobs 

in Wallowa County, this sector contains 6.5 percent of total labor income because the average wage 

per job in the logging sector was $62,000 in 2012.

The public meetings that were held in Enterprise, Oregon (see Public Involvement, Chapter 3), as 

well as submitted written comments, provided insight into the values, beliefs, and attitudes of the 

Lower Joseph Creek area residents and surrounding communities. The major concerns from the 

commenters were focused on economic, cultural and biological values, with specific beliefs regarding 

roads and access, vegetation treatments, cultural and tribal resources, and recreation, among others. 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 41

From the 1950s until 1992, the annual harvest from NFS land in Wallowa County averaged 50 to 100 

million board feet year, the highest in 1962 of 129 million board feet. Since 2000, the saw timber 

volume harvested from NFS lands in Wallowa is between 0 and 10 million board feet per year with an 

average harvest of less than 5 million board feet per year (Wallowa County 2014). From 2004 to 

2013, approximately 1,320 acres have been commercially harvested in the LJCRP area (Table 37). 

Tribal Relations

The aboriginal territory of the Nez Perce Tribe, also known as Nimiipúu, or “the people”, includes 

large portions of the States of Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Montana and Wyoming (Figure 4). The

Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce had their winter home within Joseph Canyon. Through time and 

tradition, the Tribe has acquired and applied traditional ecological knowledge, as well as the latest 

science, to design and implement tribal stewardship objectives (Sondenaa and Kozusko 2003, Tribe 

2013). 

The Nez Perce way of life, now as in the past, depends on the inherent right of tribal members to fish, 

hunt, gather, pasture animals and rely on the land for subsistence as well as sanctuary. Article III of 

the Treaty of 1855 provides for: “The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running 

through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish 

at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the Territory; and of erecting 

temporary buildings for curing, together with the privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, 

and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land” (Tribe 2013). 

The exercise of treaty rights is dependent upon access to traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering 

sites and the resources associated with them. Sustainable populations of treaty resources such as fish, 

wildlife, and traditional plants, depend upon healthy habitats and resilient landscapes. Land 

management decisions may affect the ecosystems wherein valued tribal resources and natural settings 

are dependent. Refer to the plants, wildlife, aquatic habitat and watershed sections of this FEIS, and 

specialist reports for complete analyses for these resources.

The purpose and need for the LJCRP is not directly driven by Tribal interests. However, tribal 

comments conveyed substantive concern for the protection of treaty and heritage resources (see 

Appendices I, Response to Comments, and G, Nez Perce Tribe Consultation and Coordination 

Record).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

42 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

 Figure 4. Nez Perce Indian Claims Commission Boundary and 1855 and 1863 Treaty Lands Cessions 

(adapted from Nez Perce 2013)

In the LJCRP, Nez Perce tribal members:

• Exercise Treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather subsistence resources including access to sites for 

camping and other traditional uses. In the LJCRP traditional plant habitats, including scab lands, 

meadows, riparian areas and seeps are being encroached upon by over stocked forests resulting 

from fire exclusion. The historically open fire dependent ecosystem that functioned to provide 

healthy habitat for subsistence resources is becoming less resilient to disturbance, insects, and 

disease.

• Are stewards in the management and recovery of steelhead and salmon populations in the Lower 

Joseph Creek watershed.

• Conduct neotropical bird studies adjacent to the LJCRP.

• Manage for wildlife values in their Precious Lands Management Area located adjacent to the 

LJCRP

• Travel to the LJCRP area to continue traditional practices. Information regarding the locations 

and activities associated with these practices are private and not readily shared. The Forest 

continues to work toward building relationships with the Tribe, tribal staff and members so that 

the potential effects to the settings and values associated with access and the use of traditional 

places may be understood and addressed.

Heritage Resources 

Heritage resources, also known as cultural resources, archaeological, ethnographic and traditional 

sites or places, are highly valued by the public and Tribes as they are non-renewable vestiges of our 

Nation’s heritage. The Forest Service is responsible for the management of heritage resources located 

on NFS lands. 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 43

The archaeological and historic sites located in the LJCRP area tell a robust story of early human 

uses, culture and lifeways associated with this landscape (Wallowa County 2014). 

Cultural Resource Site Types in the LJCRP

Pre-contact to Euro American Settlement (up to 1870)

Tool stone quarries and lithic scatters originating from local granite and andesite outcrops are the 

most common archaeological site type in the LJCRP. Archaeological excavation of a quarry site 

located within the LJCRP area yielded evidence of aboriginal use and occupation dating from 8,000 

years ago into the pre-contact era (18th century). In addition, sites associated with the Nez Perce 

seasonal subsistence ground include cambium peeled trees, upland plant processing camps and 

hunting camps. Rock features associated with ancient traditional practices have also been recorded.

Early Settlement to (1870-1940)

Cabins, barns, troughs, and fencing materials associated with trapping, homesteading and ranching 

are the most represented historic resources in the LJCRP area. Railroad logging camps, grade trusses 

and Civilian Conservation Corps Forest Service guard stations, lookouts, phone lines, and pack trails 

are also well represented.

Desired conditions as set forth in the WWNF Forest Plan states that the goal for heritage resources is 

to “provide for the identification, protection, preservation, enhancement and interpretation of 

prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of local, regional or National 

significance so as to preserve their historical, cultural, and scientific values for the benefit of the 

public” (4-20). This goal and associated standards and guidelines are also found in the Hells Canyon 

NRA Comprehensive Management Plan HCNRA CMP; See Appendix B for relevant standards and 

guidelines).

Research Natural Areas

Research Natural Areas (RNA) are designated for research and educational opportunities, to maintain 

biological diversity on NFS lands, and are selected to complete a national network of ecological 

areas. Horse Pasture Ridge and Haystack Rock were originally proposed for RNA designation in 

1988, and they still maintain all the qualities unique for RNA designation. The Horse Pasture Ridge 

proposed area would contribute to the national network of RNAs by providing an example of Idaho 

fescue-prairie junegrass and Idaho fescue –bluebunch wheatgrass plant associations in ridge top 

communities. The Haystack Rock proposed area would contribute to the national network of RNAs 

by providing an example of Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass-arrowleaf balsamroot and bluebunch 

wheatgrass-Sandberg’s bluegrass-narrow-leaved skullcap plant associations. 

Recreation

The recreation activities within the LJCRP project area are predominately dispersed in nature;

however, developed sites, trail use and special use permitted activities occur within the project area. 

There are five developed recreation sites including Coyote and Dougherty campgrounds, the Kirkland 

Cabin, the Joseph Canyon Viewpoint and the Frog Pond and Chico Trailheads (Figure 5). Other 

recreation activities are focused on day use activities such as OHV use, hunting, firewood gathering, 

mushroom picking, and viewing scenery. The highest use in this area occurs during the big game 

hunting seasons when hunters occupy many of the dispersed campsites within the area. 

Because the construction of new recreation facilities or reconstruction of existing recreation facilities 

is not proposed for the LJCRP, this document focuses on the harvest activities and fuel treatments and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

44 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

their effect on the recreation setting and visitor opportunities. Past timber harvest activities have 

influenced dispersed recreation activities by displacing some uses (i.e. big game hunters may go to 

areas with more denser canopy covering, berry pickers may go to areas where plants are more 

abundant), whereas it may have also encouraged other uses (i.e.open areas allow better viewing 

background scenery). 

Scenery

Scenic character goals, desired conditions, and scenic conservation design features are provided in the 

WWNF Forest Plan (see Appendix B). The landscape character goal for the LJCRP area is to maintain 

a naturally appearing to slightly altered landscape character that expresses predominately natural 

processes in scenic viewsheds and travel routes. 

Dominant scenic features of the LJCRP area include open ponderosa pine forests, large, open pine, 

and larch forests with fall color, grassy forest floors, canyon lands with timbered stringers and basalt 

rims, basalt and granite rock outcrops, deciduous riparian trees and shrubs, and rustic wooden “ruins” 

of old homesteads. The Scenery specialist’s report summarizes some of the valued landscape 

attributes, and special features specific to the LJCRP area. Ecologically sound landscapes can be 

aesthetically pleasing as well as sustainable, being reflective of the inherent natural disturbance 

regimes (including the natural role of fire, insects and pathogens). Landscape conditions that depart 

from natural ranges of variation can cause uncharacteristic disturbance severity, which can lead to a 

dramatic change to the existing scenery.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 45

Figure 5. Developed recreation within the LJCRP area.

Scenery Landscape Analysis Areas

The LJCRP area has been divided into 4 separate landscape areas for assessing scenic effects, 

including:

Oregon State Highway 3, Joseph Canyon Overlook

Joseph Viewpoint located on State Highway 3, is designated as a Level 1 (critical) viewshed within 

the WWNF and over 76,000 visitors stop at the site annually. 

Joseph Canyon Wild and Scenic River Corridor

Joseph Creek is classified as a Wild River from one mile downstream from Cougar Creek (Joseph 

Creek Ranch) to the WWNF boundary, for a total of 8.6 miles. Joseph Creek's outstandingly 

remarkable values include scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife and history. The spectacular 

natural setting, ruggedness, inaccessibility and steep topography of Joseph Creek and the surrounding 

environs of Joseph Canyon create a lasting impression on those who view it. The river corridor 

provides a spectacular example of the steep, rimrock-exposed canyons found in northeast Oregon.

 

 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

46 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Access to Joseph Canyon and Joseph Creek is limited due to remoteness, steep and rugged terrain and 

climatic conditions. Hiking, horsepacking, birdwatching, wildlife viewing, fishing and big game 

hunting can be enjoyed in a solitary manner. The canyon contains examples of northeast Oregon 

geology, with Columbia River basalt canyons exposed by downcutting of rivers. The 2,000 foot deep 

canyon is virtually unmodified and its spectacular details, such as steep sideslopes, basalt layers and 

dikes, can be easily viewed from the canyon rim. Joseph Creek is an important wild steelhead and 

wild rainbow trout fishery. Wildlife includes bighorn sheep, deer, elk, bear, river otter and cougar. The 

area plays a vital role in Nez Perce Tribal history. Most important is the proximity of the river 

corridor to the winter gathering place for Chief Joseph and his band at the mouth of Joseph Creek.

Table Mountain

Table Mountain, accessed by Forest Service Road 4650, provides scenic viewpoints south and west 

across grassy hillsides and forested stringers into Joseph Canyon and the Joseph Creek Wild and 

Scenic River, and has been identified as an important place to view scenery by local residents.

Forest Road 46, Cold Spring Ridge/Forest Road 4680

Red Hill Lookout is located on Forest Road 46 and straddles the hydrologic divide between Upper 

and Lower Joseph Creek Watershed, and about 2,300 people visit the viewpoint each year. Cold 

Spring Ridge forms the northeastern boundary of the project area, within the Hells Canyon National 

recreation area (HCNRA) between the Cook Ridge and Wildhorse Inventoried Roadless areas.

Scenic Integrity

Scenic integrity is the amount of human caused deviation in form, line, color, and texture of a 

landscape. Scenic integrity serves as a frame of reference for measuring scenic integrity levels based 

on the valued attributes of the existing landscape character being viewed. The degrees of integrity 

vary from very high to very low. Scenic integrity is measured on the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest through Visual Quality Objective levels defined by the USFS Visual Management System’s 

Chapter 1 USDA Handbook # 462. The current landscape character is predominately a naturally 

appearing to slightly altered forested environment viewed in the foreground, middleground and 

background of viewsheds. The existing scenic integrity of the LJCRP meets the visual quality 

objective of the Forest Plan and has a range of scenic integrity levels from very high to low. Within 

the project area there are evidences of past activities. Partial removal treatments can be seen in partial 

retention areas, and stumps are apparent. See the Scenery specialist’s report for more detail.

Scenic Stability

The greatest hazard to scenery resources in this area are large stand replacement fires that would burn 

much more intensely due to the stocking levels, species compositions, ladder fuels and canopy 

closure that have developed over time, and large epidemics of insect or disease. Table 7 summarizes 

existing and desired fire severity probabilities for the dry and moist upland forest potential vegetation 

groups. Maintaining a landscape character consistent with the desired conditions for fire severity is 

also generally consistent with maintaining high scenic stability. See the Scenery specialist’s report for 

more detail.

Landscape Visibility

Landscape visibility for scenic analyses is categorized into three classes: foreground, middleground, 

and background. Foreground is based on landscape visibility and is defined as views up to 1⁄2 mile 

distance zone, middleground is 1⁄2 mile to 4 miles distance zone and background is 4 miles to the 

horizon from the travelway and use areas. About 11% of the LJCRP area can be seen as foreground, 

22% as middleground, and <1% as background. The vast majority (66%) is not generally visible from 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 47

major travelways or viewpoints. Additional information and descriptions regarding Visual Quality 

Objectives (VQO’s) may be found in the Forest Service Scenery Management System (USDA Forest 

Service 1995) and the Visual Management System (USDA Forest Service 1974) National Forest 

Landscape Management Handbooks. See the Scenery specialist’s report for more detail.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) sets forth particular requirements that must be 

met for timber to be cut, sold, or removed within Inventoried Roadless Areas. Following are the 

requirements which apply to this project and will be used as indicators of compliance with the RACR. 

The descriptions of environmental effects to roadless area characteristics has also been used to 

analyze effects to Oregon Wild’s “citizen’s unroaded” areas (see the IRA/PWA report) that overlaps

inventoried roadless areas. 

• The purpose of any proposed treatment in 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 would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes 

of the current climatic period. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1)(ii). Criteria that only apply to the 

management within IRAs include:

o The timber is generally small diameter. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1).

o Timber cutting, sale, and/or removal are needed to maintain or improve one or more of the 

roadless area characteristics. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1).

o The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental to the implementation of a management 

activity not otherwise prohibited. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(2). This criterion would only be applied 

to cutting and removal of roadside danger trees.

o The cutting and sale of timber is expected to be infrequent. 36 CFR 294.13 (b).

Acres of forest treated within Inventoried Roadless Areas will be used to track the extent of the 

effects (Chapter 4).

Maintaining or Restoring the Characteristics of Ecosystem Structure

The specific purpose for any proposed treatment of IRAs in this project is: “To maintain or restore the 

characteristics of ecosystem composition or structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic 

wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural 

disturbance regimes of the current climatic period.” The need for restoration described in Chapter 1

applies to the IRAs identified for treatment activities within the LJCRP area. Fire suppression outside 

and within the IRAs has resulted in increased density of younger fire intolerant species (such as grand 

fir) and an associated increase in fuel loading and in particular an increase in ladder fuels. Old fire 

resistant trees are likely to continue to decline in many of the dry and mixed conifer stands found in 

these IRAs due to increased competition especially during times of extended or early onset drought. 

These structure, density, composition, and disturbance regime changes increase the potential risk for 

uncharacteristic wildfire or insect/disease mortality with increased severity and effect on the integrity 

of the IRAs.

Maintaining or Improving Roadless Area Characteristics

Uncharacteristic disturbance due to changes in structure, density, composition, and pattern could 

adversely affect roadless area characteristics of the Joseph Canyon, Cook Ridge, Wildhorse, and 

Mountain Sheep IRAs. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

48 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Roadless area characteristics are resources or features that are often present in and characterize 

inventoried roadless areas (36 CFR 194.11), including;

1. High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;

2. Sources of public drinking water;

3. Diversity of plant and animal communities;

4. Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species

dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;

5. Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation;

6. Reference landscapes;

7. Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;

8. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and

9. Other locally identified unique characteristics.

Generally Small Diameter

The RACR did not specifically define what constitutes “generally small diameter timber,” “(b)ecause 

of the great variation in stand characteristics between vegetation types in different areas...” The Rule 

further states that project planning:

[W]ill consider how the cutting or removal of various size classes of trees would 

affect the potential for future development of the stand, and the characteristics and 

interrelationships of plant and animal communities associated with the site and 

overall landscape. Site productivity, due to factors such as moisture and elevation 

gradients, site aspect, and soil types, will be considered, as well as how such cutting 

or removal of various size classes of standing or down timber would mimic the role 

and legacies of natural disturbance regimes in providing habitat patches, 

connectivity, and structural diversity critical to maintaining biological diversity. In all 

cases, the cutting, sale, or removal of small diameter timber will be consistent with 

maintaining or improving one or more of the roadless area characteristics (see Final 

Rule, Federal Register, Volume 66, No.9, 3257).

Cutting, Sale, or Removal of Danger Trees is Incidental

Cutting danger trees along roads can be necessary to remove trees that pose a danger to travelers. 

Danger trees are identified using the Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification (Toupin et al. 2008). 

The primary objective of this activity would be incidental to maintaining a road for safe travel. This 

criterion applies only to the activity that removes danger trees. Other criteria used for other 

prescriptions (e.g., generally small diameter) does not apply to danger tree mitigation.

Description of Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse, Cook Ridge, and Mountain Sheep IRA

During the current Forest Plan revision process each of the roadless areas (now represented as IRAs

under RACR) in the LJCRP area were analyzed for meeting potential wilderness criteria and detailed 

descriptions were made for each concerning their existing resource conditions (Appendix C, 

Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan 1990). Further descriptions of these IRAs is 

detailed in the IRA/PWA report, and these documents are incorporated by reference and are included 

in the project record. Below is a brief summary of the contents as it pertains to the cutting, sale, or 

removal of timber and the project goal to maintain or restore ecological structure and natural 

disturbance for each of these IRAs.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 49

Joseph Canyon IRA (24,300 acres)

The Joseph Canyon Roadless Area lies adjacent to State Highway 3 on the northern boundary of the 

Forest, 20 miles north of Enterprise, Oregon. In addition to evidence of timber harvest, there are 

scattered examples of human activity. These include abandoned fields and remains of buildings within 

the isolated private land parcels along Joseph Creek. Old railroad grades and skid trails in the lower 

reaches of Davis and Swamp Creeks were the result of logging activities from 1920s and ‘30s. About

50 livestock watering facilities, 30 miles of fence, and six miles of jeep road are found within the 

area. Recurring surface fires of low-to-moderate intensity and endemic insect and disease episodes 

controlled species composition, maintained sustainable stocking levels, and favored the retention of 

the intolerant conifers such as ponderosa pine. The absence of fire over the last 100 years (prior to 

1986) resulted in the widespread development of dense forest dominated by sapling to small-sized, 

late seral Douglas-fir. The probability of a stand replacement event exceeding historic patterns, 

whether by fire, insects, or pathogens, was quite high due to the predominance of continuous layered, 

late seral structures. These expected consequences were realized during the Joseph Canyon Fire of 

1986. Most of the timbered stringers (approximately 75 percent) were converted to the stem initiation 

stage of stand development. Salvaged stands were either seeded aerially or planted with conifer 

seedlings. Sites are marginally stocked with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir seedlings and saplings. 

Wildhorse IRA (20,300 acres)

The Wildhorse Roadless Area is bounded by the Cook Ridge Roadless area to the east and by the 

Wallowa Valley Ranger District to the west and south. The national forest boundary delineates the 

northern extent. The Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management Area portion of the roadless area was 

salvage-harvested following the Teepee Butte Fire of 1988. Substantial volume was removed via 

approximately 4 miles of permanent road which was constructed to facilitate harvest on the upper 

plateaus. Approximately 1,700 acres of the upper plateau were replanted with Douglas-fir, ponderosa 

pine, and western larch in 1992. Regenerated stands are currently stocked with conifers averaging 4-6 

feet in height. The unplanted and non-harvested landbase capable of supporting conifers will require 

decades to re-stock with conifers given the loss of potential seed source and the relative harshness of 

the exposed sites. Previous high-intensity fires altered the landscape. Prior to the fire, logging had 

been limited to light salvage entries and restricted to ground-based equipment within the Dispersed 

Timber Recreation Management Area land allocation within the HCNRA. Following the Teepee Butte 

Fire, salvageable timber in excess of 12-inch DBH was removed from the upper flats of Cook Creek. 

About 4 miles of permanent road and 1 mile of temporary road was constructed to facilitate salvage 

harvest within Cook Ridge and Wildhorse Roadless Areas.

Cook Ridge IRA (19,600 acres)

The Cook Ridge Roadless Area is entirely within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. Much 

of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area is in a roadless and undeveloped condition. The Cook 

Ridge Roadless Area is located primarily in Township 4 North, Range 48 East northwest of Buckhorn 

Springs. It abuts the Mountain Sheep Roadless Area to the north and east, Cold Springs Ridge to the 

west, and the Wallowa Valley Ranger District to the south. The area is dominated by Cook Creek 

which bisects the roadless area, south to north. The entire roadless area was impacted by the 1988 

Teepee Butte Fire. The effects of the fire varied according to differences in fire intensity, duration, 

and pre-fire vegetative composition. Primarily, the intensely burned portions of the area occurred on 

the steep breaklands and within the dense thin-barked, grand fir-dominated stands on the upper 

plateau. Approximately 700 acres of the severely burned upper plateau was replanted with Douglasfir, ponderosa pine, and western larch in 1992. Regenerated stands are currently fully stocked with 

conifers averaging four to six feet in height. The unplanted and non-harvested land base capable of 

supporting conifers will require decades to restock with conifers given the loss of potential seed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

50 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

source and the relative harshness of the exposed sites. The IRA was also impacted by the Cache 

Creek fire of 2012, which burned 5,800 acres.

Mountain Sheep IRA (19,500 acres)

Much of the HCNRA is in a roadless and undeveloped condition. Congress recognized this in its 

establishment in 1975. The enabling legislation established Hells Canyon Wilderness Area and 

directed the Forest Service to specifically review additional areas for wilderness suitability. Mountain 

Sheep Roadless Area was, at that time designated as a Wilderness Study Area. The roadless area lies 

adjacent to the Snake River between Eureka Bar to the southeast and the Washington/Oregon state 

line to the northwest. The southwestern boundary follows portions of Cold Springs Creek turning 

southeast cross-country to a point south of the mouth of the Imnaha River. The river provides most of 

the access. The roads to the Cache Creek, Cherry Creek, and Jim Creek ranches provide additional 

access. The old wagon road from Spain Saddle to Eureka Bar provides trail access as does the Imnaha 

River Trail. This area has historically been grazed. The ranches at Cache, Cherry and Jim creeks have 

a long history of operation. Most of the area is unroaded, and the open roads within the area have 

been excluded from the IRA designation. Numerous structures are associated with the ranches. There 

are over 10 miles of fence. The bulk of the roadless area experienced a high-intensity, standreplacement fire in 1988. The Teepee Butte Fire consumed the timbered stringers from Downey 

Saddle east to the Snake River and south to the extent of the roadless area. Prior to the fire, timbered 

stringers consisted of ponderosa pine old-growth over dense stands of pole to small diameter 

Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. These structures only comprised 5 percent of the grassland 

dominated landbase within the roadless area. The fire converted the majority of the layered structures 

to the stem initiation stage of stand development. The majority of the vegetation represented within 

the area reflects grassland community types. Vegetation patterns on mid-slope benches and dissected 

basalt breaklands vary depending upon aspect. Bluebunch wheatgrass associated with sand dropseed 

dominate more xeric microsites (southern and western exposures, likely limited to the lowest 

elevations), whereas Idaho fescue associated with prairie junegrass occupy the more mesic northern 

and eastern exposures.

Potential Wilderness Areas

The scale of analysis is the LJCRP planning area, and additional area encompassing the Joseph 

Canyon, Wildhorse, Cook Ridge, and Mountain Sheep IRAs. The PWA analysis area (~276,000 acres) 

encompasses the entire project planning area (~98,000 acres) and additional lands sufficient to ensure 

a complete PWA inventory around the all IRAs that intersect the LJCRP. The descriptions of 

environmental effects to these indicators also apply to Oregon Wild’s “citizan’s unroaded” areas (see 

the IRA/PWA specialist’s report) identified that overlap with potential wilderness areas. This was 

needed to put in context any reduction in PWA associated with the Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse, and 

Cook Ridge IRAs due to proposed activities. 

While PWA inventories are a part of Forest Planning or Forest Plan revision, not project-level 

planning, an inventory of Potential Wilderness Areas was conducted for the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project to assess effects to the values of remoteness and solitude that these areas may 

represent, outside the Forest Planning process used for Wilderness recommendation. Appendix A of 

the IRA/PWA report describes the process and rationale used to conduct the inventory. The inventory 

is based on, and consistent with criteria found at Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Ch. 71

(amendment number 1909.12-2007-1 effective January 31, 2007). The inventory is conducted with 

the express purpose of identifying all lands that strictly meet the criteria for being evaluated for 

wilderness suitability so as to evaluate the range of project effects to these areas, and does not replace 
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 51

or supercede the process used during Forest Planning or Plan revision to recommend Wilderness 

designation. 

Each step of the inventory process is visually documented as a map in the IRA/PWA report and Map 

10 of this document. The Forest Service used professional judgment, local knowledge, aerial photo 

interpretation, and ground based examination regarding unique, site-specific conditions of each area 

being considered for placement in the inventory of potential wilderness areas.

Potential wilderness areas are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or impart any 

particular level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation of potential 

wilderness (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 72), and they are not preliminary administrative recommendations 

for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 73). The inventory of potential wilderness does not 

change the administrative boundary of any IRA or any Forest Plan management areas. PWAs overlap

inventoried roadless areas only where those acres of land are consistent with the inventory criteria 

(FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71) and may extend beyond IRA and wilderness boundaries consistent with

inventory criteria. The following three PWAs were identified following Chapter 71 criteria. 

The Joseph PWA (6,500 acres) is comprised of a portion of Joseph Canyon IRA (6,100 acres) and 

PWAs contiguous with the IRA (400 acres).

The Wildhorse PWA (15,400 acres) is comprised of a portion of Wildhorse IRA (13,700 acres) and 

PWAs contiguous with the IRA (1,700 acres) that are located within the LJCRP planning area. 

The Cook Mountain PWA (38,600 acres) is comprised of portions of Cook Ridge and Mountain 

Sheep IRAs (31,700 acres) and PWAs contiguous with the IRA (6,900 acres) that are located within 

and outside of the LJCRP planning area. A majority of both of these IRAs are located outside the 

project planning area. The inventory included an analysis of the entire boundary of these IRAs to be 

as inclusive as possible in identifying potential wilderness character.

Overall resource management covered by the Forest Plan is comprised of management goals, 

objectives, Forest-wide standards and guidelines, and management area allocations. The roadless area 

issue is primarily addressed in the Forest Plan through management area allocations. See the 

IRA/PWA specialist’s report for management area allocation within PWAs.

Indicators for comparison purposes in the analysis of effects (Chapter 4) between alternatives are:

• Roadless characteristics (features that are often present in and characterize inventoried 

roadless areas) as identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR §294.11) 

previously listed. 

• Change in acres of inventoried PWAs.

Other Undeveloped Lands

An outcome of the PWA inventory process found at FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71 was the identification 

of isolated polygons of other undeveloped lands (see IRA/PWA report). These polygons did not meet 

inventory criteria as potential wilderness areas and they are not inventoried roadless areas or a 

designated wilderness area. Each individual polygon of isolated land has no history of harvest activity 

and does not contain forest roads (see Other Undeveloped Areas specialist’s report). They are standalone polygons of varying acreages all less than or equal to 4,999 acres within the project planning 

area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 2 Affected Environment

52 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

There are no forest-wide or management area standards specific to other undeveloped lands in the 

Forest Plan. All lands, including undeveloped lands, are managed consistent with forest-wide 

standards and guidelines and by designated Forest Plan management area allocations (Map 11a and 

11b; also see the IRA/PWA report for a table of management area allocations). The majority (51%) of 

other undeveloped lands fall into management area 3 – Wildlife/Timber emphasis (see IRA/PWA 

report for percent in other management area designations).

The scale of analysis is represented by the LJCRP planning area. Other undeveloped lands have 

intrinsic ecological and social values because they do not contain roads and evidence of past timber 

harvest (see Other Undeveloped Areas specialist’s report). These values are used as indicators of 

comparison to display effects between alternatives. Other undeveloped lands are not inventoried 

roadless areas or potential wilderness areas and therefore are described using different indicators of 

comparison.

Indicators for comparison purposes in the analysis of effects (Chapter 4) between alternatives are:

• Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soils, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.)

• Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, solitude, remoteness)

• Change in acres of other undeveloped lands

About 40,300 acres (41 percent of the project planning area) have been identified as isolated polygons 

of other undeveloped lands that are at least one acre in size. Approximately 25,300 acres (23 percent 

of the project planning area) have been identified as PWAs (Table 25), and the remaining acres (about 

36 percent) are developed and managed (contain evidence of past harvest and forest roads). Individual 

polygons of other undeveloped lands less than an acre were eliminated from further study because no 

special or unique resource values were identified and the description of effects to individual pieces of 

land less than one acre are better disclosed as part of the other resource effects sections in this FEIS.

Table 24 displays the number, size class, and approximate acres of other undeveloped lands in the 

LJCRP area. Approximately 91 percent of the polygons are in the 1 to 99-acre size class and represent 

about 7% of the other undeveloped acres. The residual shape of each undeveloped polygon is the 

result of boundaries created by past harvest and road building. The largest polygon of other 

undeveloped lands is approximately 4,000 acres. This polygon is located in the northeast corner of the 

project planning area a few miles from the nearest harvest treatment unit.

Table 24. Size class and acres of other undeveloped lands in the LJCRP Area

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

201 1 to 99 acres 2,700

9 100 to 499 acres 1,500

3 500 to 999 acres 2,200

4 1,000 to 4,999 acres 8,600

0 5,000+ acres 0

217 Total 15,000*

*The total area of undeveloped land is approximately 40,300 acres. Approximately 25,300 acres of other undeveloped land 

was identified as PWA as a part of project effects analysis.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 53

Areas Identified as Roadless by Oregon Wild (OW)

Oregon Wild submitted a map during the scoping period representing five areas that they identified as 

“citizen’s roadless”, named Joseph Canyon, Sumac Creek, Boner Gulch, Cottonwood Creek-Broady 

Creek, and Yew Wood Springs. These areas were defined with criteria different from those that define 

Inventoried Roadless Areas. Approximately 67,400 acres of these areas are within the LJCRP 

boundary. The descriptions of environmental effects to the ‘intrinsic physical and social values’ also 

apply to Oregon Wild’s map (IRA/PWA report) identified in relation to other undeveloped lands.

There are no forest-wide or management area standards specific to OW areas in the Forest Plan. All 

lands, including these areas, are managed consistent with forest-wide standards and guidelines and by 

designated Forest Plan management area allocations. Portions of OW overlap with IRAs, PWAs, 

other undeveloped lands as well as areas with evidence of past harvest and evidence of development 

such as road construction and its influences. Table 25 shows the relationship between OW and other

identified land characteristics.

Indicators of Comparison between Alternatives

The indicator of effects to OW areas, IRAs, PWAs, and other undeveloped lands is:

• Number of acres affected by proposed treatments

Table 25. Acres of Oregon Wild’s roadless area that overlaps with other lands identified in LJCRP.

OW Area Names Acres in 

LJCRP

Acres in 

FS IRA

Acres in 

FS PWA

Acres with 

evidence of 

past harvest

Acres with 

Forest Roads

Joseph Canyon 38,900 24,000 6,400 8,700 2,600

Sumac Creek 1,700 0 0 10 240

Boner Gulch 1,400 0 0 30 170

Cottonwood Creek-Broady Creek 24,000 20,100 15,400 4,000 2,900

Yew Wood Springs 1,400 0 0 130 250

Total 67,400 44,100 21,800 12,870 6,160
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

54 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 55

CHAPTER 3 Public Involvement, Issues, the 

Proposed Action and Alternatives

Summary 

Public involvement helped the Forest Service identify three significant issues that were used to 

develop and compare alternatives. Significant issues encompassed the types and locations of forest 

treatments, and the extent of the road network, and are described in detail in the Significant Issues 

portion of this chapter.

These three significant issues were used to develop and compare alternatives. The alternatives were 

developed to address these issues while meeting the purpose and need for the project. Key differences 

between the alternatives include the amount, nature, and location of forest thinning and the extent of 

the open road network (Table 30).

The action alternatives use silvicultural prescriptions to restore characteristic function, and resilience 

to disturbance, using historical, current and climate change information to move toward natural forest 

structure, species composition, and pattern. Both action alternatives favor the retention of large, old, 

shade-intolerant tree species and emphasize the removal of younger, smaller, shade-tolerant trees.

Alternative 2 proposes about 15,770 acres of larger tree thinning (9” and larger in diameter at breast 

height) and 5,400 acres of smaller diameter tree thinning, with about 48,600 acres of high priority 

burning to develop the desired conditions across the 98,000 acre area. Alternative 3 scales this back 

by limiting larger tree thinning to areas outside riparian habitat conservation areas, inventoried 

roadless areas, potential wilderness areas, and designated old-growth preservation areas. 

Alternative 2 includes the removal of some trees >21” in diameter trees in order to create desired 

stand structure and species composition – discriminating against shade-tolerant, younger trees in 

order to retain larger, older, shade-intolerant species. Alternative 3 does not. 

Alternative 2 results in 69 miles of closed or decommissioned roads. Alternative 3 aims to maintain 

existing public access levels.

Proposed Forest Plan Amendments

A Forest Plan amendment (described in more detail in the section “Alternatives Considered in 

Detail”) would be required by these activities proposed in the action alternatives:

• Alternative 2: Removal of >21” diameter trees on up to 5,000 acres to increase resiliency to 

disturbance and climate changes, shifting toward more resilient, early successional species and 

toward reference conditions, while conserving all old trees. This part of the amendment would not

be needed for Alternative 3.

• Alternative 2: Thinning and removal of trees from 25 acres of old forest, single story (OFSS) 

stands in order to restore and maintain the OFSS structure longer, and allow the effective 

reintroduction of fire. 

• Alternative 3: Thinning and removal of trees from 20 acres of OFSS conditions.

All alternatives restore grassland and savanna areas by removing encroaching trees, and implement 

“individuals, clumps, and openings” stand level prescriptions to manage within-stand diversity, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

56 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

move species composition, distribution, and structure toward the range of variation through the use of 

thinning and burning. 

Significant Issues

Public involvement helped the Forest Service identify planning issues. The Forest Service separated 

the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as 

those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were 

identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, 

Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural 

and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed 

study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review

(Sec. 1506.3)...”. A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as nonsignificant are described below. As for significant issues, the Forest Service identified the following 

issues during scoping, which were used to develop alternatives:

1. Fire suppression is the primary threat to forest resilience, and has been the cause of forest 

densification and uncharacteristic fire effects for over a century. Consequently, forest restoration 

may require the removal of relatively large trees that likely became established as a result of fire 

exclusion. Despite this, there are those who highly value large trees and are willing to accept their 

potential loss to uncharacteristically severe disturbances (i.e., fire, insects, disease) over their 

removal through active restoration.

2. Threats to forest resilience, such as fire suppression, act across the Lower Joseph Creek landscape 

regardless of Forest Plan management area. However, there are those who consider active 

management as presenting a greater risk than uncharacteristic disturbances to certain “reserved” 

management areas (dedicated old-growth, inventoried roadless areas, potential wilderness areas, 

and riparian habitat conservation areas).

3. The road network within the LJCRP area is highly valued by some segments of the public as their 

preferred form of access to dispersed recreation sites, firewood areas, special forest products, and 

other uses. However, the road network is considered by others to pose a high risk to water quality, 

and aquatic and wildlife habitats. 

Non-Significant Issues

Wildlife Habitat

All action alternatives would aim to conserve or restore over the long term functional wildlife 

corridors for species dependent on large tree, closed canopy forest structure, within the context of the 

project purpose and need to move the landscape toward the range of natural variation in forested 

structural stages. In addition, all action alternatives would maintain viability of wildlife habitat for 

management indicator species (MIS), R6 Regional Forester’s sensitive species, and other focal 

species. 

Fire and Fuels Management

All action alternatives would aim to foster the re-introduction of planned and unplanned fire where it 

would be ecologically beneficial. In addition, this EIS analyzes the relative effects of the range of 

alternatives on fire behavior, values at risk of unwanted fire, departures in forest structure and 

composition between current and reference conditions, wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered 
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 57

aquatic and terrestrial species, aquatic and riparian habitat, grassland extent, forage availability for 

domestic livestock, dead and down wood, snags, fuels, and wildlife habitat.

Economic and Social Actions

Almost all issues and considerations have an economic facet. Analysis of the relative economic 

effects between alternatives is part of this EIS, and the economic effects of the alternatives will inturn inform the project decision. Scoping did not reveal economic conflicts or significant issues 

within the scope of the project purpose and need.

Livestock Grazing

This EIS analyzes the relative effects of the range of alternatives on forage availability and 

productivity, and grassland extent. Scoping did not reveal significant grazing issues within the scope 

of the project purpose and need.

Watershed Management and Aquatic Habitat

This EIS analyzes the relative effects of the range of alternatives on aquatic species (both listed and 

management indicator species), aquatic habitat conditions, RHCAs, and the degree of watershed 

restoration. As a part of alternative road networks analyzed under this EIS, the effects of aquatic 

organism passage restoration activities are analyzed as a common element of all action alternatives.

Climate Change Adaptation

All action alternatives include management actions that would improve the ability of National Forest 

resources to adapt to a changing climate. The alternatives vary in the types and amount of actions. 

Activities for addressing climate change include the following:

• Conserving species and habitats threatened directly or indirectly by climate change, enhancing 

landscape connectivity, and reducing barriers to species movement to facilitate the ability of 

species to move across the landscape with shifts in habitat distributions 

• Reducing the risk of uncharacteristically severe fires and insects and disease disturbances through 

forest thinning 

• Reducing the risk of increased nonnative species infestations through reductions in the extent of 

current nonnative species and prevention of future infestations 

• Reducing potential increases in stream temperatures through riparian buffers, stream restoration, 

and development and maintenance of effective stream shade 

• Reducing risk of water quality degradation while increasing aquatic connectivity by decreasing 

road density, reducing hydrological connectivity of the road system, replacing culverts, and road

closure, realignment or decommissioning 

Heritage Resources

All alternatives strive to meet desired conditions set forth in the WWNF Forest Plan and would 

comply with the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106. The goal for heritage resources is to 

“provide for the identification, protection, preservation, enhancement and interpretation of prehistoric 

and historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of local, regional or National significance so as to 

preserve their historical, cultural, and scientific values for the benefit of the public” (4-20). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

58 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Background

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

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

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

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

LJCRP was identified as an out-year project for the WWNF. In July 2013, the Eastern Oregon 

Coalition of Counties convened a meeting of a coalition of five collaborative groups in the Blue 

Mountains to discuss a suite of potential projects to be taken on by the ERS. The LJCRP had broad 

support as a potential test of new project planning processes, and a project of large enough landscape 

scale to advance accelerated restoration, yet small enough to be accomplished under an accelerated 

timeline by a dedicated planning team. 

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

collaboratives and other sources, and selected the LJCRP as the first planning project for the Blue 

Mountains IDT. The LJCRP was selected by the ERS BOD primarily due to the active engagement of 

local and tribal governments and collaborators, the availability of Wallowa County’s Lower Joseph 

Creek watershed assessment, and the presence of a local forest products industry. The ERS BOD 

determined that the LJCRP could test the value of a community-based watershed assessment to jumpstart the NEPA planning process, and advance understanding of what it takes to achieve accelerated 

restoration planning in a collaborative environment. 

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

ecosystem restoration needs, and opportunities to contribute to local economies within the 98,600 

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

collaborative groups, other government agencies, non-government organizations, and others to 

develop project objectives, the proposed action, and alternatives (see Public Involvement section, 

below). 

Forest Plan Direction, Travel Management Planning, and other Key 

Planning Policies 

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

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

Management Plan (Forest Plan) Record of Decision (ROD) and FEIS as amended (1990). The Forest 

Plan provides primary guidance for where and how each management activity can occur on the 

WWNF. It establishes goals, objectives, and desired future conditions, identifies management areas 

within the Forest, and provides standards and guidelines for implementation (USDA Forest Service 

1990). Maps 11a and 11b illustrate Forest Plan management areas within the LJCRP boundaries (see 

the Forest Plan, Tables 6-7 for generally accepted management activities by management area). Table 

26 displays the Forest Plan Management Areas within the LJCRP boundary and acres and percent of 

each management area within the project boundary. 

The LJCRP was designed in response to Forest Plan goals for maintaining historic plant communities 

and maintaining ecosystem function (p. 4-30); minimizing insects and disease damage (p. 4-48); 

minimize the risk of fire damage (p. 4-48) and timber management consistent with various resource

objectives, environmental requirements and economic efficiency (pp. 4-48 through 4-51). This project 

also tiers to the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) Comprehensive Management Plan 

(CMP) ROD for the FEIS, where it overlaps the HCNRA (USDA Forest Service 2003). See Appendix 

B for more information.
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 59

Table 26. Forest Plan Management Areas within the LJCRP boundary.

Forest Plan Management Area Acres % of 

project 

area

1 - Timber Production Emphasis 28,100 28

3 - Wildlife/Timber 35,400 36

7 - Wild and Scenic Rivers 2,200 3

9 - HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Native Vegetation 5,000 6

10 - HCNRA Forage Production 14,100 14

11 - HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management 8,900 9

12 - Research Natural Areas 760 1

15 - Old Growth Preservation 3,100 3

Grand Total 97,560

While the extent of the road network was raised as an issue, travel management planning was not 

considered a purpose and need of this project. A concurrent forest-level travel analysis process is 

underway that encompasses the entire Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, except the Hell’s Canyon 

National Recreation Area (HCNRA), which is covered by the HCNRA Comprehensive Management 

Plan (CMP). The forest wide analysis (which consists of two separate analyses) is intended to achieve 

compliance with Subparts A and B of the 2005 Travel Management Rule. Subpart A of the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212.5(b)(1)), which requires each unit of the National Forest System 

to identify the minimum/sustainable road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for the 

protection, management, and use of NFS lands; and identify roads that are no longer needed to meet 

forest resource management objectives and which therefore should be scheduled for decommissioning 

or considered for other uses. Subpart A is not a process that results in a decision. It simply informs 

subsequent decisions that are subject to the NEPA process. Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule 

(36 CFR Part 212.51) is subject to the NEPA process, and designates roads, trails and areas for 

motorized use that are displayed on a motorized vehicle use map. Cross-country travel will be 

addressed under Subpart B. 

Project-by-project decisions regarding the road network must comply with Forest Plan direction. A

roads analysis (FSH 7709.55, Chapter 20) was conducted as part of the LJCRP to inform the decision 

related to the designation of roads for motor vehicle use in the LJCRP area. The LJCRP alternatives

include proposed changes to the transportation system, but the responsible official may choose to 

defer any changes until the Subpart B travel analysis is complete. 

For more information on how you can provide relevant and effective input on travel management 

planning on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest can be found at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa-whitman/landmanagement/projects/?cid=fsbdev7_008909.

The WWNF Forest Plan is currently under revision. Efforts were made within this analysis to align,

wherever possible, desired conditions of the LJCRP with the current Forest Plan (as amended), and 

the DEIS for the Forest Plan revision. Amendments made to date to the WWNF Forest Plan, and other 

key guiding federal and state policies are listed and described in Appendix B. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

60 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Other Plans

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. The action alternatives are also consistent with 

Wallowa County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2006) goals to reduce fire risk and 

development of a fire-resilient landscape.

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 toward three goals: 1. resilient landscapes; 2. fire adapted communities; and 3. safe and 

effective wildfire response. The action alternatives are consistent with this national strategy through 

the development of a fire resilient landscape, which would also increase the safety and effectiveness 

of wildfire response.

Decision Framework

The proposed action and action alternatives are designed to achieve the project purpose and need, 

generally within the current objectives and constraints of accelerated restoration, policies, laws, 

regulations, and available resources. However, where necessary, the project decision could result in 

amendment of the WWNF Forest Plan. 

The WWNF Supervisor is the Forest Service official responsible for deciding whether to select the 

actions as proposed (Alternative 2), the other action alternative, an alternative that combines attributes 

from the alternatives or another variation, or, no action (Alternative 1). The decision includes 

determining: (1) the location and treatment methods for restoration activities; (2) design criteria, and 

mitigation measures; (3) monitoring requirements and the components that would be included in the 

monitoring plan; (4) the components that would be included in the implementation checklist and plan; 

(5) the estimated products or timber volume to make available from the project; and (6) whether the 

Forest Plan would be amended. 

The Pacific Northwest (Region 6) Regional Forester is the Forest Service official responsible for the 

decision to establish two RNAs, and thus amend the Forest Plan to change their allocation from 

“proposed” to “established”. The PNW Research Station Director must concur with a decision to 

establish Research Natural Areas. Thus, the ROD for establishment of one or more RNAs would be 

developed separately from that of the rest of the LJCRP.

Public Involvement

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) represents one intermediate step in a 

collaborative, public planning process to determine the best course of action for the LJCRP landscape 

over the next 10-15 years. The FEIS informs selection of the best course of action by considering 

current and desired conditions, and the best available science concerning ecosystem sustainability and 

socioeconomic vitality related to National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

A coalition of five place-based collaboratives met in July 2013, in Baker City, Oregon, to help assess 

the strengths and weaknesses of potential projects to be undertaken by the ERS interdisciplinary team, 

including the LJCRP, and this input was considered by the Region during project selection.

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to develop an EIS for the LJCRP was published in the Federal Register on 

January 9, 2014, and a legal notice of the scoping comment period was published in the newspaper of 

record (Baker City Herald). The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from January 9 -

February 10, 2014. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIS for a 90 day comment period was 
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 61

published in the Federal Register, and Baker City Herald on November 14, 2014. The DEIS comment 

period ended on February 12, 2015. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency 

made presentations at collaborative and other public meetings, public workshops, and field trips. For 

more information, see the analysis of public scoping and DEIS comments in the project record at the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Headquarters. About15 public meetings and field trips organized 

by the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Restoration Collaborative between August 2013 and August 2015 inpart focused on the LJCRP. 

Twelve meetings and conference calls, in addition to the joint public meetings in January and 

December 2014, were held with the Wallowa County NRAC to discuss the proposed action, public 

comments, planning issues and alternatives, and effects analyses.

In February and May of 2014, meetings were held with livestock grazing permittees to discuss issues 

and suggestions for project development.

Two public open houses were held, one during scoping process, and one during the formal comment 

period for the DEIS.

A meeting was held in March 2015 with the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative Consensus 

Subcommittee concerning the analysis of potential wilderness areas to support their attainment of 

collaborative consensus during the formal comment period. On March 17, 2015, a follow up meeting 

was held with Hells Canyon Preservation Council to provide additional information on the PWA 

analysis process. 

Tribal Consultation

More than 20 government-to-government meetings, staff-to-staff meetings, and conference calls were 

held with Nez Perce tribal members and staff throughout the development of the LJCRP. Five field 

trips were held for Nez Perce Tribal staff to discuss treatment locations and strategy (see FEIS, 

Appendix G, Tribal Consultation Record).

Using comments from the public, Wallowa County, other agencies, and the Nez Perce Tribe, the 

interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address (see Issues section).

Alternative Development Process 

Alternatives for this project were developed to provide a range of possible actions to address the 

purpose and need outlined in Chapter 1, and the significant issues identified through scoping and 

described above in the “Significant Issues” section. This included vegetation and road treatment 

designs; Forest Plan amendments, project design features and mitigation measures where appropriate 

and necessary. Forest Plan goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, requirements under the 

Endangered Species Act and other Federal and state laws and regulations (Appendix B) also 

influenced the development of alternatives. In total, seven alternatives were considered. Four 

alternatives were eliminated and the remaining three were analyzed in detail. The responsible official 

approved two action alternatives and a no action alternative for detailed analysis.

LJCRP Alternative 2 is consistent with the 1990 WWNF Forest Plan, as currently amended, and with 

the inclusion of the non-significant amendments proposed as a part of this project. Alternative 3 is 

also consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended, except in the case of road density relative to road 

density standards for aquatic and wildlife habitat. The LJCRP planning process is also consistent with 

applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and 

the Hells Canyon NRA Comprehensive Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2003). More detail 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

62 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

about consistency with pertinent laws, regulations and policy can be found in the specialists reports, 

which are available in the project record. All proposed fuel treatments (prescribed fire and 

preparation and treatment of activity fuels) are consistent with Forest Plan standards as well as all 

applicable state and federal laws and regulations. See the Clean Air Act disclosure in Appendix B and 

air quality sections of the FEIS in terms of compliance with the State of Oregon requirements for 

smoke management. Appendix B contains Forest Plan direction and guidance, and other policies 

applicable to this project. 

Monitoring and Learning

Interactive learning processes produce improved understanding and management over time, with an 

emphasis on uncertainty about resource responses to management actions and the value of reducing 

that uncertainty. The LJCRP can largely make use of existing monitoring programs, with a few 

exceptions (see “Stream Temperature and Sedimentation”, below), to improve understanding of 

effective management strategies over time.

Franklin et al. (2013) identify four key elements of monitoring, including:

Acknowledge uncertainty

Key LJCRP assumptions include:

• Silvicultural treatments would make treated stands more resilient to uncharacteristic insect, 

disease, and wildfire disturbances.

• Understory productivity would increase in stands that are thinned and burned.

• Silvicultural treatments would improve wildlife habitat for some species, and reduce habitat for 

others.

• Wildlife habitat would improve as a result of road closures.

• Water quality and fish habitat would improve as a result of silvicultural treatments and road 

closures

• Other LJCRP project uncertainties include:

1. The social and ecological benefits and costs of removal of trees >21” under certain 

circumstances as part of a forest restoration strategy

2. The social and ecological benefits and costs of restoration treatments in designated old 

growth (Management Area 15), Potential Wilderness Areas, or Inventoried Roadless Areas

3. Projected increases in forest management related jobs and economic stability within 

Wallowa County as a result of project activities

Develop testable hypotheses about policy success

Gather information to test hypotheses

• Existing national, Forest, and place-based monitoring programs collect data on forest structure 

and composition, prescribed fire and wildland fire effects and effectiveness, soil and water quality 

and wildlife populations, among others, and would provide substantial information about how the 

LJCRP area would respond to the activities implemented by this decision. For example, 

monitoring implemented through various existing programs would help indicate whether over the 

long term, the LJCRP area would stay on a trajectory toward desired conditions. Some of these 
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 63

monitoring programs also have indicators to prevent unanticipated environmental harm to water, 

soils, historical and cultural resources, and plant, wildlife, and aquatic habitats. The following 

categories outline existing and proposed monitoring programs that were used in the LJCRP 

analysis or proposed to address management uncertainties, and where appropriate would be 

referenced during implementation. Data gathered from LJCRP would, in turn, support these 

monitoring programs to help inform future management and science.

Forest, Fire and Understory Vegetation 

• Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) is a National Forest System-wide program managed by the 

Research and Development branch that periodically collects detailed data on permanent plots at 

3.4 mile intervals to track forest growth, development, and response to management actions. FIA 

data collected within the LJCRP area, in conjunction with data collected outside the project area 

in similar environments under similar management, was used in the vegetation modeling for this 

project, and can subsequently be used to inform general treatment effectiveness at the landscape 

scale over the long-term.

• FIA data is also used in the development of the USFS PNW Region’s existing vegetation 

condition spatial data set (Gradient Nearest Neighbor, GNN) (Ohmann and Gregory 2002). This 

data uses plot data from FIA and other sources in conjunction with remote imagery to periodically 

map existing vegetation structure and composition. GNN data can be used to track change as a 

result of management, growth and natural disturbance, and indicate treatment effectiveness at a 

watershed or subwatershed scale.

• The Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS), and Fuels Treatment Effectiveness 

Monitoring System include information on implementation of project decisions, and their 

effectiveness. Stands exams prior to and following treatment are generally conducted in areas 

representing various treatments, to determine diseases/extent, tree density, and mortality due to 

planned and unplanned fire, etc. The National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System 

(NFPORS) tracks achievement nationally of resource goals through planned and unplanned fire.

• Areas proposed for harvest under selection cutting can be regenerated using standard reforestation 

techniques. The reforestation technique and range of desired stocking would be documented in a 

formal silvicultural prescription. These areas would be monitored by the implementation 

silviculturist to ensure the areas meet the prescribed post treatment stocking. If the areas do not 

meet desired stocking after 5 years, conditions that are inhibiting regeneration would be identified 

and remedial action may be prescribed to ensure regeneration.

• Ongoing allotment monitoring is being conducted to assess forage utilization and range condition 

through existing allotment management plans (and annual operating instructions, where current 

allotment management plans do not exist), and will provide insight into the understory-related 

effects of forest treatments. Understory productivity is generally measured before and after 

treatments, and noxious weed inventories are regularly conducted.

• Establishment of one or more RNAs in the LJCRPA would ensure the long-term maintenance of 

these areas as potential baseline study areas, or research sites with local relevance.

Wildlife

• ODFW tracks elk population levels, which would indicate effectiveness of forest thinning and 

road management actions taken in the LJCRP area to improve habitat.

Stream Temperature and Sedimentation
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

64 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

• The Forest Service National Best Management Practices (BMP) Program is the agency’s nonpoint source pollution control program for achieving and documenting water resource protection. 

The ultimate goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation’s waters located within or near the national forests and grasslands. Stream sedimentation 

and temperature monitoring by subwatershed would be conducted as a required component of 

National Best Management Practices (BMPs). Appendix J lists BMPs that are relevant to this 

project.

• Approximately 10 percent of the RHCAs in the LJCRP area are proposed for treatment under 

Alternative 2, including 31 acres of Category 1 (Swamp Creek), and 1,822 acres of Category 4 

RHCAs. If AAlternative 2 is selected, stream temperature monitoring above and below the 31 

acre treatment in Swamp Creek would be conducted prior to implementation and for 5 years post 

implementation as a part of the project decision.

• Pre-project monitoring for the forest treatment portions of the LJCRP would include on the 

ground survey of the project area, and the proposed treatment units. Monitoring of the proposed 

treatment units would include survey of any stream channels, RHCAs, slope stability, and general 

riparian vegetation characteristics. Monitoring the project would ensure that all Standards and 

Guidelines in the Forest Plan are met through implementation of protection measures as identified 

by the interdisciplinary team (see Appendix J). 

• Monitoring of the implementation of the project and the protection measures would take place 

throughout the life of the project by the timber sale administrator (TSA) and watershed specialist. 

For example, if an intense thunderstorm caused overland flow and subsequent excessive soil 

displacement or sediment production, harvest operations would cease until the soil moisture 

decreased or protection measures were complete. Potential effects from log haul on roads that

parallel RHCAs would be monitored throughout the life of the project by the TSA and watershed 

specialist. Timber harvest operations would be halted if adverse impacts were observed at any 

point during the operation.

• Post-project monitoring would include implementation and effectiveness monitoring to determine 

if applicable BMPs and mitigation measures were effective in meeting soil and water resource 

protection. 

• Monitoring of RHCAs treatments (both forest treatments and stand improvements) would be 

conducted by fish and watershed personnel in coordination with presale personnel, fire personnel 

and the TSA. Items monitored would include:

• proper implementation of no activity stream buffers

• proper implementation of Category 4 treatment variable width buffers, 

• burn pile size and placement,

• fuel transects along stream buffers and through units to look for erosional features,

• fire severity of piles burned. 

• Nine stream monitoring sites are located within the LJCRP area to address stream temperature 

trend monitoring. Specific stream temperature monitoring in Swamp Creek would be placed prior 

to treatment activities and collect data for a total of five years after treatment to determine any 

change in stream water temperature that could be attributable to the treatment (for more 

information, see the Biological Assessment for the LJCRP, in the project record).

• The small proportion of proposed RHCA treatments allows for comparison of the effectiveness in 

attaining RMOs through forest treatments versus the effects of natural disturbance within 

RHCAs.
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 65

Cultural Resources

• The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and Region 6 Forest Service Programmatic 

Agreement (Service 2013) guides monitoring for project effects to cultural resources (Section 

111, Project Review; and Section V, Heritage Preservation Program).

Develop an institutional mechanism that ensures that the hypotheses will undergo periodic, fair 

minded review and management policies can change as a result.

Franklin et al. (2013) note that it is often difficult for people and organizations to admit that policies, 

in which they are invested, have not been successful in achieving their intended goals; and that people 

with investments in failed policy will seek favorable assessments, rather than changing a failed 

policy. Franklin et al. (2013) suggest involving collaborators in external reviews, revising monitoring 

hypotheses, and employing multi-party monitoring.

• Collaborators and the Forest Service are working together using the stated goals and objectives in 

this document, and the resulting decision, to develop specific monitoring questions and 

implement monitoring strategies. Key issues currently being considered for multi-party 

monitoring by the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative’s monitoring subcommittee include 

effectiveness of treatments that include versus does not include the cutting of trees > 21”, and 

forest treatments in RHCAs, IRAs, PWAs, designated old growth preservation areas (MA 15), 

among others. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

A total of three alternatives were analyzed in detail: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the 

Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2), and Alternative 3. A quantitative comparison of 

alternative treatments is provided in Table 30. A list of actions common to all alternatives is also 

provided, below. Maps 12-17 show vegetation treatment locations and road networks by alternative, 

and the existing condition of the road network.

Alternative 1 

No Action 

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative and serves as a baseline for estimating the effects of the other 

alternatives. The LJCRP would not be implemented under Alternative 1. No management actions 

would be taken to influence the direction or rate of change for moving existing conditions toward 

desired condition. Current activities such as permitted grazing, dispersed recreation use, fire 

protection, and scheduled road maintenance would continue within the project area. The existing land 

and resource conditions would be otherwise unaffected, except through natural processes. It is 

assumed that any previous decisions not yet implemented would be implemented within the planning 

horizon. Maps 12-13 show the existing road network, and the road network under Alternative 1, 

assuming existing road network decisions that have not yet implemented would be implemented 

within the planning horizon (about 10 years).

Alternative 2 – The Modified Proposed Action

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

initial scoping process. This Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 2) is the preferred alternative.

Modifications to the proposed action occurred in the time between issuing the draft EIS and final EIS 

as a result of public comments or analyses that relate specifically to standards and guides found in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

66 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

respective Forest Plans for the WWNF or the HCNRA. See “Key changes between DEIS and FEIS” 

below. The Modified Proposed Action is analyzed in detail in this FEIS; and unless otherwise noted, 

is synonymous with the term “proposed action”. Table 32 shows how treatments changed between 

publication of the original proposed Action in the Federal Register and the Modified Proposed action 

analyzed in this FEIS.

Silviculture treatments would provide a diversity of forest structures that are more in line with desired 

conditions, and more resilient to anticipated future environmental conditions. Forest thinning 

prescriptions (silvicultural treatments) would follow a practical, science based approach intended to 

restore characteristic functionality, and resistance and resilience to disturbance. Known as “ICO” 

(individuals, clumps and openings), this approach uses historical information at the stand- and 

landscape-level to design restoration strategies and prescriptions for restoration (e.g., see (Franklin et 

al. 2013)). For example, the pattern of old trees, stumps and snags currently on the landscape provide 

indicators of natural tree clumping and spacing, and thus the degree of horizontal spatial 

heterogeneity. In places where legacies of historic forest patterns are absent (e.g., young, post-fire 

forests), information is used from similar habitats. 

Thinning, and mechanical fuel treatments across approximately 15,700 acres would encourage the 

development of large tree structural characteristics, understory plant diversity, forage productivity, 

and resilience to disturbances such as wildfire. Thinning of largely younger trees across an additional 

5,400 acres, which are in the process of recovery after stand replacement disturbance, would 

encourage the development of spatial heterogeneity and increase the proportion of early seral tree 

species. Silvicultural treatments would generally retain and protect large trees of early seral species 

and trees with old growth physical characteristics consistent with historical reference conditions. 

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

applied where they support attainment of RMOs, and would generally parallel adjacent upland 

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

minimum 25 foot variable width 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) (Table 46).

No treatments would occur in categories 1, 2 or 3 RHCAs, with the exception of Swamp Creek 

(Category 1 RHCA, which is a fish-bearing stream). No treatments would occur in any RHCAs that 

are currently in an old forest structural condition. Treatment in Swamp Creek includes thinning of 

encroaching trees to restore meadow features, hydrologic function, and aquatic habitat conditions. 

Removal of woody vegetation encroachment resulting from fire exclusion in some riparian areas 

would protect and restore watershed function. Riparian and flood plain restoration may also include 

road closure or modification. 

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

Prescribed burning using planned and unplanned ignitions, where ecologically appropriate, on up to 

90,000 acres, including 48,200 acres of high priority, would reduce fuel loads, increase understory 

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

uncharacteristic disturbance from wildfire, insects, and disease. 

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

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

activities, wildlife habitat quality, and aquatic habitat connectivity. The majority of road-related 
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 67

activities would make use of the existing system road network. A roads analysis was conducted to 

assess the transportation system and the appropriate actions needed to meet project and administrative 

needs, public access, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, future needs, and consultation guidance 

for federally listed fish (see Project Record for more information). 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. 17 miles would be closed or decommissioned, as 

determined in the roads analysis and an evaluation of each segment’s status, future need, and impact 

on other resources. Roads proposed for any type of closure focus on restoring water quality, fish 

habitat and wildlife habitat. 

In the interest of landscape learning and streamlining NEPA, two Research Natural Areas, which have 

been proposed for establishment in the WWNF Forest Plan (Horse Pasture Ridge (338 acres) and 

Haystack Rock (425 acres)) would be established and serve as untreated baseline study areas. The 

establishment of the two RNAs would require a Forest Plan amendment, as described below.

The proposed action would include maintenance and enhancement of culturally significant resources, 

settings, viewsheds, and sensitive plant and animal species habitat, including those of interest to the 

Tribes. 

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 including, but not limited to, felling by hand of non-commercial material, mastication, 

removal, grapple or hand piling and burning, burning of existing fuel concentrations (“jackpot 

burns”), cutting and scattering limbs, and broadcast burning.

Project design elements and site specific mitigation measures are described in Appendix J. 

Implementation of the LJCRP would follow these to reduce or eliminate unwanted effects from 

treatment activity. Mitigation measures may include seasonal operating restrictions, snag and downed 

wood creation, and/or soil amendments (e.g., adding biochar) on compacted or detrimental soils. 

Table 27 shows acres of harvest and stand improvement allocation by Forest Plan management area 

for the modified proposed action (Alternative 2). See Table 31 for descriptions of treatment types.

Table 27. Acres of harvest and stand improvement by Forest Plan management area for Alternative 2.

Forest Plan 

Management Area

Group 

Selection

Intermediate 

Treatment

Single Tree 

Selection

Savanna

Meadow

Stand 

Improvement

1 - Timber Production 

Emphasis 710 140 7,900 200 31 2,200

3 - Wildlife/Timber 120 30 2,600 50 0 600

7 - Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 - HCNRA Dispersed 

Recreation/Native 

Vegetation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

68 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest Plan 

Management Area

Group 

Selection

Intermediate 

Treatment

Single Tree 

Selection

Savanna

Meadow

Stand 

Improvement

10 - HCNRA Forage 

Production 370 90 520 80 0 510

11 - HCNRA

Dispersed 

Recreation/Timber 

Management 1,200 80 780 190 0 2,100

12 - Research Natural 

Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 - Old Growth 

Preservation 3 0 620 1 0 8

Forest Plan Amendments – Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action)

The Forest Service proposes amending the WWNF Forest Plan under the 1982 planning regulations 

following Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12 section 21.3) and Manual direction (FSM 

1926.51). The significance of the amendment was evaluated in accordance with FSH 1926.51 and 

FSH 1926.52, and is considered to be non-significant according to this policy. The amendment 

follows Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12 section 25.4) and Manual direction (FSM 1926.51) 

direction. Opportunities for public participation and notification was provided as required in § 219.4 

and § 219.16.The following Forest Plan amendment would be needed to implement the Modified 

Proposed Action (Alternative 2) and achieve the project’s desired conditions within the context of 

existing conditions of the LJCRP landscape.

The Wildlife Standard - Eastside Screens (Regional Forester’s Amendment # 2 for the 

Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan))

The Eastside Screens were adopted as interim direction in 1993, amending the WWNF Forest Plan in 

1994 (Regional Forester’s Amendment #1) and with minor changes in 1995. In 2003, after nine years 

of implementation, the Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region examined whether the 

Eastside Screens were functioning as intended (Goodman 2003). It was found that interpretation of 

screens direction, including 21-inch diameter limitations, no harvest in stands below HRV, and 

prescriptive connectivity corridors, at times limits the ability to meet policy objectives of providing 

late, old forest structure (LOS), particularly in dry single-story ponderosa pine or western larch 

stands. Restoring species composition toward HRV can at times require removing larger, but younger 

(<150 year) shade-tolerant species to favor shade-intolerant species, such as ponderosa pine and 

western larch. 

With every year that goes by without the benefits of characteristic fire or other disturbances, trees that 

established after the mid-1800s on the LJCRP area have been getting larger in diameter. Hard 

diameter limits, such as a 21-inch dbh limit, in conjunction with fire suppression, make it difficult to 

achieve desired composition in at least dry and possibly also mixed conifer forests, and compromise 

their future resilience (Franklin et al. 2013, Stine et al. 2014). A site-specific Forest Plan amendment 

would create more opportunity to meet objectives of moving landscapes toward HRV, and provide for 

the habitat needs of associated wildlife species.

Under Alternative 2, the Forest Plan would need to be amended on 5,000 acres (Map 14) within the 

LJCRP area to allow for the removal of trees greater than 21” in diameter at breast height (dbh). The 

design of prescriptions for cutting of any trees >21” would be based on the desire to restore forest 
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 69

structure and composition toward reference conditions (HRV), particularly to increase the abundance 

of shade-intolerant tree species (ponderosa pine and western larch), reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristically severe fire and insect and disease outbreaks, and increase resiliency to natural 

disturbance and climate change. With the intent to conserve all old trees, the project would adopt 

scientifically-derived guidelines (similar to those described in Van Pelt (2008)) to assess tree age 

regardless of the diameter of individual trees. On the 5,000 acres where this amendment would apply, 

based on inventory plots within the project area, approximately 8,000 trees > 21” dbh would be 

removed. The volume of these trees would be approximately 275,000-550,000 cubic feet (adapted 

from Zhou and Hemstrom (2010), with Blue Mountains-specific data provided by Zhou). Overall, 

after treatment under Alternative 2, the amount of large tree dominated forest across the project area 

would increase by nine percent.

Scenario A of the Eastside Screens wildlife standard allows timber harvest activity in LOS under two 

circumstances:

1. To transform some portion of an LOS component that is within or above HRV into an LOS 

component that is deficient (e.g., transforming old forest multi-story stands into old forest single 

story).

2. To maintain or enhance existing conditions in LOS stands within or above HRV.

In addition to the 5,000 acres where trees >21” dbh could be cut, Alternative 2 includes 25 acres of 

thinning in old forest single story (OFSS) conditions to maintain or enhance existing conditions (Map 

14). According to the Eastside Screens Scenario A, this objective is not permissible for old forest 

single story conditions because abundance of this structure is below HRV. Therefore, a Forest Plan 

amendment is needed to accomplish this objective. This treatment would not change the overall LOS 

structural conditions (i.e., the condition would be LOS before and after treatment), but would serve to 

reduce the risk of its loss to uncharacteristic disturbance. Therefore, this proposed treatment meets the 

intent of Scenario A because there would be no net loss of LOS as a result of proposed treatments.

The understory thinning treatments proposed for these stands are designed to address species 

composition, stand density, insect susceptibility, climate change adaptation, and fire risk 

considerations. The section below describes the rationale for the proposed amendment to cut trees 

>21” dbh, and for treatments on 25 acres that are currently in an OFSS condition, but are currently 

trending toward a multi-story condition.

Alternative 2 includes the following specific proposed changes to Eastside Screens language:

a) Scenario A objectives for non-LOS stands states: “Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or 

structural live trees ≥21” dbh that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities” 

(USDA Forest Service 1995). The amendment language would replace “structural live trees ≥ 21” 

dbh” with “live trees older than 150 years.” This language is consistent with current science 

(Franklin et al. 2013) and would allow removal of some of the large Douglas-fir and grand fir trees 

that are ≥ 21 inches dbh, but less than 150 years in age (at breast height) from any of the structural 

stages being treated (Map 14), except for units classified as the old forest single stratum structural 

stage (OFSS; this stage is called “single stratum with large trees” in the Screens). The amount of 

OFSS is currently below RV, so a stand that is currently classified as OFSS would not have a need to 

remove large trees. Identification of the large but young Douglas-fir and grand fir trees to be removed 

would be based on the need to restore the HRV in stand pattern and characteristic fire regime 

dynamics (more information on this rationale is below). Table 42 summarizes proposed treatments by 

stand density class.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

70 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

b) The HRV analysis for LJCRP area showed that old forest multi-strata (OFMS) is within HRV and 

old forest single-strata is below HRV. Where the LOS component is below HRV, timber harvest is 

prohibited by the Eastside Screens. The amendment would change the Eastside Screen language 

where it “allows timber harvest activity in LOS to maintain or enhance existing conditions in LOS 

stands within or above HRV” to “allow timber harvest activity in LOS to maintain or enhance 

existing conditions in LOS stands within or above HRV, and allow timber harvest within 25 acres of 

old forest single stratum, 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)”.

Site-Specific Needs for Amendments to the Eastside Screens

See Map 14 for the location of stands where the proposed Eastside Screen amendment would apply in 

relation to the other Alternative 2 treatment areas. Identification of these areas considered the unique, 

site specific diversity and pattern of the project landscape. 

The LJCRP landscape is a mosaic of forests and grasslands shaped largely by the behavior of natural 

disturbance regimes, in particular, fire. Disturbance regimes dominated by low intensity, high 

frequency fire has created a landscape in the LJCRP area of stringers and large patches of forest 

surrounded by grasslands (Figure 1). This interweaving of vegetation exposes a relatively high 

proportion of the forested landscape to fire occurrence, which historically shaped the distribution of 

predominantly open forest and savanna structural stages and fire-tolerant species composition. The 

landforms of the LJCRP are characterized by steep washboard canyons in the lower elevations, 

capped by stable and highly productive incised plateaus in the east and angulate plateaus in the 

southernmost extent (Map 18). The landforms and topography of the LJCRP is the template upon 

which its forests, grasslands and shrublands establish and grow, and help shape the productivity, 

structure, size class distribution, composition pattern and fire regimes of the landscape. 

The forested landscape is dominated by dry forest (about 43 percent of the forested area; Table 2),

where the current fire regime displays a higher proportion of mixed severity fire than characteristic of 

the vegetation type. Historically, about 64-82 percent of the fires in dry forests characteristic of the 

LJCRP were of low severity (largely only supportable by open conditions), and 13-21 percent were of 

mixed severity. Today, low and mixed severity fires make up about 49 and 46 percent of the fires, 

respectively (Table 8). The effects of this departure between current and historical fire regimes is 

evidenced by the very low abundance of single story old forests, which historically made up about 40-

60 percent of the dry forest area, whereas today, they make up less than 1% (Table 11).

Moist forests make up about 13 percent of the forested LJCRP area (Table 2). Fire return intervals in 

moist forests have been missed, but not at the same magnitude as in dry forests; however, fuel 

accumulation rates far exceed those of dry forests due to higher productivity soils and higher moisture 

availability. This means it takes fewer missed return intervals to create an uncharacteristic fuel 

loading and fire behavior in moist than dry forests.

In addition to changes in the extent of forest structure, density, fuel loading , and composition, 

departure between current and reference conditions on the LJCRP landscape has also caused a 

reduction in forest patch sizes, which, according to estimates specific to the local forest types and 

ecological context, historically ranged up to about 160 acres for open forest conditions (Hessburg et 

al. 1999). Additionally, site-specific state-and-transition modeling showed that patch sizes for the 

current condition are much smaller than those in the reference scenario. In both canyonlands and 

incised plateaus, all current patches are less than 32 acres in size (Appendix C). Based on this local 
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 71

model, patches were considerably larger for the reference condition; more than 50 percent of modeled 

incised plateau patches exceeded 256 acres in size while those in canyonlands exceeded 128 acres 

(Appendix C). This decrease in patch sizes through time is due to a combination of past harvesting 

that generated relatively small patches, and somewhat smaller wildfires under the current fire 

suppression regime than the pre-fire suppression reference period.

State-and-transition modeling for the project area and the WWNF as a whole also showed that, given 

no action, more large trees (>20”) would be lost to fire over a 30-year modeling scenario than would 

be cut or lost to fire under the action alternatives (Appendix C).

The areas identified for treatments that would require an amendment to the WWNF Forest 

Plan/Eastside Screens (Map 14) are those that currently have the forest structure and composition 

required to move overall landscape patterns (i.e., larger patch sizes of open stands dominated by 

ponderosa pine and western larch) toward conditions more characteristic of this specific landscape. 

Their treatment, in combination with adjacent forest conditions, would move the landscape toward 

patterns (i.e., larger patches of large tree-dominated, open dry forests) more consistent with the 

underlying dynamic range of species, structure, vegetation patterns, and patch size distributions that 

emerge under the constraints of the climate, geology, disturbance regimes, and biota of the local area. 

These treatment stands requiring the Forest Plan amendment are located due to their juxtaposition to

neighboring forest cover types, structural stages and density classes. Of the 5,000 acres that would be 

subject to the portion of the amendment to allow the cutting of trees >21” dbh, 96 percent is classified 

within the dry PVG and four percent is in the moist PVG. Table 28 summarizes the existing and 

projected post-treatment condition in terms of forest cover types, forest structural stages and tree 

density classes for the 5,000 acres affected by the proposed amendment. 

Table 28. Percent of amendment area (percent of 5,000 acres) by existing and projected post-treatment 

conditions.

Forest Cover Type

Percent of Amendment Area

Existing 

Condition

Post-treatment 

Condition

Ponderosa Pine 0% 30%

Douglas-fir 60% 35%

Western Larch 2% 3%

Lodgepole Pine 0% 0%

Grand Fir 38% 31%

Engelmann Spruce <1% <1%

Forest Structural Stage Existing 

Condition

Post Treatment 

Condition

Stem Exclusion (SE) 44% 0%

Understory Reinitiation (UR) 33% 52%

Young Forest Multi-Story (YFMS) 6% 1%

Old Forest Multi-Strata (OFMS) 17% 21%

Old Forest Single Stratum (OFSS) 0% 26%
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

72 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Forest Cover Type

Percent of Amendment Area

Existing 

Condition

Post-treatment 

Condition

Tree Density Class Existing 

Condition

Post Treatment 

Condition

Low 0% 100%

Moderate 6% 0%

High 94% 0%

The area that would be subject to an amendment also represents a sizable opportunity to increase the 

resilience of existing large and old ponderosa pine and western larch trees, which are threatened by 

forest densities outside the RV (Table 13). Forest densities above the RV increase the risk of tree 

mortality to uncharacteristic fire and insect/disease disturbances. The amendment would also support 

the successful regeneration of ponderosa and western larch, which are below the RV in abundance 

(Table 12). Desired outcomes of treatments are to move forest conditions toward the RV, including: 

reduced presence of shade tolerant species (Douglas-fir and grand fir); increased presence of shade 

intolerant species (ponderosa pine and western larch); increased abundance of OFSS; and reduced 

forest stand densities. 

Rationale for Removing Trees Greater than 21-inches in Diameter

The option to remove some of the young grand fir and Douglas-fir trees that are over 21ʺ in diameter 

and interacting with a desirable tree refers to young but large grand fir and Douglas-fir trees (e.g., 

those grand fir and Douglas-fir trees < 150 years of age and ≥ 21 inches dbh) and generally 

competing with a desirable tree. A desirable tree is defined as one whose retention would contribute to 

the purpose and need for the LJCRP to increase the long-term abundance and conservation of large 

trees, and shade-intolerant tree species. Specifically, desirable trees occur in the following species 

preference (from most to least desirable): any live tree ≥ 21 inches dbh and > 150 years of age, 

ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, [Engelmann spruce], grand fir, [lodgepole pine], and 

western juniper; on dry-forest sites, the tree species in brackets are uncommon and typically 

associated only with seeps and other moist microsites. A desirable tree also possesses a vigor level, 

and a lack of insect or disease activity, suggesting it could survive for at least 10 more years.

Occasionally, a desirable tree is > 150 years of age but < 21ʺ dbh. For some of these situations, young 

but large grand fir and Douglas-fir trees (e.g., those grand fir and Douglas-fir trees < 150 years of age 

and ≥ 21 inches dbh) would be cut and removed when competing or otherwise threatening a desirable 

tree greater than 150 years of age, but less than 21 inches in diameter.

Because this portion of the proposed plan amendment would not result in all of the young but large 

grand fir and Douglas-fir trees being removed, a decision about which of the young but large grand fir 

or Douglas-fir trees to remove would incorporate wildlife considerations, and these considerations 

would be incorporated in the marking guides being used by crews preparing the LJCRP.

Franklin et al. (2013) provides practical guidance on restoration of dry forest structure and 

composition, including where larger, but younger shade-tolerant species abundance is contributing to 

departure from HRV. Estimates from 144 local stand exams show that less than 15 percent of all trees 

>21” in diameter at breast height (dbh) in treatment units would be cut.
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 73

Rationale for Proposing Thinning Treatments in the OFSS Structural Stage

The proposal to thin 25 acres in old forest single story (OFSS) conditions under Alternative 2 (Map 

14) is 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. 

• 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) (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 density to low stand density. Low stand density is substantially 

below HRV (Table 13). In areas with wildlife habitat connectivity objectives, treatments would 

ensure maintenance of these cover objectives.

Research Natural Areas

The WWNF Forest Plan included analysis of, and recommendations for, the establishment of the 

proposed RNAs evaluated in this FEIS. As part of the establishment records (FSM 4063), a Forest 

Plan amendment would need to be prepared to change designation of the Horse Pasture Ridge and 

Haystack Rock “proposed” research natural areas (RNA) to “established” RNAs.

Key changes between the DEIS and the FEIS

Key changes between publication of the LJCRP DEIS and FEIS include:

• Removed portions of forest treatment units that were inadvertently within Management Area 9 

(HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Native Vegetation), private land inholdings, and portions of the 

Swamp Creek RHCA. 

• Changed treatment type designation for five units that are outside of Management Area 15 from 

single tree selection/old growth (STS_OG) to single tree selection (STS).

• Updated treatment units that are adjacent to IRA and PWA boundaries to accurately reflect units 

and acres that would and would not be treated under Alternative 3.

• Removed treatment units that are within goshawk nest stands and that are classified as LOS 

within goshawk post fledgling areas (PFAs)

• Simplified Appendix B (Forest Plan direction, and other policies, laws, regulations, and 

agreements) to reduce redundancy.

• Added modeling results to appendices C (Landscape Modeling), and D (Burn Probability 

Modeling)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

74 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Stand exam data was collected and analyzed between publication of the DEIS and the FEIS to 

demonstrate that treatment under Alternative 2 within IRAs would meet the “generally small 

diameter” provision for timber harvest in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). Figure 9 was 

added with additional narrative describing how the LJCRP is compliant with this provision.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was also developed in response to significant issues (see the Significant issues section in 

Chapter 3) and would be similar to Alternative 2 in the forest treatment types, except commercial 

thinning is not proposed for RHCAs, IRAs, and MA15. No trees greater than or equal to 21” dbh

would be harvested, except for safety or administrative reasons. In IRAs, there would also be no noncommercial treatments. PACFISH RHCAs would be followed where category 4 RHCAs are present 

within commercial units. Non-commercial thinning could occur in category 4 RHCAs outside old 

forest multi-story and old forest single story structures (OFMS and OFSS) in accordance with the 

Blue Mountains PDCs. The road network aims to maintain current public access levels. Relative to 

existing conditions, post implementation road density condition would be static for aquatic habitat

and wildlife objectives. Total road density to meet consultation guidance for Snake River steelhead 

would be met in Lower Joseph Creek watershed but not met in Upper Joseph Creek watershed. The 

two RNAs would be established. Table 29 shows acres of harvest and stand improvement allocation 

by Forest Plan management area for Alternative 3.

Table 29. Acres of harvest and stand improvement by Forest Plan management area for Alternative 3.

Forest Plan 

Management Area Group 

Selection

Intermediate 

Treatment

Single Tree 

Selection Savanna

Stand 

Improvement

1 - Timber 

Production 

Emphasis 650 130 6,900 200 2,100

3 - Wildlife/Timber 110 20 1,700 30 520

7 - Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 0 0 0 0 0

9 - HCNRA

Dispersed 

Recreation/Native 

Vegetation 0 0 0 0 0

10 - HCNRA Forage 

Production 0 0 3 0 1

11 - HCNRA

Dispersed 

Recreation/Timber 

Management 120 50 190 60 410

12 - Research 

Natural Areas 0 0 0 0 0

15 - Old Growth 

Preservation 2 0 5 1 2
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 75

Forest Plan Amendments – Alternative 3

The Wildlife Standard - Eastside Screens (Regional Forester’s Amendment # 2 for the 

Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan))

See the section “Forest Plan Amendments - Alternative 2” above for a general policy discussion, 

including relevant Forest Service manual and handbook direction related to amending the Eastside 

Screens. Selection of Alternative 3 would require a Forest Plan amendment to implement forest 

harvests in OFSS (LOS) structure. However, Alternative 3 would comply with Screens direction 

regarding harvest of > 21” dbh trees.

The HRV analysis for LJCRP area showed that old forest multi-strata (OFMS) is within HRV and old 

forest single-strata is below HRV. Where the LOS component is below HRV, timber harvest is 

prohibited by the Eastside Screens. The amendment would change the Eastside Screen language 

where it “allows timber harvest activity in LOS to maintain or enhance existing conditions in LOS 

stands within or above HRV” to “allows timber harvest activity in LOS to maintain or enhance 

existing conditions in LOS stands within or above HRV, and allow timber harvest within 20 acres of 

old forest single stratum, 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)”.

Rationale for Proposing Thinning Treatments in the OFSS Structural Stage

The “Site-specific Needs for Amendments to the Eastside Screens” described under Alternative 2, 

above, also apply to the proposed Eastside Screen amendment for Alternative 3. Alternative 3 does 

not include the cutting of trees >21” dbh, but it includes 20 acres of thinning in old forest single story 

conditions to maintain or enhance existing conditions (Map 16). This treatment would not change the 

overall LOS structural conditions. Therefore, this proposed treatment meets the intent of Scenario A 

because there would be no net loss of LOS as a result of proposed treatments. The understory 

thinning treatments proposed for these stands are designed to address species composition, stand 

density, insect susceptibility, climate change adaptation, and fire risk considerations. Specifically, they 

are designed to:

- 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. 

- Contribute to species composition objectives for the LJCRP. Of the 20 acres of proposed 

treatments in OFSS condition in Alternative 3, about 14 acres occur in stands with a ponderosa 

pine (PP) cover type (PP is below HRV); the remaining 6 acres occur in stands with a Douglas-fir

(DF) cover type (DF is above HRV). The ponderosa pine treatments are designed to maintain 

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

convert Douglas-fir to a ponderosa pine cover type, thereby moving the landscape toward HRV.

- Contribute to stand density objectives for the LJCRP. The entire 20 acres of proposed treatment in 

OFSS are designed to reduce density to low stand density. Low stand density within the LJCRP 

area is substantially below HRV (Table 13). In areas with wildlife habitat connectivity objectives, 

treatments would ensure maintenance of those cover objectives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

76 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Research Natural Areas

Similar to Alternative 2, a Forest Plan amendment would need to be prepared to change designation 

of the Horse Pasture Ridge and Haystack Rock “proposed” RNAs to “established” RNAs.

Summary of Key Thematic Differences between the Alternatives

Table 30 summarizes the key thematic differences between alternatives relative to the significant

issues identified during scoping.

Table 30. Descriptions of alternatives for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Alternative Restoration Treatments Management Areas Road Network

Alt 1

(No Action)

No management actions 

would be taken to 

influence the direction or 

rate of change for moving 

existing conditions toward 

desired condition. Current 

activities such as 

permitted grazing, 

dispersed recreation use, 

fire protection, and 

scheduled road 

maintenance would 

continue within the project 

area. 

No management actions 

would be taken to influence 

the direction or rate of 

change for moving existing 

conditions toward desired 

condition. Current activities 

such as permitted grazing, 

dispersed recreation use, 

fire protection, and 

scheduled road 

maintenance would 

continue within the project 

area. 

Road actions approved under 

existing decisions would 

continue to be implemented.

No other management 

actions would be taken to 

influence the direction or rate 

of change for moving existing 

conditions toward desired 

condition. Current activities 

such as permitted grazing, 

dispersed recreation use, fire 

protection, and scheduled 

road maintenance would 

continue within the project 

area. 

Alt 2

(Proposed 

Action)

Trees greater than 21” 

could be harvested, within 

the context of restoring 

forest resilience, safety or 

administration. 

Treatment extent 

generally based on priority 

treatment needs to move 

the landscape toward 

HRV.

Mechanical treatments 

would occur in some 

designated old growth (MA 

15), inventoried roadless 

areas (IRAs), potential 

wilderness areas (PWAs) 

and category 44 riparian 

habitat conservation areas 

(RHCAs) that bisect 

restoration treatment units 

not currently in old forest 

structure (OFSS/OFMS). 

No treatments in large, 

closed canopied moist 

forests.

RHCA treatments based on 

attaining riparian 

management objectives.

Category 4 stream 

treatments would follow 

upslope treatment 

prescriptions and have 

variable width (25 foot 

minimum) no-treatment, no 

equipment stream buffers. 

No treatments would occur 

in Category 1 and 2 

Road actions approved under 

existing decisions would 

continue to be implemented. 

Additional roads identified 

through roads analysis that 

could be closed or 

decommissioned to move 

wildlife habitat closer to 

Forest Plan road density 

standards would be treated

and reduce the total road 

density to meet consultation 

guidance for Snake River 

steelhead.

 4 Category 4 RHCAs are intermittent, non-fish bearing
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 77

Alternative Restoration Treatments Management Areas Road Network

streams, except for 58

acres of treatment specific 

to Swamp Creek. Small 

diameter thinning could 

occur in category 1, 2 

and 4 RHCAs as per 

Blue Mountains Project 

Design Criteria5. Two 

RNAs would be 

established.

Alt 3

Similar to Alternative 2, 

except no trees greater 

than 21” would be 

harvested, except for 

safety or administration.

No treatments in MA15,

IRAs, and PWAs. 

Small diameter thinning 

could occur in category 1, 2 

and 4 RHCAs as per Blue 

Mountains Project Design 

Criteria.

No treatments in large, 

closed canopied moist 

forests.

No other vegetation 

treatments would occur in 

Category 1, 2 and 4 

streams.

Two RNAs would be 

established.

The road network maintains 

current access levels for 

recreation, firewood cutting, 

permittees, private inholdings, 

tribal resources, and 

administration.

Activities Common to All Action Alternatives

All action alternatives would use the same suite of forest vegetation treatment types (Table 31, 

Figures 6 and 7). The design of forest vegetation management prescriptions would use the

“individuals, clumps and openings” (ICO) approach (Franklin et al. 2013) to achieve trends in forest 

stand-level spatial heterogeneity toward HRV.

Table 31. Description of forest vegetation treatment types

Treatment Types Treatment Description

Savanna Reestablishment of grassland/forest edges and historic grasslands that have 

conifer encroachment.

Single Tree Selection (STS) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present

Group Selection (GS) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present; 1⁄2 to 4 acre 

group selection to initiate new cohort of seral species (PP/WL).

Intermediate Treatment (IT) ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present with emphasis on 

isolating mistletoe infections and creating conditions that reduce 

intensification of infection.

Stand Improvement (SI) ICO variable density thinning within young, post disturbance stands.

 5 National Marine Fisheries Service letter of concurrence for implementation of the Blue Mountains Province 

Expedited Process Instrument for Programmatic Informal Consultation with Project Design Criteria on the 

Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests, and Bureau of Land Management Vale and 

Prineville Districts, dated November 1, 2013. NMFS No. NWR-2013-10339, Portland, OR.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

78 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Figure 6. Example of single tree selection and prescribed fire post-treatment in dry forest.

Note the regeneration “skip” in the middle of the picture.

Figure 7. Example of a group selection about 10 years post-treatment.

Note the ponderosa pine regeneration and residual old ponderosa pine trees as part of the “group”
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 79

The following activities and guidelines would be common to all action alternatives:

• During tree harvest, favor leaving early seral tree species.

• Achieve trend in patch size distribution toward HRV.

• Planned ignition priority areas are identified for the action alternatives using the same criteria

(Table 9), although acres of high, medium and low priority differ between the alternatives. Maps 

20 and 21 show the locations for prioritization of prescribed fire by alternative. High priority 

areas in both action alternatives represent the acres that are treated with either harvest or stand 

improvement (SI), or are in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. 

• Treat fuels associated with silvicultural treatments (activity fuels) using mastication, removal, pile 

and burn, cutting and scattering limbs, prescribed fire, or other means.

• Retain and protect large trees of early seral species and trees with old growth physical 

characteristics consistent with historical reference conditions.

• Project design criteria for forest treatments in wildlife corridors in moist upland forest would 

retain at least 50 percent residual canopy closure, where available.

• Project design criteria for forest treatments in wildlife corridors in dry upland forest would retain 

at least 40% residual canopy closure, where available.

• For stands identified as moist, large tree, closed canopy, maintain an overall stand minimum 

canopy cover of 60 percent, and do not harvest any trees >21” dbh.

• In MA15, trees > 21” dbh would not be harvested.

• In goshawk post fledgling areas (PFAs), trees > 21” dbh would not be harvested.

• Heritage sites that are eligible, or potentially eligible, to be added to the National Register of 

Historic Places, would be protected by mitigation measures designed to avoid and protect cultural 

values.

• The majority of road-related activities would make use of the existing system road network.

• Roads proposed for any type of closure would focus on improving resource and habitat conditions

(see Appendix K).

• Establish two RNAs (Horse Pasture Ridge (338 acres); Haystack Rock (425 acres)).

• Maintain and enhance culturally significant resources, settings, viewsheds, and sensitive plant and 

animal species habitat.

• Provide project design criteria, standards, guidelines, and/or tactics to reduce the spread of 

invasive species.

• Provide project design criteria, standards and/or guidelines for tree planting and conservation of 

advanced regeneration of early seral tree species currently existing on the landscape.

• Outline a monitoring strategy to support learning through time.

• Continue road maintenance and hazard tree cutting or removal.

• Provide for aquatic organism passage at six sites in the LJCRP area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

80 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed 

in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided 

suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives 

were outside the scope of this project, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or 

determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a 

number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons 

summarized below. 

Do not Establish the RNAs

Concerns about the establishment of RNAs in the project area do not represent a significant issue. The 

rationale provided for amending the Forest Plan to remove these RNAs as proposed are unsupported 

by data, existing conditions, or science. The Forest Plan requires that these areas are managed as 

RNAs until establishment. 

Remove Diameter/Age Limit for All Species

A proposal was considered to remove diameter and age limitations from silvicultural prescriptions, 

and cut trees of all age and size classes. Due to the disruption of the disturbance regime, some climax 

species, such as grand fir and in some instances Douglas-fir occupy sites that would be dominated by 

more fire adapted species. In these instances, there is a recognized need to thin these climax species, 

regardless of size, but cognizant of the need to conserve old trees (>150 years) in order to move the 

landscape toward the desired condition. However, there is no science available to support the 

ecological need for wide-spread removal of large and/or old trees to hasten the transition back to a 

more fire adapted ecosystem. Additionally, the project landscape has less single story old ponderosa 

pine forest than the range of variation, and the purpose and need for the project includes increasing 

the amount of this structure and composition. Harvesting old trees, or large ponderosa pine trees that 

are not competing with other large trees, would not support attainment of the purpose and need.

Consider Less Prescribed Fire 

During scoping, some commenters expressed concerns that prescribed fire could adversely impact 

grazing, merchantable timber and special forest products. As part of the project design features and 

the project’s implementation plan, a set of protocols were designed that must be followed prior to, 

during and after implementation to coordinate with grazing permittees, so the disruption to their 

operations are minimal. Additionally, prescriptions and implementation timing are designed so that 

impacts to merchantable timber and special forest products would be minimized or avoided all 

together. The purpose and need for the project includes to increase fire-tolerant ponderosa pine 

coverage; reduce the amount of fire-intolerant Douglas-fir and grand fir in mixed stands; increase the 

amount of fire-resilient single-story, old forest stands; reduce the mid-story and understory of multistory old forest stands (reducing uncharacteristic fuel loads); and improve opportunities to manage 

fire at characteristic frequencies and severities. As such, prescribed fire, in conjunction with forest 

thinning, will indirectly support the long term maintenance of merchantable timber and other forest 

products. Therefore, these concerns are addressed in Alternatives 2 and 3, and an additional standalone alternative that considers less prescribed fire is not warranted.

Adjust Treatments in the Proposed Action for Resource Concerns

Some comments suggested that the Proposed Action was focused on forest vegetation management, 

and did not consider resource concerns such as wildlife habitat, old forest connectivity, and aquatic 
Chapter 3 Alternatives Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 81

habitat. Evaluation of this potential alternative showed that these resource concerns were already 

covered under Forest Plan direction (e.g. RHCA RMOs, connectivity, and road density). The resource 

concerns envisioned under this alternative are incorporated into Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and 

Project Design Criteria (Appendix J).

Summary of Alternatives

Table 32 provides a summary of the actions proposed in each alternative. The Modified Proposed 

Action was the result of adjusting Alternative 2 based on comments on the DEIS, or corrections to 

data or analyses.

Table 32. Comparison of restoration actions and effects by alternative

Criteria Metric

Alternative 

1 (No 

Action)

Proposed

Action1

(PA)

Alternative 

2 (Modified 

PA)

Alternative 

3

Group selection Acres 0 3,000 2,400 880

Intermediate treatment Acres 0 400 330 190

Meadow/Savanna Acres 0 800 560 290

Stand improvement Acres 0 5,000 5,400 3,000

Single tree selection Acres 0 13,800 11,800 8,900

Single Tree selection - old 

forest Acres 0 2,000 660 0

Total mechanical forest 

treatments Acres 0 25,000 21,200 13,300

High priority area for 

prescribed burning Acres 0 <90,000 48,600 46,500

RHCA treatment Acres 0 3,000 2,600 750

Cat 1 RHCA treatments Acres 0 31 31 0

Cat 4 RHCA treatments Acres 0 1,800 1,800 0

SI RHCA treatments Acres 0 750 750 750

Forest treatments in IRAs Acres 0 5,600 5,600 0

Aquatic organism passage 

improvements # culverts 0 6 6 6

Road construction Miles 0 1.5 0 0

Road reconstruction/maint. Miles 0 24 82.6 82.6

Temporary road 

construction Miles 0 26 12.6 12.6

Road closure/ and 

decommissioning Miles 0

Called for 

roads 

analysis to 

determine

17 02

Total Open Roads Miles 187 170 230

Total Closed Roads Miles 132 124 93
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternatives

82 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Criteria Metric

Alternative 

1 (No 

Action)

Proposed

Action1

(PA)

Alternative 

2 (Modified 

PA)

Alternative 

3

Total Decommissioned 

Roads Miles 14

Called for 

roads 

analysis to 

determine

39 10

1- The proposed action published in the federal register and used in scoping is provided here for 

comparison to the modified proposed action, which was analyzed in detail in this FEIS.

2- Alternative 3 opens some roads closed under Alternative 1. 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 83

CHAPTER 4 Environmental Consequences

Summary

While Chapter 3 differentiates between the management strategies of the three alternatives, Chapter 4 

clearly explains the consequences of applying those different strategies. The consequences are 

organized first by alternative, and then according to the impact the alternative actions would have on 

the physical, biological and cultural environment. Consequences common to all of the alternatives are 

summarized, as are the “cumulative effects” of each. A summary of the effects of applying the 

management strategies contained in each alternative is presented in Table 33, “Comparison of the 

relative effects of the alternatives”. 

Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative), would leave current conditions (including existing but not 

yet implemented management decisions) in place. This Alternative, as well as existing conditions are 

used as baselines for comparing the effects of implementing Alternative 2 or 3.

Major differences in environmental impact between implementing Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 are 

summarized as follows:

Biological Environment

• Forest management treatments under Alternative 2 would increase the amount of the ponderosa 

pine cover type by 8 percent, and large tree dominated forests by 7 percent, compared to 6 percent

and 5 percent respectively under alterantive 3.

• Fire management and forest treatments are allowed in the following areas in Alternative 2, 

preparing the acreage for the safe and effective reintroduction of fire:

o Inventoried Roadless Areas

o Potential Wilderness Areas

o Designated Old Growth Preservation Areas

o Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

• Alternative 3 restricts harvesting in the above areas, and as a consequence also restricts the use of 

prescribed fire in these areas, at least where current conditions are not amenable to its use.

• Alternative 2 would bring the LJCRP area closer to reference conditions in vegetation and 

disturbance regimes in comparison to the No Action and Alternative 3, creating a more resilient 

and sustainable condition through time.

• Ground disturbance and short-term effects on habitat quality for some wildlife species would be 

expected to be less under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2. 

• There would be an increase in forage production on 8-12 percent of the acreage as a result of 

forest thinning in Alternative 2 compared to 5-8 percent in Alternative 3.

• 38 percent of the forest treated would see an improvement in vegetative pattern in Alternative 2

compared to 24% in Alternative 3.

• Alternative 3 would prohibit harvesting trees greater than or equal to 21 inches in diameter.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

84 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

• Alternative 3 would have fewer acres of activity fuels prescribed burned as a result of fewer 

stands treated, but potentially more area could burn when a high intensity fire occurs (15-25

percent of the landscape could burn in an extreme year, versus 5-10 percent under Alternative 2). 

• The impact of roads to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species under Alternative 3 would 

be greater than Alternatives 1 and 2, but no greater than it is under the existing condition.

• Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would protect populations of sensitive plants from ground disturbing 

activities and prescribed fire using project design criteria.

• Riparian management objectives would be met to a greater degree under Alternative 2 than 

Alternative 3.

Social Environment

• Approximately 10.6 million cubic feet of timber volume would be removed as a result of forest

treatments in Alternative 2; Alternative 3 would remove about 6.6 million cubic feet.

• 55 jobs would be created under Alternative 2; 34 jobs created in Alternative 3.

• 5,100 acres potentially containing heritage sites could be at risk in Alternative 2 compared to 

2,600 acres in Alternative 3.

• The road network under Alternative 3 would maintain existing public access levels, meaning 

more roads would be left open for passenger vehicle than under Alternative 2. 

• Under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, all roads considered for closure would remain open to 

off-road vehicle use. There would be slightly fewer miles of roads used for haul routes under 

Alternative 3 (about 1.5 percent less miles) and the length of temporary roads would be the same 

for both Alternatives 2 and 3.

Physical Environment

• The location of road construction and timber harvest in Alternative 2 would have potentially 

greater adverse impacts on soils, runoff and sedimentation compared to Alternative 3. 

• The total number of miles of open roads and road density is greater in Alternative 3 than 

Alternative 2; but timber harvest activity (and therefore the intensity of road use and its related 

effects on the physical environment) is less in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects by Alternative

Spatial and Temporal Context for Project Level Effects Analyses

For the vegetation/disturbance regime effects analyses, the spatial context being considered is the 

98,000 acres of NFS lands (project area). The baseline year used for this analysis is the year 2014 as 

the existing condition. In the effects discussion, post treatment refers to the time the final activity is 

accomplished (assumed to be the year 2024), “short-term” effects refers to effects over the 10-year 

period from the time the final activity was accomplished (year 2034). Beyond 20-years effects will be 

considered as “long-term” (year 2054). 

Cumulative effects are discussed in terms of changes in the existing condition due to present and 

foreseeable activities, including the effects of the alternative being discussed. The spatial context 

being considered for cumulative effects differs by resource area, as explained in the cumulative 

effects sections. The time frame considered for cumulative effects is approximately 10 years into the 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 85

future at which time the majority of the actions proposed would have been completed and the 

responses to these actions has occurred.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

The temporal and spatial scale of analysis is variable depending on the resource concerns being 

evaluated, particularly when considering the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

actions. During the interdisciplinary process, the team followed guidance presented in CEQ’s letter 

dated June 24, 2005. Using this guidance, the following summary was developed showing past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions within and adjacent to the LJCRP planning area. These 

projects were considered, where relevant, when addressing cumulative effects for various resources.

Past Actions

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human 

actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative 

effects. Table 3 lists approximate acres of the various vegetation management, fuels treatment and 

prescribed burning activities as well as wildfires that have occurred within the project area from 2004 

to 2013. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this 

approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly 

costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century 

(and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would 

be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of the effects of past actions on an individual 

basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In 

fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, 

because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one 

cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current 

conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions can lead to ignoring the 

important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as 

much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual 

effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event 

contributed those effects. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued an interpretive 

memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can 

conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past 

actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EA is also consistent with Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)), which state, in part: 

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions 

to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present 

effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the 

effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives would add to, modify, or mitigate 

those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of 

the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on 

the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and 

subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding 

past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

86 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and 

implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the 

proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or 

exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about 

past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is 

relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental 

conditions, and is presented in the existing condition discussions for each resource area.

Present Actions

There are no vegetation management activities presently operating within the LJCRP area. Table 4

summarizes ongoing non-vegetation management activities in the LJCRP area. The cumulative 

effects of these activities along with proposed LJCRP activities are discussed in the cumulative 

effects sections of this chapter.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project (FRP) is a proposed large landscape project on NFS 

lands that adjoins the LJCRP and has the potential to contribute to cumulative effects. The FRP public 

scoping period ended on April 5, 2016. The FRP proposed action proposes dry forest thinning and 

prescribed burning to reduce the departure between existing and desired forest density, cover, 

composition, structure, and pattern, and fire regimes in similar ways to the LJCRP. The FRP also 

proposes strategic fuel treatments, which could occur in all forest types in areas accessible by existing 

roads to facilitate the safe and effective management of planned and unplanned fire at the landscape 

scale. The FRP proposed action summarized 610,000 acres of thinning and prescribed burning at the 

watershed level across three National Forests, and did not specify treatments at the stand level. 

Hence, cumulative effects of the FRP in combination with the LJCRP can only be generally described 

at this time. Cumulative effects of this reasonably foreseeable project are discussed in the cumulative 

effects sections of this chapter.

Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives 

Table 33 compares the effects of the alternatives. See Table 32 for a summary of the activities

proposed by each alternative.

Table 33. Comparison of selected effects of the alternatives

Criteria Metric Alternative 1 

(No Action)

Alternative 2

(Modified PA)

Alternative 

3

Increase in ponderosa pine cover type

% increase 

from current

0 8 6

Increase in old forest multistory and old 

forest single story 0 7 5

Decrease in high density stands 0 19 11

Increase in trees >20’ dbh 0 9 5

Total treatment area with the potential for 

cutting trees >21” dbh Acres 0 5,000 0

Treatment area with the potential for cutting 

trees >21” dbh in IRAs Acres 0 1,600 0
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 87

Criteria Metric Alternative 1 

(No Action)

Alternative 2

(Modified PA)

Alternative 

3

Treatment area with the potential for cutting 

trees >21” dbh in PWAs outside IRAs Acres 0 170 0

Stand improvement treatments in PWA Acres 0 350 0

High priority prescribed fire in PWA Acres 0 6,630 6,370

Stand improvement treatments in IRA Acres 0 2,370 0

High priority prescribed fire in IRA Acres 0 18,900 17,500

Cat 1 RHCA treatments Acres 0 31 0

Cat 4 RHCA treatments Acres 0 1,800 0

SI RHCA treatments Acres 0 750 750

Forest treatments in IRAs Acres 0 5,500 0

Roads in RHCAs - Lower Joseph Miles 59.5 57.0 58.1

Roads in RHCAs - Upper Joseph Miles 39 56.7 62.0

Riparian Management Objectives Qualitative 

category

Outside the 

acceptable 

range

Meet RMOs 

over long-term

Between 

Alts 1 and 2

Total open USFS roads Miles 187 170 230

Total stream crossings Lower Joseph Miles 192 192 201

Total stream crossings Upper Joseph Miles 277 215 277

Total road density Lower Joseph Miles/Sq 

Mile 1.78 1.76 1.84

Total road density Upper Joseph Miles/Sq 

Mile 2.43 2.10 2.42

Spalding’s catchfly (TES plant) Viability No effect May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Snake River Steelhead (TES fish) Viability No effect Likely to adversely effect

Open road density6 – Davis Creek (MA1) Miles/Sq 

Mile 4.0 2.9 4.4

Open road density – Cougar Creek (MA1) Miles/Sq

Mile 3.7 3.3 4.1

Open road density – Lower Swamp Creek

(MA1)

Miles/Sq 

Mile 2.6 2.6 3.0

Open road density – Rush Creek (MA1) Miles/sq Mile 3.1 3.1 3.9

Open road density – Sumac Creek (MA1) Miles/Sq 

Mile 3.5 2.9 4.1

Increase in forage production as a result of 

forest thinning, where cover would be 

<40%

% of treated 

acres in 

allotments

0 8-12 5-8

Vegetation pattern (% of forest treated with 

ICO) % 0 38 24

Landscape Resiliency – fire frequency and 

extent (HRV = 6-15% burned/year)

% of project 

area

<2% of 

landscape 

4-6% of 

landscape 

4-6% of 

landscape 

 6 The subwatersheds not listed here do not differ in open road density between alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

88 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Criteria Metric Alternative 1 

(No Action)

Alternative 2

(Modified PA)

Alternative 

3

burns/year 

(unplanned 

ignitions); 15-

20% burns at 

once in high 

fire years

burns/year 

(planned + 

unplanned); 5-

10% burns at 

once in high fire 

yrs

burns/year 

(planned + 

unplanned); 

15-25% 

burns at 

once in high 

fire yrs

Native plant diversity (Based on the chance 

of encountering the same plant species in 

consecutive samples)

ShannonWiener 

index

3.9 to 4.4 

depending on 

habitat

Greater than Alt 

1

Greater than 

Alt 1

Jobs # 0 55 34

Timber volume removed million cubic 

feet 0 10.4 6.6

Heritage (Relative risk to conservation of 

heritage sites as measured by the area of 

mechanical treatments in high to moderatelow probability heritage site areas)

Acres 0 5,100 2,603

Risk of invasive plant species spread Qualitative 

ranking High Moderate Moderate

Alternative 1: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 is the no action alternative as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(c). Alternative 1 and the 

existing condition are the points of reference for estimating effects of Alternatives 2 and 3.

The Physical Environment

Soil and Water

There would be no direct effects to soil productivity or water quality in the analysis area with 

Alternative 1. In the absence of active timber management, soil productivity in former timber sale 

units would continue to improve over the course of 20-50 years (Xiao Tana 2005). Compaction and 

displacement would be improved over time through natural restoration processes such as freeze/thaw, 

tree root expansion, ground cover root mass expansion, and organic matter, leaf, and litter layer 

development. 

Under Alternative 1, no additional roads would be decommissioned. Therefore no direct deleterious 

effects of active road decommissioning would occur. However, these roads would remain on the 

landscape and continue to fragment habitat, interrupt aquatic connectivity, lengthen streams, persist as 

a source of sediment and contribute to detrimental soils conditions. 

Fuel loads would continue to increase and subsequently increase the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire 

intensity under Alternative 1. Potential wildfire effects on physical environment would depend upon 

the intensity, duration and extent of the fire. Soil recovery depends on post-fire organic content and 

erodibility, slope, and the speed with which groundcover is re-established. A stand replacing wildfire 

with high temperatures, long flame lengths, and long residence times could consume litter and duff 

and reduce effective groundcover. A loss of groundcover could lead to indirect effects such as reduced 

site productivity (nutrient loss through erosion), increased sediment production (sheet and rill 

erosion), and reduced water quality (Landsburg 2000). 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 89

In the absence of fuels management, fuel loads would be high and would raise the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire intensity. The potential for epidemic insect and disease damage would also 

be greater than if the forest were thinned, which also raises the risk of wildfire intensity. A high 

intensity wildfire in the area could lead to indirect effects such as elevated stream temperatures and 

increased stream sediment for approximately 5 to 10 years (Dunham et al. 2007, Charles C. Rhoades 

2011)

Air Quality

There would be no direct effects to air quality under Alternative 1.

In the absence of forest management, SI, and prescribed fire, forest vegetation and fuel loading would 

continue to depart from reference conditions and associated disturbance would continue to operate 

outside characteristic severity levels. Seasonal wildfire would continue to occur with the potential to 

become larger and more severe. Large fires have the potential to produce more smoke than prescribed 

fire in a shorter time period. The presence of smoke has the potential to impact air quality, visibility, 

communities, and human health. The duration of smoke impacts from wildfire could last from days to 

months depending on the fuels affected and duration of active fire and would likely be have greater 

effect than from prescribed burning.

The Biological Environment

Vegetation and Disturbance Regimes

In the short term, the distribution of forest cover type, forest structural stages and tree density class 

under Alternative 1 would be expected to be similar to existing conditions (Tables 11-14). The

following is a narrative discussion of change over time based on the current trajectory that would 

occur under Alternative 1.

Forest Cover Type

In the short term, western larch in the dry PVG and ponderosa pine in the moist PVG would remain 

within the desired range. All other cover types in the dry and moist PVGs would be outside RV 

percentages. Conditions would continue to favor Douglas-fir and grand fir. Seral species (ponderosa 

pine and western larch) would continue to stagnate and decline moving farther outside RV. 

Forest Structural Stages

The dry PVG stand initiation and stem exclusion structural stages would remain within RV 

percentages. All other dry PVG and all moist PVG structural stages would be outside the desired 

range. Successional pathways from stand initiation to old forest would continue. Tree growth would 

slow in areas of high stocking. Forest structure would continue to be outside of RV and favor multistoried conditions.

Tree Density Class

Within the moist PVG, the moderate and low density classes would remain within the desired range 

in the short term. The percent of the landscape in the moist high and all density classes in the dry 

PVG would be outside of the RV. Overstocked conditions would continue. Tree growth would 

continue to slow and density related mortality would increase. Moderate and high density classes 

would increase as the low density classes transition to moderate, and moderate shift to high, further 

moving away from the desired RV percentages.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

90 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Pattern

In the absence of forest restoration and stand improvement treatments, pattern would continue to 

favor continuous tree crowns with small canopy gaps associated with insect and disease pockets. 

Forest canopy would continue to increase, shading out understory herbaceous vegetation and further 

reducing forage production and species diversity. Historic grasslands, savannas and forest openings 

would continue to become smaller. 

Size Class Distribution

The forested landscape would remain dominated by trees in the 10 to 20 inch size classes. Trees 

would continue to grow toward the next higher size class. Individual tree growth would slow and 

where overstocked conditions occur, movement from one class to the next would be inhibited.

Disturbance and Fire Regimes

There would be no direct effects to disturbance regimes or fire severity under Alternative 1.

Fire suppression has been and would continue to be implemented in the LJCRP area under Alternative 

1. Given current and expected fire suppression activities less than 2 percent of the LJCRP landscape 

is affected by fire on average per year. On modeled high fire years approximately 15 – 20 percent of 

the LJCRP area burns at once. The historical range of acres affected by fire in any given year is 

approximately 6 – 15 percent (modeling results and methodology are described in Appendix C and 

D). 

Under Alternative 1, without forest restoration treatment or utilization of prescribed fire, the 

conditions described in the affected environment would continue to depart from desired conditions. 

The landscape would continue to become less resilient to disturbance (including changing climate). 

Disturbance regimes would continue to shift from relatively frequent low/mixed severity disturbance 

toward relatively infrequent moderate/high severity. The landscape would continue to homogenize in 

density and structure creating a more continuous fuel environment that has the potential to support 

larger more intense disturbance effects. The shift from fire tolerant to intolerant species and continued 

fire suppression could create conditions that select against regeneration of early seral fire tolerant 

species. 

Alternative 1 does not meet the purpose and need of the project because there would be no restoration 

of structure, density, composition or pattern, thus no restoration of disturbance processes at the 

landscape scale. Disturbances would continue to increase in severity and potentially size depending 

on conditions (fire weather) under which they occur. This disturbance has the potential to affect many 

ecosystem components including existing early seral old trees and wildlife habitat features.

Fire Management Decision Space

Alternative 1 would not allow for proposed restoration actions that would reduce the risk of utilizing 

unplanned ignitions to meet landscape restoration goals. The fire management decision space would 

remain constrained by this risk.

Insects and Disease

Insects and diseases that thrive in overstocked stem exclusion or understory reinitiation structural 

stages and with host species of Douglas-fir and grand fir would increase. Susceptibility of ponderosa 

pine and western larch would increase as conditions favoring these species deteriorate and they 

become more stressed.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 91

Dwarf mistletoe and degree of mistletoe infestation - Without the removal of infected trees, reduction 

of host trees, or creation of conditions that minimizes potential for spread to uninfected trees, it is 

expected that existing dwarf mistletoe infections would intensify and spread.

Timber Resource

There would be no harvest treatment (0 acres treated that remove timber volume) and there would no

timber volume (0 cubic feet) removed as a result of restoration treatments.

Rangelands and Understory Vegetation

Alternative 1 would have no known direct, indirect or cumulative effects on range resources. Trends

would be toward a gradual loss of forage as trees continue to encroach in stringer meadows in pine 

savannah and fill forest openings. Loss of forage by gradual ingrowth of trees could lead to more 

concentrated use of the remaining forage. Fire suppression and the resulting accumulation of fuels 

could contribute to more intense wildfire, a subsequent loss of forage, potentially leading to reduced 

or suspended livestock grazing. Rangeland condition, livestock distribution, and improvements would 

remain unchanged and consistent with existing management. Changes in livestock distribution 

through enhancement of transitory range would not occur.

Non-native Invasive Plants

Currently, invasive plants increase and spread through ongoing land management activities and 

permitted actions, recreational users, and wildlife use. Known invasive plant sites within the planning 

area are currently managed under an integrated management system. Documented sites would 

continue to be treated based upon their current priority and status. Project planning frequently 

includes road closures to help affected watersheds meet or move toward Forest Plan standards for 

road densities. In reality, roads closed and decommissioned under existing decisions are treated as 

funding becomes available. Alternative 1 would close and decommission roads identified through past 

projects, resulting in a 52 mile reduction in open roads. Risk of spreading noxious weeds along roads 

would be higher than under Alternative 2, which would result in a 69 mile reduction in open roads 

that would be done as funding is available. In the event of wildfire, invasive annual grasses and 

noxious weeds could be spread through fire created openings and through suppression activities such 

as fire line construction. The overall effects of Alternative 1 in regard to invasive plant increase and 

spread are essentially the same as the current baseline situation. The no action alternative has the 

lowest risk of spreading invasive plants by thinning and prescribed fire. However the no action 

alternative has a higher risk than either action alternative for spreading invasive plants through 

wildfire suppression activities and in the case of moderate to mixed severity wildfire (Table 8).

Threatened, Endangered and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants

Under Alternative 1, no management except fire suppression and implementation of pre-existing 

decisions would occur. Both known sites and possible undetected occurrences of threatened, 

endangered or sensitive plants would not be impacted by project activities. 

Sensitive species growing in partial shade in forest could lose habitat as openings fill with trees in the 

absence of natural fire cycles. Increases in ladder fuels resulting from fire suppression could increase 

the risk of larger, more severe wildfires. Lack of fire and increased canopy cover would benefit some 

understory species requiring cool moist habitat with low light and large coarse woody debris. 

Meadows and grasslands would be at risk for increased ingrowth of conifers and shrubs. Most of the 

TES species included are adapted to wildfire within the range of variability. In the absence of natural 

fire return intervals, fires may burn more intensely over larger areas and understory plant species may 

be at risk in forested settings. Grassland plants are at risk in areas where fire burns hot enough to kill 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

92 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

native vegetation, creating openings where invasive grasses such as ventenata, cheatgrass and 

medusahead can thrive. In the absence of fire, forest openings with grass and shrubs used by 

ungulates become less abundant, trees encroach into meadows, and grasslands fill with shrubs, 

concentrating grazing and browsing on smaller portions of the landscape, such as areas with shallow 

soils/ lithosols, riparian areas, and wet meadows where many sensitive plant species are found.

Aquatic Habitat 

Fine sediment levels are generally above the 20 percent RMO for fish bearing streams in the analysis 

area (Table 21).

Under Alternative 1, livestock grazing and roads are the current management activities in the analysis 

area that are likely to be contributing to elevated fine sediment levels. 

The majority of the forested stands in the project area would be represented by a fuel model that is 

likely to exhibit moderate fire severities in the case of a wildfire. Wildfires typically result in 

increases in fine sediment for three to five years, depending on the wildfire severity (Neary et al. 

2005). Where fine sediment levels increase and exceed the 20 percent threshold, spawning success for 

Snake River steelhead and redband trout would decrease, and a decrease in survival of juvenile 

salmonids may occur. A wildfire in the area could also elevate water temperatures for up to 10 years, 

depending on the wildfire severity (Dunham et al. 2007). If water temperatures exceeded 64o

F for an 

extended period of time as a result of wildfire, survival of salmonids would likely be reduced.

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

Alternative 1 would not affect Snake River steelhead or its designated critical habitat (no effect). 

Management Indicator Species – Aquatic Species

Alternative 1 may impact individual redband trout and their habitat, but would not likely contribute 

toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

Alternative 1 may impact individual Snake River steelhead and their habitat, but would not likely 

contribute toward loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

Watershed and aquatic habitat conditions would likely remain in their current condition for the next 5 

years. Current levels of fine sediment in the majority of streams in the analysis area are above the 20

percent threshold used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids. 

USFS Region 6 Sensitive Aquatic Species

Alternative 1 would have no impact on individual western ridge mussels and their Habitat (NI). 

Watershed and aquatic habitat conditions would likely remain in their current condition for the next 5 

years. Current aquatic habitat conditions in the analysis area are not likely limiting for western ridge 

mussels. 

Over the longer term, western ridge mussels would be vulnerable to impacts from large-scale 

wildfires that result in large increases in fine sediment and changes in peak flows. Western ridge 

mussels are adapted to habitats with fine sediment; however, large influxes of fine sediment could 

result in the burying of mussel beds and the death of individuals. Western ridge mussels require stable 

streambeds for mussel beds to develop. Increases in peak flows that scour streambed substrates 

destroy existing mussel beds. 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 93

Wildlife 

Primary Cavity Excavators

Alternative 1 would not have a direct effect on snag habitat. Snags would not be reduced for 

operational reasons or consumed during prescribed burning as in either Alternative 2 or 3. Stress in 

overstocked stands may lead to increased snag abundance but may also increase fuel loadings, 

increasing the likelihood of uncharacteristic stand replacement fires. Stand replacing fires would 

reduce snag habitat for those PCE’s associated with live closed canopied forests (e.g. pileated 

woodpecker), while increasing habitat for those PCE’s associated with post-fire conditions (e.g. 

Lewis’s woodpecker). Currently the abundance of post-fire habitat is below the HRV within the 

project area.

Alternative 1 includes the closure and decommissioning of 52 miles of road, approved under existing 

decision, but not yet implemented within the watershed. Road closures and decommissioning would 

reduce disturbance and limit access for firewood cutting and snag loss relative to the existing 

condition. Since there would be no change to PCE habitat from management activities, and there is a 

reduction in open roads from existing condition, PCE habitat would remain viable at the forest and at 

the project levels.

Pileated Woodpecker and Northern Goshawk

Quantity of source habitat for pileated woodpeckers and norther goshawks would not change. Source 

habitat abundance would remain within the HRV. No harvesting would occurs within source habitat 

leaving habitat quality unchanged. Ongoing tree growth would continue to increase canopy closure 

and density of large trees and snags, thus increasing source habitat for pileated woodpeckers and 

goshawks. 

Risk to loss of live trees due to insects and/or disease would continue to increase, which may increase 

snag habitat, though also depending the scale of the disturbance may change the suitability of existing 

habitat due to loss of live trees. Risk to large scale fire would continue to increase. Large-scale stand 

replacing fires would reduce source habitat for pileated woodpecker and goshawks.

The abundance of open roads across the planning area would be reduced from existing conditions in 

Alternative 1 through the implementation of existing conditions. Removal of snags for firewood and 

safety would be reduced as effective road closures are implemented across the planning area. 

Approximately 52 miles of roads that are currently open would be closed or decommissioned under 

existing decisions under Alternative 1, potentially leading to an increase in habitat quality through 

snag retention along roads and decreased human disturbance.

Tables 34 and 35 compare conditions of pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk source habitat by

alternative, respectively. Alternative 1 would maintain source habitat within HRV, but would have 

higher habitat quality in the short-term compared to the action alternatives, where restoration 

treatments reduce canopy cover or large tree structure abundance.

Since no change to pileated woodpecker or goshawk habitat would occur from management activities, 

and there is a reduction in open roads from existing condition, habitats would remain viable at the 

forest and at the project scale.

American Marten

Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct effects on marten source habitat in the short term. The 

amount of source habitat in the project area, currently at the low end of the RV, would likely increase 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

94 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

through time as trees continue to grow, canopy closure would increase and the abundance of large 

trees and snags would increase (Table 36).

Due to the high abundance of adjacent, primarily dry forests with uncharacteristic closed-canopied 

forest conditions, there is an increased risk of insect infestation and mortality as well as increased 

susceptibility to disease and fire. Both standing and down fuels would continue to increase over time 

as trees die due to competition or insects. This would increase snags and down wood, which are 

beneficial to marten, but could increase the severity of a wildfire, should one occur. Effects from a 

stand replacing fire could convert marten habitat to an unsuitable condition for marten.

The abundance of open roads across the planning area would be reduced from existing conditions in 

Alternative 1 as a result of the implementation of existing decisions. Removal of snags for firewood 

and safety would be reduced as effective road closures are implemented across the planning area. 

Approximately 52 miles of roads that are currently open would be closed under existing decisions 

under Alternative 1, potentially leading to an increase in habitat quality through snag retention along 

roads and decreased human disturbance.

As no change to marten habitat would occur from management activities, and there is a reduction in 

open roads from existing condition, habitats would remain viable at the forest and at the project scale.

Table 34. Pileated woodpecker source habitat conditions by alternative

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Comment

Source Habitat 

(acres) 7,500 7,000 6,600

% HRV 16% 15% 14%

The current condition as well as the outcome of 

all alternatives, maintain source habitat within 

the HRV. The HRV for this species is about 1-

39%.

Acres source 

habitat with 

harvest

0 1,900 1,100

Acres of pileated woodpecker habitat that have

been harvested are likely lower quality.

% source habitat 

with harvest 0 27% 16%

Acres of pileated woodpecker habitat that have

been harvested are likely lower quality. It is 

expected that within 10-30 years the habitats 

that were harvested and are of lesser quality 

would transition to higher quality source habitat

Acres of source 

habitat not 

commercially 

treated

7,400 5,100 5,600

Pileated woodpecker habitat that is not 

harvested and is likely higher quality habitat.

% HRV of 

source habitat 

not treated

16% 11% 12%

Untreated pileated woodpecker habitat is within 

the HRV (1-39%). It is expected that within 10-

30 years the habitats that were harvested and 

are of lesser quality would transition to higher 

quality source habitat.

Acres of large 

(>21” trees) 

potentially 

harvested

0 700 0

Loss of large trees would adversely affect the 

quantity and quality of current and future habitat 

for pileated woodpeckers.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 95

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Comment

Miles of road 

closed and/or 

decommissioned 

(from Existing 

Condition)

52 69 9

The greater the reduction in open roads, the 

greater the benefit to pileated woodpeckers. 

Removal of snags (an important habitat feature)

is greater along open roads.

Table 35. Northern goshawk source habitat conditions by alternative

Northern 

Goshawk

Alternative 

1 (and 

current)

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Comment

Source Habitat 

(acres) 18,900 14,900 15,800

% HRV 34% 27% 29%

The current condition as well as the 

outcome of all alternatives, maintain 

source habitat within the HRV (1-46%)

Acres source 

habitat with 

commercial 

harvest

0 3,800 2,100

Acres of Northern goshawk habitat that 

have been commercially harvested are 

likely lower quality.

% source 

habitat with 

commercial 

treatment

0 20% 11%

Northern goshawk habitat that has been 

commercially harvested, are likely lower 

quality.

Acres of 

source habitat 

without 

commercial 

treatment

18,900 11,200 13,700

Northern goshawk habitat that has not 

been commercially harvested, are likely 

higher quality habitat.

% HRV of 

source habitat 

not treated

34% 20% 25%

Northern goshawk habitat that has not

been commercially treated is within the 

HRV. It is expected that within 10-30 

years the habitats that were treated and 

are of lesser quality would transition 

(through growth) to higher quality source 

habitat.

Acres of 

source habitat 

with potential 

for trees >21” 

dbh removed

0 2,300 0

Large trees provide an important habitat 

component for goshawks.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

96 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Table 36. Source habitat for American marten by alternative

American 

marten

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3 Comment

Source 

Habitat 

(acres)

2,180 2,180 2,180

% HRV 17 17 17

The current condition as well as the 

outcome of all alternatives, maintain 

source habitat within the HRV. The 

HRV for this species is about 19-29% of 

the potential vegetation.

Acres source 

habitat with 

harvest

0 820 730

Acres of marten habitat that has been 

harvested are likely lower quality.

% source 

habitat with 

harvest

0 38 33

Acres of marten habitat that has been 

harvested are likely lower quality. It is 

expected that within 10-30 years the 

habitats that were harvested and are of 

lesser quality would transition to higher 

quality source habitat.

Acres of 

source habitat 

not 

commercially 

treated

2,200 1,360 1,500

Marten habitat that is not harvested, are 

likely higher quality habitat.

Acres of large 

(>21” trees) 

potentially 

harvested

0 220 0

Loss of large trees would adversely 

affect the quantity and quality of current 

and future habitat for marten.

Miles of road 

closed and/or 

decommissio

ned (from 

Existing 

Condition)

52 69 9

The greater the reduction in open 

roads, the greater the benefit to marten. 

Removal of snags (an important habitat 

feature) is greater along open roads.

Rocky Mountain Elk

Table 37 summarizes the habitat effectiveness index and cover percentages by alternative within the 

LJCRP area. HEI was calculated using both the original technique for roads as well as using the 

distance band technique. Without management activities, elk cover and forage habitat would not be 

altered through active management, and short-term disturbances (associated with treatment activities) 

to elk habitat would not occur. The overall area providing cover remains higher than either of the two 

action alternatives. Although, open road densities are lower than the existing condition, road densities 

in MA 1 would remain high (>3.0 miles/square mile) and above Forest Plan standards of 2.5 

miles/square mile in Cougar, Davis, Rush and Sumac Creeks (Table 38). A reduction in open road 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 97

densities from current conditions (through implementation of existing decisions) would benefit elk 

habitat quality.

Table 37. Habitat effectiveness index and cover percentages for the alternatives within the LJCRP area.

Timber 

Emphasis 

(summer range)

Wildlife 

Emphasis 

(winter range)

Timber 

Emphasis 

(summer range)

Wildlife 

Emphasis 

(winter range)

Lower Josesph 

Watershed

Lower Josesph 

Watershed

Upper Joseph 

Watershed

Upper Joseph 

Watershed

FP 

direction or 

assumptio

n

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alt 

3

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alt 

3

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alt 

3

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alt 

3

Total 

Cover %

MA 1 

>=30%

77

%

63

%

64

%

23

%

18

%

23

%

55

%

40

%

42

%

30

%

25

%

26

%

HEI 

MA 1* >= 

0.5 

(direction) 0.6

0.6

3

0.5

9

0.6

4

0.6

2

0.6

4 0.6

0.5

8

0.5

7

0.7

3

0.7

1 0.7

HEI 

_Distanc

e Band

MA 1* >= 

0.5 

(direction)

0.5

4

0.5

7

0.5

5

0.5

8

0.5

6

0.5

7

0.5

9

0.5

7

0.5

6

0.6

6

0.6

3

0.6

3

*MA1 - generally is the area in Timber emphasis - primarily in the Upper Joseph 

watershed.

Table 38. Road densities by management area and subwatershed currently and by alternative for the

Lower Joseph project area.

Subwatershed Name MA1 Areas (Acres, 

USFS Land 

Only) 

Forest 

Plan

Standard

Existing 

Open 

Rd 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Alt. 1 

Open 

Rd 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Alt. 2 

Open 

Rd 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Alt. 3 

Open 

Rd 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Broady Creek 1 

5,300

2.5 

2.8 

 

1.6 

 

1.6 

 

2.8 

3 

1,700

1.5 

1.2 

 

- 

 

- 

 

0.3 

10 

3,200

1.35 

1.4 

 

1.1 

 

1.1 

 

1.1 

Cougar Creek-Joseph 

Creek

1 

2,800

2.5 

4.3 

 

3.7 

 

3.3

 

4.1 

3 

10,200

1.5 

0.9 

 

0.7 

 

0.5 

 

0.9 

Davis Creek 1 

4,000

2.5 

44 

 

4.0 

 

2.9 

 

4.4 

3 

4,000

1.5 

0.2 

 

0.2 

 

0.2 

 

0.2 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

98 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Subwatershed Name MA1 Areas (Acres, 

USFS Land 

Only) 

Forest 

Plan

Standard

Existing 

Open 

Rd 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Alt. 1 

Open 

Rd 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Alt. 2 

Open 

Rd 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Alt. 3 

Open 

Rd 

Density 

(mi/mi2) 

Horse Creek 10 

5,800 

1.35 

1.7 

 

1.7 

 

1.5 

 

1.7 

Lower Cottonwood Creek 10 

6,700

1.35 

0.6 

 

0.6 

 

0.6 

 

0.6 

Lower Swamp Creek 1 

6,200

2.5 

3.1 

 

2.6 

 

2.6 

 

3.0 

3 

8,600

1.5 

0.3 

 

0.1 

 

0.1 

 

0.3 

Peavine Creek-Joseph 

Creek

1 

5,900

2.5 

2.1 

 

1.1 

 

1.1 

 

2.1 

3 

5,300

1.5 

0.2 

 

0.1 

 

0.1 

 

0.2 

Rush Creek-Joseph Creek 1 

2,000

2.5 

4.0 

 3

.1 

 

3.1 

 

3.9 

3 

3,700

1.5 

0.9 

 

0.5 

 

0.5 

 

.7 

Sumac Creek-Joseph 

Creek

1 

3,600

2.5 

4.2 

 

3.5 

 

2.9 

 

4.1 

3 

6,000

1.5 

1.6 

 

1.3 

 

1.3 

 

1.4 

Upper Cottonwood Creek 1 

70

2.5 

16.1 

 

14.8 

 

14.8 

 

16.1 

10 

12,200

1.35 

0.7 

 

0.6 

 

0.6 

 

0.7 

1 – MA= Management Area. See Table 27 for MA names, and Maps 11a and 11b for MA locations.

Old Growth Management Areas, Late-old Forest Habitat, and Connectivity corridors

No mechanical vegetation treatments would occur under Alternative 1, and fires would be suppressed. 

There would be no direct impacts to MA15, LOS habitat, or connectivity corridors under Alternative 

1. Indirectly, this alternative would forgo the opportunity to reduce the likelihood of a high intensity 

and/or stand-replacing fire through treatments. The current level of connectedness would persist, and 

would improve in quality for species associated with closed canopied forests in the absence of large 

scale disturbances. Although connectivity for some species would be enhanced over time, 

susceptibility to insects, diseases, and wildfire would increase. 

LOS habitat for species associated with open-canopied habitats is below HRV and would likely 

continue to decline without management activity. Risk to uncharacteristic disturbance would continue 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 99

to increase. Depending the severity and scale of disturbances, habitats for LOS species associated 

with live trees would decline.

Landbird and Migratory Bird Habitat

In the absence of large scale disturbances, Alternative 1 would provide long-term habitat for 

migratory birds at the same level that exists today (See Wildlife specialist’s report). Forest fuels 

would continue to accumulate as fuel reduction treatments are deferred. Alternative 1 would 

contribute further to increased fuel accumulations, increasing the risks to overstory trees when 

wildfires occur. Depending on the species and the scale and intensity of wildfires, some species 

habitats may be improved (e.g. white-headed woodpecker), while other species habitats may be 

reduced (e.g. Williamson’s sapsucker).

With the implementation of existing decisions, miles of open roads would be reduced in Alternative 1 

as compared to existing conditions. This would likely benefit all of these migratory birds. Roadassociated factors that adversely affect some species of migratory and resident birds include: snag and 

log reduction, habitat loss and fragmentation, negative edge effects, harassment or disturbance, 

collisions, displacement or avoidance, and chronic negative interactions with humans (Gaines et al. 

2003).

Threatened, Endangered, and USFS R6 Sensitive Wildlife Species

Table 39 summarizes the comparative effects of each alternative on federally-listed and USFS R6 

sensitive wildlife species with habitat in the LJCRP area. Alternative 1 would have No Effect (NE) to 

the Canada lynx because it is not considered present on the WWNF (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

and U.S. Department of Interior 2006).

Alternative 1 would also have No Impact on the tailed frog, spotted frog, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, 

grey wolf, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, potted bat, Johnson’s hairstreak, Intermountain 

sulpur butterfly or the Western bumblebee.

White-headed Woodpecker and Lewis’ Woodpecker

Under Alternative 1, the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire or disease/insect outbreaks would continue 

to increase naturally over time. Post-disturbance habitat (wildfire or insects/disease) may provide 

suitable habitat for some species and unsuitable for others. Wildfire would likely produce snags, and 

white-headed woodpeckers and Lewis’ woodpeckers are known to occur in recent post-fire habitat 

that has large pine snags (Wightman et al. 2010). The impact to habitat would depend on the size and 

severity of the disturbance. For these reason, there is No Impact (NI) to the white-headed woodpecker 

or the Lewis’ woodpecker or their habitat under Alternative 1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

100 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Table 39. TES wildlife species effects by alternative.

Species

Habitat 

within 

planning 

area1

Alt 12 Alt 2 Alt 3 Rationale

AMPHIBIANS

Rocky Mt tailed frog

D NI NI NI Habitat protected by RHCAs 

Ascaphus montanus

Columbia spotted 

frog S NI MIIH NI Habitat protected by RHCAs 

Rana luteiventris

BIRDS

Northern bald eagle

S NI NI NI

Habitat requirements not 

Haliaeetus affected.

leucocephalus

American peregrine 

falcon

D NI NI NI

Habitat requirements not 

affected. Falco peregrinus 

anatum

Lewis’ woodpecker 

S NI BI BI Trend toward restoring habitat 

under Alternatives 2,3

Melanerpes lewis

White-headed 

woodpecker S NI BI BI Trend toward restoring habitat 

under Alternatives 2,3

Picoides albolarvatus

MAMMALS

Canada lynx

N NE NE NE Highly unlikely to occur in this 

area

Felix lynx canadensis

Gray wolf

D NI NI NI No known den sites within area

Canis lupus

Fringed myotis

D NI MIIH MIIH Roost tree abundance potentially 

affected

Myotis thysanodes
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 101

Species

Habitat 

within 

planning 

area1

Alt 12 Alt 2 Alt 3 Rationale

Townsend’s bigeared bat

D

Habitat requirements not 

Corynorhinus affected.

townsendii NI NI NI

Spotted bat

S NI NI NI Habitat requirements not 

affected.

Euderma maculatum

INVERTEBRATES

Johnson’s hairstreak

S NI MIIH MIIH Removal of mistletoe may impact 

habitat

Callophrys johnsoni

Intermountain 

sulphur Prescribed fire may impact 

Colia Christina habitat

pseudochristina S NI MIIH MIIH

Western bumblebee

S NI MIIH MIIH Prescribed fire may impact 

habitat

Bombus occidentalis

1 D = Documented ; N = Not known to occur ; S = Suspected 2

NI = No Impact; MIIH = May impact individuals and 

habitat; BI = Beneficial impact; NE = No effect

The Social Environment

Socioeconomics

Financial Efficiency and Economic Impacts

No direct effects on the local economy would occur under Alternative 1. Within the analysis area, 

economic conditions and trends (employment, labor income, unemployment, etc.) would not change 

relative to the LJCRP since no action would be taken. In addition, any potential revenue from the sale 

of timber would not be realized under Alternative 1. Indirect effects on local economic conditions 

could occur as a result of Alternative 1; however, estimates of these changes are not available. The 

lack of measurable direct and indirect effects translates to a lack of measurable cumulative effects to 

economic conditions under Alternative 1. 

Compared to the action alternatives, greater wildfire related costs could result if fuels are left 

untreated under Alternative 1. Potential threats and costs to human life, property and fire-fighter 

safety under Alternative 1 would be greater than Alternatives 2 or 3. Fire suppression costs and risk to 

life and property should be less when wildland fires occur where hazardous fuels have been treated 

compared to areas where fuels have not been treated. This is commonly accepted since fires in non-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

102 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

treated areas generally burn hotter, flame length is higher, and fires in tree canopies are more likely. 

However, while we generally understand expected wildfire frequency and intensity, due to lack of 

knowledge about where these fires may occur, and how large each fire would be, it is not possible to 

accurately predict the costs of non-prescribed wildland fire under Alternative 1. 

Social Impacts

Under Alternative 1, social impacts to livelihood, cultural values, and biological values would not 

change from the current condition. However, with a greater risk of wildfire and unchanged conditions 

for forest health under Alternative 1, the possibility of long-term effects to recreation may be greater 

under this alternative as a result of potential displacement during fire suppression activities or adverse 

effects to scenic and recreation values.

Timber Market and Forest Products

Alternative 1 would not provide new timber for harvest and therefore is not anticipated to affect the 

timber market relative to the current condition. However, if the incidence of wildfire increases as a 

result of not implementing restoration treatments, large fires could damage existing forest stocks and 

increase the amount of salvaged wood on the market, leading to decreases in delivered log prices. 

Non-Market Values

Under Alternative 1, the impacts to ecosystem services may be more severe. For example, water 

quality enhancement in the long term may be minimal compared to the other alternatives. Without 

restoration treatments, forest health could continue to decline along with the ecosystem services it 

provides (such as air quality, water quality, and biodiversity). Although these services are difficult to 

quantify, they should be considered. 

Environmental Justice

As indicated in the Affected Environment section above, minority and low-income populations exist 

in the analysis area. While Alternative 1 is not expected to have a disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on these communities, increased susceptibility to wildfire 

could result. Consequently, additional unmeasurable indirect economic effects associated with 

increases in wildfire related costs are possible, which could result in impacts to local communities. 

However, there is no reason to suspect that any impacts would disproportionately affect minority and 

low income populations.

Heritage

No direct or cumulative effects to heritage resources would result from Alternative 1. No treatment 

activities would occur, and the current biological and physical processes would be allowed to 

continue along their present paths with associated risks and benefits. All cultural sites and properties

would not need to be protected from the risk of ground based mechanical treatment operations.

However, indirect effects include a high probability that existing fuels in and around archaeological 

and historic sites would continue to accumulate due to a lack of the use of the proposed unplanned 

ignitions and prescribed fire treatments. Ecological conditions would trend increasingly vulnerable to 

more frequent and intense wildfires. As a result, archaeological integrity and research potential may 

be lost due to post fire erosion of soils that may harbor buried archaeological deposits (Christensen et 

al. 1992).

Fire suppression and post fire rehabilitation actions pose high risk to cultural resource sites and 

values. Bulldozer impacts to archaeological sites can be the most severe (Traylor et al. 1990). In
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 103

addition, sites become more visible after wildland fire, as the added ground visibility makes sites 

more vulnerable to vandalism and looting.

Tribal 

For all alternatives, the Tribal Relations analysis uses a qualitative approach by comparing relative 

effects for each alternative with a focus on the Nez Perce Tribe’s values associated with their 

“Traditional Economy”. This is an economy that is guided by tradition, beliefs and practices 

associated with a subsistence lifeway dependent upon fishing, hunting and gathering of treaty 

resources. 

Values associated with the traditional, cultural and contemporary beliefs and practices surrounding 

land stewardship are of utmost importance to the Tribe (see Nez Perce Tribe Executive Committee 

(NPTEC) Scoping and DEIS Comments; Government to Government consultation; and staff to staff 

coordination meeting notes in the project record). The Tribal Coordination and Consultation Record 

can be found in Appendix G.

The Tribal Relations effects analysis considers risks to the conservation of the Nez Perce traditional 

economy by taking into account rights, values, beliefs, and attitudes as derived from tribal input 

referenced above. Not all of the values, beliefs and attitudes are addressed in this analysis. However, 

the information shared through comments, consultation and staff to staff coordination provides the 

best information available. According to Allen et al. (2009) values are “relatively general, yet 

enduring, conceptions of what is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable.” Beliefs are 

“judgments about what is true or false and may be linked to effects.” Attitudes are “tendencies to 

react favorably or unfavorably to a situation, individual, object or concept” (LJCRP Socioeconomics 

Report, Loughery November, 2014). 

Some tribal comments, concerns, values and beliefs required interpretation by the author in an effort 

to more fully describe and disclose effects to Tribal values by alternative. In all cases the author 

studied the tribe’s public comment responses, as well as issues shared at government to government 

consultation, or staff to staff, coordination meetings. 

Nez Perce issues to be analyzed for effects are summarized in Table 40. The Tribal Relations column 

includes issues oriented to traditional cultural values. The “natural resources” column summarizes 

issues that are tied to tribal concerns regarding management of treaty resource habitats and ecological 

conditions relative to wildlife, hydrology, aquatics, silviculture, road management, old growth, and 

botany values. Tribal issues specific to heritage or cultural resource management are addressed in the 

Heritage Resource section of this chapter. 

Table 40. Nez Perce Concerns Considered for Analysis

TRIBAL RELATIONS NATURAL RESOURCE

Impacts on hunting, fishing and gathering Harm to treaty resource habitat

Need to address the true value of the landscape 

beyond economics

No treatments in riparian area unless demonstrate 

beneficial effects (see aquatics and hydrology effects 

sections)

Concern for water developments impacts* Abandoned roads, run off erosion, sediment delivery, 

road decommissioning needed (see hydrology and 

soils effects sections)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

104 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

TRIBAL RELATIONS NATURAL RESOURCE

Maintain old growth legacy trees Properly functioning watersheds (see hydrology 

effects sections)

Federal compliance of trust responsibilities * Want upward trend in fish habitat, water, riparian 

conditions (see aquatics, hydrology, botany sections)

Resource risks of accelerated planning and 

restoration 

Road density/road placement and relative to treaty 

resource values (see all effects sections)

Maintenance of administrative access and wildlife 

connectivity to the adjacent Precious Lands Wildlife 

Management Area *

Concern for ESA wildlife and native plant resource 

condition (see wildlife and botany effects sections)

Impacts to traditional plant resources, including the 

“traditional economy” of the Nez Perce Tribe (NPTEC 

meeting 07-08-14). 

See Tribal Relations Specialist Report Table 2: 

Traditional Plants Known to be of Interest to the Nez 

Perce Tribe

Impacts to fish strongholds, particularly from roads 

and disturbance in RHCAs (see aquatics, roads, 

botany effects sections)

Conservation of inventoried road less areas Achievement of riparian management objectives (see 

aquatics effects section)

Likely Traditional Cultural Properties, sacred sites 

and traditional use areas in project area. Need 

traditional use studies

Adequate heritage inventory to ensure protection 

during project implementation (See heritage effects 

section)

* Issues or concerns not analyzed for effects as they may be addressed outside environment analysis through ongoing 

consultation, partnerships or policy direction.

No direct effects to tribal values would result from Alternative 1. However, indirect effects are 

summarized below.

Impacts on Hunting, Fishing and Gathering

Alternative 1 presents a high risk to the access and availability of hunting, fishing and gathering 

resources. There could be detrimental effects to what remains of the historically open fire dependent 

ecosystem needed to support healthy, and accessible, treaty resources and their habitats. Loss of fire 

dependent ecosystems means stands would be less resilient to disturbance, insects, and disease. Many 

traditional food plants that also provide browse and forage for wildlife are reliant on low intensity fire 

regimes for healthy reproduction (see Tribal Relations specialist’s report in the project record). 

Tribal input suggests that Alternative 1 may best address tribal uncertainty about scope, scale and 

pace of LJCRP restoration. Some tribal members may prefer to trust in “Mother Nature” (NPTEC, 

July 8, 2014) to do the restoration work in lieu of taking a risk on accelerated, broad scale treatments 

and timelines. 

The True Value of the Landscape over Economics 

The LJCRP purpose and need considers both natural resource values and the contribution of the 

LJCRP to social and economic values. In the action alternatives, timber harvest would primarily be 

used as a tool to treat unhealthy stands to move landscapes toward desired, resilient conditions over 

time, while resulting merchantable timber may be sold through timber sales. Alternative 1 would 

result in a lost or delayed opportunity to restore and enhance LJCRP landscape conditions.

Tribal comments state that conservation of forest landscapes should be valued over economic 

benefits. The Tribe’s position is that past National Forest management created the current unhealthy 

landscape conditions through even age management practices (i.e. “clear cutting”) designed to 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 105

maximize timber volume (NPTEC July 8, 2014). Therefore, for some tribal members who equate 

forest management with economic motivations, the effects of Alternative 1 would be preferred.

Maintain Old Growth Legacy Trees and Conserve Inventoried Roadless Areas

Old growth stands and roadless areas are valued by the Tribe for their natural, ancient settings that 

provide sanctuary for people and wildlife. In the short term, the effects of Alternative 1 on old growth 

and inventoried roadless areas (IRA), barring high intensity fires or other major disturbance, would 

cause little change relative to their abundance or character. However, over the long term, old growth 

stands would continue to be encroached upon by smaller diameter trees (particularly in dry forest) 

that would out-compete the big trees resulting in changed biological and structural diversity. Fuel 

loads would build, and create high risk of disease and stand replacement fire. Landscape conditions 

and settings associated with traditional uses, treaty resource habitat, and other values associated with 

old growth stands and IRAs would decline over the long-term. 

Alternative 1 foregoes opportunities for proposed maintenance of legacy trees. Without active 

management, maintenance of old growth stands and conservation of IRA values may be lost to 

uncharacteristic disturbances. 

Resource Risks of Accelerated Planning and Restoration 

Conflicts exist between the risks of conventional forest management timelines verses the risks of 

“doing things differently” by increasing the pace and scale of treatments (i.e., acceleration 

restoration). Tribal members support “trying things differently as long as you don’t throw out the tried 

and true” management options (NPTEC July 8, 2014), but are skeptical about accelerated restoration. 

Alternative 1 would not risk any unintended adverse effects of “doing things differently”, but would 

also not move the landscape toward shared desired conditions (i.e., a trend toward a more natural 

range of variation), or take advantage of the opportunity to learn the lessons of accelerated 

restoration. Learning through monitoring could involve the tribe in a joint effort to increase 

understanding of the conflicts, risks and benefits to the traditional economy conservation outlined in 

the action alternatives. 

Impacts to traditional plant resources 

In the LJCRP area, traditional plant habitats (including scab lands, savanna, meadows, riparian areas, 

seeps, dry and moist forests) are being encroached by particularly shade-tolerant conifers, primarily 

as a result of fire exclusion (refer to the Tribal Relations specialist’s report for plant species, habitat, 

response to soil/ground disturbance and fire response). Alternative 1 poses high risk to traditional 

plant species and habitats, especially those that are shade intolerant or that respond well to low 

intensity fire. The majority of the plants listed in Table 48 of the Tribal Relations specialist’s report 

need forest openings and sun to thrive. Historically the Nez Perce tribe used fire to maintain camas, 

“cous” and huckleberry habitats (Marshall 1999).

Continued increased canopy cover and litter accumulation would further reduce habitat suitability for 

many of the species listed in the Tribal Relations specialist’s report. Potential soil damage from a 

severe wildfire could reduce potential suitable habitat and, in the case of high intensity fire, kill plants 

outright.

Alternative 1 would represent a lost or delayed opportunity to benefit LJCRP traditional plants

through landscape level low intensity prescribed fire treatments, thinning of meadow and riparian 

encroachment, natural fire use, and creation of individual clumps and openings (Franklin et al. 2013).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

106 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, and other traditional use areas

Locations and specific information and concerns associated with traditional cultural properties, sacred 

sites and other traditional use areas would not need to be addressed at this time if there is No Action. 

No Action poses unknown effects to these currently unidentified resources. However, it is assumed 

that the values associated with these types of cultural places, such as private settings, traditional use 

resources, or spiritual practices, would be potentially at risk from high intensity wildfire and other 

unplanned disturbance. However, in the short term, these values would not be affected under 

Alternative 1.

Recreation

There would be no direct or indirect effects due to vegetation management under Alternative 1. 

Vegetation densities or characteristics would not be modified and the forest would continue to be 

influenced by natural processes and limited management actions, such as fire suppression. The miles 

of open roads would be reduced from the existing condition by about 52 miles. More area would be 

available for non-motorized recreation (e.g. horseback riding, hiking). Under Alternative 1, no overall 

change is anticipated in the number of visitors, frequency or season of use in dispersed recreation 

activities, developed recreation sites, trails, or permitted uses. Recreational visits within the project 

area would remain near the same levels as previous years and traditional use patterns and recreational 

opportunities would not be affected. Hunting, hiking and other dispersed recreation and permitted 

uses, access, and opportunities are expected to remain unchanged. 

No road closures would occur under Alternative 1, other than those identified by past decisions, but 

not yet implemented. Alternative 1 would result in fewer recreational opportunities that are free of 

motor-vehicle disturbance of noise and vehicle interactions for hikers, mountain bikers, and stock 

users compared to Alternative 2. Vehicle access to dispersed campsites, wildlife viewing sites, and 

firewood opportunities would remain largely unchanged from current conditions. Alternative 1would 

have mixed effects on activities such as mushroom pickers, as some prefer areas without the 

interference of roads, while others prefer the convenience of roads nearby.

In the long term, there would be increasing risk to forested areas by insect and disease epidemics and 

greater fuel loads, increasing the risk of large stand replacement fires. Long-term sustainability of 

some of the natural resource values that drive recreation use (e.g., see scenery section, below) would 

continue to diminish over time.

Scenery 

Alternative 1 would not address the vegetation conditions that are outside the RV. Alternative 1 would 

not reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, which could cause undue effects to scenery, nor would 

it move the landscape toward the desired scenic conditions.

Alternative 1 would have no short term effects to scenic integrity, or scenic stability. Existing scenery 

integrity and scenic stability would remain the same. The indirect long term effects related to the 

existing conditions and trends could be substantial. The overstocked stands are under greater and 

greater stress, which is likely to lead to insect and disease epidemics. Fuel loads within the stands 

increase the hazards of stand replacement fire. All of these conditions would continue to degrade 

scenic stability. In the event of a stand replacement fire the scenic integrity would likely be greatly 

reduced by uncharacteristic fire.

Alternative 1 would maintain the existing landscape character, and a range of low to very high scenic 

integrity. In the short term, the landscape would remain as a mosaic pattern of natural appearing to 

slightly altered and altered landscape character and scenic condition as it currently exists. Vegetation 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 107

would continue to grow through the pattern of natural succession with a high risk of future 

disturbance, primarily wildfire. 

Resiliency to fire, insects, and pathogens would continue to decline. The high fuel loadings have the 

potential to result in a sudden change to the landscape character that could result from a wildfire that 

would be seen as a burned off area or the landscape would continue to be affected by diseased tree 

and associated tree mortality. The current insect and disease infestations would continue to affect the 

landscape character visually and could result in changes from healthy green canopies to patches that 

are predominately brown. In the case of wildfire, the landscape character could dramatically change 

from a forested green setting to an area dominated by the visual evidence of wildfire. Fire intensity 

patterns would probably range from low to high as viewed in the foreground and middleground from 

the travel routes, particularly in the IRAs. Wildfire visual characteristics would be dominant and 

evident for 5 to 10 years or more; snags would be created as a result of wildfire. The snags would be 

dominant for at least 5 years, and then begin to fall and create a jackstraw effect viewed along the 

travel corridors and would appear visually out of character for a natural appearing landscape. In 

general, natural forest disturbances that result in extensive areas of dead or dying trees are perceived 

negatively. There would be some risk to losing the highly valued larger ponderosa pine and Douglasfir if a wildfire were to occur. A sustainable green scenic forest may not be maintained over time 

because of this high disturbance risk related to high fuel loadings and potential for catastrophic 

wildfire.

Alternative 1 would be compliant with the Visual Quality Objectives of the Forest Plan, HCNRA

CMP and Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan.

Research Natural Areas

Under Alternative 1, the Horse Pasture Ridge and Haystack Rock areas would remain as proposed 

RNAs and continue to be protected from uses that would reduce suitability for RNA designation. This 

management direction is listed in the WWNF Forest Plan, Pages 4-84 and 4-85, and will remain in 

effect until there is a revised Forest Plan or there is an amendment to this portion of the Forest Plan.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

There would be no decision to implement actions within Potential Wilderness Areas, Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, other undeveloped lands, or Oregon Wild’s “citizen’s unroaded” areas under 

Alternative 1. These areas would continue to depart from reference conditions in forest structure, 

composition, density and pattern due to current fire suppression and grazing policies. Potential 

Wilderness Areas identified during Forest Plan revision will still meet the criteria identified in FSH 

1909.12 Ch. 71 as no evidence of past harvest or roads would be created through the no action 

alternative.

The forested landscape in these areas would continue to support increased density of fire intolerant 

species that create the potential for uncharacteristic fire severity and effects. Fire hazard would 

continue to increase with an associated increase of more intense fire occurring at severities and a 

scale than what would have occurred under reference conditions. This type of fire could cause a loss 

of important ecosystem components (such as large trees of seral species) and loss of a natural 

appearing landscape with high scenic quality. Alternative 1 would increase the risk to these 

characteristics.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

108 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Potential Wilderness Areas

Alternative 1 would not affect any PWAs. All current opportunities for solitude would remain, all 

inherent characteristics of the area would be retained, and no impacts from temporary roads would 

occur. Indirectly, if a fire were to burn through the area, sight distance would increase and the visitor’s 

ability to experience solitude would decrease. Other characteristics important to these areas may be 

adversely affected by uncharacteristic fire.

Other Undeveloped Lands

Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct effects to other undeveloped lands because no activities 

would occur in these areas. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural 

processes and ongoing management activities. Biological and ecosystem functions would continue. 

The landscape would likely continue developing complex fuel loads. A wildfire may burn more 

extensively and kill more trees within upland forest stands, which would result in larger acreages of 

blackened landscapes compared to prescribed fires. Some forest visitors may avoid blackened 

landscapes until green vegetation returns after three to five years. Fire is a natural occurrence and 

expected disturbance process in this landscape. All polygons of other undeveloped lands would 

continue to not meet inventory criteria as potential wilderness areas and would continue to not be an 

inventoried roadless area or a designated wilderness area.

Areas Identified as Unroaded by Oregon Wild

There would be no direct or indirect effects to areas identified as unroaded by Oregon Wild because 

no activities would occur in these areas. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except 

by natural processes and ongoing management activities as described in the IRA, PWA, and other 

undeveloped lands portions of this FEIS.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects associated with Alternative 1, as there are no proposed 

activities. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

There are no unavoidable adverse effects related to Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives

The Physical Environment

Surface Erosion

Approximately 12.6 miles of temporary roads are proposed in Alternative 2 (Map 9). Effective 

ground cover is often lost during the construction and use of temporary roads, which destabilizes the 

surface and soil structure. In some instances, entire soil horizons may be mechanically displaced 

during temporary road construction. BMPs (Appendix J) are designed to minimize these effects. 

Approximately 20 acres of the 178,000 acre analysis area on NFS lands would be directly affected by 

the construction and use of temporary roads in Alternatives 2 or 3.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 109

In the short term, road traffic would likely increase under Alternatives 2 or 3 at approximately the 

same intensity, due to the proposed management activities. Vehicular traffic destabilizes material in 

unpaved travelways, cut slopes and fill slopes. Travelways are heavily compacted, and have low rates 

of infiltration, which increases surface runoff. Increases in road use can increase sediment production 

rates by many orders of magnitude (Reid and Dunne 1984, Ramos- Scharrón 2007). The Watershed 

Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model was used to characterize the potential increase in sediment 

yields, as a result of increasing road traffic across the entire haul system for the LJCRP. Sediment 

yields due to increased traffic were static except for a moderate increase along the 4655 road in the 

northeast portion of the project area and along the 150 spur of the 4650 road. These roads would be 

prioritized for erosion mitigation measures and evaluated for road improvements prior to haul. Any 

increases in sediment yield would persist at higher rates over the duration of project implementation 

but all increases in traffic are unlikely to be uniform over space and time and would depend largely on 

how implementation is phased for each portion of the analysis area. Improving the structure, stability 

and drainage of the haul road system would mitigate most of the erosion potential.

At the landscape scale, surface erosion may increase substantially in the event of a large scale 

disturbance. The treatments proposed in Alternatives 2 or 3 would mitigate some of this risk by 

restoring stand structures and species compositions (see the Vegetation/Disturbance section of this 

chapter).

Wildland fire management activities may increase surface erosion by reducing effective ground cover 

by burning or mechanical removal during fireline construction. Additionally, at certain temperature 

gradients, fire-induced water repellency may develop in soils, which inhibits water infiltration and 

increases surface erosion (DeBano 2000). In Alternatives 2 and 3, up to 90,000 acres of planned 

ignitions may occur. Refer to the Vegetation /Disturbance sections for more information.

At the site scale, surface erosion may affect site potential and site productivity in areas where material 

is gained or lost through management activities. Additionally, changes in soil composition and 

structure may result in moisture content changes and subsequent drought tolerance. Organisms 

dependent on soil characteristics and wildlife dependent on vegetative conditions expressed by soil 

composition, structure and depth may also be affected by surface erosion (Grigal 2000). However, 

due to the limited scope of the proposed treatments and the limited extent of potential effects when 

managed through BMPs, it is unlikely for these potential effects to extend beyond the site scale or to 

persist indefinitely. In Alternatives 2 or 3, the effects of surface erosion would not compromise soil 

integrity within or beyond the LJCRP.

Sediment from Road Reconstruction, Road Decommissioning, and Road 

Maintenance

Road reconstruction and road maintenance activities have the potential to indirectly introduce fine 

sediment into stream channels. Road maintenance prior to log haul would help maintain the designed

drainage of the road surface, which reduces the potential for larger sediment inputs to runoff that 

eventually enters stream courses. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to re-open closed roads. Additionally, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to utilize approximately 12.6 miles of temporary road. Temporary road 

construction would establish four intermittent stream crossings that would be designed for use during 

the dry season and would be decommissioned immediately following harvest activities that use the 

temporary road. 

Maintenance of the existing system roads prior to hauling would include measures to upgrade the 

quality of the road bed and to improve road drainage. This includes the placement of new aggregate 

surfacing where necessary, blading, removing debris from landslides, brushing of encroaching 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

110 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

vegetation, removing berms, ditch and culvert inlet cleanout, and repairing several sections of asphalt 

road surface. Aggregate road surfacing greatly minimizes the amount of fine sediment from road 

surfaces entering streams following log haul, especially during and following rainfall events. 

Additionally, deep patch repairs to the roadbed are proposed along some segments of the haul route.

Road-related ground-disturbing activities are designed to minimize the risk of sediment being 

transported to streams from erosion or surface run-off. Road work would be restricted to the dry 

season. This restriction would reduce the risk of surface erosion due to ground disturbance. The 12.6 

miles of temporary road construction crosses four intermittent streams.

All new temporary roads would be decommissioned and re-vegetated directly following completion 

of harvest operations to help reduce compaction, increase infiltration rates, minimize surface erosion, 

and re-establish natural drainage patterns. When appropriate, temporary roads would be constructed 

on existing road footprints or in areas of previous disturbance. In instances where actions would 

greatly increase the potential to spread invasive plants or adversely affect sensitive species, avoidance 

would be preferred. Additionally, temporary road placement would be avoided on unsuitable soils or 

in steep areas that would be more prone to surface erosion (see PDCs, Appendix J).

Road maintenance prior to log hauling also increases the risk of road related sediment entering 

streams near road crossing during rainfall events. This increase is associated primarily with aggregate 

and native surface roads although ditch cleaning associated with paved roads is a potential sediment 

source. Any fine sediment created by road maintenance activities would most likely be washed from 

the road surface in the first few precipitation events of the fall that are sufficient to cause runoff from 

the road surface. Although there is a possibility of increased sediment entering streams due to these 

activities, most road-related sediment would be trapped and stored in the ditches or on the forest floor 

below cross drains. 

Road maintenance and road reconstruction would likely cause short-term increases in surface erosion 

by destabilizing compacted soil and sediment aggregates. By design, road maintenance and road 

reconstruction are intended to minimize road-related erosion and erosive potential throughout periods 

of increased road use. Improvements, such as culvert replacements, ditch cleaning, surface 

recontouring, roadside revegetation and reinforcing road foundations are likely to have beneficial

effects by minimizing surface sediment yield, reducing the probability of road failure and improving 

hydrologic function. Some road decommissioning would decompact and destabilize the surface, 

increasing the susceptibility of surface erosion. After effective ground cover is reestablished and the 

site is stable it will be a lower threat for surface erosion. The time for a site to stabilize varies but can 

take anywhere from three months to two years. In both action alternatives, six culverts would be 

upgraded to withstand a 100 year peak flow event, and approximately 85 miles of road would be 

reconstructed or maintained to limit road-related erosion and improve hydrologic function.

Decompacting the road surface during decommissioning or obliteration activities loosens the soil, 

thus making it more likely to be mobilized during the first significant run-off period unless the road is 

on relatively flat terrain, not near streams, or sufficient ground cover (mulch, woody debris, etc.) is 

provided. Project design criteria, best management practices, and R6 guidelines on seeding using 

native seed with input from the local botanist would help prevent erosion after the first significant 

run-off. Best management practices, specifically “exposed soils would have required erosion control 

treatments completed the same year they are constructed, even if they are not completed to final 

acceptance specifications. If the same area requires further disturbance to complete the road 

construction, it would be treated for erosion control and re-vegetated as needed to insure surface soil 

protection (Appendix J). In addition, best management practices and project design criteria addressing 

noxious weeds, with review from the local invasive species manager would be followed. Since there 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 111

is culvert removal associated with some of the proposed decommissioning activities, there is the 

potential to deliver sediment into stream channels during project implementation. Road 

decommissioning near streams would have short-term, construction-related effects. These projects 

may cause a short-term degradation of water quality due to sediment input and turbidity. Stream bank 

condition and habitat substrate may also be adversely affected in the short term. This would be a 

short-term effect since turbid conditions would dissipate soon after the in-stream work phase was 

completed, generally in a few hours. However with careful project design and mitigation measures 

such as erosion control, these effects are expected to be of a limited extent and duration. 

Project design criteria and associated BMPs for road decommissioning (Appendix J) would reduce 

the risk of sediment entering any stream course. The impacts to water quality caused by 

sedimentation due to temporary road construction, or road decommissioning, if any, would be shortterm and undetectable at the watershed scale.

Sediment from Harvest Activities

Thinning, particularly within RHCAs, is a potentially ground disturbing activity that has the potential 

to cause a temporary reduction in water quality by allowing sediment to enter stream channels from 

surface erosion or run-off. Tree falling, ground-based yarding methods, and to some extent cable 

yarding methods disturb soils that may result in minor erosion or displacement at the site level. 

Ground-based harvesting equipment and cable yarding does cause some direct soil displacement 

which would be mitigated through PDC. Most of the soil movement/erosion resulting from timber 

harvesting would travel short distances before being trapped by duff, woody materials, and other 

obstructions. The probability of overland surface runoff on uncompacted soil surfaces is also low for 

the soils in the LJCRP area.

Best Management Practices (Appendix J, AqEco) would incorporate delineation of PACFISH RHCAs

along all intermittent streams in old forest structures. To further reduce the risk of surface erosion

entering streams as fine sediment, only low impact harvesting equipment, which have minimal 

ground disturbance would be allowed as described in the PDCs (Soils-2, Soils-5). Mechanical 

harvesting equipment would be required to operate on slash-covered paths, and travel routes would be 

limited to one pass over a path whenever possible. Trees would be directionally felled away from the 

RHCAs to minimize the disturbance to the forest floor. 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas would not be treated in alternative 3; and only about 10 percent

of RHCAs would be treated in AAlternative 2. Hence, RHCAs would generally act as an effective 

barrier to any sediment being transported into stream channels by surface erosion or run-off and 

would minimize the risk of any channel or water quality impacts. The RHCAs would likely retain any 

displaced and eroded soil before it is transported to the stream channel. The RHCAs would also allow 

soil infiltration between the unit and any water source. Surface roughness, vegetation, and duff in 

RHCAs would filter most sediment coming off surfaces before reaching streams. The use of skyline 

or helicopter yarding systems on steeper ground would reduce ground disturbance, thus lowering the 

probability of soil displacement within the LJCRP area. Seasonal restrictions on ground-based 

harvesting operations would further reduce the risk of soil disturbance and run-off. Even if some soil 

movement occurred, the RHCAs would act as an effective barrier. The probability that measurable 

amounts of fine sediment would enter any stream within the project area as a direct result of forest 

vegetation treatment activity is low (See WEPP analysis in the Physical Environment supporting 

documentation).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

112 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Yarding would be accomplished utilizing a combination of tractor, skyline, and helicopter logging 

systems. Project Design Criteria (Soils-8) and BMPs (AqEco) would minimize erosion by using 

techniques such as seasonal restrictions and RHCAs.

All ground-based tractor operations would take place on slopes averaging less than 35% (Soils-2) and 

should operate in accordance with the PDCs (Soils-5, Soils-8) and BMPs (AqEco). This restriction 

may be waived if soils are dry or frozen or if operators switch to skyline or other non-ground based 

systems. Whenever possible, mechanical harvesters and forwarders should work on a layer of residual 

slash placed in the harvester path prior to advancing the equipment. Alternatively, operating over 

frozen ground (four inches) and snow cover (two feet) would mitigate most soils impacts. District or 

Forest Soil and Water specialists would be consulted in regard to any waiver pertaining to using 

ground-based logging systems outside the normal operating season.

All skyline yarding would incorporate one end or full suspension, such as when yarding over a stream 

channel or through corridors within RHCAs. 

Some soil disturbance is expected to occur along skyline corridors in these units, making soil 

available for movement. Erosion control work following yarding activities would reduce the amount 

of soil that moves off site in the event surface runoff does occur. The RHCAs would intercept most 

soil movement and greatly reduce the amount of sediment delivery to any stream. Implementation of 

these BMPs would result in an un-measureable amount of sediment being delivered to streams. 

Sediment from Log Haul

Log haul traffic on aggregate surface or native surfaced roads has the potential to introduce sediment 

in small quantities to streams. Traffic breaks down surfacing material resulting in finer surface 

gradation and increased sediment transport from the road surface. Any fine sediment created by 

hauling traffic would more than likely be washed from the road surface in the first precipitation event 

that is sufficient to cause runoff from the road surface. Any input of sediment is expected to be 

minimal, as the roads where there is a potential for surface run-off are asphalt or durable crushed 

rock. Native surfaced road use would be restricted to periods when road related runoff is not present 

and as such, little sediment is expected to leave the road bed while haul is occurring. 

During the wet season, log haul would only be permitted on asphalt and rocked roads when 

conditions would prevent sediment delivery to streams. In periods of high rain-fall, the Forest Service 

would restrict log hauling to minimize water quality impacts. Haul would be stopped if there is rutting 

of the road surface or a noticeable increase in the turbidity of water draining to the road ditches or at 

stream crossings. 

Log hauling would not measurably increase the amount of fine sediment in streams. The roads along 

the haul routes are generally rocked or paved at stream crossings, and road ditches are vegetated. 

Road maintenance prior to log haul would help maintain the design drainage of the road surface,

which reduces the potential for sediment to runoff into stream courses. Road maintenance and 

reconstruction would have a beneficial effect on slope stability and would reduce the risk of water 

quality and resource damage from the use of these roads. The potential for sediment input into 

streams along the haul routes would further be minimized by permitting haul only when conditions 

would prevent sediment delivery to streams. An analysis of sediment delivered from haul routes and 

temporary roads to stream reaches was conducted using the Watershed Erosion Prediction Project 

model. Modeling indicates that there is negligible difference in the sediment derived from haul 

between Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternatives 2 and 3 use approximately the same haul system. 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 113

Chemical Contamination

Under Alternatives 2 or 3, a dust abatement (typically magnesium chloride) spill or petroleum spill 

could potentially result in direct effects to aquatic resources and the beneficial uses of water. Dust 

abatement would be applied to aggregate haul roads as needed, up to 260 miles total over the lifetime 

of the project. The risk of water contamination due to the application of dust abatement is minimized 

under Alternatives 2 or 3 by several mitigation measures that would be required under the timber sale 

contract. Dust abatement with chemical compounds under Alternatives 2 and 3 include maintaining 

an average 100 foot no-application buffer at perennial stream crossings. Moreover, the application of 

dust abatement materials would normally occur only once per year in a window of time when no rain 

is forecast for at least three days. The buffering of applications away from perennial stream crossings 

has been found to effectively mitigate pollution of adjacent waters (USDA Forest Service 1999). The 

rate of application of dust abatement compounds in the planning area would be “typical” and

therefore is not expected to contribute to adverse riparian or aquatic effects. 

Magnesium chloride is typically used on a limited basis and at low application rates, as compared to 

study areas where the most noticeable effects have been seen. Based on the literature review and 

typical application rates for dust abatement purposes that would be used in the LJCRP planning area, 

effects from these compounds to plants and animals in the riparian and aquatic environments would 

be negligible under Alternatives 2 or 3. 

Timber sale purchasers would be required to have spill prevention and recovery equipment on site, 

they would be required to develop spill prevention plans if substantial amounts of fuel or other 

pollutants are stored in sale areas, and traffic control measures would be required in the timber sale 

contract. All of these requirements associated with Alternatives 2 and 3, detailed in Chapter 2, 

function to diminish the chances that potential direct effects to aquatic resources and the beneficial 

uses of water from project-related pollutants would actually occur. Thus, risk of chemical 

contamination is considered to be low for both Alternatives 2 and 3.

None of the alternatives are expected to appreciably affect water quality over the long-term (decades, 

or longer), and none are expected to contribute to chemical contamination or have a measurable effect 

on the nutrient regime unless an accidental spill were to occur. The chances of such a spill are offset 

as much as possible by a series of BMPs required for the actions in the alternatives.

Any impacts to water quality associated with contamination of water would be short-term and likely 

localized. As such, the broad-scale goals of the Clean Water Act as implemented through the Lower 

Grande Ronde TMDL (2010) and WWNF Forest Plan as amended by PACFISH would not be 

compromised.

Alternatives 2 or 3 would present more risk of indirect effects to downstream beneficial uses than 

Alternative 1 because of the amount of potentially polluting products transported to the project area. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 present similar risks of an accidental spill contaminating off-site or downstream 

waters and the beneficial uses of those waters. The likelihood of an accidental spill is believed to be 

low under Alternatives 2 or 3; therefore no mitigation measures would be applied to the transport of 

potential pollutants outside the timber sale areas. 

Mass Wasting 

Mass wasting is a natural geomorphic process that supplies sediment and debris to streams for the 

structure and complexity needed for quality aquatic habitat. Human activity can intensify mass 

wasting to an extent that degrades habitat by destabilizing slopes through vegetation removal, water 

diversions and road construction.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

114 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

A review of historic landslide data from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mining Industries 

(2014) does not indicate occurrences of recent shallow landslides within the LJCRP analysis area. The 

floods during the winter of the 1996-1997 generated minor debris flows and incised many of the 

upland channels in the project area. The magnitude and distribution of the effects associated with the 

floods of 1996-1997 are characteristic of 50 – 100 year water event (Sondenaa and Kozusko 2003, US 

Geological Survey 2014). For all sediment modeling, 30 and 50 year weather data composites were 

used from the Wallowa weather station to statistically capture the 1996-1997 flood events. A Generic 

Erosion Potential model (Burnett 2007) was used across the landscape, which approximates mass 

wasting potential based on slope and slope convergence. Other site specific variables, such as soils 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture 2014), vegetative cover, climate and underlying geology were 

evaluated in the field and from the best available data. Based on this analysis, activities proposed in 

the action alternatives are unlikely to increase the timing, frequency or intensity of mass wasting 

events. Most risk is mitigated through the implementation of RHCAs, equipment restrictions on steep 

or unstable ground and the lack of new permanent features, such as roads, to intercept surface water. 

In both Alternatives 2 and 3, there are 110 acres of ground based timber harvest proposed in areas of 

lower relative stability or approximately 1.5 percent of areas proposed for ground based harvest and 

12.6 miles of temporary roads.

Project design features, such as RHCAs, equipment restrictions on steep or unstable areas and the 

restoration of temporary roads and existing legacy roads greatly reduces the risk of a mass wasting 

event being triggered under Alternatives 2 or 3. At the landscape scale, surface erosion may increase 

substantially in the event of a large scale disturbance. The treatments proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 

would mitigate some of this risk by restoring stand structures and species compositions (see 

Vegetation/Disturbance sections of this chapter).

Soil Productivity

Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSC) directly impact soil productivity by displacement, compaction, 

loss of organic matter, rutting, erosion and loss of porosity. Land management activities, such as road 

construction and heavy equipment operation, have the greatest potential to create detrimental soil 

conditions. In Alternatives 2 or 3 there would be some effect to DSCs. As described in PDC Soils-7 

and Soils-8 there are existing DSCs from past activities. Each of these activities has an expected 

impact to the DSC (Bennett 1982, Archuleta 1997, Siskiyou National Forest 1997, Archuleta 1999, 

Reeves et al. 2011), which can influence soil productivity. 

While Reeves et al. (2011) offers a comprehensive list of expected detrimental effects, it appears 

these estimates may underestimate effects if certain conditions are present or absent. The following 

were used in DSC calculations to provide more locally adapted values: ground based 10 percent

(Archuleta 1997, 1999), skyline 5 percent, helicopter 1 percent (Siskiyou National Forest 1997), 

prescribed burning 1 percent (Bennett 1982). Land managers can reasonably predict that helicopter 

and skyline harvest activities would not degrade soil conditions below acceptable tolerances (Reeves 

et al. 2011). Therefore, temporary roads and ground based harvest activities would be the primary 

focus and measure of DSCs. DSC surveys were conducted in a manner consistent with regional and 

local standards (PDC, Soils-7; Physical Environment Supporting Documentation).

Extensive soil degradation across a landscape may affect long-term productivity of growing sites, 

limiting the potential to express vegetation as it would under unimpeded growing conditions (Grigal 

2000). Limiting site potential may compromise the potential of achieving a vegetative structural and 

species composition consistent with the RV, which, in turn, can affect wildlife species, natural 

resource economics and resilience to disturbances. However, the scope and extent of the actions 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 115

proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 in the LJCRP, with or without remediation, are unlikely to have 

measurable effects on productivity beyond the site scale.

Mining

The direct effect to mining prospectors or future mining operators is a possibility in that the selection 

of these alternatives could modify motorized access that was previously available for the purpose of 

mining or prospecting. 

If, as a result of implementing these alternatives, roads that are not designated as available for motor 

vehicle travel because they would be removed or would be physically closed with barriers, berms, or 

gates would limit access without additional coordination with the District Ranger and additional 

administrative oversight. 

Generally, all alternatives (including Alternative 1) have the potential to increase the social and 

economic impacts to mining operators. In all alternatives, the potential for previous physical closure 

decisions to be implemented could continue to occur into the foreseeable future. It is expected that 

without a regular rotation of vegetation projects, it is highly likely that many would begin to revegetate within a 10 year period and would be grown closed within a 15 year period, decreasing 

motor vehicle access. It is unknown how much of an issue this would become; however, it is 

recognized as a potential effect of designated motor vehicle routes. 

As roads are physically closed or decommissioned over time by previous site specific project 

decisions, or as they grow closed due to lack of maintenance, the cost to mining operations would

increase as the burden to open and maintain access roads for mining shifts from the government to the 

operator. The operator would have to assume all cost associated with maintenance, operation, and 

reclamation of the road.

Socially, the need for regulatory oversight may increase under all action alternatives as roads are 

closed and decommissioned. Economically, the cost associated with maintaining roads to a standard 

that reduces impacts to adjacent national forest resources would be the responsibility of the operator. 

Due to the current absent demand for mineral resources within the analysis area, the anticipated 

cumulative effect to mining is minimal.

Water Quality and Temperature

The LJCRP is in compliance with the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Lower Grande Ronde TMDL 

(2010). By implementing and monitoring water quality related Best Management Practices (see 

Appendix J), Alternatives 2 and 3 would minimize the probability of degrading waters within the 

LJCRP area or downstream. Any effects would by short lived and only detectable at the site scale. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the proposed activities may indirectly benefit water quality by potentially 

reducing the severity of wildfires. High intensity wildfires and fire suppression management have the 

potential to degrade water quality through increased runoff and erosion, accelerated nutrient inputs 

and through chemical spill or misapplications of fire retardant. 

Water Quantity – Stream Flows

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no direct, measureable effect on the hydrographs for waterways 

within the LJCRP area. A consistent record of streamflow data within the LJCRP area is lacking;

however, other waterways adjacent to the planning area do not indicate a strong peak flow response to 

management actions (US Geological Survey 2014). No new permanent roads are proposed in any 

alternative that could further modify the drainage network. The proposed road closures and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

116 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

decommissioning in alternatives 2 and 3 are unlikely to produce a measurable response in stream 

flows. Moreover, the proposed forest treatments would not alter stand densities in excess of the range 

of variation (See Vegetation/Disturbance sections). However, if the proposed treatments are 

successful in the mitigating the risk of a high intensity wildfire, there may be an indirect benefit of 

reducing the probability of adverse wildfire effects (widespread loss of canopy cover and ground 

cover, soil hydrophobicity) that have the potential to modify the timing and intensity of stream flows. 

Water Quantity - Groundwater 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no direct, measurable effect on groundwater resources. Source water 

protection would be satisfied through the implementation of BMPs (Appendix J) and the delineation 

of RHCAs. Equipment supporting the proposed restoration activities has the potential to locally and 

temporarily impact groundwater resources in the event of a chemical spill (See discussion on 

chemical contamination and stream flows). 

Wetlands and Floodplains

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have no adverse impact on floodplains or wetlands and is therefore 

consistent with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. Floodplains and wetlands would be protected by 

delineation of RHCA buffers in Alternative 3. In Alternative 2, conifers encroaching approximately 

three miles of Swamp Creek (within the floodplain) may be thinned to meet RMOs by taking steps to 

restore structure, pattern and species composition of overstory vegetation (Appendix J). All other 

floodplains and wetlands would be protected by applicable RHCA buffers in Alternative 2. Wetlands 

were initially identified through a review of the National Wetlands Inventory data that were derived 

from selectively field validated remotely sensed data. Floodplains were modeled using digital 

elevation models and calculating the area inundated during a 100-year flood (See Physical 

Environment Report).

Air Quality

Prescribed burning of forest fuels (logging slash or natural fuel treatment) would comply with Oregon 

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

forest protection district as described in OAR 629-048-0500 to 0575. These rules establish emission 

limits for the size of particulate matter (PM10/PM2.5) that may be released during these activities. 

Huff (1995) found PM 10 smoke production was twice as high for wildfires as for prescribed fire 

because wildfires generally occur during drought periods in which there are low fuel moistures and 

more fuel available for consumption. Their research in the Grande Ronde Basin found the following 

levels of PM10 emissions (Table 41). This study did not look at PM 2.5 as a subset of PM 10 but

smoke production models used to submit burn plans to the State of Oregon at the time of 

implementation would show the respective levels. Past experience with this modeling has shown a 

similar trend in the level of PM 2.5.

Table 41. PM10 emissions in the Grande Ronde Basin for prescribed fire and wildfire

Fire Type PM 10 (tons/acre)

Wildfire 0.318

Prescribed Fire 0.167

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, up to 90,000 acres are available to manage with fire. Air quality and 

smoke emissions would be similar under both alternatives and would follow the established rules to 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 117

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

meet the purpose and need of the LJCRP. The number of acres accomplished per year would be 

determined by established emission limits negotiated with the State of Oregon, funding, appropriate 

burn conditions, and personnel availability. Over the past decade the Wallowa Mountains Office of 

the WWNF has accomplished approximately 3,500 acres of prescribed fire annually with existing 

personnel during appropriate burn windows to meet prescription parameters. It is reasonable to expect 

a similar level of annual accomplishment.

The Biological Environment

Disturbance and Fire Regimes

Harvest, Stand Improvement, and Prescribed Fire

Treatments under Alternatives 2 and 3 are designed to use evidence based ecologically informed 

principles to restore function and processes and appropriate disturbance regimes in a landscape 

created by disturbance. Guidelines found in Franklin et al. (2013) and local range of variability 

estimates inform how disturbance regimes regulated forest structure and composition and contributed 

to landscape resilience. Alternatives 2 and 3 manipulate forest structure, density, and composition as 

well as landscape pattern in a way to reduce uncharacteristic disturbance due to density dependent 

mortality (insects) and compositional influenced mortality (disease and fire). These treatments also 

lead to a reduction in uncharacteristic moderate and replacement severity fire as a result of an 

increase in fire-intolerant species, decreased abundance of fire-tolerant species, multi-storied stands 

that increase ability of fire to influence canopy fuels, and densification of forest stands across the 

landscape that increase the continuity and amount of fuel across the LJCRP area. 

Prescribed fire as a silvicultural tool is critical to restoring health, resiliency, adaptability and process 

to the forested landscape within LJCRP. Franklin et al. (2013) indicate that fire will be a constant in 

the dry forests of eastern Oregon and Washington and will neither be eliminated nor would it be 

desirable to do so. Alternatives 2 and 3 recognize the ecological need to manage fire (planned and 

unplanned) to meet the purpose and need of this project and to move the landscape toward more 

resilient conditions, while mitigating undesirable effects of higher proportions of unnaturally high 

severity fire. There would be areas of mixed severity from planned and unplanned fire that provide 

opportunities to regenerate early seral species at the stand and landscape scale. These opportunities 

may vary in size from < 1 acre to 10’s of acres. These conditions would affect the LJCRP at an 

ecologically important scale for the types of forested systems found in the project area.

Under alternatives 2 and 3, up to 90,000 acres would be available for implementation of planned and 

unplanned ignitions. It is anticipated that some of this would be done using planned ignitions but 

realizing the limitation of burn windows, cost, and personnel this project encourages the use of 

unplanned ignitions so long as it is exhibiting fire behavior conducive to meeting the restoration 

objectives described in Chapters 1 and 2.

Planned ignition priority areas are identified for alternatives 2 and 3 (Table 9; Maps 20, 21) and 

described in the project design features for this document. High priority areas represent the acres that 

are treated with either harvest or SI, or are in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. 

Prescribed fire following harvest or SI serves to “complete” the first restoration step by mechanically 

moving forest structure, density, or composition toward the reference conditions as well as returning 

fire as a natural disturbance process to create natural patterns of heterogeneity. On acres treated with a 

combination of cutting and fire the departure from the natural fire regime would be moved toward 

desired conditions and a more natural disturbance regime. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

118 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

On high priority areas outside harvest and stand improvement (SI) areas, planned and unplanned fire 

would be used to alter forest density, structure, composition, and pattern. In general, density would be 

reduced due to small diameter tree mortality from canopy consumption or cambium scorch, and this 

would move the landscape closer to RV and begin to restore natural disturbance regimes. Improving 

large and old forest structure would occur by fire supporting restoration of old or early seral trees 

species of large size and reducing the number of smaller diameter young trees within the stand. Early 

seral tree species would be favored (not killed) by fire due to their inherent adaptive strategies to 

survive fire (thick bark, self-thinning crown, etc.). Returning fire to the system is a direct way to 

influence the restoration toward reference conditions, disturbance regimes, and reference patterns on 

the landscape. There would be areas of mixed severity fire (similar to a group selection harvest) that 

would provide the necessary environment to successfully regenerate early seral species across the 

landscape, a characteristic that is currently underrepresented. The moderate priority areas are located 

in the moist upland forest potential vegetation group, which have a higher relative probability of 

moderate/replacement severity fire. Low priority areas are dominated by non-forest vegetation and 

are not critical to meeting the forested vegetation portion of the restoration objectives.

Activity Fuels

Activity fuels, slash and brush derived from harvest in the forest treatements and SI treatments, would 

create a short term increase in fuel accumulation and potentially increase the severity of wildfire 

should it occur prior to fuel treatment. Activity fuels would be treated in a variety of ways including, 

but not limited to, mastication, removal, pile (grapple or hand) and burn, cutting and scattering limbs, 

or prescribed fire. 

Fire Management Decision Space

Alternatives 2 and 3 provide options for fire management to utilize planned and unplanned ignitions 

to influence the resilience and restoration of the LJCRP by reducing the amount of uncharacteristic 

severe wildfire. Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the risk of large, severe wildfires, which leave more

decision space than alternative 1 to allow unplanned fires to do the work of restoration, albeit to 

differing degrees. Alternative 2 prepares more acres for the re-introduction of fire, and reduces the 

risk of large, contiguous, severe wildfire, and therefore gives more options for using fire to protect 

important resource values such as old trees, late and old structure forests, riparian habitat 

conservation areas, wildlife habitat, IRA characteristics, PWA characteristics, or designated old 

growth. Alternative 3 treats less acres overall and in particular, subjects areas of high social value, 

such as RHCAs, IRAs, MA15, and PWAs to continued densification of fuel loads, and reduced 

resilience. Potential fire behavior would continue to be uncharacteristically severe, limiting the ability 

to manage planned or unplanned fire as a restorative process within and adjacent to these 

management allocations.

Forest Vegetation

Features specific to desired condition objectives have been designed into alternatives 2 and 3 to 

prevent adverse impacts and meet the standards and guidelines in the WWNF Forest Plan, as 

amended, under this EIS, and meet the LJCRP purpose and need. The comprehensive silviculture 

design is documented in Appendix J - Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures and Best

Management Practices.

See the project record for the decision matrix used to determine treatment type and intensity to move 

project area toward RV.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 119

The single tree selection (STS), group selection (GS) and intermediate treatments (IT) treatment types 

have a treatment intensity associated with them (high, moderate, low) indicating a post treatment 

desired density class. Table 42 illustrates the change from existing density class to post treatment 

density class based on treatment intensity.

Table 42. Relationship of treatment intensity to the desired post treatment density class

Post Treatment Density Class ↘

Treatment Intensity:

High Moderate Low

Existing Density:

High Low Moderate High

Moderate Low Moderate

Low Low

Understory and Rangeland Vegetation

Rangelands

Direct effects to rangeland resources and understory vegetation from activities proposed in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would include temporary loss of understory vegetation. This includes forage 

plants, through ground disturbance from logging activities, crushing and piling related to logging 

activities and prescribed fire. Loss of forage and understory canopy cover through logging and 

burning activities may require a period of rest prior to grazing, depending on the time of year 

treatments occur, how much bare soil is exposed, and the condition of understory plants after 

treatments. This would have to be determined by the range manager and botanist after treatments 

have been implemented (Project Design Criteria, Range-1).

Indirect effects could include further degradation through spread of noxious weeds in pastures 

identified at risk by Wallowa County (2014). Indicators of Rangeland Health assessments showed 

most pastures were in fair to good condition, but a few had more bare soil than expected, as 

determined by factors such as soil type, topography, and plant association. Pastures with more bare 

soil than expected could be at greater risk of having noxious weeds and invasive annual grasses 

introduced or increased through ground disturbance related to restoration activities. North Wildhorse 

pasture in the Cold Springs allotment is of particular concern, since it is in HCNRA as well as the 

Wildhorse IRA. Project design criteria (see Invasive Plant sections and Appendix J) would reduce risk 

of spreading invasive non-native plants. For most of the pastures in LJCRP, low to moderate intensity 

fire may increase fire resilient grass species such as pinegrass (USDA Forest Service 2014a) and 

silvicultural treatments as well as prescribed burning may increase forage and browse cover (Young 

1965, Kolb 1999, Long et al. 2008a). 

Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan standards and guides give direction to allocate forage resources on an 

allotment and/or management area to meet the basic plant and soils needs as the first priority. The 

HCNRA CMP gives similar guidance: For-O2: Manage livestock grazing within forested stands to 

ensure ecological function and sustainability of understory vegetation consistent with management of 

overstory vegetation objectives. Use grazing-related standards and guidelines to manage grazed 

forested understory vegetation; Gra-O1: Manage grassland vegetation to ensure continued ecological 

function and sustainability of native ecosystems. Maintain and/or restore the ecological status of 

grassland communities to their potential natural community (PNC), recognizing their HRV; and GraG1: Emphasize enhancement and/or restoration of potential native vegetation. Project Design Criteria 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

120 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

would guide forage use: Range–1 The range manager would work with the timber sale officer with 

respect to the timing and location of logging operations; Range–5 The botanist, invasive species 

specialist and range manager would work together to determine whether prescribed fire or other 

vegetation restoration activities would require resting portions of the pasture treated; and Range–7 the 

range manager would work with fire management to determine timing and location of prescribed fire. 

Range-2, 3 and 4 would help protect fences and keep livestock in planned locations.

Map 19 shows Alternative 2 treatments relative to grazing allotments in the LJCRP area. See the 

range specialist report for acres by pasture.

Noxious Weeds and other Non-native Invasive Plants

The risk of spreading noxious weeds is associated with ground disturbing activities that create bare 

soil openings in native vegetation; hot burns that kill native vegetation and sterilize the soil; and 

activities that have the potential to transport noxious weeds and invasive non-native plants to 

currently uninfested areas. Shade under forest canopies substantially limits weed growth. Invasive 

plant density drops in shaded environments (Hansen and Clevenger 2005, Pauchard and Alaback 

2006, Buonopane et al. 2013). Buonopane et al. (2013) found high rates of noxious weed seeds in the 

topsoil and litter layer well within the forest adjacent to infested roadsides. This indicates that 

invasives would be readily introduced to nearby disturbed areas even if no invasive plants are visible 

under the existing forest canopy (USDA Forest Service 2015b). Areas infested with invasive nonnative annual grasses also burn hot, especially where cheatgrass has established. Road improvements 

such as grading, rocking and clearing ditches are ground disturbing and have a high potential risk for 

spreading existing noxious weed populations. It is relatively easy to observe that weeds tend to 

concentrate along roads, where there is frequently disturbed soil, and nutrient rich run-off that 

concentrates in roadside ditches. Guidance for controlling noxious weeds can be found in both the 

WWNF LRMP: Standards 1 and 2; control noxious weeds using integrated pest management, and 

HCNRA CMP: NOX-01, manage noxious weeds to reduce adverse effects to native ecosystems. 

Region 6 NFM Invasive Species Program Management Direction outlines methods to prevent the 

introduction and spread of invasive species (Prevention Standards 1-8). Planned temporary roads are 

common to both alternatives, while mileage appears to be low, some temporary roads would be 

constructed through weed populations and the risk of spread is high. 

Particularly relevant prevention standards mitigating road grading and construction in LJCRP are R6 

Standard 7: Inspect active gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material for invasive 

plants before use and transport; and 8: Conduct road blading, brushing and ditch cleaning in areas 

with high concentrations of invasive plants in consultation with District or Forest-level invasive plant 

specialists, incorporate invasive plant prevention practices as appropriate. Project design criteria to 

help prevent the spread of noxious weeds as a result of road grading and improvement are: INVP–1 

Treat noxious weeds with approved methods as found, prior to ground disturbing activities; and 

INVP–3 Avoid prescribed fire and ground disturbance from activities such as logging operations and 

road grading where invasive plant populations, including non-native invasive grasses, are found.

Risks from prescribed fire are related to burning activity fuels. Piles that are too large can have 

prolonged duration and greater intensity, increasing the risk of sterilizing the soil. Bare open areas are 

ideal for noxious weed establishment. Prescribed fire and burning activity fuels has the potential to 

spread noxious weeds. R6 Standard 13: Native plant materials are the first choice in revegetation for 

restoration and rehabilitation where timely natural regeneration of the native plant community is not 

likely to occur. Project Design Criteria INVP–3: Avoid prescribed fire and ground disturbance from 

activities such as logging operations and road grading where invasive plant populations, including 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 121

non-native invasive grasses, are found; and INVP–5: All landings, burn piles, skid trails and other 

disturbed areas created as part of a this vegetation restoration project, would be rehabilitated and 

seeded as per Pacific Northwest Region, Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive 

Plants Prevention Standard 2 (October 2005), and FSM 2070.3, with the input and approval of the 

District Botanist, would help reduce risk of noxious weed spread related to prescribed burning.

Threatened, Endangered and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants

Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants 

Currently there are no known Spalding’s catchfly populations within the project area. Direct effects of 

fire and commercial thinning as well as indirect effects from invasive non-native plants and grazing 

were considered because they have the potential to degrade or reduce potential habitat for Spalding’s 

catchfly. However, design criteria incorporated into the project proposal would preclude direct and 

indirect effects to Spalding’s catchfly habitat from project activities. Connected actions including road 

maintenance, hazard tree removal, and various forms of hazard fuels treatments were considered and 

project design criteria would preclude effects from connected actions. Project design criteria include 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Resource Management Plan and HCNRA CMP 

standards and guides for TES plants; specifically to maintain all native communities and ensure that 

no natural species shall be eliminated during vegetation management. Specific project design criteria 

are: No road construction activities, or staging areas (such as landings, parking, piling) on nonforested habitats such as lithosols, grasslands, or meadows; and clearance for TES plant populations 

would be done prior to project activities. Known TES plant populations would be flagged prior to 

road grading and other road improvements, designation of parking areas and landings, and logging, 

with work overseen by a journey level botanist. Detailed analysis for Spalding’s catchfly can be 

found in the biological assessment.. Alternatives 2 and 3 may affect but are not likely to adversely 

affect (NLAA) Spalding’s catchfly.

Direct and Indirect Effects to R6 Sensitive Plants

A detailed analysis of suspected and known TES plant species by habitat was done for LJCRP. 

Habitats considered were coniferous forest, grasslands, lithosols/shallow soils, rock 

outcrops/talus/scree, moist meadows/wet meadows/riparian/springs and seeps. The TES plant species

rough rabbitweed (Pyrrocoma scaberula) and green-band mariposa lily (Calochortus macrocarpus 

var. maculosus) are documented from grasslands. White erigerons (Erigeron disparipilus and E. 

davisii) and Wallowa needlegrass (Achnatherum wallowaense) are documented from 

lithosols/shallow soils. The other habitats have suspected but no documented TES plant occurrences.

Coniferous Forest

For both Alternatives 2 and 3, coniferous forest habitat would be directly affected through ground 

disturbing activities associated with vegetation management, including commercial and noncommercial thinning, biomass removal, and activities associated with vegetation management such as 

yarding, slash piling, grinding, or scattering. Direct effects include crushing, uprooting, burial and 

other damage related to soil disturbance. Indirect effects to forested areas resulting from logging and 

thinning would be loss of canopy closure and resulting changes in microclimate, altering the 

hydrologic regime and changing light intensity. Forest standards and guides for diversity such as 

providing an ecologically sound distribution and abundance of plant and animal communities at 

stand, basin and forest levels, as well as allowing for all natural species to function following 

vegetation treatments would be followed. Project design criteria TES-1, clearance surveys for TES 

and invasive plant populations; BIOD-2 leaving tree islands; and BIOD-3, maintain coarse woody 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

122 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

debris; would prevent the loss of any currently undetected TES plant populations, including fungi and 

bryophytes. 

Many of the areas proposed for vegetation treatment activities were not specifically surveyed for this 

project. Following forest standards and guides for TES plants and maintaining biodiversity, and using 

project design criteria would greatly reduce the risk of losing populations of sensitive plants in forest 

habitats; however, there is the chance that undiscovered populations of sensitive plant species may be 

impacted. Project activities may impact individual plants or habitat, but implementation of the action 

alternatives should not increase the need for Federal listing of any sensitive species. In general, the 

suspected sensitive plant species in the LJCRP area are found in moist upland forest rather than in dry 

upland forest. Direct and indirect effects may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely 

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

(MIIH). See appendix F and specialist’s report for species suspected in coniferous forest habitat. 

Within the coniferous forest habitat type, the HCNRA “Biologically Unique Plant Communities” 

ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue and Ponderosa Pine/Bluebunch Wheatgrass plant associations are 

included because there are documented sites within LJCRP. Ponderosa pine totally dominates as the 

only tree species able to persist in the PIPO/FEID type. Both of these plant associations are 

uncommon in the HCNRA. Most of the ponderosa pine-dominated communities are successional to 

Douglas-fir. Although ponderosa pine/bunchgrass communities with Idaho fescue and bluebunch 

wheatgrass potentials are found throughout the inland Pacific Northwest, sites that are too warm and 

too dry for Douglas-fir establishment are limited in the HCNRA.

Grand fir/Pacific yew/queencup beadlily is not identified in the HCNRA CMP as a biologically 

unique plant community. This habitat should be conserved due to its contribution to biodiversity in 

the LJCRP area and its rarity within the Blue Mountain ecoregion. Johnson and Simon (1987)

identified this plant association as being important to macrofauna such as deer and elk, as well as 

many species of birds. This plant association is at risk under both alternatives from both silvicultural 

treatments and prescribed fire. Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), is extremely sensitive to changes in 

microclimate and requires canopy closure to thrive, as well as long periods without disturbance 

(Busing et al. 1995). Yew is found in the LJCRP in closed canopy mixed conifer stands in moist sites, 

and Johnson (1998) describes yew as an indicator of a high water table. Pacific yew is fire intolerant 

and slow to recover after wildfire (Busing et al. 1995).Yew with a basal diameter (diameter at 6” 

above ground surface) of 9 inches and greater should be considered old trees (Crawford 1983). The 

suggested mitigation is no treatments within yew stands, and BIOD–2 leave tree islands in coniferous 

forest for conservation of native mycorrhizal fungi, yew, wet areas when these features are found or 

suspected in units.

Grasslands 

There are two grassland species documented in the LJCRP, green-band mariposa lily and rough 

rabbitweed. Both are regional endemics, meaning they are only found in our part of the world. There 

are thirteen records (ORBIC 2013) of rough rabbitweed in the Joseph Canyon area; only one 

population is in the project area, the other twelve are adjacent, with eleven on the adjacent Nez Perce 

Tribe Precious Lands area, and one on BLM land. The known site of rough rabbitweed is just below 

(north of) the Allen Springs exclosure, which is not near any proposed thinning units, high priority 

prescribed burning areas, or any other activities associated with the LJCRP. The populations of 

green-band mariposa lily are slightly more plentiful with ten populations within the LJCRP area, and 

another six populations on other land ownerships. Both green-band mariposa lily and rough 

rabbitweed are concentrated at the very north end of the LJCRP area, extending north into other land 

ownerships. Green-band mariposa and rough rabbitweed tend to grow in grassland between stringers 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 123

of forest. See separate analyses for Alternatives 2 and 3 for effects determinations for grassland TES 

plants.

The HCNRA Biologically Unique Plant Community Mountain Big Sagebrush/Idaho Fescue plant 

association is considered with grassland habitats. This plant community is found on the extreme 

eastern edge of the LJCRP area. It is not documented within any treatment units, but it is close to the 

4680 (Cold Springs) road system. Managing mountain big sagebrush with prescribed fire can have 

mixed results. This plant community is readily killed by fire and requires at least 15 years to recover 

after fire. Frequent fire suppresses mountain big sagebrush establishment, while long fire return 

intervals promote tree invasion into mountain big sagebrush communities. Fire return intervals of 

about 20 years can be beneficial to mountain big sagebrush (Johnson 2000). However, fire does not 

result in substantial increases of herbaceous perennials on sites dominated by exotic annuals. 

Suggested mitigation is to avoid activities associated with mechanical treatments in this community. 

Prescribed fire would benefit this community, although grasslands are low priority for prescribed fire 

in both alternatives.

Lithosols/ Shallow Soils

There are three sensitive plants documented from lithosol habitats: Wallowa needlegrass, Snake River 

daisy, and Davis fleabane. Snake River daisy and Davis fleabane occupy the same type of habitat and 

are virtually indistinguishable in the field, thus for this analysis would be considered together as the 

white fleabanes. During the course of the 2014 TES plant surveys, new populations of Wallowa 

needlegrass and white fleabanes were discovered, as well as extensions of previously documented 

populations. The white fleabanes found in 2014 have not yet been identified to species and were all 

tentatively lumped into Davis fleabane. Most of the new Wallowa needlegrass sites are extensions of 

existing sites. Wallowa needlegrass is found south of Red Hill. The white fleabanes are found north 

of Red Hill, with the largest concentrations in the Cold Spring Ridge vicinity and Wildhorse Ridge, 

both of which are in HCNRA. White fleabane populations are found in both the Wallowa District and 

HCNRA. Wallowa needlegrass is found only on the Wallowa District. See separate analyses for 

Alternatives 2 and 3 for effects determinations for lithosol/shallow soils TES plants.

The Biologically Unique Plant Community Douglas’ buckwheat-Sandberg’s bluegrass plant 

community type is found in shallow soils. Recommended mitigations are the same as for TES plants 

in lithosols/shallow soils.

Rock Outcrops, Talus, Scree 

There are no documented species from rock outcrops, talus, and scree. Habitat could be degraded 

through thinning activities such as felling or yarding near forested rock outcrops, which could kill 

plants living there. Prescribed fire generally does not burn in this habitat type, due to the low fuel 

levels. The main activity that may impact this habitat type is rock quarrying, or road construction. 

The removal of rocks through quarrying or road construction could directly kill plants by excavating 

them. Quarrying may potentially indirectly impact this habitat by exposing roots of plants that are not 

directly removed.

Project design criteria that protect rock outcrop habitat would provide a high level of protection to 

these habitats. BIOD–4, avoid yarding over rock outcrops and talus slopes. Leave trees and shrubs 

adjacent to rock outcrops, talus as a microclimate buffer. Because the project design criteria would 

protect cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus in the project planning area, the implementation of Alternative 

2 or Alternative 3 should have no impact (NI) to cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus habitats, or to any 

sensitive species that may occur there.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

124 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Moist Meadows, Wet Meadows, Riparian, Springs and Seeps

Effects to TES Plants found in this habitat are discussed in detail under Alternative 2.

The quaking aspen plant community types are included as one of the HCNRA CMP Biologically 

Unique Plant Communities. Although quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) are not documented from 

the HCNRA portion of LJCRP, they are found within the project area and are considered important 

for conservation within the Blue Mountain ecoregion. Aspen can occur in meadows and meadow 

margins as well as in mixed conifer forest associated with shallow water tables. Aspen can benefit 

greatly from prescribed fire, if they are protected from ungulate use in seedling and sapling stages of 

growth. If aspen are found in meadow or forest habitats, suggested mitigations are to treat areas by 

thinning conifers, or removing conifer encroachment from meadows and using prescribed fire. In 

addition, fencing may be required until aspen regeneration has developed enough to withstand 

ungulate use. Project design criteria TESP-3: No road construction activities, or staging areas (such as 

landings, parking, piling) on non-forested habitats such as lithosols, grasslands, or meadows; and BIO 

–1: Avoid disturbing natural seeps and springs, wet meadows, moist meadows would conserve this 

community type.

Effects Common to all Habitats

The effects of road maintenance, decommissioning, and new construction are common to all TES 

habitats, except rock outcrops, and can directly kill or dislodge sensitive plants. Road work and new 

roads may also indirectly lead to an increase in grazing activity due to the increased ease of travel for 

animals on the roads. New temporary roads and improved roads may also lead to increases in the 

amount of off-road driving to collect firewood, camp, and retrieve game. Road maintenance activities 

contribute to the movement of invasive species along road shoulders and ditches, and to and from 

quarry and waste disposal areas. Invasive species may potentially outcompete or prevent the 

recruitment of new sensitive plant populations. Project design criteria are included that should help to 

reduce the chance of increasing invasive plant abundance in the project planning area. Closure of 

temporary roads and currently closed roads that would be reopened should help to reduce these 

impacts in the long term. The risk would only occur during the time that the sale is active until the 

roads are reclosed, and or, decommissioned. 

Potential indirect effects of temporary road construction include vehicle use on the new road and 

adjacent areas, increases in invasive plants, and changes in water movement across the landscape. 

Road decommissioning and temporary road building is planned across limited areas in these habitat 

types. Project design criteria require areas with high potential habitat for sensitive plants to be 

surveyed for rare plants before project implementation. 

Prescribed fire or slash pile burning could scorch sensitive plant individuals within the fire area, and 

also may kill plants under and directly adjacent to slash piles. Fire line construction has the potential 

to directly kill or dislodge sensitive plants in the area that is denuded. Natural fire generally occurs in 

mid to late summer. Prescribed fire is typically done when fuel moisture is conducive to achieving 

desired fire effects. Early spring or late summer/fall are typical times of year where burn parameters 

(relative humidity, fuel moisture, temperature) are conducive to successfully implementing prescribed 

burns that are easy to manage and create the desired fire effects (predominantly low-mixed severity).

It is unknown if burning sensitive plants when they are actively growing would cause more mortality 

than when they may be senescent later in the summer. Project design criteria to use prescribed fire 

prior to green-up would help avoid detrimental impacts to herbs, grasses, and shrubs. Generally, 

during green-up, fuel moistures are typically too high to accomplish burn objectives. Prescribed fire 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 125

after silvicultural treatments would remove understory vegetation, woody debris, and litter, impacting 

microclimate as well as soil temperature and moisture.

In summary, both Alternatives 2 and 3 would protect all known populations of sensitive plants from 

ground disturbing activities through project design criteria and Forest Plan direction. A botanist would 

be consulted if any of the areas where the populations occur are within prescribed burn areas. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend 

toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) in forested 

habitats, grasslands, and lithosol/rigid sagebrush/shallow soils habitats. In other habitats, where there 

are no documented species, there is protection of TES habitats through policies and mitigations; and 

where disturbance is not expected, both Alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to have no impact 

(NI) on TES habitat or species.

Wildlife 

Primary Cavity Excavators

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-1-Wild-14 (Appendix J) would be implemented. These 

include protection measures for large trees, large snags, down-logs during harvest and burning 

activities. Snags > 12” are only to be removed due to safety considerations. Harvest of large trees (>

21” dbh) is allowed only in Alternative 2 on up to 5,000 acres, excluding areas within MA15, PFAs, 

and cool-moist large tree, closed canopied forests.

Snag habitat is currently adequate in the PPDF wildlife habitat type, and below reference conditions 

in the EMC habitat type. No snags are prescribed for harvest in any of the alternatives. However, it is 

likely that snag density would decline in areas treated due to safety, skid trails, firewood cutting, and 

other reasons (Harrod et al. 2009, Hessburg et al. 2010). Prescribed fire would also likely result in 

loss of snags, particularly in the large (>20”) size class (Finch et al. 1997, Pilliod et al. 2006). Fire 

severity during the burn operations contributes largely to the expected impacts to snags and downed 

wood loss and recruitment.

The vegetation treatments proposed would adversely impact current and future dead and defective 

wood habitat. Harvest treatment is proposed on about 38 percent and 24 percent of the forested 

landscape under Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. It can be assumed that within treatment areas there 

would be a reduction in snags and logs due to skid trails, landings, safety reasons and prescribed 

burning. Proposed activities (tree harvest and prescribed fire) are expected to help create habitat for 

primary cavity excavators (PCEs) that use open forests (e.g. white-headed woodpeckers) and reduce 

habitat for those PCEs using dense forests (e.g. pileated woodpeckers). It can be assumed that the 

greater treatment acres in Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 3 would result in a greater reduction 

in snags and logs due to skid trails, landings, safety and prescribed fire, though mitigation measures 

are designed to minimize this loss. 

It is unknown how the prescriptions using the ICO (individual, clumps, and openings) may affect the 

future development of snags. In the ‘clumps’ that are left un-harvested, natural snag creating 

mechanism such as density would remain and snags would continue to develop in both the short and 

long-term. However, in areas that are thinned ‘individuals’, snag creating mechanisms may be 

removed, thus at least in the short-term, natural snag creation may happen less often than in the 

current more dense stands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

126 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative 2 harvests more acres than Alternative 3, thus there is a greater reduction in snag and 

down-wood habitat elements in Alternative 2 due to safety and placement of skid trails, landings, and 

prescribed fire.

The potential removal of trees >21” dbh on up to 5,100 acres in Alternative 2 (32 percent of the 

commercial harvest area) may likely negatively affect the long-term recruitment of snag habitat, as 

these trees would no longer be available as potential snags (no trees > 21” would be cut in 

Alternatives 1 and 3).

Because Alternative 3 does not remove trees >21” dbh and harvest occurs on fewer acres, the loss of 

current and future snag and down-log habitat is less than in Alternative 2.

Road closures and decommissioning would reduce disturbance and limit access for firewood cutting 

and snag loss. Miles of open roads and an ‘open forest’ for use by motor vehicles cumulatively limit 

the amount of snags across the landscape. Alternative 1 reduces open road miles from the existing 

condition by 52 miles (existing decisions that have not yet been implemented). Alternative 2 reduces 

the number of miles of open road from existing condition by 69 miles, and Alternative 3 reduces the 

miles of open road from existing condition by 9 miles.

The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects would result in a small negative trend in dead and 

defective wood habitat in the short term. Mitigation measures (PDCs) would be in place to protect 

large snags during both harvesting and prescribed burning activities (Appendix J). The changes in

habitat would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The LJCRP is consistent with the LRMP, and 

thus continued viability of MIS for dead and defective wood habitat is expected on the WWNF in 

both alternatives 2 and 3.

American Marten

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-1-Wild-14, and Wild-24 (Appendix J) would be 

implemented. These mitigation measures include protection measures for large trees, large snags, 

downed logs during harvest and burning activities. Snags > 12” are only to be removed due to safety 

considerations. Harvest of trees greater than 21” dbh is allowed only in Alternative 2 and on 

approximately 5,000 acres, excluding areas within MA15s, PFAs, and cool-moist large tree, closed 

canopied forests. Wild-27 states: Because marten habitat is at the lower end of the RV, any harvesting 

within marten habitat (moist forests, large tree, closed canopy) is designed to maintain old forest 

characteristics. Canopy closure would remain > 60 percent, and no harvest of trees > 21” dbh in 

moist, large tree, closed canopied forests. LJCRP would maintain snags and large down wood that 

American marten need for denning, rest areas, and hunting. Large broken top and potentially hollow 

grand fir would be maintained for denning habitat. 

Commercial harvest treatments in the LJCRP area would not contribute to the reduction of marten 

source habitat on the WWNF; large diameter trees and multiple canopy layers would be retained in 

both action alternatives. Treated stands would maintain canopy closure at >60 percent, and no trees 

>21”dbh would be harvested in marten source habitat. It is assumed that post-harvest these stands 

would be maintained as source habitat. It is likely that in the short-term they may meet minimum 

qualifications as source habitat, but the quality of the habitat may be reduced due to reduced 

complexity and tree density, and potential loss of snags and logs due to logging operations and safety. 

Approximately 35 percent of marten source habitat has some form of forest treatment (38 percent in 

Alternative 2, 33 percent in Alternative 3; Table 36), which may cause a decline in the quality of 

source habitat in the short term. Approximately 110 acres (114 in Alternative 2, 108 in Alternative 3) 

would be harvested in marten habitat using group selection/moderate density. Group selections can 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 127

include openings that are 1⁄4 - 4 acres. Martens respond negatively to low levels of habitat 

fragmentation (Hargis et al. 1999), it may be that openings as large as 4 acres would reduce the 

quality of the habitat for marten. In the longer-term, as trees continue to grow, American marten

would continue to use these harvested areas for some, or all, of their life history functions. 

Vegetation treatments in alternatives 2 and 3 are assumed to modify fire behavior and reduce the 

likelihood of a stand replacement event, thereby potentially retaining source habitat in the long-term. 

Treatments remain outside a larger block of moist larger tree structure within and adjacent to the 

MA15 located along Peavine Creek, providing some protection to this area by lessening the risk for 

high severity fire. In both Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be a loss of down wood, resultant prey 

availability and subnivean access due to fuels reduction treatments (Bull and Blumton 1999). 

Because this project proposes some commercial treatment and because the planning area is currently 

at the lower end of the HRV, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects would result in a small 

negative trend of habitat quality. The loss of habitat quality would be insignificant at the scale of the 

Forest (Table 43) and would likely be short-term as the remaining trees continue to grow. The LJCRP

is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the American marten is expected on 

the WWNF in both Alternatives 2 and 3.

Table 43. Summary of impacts to American marten habitat (acres) by alternative at the scale of the 

project area as well as the entire Wallowa-Whitman NF.

Source habitat 

(acres) (% HRV) Existing Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Project Area Habitat 2,200 (17%) 2,200 (17%) 2,200 (17%)

Habitat treated but 

maintained as habitat 820 730

Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest* (from 

Wales et al. 2011)

129,600 (16%) 129,600

(16%) 129,600 (16%)

Pileated Woodpecker

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-1-Wild1-14, and Wild-26-27 (Appendix J) would be 

implemented. These include protection measures for large trees, large snags, and downed logs during 

harvest and burning activities. Snags > 12” are only to be removed due to safety considerations. 

Harvest of large trees is allowed only in Alternative 2 and on up to 5,000 acres, excluding areas 

within MA15s, PFAs, and cool-moist large tree, closed canopied forests. Wild-29, -30, -31 describe 

measures to protect pileated woodpecker nests. 

Habitat for pileated woodpeckers declines in Alternative 2 by about 400 acres and by about 900 acres 

in Alternative 3 though the abundance of source habitat remains within the HRV (Table 34). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

128 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Additionally harvest would reduce the habitat quality on approximately 27 percent of source habitat 

in Alternative 2, and 16 percent in Alternative 3. Additionally the removal of trees > 21” dbh in 

Alternative 2 on about 740 acres further reduces the quality of source habitat on those acres. 

At the scale of the project area, the abundance of source habitat is projected to remain within the HRV 

under any of the alternatives. At the scale of the Forest, the abundance of source habitat is not 

expected to change significantly (Table 44), and the pileated woodpecker is expected to remain 

viable. The miles of open road would be reduced from the existing condition by 69 miles in 

Alternative 2, and 9 miles in Alternative 3. A reduction in road miles would be beneficial to this 

species.

Table 44. Summary of impacts to pileated woodpecker habitat by Alternative (acres of source habitat)

Existing Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Project Area (% HRV) 7,400 (16%) 7,000 (15%) 6,600 (14%)

Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest*

206,200 (14%) 199,100 (13%) 199,600 (13%) 

* acres calculated by Wales et. al. (2011)

Though some current pileated woodpecker source habitat would be harvested, and the quality of the 

habitat may be reduced, overall source habitat would remain within the RV for this species in the 

LJCRP area. Protection measures are in place to conserve large trees, large snags and down-logs 

during harvest and prescribed fire activities. In the longer term (> 20 years) habitat quality and 

quantity would continue to increase as the trees grow, canopy closure increases, and snags are created 

from normal disturbance processes. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a negative trend in 

viability on the WWNFt for the pileated woodpecker.

Northern Goshawk

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-1-Wild11, and Wild-15-23 (Appendix J) would be

implemented. These provide protection measure for goshawk PFA’s and large trees, large snags, 

down-logs during harvest and burning activities.

All alternatives maintain the abundance of source habitat within the RV (Table 35). Though 

commercial harvest occurs within source habitat in both Alternatives 2 and 3, the abundance of source 

habitat not treated remains within the RV. Much of the harvested areas retains canopy closure at > 40

percent, and though habitat quality may be reduced, the area likely would provide habitat, and with 

time the canopy closure and tree size would increase. Additionally the harvest of large trees (> 21” 

dbh) in Alternative 2 would likely contribute to the loss of habitat quality in the harvested stands. 

Within the six known goshawk nesting areas, design elements would maintain overall stand structure 

within the 400 acre PFAs, with the desired condition to provide areas with larger trees, higher canopy, 

multiple canopy layers, large logs, and large snags. 

Though some current goshawk source habitat would be harvested, and the quality of the habitat may 

be reduced, overall source habitat would remain within the RV for this species in the LJCRP area. 

PDCs measures would be in place to conserve PFAs, large trees, large snags and down-logs during 

harvest and prescribed fire activities. In the longer term (> 20 years) habitat quality and quantity 

would continue to increase as the trees grow, canopy closure increases, and snags are created from 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 129

normal disturbance processes. Therefore, the LJCRP would not contribute to a negative trend in 

viability on the WWNF for the northern goshawks (Table 45). 

Table 45. Summary of impacts to Northern Goshawk habitat (acres) by alternative

Existing Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Project Area – source 

habitat (% of HRV)

19,000 (34%) 15,000 (27%) 15,800 (29%)

Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest – source 

habitat*

440,300 (27%) 425,400 (27%) 437,200 (27%)

* acres calculated by Wales et. al. (2011)

Rocky Mountain Elk

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-29-31 (Appendix J) would be implemented. These include 

protection measures to reduce human disturbance during winter and calving season. Additionally 

Wild-29 provides guidance on retaining hiding cover patches in areas where forest treatment activities 

occur. 

Forest treatment activities would result in a loss of cover (canopy closure > 40 percent) and an 

increase in potential forage (< 40 percent canopy closure) habitat. Research results on the effects of 

forest restoration treatments (thinning followed by primarily broadcast burning) in northeast Oregon 

have found that elk would likely respond positively to treatment in the spring due to an increased 

cover and abundance of some important forage species, while the opposite may be true for during the 

hotter summer months (Long et al. 2008b, Long et al. 2008a). In the summer areas with relatively 

open canopy cover, most grass species and many forb species have cured or senesced by about midJuly as a result of increased exposure to direct sunlight. Within untreated areas or areas with denser 

canopy cover, important forage species often persist for several weeks longer. The authors suggest 

that maintaining a mosaic of treated and untreated forest habitats across the landscape would likely be 

beneficial for foraging habitat. Recent research has shown that the adequacy of summer nutrition in 

the Pacific Northwest drives the productivity of elk and probably other ungulate populations (Cook et 

al. 2013). 

Both forest treatment and prescribed fire activity may also contribute an increase in forage quantity 

and quality, especially in the spring. Alternative 2 proposes harvest on more acres than Alternative 3.

Increased miles of open roads have adverse effects on habitat effectiveness by taking land out of 

production, reducing the effectiveness of cover, and increasing disturbance to elk. Alternative 2

reduces the miles of open road from the existing condition by about 69 miles, while Alternative 3 

proposes reducing open miles by about 9 miles. Open road densities are reduced from the existing 

condition in all of the subwatersheds in Alternative 2, and are reduced slightly in 3 subwatersheds in 

Alternative 3 (Table 3).

HEI scores are slightly improved in Alternatives 2 and 3 from existing condition, and meet LRMP

guidelines (Table 37). 

Historically there were game species, including elk that warranted serious conservation concerns due 

to depressed populations and range contractions resulting from unregulated market and sport hunting 

and loss of habitat. Many of the factors that contributed to the decline of large wild ungulates in the 

past do not exist today. Currently, elk populations on the WWNF are regulated by hunting and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

130 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

predation. Elk numbers are substantially higher than what would constitute a concern over species 

viability. Elk would remain viable under all alternatives.

Landbird and Migratory Bird Habitat

Effects assume that Project Design Criteria and mitigation measures in Appendix J would be 

implemented. Several mitigation measures include protections for large snags, trees and down-wood 

during harvest and prescribed fire activities. In particular, Wild-10 states: Prescribed burning during 

active nesting period (e.g. May 20 or post leaf-out) for nesting landbirds will be coordinated with 

district or forest biologist.

Effects from this project to migratory birds would be variable and would depend on the species (see 

wildlife specialist’s report). Alternative 2 would treat more acres and contain more prescribed burned 

than Alternative 3. In Alternative 2 canopy cover would be reduced on more acres, large trees would

be harvested, snag levels would be reduced, and riparian areas would be treated toward RMOs.

Road densities would be reduced more in Alternative 2 than any other alternative, which would likely 

benefit all of these migratory birds. Road-associated factors that adversely affect some species of 

migratory and resident birds include: snag and log reduction, habitat loss and fragmentation, negative 

edge effects, harassment or disturbance, collisions, displacement or avoidance, and chronic negative 

interactions with humans (Gaines et al. 2003). 

In the short-term, some nesting habitat may be lost because of forest treatments and prescribed fire, 

but the scale at which it would occur is not expected to significantly reduce migratory bird richness or 

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

would not result in their complete displacement from the project area. The short-term losses of 

relatively abundant, early-nesting species, such as the dark-eyed junco, may be a necessary tradeoff 

for the effective restoration of dry forests. Such losses may be further justified if populations of other 

species, such as the flammulated owl, white-headed woodpecker, and pygmy nuthatch, ultimately 

benefit from such restoration. While the long-term overall shift in forest structure would favor species 

dependent on open canopied forests, this is the forest type that is most outside of the RV. A mosaic of 

forest and rangeland conditions capable of supporting breeding migratory bird populations would

exist if the project is implemented and move the landscape, thus habitat conditions closer to the RV. 

There is no indication that habitat changes from the project would result in reduced numbers of these 

birds that would be meaningful at local or landscape scales. See the Wildlife specialist’s report in the 

project record for more information.

Threatened, Endangered, and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Wildlife Species

Effects assume that Project Design Criteria and mitigation measures in Appendix J and the Forest 

Plan would be implemented. Measures would protect known nesting/roosting/breeding areas and 

other important habitats known for TES species.

All alternatives of the LJCRP would have no effect (NE) to the Canada lynx because it is not 

considered present on the WWNF (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior 

2006). 

The LJCRP area may contain some incidental roosting habitat for bald eagles, but does not contain 

nesting habitat. None of the alternatives would alter this habitat enough to make it unsuitable for bald 

eagles; therefore this project would have no impact (NI) on bald eagles or their habitat. 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 131

Peregrine falcons have been sighted within the LJCRP area. Potential nest sites have been identified 

but suitable nest ledges are limited as are larger bodies of water for prey concentrations. Alternatives 

2 and 3 would have no impact (NI) on the peregrine falcon.

Habitat for the Lewis’ woodpecker is uncommon in the LJCRP analysis area. Primary source habitat 

is provided in recent wildfire habitat; little of this habitat exists within the planning area. Riparian 

habitat and corresponding RHCAs would be conserved within the project area. Ponderosa pines over 

21 inches dbh would likely not be cut; hence, large ponderosa pine habitat near riparian habitat would 

not be altered. LRMP standards and/or guidelines protect large (> 21” dbh) trees and snags, though 

some harvesting of large trees is permitted in Alternative 2 (Appendix J). Vegetation treatments would 

likely produce source habitat in the xeric pine types through the reduction in canopy closure, though 

the potential loss of large snags may reduce habitat quality. Overall, there would likely be a beneficial 

effect to Lewis’ woodpecker from Alternatives 2 and 3. 

The viability outcome forest-wide for the white-headed woodpecker historically was projected to be 

an “A” (suitable environments are broadly distributed and of high abundance across the historical 

range of the species), while currently the viability outcome is projected to be an “E” (suitable 

environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance relative to historical conditions). 

This results in a high level of concern for the viability of the white-headed woodpecker. The main 

factor leading to this level of concern is the historic loss of large, open canopied ponderosa pine 

habitat resulting in levels far below RV for these habitats. Alternatives 2 and 3 both increase the 

amount of source habitat composed of large, open canopied ponderosa pine forest. Both Alternatives 

2 and 3 should benefit the white-headed woodpecker.

The primary threats to grey wolves are human disturbance, mortality from shooting and vehicle 

collisions (Wisdom et al. 2000). Primary concerns for activities that would affect grey wolves in the 

LJCRP area are 1) disturbance to denning or rendezvous sites, and 2) providing adequate habitat for 

populations of prey species such as elk (USDA Forest Service 2009). No denning or rendezvous sites 

have been identified within the LJCRP area (though a new pack is suspected to be using the area), and 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are not expected to impact big game prey availability (see section on Rocky 

Mountain elk). Any of the alternatives would have no effect (NE) to the gray wolf.

Fringed myotis appears to be most common in drier woodlands roosting in large trees and snags. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose forest treatments on 15,750 and 10,300 acres respectively. Though snags 

are not prescribed for harvest, large snags would be removed due to safety and logging operations 

(e.g. skid trails). Additionally in Alternative 2, large trees (>21” dbh) may be removed. Removal of 

these large trees would result in a loss of potential roosting habitat. The road closures proposed in 

Alternative 2 would reduce the loss of future snags caused by firewood cutting and safety

considerations. With this taken into account, Alternative 2 and 3 may impact individuals or habitat 

(MIIH) but are not expected to lead to a population decline of the species, or contribute to a trend 

toward federal listing of cause, or a loss of viability to the population or species.

No management activities are proposed in any of the alternatives at or near potential caves or mines 

that may provide Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat. Although treatment is anticipated within foraging 

habitat for this species, it is to be undertaken with the intent of restoring vegetation to what was 

expected to occur historically. It is likely that proposed management activities may impact individuals 

or habitat (MIIH) under Alternatives 2 or 3 but would not contribute to a trend toward federal listing 

or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

132 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Johnson’s Hairstreak

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the harvest of trees from within OFMS stands of 4,000 acres and 3,000 

acres, respectively, likely would directly impact Johnson’s hairstreak by removing trees with 

mistletoe and potentially killing larvae should they occur within the LJCRP area. Alternatives 2 and 3

may also indirectly impact Johnson’s hairstreak by reducing the available amount of larval host 

plants. However, mistletoe is abundant within the project area and the level of harvest proposed in 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would not significantly reduce the availability of host plants for this species. For 

these reason, Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact individuals or their habitat (MIIH) but are not expected 

to lead to a decline in the population of the species, or contribute to a trend toward federal listing or 

cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Intermountain Sulphur Butterfly and Western Bumblebee

Prescribed fire has the potential to affect both the intermountain sulphur butterfly and the western 

bumblebee in the immediate short-term. Alternatives 2 and 3 both propose to burn more than 45,000 

high priority acres, though not all acres would be burned at once. It is expected that implementation 

of the prescribed fire would take place over a 10 year time span. This has the potential to eliminate

food plants and insects in those areas but also increase the viability of food sources in the coming 

years and renew flowering plants as long as the diversity of unburned and burned areas is retained. 

For these reasons, Alternatives 2 or 3 may impact individuals or their habitat (MIIH) but are not 

expected to lead to a decline in the population of the species, or contribute to a trend toward federal 

listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Aquatic Habitat

Stand Improvement Activities

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 propose 750 acres of stand improvement treatments within category 4 

RHCAs. These acres would be treated to move these forested stands toward RV for the LJCRP area. 

Stand improvement treatment prescriptions would follow the activity restrictions as described in 

Table 46 for all category streams.

Table 46. Activity restrictions according to the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 133

PACFISH/ 

INFISH 

Category

Fish Bearing 

and 

Designated 

Critical 

Habitat 

Streams

Permanently 

Flowing nonfish Bearing 

and Ponds, 

Lakes and 

wetlands > 1 

acres

Seasonally 

Flowing or 

Intermittent 

Streams, 

wetlands < 1 

acres, 

landslides 

and 

landslideprone areas

RHCA Restrictions* 

(Activities allowed outside 

the no activity stream buffer**)

Activity Default Activity Buffers

Thinning in 

RHCAs

100’ 75’ on slopes 

< 30%

50’ on slopes 

< 30%

treatment by hand only (no ground 

based equipment)

prior to treatment 500 – 2,500 stems 

per acre; post treatment fully stocked 

(generally 175 – 220 trees per acre)

variable spacing

all shade providing trees and long 

term wood recruitment trees retained 

only trees < 9” dbh

Timber Harvest Activities

Impacts to the RMOs for pool frequency, large woody debris (LWD), bank stability, lower bank 

angle, and width-to-depth ratio are unlikely. Thinning units, skid trails, and landings would not be 

located in RHCAs under Alternatives 2 and 3, unless identified under the PDCs or BMPs. Restricting 

these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing pool habitat and 

future pool habitat. RHCA widths for Category 1 streams are sufficient to prevent removal of trees 

that have the potential to fall into stream channels as LWD and create pool habitat.

Impacts to channel morphology RMOs (i.e. bank stability, lower bank angle, and width-to-depth 

ratio) would not occur because activities that could result in mechanical bank disturbance would not 

occur in RHCAs under Alternatives 2 and 3. Some areas of decreased bank stability may occur where 

herbaceous vegetation along streambanks is top-killed during burning activities. 

Prescribed Fire Activities

Prescribed fire impacts to the RMOs for pool frequency, LWD, bank stability, lower bank angle, and 

width-to-depth ratio are unlikely. Proposed burning activities would not likely impact existing LWD 

or future LWD because the burn prescription would target consumption of material three inches and 

smaller. Fire intensities would not be high enough to consume trees or downed wood large enough to 

function as LWD (> 20” dbh) in stream channels. Prescribed fire activities would follow guidance 

outlined in the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria, and therefore prescribed fire activities are not

expected to result in a reduction of current or future levels of LWD or pool habitat under Alternatives 

2 and 3. 

Management Indicator Species – Aquatic Species

All of the LJCRP activities proposed would take place upslope from MIS fish presence, with the 

exception of approximately 31 acres of treatment along Swamp Creek. The direct effects to any MIS 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

134 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

fish species from this treatment would not be measurable. Therefore, there is no potential for direct 

effects to any MIS. There is potential for indirect affects to fish MIS downstream from the proposed 

activities. Aquatic habitat indicators potentially affected include fine sediment levels and LWD 

quantities. Road management could cause changes to local hydrology such as increased runoff rates, 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation. Tree removal could potentially reduce large wood availability 

in headwater streams not directly associated with MIS fish bearing streams. MIS life stages present in 

the area of exposure from the LJCRP activities include juvenile, adult, and eggs. These activities 

would occur upslope from MIS fish. 

Implementation of Standards and Guidelines in tthe LRMP as amended by PACFISH (USDA Forest 

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995) and PDCs (Appendix J) would avoid adverse

indirect effects to MIS. Road maintenance would result in an overall net reduction of road-related 

sediment delivery during the project and in the long-term. Road closures and some decommissioning 

proposed under Alternative 2 would result in further net reduction of road related sediment delivery. 

The result would be a beneficial effect to the sediment regime, caused by a reduction of 

anthropogenic-derived sediment delivered to the stream network as compared to current watershed 

conditions. Additionally, thinning densely stocked stands in the outer edge of RHCAs restore natural 

species composition and promote large tree growth. The largest trees are retained at expected stand 

densities. On perennial and fish bearing streams, there is a no harvest buffer 300 to 600 feet wide 

(total width) that when considered along with site potential tree height in the project area, would

maintain all existing LWD that could potentially fall into streams. 

Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 on MIS species or their habitat across the project area, when 

considered cumulatively with other activities in the project area, would be beneficial to some of the 

important habitat indicators. A net decrease to fine sediment levels is expected, which would improve 

habitat conditions for MIS and their habitat. Reduced sediment delivery improves important aquatic 

elements such as cleaner water, higher quality substrates for spawning and rearing habitat, and less 

pool infilling. Thinning densely stocked RHCAs improves vegetation conditions, which leads to 

increased large wood recruitment and creates more fire resilient stands along streams. The cumulative 

effects are within the scope of anticipated effects to aquatic resources determined in the Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 1990). 

The LJCRP would improve habitat conditions for the aquatic MIS in the project area. Anthropogenic 

fine sediment delivery in the project area would be decreased, and reduced delivery would be 

maintained after the project is completed. In the long-term, there would be a reduction in artificially 

induced sediment entering the stream system, benefiting aquatic MIS and their habitat. Therefore, the 

project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the WWNF for these species. 

The Social Environment

Recreation

The available types and annual use for dispersed recreation activities would not be affected 

unreasonably in the short and long term. No prohibitions are being made to the dispersed activities. 

Dispersed uses may fluctuate each year but other factors like weather, choosing a different vacation 

destination, fuel prices, and success/non-success of obtaining a hunting tag also influences use in an 

area.

The number, annual use and site capacity for developed recreation sites would not change in the short 

or the long term under any action alternative. All developed recreation sites would remain open, no 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 135

individual campsites/grounds would be altered, and use varies depending on factors other than the 

level of project activities.

The number of trail miles and use would not change in the short or long term. No prohibitions are 

being made to the number of trail miles or trails open and available for use. No change to crosscountry travel is proposed in any alternative within the LJCRP area.

The number of permits and areas would not change in the short or long term. No changes in the terms 

of the permits or available locations are part of this project.

The specific project activities with potential to impact recreation are common to all the proposals in 

Alternatives 2 and 3. Each of these alternatives propose different levels of activities but the effects to 

the public involved in different recreation endeavors common to the area are relatively the same. Both 

alternatives would include four main project activities that would affect recreation: 

• Commercial harvest

• Stand improvement harvest

• Prescribed burning (including post-harvest fuels treatment)

• Road and Access activities (i.e. danger tree removal along open system haul roads, haul roads, 

temporary road construction, permanent road reconstruction, road realignment, road 

decommissioning) 

Dispersed Recreation - Timber harvest, post-harvest, and prescribed fire activities may restrict user 

access into a treatment unit due to safety purposes, or users may be discouraged from entering a unit 

due to the presence of equipment and workers. This may occur in peak summer visitations or during 

the fall hunting seasons. Downed trees, slash piles, loss of forest-products (i.e. mushrooms, berries), 

active fire and residual smoke may also discourage visitor use in an area. Noise and other 

disturbances may affect the quality of the recreation experience for an individual regardless of the 

proximity to the activity. 

A change in natural features or landscape characteristics may elicit different responses in visitors. A 

visitor’s sense of place includes attachments to external factors like natural features or landscape 

characteristics. Important landscape features may consist of large old growth trees and groves, variety 

of trees species, an open or closed tree canopy, rock formations, water bodies, and natural appearing 

openings. The proposed treatments such as harvesting trees, reducing slash or altering canopy cover 

would change or remove some of these natural features. In some cases the changing landscape would 

change the context of some types of dispersed recreational activities (i.e. studying nature, viewing 

wildlife, big game hunting, photography). More information can be found in the Scenery section, 

below.

Direct effects to recreationists accessing dispersed camps in the project area or other areas would 

occur on roads during haul periods and would last only for the duration of the project. The presence 

of large trucks or an increased frequency of traffic may discourage road use to these sites until the 

road work subsides. When roads are being constructed/reconstructed visitors may expect delays or 

closures during work periods. 

Developed Recreation - Although similar to the effects of dispersed recreation, developed recreation 

is more limited due to the number of sites in LJRCP. Access to developed sites may be delayed or 

restricted during haul periods, or road construction. The presence of large log trucks and other 

equipment on haul routes may discourage users from driving the main access route to developed sites 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

136 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

or other associated activities outside of the developed recreation area. Noise and dust generated by 

equipment and increased logging traffic during harvest, post-harvest and smoke generated by 

prescribed fires may affect the quality of the recreation experience for a visitor regardless of the 

proximity to the activity. The frequency and intensity of these activities may vary from a few hours to 

several weeks. Some loss or change of vistas, scenery, natural features or wildlife viewing 

opportunities may result with the vegetation treatments and prescribed fire activities visible from the 

developed sites. 

Slash piles and prescribed burning would change some of the natural features and may discourage 

trail user activities. Effects to portions of the campgrounds/trails in or adjacent to harvest units would 

be limited and short-term. There is a mitigation no-activity buffer of 100 ft. surrounding developed 

campgrounds.

Proposed road closures or decommissions would not affect developed campgrounds or trails.

Permitted Uses – All permitted uses are authorized under the term and conditions of a permit that

allow activities not available to a non-permitted user. Most of these uses are tied to road access, and 

the removal of forest products is dependent on specific areas or vegetation. Permitted uses may be 

affected by project activities. Similar to dispersed recreation, timber harvest, post-harvest and 

prescribed fire activities have short term effects and may restrict or discourage entry into a harvest 

unit. Depending on the level of treatment activity, permit users may be displaced to other areas inside 

or outside LJCRP. 

Increased obstacles like downed trees and slash piles, or loss of forest-products (i.e. mushrooms, 

berries) would also change harvest patterns. Residual smoke, dust, fire, noise and equipment activity 

is also not conducive to a quality recreation experience. The same effects for road use described in 

‘Dispersed Recreation’ are also applicable to this recreation use. If roads are used for winter haul, 

they may be available for access by winter recreationists, like Christmas tree cutters who normally do 

not have access in many roads during the winter due to deep snow packs. 

Long term effects of harvest and post-harvest treatments would elicit various responses from permit 

users. Permit holders like mushroom pickers would find short term benefits from open, disturbed 

mixed-conifer forest stands, whereas berry pickers may view the loss of berry patches as an adverse

effect.

Scenery

The following summarizes the general effects to landscape character, scenic integrity, and scenic 

stability common to all action alternatives in the project area:

Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity 

• No regeneration harvests larger than 4 acres would occur in the project area. Single tree selection 

would make up the vast majority of forest restoration treatments. Group selection treatments 

would make up less than 13 percent of treatment acres, and would create small openings less than 

4 acres to support the regeneration of favored shade intolerant tree species such as ponderosa pine 

and western larch. 

• Enhancement of landscape character would be done by thinning and reducing dense stands of 

trees, providing variety in spatial distribution of plant communities and moving toward more 

variety in age classes. Large diameter trees would be retained within the range of variability for 

the potential vegetation group, and would stand out as more dominant after removing small trees 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 137

around them; views into the forest would be more open. Retention of seral tree species such as 

ponderosa pine and western larch would be favored.

• The proposed management activities begin the transition of moving the forest setting on a 

landscape scale toward the sustainable landscape character by reducing natural fuels and 

reintroducing the natural role of fire.

• Utilizing existing landings, roads, fire lines and natural fuel breaks as proposed would reduce 

further visual impacts associated with implementation. In these areas, visual impacts are 

contained in areas already impacted rather than introducing new impacts.

• Thinning treatment methods create texture changes to the existing dense to mosaic textured 

landscape and would blend in well.

• On the landscape scale, by using prescribed fire in a timely manner and in phased treatments, it is 

expected to reduce the future risk of a potential high intensity wildfire that would affect scenic 

quality and stability.

• Road maintenance would bring existing roads to a minimum maintenance standard. Numerous 

closed roads would be temporarily opened for commercial material access and removal and reclosed after harvest operations are complete. There would not be any new roads that would result 

in introducing new linear corridors in the landscape. 

• Stumps would be more evident in some areas of foreground of travel routes and dispersed sites. 

Coarse woody debris (slash) would be seen along travel routes before under burning, hand or 

machine piling, and pile burning. This would create a short term negative visual effect until the 

material is burned, decomposes or is softened by early successional grasses and forbs. The 

proposed under burning and pile burning may not entirely reduce the slash. 

• Prescribed fire has the potential to create larger openings in the landscape than intended, possibly 

burn out of the area intended, and/or to burn trees that are desired to be retained for scenic quality 

or other resource objectives.

The effects of specific forest restoration prescriptions common to all action alternatives are described 

below. All forest restoration treatment types would use the “individuals, clumps, and openings” 

approach, which mimics stand tree patterns that would have been found historically.

Single Tree Selection, Group Selection, Intermediate treatment 

Variable density thinning opens up the stands and provides greater viewing distances into the stand,

which is preferable. The appearance of the stands would be improved by retaining large trees, 

especially ponderosa pine and western larch. There would be a variation in tree spacing that retains a 

variety of density patterns and species compositions similar to historical conditions. The reduction of 

tree stocking levels would improve the resilience of the stands by reducing stress and ladder fuels, 

which reduces the risk of high insect and disease outbreaks, and stand replacement wildfire. These are 

benefits that contribute to the improvement of scenic stability when carried out at a landscape scale. 

Group selection would differ from single tree selection in that it would create one-half to four acre 

naturally-shaped openings to initiate new cohort of seral species (ponderosa pine and western larch). 

Intermediate treatment is similar to single tree selection except that is emphasizes isolating mistletoe 

infections and creating conditions that reduce intensification of infection.

This treatment would create stumps, slash and soil disturbance that would be visible from foreground 

views. These effects would be minor within the first one to two years. As regrowth of shrubs and 

grasses occur these effects would be significantly reduced. Single tree selection would not create 

openings that are visible from middleground or background distances. Small openings from group 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

138 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

selection treatments would be consistent in size and shape with historic patterns, and could be visible 

from middleground or background distances. The effects of this prescription would not reduce the 

scenic integrity of the units.

Savanna

This treatment type would reestablish grassland/forest edges and historic grasslands that have conifer 

encroachment. This would enhance scenic quality by restoring open savannas toward historic 

conditions, and promoting the reestablishment of native understory grasses and forbs.

Wildlife Connectivity Corridors

In wildlife connectivity corridors, restoration treatments would retain at least 40 percent canopy 

closure in dry forests, and 50percent in moist forests. Effects would be similar to those of single tree 

selection, described above.

Planned and Unplanned Fire

Fire is used to reduce litter and ladder fuels, and restore natural ecological processes. Planned and 

unplanned fire would be used on up to 90,000 acres, with harvested and stand improvement areas in 

dry forest being the highest priority; direct effects to scenery would be usually minimal and short 

lived. A growing season reduces the effects to the remaining scorched tree trunks, and dead saplings. 

This treatment most successfully conserves scenery resources when thorough site preparation is done 

prior to under burning. Fire at low intensity is a natural occurrence in this area, and its effects do not 

degrade the scenic quality. This treatment can greatly improve a stand’s resiliency to large stand 

replacement fire, which can adversely affect the scenic quality. Future prescribed burns, known as 

maintenance burns may be required in order to maintain the effectiveness of the proposed restoration 

treatments. These maintenance burns would be scheduled every 10 to 15 years, based on the average 

fire return interval in the LJCRP area. These maintenance treatments would protect the investment of 

an effective fuels treatment and increase the number of years before the area would need to be entered 

again for more extensive understory treatments.

Stand Improvement

This treatment reduces stocking levels within young, post disturbance stands to promote growth of 

desirable species and increase spatial heterogeneity toward the range of variability. Direct effects to 

scenery would be minimal and short term. The effects to scenery are limited to the foreground view 

effects of stumps, and slash. This treatment can improve stand resiliency to stand replacement fire, 

which can adversely affect the scenic quality. 

Activity created fuels treatments

Upon completion of commercial harvest activities, non-commercial material would be felled by hand 

crews and piled (or grapple piled), and jackpot burned, and/or masticated or left (depending on fuel 

loading) to further remove ladder fuels. Low intensity prescribed burning would occur after these 

treatments in areas that support fire tolerant ecosystems and drier biophysical environments. The 

effect of this treatment is similar to the under burning of natural fuels, however the scorching and soil 

exposure is usually more intense. This treatment removes small saplings and fire intolerant trees to 

increase the conditions for fire resistant trees to dominate these stands. Removing these trees 

improves the large tree character and opens view into the remaining stands. These effects are 

consistent with low intensity fire.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 139

Danger Tree Removal

Danger trees would be felled and removed along all haul routes used for timber sale activity. 

Removing large trees would create new stumps in foreground areas of recreation sites and scenic 

roads, but the scale would be small and maintain scenic quality.

Socioeconomics

Treatment Costs and Wildfire

Treatment is associated with a decrease in wildfire suppression costs and a decrease in net resource 

damage (Mercer et al. 2000). Prescribed burning is often preferred to mechanical thinning due to the 

lower cost of prescribed burning. However, depending on proximity to urban centers, a full 

accounting of the costs of prescribed burning may reveal that mechanical thinning is more 

economically efficient in some circumstances. The cost of smoke exposure, for instance, is higher 

when prescribed burning occurs near population centers. Mechanical treatment also has costs that are 

not accounted for in the cost of implementation, such as soil erosion. However, the indirect 

consequences of prescribed burning are more easily observable, which generally make it a less 

publicly popular treatment option. 

Fuel reduction projects can significantly reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire (Western Forestry 

Leadership Coalition (WFLC) 2009). Assessing the cost-benefit ratio of fuel reduction projects is 

questionable without information on the degree to which treatment reduces the risk of wildfire. 

Furthermore, the scale and cost of prevented wildfires is uncertain and widely variable. Anticipated 

reductions in the threat to human life and decreases in wildland fire related costs such as property 

loss, lost revenues and suppression costs are not included in the analysis of PNV for the alternatives. 

Fuels treatments under these alternatives would improve fuel conditions and make the surrounding 

area more resistant to large scale wildfires. While the PNV of restoration treatments is positive under 

all alternatives, the prevention of one fire could make the PNV of restoration activities significantly 

greater.

Timber Market and Forest Products

The LJCRP would likely increase the amount of timber on the market. In addition, the management 

alternatives assume high utilization by local processing, which seems likely according to the public 

meetings. While the market for timber may still be depressed, the current timber processors in the 

WWNF region seem to have enough product demand and capacity to process the forest products. 

As a result of the restoration treatments proposed under all of the alternatives, the long-term provision 

of forest products would provide the opportunity for stewardship contracting and improved 

utilization. Populations in the analysis area would be supported by these restoration treatments. Many 

of the restoration treatments produce commercially-valuable forest products. Table 33 shows the

project area’s potential for forest products in terms of maximum expected forest product volumes 

from treatments proposed under each alternative. These are the maximum annual volumes expected to 

occur over 10 years, or the life of the restoration project.

In addition, it is important to consider other benefits of harvesting timber on Forest land, such as the 

effects of removing fuels and improving wildfire mitigation and the potential to create jobs and 

income in the local economies. The benefits to the timber industry result from the healthy forest, as a 

result of the LJCRP, which can provide higher quality harvest of wood products. Harvest operations 

can also foster forest restoration efforts and generate income that can be retained locally to collect 

seed, prepare sites and plant the trees that would constitute the managed forest. The managed forest as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

140 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

a result of the LJCRP can provide valuable ecosystem services, such as wildfire mitigation, 

recreation, water quality, air quality, genetic diversity and wildlife habitat. 

Non-Market Values

Under the Affected Environment section above, ecosystem services were mentioned as a value that 

should be considered in the economic analysis, even though they can be difficult to quantify. 

Examples of ecosystem services that could be affected by the LJCRP are water quality, air quality, 

and biodiversity. These are all values that are not traded in markets and are often excluded from 

quantitative analysis. The non-market effects for each alternative are detailed below but exist under 

all alternatives.

As a part of ecosystem services, wildland fire is an integral natural process essential to sustaining 

healthy forest ecosystems. The restoration treatments under all of the action alternatives are expected 

to improve conditions of the forest health. Dense forests with high fuel loads can “threaten 

neighboring non-federal forests via their overcrowded and hazardous conditions that foster wildfire, 

pests, disease, and invasives” (American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) and Associated Oregon 

Loggers 2014). Trees weakened by pathogens and/or insects may also suffer greater mortality during 

fire than healthy trees (Parker et al. 2006). The LJCRP treatments are expected to reduce the spread of 

invasive species, improve biodiversity of plant and animal species, as well as improve the soil 

composition, water quality, air quality, and provision of aesthetically pleasing recreation

opportunities. 

Rangelands

None of the alternatives are expected to affect grazing operations in the Lower Joseph Creek area. 

There are no anticipated changes in AUMs on the allotments due to implementation of the LJCRP. 

The range AUMs are determined by permitting and LJCRP is not expected to change permitting. As a 

result, no changes in grazing-related employment and labor income are expected. Over the long term, 

improved forest health would improve forage quality and ranching viability. As noted in the Range 

report, there could be an increase in forage production due to the treatments. About 8-12 percent of 

the treated acres in allotments in Alternative 2 would show increased forage production and under 

Alternative 3, about 5-8 percent of the treated area in allotments would show increased forage 

production. Since the improvements to forest health are expected to be the greatest under Alternative 

2, there would likely be the greatest improvement to rangeland under this alternative. Once the 

restoration treatments have had time to improve the forest health, there may be more land suitable for 

grazing under all of the alternatives. However, the permitted range would have to change outside of 

this EIS before the community would see effects to employment and labor income from grazing.

Heritage

The spatial boundary for effects, common to all action alternatives for heritage resources, is the extent 

of treatment units. The temporal boundary common to all alternatives is the duration of restoration 

treatments over time; estimated as 10 years. Environmental consequences for Alternatives 2 and 3 

consider the application of design features and mitigation measures developed to protect the integrity 

of heritage resource values. Treatment activities associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 would comply 

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (seq. 1966) and the Programmatic

Agreement between the Pacific Northwest Region Forest Service, the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (on file Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest Supervisors Office). 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 141

Using the Programmatic Agreement as a guide, non-mechanized silvicultural practices (e.g. tree 

planting, cutting trees with a hand operated chainsaws) have little potential to affect historic 

properties. Activities associated with prescribed burning such as low-intensity burns, and fireline 

construction, would have moderate to low potential for effects, provided that historic properties 

sensitive to fire are avoided or protected.

Felling trees, skidding and landing logs, road construction and decommissioning, grading native 

surface roads, and the operation of wheeled and tracked vehicles have the greatest potential to effect 

heritage resources. Post-harvest activities often include piling and burning slash, obliterating 

temporary roads, and soil stabilization. Activities associated with mechanized silvicultural treatments 

pose the highest potential to impact heritage resources because they involve the operation of 

industrial-scale logging equipment. 

Studies in experimental archaeology suggest that skidding logs can damage the upper 20 cm of an 

archaeological site after just one skid. Tracked vehicles with 14 pounds of surface pressure per square 

inch can cause vertical artifact displacement and damage to artifacts (Philipek 1985). 

All sites located within or near ground disturbing treatment units would be visited and evaluated

under the selection of any action alternative. Sites determined potentially eligible to the National 

Register of Historic Places would be avoided and protected. Known cultural sites located within noncommercial treatment units, such as pre-commercial thinning, prescribed fire, and road work would

be guided by the Programmatic Agreement between R6 Forest Service and Oregon SHPO (2004) and 

would be evaluated for National Register eligibility. 

Protection measures for potentially eligible sites would be in place prior to ground disturbing 

activities (see Appendix J for Heritage Design Criteria # 2, 3, and 10).

Tribal

The spatial boundary for tribal interests is the LJCRP analysis area. The temporal boundary is for the 

duration of project implementation, expected to be 10 years. The Forest will always recognize the 

Federal-Tribal trust responsibility and tier to the laws and Executive Orders that call for government 

to government and staff to staff consultation processes in an effort to inform potential effects to tribal 

interests. Staff to staff consultation was ongoing throughout all phases of analysis, and would

continue through implementation. The Forest Service would also consult with tribal staff to develop 

consultation, management and/or protection strategies should specific concerns arise regarding 

potential effects to Nez Perce traditional use areas and resources. 

Research Natural Areas

Alternatives 2 and 3 would designate into perpetuity 338 acres of NFS land as the Horse Pasture 

Ridge Research Natural Area and 425 acres as the Haystack Rock Research Natural Area. During or 

after establishment, a management plan specific to the Horse Pasture Ridge and Haystack Rock areas 

would be written. Interim management of the areas would be followed as outlined in the LRMP, 

pages 4-84 and 4-85. The objective is to maintain the natural condition of the areas. No forest 

products or minerals would be removed, livestock grazing patterns would not be changed, fire activity 

would be limited to suppression only (unless fire is part of an approved research project), off road 

vehicles would be excluded, and recreation use would be managed at a low intensity level. 

Environmental consequences disclosed in the 1990 Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact 

Statement are still valid, and conditions and effects have not changed. Management strategies would

not change under the establishment, and no adverse or irreversible environmental consequences are 

expected.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

142 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Prescribed Fire: Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse, and Cook Ridge IRAs

Prescribed fire is planned for up to 90,000 acres within the LJCRP analysis boundary including within 

the IRAs. Treatment units and dry upland forest (dominated by low to mixed severity fire) are the 

highest priority for restoring fire to maintain and restore characteristic ecologic structures (Table 9). 

Returning fire to the IRAs supports restoration by influencing composition, density, structure, and 

landscape pattern. Second tier prioritization would include moist upland forest where fires tended to 

be of mixed to high severity. These forest types have experienced some level of departure but not to 

the same degree as dry upland forest and forests influenced by dry type disturbance regimes. The 

remainder of the landscape (non-forest) would make up the third priority areas with the exception of 

RNAs, which the Forest Plan prohibits the use of prescribed fire unless part of an approved research 

proposal. Table 47 shows the amount of high priority prescribed fire proposed under both alternatives. 

Alternative 2 proposes more than Alternative 3 because there would be no harvest or stand 

improvement within IRAs under Alternative 3.

Table 47. High priority prescribed fire areas by action alternative.

Roadless Name* Alternative 2 (acres) Alternative 3 (acres)

Joseph Canyon 8,700 8500

Wildhorse 9,800 8600

Cook Ridge 400 400

Total 18,900 17,500

*Mountain Sheep IRA has minimal area of high priority prescribed fire there would be no effect to 

roadless characteristics within this IRA.

The direct effects from prescribed fire would be the short term visual impact of smoke (during the 

fire) and blackened vegetation. Mortality would occur in fire sensitive species and small diameter ingrowth. Prescribed fire would be conducted to favor early seral tree species (ponderosa pine, western 

larch) of any age, and PDC’s are designed to protect habitat structures such as large snags and down 

wood (Appendix J, Wildlife). Trees would remain blackened longer than herbaceous, shrub, or 

grassland vegetation. Areas where prescribed fire occurs would appear as more open stands of early 

seral species, more light would be allowed through the forest canopy supporting a variety of 

understory plant species. In the long-term, the continuation of prescribed fire or use of unplanned 

ignitions managed to meet resource objectives would create a resilient landscape that would be 

natural appearing with high scenic quality, serve as potential for reference landscapes under historic 

disturbance regimes, and would support a wide variety of plant and animal communities associated 

with the LJCRP landscape. In the long term, it would be difficult to discern the difference between a 

naturally functioning fire regime and the type of prescribed fire planned for the LJCRP within the 

IRAs.

Short term prescribed fire effects include smoke, ash, blackened vegetation, small diameter tree 

mortality, potential incidental loss of existing large snags, and incidental creation of large snags 

through low level mortality of existing larger diameter live trees. These would be visible for one 

growing season to many decades (scorch marks on the boles of trees). These features would be 

expected to occur under reference conditions for the type of disturbance regime expected on this 

landscape. In the long term (many decades), the use of prescribed fire would support the restoration 

of forest structural attributes such as species composition, density, structure, and pattern. Therefore, 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 143

prescribed fire under both action alternatives would be consistent with and benefit many of the 

roadless characteristics and the restoration and maintenance of characteristic ecosystem structure. 

High Quality or Undeveloped Soil, Air and Water Quality 

Potential air quality impacts from prescribed fire would be seasonal in nature occurring 

predominantly in early spring or late fall. These impacts would only occur during prescribed fire 

activities and would generally dissipate within a week of ceasing activity. Implementation of 

landscape prescribed fire or activity fuel reduction within and surrounding the IRAs would follow the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements and authorized through Oregon Department of Forestry that 

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

Management Rules) for smoke management. Compliance with CAA, DEQ, and OAR require smoke 

and particulate matter production predictions during the time of prescribed fire to follow the 

permitting process that mitigates long-term health and visual impacts.

Sources of Public Drinking Water

There are no known sources of public drinking water in the Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse, Cook Ridge 

or Mountain Sheep IRAs. Furthermore, conservative riparian protections are prescribed in the IRAs 

that restrict the removal of large diameter vegetation in the RHCAs, which would protect all 

beneficial uses of water (See Appendix J). Therefore, this IRA characteristic would be maintained.

Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities

We do not have adequate information to determine whether native plant diversity is higher or of better 

quality within the IRAs in LJCRP vs. outside IRAs. Plant diversity and quality of habitat is expected 

to be similar within and outside IRAs. Concentration of livestock probably has the most influence on 

lowering habitat quality, e.g. cover of native plant species. Project design criteria Range–5 would 

ensure that the botanist, invasive species specialist and range manager would work together to 

determine whether prescribed fire or other vegetation restoration activities would require resting 

portions of the pasture treated, which would help protect plant diversity in IRAs.

Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for 

those species dependent upon large, undisturbed areas of land 

Wildlife: It is not expected that habitats for these species would be affected differently within the IRA 

as compared to outside. See discussion of potential affects to these species under the TES section of 

the FEIS. The most likely species that may be adversely affected by the management proposed within 

the IRA would include the fringed myotis, Johnson’s hairstreak, Intermountain sulphur butterfly, and 

the Western bumblebee. 

• The fringed myotis may be affected by the loss through harvest of large trees and snags. There 

would only be incidental harvest of large trees or snags due to safety concerns. The treatments 

proposed within the IRA meet the generally small diameter condition as shown in Figure 1. 

• The Johnson’s hairstreak may be affected by the reduction in mistletoe. 

• The Intermountain sulphur and western bumblebee may be affected by loss of preferred plants 

immediately following prescribed fire. 

These potential effects within the IRAs are likely short-term or negligible at the scale of the IRAs 

within the project area. Protection measures exist for large snags, old trees, and unique habitats such 

as rock faces (Appendix J).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

144 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Plants: The main threats to grassland sensitive plants (Davis fleabane, rough rabbitweed, Nez Perce 

mariposa lily, and Wallowa ricegrass) would be direct impact from ground disturbing activities such 

as harvest activities and road improvement for haul. There would be no road building within the IRA 

under any alternative. 

Project Design Criteria (Appendix J) are established to minimize or avoid effects to these plant 

species from harvest, road improvement, and prescribed fire activities. Reintroduction of natural 

disturbance regimes would have a beneficial overall effect to all native plant species under the 

LJCRP.

Reference Landscapes 

The LJCRP desired landscape condition is informed by reference conditions and historic variability in 

structure, composition, density, pattern, and disturbance regime. Treatments are designed to move 

these attributes closer to reference conditions to provide resiliency to stands and the broader 

landscape. The activities proposed in LJCRP would bring the landscape character closer to reference 

conditions and therefore would have a beneficial impact on the IRAs ability to represent reference 

landscapes within the LJCRP analysis area and Blue Mountains.

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

There would be minimal effect to traditional cultural properties and sacred sites due to the integration 

of implementation timing with the Nez Perce tribe. PDCs (Tribal-1 to 4) ensure this coordination 

takes place to minimize impact to tribal members. Existing and discovered sites would be managed to 

produce “no effect” or “no adverse effect” through avoidance as outlined in PDCs (Heritage-1 to 11).

Potential Wilderness Areas

Prescribed fire and stand improvement treatments within the Joseph and Wildhorse PWAs would 

affect roadless characteristics in the same way disclosed for their associated IRAs. It is assumed in 

this analysis that prescribed fire and stand improvement treatments would have no effect on the 

potential wilderness inventory criteria found in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71. Prescribed fire would be the 

only treatment that would occur in the Cook Mountain PWA under any action alternative. Table 48

shows the amount of high priority prescribed fire and stand improvement that would occur by 

alternative. There would be no stand improvement treatments in potential wilderness under 

Alternative 3. All acres affected by these treatments would remain in the inventory of PWA since no 

substantially noticeable development (e.g. road building, harvest, etc.) would occur.

Table 48. Amount of high priority prescribed fire within potential wilderness areas by action alternative.

PWA Name

Prescribed Fire 

Alternative 2

Prescribed Fire 

Alternative 3

Stand Improvement 

Alternative 2

Joseph 1,100 1,100 0

Wildhorse 5,500 5,200 350

Cook-Mountain 70 70 0

 

Lands - National Landmarks and Parklands 

There are no National Landmarks in the project area. Therefore, no impacts would occur for any 

National Landmark. There are no lands within the proposed project area that would be characterized 

as parklands; therefore, there would be no impacts on any parklands. 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 145

Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forestlands 

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

to prime farmlands. The project does not contain prime rangeland because of soils and climate, and 

none of the proposed activities in the project would convert rangelands to other uses. The rangelands 

within the LJCRP would likely benefit indirectly from the restoration of forested vegetation in either

Alternatives 2 or 3. The reduction of stand densities would allow more light to the forest floor, thus 

increasing the abundance of forbs and shrubs. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts on prime 

rangelands. The project would not convert forestlands to other uses. All lands designated as forested 

would be retained and managed as forested; therefore, there would be no adverse impacts on prime 

forestland. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Table 3 lists approximate acres of the various vegetation management, fuels treatment and prescribed 

burning activities as well as wildfires that have occurred within the project area from 2004 to 2013.

Table 4 summarizes ongoing non-forest management activities in the LJCRP area. See Chapter 2, 

Affected Environment for more information on how past harvest, fuels treatment, prescribed fire and 

wildfire have influenced the existing character of the vegetation and natural fire regimes found in the 

LJCRP area.

Physical Environment

Climate

Climate change effects are a component of cumulative impacts. Changes in climate influence 

vegetation, water, and disturbance frequencies; and these changes, in turn, influence one another. A 

change in one aspect causes a cascade of responses that, in some cases, counteract and, in others, 

magnify the initial change. Such interactions make prediction of the likely effects of climate change 

difficult at the scale of the LJCRP analysis area even if the nature of the climate change were known. 

For now, it is certain that changes would occur at a continental scale; however, how climate change 

impacts local landscapes is not well understood. 

Climate-informed modeling completed for the Blue Mountains by the USFS PNW Research and 

Development program (Peterson et al. 2014) suggest that Alternatives 2 and 3 generate considerably 

more large tree forest than Alternative 1 under the best case climate model (MIROC; Appendix C), 

but very little large tree forests remain after 90 years under the three other climate models studied.

However, until the environmental responses are better understood, it would be difficult to predict with 

accuracy the environmental outcomes of particular land-use activities. Species most at risk of climate 

change are those with small geographic ranges (e.g., local endemics), narrow physiological 

tolerances, limited dispersal abilities, narrow habitat associations, strong interspecific dependencies, 

low genetic diversity, and those that have recently experienced population declines. Impacts of 

climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, and wildfires, reveal substantial exposure and 

vulnerability of some ecosystems to climate variability (IPCC 2014). Tools to predict the potential 

climatic changes as influenced by the LJCRP activities over the next 10 to 15 years have yet to be 

devised, but it seems unlikely that measurable changes would occur relative to this project (potential 

temperature and precipitation increases being the most likely climatic change in this part of the 

continent) over the short life of this planning document.

Alternatives 2 or 3 would serve to similarly maintain carbon stocks by reducing uncharacteristic fire 

disturbance and producing wood products, which serve to sequester carbon. In general, due to the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

146 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

scale of the LJCRP, and the relatively moderate current carbon density of eastside forests (see 

Affected Environment, Chapter 2), activities of Alternatives 2 or 3 are unlikely to affect forest carbon 

density appreciably in the LJCRP or analysis area.

Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Increasing 

wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are already causing widespread tree die-off (Melillo et al. 

2014). All climate scenarios run for LJCRP show a landscape becomes dominated by mountain big 

sage, and warm-season shrubland. Grasslands nearly disappear. Without active management, conifer 

forest of all types decline to less than 10 percent, although one model shows ponderosa pine as a codominant with shrublands. Modeling shows that thinning and prescribed fire would conserve forests 

to mid-century (see Appendix C- Landscape Modeling Methods). Given the dry conditions predicted 

in the project area, an increase in non-native annual grasses is likely. However, vegetation adapts to 

changing climate in various ways. Individual plants adjust to climatic changes through phenotypic 

plasticity via traits like growth phenology and biomass allocation. Populations adapt through natural 

selection of traits based on genetic variability within the population and through long distance pollen 

or seed dispersal. Species also adapt to changing climate through migration, resulting in establishment 

of new populations in favorable habitats and the extirpation of populations from unfavorable habitats 

(Peterson et al. 2014). In a study of modeled response to climate change for rare plants in California, 

60 of 156 species were predicted to have declines in climatic suitability, regardless of modeling 

technique; however, species in topographically dissected landscapes may be less vulnerable to climate 

change because they can find suitable climates locally as climate changes (Anacker et al. 2013).

Given the complex topography in LJCRP, perhaps the majority of understory species would be able to 

persist on the landscape, though at a reduced scale.

Global climate change has the potential to have impacts to aquatic habitat through increases in water 

temperature and changes in stream flows in response to changes in climates7

. Long-term changes to 

aquatic habitat in the analysis area may occur as a result of global climate. These changes may 

include:

• Increases in water temperatures in response to increases in air temperature

• Changes in runoff patterns in response to an increase in the amount of winter precipitation that 

falls as rain

• Decreases in summer stream flows in response to a reduction in snowpack

• Reduced duration of spring runoff, but higher peak flows due to an increase the amount of winter 

precipitation that falls as rain

Activities proposed under Alternatives 2 or 3 are unlikely to have measureable cumulative effects 

with global climate change because:

• The proposed thinning activities are unlikely to result in a change in runoff patterns because a 

significant decrease in forested cover would not occur.

• Potential increases in water temperature as a result of proposed burning are unlikely to occur in 

the analysis area and if increases do occur they are unlikely to be measureable.

 7 For more information developed by the Forest Service to highlight potential impacts to aquatic habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest, see http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/salmon-trout.shtml
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 147

Chemical Contamination

Most past and on-going land management operations throughout LJCRP area, such as silvicultural 

activities, timber sales, and all forms of road work use a variety of potential chemical contaminates 

(such as dust abatement, petroleum, concrete, adhesives, cleansers, herbicides, etc.) that pose a risk of 

entering waterways if spilled or mishandled. The level of timber harvest and associated road work on 

NFS land within the LJCRP area has diminished over the last two decades. Therefore, the level of 

additive effects that can contaminate water from such actions has also diminished. 

The probability of alternatives 2 or 3 resulting in any cumulative effects to water contamination 

hinges on whether a substantial spill of petroleum or dust abatement products occurs. Should a spill 

occur and clean-up measures fail, a cumulative effect could be realized. 

Soils

The cumulative effects discussion for soils resources focuses on soil productivity in the context of 

Detrimental Soils Conditions for the LJCRP area. Erosion would be included in the water quality 

discussion in the context of sediment delivery to streams. The LJCRP area has legacy impacts to soil 

productivity spanning nearly a century. These impacts include soil compaction, rutting, displacement, 

severely burned soil, surface erosion and soil mass movement resulting from management activity 

(Reeves et al. 2011). The duration and magnitude of these impacts are highly variable and depend on 

soil characteristics, physiographic characteristics, soil conditions at the time of impact, and the type of 

impact. Therefore, all known previous vegetation management activities (approximately 45 years) 

within the LJCRP area will be considered for the cumulative effects analysis. Furthermore, activities 

that are proposed in the LJCRP that have the greatest potential to produce DSCs, such as groundbased harvest and temporary road construction would be considered regardless of any known 

previous vegetation management activity. Approximately 45 percent of the units proposed for 

thinning were thinned since 1970. Several of these units have experienced multiple management 

entries. Reentry to these units could have cumulative effects that, without mitigation and/or site 

remediation, exceedLRMP Standards and Guidelines for DSCs. Additionally, both action alternatives 

propose the same amount of temporary roads (12.6 miles). Therefore, the activities in either

Alternatives 2 or 3 would, in part, contribute to existing impacts that could, in turn, persist for 

decades. To manage this risk and comply with LRMP Standards and Guidelines, PDCs (Soils 1 – 8) 

and BMPs would be implemented (Appendix J). One PDC (Soils-7) discusses the need for DSC 

surveys. The project area would be surveyed, using established protocols prior to implementation. 

These surveys would not only evaluate legacy impacts, compared with the proposed LJCRP activities, 

the surveys would also evaluate remediation appropriateness (Soils-8) and opportunities to restore 

legacy impacts. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would be compliance with LRMP Standards and 

Guidelines for DSCs. See the Physical Environment Supporting Documentation for more 

information.

Water Quality

The cumulative effects discussion for water quality will address the effects to the beneficial uses of 

water as designated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for all waters within the 

Grande Ronde Basin. The designated beneficial uses of water for the Grande Ronde Basin include: 

public domestic water supply, private domestic water supply, industrial water supply, irrigation, 

livestock watering, fish & aquatic life, wildlife and hunting, fishing, boating, water contact recreation, 

aesthetic quality and hydro power. There are a variety of activities and disturbances, on both public 

and private lands that have the potential to impair the beneficial uses of water. Examples include: 

wildfire, prescribed fire, and road related work, unpermitted water uses, mass wasting events, 

chemical contamination, vegetation management activities, grazing and agriculture. The scale and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

148 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

intensity of the proposed treatments under either Alternatives 2 or 3 would not have any measurable 

direct, indirect or cumulative effect to the beneficial uses of waters downstream from those within the 

LJCRP area. The LJCRP does not propose any changes to water use or any flow modifications; 

therefore, this discussion will focus on effects from the proposed management activities that have the 

potential to impact the beneficial uses of water at the scale of the site, reach, stream and/or waterbody 

within the analysis area. 

Under Alternatives 2 or 3, there is an increase in potential for the chemical contamination of waters 

from equipment spills, leaks and misapplications of approved chemicals. BMPs would be 

implemented to manage this risk and there are no documented water quality limitations in the LJCRP 

area that pertain to chemical contamination. Therefore, there is no cumulative effect for chemical 

contamination of waters. 

Partners and members of the public expressed concerns over sedimentation of waters within the 

LJCRP area (see Aquatics Sections) but no waters are currently listed as water quality impaired for 

sedimentation (Table 22). Fine sediment is typically mobilized in waterways during high flow events,

such as the one that occurred during the winter of 1996 to 1997. Therefore, this 17 year period, 

ending at present, is the temporal bound for fine sediment accumulated from management within the 

LJCRP area. Wildfires and vegetation management activities with the potential to deliver seditment to 

streams disturbed a significant portion of the landscape from 2004 to 2014 (Table 3). From 1997 to 

2004 there was an additional 2,500 acres of vegetation management activities but no large wildfires 

within the analysis area. An analysis was conducted of potential sediment production from haul 

activities, vegetation management and the current road system (See Physical Environment supporting 

documentation). Erosion and sediment delivery to streams from either Alternatives 2 orment loads at 

an unmeasurable level and thus have a cumulative effect. The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency 

Project (FRP) is a proposed large landscape project on NFS lands that adjoins the LJCRP and any 

activities that occur upstream of the LJCRP has the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on 

water quality. If the FRP treatments reduce the risk of uncharacteristic disturbances, then Alternatives 

2 or 3 in combination with the FRP would have the potential to mitigate future sediment inputs from 

high intensity wildfires.

Air Quality

Past harvest, fuels treatments, prescribed fire and wildfire have occurred over the past 10 years. These 

past treatments generally reduced forest fuel loading and altered their characteristics such that 

wildland fire would behave more similar to what would be expected under a natural fire regime. The 

cumulative effects of these past treatments would serve to reduce the amount of particulates released 

into the atmosphere. Ongoing activities such as cattle grazing and fire suppression alter the natural 

disturbance regime allowing increased fuel accumulation (fire suppression and grazing) or a rearrangement of fuels such that the area burned would be different than historical (grazing). 

Air resources are somewhat unique in that past impacts to air quality (past wildland fire or prescribed 

fire) are not evident. Smoke emissions during the spring and fall months primarily result from Federal 

prescribed fire activities in northeast Oregon and western Idaho. The Blue Mountains Forest 

Resiliency Project is a proposed large landscape project on NFS lands that adjoins the LJCRP and has 

the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality effects. Federal land managers currently 

coordinate to manage the cumulative effects of prescribed burning across these ownerships. Private 

landowners also treat fuels on their property. Private/Federal burning activities are coordinated with 

Oregon Department of Forestry subject to the Department’s smoke management rules. 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 149

Other sources of emissions come from summer wildfire, agricultural burning, and home heating in 

and around local communities. Wildfires and agricultural burning typically coincide in mid to latesummer. Home heating is normally limited to winter months. These occurrences generally produce 

small additive emissions and are not expected to impact air quality at the time prescribed fire 

activities are planned.

Biological Environment

Vegetation Management and Disturbance

For the cumulative effects analysis, the spatial context being considered is the 98,600 acre project 

area. Cumulative effects are discussed in terms of wildfire and vegetation management activities that 

have occurred since 2004 and as changes in the existing condition due to present and foreseeable 

activities, including the effects of the alternative being discussed. The time frame considered is 

approximately 10 years in the future at which time the majority of the actions proposed would have 

been completed and the vegetation response to these actions has occurred.

Table 3 lists approximate acres of the various vegetation management, fuels treatment and prescribed 

burning activities as well as wildfires that have occurred within the project area from 2004 to 2013. 

See Chapter 2: Affected Environment for more information on how past activities have shaped the 

existing conditions in the LJCRP area.

The following is a discussion of effects of past management activities and wildfires in terms of the 

analysis metrics specific to the vegetation resource. 

Forest Cover Type – Planting activities increased occurrence of ponderosa pine and western larch 

within understocked areas. Thinning treatments favored ponderosa pine and western larch and 

discriminated against grand fir. Prescribed fire and wildfires also favored fire resistant tree species.

Forest Structural Stages - Thinning treatments generally retained old and large trees. Sanitation 

treatments may have removed some old forest structure. Prescribed fire and low severity wildfire 

resulted in periodic tree mortality of susceptible old trees. Mixed and high severity wildfire killed a 

large proportion of the old forest structure and increased acres within the stand initiation structural 

stage.

Tree Density Class - Thinning treatments resulted in forest density within the low to moderate density 

classes. This in turn had a beneficial effect of improved forest growth. Prescribed fire and low 

severity wildfire also led to localized reduction of forest density. 

Pattern - The thinning treatments resulted in some irregular tree spacing. These treatments were 

incidental to reestablishing forest openings and attaining a mosaic of openings and tree clumps of 

varying sized and shapes. Mixed severity wildfires resulted in a mosaic of tree mortality and a pattern 

with indiscriminate openings and tree clumps. The remaining treatments and low severity wildfire 

resulted in some irregular tree spacing and clumping.

Size Class Distribution – Thinning treatments, prescribed fire and low severity wildfire generally 

favored larger trees and removed trees in the smaller size classes. This resulted in a size class 

distribution emphasis toward larger tree size classes. Moderate and high severity wildfire removed 

trees among all size classes.

Insects and Disease – Susceptibility was reduced in the thinning and prescribed fire treatments and 

low severity wildfire by enhancing stand conditions that are conducive to improved forest health 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

150 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

(trending toward RV). Thinning treatments also removed dwarf mistletoe infected trees reducing the 

percent of trees infected as well as creating conditions that slowed or inhibited mistletoe spread. 

Prescribed fire and low severity wildfire also led to localized reduction of forest density and dwarf 

mistletoe infection.

The treatments proposed in the LJCRP in conjunction with past and reasonably foreseeable future 

treatments would reduce the risk of reintroducing fire at a natural and ecologically appropriate scale 

and severity. The Blue Mountains FRP is a proposed large landscape project on NFS lands that 

adjoins the LJCRP and has the potential to contribute beneficial cumulative effects on fire regimes 

and transmission of fire across landscapes.

Rangelands 

For the effects analyses, the spatial context being considered is the LJCRP area. The baseline year 

used for this analysis is the year 2014 as the existing condition. In this analysis, all past activities and 

events are included in the existing condition description. In the effects discussion, post treatment 

refers to the time the final activity is accomplished (assumed to be the year 2024), “short-term” 

effects refers to effects over the 10-year period (year 2034). Cumulative effects are discussed in terms 

of changes in the existing condition due to present and foreseeable activities, including the effects of 

the alternative being discussed. The time frame considered is approximately 10 years from the time 

the final activity would be accomplished, at which time the majority of the responses to these actions 

would have occurred.

Livestock grazing has occurred in most of the project planning area for decades and has resulted in 

changes in plant communities, especially in non-forested and riparian areas. Grazing affects plants 

through herbivory and trampling. Grazing can cause changes in shade, soil compaction, soil 

disturbance, and alteration of nutrient cycling. The degree of impact to plant species from grazing is 

related to the timing, duration, and intensity of the grazing action, as well as the individual 

characteristics and habitat requirements of the species. Grazing would continue to occur in the project 

planning area.

When silvicultural activities from the last thirty years are mapped, it becomes apparent that the same 

areas have been treated repeatedly. About 45 percentof the LJCRP commercial treatments would 

return to previous treatment areas. Road grading, piling and landings associated with past and 

proposed future vegetation treatments could temporarily restrict the movement of livestock and 

access to forage. As a result of project design criteria Range–1, the range manager will work with the 

timber sale officer with respect to the timing and location of logging operations, timber harvest within 

the project area is not anticipated to impact ongoing grazing operations. All gates would be closed 

while livestock are within the allotment adjacent to the harvest units. Given project design criteria 

Range–5, the botanist, invasive species specialist and range manager would work together to 

determine whether prescribed fire or other vegetation restoration activities would require resting 

portions of the pasture treated; as well as WWNF Forest Plan and HCNRA CMP standards and guides 

would reduce adverse effects associated with the LJCRP. 

Prescribed fire can improve forage conditions if burning is conducted when native perennial grasses 

and forbs are dormant. Burning too hot, or when plants begin to grow, typically in the spring can kill 

or hinder native plants and promote weedy species. Prescribed fires would be planned to avoid 

damaging fences and water improvements (i.e., project design criteria Range–5: The botanist, 

invasive species specialist and range manager will work together to determine whether prescribed fire 

or other vegetation restoration activities would require resting portions of the pasture treated; Range–

6: If any fences are damaged during burning operations, repairs must be made immediately to prevent 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 151

livestock from entering areas outside of established allotments; and Range–7: The range manager 

would work with fire management to determine timing and location of prescribed fire). Burn blocks 

would be planned in a manner that does not interrupt planned livestock management on the 

allotments. All burns would be coordinated with the District Range Management Specialist to reduce 

adverse effects associated with LJCRP.

Wildfires can increase forage in locations where they are low to moderate intensity. In forested range, 

high intensity fire generally reduces understory vegetation for a number of years (Matthews 2000).

The Cache Creek (2012), Jim Creek (2006), Jim Creek (2000), and Teepee Butte (1988) fires covered

around 70 percent of the HCNRA portion of LJCRP area. The Joseph Creek/Starvation Ridge fire 

(1986) burned about 31,000 acres in the Wallowa District portion of the LJCRP area. Post-fire 

seeding that was not targeted to specific areas of concern, such as the aerial seeding of non-native 

forage species after the Joseph/Starvation fire, may have had adverse impacts on native grass species. 

Without any seeding, bluebunch wheatgrass generally regains pre-fire cover the year after it burns. 

Idaho fescue can take a few years to regain pre-fire cover, but other components of Idaho fescue 

communities recover in the first year after burning (Johnson 2005). Changes in the timing and 

location of grazing in response to wildfire are beyond the scope of this project; however, WWNF 

LRMP standards and guides and HCNRA CMP standards and guides for range would be followed.

Ungulates tend to congregate in riparian areas, drawn by good forage and browse, water, and thermal 

cover (Roath and Krueger 1982, Gillen et al. 1984, Kauffman et al. 1984). Current range management 

practices use springs, ponds, salting, fences, and herding to encourage livestock movement (Wallowa 

County 2014). LJCRP would create more open forest in the uplands, as well as improve grasslands 

with savannah treatments to remove encroaching conifers and prescribed fire. Better quality upland 

forage in addition to current management practices would help keep livestock dispersed on the 

landscape. LRMP and CMP standards and guidelines, as well as project design criteria for range 

(recommending range management communication with timber sale personnel, fire management, 

botanical and noxious weed specialists, and protection of range structures such as fences and spring 

boxes) would prevent adverse effects related to LJCRP.

The Blue Mountains FRP is a proposed large landscape project on NFS lands that adjoins the LJCRP 

and has the potential to contribute cumulative effects to fire regimes and the transmission of fire 

across the landscape, as well as indirect cumulative effects to forage production from forest thinning 

and prescribed burning in allotments shared between the two projects (including the Cold Springs, 

Doe Creek, Chesnimnus, Swamp Creek and Davis Creek allotments).

Noxious Weeds and other Non-native Invasive Plants

For the cumulative effects analysis, the spatial context being considered is the 98,000 acre project 

area. Cumulative effects are discussed in terms of wildfire and vegetation management activities that 

have occurred since 2004 and as changes in the existing condition due to present and foreseeable 

activities, including the effects of the alternative being discussed. The time frame considered is 

approximately 10 years in the future at which time the majority of the actions proposed would have 

been completed and the vegetation response to these actions has occurred.

Herbicide use on the WWNF is currently guided by the 2012 partial vacatur (2012). This includes the 

use of herbicides on known selected sites within LJCRP. New and existing sites not identified for 

herbicide in the partial vacatur are limited to mechanical treatments. 

Roads are a vector of weed spread and transport, thus unregulated road use, construction of temporary 

roads, and re-opening of previously closed roads increases the risk. Grazing could also increase the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

152 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

risk of spread and introduction of non-native species. Livestock can transport seeds and other plant 

reproductive material over distances. The possible increase in the number of non-natives due to 

project activities coupled with transport by livestock could increase the risk for areas outside of the 

actual project and treatment area boundaries (Merriam et al. 2006). Conversely, the Blue Mountains 

FRP has the potential to increase the risk of spread of non-natives from outside the project area, while 

decreasing the risk of uncharacteristically severe fire transmission into the LJCRP area. Large scale 

and intense wildfire disturbance would create ideal areas for the introduction and spread of non-native 

plants. These impacts along with timber harvest disturbance (including log landings, skid trails, etc.) 

could compound invasive plant spread. These disturbed areas are likely sites of invasive plant 

infestations and surveys of completed timber sales, restoration of disturbed areas, and treatment of 

infestations would reduce the overall risk of establishment and spread of invasive plants. Ongoing 

treatments of non-native species help to mitigate the risks posed by management activities. Treatment 

continues on an annual basis within previously inventoried invasive sites as per the direction from the 

Region 6 Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest 

Service 2005) and current WWNF direction. Cooperation among project personnel and forest 

invasive species specialists can increase the efficiency of this treatment by identifying areas early and 

beginning a treatment protocol prior to site expansion.

Threatened, Endangered, and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants and Biologically Unique and 

Rare Combinations of Outstanding and Diverse Ecosystems

For the cumulative effects analysis, the spatial context being considered is the project area. 

Cumulative effects are discussed in terms of wildfire and vegetation management activities that have 

occurred since 1985 and as changes in the existing condition due to present and foreseeable activities, 

including the effects of the alternative being discussed. The time frame considered is approximately 

15 years in the future at which time the majority of the actions proposed would have been completed

and the vegetation response to these actions would have occurred. In the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future, there have been, and will continue to be, projects and activities within the planning 

area that may cause impacts to sensitive plants and their habitats. Projects and activities that create 

ground disturbance, change vegetative composition, and change domestic animal grazing patterns 

may potentially cause detrimental impacts to sensitive plant populations and habitats. These actions 

include road construction, timber harvest, fuel reduction treatments (landscape and pile burning, 

lopping and scattering of slash), fire suppression, recreation development, mining, and livestock 

grazing. Restoration efforts such as road decommissioning and stream improvements may potentially 

impact sensitive plant populations and habitat. Road construction and recreation developments have 

permanently altered native plant habitat in limited areas of the LJCRP area. 

Grazing in most likely to complicate restoration efforts, especially in dry open forest habitats, where 

palatable browse and grass is most accessible. Dewey (2013) noted that livestock grazing causes 

trampling of Wallowa needlegrass. Pasture condition should be assessed by the district range 

specialist and the district botanist after restoration treatments occur and prior to putting livestock out 

to graze (Project Design Criteria Range-5). Premature use of treated pastures can lead to increased 

bare soil, erosion, decreases in native bunchgrasses and increases in invasive annual grasses. 

Moist and wet meadows, riparian areas, springs and seeps may be more exposed after logging, 

thinning and/or prescribed fire, making them more vulnerable to use by both wild and domestic 

ungulates. Many of the springs in the project area have been converted to ponds, or diverted to 

troughs, locally drying soil and making water less available to vegetation.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 153

Wildlife

Cumulative Effects on Dead and Defective Habitat

Past, present and foreseeable actions were reviewed to determine potential effects to dead and 

defective wood habitat. Other actions that would contribute to potential cumulative effects include 

hazard tree removal and firewood gathering. Within the LJCRP area (nearly 100,000 acres), there are 

no other vegetation management projects planned in the foreseeable future. 

Cumulative effects of the LJCRP and the potential for hazard tree removal and firewood gathering 

have the potential to impact habitat and may increase risks to dead and defective wood habitat. This 

increased risk to loss of snags is of most concern in the Moist Forest PVG. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 proposed harvest and prescribed burning activities are expected to help create 

habitat for Primary Cavity Excavators (PCEs) associated with open forests and reduce habitat for 

those PCEs using closed-canopied forests. Both alternatives would retain snags >12 inches diameter, 

except those lost for operational reasons or during prescribed burning. Snag losses by prescribed fire 

are assumed to be very low since burning prescriptions are aimed at retention of large diameter 

woody materials. This would result in minor effects to overall abundance of snags on the landscape.

Alternative 2 proposes harvests (commercial and non-commercial) on about 40 percent of the overall 

forested acres (Table 33). Alternative 3 proposes harvests (commercial and non-commercial) on about

20 percent of the overall forested acres. PDCs for the retention of snags and down wood would help 

maintain existing levels of this habitat for primary cavity excavators, which in turn would provide for 

secondary cavity nesters. Connectivity corridors with higher stand densities, and skips within stands

would provide diversity of canopy cover and stand structure at various scales across the landscape as 

well as maintain some levels of natural snag creation. 

Road closures and decommissioning would reduce disturbance and limit access for firewood cutting 

and snag loss. Open roads provide access to firewood cutters into the areas. Loss of snags to firewood 

gatherers would contribute in localized areas of snag loss in combination with the loss from harvest 

operations. Miles of open roads and an ‘open forest’ for use by motor vehicles cumulatively limit the 

amount of snags across the landscape. 

The cumulative effects of the proposed activity in either Alternatives 2 or 3 would have a beneficial

effect for some species and an adverse effect for others. White-headed woodpecker, which is a species 

of population viability concern, would benefit from treatments that accelerate the development of 

open canopied stands that maintain large snags, while habitat for species associated with closedcanopied forests with snags may decline. 

Cumulative Effects to Pileated Woodpecker and Northern Goshawk, MIS species and other 

older forest associated wildlife

The cumulative effects analysis area for these MIS (pileated woodpecker, northern goshawk) is 

summarized together as these species use overlapping habitats. These species are generally associated 

with structurally diverse, closed canopied forests with larger tree structures. Additionally pileated 

woodpeckers use primarily large snags for nesting, foraging and roosting and are associated with 

down woody debris. Past timber harvesting, firewood gathering and an extensive road system have 

likely reduced some of these habitat components (e.g. large snags) within some areas in the LJCRP

area. Additionally fire suppression has likely changed the abundance of these habitats, as would fire 

suppression in the foreseeable future. Fire suppression particularly in the dry forests has led to an 

increase above RV of source habitat for both these species. Past vegetation management projects have 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

154 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

been incorporated into the existing condition to evaluate the current abundance of these structural 

conditions for these species.

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose harvest and prescribed fire activities that are expected to reduce the 

amount of closed canopied forests, and the quality of habitat would decline through the loss of canopy 

closure, loss of large trees (> 21”) (Alternative 2 only), and loss of large snags from operational 

procedures. Although some of these important habitat components would be reduced, they would not 

be eliminated. This may reduce the potential of the area to provide habitat for goshawks and pileated 

woodpeckers in the short term (0-20 years); however, the quantity of source habitat for these species 

is projected to increase and remain within the HRV in the longer term (> 50 years) (see Appendix C). 

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would retain snags >12 inches diameter, except those lost for operational 

reasons or during prescribed fire activities. Potential loss of snags for operational reasons would result 

in a minor effect since the existing snag component is generally within RV (see cumulative effects for 

Primary Cavity Excavator MIS for more information on effects to snags/logs). 

Continued fires suppression may increase fuel loadings, increasing the likelihood of stand 

replacement disturbance events. In Alternatives 2 or 3 the risk of large scale fire would be reduced. 

Large-scale stand replacing fires would not provide source habitat for northern goshawk or pileated 

woodpecker. However, the amount of post-fire habitat in the planning area is below RV, and some 

wildlife species are associated with post-fire habitat (e.g. black-backed woodpecker). 

The LJCRP would impact pileated woodpecker and goshawk habitat. Though some current source 

habitat would be treated, and the quality of the habitat may be reduced, overall, source habitat would

remain well within the RV for these species within the LJCRP area (Tables 34 and 35), and at the 

scale of the Forest (Tables 44 and 45). The RV for the WWNF for pileated woodpeckers is 1-39

percent and the RV for northern goshawks is 1-46 percent (Wales et al. 2011). 

Primarily as a result of an abundance of source habitat in many areas above the median RV, the 

viability of goshawks in the Blue Mountains was calculated to currently be an A outcome (low 

concern) (Wales et al. 2011). Low concern for viability is defined as: current habitats are of moderate 

or higher abundance and quality relative to historical conditions, and are widely distributed or if gaps 

in distribution are present they are similar to historical distribution of habitat. A viability assessment 

completed for the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision indicates a moderate viability concern for the 

pileated woodpecker on the WWNF; suitable environments are moderately distributed and/or exist at 

moderate abundance across the historical range of the species (Wales et al. 2011).

Cumulative Effects to American Marten, MIS species 

This species is generally associated with structurally diverse, closed –canopied forests with larger tree 

structures. Additionally marten are associated with down woody debris. Past timber harvesting, 

firewood gathering and an extensive road system have likely reduced some of these habitat 

components. Past vegetation management projects have been incorporated into the existing condition 

to evaluate the current abundance of these structural conditions for marten. Currently within the 

planning area, source habitat for marten is at the lower end of the RV. 

PDCs within forest treatment stands (in either Alternatives 2 or 3) within marten source habitat 

provide for maintenance of >60 percent canopy closure and no harvest of trees > 21” dbh. 

Outside of source habitat in the moist forests, the reduction in canopy closure due to forest treatment 

would likely be short-term. As the canopy closes, and the trees grow, these areas would likely 

transition to source habitat for marten. 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 155

Alternatives 2 or 3 would retain snags >12 inches diameter, except those lost for operational reasons 

or during prescribed fire activities. This would result in a minor effect since the existing snag 

component and eventual down log component (see cumulative effects for Primary Cavity Excavator 

MIS for more information on effects to snags/logs).

Fire suppression has contributed toward creating denser forests. While these conditions may facilitate 

snag development due to increasing stress, over-stocked stands may in some cases inhibit tree growth,

which may in the long-term suppress the growth of trees and eventually snag development in the 

larger size classes of snags, an important attribute for many PCEs. Continued fire suppression may 

increase fuel loadings, increasing the likelihood of stand replacement disturbance events. In 

Alternatives 2 or 3 the risk of large scale fire would be reduced. Large-scale stand replacing fires 

would not provide source habitat for marten. 

This project would impact marten habitat in the LJCRP area. Though some current source habitat 

would have forest treatment, the prescription is to maintain these areas as source habitat, although the 

quality for the treated habitat is of lower quality. Overall, source habitat would remain nearly within 

the RV for these species in this project area (Table 36), and at the scale of the WWNF (Table 43). The 

RV for the Forest for marten is 19-29 percent (Wales et al. 2011). A viability assessment completed 

for the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision indicates a low to moderate concern for the American 

marten on the WWNF. Historically, habitat was of moderate to low abundance with gaps in 

distribution, and these conditions are similar at the scale of the WWNF currently (Wales et al. 2011). 

Cumulative Effects to Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds

Past timber sales, fires, roads, grazing, and prescribed fires have modified and converted migratory 

bird habitat in the LJCRP area. Past logging has led to the current lack of old, big trees in the area due 

to selective harvesting, and was likely detrimental to species that depended on contiguous conifer 

cover and avoided forest edges. Grazing has modified understory fuels and fire suppression has 

interrupted historic fire return intervals. Consequently, many stands are now overstocked with young 

trees and are vulnerable to insects, disease, and wildfire. 

An extensive road network built to facilitate timber operations has had a long-term impact on the area 

and continues to provide access for recreationists, hunters, permittees, woodcutters, and others. Roads 

also facilitate the removal of snags as fire wood and for safety considerations (Gaines et al. 2003, 

Bate et al. 2007, Wisdom and Bate 2008). Gaines et al. (2003) reviewed 238 articles on the effects of 

recreation trails and roads on wildlife and found the most commonly reported interactions included 

displacement or avoidance where animals were reported as altering their use of habitats in response to 

roads or road networks (Cassirer and Groves 1990, Klein 1993, Hutto 1995, Mace et al. 1996, 1999, 

Johnson et al. 2000). Disturbance at a specific site was also commonly reported and included 

disruption of animal nesting, breeding, or wintering areas (Skagen et al. 1991, Linnell et al. 2000, 

Papouchis et al. 2001). Collisions between animals and vehicles were commonly reported and 

affected a diversity of wildlife species, from large mammals (Gibeau and Heuer 1996, Lehnert et al. 

1996) to amphibians (Ashley and Robinson 1996). Finally, edge effects associated with roads or road 

networks constructed within habitats, especially late-successional forests, were commonly identified 

(Hickman 1990, Miller et al. 1998).

Grazing is an ongoing activity in the project area. While grazing does not affect forest canopies, shrub 

and grass habitats can be altered by vegetation removal, which leads to reduced structural diversity. A 

simplification of the vegetation likely causes a shift to generalist species (Knopf 1996). Grazing

should not affect migratory bird shrub or grass habitat because grazing following the Forest Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

156 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

standards should leave adequate shrub and grass cover, and is designed to allow for normal recovery 

rates that do not delay regeneration.

Because treatments prescribed in Alternative 2 or 3 would begin to shift the LJCRP area toward the 

overall long-term goal of increasing forest resiliency and moving toward RV, it is not expected to 

have adverse cumulative effects. Forest treatments are designed to increase open-canopied habitats 

especially in larger tree structures that are below RV. Prescribed fire is designed to maximize 

retention and protection of large diameter live trees, snags, and logs. A mosaic of forest and rangeland 

conditions capable of supporting breeding migratory bird populations and more similar to the RV 

would exist under Alternatives 2 or 3. 

Cumulative Effects on MIS Rocky Mountain Elk

Past, present and future management activities have contributed to cumulative effects on big game 

habitat and consequently distribution of big game populations in the LJCRP area. These activities 

include: past timber harvesting practices, understory thinning, fire suppression, prescribed fire, 

wildfires, livestock grazing, road construction, road closures and decommissioning. Cumulative 

effects from the LJCRP and previous timber harvesting can have both beneficial and adverse impacts 

to big game habitat. Past changes in structural conditions due to harvest are incorporated in the 

existing condition data. While the increase in forage can be beneficial during late winter, spring, and 

perhaps summer months, the reduction in cover can have adverse effects on these hunted species 

during the fall hunting seasons. However, decades of fire suppression has contributed to higher stand 

densities that are beneficial for big game distribution by providing hiding cover, offsetting cumulative 

effects of vegetation projects that move timber stands toward historic open forest conditions. 

Although Alternatives 2 and 3 are moving the landscape to more open-forested conditions, closer to 

the RV, overall the landscape would still be above the RV for closed-canopied forests, offering 

security areas for elk.

Research conducted at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in Northeast Oregon and 

associated research sites is providing new insights regarding the importance of maintaining adequate 

nutritional resources for elk (Cook et al. 2013), and of minimizing human disturbance effects through 

effective management of motorized access and cover (Rowland et al. 2000, Naylor et al. 2009).

Current restoration efforts across the WWNF are moving forested stands to more resilient forests, 

though some of these areas may not be utilized due to greater distance to cover from open roads, 

reducing security, and increasing vulnerability to hunting pressure. These large treated blocks may 

lack escape cover, and since there are high road densities forest wide, elk habitat quality could decline 

in some localized areas until cover is reestablished. Additionally, loss of cover and higher road 

densities may lead to displacement of animals onto private lands and conflicts with private land 

owners. 

The reduction of cover and road closures are reflected in the HEI analysis for each alternative. 

Although there is a large loss of cover, the LJCRP area meets the Forest Plan Standards for HEI in 

both Alternatives 2 and 3. PDCs include measures to provide cover by retaining non-thinned patches 

of forest trees (“clumps” and “skips”) and avoid placing ‘openings’ along more heavily used open 

roads.

Wildfires and prescribed fire may also create quality forage for wild ungulates. Cumulative effects 

from harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire in the same units can reduce ground cover and 

concealment for fawns and calves, possibly increasing predation rates.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 157

The WWNF contains a road network totaling around 9,120 miles of documented roads, of which 

about 4,630 are open to motorized vehicles. These roads can have adverse cumulative effects to big 

game and reduce the effectiveness of existing habitat. Additionally, motorized cross county travel is 

an additional cumulative effect potentially leading to increased disturbance and vulnerability. The 

effectiveness of road treatments varies depending on terrain and public compliance. Currently in 6 of 

the 10 subwatersheds road densities are above LRMPstandards in MA 1. Alternatives 1 or 2 would 

reduce these densities, while Alternative 3 has relatively minor change to the abundance of open 

roads. 

Elk populations are managed by ODF&W and current population objectives (management objectives)

are much higher than a minimum level needed to sustain viability. Based on the number of hunt tags 

issued annually and surplus animals harvested, population viability is not a concern. Elk populations 

on the WWNF in most hunt units are above or at management objectives. Therefore, Alternatives 2 

and 3 are not expected to contribute to a negative trend in elk viability on the WWNF.

Cumulative Effects on MIS from the LJCRP in combination with future projects

The Blue Mountains FRP has the potential to contribute cumulative effects on forest structure, 

density, cover, pattern, tree species composition, and fire regimes, and hence habit for wildlife MIS. 

The purpose and need of the FRP is similar to that of the the LJCRP with the intent to move all 

habitats to within the natural range of variability, and viability for MIS are analyzed at the Forestwide scale for both projects. Cumulative effects of the LJCRP and FRP are expected to have similar 

trends to those of the LJCRP, and will be disclosed in the FRP EIS.

Aquatic Habitat

Past management activities in the LJCRP are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Potential impacts from

these activities on aquatic habitat have likely abated. The Blue Mountains FRP is a proposed large 

landscape project on NFS lands that adjoins the LJCRP and has the potential to contribute to 

cumulative effects. The FRP proposes forest treatments similar in type, extent and effect as the 

LJCRP, although specific treatment locations are not yet known. The FRP does not propose new road 

construction, but is likely to include road maintenance. Impacts from road construction and 

reconstruction are discussed separately.

The analysis area for aquatic resources for the LJCRP includes portions of 15 livestock grazing 

allotments. Bank alteration, browsing of shrubs and high fine sediment levels along streams within 

the active allotments are being addressed by improved management and administration of the grazing 

that occurs in riparian areas.

Noxious weed treatment is an ongoing project that occurs within all LJCRP area subwatersheds. 

These treatments were determined to either have No Effect or to May Affect, Likely to Adversely 

Affect Snake River steelhead. Consultation with NOAA Fisheries has been completed for the May 

Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect determinations.

Currently, the WWNF is treating noxious weeds with herbicides approved in the WWNF Invasive 

Species EIS (see Affected Environment, Non-native invasive plants section, above). Mitigation 

measures that include type of chemical treatments, application rates, area treated, timing, and buffers 

on streams significantly reduce the risk of effects from this activity. However, the overall risk of 

adverse aggregate effects due to noxious weed treatment is rated moderate because they are not 

completely controllable.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

158 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

A limited amount of dispersed camping occurs in the LJCRP area, but due to the relatively steep 

topography and limited camping along perennial streams, this activity is rated as having a low risk of 

cumulative effects on aquatic resources, listed fish or their habitat. 

There are two developed campgrounds in the LJCRP area: Coyote and Dougherty. Both have limited 

use primarily during hunting season and during the summer. This activity is rated as having a low risk 

of cumulative effects on aquatic resources, listed fish or their habitat.

Regularly scheduled road maintenance occurs every one to seven years depending on the condition of 

the road, available funding, the assigned maintenance level, and the maintenance priority. Other 

scheduled maintenance activities occur as specific needs are identified. Maintenance levels for roads 

are determined by the road management objectives, the intended use, operational requirements, and 

budget levels. Maintenance activities occur primarily from late April to late November depending on 

the actual condition of the road and moisture level. Maintenance levels are summarized in the 

following paragraphs. 

Four types of road surface occur in the LJCRP area: (1) native (dirt surface), (2) improved (pit-run 

surface, spot-rocked), (3) aggregate (crushed rock surface), and (4) asphalt concrete pavement. The 

surface types vary for each maintenance level of road depending on the long-term objectives for the 

road.

Road maintenance practices can vary to provide additional protection to soil and water resources. 

Seeding of closed roads and low-use roads would be intensified. Keeping maintenance equipment 

away from streams and wet areas and limiting the number of stream crossings would be emphasized 

to protect soil and water resources. The use of pit-run (3- to 6-inch) rock on roadbeds would be used 

to increase protection from erosion. Emergency repair of roads would occur after natural disasters 

such as flash floods or unusually high spring runoff for all maintenance levels.

The short-term effects from all of the transportation activities would be minimized through PDCs 

(such as instream work windows, operating under dry conditions, etc.). In the long-term, Alternatives 

2 or 3 would protect and improve existing aquatic habitat. The overall risk of adverse aggregate 

effects for transportation activities in the short term is rated moderate. The overall risk of adverse 

aggregate effects for transportation activities in the long term is rated low with a long term beneficial

benefit.

There are six culverts proposed for replacement within the LJCRP area. These culvert replacements 

are proposed to eliminate migration barriers to juvenile fish and to allow passage of 100-year flows. 

These projects were given a likely to adversely affect (LAA) determination in the consultation with 

NOAA Fisheries due to the short-term possibility of sediment input to streams. In the long term, 

however, these projects are expected to have a beneficial effect on listed fish species and habitat.

Collection of fuelwood, Christmas trees, saw logs and house logs (up to three truck loads per permit), 

and posts and poles are permitted only in Management Areas 1, 3, 6, 10, and 11 (Maps 11a and 11b). 

Harvest of these products is not permitted in administratively prohibited areas such as developed 

campgrounds or within 100 feet of wet areas, seeps, springs, bogs, and standing or flowing water. No 

trees are permitted to be cut within 300 feet of perennial fish-bearing streams. Compliance with these 

regulations is monitored by USFS Special Forest Product Coordinators and Law Enforcement 

Officers. These activities are given a low risk rating for cumulative adverse effects to listed fish 

species.
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 159

Timber production and livestock grazing are the primary land use activities occurring on private lands 

adjacent to the LJCRP area. Logging operations on private timber lands are required to follow 

Oregon’s Forest Practices Act and are monitored for compliance by Oregon Department of Forestry. 

Private lands adjacent to the south and west boundaries of the project area have recently been logged. 

It is assumed that logging was conducted in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act and 

therefore impacts to aquatic habitat were successfully mitigated.

Activities, such as roads and timber harvest, on private lands that are likely to result in cumulative 

effects with activities proposed under LJCRP are assumed to be limited. Road densities on private 

lands in the LJCRP area exceed the consultation guidance for Snake River Steelhead on public lands. 

Both values would be rated as functioning at unacceptable risk using NOAA Fisheries Matrix of 

Pathways and Indicators thresholds.

Past and current management activities have had, and are having impacts to aquatic habitat and 

aquatic species (including Snake River steelhead and redband trout) in the LJCRP area. These impacts 

have resulted in a decline in aquatic and riparian habitats in the LJCRP area. Water temperatures and 

fine sediment levels in the project area are likely higher today then prior to European settlement. 

Current activities (including livestock grazing) on NFS lands are managed under the standards and 

guidelines of the WWNF LRMP as amended by PACFISH which were developed to speed the 

recovery of riparian and aquatic habitats. The majority of streams in the project area are assumed to 

be recovering from past degraded conditions. However, fine sediment levels are elevated in the 

LJCRP area. Grazing and roads are the two major management activities in the analysis area 

contributing to fine sediment effects.

Social Environment

Recreation

Past projects and actions that have affected recreation uses include timber harvest, road construction, 

and recreation uses and have been incorporated into the existing condition for the LJCRP. This project 

in combination with current projects has a slight potential to influence dispersed recreation activities 

by displacing big game hunters, berry pickers, and other recreational uses both during implementation 

and in the longer-term, post implementation. The Blue Mountains FRP is a proposed large landscape 

project on NFS lands that adjoins the LJCRP and could have cumulative effects to recreation in 

similar ways to past and present activities.

Scenery

The geographic boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the LJCRP area and the temporal 

boundary is approximately 10 years, the amount of time needed for evidence of logging, restoration 

activities associated with road management and ecological function to soften and blend into the 

landscape more completely. 

Vegetation management has occurred in the past in the LJCRP area. There have been numerous 

timber sales, fuels reduction treatments, and activities associated with hazard tree removal in 

developed campgrounds and along travel routes. Roading, timber harvest and recreation development 

have changed the landscape from a natural appearing forested landscape.

The activities of past management activities in total combine to maintain a range of scenic integrity 

levels from high to low in the designated viewsheds within the LJCRP area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

160 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Vegetation management would continue to occur as routine hazard tree removal in developed 

recreation sites and along travel routes. A sustainable forest would be promoted, the larger diameter 

trees (>20”) would be retained and become more healthy as competition from other vegetation would 

be reduced. The large trees would have more nutrients, water, and space for growing and would be 

more visible for viewing along the travel routes. The landscape character would be scenically and 

ecologically improved as the vegetation patterns become more diverse as a more complex forest 

structure is established and old growth characteristics become more dominant. The Blue Mountains 

FRP is a proposed large landscape project on NFS lands that adjoins the LJCRP and would reinforce 

these beneficial cumulative effects to scenery. Overall, the trend is that scenic natural appearing 

landscapes would be more apparent over time in the forested setting within the LJCRP area.

Heritage

The temporal boundary for analysis of cumulative effects on cultural resources is expected to be 10 

years. The spatial boundaries include the extent of treatment units. Land management activities such 

as grazing, road building, vegetation management and recreation impacted heritage resources for 

more than 100 years through active site disturbances to passive disruption of historic habitats and 

traditional uses. The LJCRP has the potential to impact heritage sites and resources in Alternatives 2 

and 3 proportional to the scale and intensity of the prescribed treatments. This potential impact is 

largely mitigated through project design and surveys. Activities with a greater potential to disturb 

ground cover include temporary road building and ground based harvest. There is no scheduled 

vegetation management activities in the reasonably foreseeable future outside of those proposed in the 

LJCRP. However, recreation and fire management activities are expected to continue to occur at the 

same levels for the next 10 years as they did in the preceding 10 years. With the implementation of 

Alternatives 2 and 3, there may be a decrease in ground disturbing fire management activities over the 

30 years following implementation of the LJCRP. Overall, the cumulative effects on heritage 

resources as a result of Alternatives 2 and 3 are not considered to be adverse due to compliance with 

the Programmatic Agreement between the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service and the 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (2004), PDCs (Appendix J, PDC’s #2, 3, and 10), 

mitigation and development of site protections.

Tribal

Prescribed fire, thinning, dispersed recreation, grazing, timber harvest, wildfire and the exercise of 

treaty rights have and will continue to occur into the foreseeable future. Although tribal members are 

concerned about the risk of the pace and scale of accelerated restoration, ecological objectives, as 

identified in the purpose and need, would likely offset adverse effects to tribal values. See cumulative 

effects discussions for all resources.

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

areas identified as unroaded by Oregon Wild

See discussions under cumulative effects for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Socioeconomics

The Blue Mountains FRPt is a proposed large landscape project on NFS lands that adjoins the LJCRP 

and has the potential to contribute to cumulative beneficial economic effects. (i.e. jobs and labor 

income are expected to increase from both BMFRP and LJCRP projects). Other cumulative effects to 

recreation and wildfire resilience will impact the social values held in the area. The recreation section 

explains that the LJCRP, in combination with current projects, has a slight potential to influence 

dispersed recreation activities by displacing big game hunters, berry pickers, and other recreational 

uses both during implementation and in the longer-term, therefore the social values for human use of 
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 161

the area could have negative cumulative impacts. However, since both projects aim to improve the 

health of the forests and wildfire resilience, the cumulative long-term impacts will be positive for 

social values that rely on healthy forests. Also see cumulative effects discussion for Socioeconomics 

for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Short-term Uses/Long-term Productivity 

Short-term effects of forest management and prescribed fire would reduce inter-tree competition and 

free up growing space for residual trees and understory vegetation. Under Alternatives 2 or 3, the 

proposed actions and associated PDCs would not affect long-term productivity of forest vegetation 

and timber resources.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Alternatives 2 or 3 may affect Snake River steelhead or its designated critical habitat and are likely to 

adversely affect (LAA) the species and its designated critical habitat. Impacts to Snake River 

steelhead may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see effects to 

aquatic habitat section) relating to the replacement of aquatic organism passage and treatment of 

RHCAs. This short term increase in fine sediment relative to the existing fine sediment levels would 

cause the effect to be adverse for listed Snake River steelhead. This determination is made under 

Section 7 of the ESA for federal actions.

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Under Alternatives 2 or 3, the proposed cutting and harvest of live trees would represent an 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the trees cut and harvested, although regeneration would 

occur.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

162 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative 2: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The Physical Environment

Soils

Surface Erosion

The effects of surface erosion are approximately the same between Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the same 

amount of ground based harvest and temporary road building. The potential for surface erosion within one 

year of implementation is slightly higher in Alternative 2 due to potentially higher haul traffic, more 

harvest activities and more road decommissioning. In the year following implementation, the potential for 

surface erosion would likely be lower under Alternative 2 than Alternatives 1 and 3 due to reestablishment 

of ground cover and stabilization of disturbed areas, including decommissioned roads. Alternative 2

would decrease the probability of an uncharacteristic wildfire disturbance (scale and intensity) that would 

have the potential to greatly increase surface erosion that would affect site productivity and water quality 

relative to Alternatives 1 or 3.

Sediment from Harvest Activities

There would be a negligible difference in sediment produced from harvest activities between Alternatives

2 and 3 (See Physical Environment Supporting Documentation). There is the potential for Alternative 2 to 

produce more sediment relative to Alternative 3 at a scale corresponding to the intensity of the treatment. 

See “Effects common to all alternatives”. 

Sediment from Log Haul 

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”. There is the potential for Alternative 2 to produce more 

sediment from log haul relative to Alternative 3 at a scale corresponding to the intensity of the treatment. 

Both alternatives would use the same haul routes and the difference in intensity would be too small to 

evaluate the effects between Alternatives 2 and 3.

Mass Wasting 

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”.

Soil Productivity

There is the potential for Alternative 2 to produce more detrimental soil conditions (DSC) than 

Alternative 3. There would be minor additional contributions to DSCs in Alternative 2 from skyline and 

helicopter harvest systems but these activities would not cause an exceedance of the WWNF Forest Plan

Standards. Under Alternative 2 there would be more opportunity for DSC remediation as there are more 

stands being treated. See the PDCs (Soils-7, Soils-8). See “Effects common to all action alternatives”.

Air Quality

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”, above. 

The Biological Environment

Vegetation and Disturbance Regimes

Table 49 lists the cutting treatments proposed under Alternative 2, approximate acres for each treatment 

and the percent of the total treatment acres each treatment type represents. The following is a list and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 163

description of other treatments that are proposed for Alternative 2 and are not listed in the description of 

treatment type table. 

• Single Tree Selection in MA15 –similar to other single tree selection treatments with emphasis on old 

growth characteristics.

• Meadow Restoration – removal of young trees that have encroached onto meadow complex adjacent 

to Swamp Creek.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

164 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Table 49. Alternative 2 – Acres by cutting treatment type in the LJCRP area

Treatment Type Approximate 

Acres

Percent of Treatment 

Acres 

(Percent of Forested 

Acres)

Stand Improvement 5,400 25%

Single Tree Selection – High Intensity 4,800 23%

Single Tree Selection – Moderate Intensity 5,800 26%

Single Tree Selection – Low Intensity 1,200 6%

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Moderate Intensity 650 3%

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Low Intensity 10 <1%

Group Selection – High Intensity 1,800 9%

Group Selection –Moderate Intensity 590 3%

Group Selection – Low Intensity 40 <1%

Intermediate Treatment – High Intensity 120 1%

Intermediate Treatment – Mod Intensity 120 1%

Intermediate Treatment – Low Intensity 90 <1%

Savanna* 530 3%

Meadow Restoration* (Swamp Creek) 31 <1%

Cutting Treatment Total (Forested Acres) 21,170 (20,610) 100% (37%)

Forested Acres – No Cutting Treatment 34,690 (63%)

Total Forested Acres 55,300 (100%)

*Savanna and meadow restoration treatments are in areas that do not meet the definition of forested.

A total of 21,170 acres of cutting treatments are proposed. Moderate and high intensity single tree 

selection treatment types account for almost half of the forest treatment acres and SI (non-sawlog) 

treatments add another 25 percent. Under this alternative, approximately 39 percentof the forested acres 

within the project area would have a cutting treatment.

Within the 2,430 acres of stands with a group selection treatment type, there may be a need to plant 

approximately 500 acres to ensure the prescribed post treatment stocking and species mix is attained.

Logging Systems

Logging systems were estimated by the interdisciplinary team using a combination of slope, distance to 

specified roads, and limited use of temporary roads to access the proposed harvest units. The associated 

acres by estimated logging system are listed in Table 50. Map 25 shows the estimated logging system by 

unit and logging system type. The final logging system selection by stand would be completed during 

implementation, considering the final decision and site specific constraints and opportunities. 

During FEIS analyses, the Regional logging engineer field verified a seven percent sample of treatment 

stands, and found the original estimates to differ from the field verification by -9 percent, 85 percent, and 

-26 percent for ground based, line, and helicopter system, respectively (see the project record for more 

information). Consequently, the analysis of effects for all resources took a conservative approach and 

considered the potential range in acres by logging system represented by -26 to +85 percent of the 

original estimated acres. Further, individual resource effects were assessed by stand relative to the 

potential for implementation of more impactful logging system(s) than the original estimated system (e.g., 

if a ground based system were implemented instead of an estimated helicopter or skyline system), and no 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 165

specific resource concerns were identified. In general, as a result of project design criteria, best 

management practices, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines applied at the stand level by resource, 

implementation of logging systems within the ranges specified in table 50 would result in no differences 

in effects. Specific design features and best management practices for each logging system are listed in 

Appendix J.

Table 50. Alternative 2 - Acres by logging system

Logging 

System

Original 

Estimate of 

Approximate 

Acres

Percent of Total 

Harvest 

Treatment 

Acres

Analyzed Range in 

Approximate Acres 

(-26 to +85% of the 

original estimate)

Analyzed Range in 

Approximate Percent of 

Total Harvest Treatment 

Acres

Ground Based 

(Tractor) 6,200 39% 4,600-11,470 29-73%

Line 4,500 29% 3,300-8,300 21-53%

Helicopter 5,000 32% 3,700-9,250 24-59%

Total Harvest 

Acres: 15,700 100%

Forest Cover Type

Cover type percent by PVG and percent change from existing condition due to Alternative 2 treatments 

are listed in Table 51. The largest movement toward RV would be in the ponderosa pine cover type. There 

would be a 10 percent increase in the dry PVG and another 2 percent increase in the moist PVG. There 

would also be notable changes to the Douglas-fir cover type with a 9 percent reduction in the dry PVG 

and a 2 percent reduction in the moist PVG. Alternative 2 would move all cover types in both PVGs 

closer to RV with the exception of lodgepole pine in the moist PVG.

Forest Structural Stages

Table 52 summarizes the forest structural stage percent PVG and percent change from existing condition 

due to Alternative 2 treatments. Largest movement toward RV would be in the OFSS structural stage with 

a 6 percentincrease in the dry PVG and 2 percent increase in moist PVG. The SE stage would experience 

movement away from RV in both PVGs. Alternative 2 would result in movement toward RV in OFSS and 

SI and movement away from RV in all other stages. This is due to the time lag of development from the 

UR/YFMS structural stages to the OF structural stages. This provides an opportunity for restoration to 

further move the percentage of dry PVG OFSS stage within RV.

Tree Density Class

Table 53 displays the density class percent by PVG and percent change from existing condition due to 

Alternative 2 treatments. Alternative 2 would move or maintain all density classes within RV for both 

PVGs.

Pattern

Alternative 2 would treat 21,170 acres using the ICO approach for restoring forest spatial pattern. ICO is 

designed to use evidence of historic stand structure during a time where characteristic disturbance created 

a heterogeneous landscape pattern. There would be about 48,200 acres of high priority prescribed fire 

with up to 90,000 total acres available. The return of fire as a relevant process would support the creation 

and maintenance of characteristic pattern within the LJCRP.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

166 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Size Class Distribution

Thinning treatments would result in an immediate increase in average tree diameter by favoring dominant 

and codominant trees. The treatments would also increase average tree diameter in the short term by 

reducing inter-tree competition and improving individual tree growth.

Table 51 displays the estimated post treatment size class distribution and the percent change from the

existing distribution under Alternative 2. For both the dry and moist PVGs, tree size class would be 

trending toward larger tree size classes with a 9 and 7 percent increase respectively in the >20 in size 

class.

Table 51. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of forest cover types in the LJCRP area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Cover Type Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group (Percent 

Change from Existing)

Range of 

variation (%) 

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa pine 16,200 38% (+10) 50-80

Douglas-fir 18,000 42% (-9) 5-20

Western larch 720 2% (+1) 1-10

Lodgepole pine 90 <1% (-<1) 0

Grand fir 7,000 16% (-2) 1-10

Engelmann spruce 0 0% (0) 0

Unknown 260 1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa pine 1,700 13% (+2) 5-15

Douglas-fir 5,600 43% (-2) 15-30

Western larch 760 6% (+2) 10-30

Lodgepole pine 170 1% (-1) 25-45

Grand fir 4,600 36% (-<1)) 15-30

Engelmann spruce 70 1% (-<1) 1-10

Unknown 40 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Table 52. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of forest structural stages in the LJCRP area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Structural 

Stage Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group 

(Percent Change from 

Existing)

Range of variation 

(%) (Powell 2010)

Dry UF

OFSS 2,600 6% (+6) 40-60

OFMS 9,000 21% (+1) 5-15

YFMS 2,700 193006% 46% (+1) 5-10

UR 16,600 39%

SE 3,700 9% (-9) 10-20

SI 7,500 18% (+1) 15-25

Unknown 180 <1%
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 167

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Structural 

Stage Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group 

(Percent Change from 

Existing)

Range of variation 

(%) (Powell 2010)

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist UF

OFSS 220 2% (+2) 10-20

OFMS 4,300 33% (+3) 15-20

YFMS 1,800 4,70014% 36% (+<1) 10-20

UR 2,900 22%

SE 1,700 13% (-5) 20-30

SI 2,100 16% (+<1) 20-30

Unknown 20 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Table 53. Alternative 2 – Post treatment distribution of tree density classes in the LJCRP area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Density 

Class Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group 

(Percent Change from 

Existing)

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry UF

Dry High 6,400 15% (-18) 5-15

Dry Mod 9,500 22% (-10) 15-30

Dry Low 26,200 62% (+28) 40-85

Unknown 180 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist UF

Moist High 3,300 25% (-20) 15-30

Moist Mod 5,200 39% (+11) 25-60

Moist Low 4,400 34% (+9) 20-40

Unknown 50 2%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Table 54. Alternative 2 – Post treatment tree size class distribution in the LJCRP area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size Class 

(diameter range 

in inches)

Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group (Percent 

Change from Existing)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

<5 5,300 13% (-4)

5-10 2,900 7% (+5)

10-15 10,700 25% (+13)

15-20 12,500 30% (+2)

>20 10,700 25% (+9)

Unknown 180 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

<5 1,500 11% (-5)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

168 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size Class 

(diameter range 

in inches)

Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group (Percent 

Change from Existing)

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

5-10 1,400 11% (+5)

10-15 2,700 21% (-6)

15-20 3,400 26% (-2)

>20 3,900 30% (+7)

Unknown 70 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Disturbance and Fire Regimes

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”, above. The action alternatives vary in effect based solely 

on intensity of treatment represented by the number of acres. Alternative 2 includes more acres of harvest 

and SI, thereby directly improving forest structure, density, and composition and associated fire regime 

characteristics.

Prescribed Fire 

Alternative 2 proposes about 48,200 acres of high priority prescribed fire. Alternative 2 has the largest 

beneficial effect on fire regime departure and landscape resiliency through implementation of prescribed 

fire and a greater amount of forest treatment and stand improvement. Alternative 2 proposes prescribed 

fire on approximately 4 to 6 percent of the landscape per year compared to the reference of 6 – 15 

percent. In high fire years, approximately 5 – 10 percent is predicted to burn from wildfire. This is within 

the reference fire regime and expected natural burn pattern insofar as the area adapting to and with fire as 

a disturbance process.

Activity Fuels

There would be more activity fuels created with the implementation of Alternative 2 as compared to 

Alternative 3. The treatment of activity fuels in “Effects common to all action alternatives” remains the 

same. Disposition of activity fuels is a key part in ensuring that fire severity does not increase due to the 

additional accumulation of fuels as a result of silvicultural activity (forest treatment and stand 

improvement). There is no increased impact to fire risk under Alternative 2 when compared to Alternative 

3. 

Fire Management Decision Space

Alternative 2 creates the most decision space of Alternatives 2 and 3 to manage wildland fire (planned 

and unplanned ignitions). State-and-transition modeling for the LJCRP area (Appendix C) indicates that 

during a high fire year in the LJCRP area, the amount of the landscape that burns is within the expected 

fire regime extent (6-15 percent/year). Although there is no difference between expected acres burned 

with planned and unplanned ignitions, (4 – 6 percent) depending on the year, there is a large benefit to 

managing unplanned ignitions under Alternative 2 due to the active management of IRA, PWA, Old 

Growth Preservation areas, and RHCAs. This creates an environment with less ecological and social risk 

of having unwanted fire effects in one year, such as uncharacteristic severe fire or fire affecting a large 

portion of the area (particularly within or adjacent to IRA, PWA, Old Growth Preservation areas, and 

RHCAs), that would impact the character of forest succession and fire regime. Alternative 2 affects the 

ability of wildland fire in a positive manner to become a restorative process at an ecologically appropriate 

scale and severity.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 169

Insect and Disease Susceptibility 

Table 55 lists the estimated, Alternative 2 post treatment susceptibility ratings for the six insect and

disease agents associated with the PVGs and cover types within the LJCRP area. The following is a 

comparison of expected post treatment ratings to existing ratings, as an indication of stand conditions that 

are conducive to improved forest health and trending toward the range of variation (RV). 

Table 55. Alternative 2 – Post treatment insect and disease susceptibility in the LJCRP area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Agent

Susceptibility Rating - % of Forested Area

Low Moderate High

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 31%+ 40-85% 45%+ 15-30% 24%- 5-15%

Douglas-fir Beetle 17%+ 35-75% 53%+ 15-30% 29%- 10-25%

Fir Engraver 41%= 45-90% 45%= 10-25% 14%= 5-10%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 22%- 5-10% 59%+ 15-30% 19%- 40-90%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 14%= 25-55% 39%= 15-40% 46%= 20-35%

Root Diseases 34%+ 30-60% 52%+ 25-50% 14%- 5-25%

Moist 

upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 10%+ 5-10% 29%= 20-30% 61%- 35-90%

Douglas-fir Beetle 6%+ 30-60% 30%+ 20-40% 64%- 10-30%

Fir Engraver 20%+ 30-70% 37%+ 20-35% 43%- 10-20%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 28%- 40-70% 64%+ 15-35% 8%- 5-25%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 12%+ 30-65% 33%= 20-45% 55%- 10-20%

Root Diseases 22%+ 5-15% 56%+ 20-50% 22%- 35-75%

+ increase from current; - decrease from current; = same as current.

Dry PVG 

• Defoliators and Douglas-fir beetle would be outside RV for all ratings, with a higher percentage in the 

low and moderate ratings and lower percentage in the high rating than existing condition.

• Fir engraver would be the same as existing condition for all ratings.

• Bark beetles in ponderosa pine would continue to be outside RV for all ratings, with the low rating 

moving closer to RV.

• Douglas fir mistletoe would continue to be below RV for the low rating, above RV for the high ratings 

and within RV for the moderate rating.

• Root diseases would continue to be within RV for the low and high ratings, the moderate rating would 

increase outside RV.

Moist PVG

• Defoliators would continue to be within RV for all ratings. The low rating is higher; the moderate 

rating is the same and high rating is lower than existing condition.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

170 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

• Douglas-fir beetle would move toward RV for the low and high ratings and continue within RV for 

the moderate rating.

• Fir engraver would be outside RV for all ratings. The low and high rating would move toward RV.

• Bark beetle in ponderosa pine would move further below RV in the low rating, and above in the 

moderate rating and remain within RV for the high rating. Bark beetle susceptibility is heavily 

weighted to cover type, size class, and forest structure. Since Alternative 2 is moving toward a desired 

condition of a mixed ponderosa pine cover type, increased size class and old structural stage,

susceptibility increases in many cases from low to moderate.

• Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe would be outside RV for the low and high ratings. The low rating would 

move up toward RV and the high rating would move down toward RV. 

• Root diseases would be outside RV for all ratings. The ratings would continue on the current trend of 

above RV for the low and moderate ratings and below RV for the high rating. 

• Dwarf Mistletoe and the Degree of Mistletoe Infestation – PDCs common to all treatment types 

include discriminating against mistletoe infected trees, discriminating against host species (Douglasfir) and creating conditions that minimize potential for spread to uninfected trees. This would result in 

a reduced mistletoe infection wherever mistletoe infections occur within the 21,378 acres of forest

treatment proposed under Alternative 2. This includes 336 acres of forest treatment in moderate to 

heavily mistletoe infected stands.

Timber Resource

There would be approximately 15,700 acres of harvest treatment (acres treated that remove timber 

volume) and there would be approximately 10,400,000 cubic feet of timber volume removed as a result of 

all forest stand treatments. This would be a direct beneficial effect of Alternative 2.

Rangelands, Understory Vegetation, and TES Plant Species

Rangelands

See the effects common to Alternatives 2 and 3. Treatments in Alternative 2 (Map 19) would have the 

greatest beneficial impact on forage production where post treatment takes density to less than 40 percent

cover. Moist upland forest treatments where density would be reduced to less than 40 percent canopy 

cover would occur on less than one percent of the LJCRP area. Using a conservative estimate of 10

percent increase in forage for dry upland forest stands that are taken to low density, about 8-12 percentof 

the project area in Alternative 2 would show increased forage production. Allotments that would have 

over 1,000 acres treated to less than 40 percent canopy closure would be Cold Springs, Cougar Creek, and 

Swamp Creek. Allotments that would have 500 -1,000 acres treated to less than 40 percent canopy closure 

would be Davis Creek, Hunting Camp, Table Mountain and Teepee Elk. The amount of forage depends on 

many factors, such as annual variations in precipitation, heat, soil, and competing vegetation. Project 

Design Criteria Range-1 (coordinating timber sale operations with the timber sale administrator) would 

help avoid impacts to ongoing grazing operations. 

Noxious Weeds

Alternative 2 would treat areas in designated old growth (MA15) and IRAs, resulting in more acres of 

commercial harvest, and thinning than Alternatives 1 or 3. While direct effects of timber harvest on nonnative plants are difficult to predict and quantify, they would occur through ground disturbance and 

introduction of invaders into new areas. Disturbance associated with timber harvest and fuels reduction 

are expected through movement of heavy equipment, soil displacement, vegetation compression, and 

burnt ground from prescribed fire activities; but the amount of disturbance can vary depending on activity 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 171

density and type. For example, the effects of pre-commercial thinning are generally much less severe, due 

to the minimal level of soil disturbance, than the effects associated with commercial harvest or yarding 

activities. Project activities can introduce new species into areas by transporting non-native plant material 

on machinery or personnel. 

Alternative 2 includes meadow restoration adjacent to Swamp Creek (a RHCA Class 1 stream), where 

there is a large scattered population of meadow hawkweed. Project Design Criteria would mitigate risks 

of invasive species spread due to project activities (INVP–4: Do not disturb meadow hawkweed in 

Swamp Creek, or other locations within the project area, through ground disturbance that would create 

bare soil or move seeds or vegetative parts of meadow hawkweed plants to new locations. Machinery 

used in Swamp Creek Meadow must be washed prior to leaving site).

Alternative 2 would implement all previous decisions for road closures made by the WWNF and close 

some additional road segments to move toward LRMP road density standards for aquatic and wildlife 

habitat. The overall differences in risk of spread of noxious weeds between Alternatives 2 and 3 in miles 

are nominal. The length of external haul routes is common to both alternatives.

To protect LJCRP from the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants through activities related to 

vegetation treatments, R6 guideline 2 (clean all heavy equipment (bulldozers, skidders, graders, backhoes, 

dump trucks, etc.) prior to entering NFS Lands) and project design criteria ) would be implemented (i.e., 

INVP–5 No parking, decking or piling on established weed sites; INVP–6 All landings, burn piles, skid 

trails and other disturbed areas created as part of a this vegetation restoration project would be 

rehabilitated and seeded as per Pacific Northwest Region October 2005 Invasive Plant Program 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Prevention Standard 2, and FSM 2070.3 with the input and 

approval of local botanist; and INVP–7 Known invasive plant populations would be flagged and/or 

mapped prior to road grading and other road improvements, designation of parking areas and landings, 

and logging, with work overseen by the invasive species specialists. Equipment operators would receive 

maps with known sites and instructions to avoid flagged or otherwise identified areas.

Threatened, Endangered and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants

Coniferous Forest

Sensitive plants found in coniferous forest are discussed in detail under effects common to all action 

alternatives.

Ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue and ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass plant associations should be 

conserved within the project area through prescribed fire and thinning. Alternative 2 would have more 

benefit to these biologically unique communities than Alternative 3 because there are more acres of 

proposed treatment. Fire suppression is the main threat, but noxious weeds and invasive annual grasses 

are also a threat. Project design criteria such as minimizing prescribed fire and ground disturbance in 

areas with weeds as well as PDCs Range-5 and -7, using interdisciplinary input to assess areas for 

treatment and timing of prescribed fire with respect to noxious weeds, range resources, and sensitive 

plants are recommended.

Alternative 2 could have greater impact on the biologically unique plant community grand fir/Pacific 

yew/queencup beadlily than Alternative 3 because it would provide more opportunity for commercial 

thinning in moist mixed conifer forest. See effects common to all action alternatives for more detail and 

mitigations. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

172 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Grasslands

Two green-band mariposa lily populations are adjacent to units that would be treated in Alternative 2, but 

not treated in Alternative 3, because the green-band mariposa populations are within the Wildhorse IRA 

and in the HCNRA at the end of the TeePee Butte Road. The units are planned as helicopter based logging 

systems. Potential direct effects to green-band mariposa lily would include crushing by tree felling or 

machinery parked in open areas, as well as some soil disturbance from removal. Indirect effects could be 

negative in the case of spreading invasive annual grasses and noxious weeds through ground disturbance 

and prescribed fire. Beneficial indirect effects could be the removal of conifers encroaching into grassland 

stringers and nitrogen release as a result of prescribed burning. HCNRA CMP standards and guides to 

protect and manage habitats and populations of TES plant species to ensure their continued existence 

would be implemented (TES-01, TES-02, and TES-G2). PDC Gra-O1 (manage grassland vegetation to 

ensure continued ecological function and sustainability of native ecosystems. Maintain and/or restore the 

ecological status of grassland communities to their potential natural condition recognizing their RV), from 

the HCNRA CMP is specific to maintaining grassland ecosystems and would be used as guidance for 

conserving native grasslands while implementing grazing. Project design criteria to protect grassland 

stringers and sensitive plant habitat in grasslands are TESP-2 (No road construction or staging areas on 

non-forested habitats), and INVP-3 (avoid prescribed fire and ground disturbance from vegetation 

treatment and related activities where invasive non-native species are found). Direct and indirect effects 

to grasslands may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH).

Lithosol/ Shallow Soils

Alternative 2 would have the most activities near lithosol habitat, although the activity areas in 

Alternative 3 are still substantial. Direct effects to TES plants found on lithosols are crushing plants with 

machinery; burying plants during grading and landing construction; damaging plants during felling and 

yarding; and burying plants under slash piles. Indirect effects are soil compaction and spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive annual grasses (Brooks 2009, Dewey 2013). WWNF Forest Plan standards and guides 

as well as HCNRA CMP standards and guides would be followed for the white fleabanes, and the LRMP

would be followed for Wallowa needlegrass. Both the LRMP and the CMP provide guidance to maintain 

natural plant communities and to maintain all native species within projects (LRMP 4-30 to 4-31, CMP 

TES-01, BIO-S1). 

Project design criteria TESP-2 (no road construction or staging areas on non-forested habitat), and TESP3 (avoid disturbing Davis fleabane/Snake river daisy populations adjacent to Cold Springs Road and 

feeder roads) would help prevent adverse effects related to road construction, landings and piling. PDC 

RANGE-5 (the botanist, invasive species specialist and range manager would work together to determine 

whether prescribed fire or other vegetation restoration activities would require resting portions of the 

pasture treated) would be used to ensure the recovery of native plants and habitats, as well as biological 

soil crusts. With mitigations, Alternative 2 may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH)

in Lithosols in the LJCRP area.

Moist Meadows, Wet Meadows, Riparian Areas, Springs and Seeps

There are no documented species from moist meadows, wet meadows, riparian areas or springs and seeps, 

however there are twelve suspected TES plants in these habitats. The only treatment in Alternative 2

within Category 1 RHCAs is in Swamp Creek, where lodgepole would be thinned. Category 4 RHCAs 

(intermittent streams) in forest treatment stands would be treated in Alternative 2, and there would be a 25 

foot variable width no harvest and no equipment buffer established during implementation by a 

hydrologist or fisheries biologist. Both the LRMP and the CMP provide guidance to maintain natural 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 173

plant communities and to maintain all native species within projects (LRMP 4-30 to 4-31, CMP TES-01, 

BIO-S1). Seeps and springs would be protected from logging and thinning activities with project design 

criteria such as BIO –1 (avoid disturbing natural seeps and springs, wet meadows, moist meadows, this 

includes removing shrubs and trees; except in Swamp Creek). 

Swamp Creek moist meadow habitat is infested with the invasive plant meadow hawkweed. Project 

design criteria INVP–4 (do not disturb meadow hawkweed in Swamp Creek, or other locations within the 

project area, through ground disturbance that would create bare soil or move seeds or vegetative parts of 

meadow hawkweed plants to new locations) would be followed. Machinery used in Swamp Creek 

Meadow must be washed prior to leaving site. If standards and guides and PDCs are followed, direct and 

indirect effects are unlikely in these habitats and no impact (NI) is expected.

Aquatic Habitat

Forest Treatment Activities

Under Alternative 2, RHCA, as prescribed in PACFISH, would be utilized to protect aquatic and riparian 

habitats in the LJCRP area (see Design Criteria in Appendix J). These RHCA delineations would occur on 

Category 1, 2, and 3 streams, ponds and wetlands. 

Category 4 RHCAs would be delineated as prescribed by PACFISH, but would have a silvicultural 

treatment within the RHCA that would be used to maintain and restore RMOs for the Category 4 stream 

and RHCA. Only those Category 4 RHCAs that are not in OFSS would be treated (approximately 1,800

acres). Those RHCAs that are in OFSS are assumed to be at the RMO for sediment and large wood debris 

recruitment. The silvicultural prescription would be similar to the upslope treatment prescription with the 

addition of a 25 foot variable width no treatment buffer on either side of the Category 4 stream channel. 

Mechanical thinning activities, skid trails, and landings would be located outside of RHCAs. Forest 

treatment stands would be logged using a combination of ground-based and aerial logging systems. 

Under Alternative 2, commercial thinning activities using mechanical equipment would occur over about 

16,000 acres. Ground disturbing activities (i.e. yarding, development and use of skid trails and landings) 

would be limited to areas outside of RHCAs. 

No effect to stream temperature from the Category 4 RHCA treatments would be realized. 

With no site specific stand data on Category 1 and 2 RHCAs, there would be no forest treatment proposed 

in Alternatives 2 and 3 for those RHCAs, except for Swamp Creek. Any proposed treatment prescriptions 

for Category 4 RHCAs would follow a minimum 25 foot variable width no treatment buffer on either side 

of the channel. This would provide protection from equipment disturbance to the channel banks and 

maintain the existing supply of large woody debris to the channel. 

The treatment outside the no treatment buffer would follow the treatment prescription for the upslope 

stand. The area from 25 to 100 feet is similar in species composition and stand structure, as well as the 

range of variation, to the upslope area. This treatment would provide the long term stand conditions for 

the RHCA to provide for the maintenance of the site specific riparian management objectives. This 

treatment would reduce the influence of uncharacteristic wildfire on stand structure and composition, and 

potentially contribute to a reduction in the effects of climate change on stand structure (and in-turn stream 

flow), and the effects of insect infestations on the stand. Additionally, forest treatment would result in 

faster growth of residual trees due to reduced competition, thus increasing the size of potential coarse 

woody debris. In this manner it would provide for resilience to the vegetation in the likely event of future 

disturbance.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

174 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Only 31 acres of a Category 1 stream RHCA (located in the upper Swamp Creek subwatershed), would be 

treated. These acres would be treated to remove some existing shade producing trees (all trees over 15 in 

dbh would be left) but in the long term serve to restore the meadow storage capacity thereby reducing 

water exposure to direct solar radiation and reducing stream temperatures in the long term.

Danehy and Kirpes (2000) found that the riparian microclimate gradient on four perennial streams in the 

Grande Ronde Basin of eastern Oregon extended no more than 10 meters (30 feet) from the edge of the 

stream channel into the upland forest. Beyond 10 meters humidity was similar to upland conditions. 

A study conducted by Chan et al. (2004) on four different buffer widths with upland density management 

(thinning) suggests that riparian buffers of various configuration results in relatively small changes in the 

riparian climate. Buffer widths in the study were 1) streamside retention (less than 25 feet), 2) variable 

width (about 57 feet), 3) one site potential tree width (about 201 feet), and 4) two site potential tree 

widths (about 400 feet). The study involved small headwater streams, and results of the study found that 

the area between the stream and 15 feet lateral distance from the stream is uniquely riparian with respect 

to microclimate. This 15 foot zone is remarkably resistant to microclimate changes from upland thinning 

treatments. 

Anderson et al. (2007) studied the effects of thinning on the riparian microclimate in western Oregon. 

Three buffer widths (measured from stream center) were used for mechanical thinning and are: 1) 

streamside retention averaging nine meters (about 27 feet), 2) variable width averaging 22 meters (about 

66 feet), and 3) one site potential tree height averaging 69 meters (about 207 feet). The study concluded 

that: riparian microclimate gradients are strongest within 10 meters of the center of the stream (about 30 

feet), upslope thinning has little detectable effect on the stream center microclimate, buffer widths defined 

by the transition from riparian to upland vegetation or topographic slope breaks appear sufficient to 

mitigate the impacts of upslope thinning on the microclimate above the stream, and there was no apparent 

mitigation associated with wider buffers. 

Treatment of the 31 acres (0.50 mi of Designated Critical Habitat (DCH)) would affect only 2.7 percent

(0.4 percentof total DCH miles) of the total acres of Category 1 streams in the Lower Swamp Creek 

subwatershed. The retention of all trees over 15 inch dbh, as well as the 25 foot variable width no harvest 

buffer, would retain shade producing vegetation. There would be no affect to stream temperature from the 

treatment of 31 acres of the RHCA in Swamp Creek.

For all other Category 1 and 2 streams, restricting activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent 

adverse impacts to existing stream shading along perennial streams. The RHCA widths adjacent to these 

streams, 300 feet for Category 1 streams and 200 feet for Category 2 streams, are sufficient to prevent 

removal of trees that provide stream shading. Therefore, measurable increases in stream temperatures 

would not result from proposed forest treatment activities in these streams.

Road Activities

Fine sediment levels in streams have been shown to increase as the density of roads in a watershed 

increase (Cederholm and Reid 1987). To access treatment stands no new road construction would be 

needed for the LJCRP. Road reconstruction would need to take place on 82.6 miles of road in the LJCRP 

area (Table 32). The WEPP-Road Model estimates that soil eroded off the road segments used for haul

routes would be unlikely to reach the nearest stream channels (see Physical Environment supporting 

documentation). 

The total road density for the Lower Joseph Creek Watershed in the LJCRP area is under the requirements 

of the 1998 Biological Opinion for Snake River LRMPs for Snake River Steelhead (2 miles per square 

mile of total roads). The total road density for Upper Joseph Creek Watershed is over the 2.0 miles per 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 175

square mile density requirement There are a number of subwatersheds that contain Snake River steelhead

that have elevated road densities (Tables 56 and 57). The higher road densities, which are an indicator of 

fine sediment delivery to fish bearing streams, would have an effect on steelhead and redband trout

production. These higher densities are found in three subwatersheds in the LJCRP area. 

Table 56. Total road density by subwatershed within the Upper Joseph Watershed by alternative

Subwatershed Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total 

Roads

Total Rd 

Density

Total 

Roads

Total Rd 

Density

Total 

Roads

Total 

Rd 

Density

Broady Creek 45.8 2.85 45.8 2.85 49.8 3.11

Horse Creek 18.2 2.01 18.2 2.01 18.2 2.01

Rush Creek 22.4 2.53 20.6 2.33 22.7 2.57

Lower Cottonwood Creek 7.2 0.68 7.2 0.68 7.2 0.68

Upper Cottonwood Creek 25.8 1.35 25.8 1.3.5 25.8 1.35

Peavine Creek 25.5 1.45 24.5 1.45 25.4 1.45

Watershed Total: 172.2 2.43 195.6 2.19 219.2 2.45

Table 57. Total road density by subwatershed within the Lower Joseph Watershed by alternative 

Subwatershed Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total 

Roads

Total Rd 

Density

Total 

Road

s

Total Rd 

Density

Total 

Roads

Total 

Rd 

Density

Cougar Creek 53.0 2.61 38.9 1.92 53.02 2.61

Sumac Creek 46.6 3.11 40.3 2.69 46.6 3.11

Lower Swamp Creek 41.8 1.80 41.8 1.80 41.5 1.78

Davis Creek 30.8 2.48 27.9 2.25 30.75 2.48

Watershed Total: 219.2 2.45 148.9 2.10 171,8 2.42

Temporary roads would be constructed to access forest treatment units. An estimated 12.6 miles of 

temporary roads would be constructed. The temporary roads would not be constructed in RHCAs, except 

at four stream crossings, for a total of 800 feet and 0.027 acres. The temporary roads would be 

decommissioned following completion of haul activities. Analyses conducted in WEPP indicate a low 

probability of measurable sediment delivery from these temporary roads (see the Physical Environment 

supporting documentation).

The combination of road re-construction, temporary road construction and road decommissioning, 

opening and use of closed roads, and log haul traffic would likely result in an increase in erosion rates in 

the LJCRP area. Increases in erosion rates would occur in the short-term and then trend toward

background levels. RHCAs would likely moderate much of the increase and the amount of sediment 

reaching stream channels and would likely result in an immeasurable increase in fine sediment levels in 

the stream channels (see Physical Environment supporting documentation).

PACFISH standards and guideline for timber harvest activities and RHCAs were developed to limit 

impacts to aquatic habitat from timber harvest activities. There is a low likelihood that increases in fine 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

176 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

sediment resulting from the proposed timber harvest activities would result in measureable increases in 

fine sediment in fish bearing streams in the analysis area.

Prescribed Fire Activities

Prescribed fire activities would occur in RHCAs in accordance with Blue Mountains PDCs. The use of 

low intensity fires in RHCAs would reduce fire intensities by reducing fuel loading. Reduced fire 

intensities in RHCAs would 1) reduce the potential for mortality of trees that provide shade, 2) reduce the 

amount of downed woody material consumed, and 3) reduce the amount of burned area in the RHCAs 

thus reducing the amount of ground cover loss. Typically, only about 40 to 60% of the area in an RHCA is 

actually burned due to the use of low intensity fires and higher fuel moistures. See the 

Vegetation/Disturbance specialist’s report for a more detailed description of the expected post-burn 

conditions. 

The majority of the burned areas in RHCAs would be concentrated along the outer edges of the RHCAs 

where fuel moisture levels would be lower compared to areas closer to stream channels. Prescribed fire

would result in a greater area of ground cover consumption in RHCAs adjacent to intermittent streams 

due to lower fuel moisture levels compared to perennial streams. 

The burn prescription would target consumption of woody material 3 inches and smaller with nearly all 

material in this size class consumed. Therefore, fire severity would not be high enough to consume 

significant quantities of downed wood that play a role in trapping fine sediment on hill slopes, in 

intermittent stream channels, and on floodplains. Some ground cover would be consumed but would be 

quickly replaced as litter fall occurs in the first year following burning and herbaceous plants recover in 

the second year following burning. A measurable increase in fine sediment in stream channels as a result 

of prescribed fire activities is unlikely due to the combination of a predicted patchy, low severity burn in 

RHCAs and typical recovery of ground cover within two years of prescribed fire activities. 

Prescribed fire activities would result in a low severity fire in RHCAs adjacent to perennial streams in the 

LJCRP area. This would be accomplished by low intensity fire when fuel moisture levels are high. These 

techniques result in low intensity fires that burn in a patchy distribution of burned and unburned areas in 

RHCAs. Trees killed by prescribed fire in RHCAs would primarily be understory trees (< 9 in. dbh). 

Understory trees of this size typically do not provide significant levels of stream shading. 

Few riparian shrubs are also expected to be killed as a result of the prescribed fire because they are 

present in the more moist riparian areas. Where the above ground portions of riparian shrubs are killed, 

they would likely sprout back relatively quickly because the low severity fire would not be hot enough to 

kill the roots. 

Prescribed fire in RHCAs adjacent to intermittent streams poses little risk of increasing stream 

temperatures because these streams are normally dry during the summer and fall months. Based on these 

factors, the LJCRP is unlikely to result in a measurable increase in water temperature and a degradation of 

water quality in streams. 

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP may affect Snake River steelhead or its designated critical habitat and likely 

to adversely affect (LAA) the species and its designated critical habitat. Impacts to Snake River steelhead 

may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat 

section) relating to the replacement of aquatic organism passage and treatment of RHCAs. This short term 

increase in fine sediment relative to the existing fine sediment levels would cause the affect to be adverse 

for listed Snake River steelhead.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 177

Management Indicator Species – Aquatic Species

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP may impact individual redband trout and their habitat (MIIH), but would not 

likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to redband 

trout may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see effects to aquatic 

habitat section).

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP may impact individual Snake River steelhead and their habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute toward loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to Snake River 

steelhead may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see effects to 

aquatic habitat section).

Most streams in the LJCRP area currently exceed the 20 percent RMO for fish bearing streams for fine 

sediment. Forest treatment activities are limited to about 1,800 acres within RHCAs. Prescribed fire

activities would occur in a larger area but the effects relative to sediment would be mitigated by 

implementation of the project PDCs. Short-term potential increases in fine sediment from proposed 

prescribed fire and forest treatment activities are unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine 

sediment in streams in the LJCRP area.

Impacts from activities proposed under Alternative 2 may result in short-term degradation of habitat for 

Snake River steelhead and redband trout. However, anticipated immeasurable increases in both fine 

sediment and water temperature are within habitat tolerances for steelhead and redband trout.

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP may impact individual western ridge mussels and their habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts 

to western ridge mussels may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see 

effects to aquatic habitat section).

Cumulatively, aquatic habitat should improve over time in the LJCRP area. Fine sediment levels should 

decrease through time as a result of improved road closures and decommissioning activities. Alternative 2

may result in a short-term increase in fine sediment resulting from prescribed fire activities.

In the long-term, Alternative 2 would improve vegetative conditions and maintain the natural fire regime 

in the LJCRP area, which would have beneficial impacts to western ridge mussels and their habitat.

Wildlife 

Primary Cavity Excavators

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-1-Wild-14 (Appendix J) would be implemented. These 

include protection measures for large trees, large snags, downed logs during harvest and prescribed fire

activities.

Also see “effects common to all action alternatives”.

Under Alternative 2, the forest treatments proposed would adversely impact current and future dead and 

defective wood habitat. Forest treatment is proposed on about 40 percent of the forested landscape (Table 

33). It can be assumed that within treatment areas there would be a reduction in snags and logs due to skid 

trails, landings, safety reasons and prescribed fire. Forest treatment and prescribed fire are expected to 

help create habitat for primary cavity excavators (PCEs) that use open forests (e.g. white-headed 

woodpeckers) and reduce habitat for those PCEs using dense forests (e.g. pileated woodpeckers). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

178 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative 2 treats more acres (21,200) than Alternative 3 (13,300), thus there is a greater reduction in 

snag and down-wood habitat elements in Alternative 2 due to safety and placement of skid trails, 

landings, etc. Even when not prescribed for removal, research has found that thinning treatments resulted 

in losses of pre-treatment snags (Agee 2002, Harrod et al. 2009)

The potential removal of trees > 21 in. dbh on up to 5,000 acres in Alternative 2 may adversely affect the 

long-term recruitment of snag habitat, as these trees would no longer be available as potential snags, nor 

contribute to potential snag development from tree crowding (no trees > 21 in. would be cut in 

Alternatives 1 and 3). A Forest Plan amendment would be required for harvesting of trees > 21 in. dbh,

which considers the effects described above (see Chapter 3, Forest Plan Amendments – Alternative 2).

The closing of roads would have a beneficial effect on the abundance of snag and down wood habitat. 

Bate et al. (2007) and Wisdom and Bate (2008) found that snag numbers were lower adjacent to roads due 

to removal for safety considerations, removal as firewood, and other management activities (Bate et al. 

2007, Wisdom and Bate 2008, Hollenbeck et al. 2013). Alternative 2 would have less impact than 

Alternative 3 because fewer roads would be open to the public.

Under Alternatives 2 or 3, up to 90,000 acres of prescribed fire would be available for implementation. 

Alternative 2 proposes the most amount of high priority fire. In the east Cascades of Washington, burning 

and thinning treatments tended to increase snag density in one study, although they were often smalldiameter snags (e.g., 20–39.9 cm dbh) (Hessburg et al. 2010). Additionally, other research suggests 

prescribed fires would likely result in loss of snags, particularly in the large (>20 in) size class (Finch et 

al. 1997, Pilliod et al. 2006). 

This project impacts less than 40 percent of forested habitat across the WWNF; hence, the overall direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects would result in a small negative trend of snag/downed wood habitat in the 

short term. Mitigation measures are in place to protect large snags during both harvesting and prescribed 

burning activities. The changes in habitat would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The LJCRP is 

consistent with the LRMP, and thus continued viability of MIS for dead and defective wood habitat is 

expected on the WWNF in both action alternatives.

Pileated Woodpecker

Effects assume project design criteria Wild1-Wild14, and Wild26-27 (Appendix J) would be 

implemented. These mitigation measures include protection measures for large trees, large snags, downed 

logs during harvest and prescribed fire activities. Snags >12 in. are only to be removed due to safety 

considerations. Harvest of large trees is allowed only in Alternative 2 and on approximately 5,000 acres, 

excluding areas within MA15s, PFAs, and cool-moist, large tree, closed canopied forests. Wild-26-27

describes conservation measures to protect pileated woodpecker nests. 

Also see “effects common to all action alternatives”.

Table 34 compares conditions of pileated woodpecker source habitat by alternative. Alternative 2 would 

maintain source habitat within RV, but would have lower habitat quality compared to Alternative 1 and 3 

since it includes a greater extent of forest treatments.

Alternative 2 allows for cutting of trees >21in. across about 33percent of the area treated (Table 58), 

where the other alternatives allow none. The loss of large (>21 in.) trees in Alternative 2 would more 

negatively affect pileated woodpeckers and other cavity nesting and large tree dependent wildlife species 

than Alternatives 1 and 3 (however, also see “Site-Specific Needs for Amendments to the Eastside 

Screens” in Chapter 3, which summarizes how more large trees may be lost to fire given the No Action 

Alternative than would be lost to fire or removed via harvest given the action alternatives). A Forest Plan 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 179

amendment would be required for harvesting of trees > 21in. dbh, which considers the effects described 

above.

Table 58. Percentage of treated forest in Alternative 2 where trees >21 in. dbh could potentially be removed.

Harvest acres

Acres with trees >21" 

potentially removed

% Harvest area with 

trees >21" 

potentially removed 

Dry forest PVG 12,000 4,800 41

Moist forest PVG 3,400 200 6

Total Commercial 

Harvest 15,400 5,000 33

Under Alternative 2, the abundance of open roads across the LJCRP area would be reduced by 69 miles 

compared to the existing conditions. As compared to Alternatives 1 and 3, this reduction in the amount of 

open roads would have the greatest beneficial impact of any of the alternatives.

Though some current source habitat would be harvested, and the quality of the habitat may be reduced,

overall risk of large scale fire would be reduced, and source habitat would remain within the RV for this 

species in the LJCRP area. Therefore, the LJCRP would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on 

the WWNF for the pileated woodpecker.

American Marten

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-1-Wild-14, and Wild-24 (Appendix J) would be implemented. 

These include protection measures for large trees, large snags, and downed logs during harvest and 

prescribed fire activities. Wild-24 states: Because marten habitat is at the lower end of the RV, any 

harvesting within marten habitat (moist forests, large tree, closed canopy) is designed to maintain old 

forest characteristics. Canopy closure would remain > 60 percent, and there would be no harvest of trees 

> 21in. dbh in marten habitat. Alternative 2 would maintain snags and large down wood that American 

marten need for denning, rest areas, and hunting. Large broken top and potentially hollow grand fir would 

be maintained for denning habitat. 

Also see “effects common to all action alternatives”. 

Under Alternative 2, there are 3,400 acres proposed for forest treatment in moist forest PVG, of which 

820 acres are within what currently qualifies as marten source habitat (moist, large tree, closed canopy; 

Table 36). These 820 acres represent about 38 percent of the current source habitat for marten in the 

project area. The design criteria for these prescriptions maintain >60 percent canopy closure, and multistory conditions; and no trees > 21in. would be harvested. It is assumed that post-harvest these stands 

would be maintained as source habitat. It is likely that in the short-term they may meet minimum 

qualifications as source habitat but the quality of the habitat may be reduced due to reduced complexity 

and tree density, and potential loss of snags and logs due to logging operations and safety. 

As discussed in the PCE section above, densities of large snags (>20 in. dbh) in moist forest are below RV

in the snag density classes that provide habitat for American marten (see the Wildlife specialist’s report 

for more information). Snag habitat is likely to be a limiting factor for marten in these habitat types. 

Harvesting on 3,400 acres would also add to a reduction in snag habitat, further declining potential and 

future habitat quality for marten in the LJCRP area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

180 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

In Alternative 2, marten habitat is being treated on 110 acres with a prescription ‘GS_Mod’ (group 

selection – moderate). Group selections can include openings that are 1/2-4 acres. Martens respond 

negatively to habitat fragmentation (Hargis et al. 1999) and openings as large as four acres could reduce 

the quality of the habitat for marten. In the longer-term, as trees continue to grow, American marten

would continue to use these harvested areas for some or all of their life history functions. 

The potential removal of trees > 21 in. dbh on about 200 acres of moist forest not currently source 

habitat for marten in Alternative 2 may adversely affect the long-term recruitment of snag habitat, as these 

trees would no longer be available as potential snags and down wood. Additionally, the harvest of large 

trees within the moist forest may lead to a delay in development of source habitat and or lower the quality 

of potential source habitat in the longer term. A Forest Plan amendment would be required for harvesting 

of trees > 21 in. dbh, which considers the effects described above.

The additional road closure of 17 miles proposed in Alternative 2 relative to Alternative 1 would likely 

benefit marten. Open roads can contribute to a loss of quality of habitat through loss of snags and downed 

wood due to firewood harvest and safety (Godbout and Ouellet 2008). 

The forest treatments proposed in Alternative 2 are assumed to modify fire behavior and reduce the 

effects or likelihood of a stand replacement event, thereby potentially retaining source habitat in the longterm.

The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects would result in a small negative trend of habitat 

quality. The loss of habitat quality would be insignificant at the scale of the WWNF and would likely be 

short-term. Alternative 2 is consistent with the LRMP, and thus continued viability of the American 

marten is expected on the WWNF.

Northern Goshawk

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-15-23 would be implemented. These mitigation measures 

include protection measures for PFAs. Additional protection measures exist to protect large trees, large 

snags, down-logs during harvest and burning activities (Appendix J). 

Also see “effects common to all action alternatives”. 

Under Alternative 2, the abundance of source habitat for goshawks is reduced by about 4,000 acres (Table 

35) as a result of forest treatment. The amount of source habitat remains with the RV at about 27 percent

(1-46 percent). After harvest, approximately 20 percent (3,800 acres) of the source habitat would have had 

harvest, yet it would meet the definition of source habitat (canopy closure > 40 percent (dry forest PVG) 

or > 60 percent (moist forest PVG) and overall tree size of >15 in. dbh). On approximately 2,300 acres, 

trees >21in.dbh may be harvested. After harvest, source habitat would likely be of lower quality due to 

the loss of canopy closure, loss of large trees, and loss of large snags and logs due to safety concerns and 

logging systems.

Although trees with mistletoe are likely to be removed in all forest treatment stands, especially in the 

prescriptions ‘Intermediate Treatments’ (180 acres), the loss of mistletoe may also reduce the quality of 

source habitat. The removal of trees with dwarf mistletoe brooms may be detrimental to northern 

goshawk and other species that nest in mistletoe brooms (Bull 1997). 

Under Alternative 2, the closure/decommissioning of 17 miles more than Alternative 1 (under existing 

decisions) should benefit northern goshawks, as human disturbance has been documented to adversely 

affect this species. As compared to Alternatives 1 and 3, Alternative 2 would reduce the potential for 

human disturbance the most due to closing or decommissioning the most miles of open roads.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 181

Alternative 2 would impact goshawk habitat in the LJCRP area. Though some current source habitat 

would be harvested, and the quality of the habitat may be reduced, overall source habitat would remain 

within the RV for this species in this project area. Protection measures would be in place to conserve 

PFAs, large trees, large snags and downed logs during harvest and prescribed fire activities. Therefore, 

Alternative 2 would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the WWNF for northern goshawks.

Rocky Mountain Elk

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-29 –31 (Appendix J) would be implemented. These include 

protection measures to reduce human disturbance during winter and calving season. Additionally Wild-34 

provides guidance on retaining hiding cover patches in areas where harvest activities occur. 

Table 37 summarizes LRMPstandards for road density by management area and alternative. The HEI 

standard of > 0.5 in MA1 is met in both the Lower and Upper Joseph Creek watersheds. The percent 

cover on the summer ranges remains above 30 percent (LRMP direction), though it is reduced to 40

percent in the Upper Joseph Creek watershed. The reduced cover would likely lead to increase forage 

quantity and quality especially in the spring. However, this reduced cover may decrease hiding cover (>

40 percent canopy closure), particularly in the Upper Joseph Creek watershed and the entire winter range 

habitat. On winter range habitat, the percent cover is reduced by about 5 percent in both watersheds. 

Alternative 2 changes about 8,100 acres of cover to forage across the entire planning area. Both forest

treatments and prescribed fire may also contribute an increase in forage quantity and quality, especially in 

the spring. All vegetation treatments have been designed to improve the overall landscape structure 

toward RV and become more resilient to natural disturbance patterns, and should benefit elk foraging 

opportunities.

Depending on the implementation schedule, the LJCRP would temporarily increase road density in the 

analysis area by constructing 12.6 miles of temporary roads and at times open currently closed roads for 

administrative use. Combined with the loss of cover to harvest and increased human presence, there 

would likely be a short-term negative impact to habitat effectiveness for elk. 

Through the reduction in nearly 70 miles of open roads as compared to the existing condition, open road 

densities in two subwatersheds (Rush and Cougar Creeks) remain above 3.0 miles/square mile in MA1 

where the Forest Plan standard is 2.5 miles/square mile (Table 38). Overall the reduction in miles of open 

roads is greatest in this Alternative (69 miles) as Alternative 3 proposes to reduce miles of open roads by 

about 9 miles. This reduction in miles of open roads proposed in Alternative 2 would benefit elk in 

providing security to reach quality forage, and reduce human disturbance thus helping to keep elk from 

moving to private lands that often have less human disturbance. Additionally of concern is the 

unregulated OHV and full-sized vehicle use of closed roads, which has been shown to negatively affect 

elk and elk habitat, and has not been accounted for in the HEI calculations.

Old Growth Management Areas, Late-old Forest Habitat, and Connectivity corridors

Old Growth Preservation Areas (MA15)

Alternative 2 includes 660 acres of forest treatments within portions of 11 designated old growth 

preservation areas (MA15) (Table 59). Forest treatments would result in removal of smaller diameter 

trees leaving larger diameter trees. This post treatment condition would result in a larger average diameter 

tree density. The treatments would also increase average tree diameter by reducing inter-tree competition 

and improving individual tree growth. Table 54 displays the estimated post treatment size class 

distribution and the percent change from the existing distribution for the project area under Alternative 2. 

Areas in MA15 are expected to be consistent with this increase in the average diameter tree density. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

182 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Treatment within MA15 is primarily in the dry forest PVG (650 acres, with increases in primarily OFMS, 

with declines in YFMS and SE). The area in OFSS remains unchanged in MA 15 (Table 60; see Figure 3

for descriptions of structural stages). In harvested areas, the canopy would be reduced, favoring those 

species associated with more open canopies but the prescriptions would generally maintain canopy 

closure >40 percentwhile also adhering to the direction to maintain old forest characteristics.

Late Seral (Old) Forest

The abundance of OFMS and OFSS habitat would increase after forest treatments. In dry forests, OFMS 

and OFSS would increase by about 9 percent, and in the moist forests they would increase by about 6

percent. Although these areas of increase may meet the definition of old forest structures, the canopy 

closure and structural complexity would be less than the existing conditions. 

On approximately 860 acres, current OFMS trees > 21 in. dbh may be harvested and the quality of this 

OFMS habitat would be reduced by the loss of large trees under specified conditions (see Chapter 3, 

Alternative 2). Additionally, trees > 21 in. dbh may be harvested on 1,455 acres and the harvest 

prescription would convert the stand from an YFMS or UR to OFMS or OFSS. It is likely that the quality 

of the old forest habitat created for species needing dense, multi-layerd conditions in these areas in the 

short-term would be less than if the trees > 21 in. dbh were not removed.

Forest treatments would be expected to increase the average dbh of the stand, thus moving the stand to a 

larger size class.

Alternative 2 includes a proposed Forest Plan amendment to thin about 30 acres of OFSS conditions to 

maintain or enhance existing conditions. This treatment would not change the overall LOS structural 

conditions. The harvest would reduce the tree density resulting in a more open canopied forest. Opencanopied large tree forest is below RV and an increase in this habitat would benefit species associated 

with this structure, such as the white-headed woodpecker. The landscape is currently above RV in closedcanopied forests. 

Larger tree structure with open canopies would increase habitat for species such as the sensitive whiteheaded woodpecker and Lewis’s woodpecker, but would reduce habitat for MIS such as pileated 

woodpecker and northern goshawk.

Connectivity

Map 6 and Table 61 show forest treatment within connectivity corridors for Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Alternative 2 would reduce the quality of connectivity corridors on 23 percent of areas designated as 

connectivity by reducing the canopy closure and structural complexity. The prescriptions in the proposed 

treatment units within the connectivity corridors have been designed to provide canopy closure at >40

percent in the dry forest PVG, and >50 percent in the moist forest PVG. Although canopy closure and 

structural complexity may be reduced, these stands are expected to maintain the function and objectives 

of connectivity as described in the Eastside Screens. 

Alternative 2 would allow for prescribed fire across much of the planning area, and 1,230 acres of 

treatment in seedling/sapling and pole stands within connectivity corridors. Some snags and logs may be 

consumed by prescribed fire, while new snags and logs are recruited from fire-killed trees. The burning, 

and small tree thinning in connective corridors would not have a measurable adverse effect on the quality 

or function of the corridors. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 183

Table 59. Acres of forest treatments by potential vegetation group (PVG) within MA 15 in Alternative 2

PVG Forest Treatment Type Acres

Dry forest Single tree selection, old growth, low density (STS_OG_Low) 10

Single tree selection, old growth, moderate density (STS_OG_Mod) 610

Moist forest Single tree selection, old growth, moderate density (STS_OG_Mod) 40

Total 660

Table 60. Distribution of structural stages in old growth preservation areas (MA15) currently and by 

alternative for the LJCRP area

Structural 

Stage1

% Existing and 

Alternatives 1 and 3 % Alternative 2

Dry forest

OFMS 49 55

OFSS 0 0

YFMS 8 3

UR 21 0

SE 22 16

SI 0 0

Moist forest

OFMS 52 51

OFSS 1 1

YFMS 6 6

UR 26 29

SE 16 13

1 - See Figure 3 for a description of structural stages.

Table 61. Forest treatment acres within connectivity corridors by alternative for the LJCRP

Area of 

Connectivity

Total 

Connectivity 

Corridor (Acres)

Alternative 1 

% Connectivity 

Harvested

Alternative 2

% Connectivity 

harvested

Alternative 3 

% Connectivity 

harvested

Dry forest PVG 9,700 0 20 10

Moist forest PVG 2,500 0 3 2

Total 12,200 0 20 10

Landbird and Migratory Bird Habitat

Effects assume that Project Design Criteria and mitigation measures in Appendix J would be 

implemented. Several measures include protections for large snags, trees and downed wood during 

harvest and prescribed fire activities. In particular, Wild10 states: Prescribed burning during active nesting 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

184 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

period (e.g. May 20 or post leaf-out) for nesting landbirds will be coordinated with district or forest 

biologist.

See also ‘effects common to all action alternatives’.

Effects from this project to migratory birds would be variable depending on the species. Alternative 2

would have more acres treated with harvest and prescribed fire than Alternative 3. Therefore, canopy 

cover would be reduced, more large trees would be harvested, snag habitat would be reduced, and riparian 

areas would be altered (see Wildlife specialist’s report for more information). A Forest Plan amendment is 

proposed in Alternative 2 to harvest some trees > 21in. dbh (grand fir and Douglas fir) on approximately 

5,000 acres (see Chapter 3, Forest Plan Amendments – Alternative 2). Several of the migratory birds of 

conservation concern are associated with large tree and snag habitat including brown creepers, 

Williamson’s sapscucker, and pileated woodpecker. Harvest of these large tree structures may adversely 

affect some of these species. However, for those species more highly associated with ponderosa pine (e.g. 

white-headed woodpecker, flammulated owl), the harvest of these shade tolerant trees within close 

proximity of the ponderosa pine would protect their longevity and would benefit the wildlife species 

associated with large pine. The abundance of large ponderosa pines within the LJCRP area is currently 

below RV.

Road densities would be reduced more in Alternative 2 than Alternatives 1 and 3, which would likely 

benefit all of these migratory birds. Road-associated factors that adversely affect some species of 

migratory and resident birds include: snag and down log reduction, habitat loss and fragmentation, 

negative edge effects, harassment or disturbance, vehicle collisions, displacement or avoidance, and 

chronic negative interactions with humans (Gaines et al. 2003). Also see “effects common to all action 

alternatives”.

Threatened, Endangered, and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Wildlife Species

Potential habitat changes due to Alternative 2 for most threatened, endangered or sensitive species were 

covered under ‘Effects common to all action alternatives’. Discussion of the potential effect to habitats for 

the Columbia spotted frog, and Lewis’s woodpecker, and white-headed woodpecker are discussed below. 

Treatment within the Category 1 RHCA along Swamp Creek would have the potential to occur within 

habitat for Columbia spotted frogs, although the effects would likely be minimal since best management 

practices and other design criteria (Appendix J) would be in place to protect riparian habitats. The 25-ft. 

no cut buffer would largely provide complete protection to this aquatic species generally found very close 

to perennial streams or ponds. Alternative 2 proposes vegetation treatment of 31 acres along Swamp 

Creek, a Category 1 RHCA. Treatments may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) but are not expected to 

lead to a population decline of the species. 

Vegetation treatments proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 may produce source habitat for the Lewis’s 

woodpecker since this species is associated with large tree, open-canopied, dry pine habitats. Although 

snags are not proposed for harvest, some snags would be lost due to safety concerns and logging systems. 

Habitat abundance is expected to increase by less than 100 acres. Decreased miles of open roads with 

Alternative 2 may decrease loss of snags due to wood cutting and hazard tree removal. Although snag 

densities may be reduced, the increase in source habitat following vegetation treatments under

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a beneficial impact (BI) on the Lewis’ woodpecker, with Alternative 2

likely having a greater benefit than Alternative 3 due to the increase in road closures.

Vegetation treatments are likely to increase habitat for white-headed woodpeckers, as this species is 

associated with dry forests with large tree structure and with open canopies (<40 percent). Treatments in 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 185

Alternative 2 propose to increase habitat through reducing canopy closure in larger tree dry forest areas. 

Source habitat would be predicted to increase from about 900 acres to about 5,800 acres. 

Large snag density would likely be reduced in and adjacent to harvest units due to safety concerns and

logging systems, although mitigation measures would be in place to protect large pine trees and snags, 

and nesting trees (Appendix J). Implementation of Alternative 2 would also reduce open road densities by 

about 70 miles as compared to existing condition. Reduced abundance of open roads would increase the 

potential for increased snag abundance and development. Assuming that Project Design Criteria and 

mitigation measures in Appendix J would be implemented, the large increase in source habitat following 

vegetation treatments would likely lead to a beneficial impact (BI) for the white headed woodpecker.

The Social Environment

Socioeconomics

Actitvities under Alternative 2, such as timber harvest and restoration (Table 49) over the 10 year span of 

the LJCRP would have economic consequences depicted below. 

Financial Efficiency 

Table 62 summarizes the financial efficiency for Alternative 2. The Present Net Value (PNV) indicates the 

financial efficiency of the timber sale and restoration activities, including all costs (that are not included 

in the stumpage rate) and revenues associated with the activities and required design criteria (Appendix 

J). Restoration activities examined under Alternative 2 include (among others) resiliency treatments, 

prescribed fire, and planting (assuming all group selections may potentially be planted, although in 

practice natural regeneration would be used wherever possible). A 4 percentdiscount rate was used over a 

period of 10 years (2014–2023), the estimated time required for full implementation of the project. 

Alternative 2 is not financially efficient for the timber harvest and required design criteria, as well as for 

all restoration activities noted above, as indicated by the negative PNV (-$5.9 million). This is of concern 

to community members that indicated it is important to have product pay for the project and be financially 

efficient. However, since the PNV does not include non-market values, such as ecosystem services, nor 

future fire management costs, the benefits are likely an underestimate. The estimated costs of treatment 

are the highest under Alternative 2, since the restoration treatments are the most intensive. However, the 

expected non-market values derived from Alternative 2 would likely be greater than Alternatives 1 and 3.

Indirect effects on financial efficiency could occur as a result Alternative 2; however, estimates of these 

changes are not available. It is anticipated that fuels treatments under Alternative 2 would contribute to 

fuels conditions that would have more resistance to wildland fire. This would tend to decrease wildland 

fire related costs such as property loss, lost revenues and suppression costs. 

Table 62. Present net value for AAlternative 2.

Proposed Action Alternative Present Value of Benefits Present Value of Costs

BENEFITS

Revenue from commercial timber 

volume

$1,940,126 

COSTS

Non-Mechanical $4,576,354

Mechanical $1,192,525
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

186 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Proposed Action Alternative Present Value of Benefits Present Value of Costs

Commercial timber harvest $2,088,231

Sum of discounted benefits and 

costs

$1,940,126 $7,857,110

Present Net Value $(5,916,984)

Economic Impacts

Alternative 2 results in restoration activities with commercial timber production of 10,400 ccf (1 ccf is 

100 cubic feet) per year for 10 years; mechanical, pre-commercial, stand treatment on 820 acres per year; 

404 acres of restoration treatment by hand labor; and a variety of road projects. Implementation of 

Alternative 2 is projected to support 55 jobs (Table 63) and $2.9 million in labor income in Wallowa and 

Union counties annually over 10 years. Those impacts in the local area include the jobs supported directly 

by completion of restoration treatments and processing of the commercial timber and the indirect and 

induced jobs related to those activities. 

The implementation of Alternative 2 would yield employment changes in many economic sectors within 

Wallowa and Union counties. The greatest number of jobs supported would accrue to the Manufacturing 

and Agriculture and Forestry sectors. Other sectors affected by the LJCRP include Retail Trade, 

Construction, Professional Services, and Health Care. 

Table 63. Projected employment by major industry for the proposed alternative

Industrial sector Jobs supported

Manufacturing 19

Agriculture and forestry 16

Professional, scientific, and technical services 2

Retail trade 2

Health care and social assistance 2

Accommodations and food services 2

Construction 2

Other industrial sectors (8) 10

Total 55

Economic impacts would also result from revenue sharing with local governments. However, payments to 

counties might vary depending on the mechanism used for the commercial timber sales. The commercial 

timber volume sold in this project could be sold as traditional timber sales or using stewardship 

authorities. In traditional timber sales, the Forest Service returns approximately 25 percent of the revenues 

back to states, which is then distributed to the counties. The returned revenues are used to fund roads and 

schools. In selling commercial timber using stewardship authorities, all of the revenue from the project 

remains with the selling National Forest (rather than going to the treasury or the counties) to be reinvested 

in other forest restoration projects. If the Forest implements traditional timber sales, the revenue 

distributed to counties would be the greatest under Alternative 2 because this alternative has the greatest 

amount of harvest compared to Alternatives 1 and 3.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 187

Social Impacts

In addition to effects on the local economy, activities under the LJCRP have the potential to affect the 

livelihood, cultural values, and natural resource values of people in the analysis area. The social 

consequences are measured qualitatively, with a particular focus on access, recreation uses, environmental 

justice and non-market values. 

Livelihood

The jobs and income that Alternative 2 is expected to support, as detailed above under the economic 

impacts section, would likely improve the livelihood of area residents. These jobs and income are 

expected to be generated over the next ten years. The increase in jobs and labor income in the analysis 

area from Alternative 2 would likely increase the tax base, public services, funding for schools, capital 

maintenance projects, and reduce poverty. Since the increase in jobs and income is greater under 

Alternative 2, the expected increase in the public services would also be greater than Alternatives 1 and 3. 

The tax rates on timber harvested during 2014 under the Forest Products Harvest Tax (FPHT) is $3.53 per 

thousand board feet (MBF). The receipts from this tax program are dedicated to the partial funding of 

state-run programs that promote forest research, fire prevention and fire suppression, forest practices act 

administration, and improve public understanding of Oregon's forest resources (Oregon 2014). However, 

the funding for schools and other public services are more likely to come from personal income taxes 

(from 5 to 9.9 percent of taxable income) and property taxes. With increases in labor income, as detailed 

in the economic impacts section above, the state tax base and therefore public services could also 

increase.

Additionally, with more jobs and income in the area under Alternative 2, there may be more opportunities 

for younger generations. In turn, youth may choose to stay in the area and improve the age diversity. With 

a more balanced age composition, the economy would be more sustainable in the long-term.

The impacts to the tourism industry from changes to recreation uses (detailed under Cultural Values 

below) would likely be positive and the greatest under Alternative 2 because it proposes the greatest 

amount of restoration treatments. The short-term impacts to the tourism industry may be greater and 

negative but with the overall health of the forest improved, the long-term impacts would be beneficial and 

greater than impacts under Alternatives 1 and 3.

Commenters raised the issue of access to public lands. Alternative 2 would have 170 miles of open USFS 

roads and would therefore have a greater adverse impact on access to WWNF land compared to 

Alternative 3, which would result in 230 miles of open USFS roads. Since many community members 

value access to public lands, Alternative 2 would adversely affect this value. In addition to closure of 

roads, public access could be impacted by short-term increases in traffic but these effects would be 

intermittent during restoration. The potential increase in traffic is based on treatments in association with 

the timber sale. Under Alternative 2, there are more treated acres, and therefore greater short-term effects 

to access..

Cultural Values

As discussed in the Affected Environment section (Chapter 2), residents in the LJCRP area value the land 

for recreation uses, such as hunting, fishing, gathering forest products, wildlife viewing and scenery, 

among others. See the Tribal report for effects to subsistence uses. These recreation uses are also linked to 

access, as discussed in the previous section. With more roads closed and decommissioned, this limits 

access to public lands for motorized recreational purposes (although cross country travel by OHV is not 

being regulated under the decision for LJCRP). Since Alternative 2 decommissions and closes more miles 

of roads than Alternative 3, the effects to motorized recreational access would be greater than the effects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

188 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 2, there could also be intermittent disruption of access to the 

LJCRP area for treatments and therefore potential disturbance during any recreational use season. This 

effect is greater under Alternative 2 than Alternative 3 since there would be more acres treated.

Under Alternative 2, the beneficial effects to recreation uses for gathering special forest products and 

hunting are greater in the long term since there would be more restoration treatments and a corresponding 

lower risk of wildfire. As noted in the wildlife section, prescribed fire in Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

generally benefit elk habitat through forage enhancement. With improved ecosystem services from 

restoration, this would likely positively impact fish and wildlife habitat, water and air quality, and plant 

diversity for recreation uses by people in the LJCRP area. As detailed in the aquatics section, there is a 

low likelihood that the proposed treatment activities would result in measureable increases in fine 

sediment in fish bearing streams in the analysis area that would degrade habitat for redband trout and 

Snake River steelhead. Alternative 2 may result in a short-term increase in fine sediment resulting from 

prescribed fire activities. In the long-term, Alternative 2 would improve vegetative conditions and 

maintain the natural fire regime in the project area, which would have beneficial impacts to redband trout 

and their habitat and potentially provide greater opportunities for recreational fishing. However, under 

Alternatives 1 and 3, adverse recreation effects could be greater as the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire is 

expected to be greater without any or less restoration treatment. For more information on the effects to the 

specific resources, see the other specialist reports (Aquatics, Wildlife, and Botany ). 

Vegetation management is needed to return these landscapes to a more natural appearance and higher 

scenic quality for recreation (also see Scenery section, below). More natural, park-like stands, which are 

substantially less abundant across the landscape than historically, have little likelihood of returning 

without mechanical restoration treatments to facilitate the reintroduction of fire. Alternative 2 meets the 

purpose and need to a much greater extent than Alternatives 1 and 3. 

In the short-term, while prescribed fire treatments take place, smoke could affect the ability to recreate 

and enjoy the scenery in the LJCRP area. With more acres to be treated under Alternative 2, the shortterm impacts are higher than the other alternatives. However, the Forest Service is not planning to burn 

during peak visitor season (summer months) so the impacts are expected to be minimal to the majority of 

recreationists. The exception to this would be effects to hunting activities. Hunting season may overlap 

with the burning season, so impacts to hunting activities may be greater under Alternative 2.

Biological Values

Commenters revealed that they value air and water quality, wildlife, and old growth trees. Due to 

increased restoration under Alternative 2, improved ecosystem services and decreased risk of wildfire, 

these biological values would likely be improved in the LJCRP area. The value for old growth trees is 

preserved under all alternatives because there is no old tree harvest proposed. Since it is impossible to 

increase the amount of old growth trees directly, the value is maintaining the integrity of old growth in the 

community, and protecting it from severe, stand replacement fire. People would benefit from knowing 

that the trees exist and are continuing to provide biological services to the forest ecosystem. For more 

information on the effects to the specific biological resources, see the other specialist reports (Aquatics, 

Wildlife, and Botany ). 

Timber Market and Forest Products

Alternative 2 would add timber to the regional supply and is expected to have beneficial impacts on the 

current timber market. Timber mills might increase their employment in response to increased supply 

from the LJCRP. American Forest Resources Council (American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) and 

Associated Oregon Loggers 2014) estimated that the ten mills in the area are operating at an average of 39 

percent capacity and therefore have the capacity to process sawtimber in Alternative 2. Contacts from the 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 189

local logging industry believe that the demand for timber products in the region is expected to increase as 

the products are shipped around the world. Under Alternative 2, this distance and relevant transportation 

costs could decline as the industry receives more wood from the LJCRP area. 

Non-Market Values

Under Alternative 2, forest health is expected to improve the most compared to the other alternatives. 

Alternative 2 would also decrease the likelihood of crown fire relative to existing conditions more than 

the other alternatives. Over time, forest restoration treatments would decrease fuel load and decrease 

potential smoke emissions from both planned and unplanned ignitions. The proposed activities under this 

alternative would protect ecosystem services and other social values, such as recreation opportunities and 

subsistence uses. Therefore, ecosystem functionality is expected to improve and contribute to community 

members’ non-market values the most. For more details on other social values, see the Social Impacts 

section above. 

Environmental Justice

While minority and low-income populations exist in the area, Alternative 2 is not expected to have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities. The 

environmental justice communities expected to be impacted the most are within the Nez Perce tribe. Since 

this community uses the LJCRP area for cultural and religious practices as well as for subsistence uses, 

they are more vulnerable to changes in the area’s natural resources due to the LJCRP. In the long-term, 

Alternative 2 is expected to improve natural resource conditions. However, in the short-term, the natural 

resource uses would be affected the most under Alternative 2 since it involves the greatest amount of 

treatment. These effects are addressed in greater detail in the Tribal and Heritage report. 

The low income populations in the LJCRP analysis area could be affected by the access to recreation 

opportunities and resource use. Under Alternative 2, 170 miles of USFS would be open, compared to 230 

miles of open USFS roads under Alternative 3. If the low-income populations have to travel greater 

distances to access recreation, they could incur extra costs since it is more expensive to reach the forest in 

indirect ways. However, the decommissioning and closing of roads is not expected to have significant and 

disproportionate effects on these communities. 

Through public meetings, community members and representatives expressed that they expect the LJCRP 

to improve current environmental justice conditions, specifically related to low-income populations and 

children. With increased job opportunities for parents, they would be able to provide better opportunities 

for their children and the expected increase in the tax base under Alternative 2 would presumably provide 

more support for schools. An increase in the tax base could also potentially increase social services for 

low-income populations and help alleviate poverty.

Heritage

Eligible and unevaluated sites are known to be located in, or near treatment unit boundaries. Potential 

effects would be mitigated via site visits and site protection design features that would be implemented 

prior to ground disturbance (Appendix J, Heritage 2, 3, and 10). 

The greatest risk to heritage resources is ground disturbing activities associated with mechanical 

treatments. Alternative 2 tractor treatments include 39 percent of the total harvest units, or 29-73 percent

of the analyzed percent of total harvest treatment acres. In comparision, Alternative 3 tractor treatments 

include 46 percent of the total harvest units, or 34-84 percent of the analyzed percent of total harvest 

treatment acres (see Table 50). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

190 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

In general, Alternative 2 would treat 11 percent less acres than Alternative 3, while staying mostly within 

the Alternative 3 analyzed percent of total harvest treatment acres. Therefore, potenial effects to heritage 

reources would be essentially the same.

Mechanical treatments involve ground based, sky line and helicopter logging systems that include 

skidding, yarding, and construction of temporary roads and landings. Impacts to undiscovered sites could 

include rutting, erosion, dislocation, or breakage of artifacts and features, and destruction of sites and site 

stratigraphy. 

Harvesting trees greater than 21 in. dbh within IRAs and PWAs has the potential to impact historic values 

such as cambium peeled trees and dendroglyphs. Management objectives for IRAs suggest that it is likely 

that they may contain more historic tree stands relative to general forest. In addition, IRAs and PWAs

may be more likely to contain buried sites with high archaeological integrity due to less past management 

and ground disturbance.

For either Alternative 2 or 3, large scale prescribed fire treatments would be implemented over 30 years’ 

time. Prescribed fire has the potential to affect fire sensitive cultural sites, and ground disturbance 

associated with fire lines may occur. Initial reduction of heavy fuels may lead to an increase in site 

visibility, public visitation, and possible vandalism. These issues would be reduced through management 

actions that include project specific data recovery as well as long-term monitoring. Initial entry prescribed 

burns would be periodically revisited and burned to reduce natural fuel accumulation, and archaeological 

site monitoring would be part of that process.

These potential effects would be addressed through site avoidance and monitoring strategies by 

implementing the site protection measures listed in the “Pacific Northwest Region Programmatic 

Agreement between the R6 Forest Service and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office” (2004).

Low intensity prescribed fire could benefit heritage resources as it would reduce current fuel loads, which 

would then assist in preventing extensive heat damage during wildfires. There would be less need for fire 

suppression activities, consequently reducing the threat of ground-disturbing activities like bulldozer fire 

line construction and include a reduction of unnatural fuel loading in and around heritage site where high 

ground temperatures adversely affect archaeological values. In addition, uncharacteristic fire behavior 

should also be reduced resulting in less overall risk to heritage sites.

Tribal 

The Nez Perce Tribe Executive Committee (comment letter, February 11, 2015) disagreed with the 

cumulative, indirect and direct effect analysis regarding wildfire effects to natural and cultural resource 

site integrity and archaeological research values. Stating “Overall, the DEIS asserts that large-scale, 

catastrophic, stand replacing, intense, or uncharacteristic fires are the greatest threat to all resources, 

including all cultural and heritage resources. As a result, any measures expected to reduce the threat of 

these fires is predetermined to be beneficial. Cultural Resource Program staff agrees that large scale fires 

threaten many resources, but many resources, especially precontact archaeological sites and traditional 

cultural properties, have burned many times in the past, and yet remain deeply significant to the Tribe and 

Tribal members”. Nevertheless, cultural resources that are deeply significant to the Nez Perce Tribe, and 

that are highly valued by the general public, will be protected through the implementation of mitigation 

measures and project design criteria.

Impacts on Hunting, Fishing and Gathering and Resource Risks of Accelerated Restoration

The Tribe’s position is that the risk to treaty resources and their habitats resulting from an accelerated 

pace and scale of restoration is high; especially where treatments involve mechanical operations used for 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 191

timber harvest. In addition, decommissioning and closing a total of 163 miles of road is viewed 

negatively by those tribal members who believe decommissioning may restrict access to treaty resources. 

However, some tribal members view decommissioning and closing roads positively if they restore 

resource values, such as water quality. 

Conflict remains regarding attitudes concerning needs for the conservation of treaty resources. Effects 

from accelerated restoration on hunting, fishing and gathering, as encompassed by the activities proposed 

in Alternative 2, would be beneficial as treatments are expected to promote landscape resiliency and move 

treaty resource conditions closer to RV.

Concern for Value of Landscape over Economic Values

The Tribe’s position is that economic values often drive forest management projects, including the 

LJCRP, at the expense of landscape resource values. The estimated economic net value from timber 

harvest for Alternative 2 is -$5.9 million, demonstrating that positive economic net value is not a 

motivation for this alternative to be the preferred alternative. 

Based on the estimation that Alternative 2 is projected to support 55 jobs and $2.9 million in labor income 

in Wallowa and Union counties annually over 10 years, the economic worth of Alternative 2 on Wallowa 

County communities would be positive. However, economic benefits to Nez Perce tribal members would 

likely be neutral as most tribal members live outside Wallowa County (see Socioeconomic report). 

Maintain Old Growth Legacy Trees and Conserve Inventoried Roadless Areas

Vegetation treatments proposed in Alternative 2 in designated old growth (MA15) and IRAs would likely 

be considered an adverse effect to the tribe. While there may potentially be unanticipated adverse effects 

of mechanical thinning in old growth and roadless areas, there is conversely the risk of losing old trees to 

uncharacteristic fire if these treatments are not done. These treatments assume that mechanical 

disturbance of these systems for the purposes of restoring the RV in structure and composition would 

result in greater beneficial than adverse effects. 

Short term impacts to the forest setting would be evident. However, long term benefits from maintenance 

of all old trees, and increasing stand resilience may be realized as a beneficial effect.

Impacts to Traditional Plant Resources 

Eight of the twelve traditional plants (see Tribal Relations specialist’s report) are either fire dependent, 

respond well to low intensity fire, and/or are at low risk from fire due to location in rocky habitats or 

seasonal timing of the establishment of the tap root. 

Proposed prescribed burning, thinning of hazardous fuels and/or meadow or riparian encroachment, 

where ecologically appropriate, would reduce fuel loads, increase understory productivity and diversity of 

many traditional plants, and allow fire to perform its natural ecological role. In addition, about 530 acres 

of savanna and grassland habitat would be restored, benefiting plants including Indian Hemp, Balsam 

Root, Lily, Camas, Bitter root and various Lomatiums, including “cous”.

Indirectly, since most of these plants are early to mid-successional and/or shade-intolerant, Alternative 2

would improve plant habitat by opening stands and removing fuels. Yew and currant (Ribes spp.) are 

affected negatively by canopy opening but could be protected through the development of design criteria 

(See Botany specialist’s report).

Over the long term, Alternative 2 is expected to have a beneficial effect to traditional plants and their 

habitats. This positive response would not be realized if plant structures, seeds, and habitats are put at risk 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

192 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

from severe or intense fire. Ability to withstand or benefit from fire depends on the species-specific 

response, fire intensity, burning season, and environmental factors.

Most of the plants have probably not benefited as a result of past actions that removed large overstory 

trees from the stand and promoted growth of numerous small trees and accumulation of litter and woody 

fuels. While Alternative 2 alone cannot entirely correct the current condition, it is expected to improve 

habitat for understory plants while Alternative 1 poses greater risk to plant habitat. 

Traditional Cultural Properties, Sacred Sites, and other Traditional Use Areas

In the long term, compared to Alternative 1, Alternatives 2 or Alternative 3 would pose similar potential 

to protect traditional use area values from stand replacing fire and other unplanned disturbance. In the 

short term, Alternatives 2 or 3 would pose a similar level of risk for short term direct mechanical effects 

on use areas, settings, and traditional cultural properties. 

Implementation of design criteria (Appendix J, Tribal #4) would be used to mitigate adverse effects. 

Recreation

See effects common the all action alternatives. 

Approximately 17 more miles of road would be closed in Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1. 

Road closures proposed in Alternative 2 would increase the recreation opportunities that are free of 

motor-vehicle disturbance of noise and vehicle interactions for hikers, mountain bikers, and stock users. 

Whereas, additional road closures would decrease vehicle access to some dispersed campsites, wildlife 

viewing sites, and firewood opportunities. Additionally, further road closures would decrease access to 

some dispersed campsites, wildlife viewing sites, and firewood opportunities. Road closures would have 

mixed effects on activities such as mushroom pickers, as some prefer areas without the interference of 

roads while others prefer the convenience of roads nearby.

Scenery 

Scenery effects are presented by viewshed. Overall, Alternative 2 would move stands toward desired 

future conditions, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire, while keeping effects to scenic integrity at a 

high level. Alternative 2 would treat 22 percent of the project area (39 percent of forested acres), which 

would improve scenic stability from low (dry forest PVG) or moderate (moist forest PVG) to high 

stability, largely by reducing the risk of uncharacteristic disturbance. The appearance of the stands would 

be improved by making them appear healthier. This treatment would create stumps, and slash, and soil 

disturbance would be visible from foreground views. These effects would be minor within the first one to 

two years. As regrowth of shrubs and grasses occur these effects would be significantly reduced. This 

treatment would not create openings that area visible from middleground or background distances. The 

effects of this prescription would not reduce the scenic integrity of the viewshed as they are expected to 

be negligible within 2-3 years. These prescriptions would improve the scenic character by moving stands 

toward the historic range of variability. More open stands of species compositions that are more fire 

resistant would improve the scenic stability. The treatments that reduce ladder fuels indirectly reduce 

flame lengths when a fire does occur. These treatments would indirectly affect the size and severity of fire 

events thus reducing the effects to scenery resources. It is expected that it would be much more likely that 

effects of fires in this area would remain within the size and severity characteristic to the historical range.

Alternative 2 would reduce the high amount of open road densities by closing some open roads and 

decommissioning 25 miles of road. Road maintenance would bring existing roads to a minimum 

maintenance standard. Numerous closed roads would be temporarily opened for commercial material 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 193

access and removal and re-closed after harvest operations are complete. Also see effects common to all 

action alternatives.

Oregon State Highway 3, Joseph Canyon Overlook

The immediate foreground (up to 300 ft distance zone) and foreground (up to 1⁄2 mile distance zone) of the 

Oregon Highway 3 travel route is highly sensitive for any new visual impacts, maintaining large trees

along the travel route, and the foreground, middleground, and background visible from the Joseph Creek 

Overlook. Alternative 2 would increase visibility into stands along the eastside of Oregon Highway 3 in 

limited cases through single tree selection, savanna treatments, and stand improvement by removing trees 

in the foreground, enhancing large tree character, opening up the mid canopy, and creating greater 

foreground diversity. The landscape slopes down from Highway 3 to the east, so visibility of treatment 

units would be limited to the immediate foreground, if at all. The commercial thinning treatments would 

leave the pine and larch species that have the desired large tree character, and greater fire resiliency. This 

effort would improve the scenic character and the scenic stability of the area. Landscape character 

changes would be seen as thinned out stands of trees and a more open forested canopy character. 

Alternative 2 would improve species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy 

closure. 

One forest restoration stand (#193) is partially in the background view of Highway 3 (50 acres within the 

visual quality objective of retention). Restoration treatments include low intensity single tree selection 

and intermediate treatment, and would not change the density class of the stands. These treatments would 

not be visibly evident from the Joseph Canyon Overlook. 

No roads would be decommissioned in foreground, middleground, or background visible from Oregon 

Highway 3 or the Joseph Canyon Overlook. 

Joseph Canyon Wild and Scenic River Corridor

The Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR) corridor is highly sensitive for any new visual impacts. 

The visual quality objective of the river corridor is Preservation. No treatments would occur in the river 

corridor, except the use of planned and/or unplanned fire, consistent with natural fire frequency and 

intensity. One forest restoration stand (#193) is partially in the middleground view of the WSR (50 acres) 

with a visual quality objective of retention. These restoration treatments include low intensity single tree 

selection and intermediate treatment, and would not change the density class of the stands. These 

treatments would not be visibly evident from the WSR, or the Swamp Creek or Joseph Creek trails. 

In the middleground view, with a visual quality objective of Partial Retention (in the Table Rock area), 

there would be 684 acres of restoration treatments. Sixty percent (403 acres) of these treatments would be 

intermediate, non-commercial (stand improvement), or savanna treatments, and 40 percent (281 acres) 

would be single tree selection treatments. All of these treatments would maintain structural diversity and 

the natural mosaic landscape character, and appear unaltered to slightly altered in the short-term, and 

unaltered in the long-term when viewed from the WSR. The single tree selection treatments would leave 

the pine and larch species that have the desired large tree character, and greater fire resiliency. This effort 

would improve the scenic character and the scenic stability of the area. Landscape character changes 

would be seen as thinned out stands of trees and a more open forested canopy character. Alternative 2

would improve species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy closure. 

Table Mountain

Table Mountain has been identified as a valued place by local residents to view scenery. Alternative 2

would increase visibility into stands along FS Road 4650, and 4650120 through 4650170 through single 

tree selection, intermediate, savanna, and stand improvement by removing trees in the foreground and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

194 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

middleground, enhancing large tree character, opening up the mid canopy, and creating greater foreground 

diversity. Sixty percent (403 acres) of these treatments would be intermediate, non-commercial (stand 

improvement), or savanna treatments, and 40 percent (281 acres) would be single tree selection 

treatments. Over the long-term, all of these treatments would maintain structural diversity and the natural 

landscape mosaic, improve the scenic character and the scenic stability of the area, and appear slightly 

altered in the short-term when viewed in the middleground.

One forest restoration stand(#193) is partially in the background view of Highway 3 (50 acres within the 

visual quality objective of retention). Restoration treatments include low intensity single tree selection 

and intermediate treatment, and would not change the density class of the stands. These treatments would 

not be visibly evident from the Joseph Canyon Overlook. 

No roads would be decommissioned in foreground, middleground, or background visible from Table 

Mountain. There would not be any new roads that would result in introducing new linear corridors in the 

viewshed.

Forest Road 46, Cold Spring Ridge/Forest Road 4680

Forest Road 46 is the main travel way through the project area, from Oregon Highway 3 to Cold Spring 

Ridge within HCNRA. It has a visual quality objective of Partial Retention in the foreground, and 

generally Modification in the middleground. All treatments proposed in the foreground, middleground

and background along this travelway (single tree selection, group selection, intermediate, savanna, and 

stand improvement) would meet Partial Retention visual quality objectives. One small portion of the 

middleground on the western side of Cold Spring Ridge, within the Inventoried Roadless Area has a 

visual quality objective of Partial Retention in the middleground. In Alternative 2, only stand 

improvement treatments would occur in this area, and would only slightly alter the appearance in the 

short-term. Over the longer-term, scenic integrity and stability would be improved throughout this 

viewshed.

There would be decommissioned roads located off Forest Road 46 in the foreground and middleground of 

this viewshed (FS Roads 4600425, 447, 555, 570, 572, 574, 575, and 578). Decommissioning roads 

would improve scenic integrity by restoring the landscape back to a more natural appearing character by 

reducing linear corridors and allowing vegetation to become reestablished. There would not be any new 

roads that would result in introducing new linear corridors in the landscape.

It is expected that Alternative 2 would not reduce the scenic integrity and retain the existing visual quality 

objective standards established in the LRMP, CMP (HCNRA) and the Imnaha Wild and Scenic River 

Management Plan.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas are managed under requirements in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule as 

described on pages 36 to 38 in the Affected Environment (Chapter 2) of this FEIS. The following 

requirements for managing within IRAs and effects to these resources are disclosed in this analysis.

• The purpose is to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition or structure, such 

as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be 

expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. 36 CFR 294.13 

(b)(1)(ii).

• The timber is generally small diameter. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 195

• Timber cutting, sale, and/or removal are needed to maintain or improve one or more of the roadless 

area characteristics. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1).

• The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental to the implementation of a management activity 

not otherwise prohibited. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(2). This criterion would only be applied to cutting and 

removal of roadside danger trees.

• The cutting and sale of timber is expected to be infrequent. 36 CFR 294.13 (b).

To address the extent of the effects, acres will be used. Table 64 summarizes the acres treated in each 

IRA. There would be no temporary road construction proposed within the IRAs under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 is the only action alternative that proposes the cutting, sale, or removal of timber. The 

existing system roads would be used to facilitate harvest, yarding and haul. Therefore, no criterion is 

needed to address this concern.

Table 64. Acres of harvest and stand improvement treatment by IRA in aAlternative 2.

IRA Name Acres of harvest in 

proposed action

Acres of stand

improvement (SI) 

proposed action

Acres prescribed fire 

proposed action (high 

priority)

Joseph Canyon 900 200 8,700

Wildhorse 2,500 2,000 9,800

Cook Ridge 40 170 400

Mountain Sheep 0 0 70

Maintaining or Restoring the Characteristics of Ecosystem Structure

The purpose for treatment of IRAs in this project is: “To maintain or restore the characteristics of 

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

the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current 

climatic period.” The current condition of the project area described in the FEIS applies to the IRAs 

identified for treatment activities. Fire suppression and grazing management outside and within the IRAs 

have resulted in increased density of younger fire intolerant species (such as grand fir) and an associated 

increase in fuel loading and in particular an increase in ladder fuels. Old fire resistant trees are likely to 

continue to decline in many of the dry and mixed conifer stands found in these IRAs due to increased 

competition especially during times of extended or early onset drought. These structure, density, 

composition, pattern, and disturbance regime changes increase the potential risk for uncharacteristic 

wildfire or insect/disease mortality with increased severity and effect on the integrity of the IRAs.

Figure 8 shows active restoration opportunities within and outside IRAs in the LJCRP area. There would 

be a direct effect to the forested vegetation structure within the LJCRP and IRA boundaries where harvest, 

SI, or prescribed fire treatment may occur. Tables 51-53 in the FEIS show the change in cover type, 

structure, and density that contribute to restoration of ecological structure and process due to treatment. 

These tables show that post treatment the LJCRP and IRA move closer to their RVs in these attributes. As 

forested structure moves toward RV, fire regimes behave more similar to historic characteristics in 

severity, pattern, and size. Harvest treatments proposed within the IRAs are generally small diameter 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

196 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

leaving the most fire adapted trees on the landscape to facilitate restoration of ecosystem structure 

through introduction of fire.

Figure 8. Active restoration opportunities by seral stage for the LJCRP within and outside of IRAs. 

The restoration need represents the degree of departure between historic and desired structure where active 

restoration can improve conditions (as opposed to passive restoration, or growth).

The LJCRP desired landscape condition is informed by reference conditions and historic variability in 

structure, composition, density, pattern, and disturbance regime. Treatments are designed to move these 

attributes closer to reference conditions to provide resiliency to stands and the broader landscape. The 

activities proposed in Alternative 2 would bring the landscape character closer to reference conditions and 

therefore would have a beneficial impact on the Joseph Canyon IRA’s ability to represent reference 

landscapes within the LJCRP analysis area and Blue Mountains.

Conclusion: the treatments proposed in the LJCRP within IRAs serve to both maintain and restore 

characteristics of ecosystem structure and process. As the landscape moves closer to RV and reference 

conditions, it is better able to self-regulate with natural disturbance processes and regimes under the 

current climatic conditions. 

Cutting, Sale, or Removal of Timber is Infrequent

The purpose of this project is to enable the dominant forest regulatory process (fire) to function naturally 

while enhancing and maintaining roadless area characteristics. Cutting, sale, or removal of timber last 

occurred in Wildhorse and Joseph Canyon IRAs about three decades ago following the Teepee Butte fire 

in 1988. About 30 years have passed since this action and with no foreseeable project that would remove 

timber; this action would be considered infrequent on this landscape. Proactive restoration could facilitate 

natural regulation of forest structure, reducing future needs for mechanical treatments in these areas, and 

reduce the incidence of uncharacteristic fires and the need for salvage treatments.

Generally Small Diameter Timber Assessment

The spatial boundary for this analysis is the IRA boundaries where activities are proposed within the 

LJCRP. Approximately 200 plots were established in treatment units distributed amongst these three IRAs 

to determine pre and post treatment average diameter (see map of plot locations in project record). 

Utilizing this inventory cut and leave trees were assigned according to prescription to evaluate whether or 

not the average stand diameter increased. An increase in average diameter indicates that the trees removed 

were generally small diameter relative to the remaining trees in the stand. Figure 9 illustrates the 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 197

relationship between cut and leave tree diameter distribution and the resultant average stand diameter post 

treatment. The average diameter of the treatment stands within all IRAs increased from 11.5 inches at 

breast height to 17.5 inches at breast height. The average diameter of the cut trees would be 9.4 inches. 

This indicates that trees removed as a result of Alternative 2 treatments would be of generally small 

diameter and compliant with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The IRA/PWA report in the project 

record discloses the unit ID numbers, treatment prescription, and acres affected within the IRAs.

Figure 9: LJCRP inventory of cut and leave trees under Alternative 2 within the Joseph Canyon, Wildhorse, 

and Cook Ridge IRAs.

Maintain or Improve Roadless Area Characteristics

Treatments within IRAs are designed to more closely represent historic stand structures and disturbance 

regimes, reduce adverse fire effects, and/or increase the ability and decision space to manage 

characteristic fire or reduce the adverse effects of an uncharacteristic fire that threaten roadless area 

characteristics. Treatment areas provide a larger range of options for fire managers to assess fire’s effect 

to IRA characteristics in terms of suppression tactics or managing unplanned ignitions to maintain or 

improve roadless area characteristics. The impacts of large fires with uncharacteristic severity, intensity, 

or extent have the potential to negatively impact roadless characteristics because the effects create 

conditions outside reference landscape conditions. Reducing the potential for these events through 

silvicultural treatments designed to create historic stand structure and disturbance patterns would help 

maintain the presence of these characteristics.

The only activity proposed within the Mountain Sheep IRA is prescribed fire and effects to this IRA are 

disclosed in the effects common to all alternatives section of this FEIS.

High Quality or Undeveloped Soil, Air and Water Quality: There would be minimal affect to soil, water, 

and air that would be detrimental to their quality. Effects to soils would be within the parameters 

prescribed in the Forest Plan standards and guides. The limitation of road building (there would be no 

roads built to facilitate implementation of Alternative 2 in the IRA) and extensive ground based harvest 

would maintain the quality of soil and water resources. Conservative riparian protections are prescribed in 

the IRAs that restrict the removal of large diameter vegetation in the RHCAs. Project design criteria and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

198 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Best Management practices ensure that these activities would not be detrimental to soil or water quality.

Effects to Air Quality are disclosed in the effects common to all action alternatives.

Sources of public drinking water: See effects common to all action alternatives.

Diversity of plant and animal communities: See effects common to all action alternatives.

Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent upon large, undisturbed areas of land: See effects common to all action alternatives.

Primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation: 

Recreation opportunities, including cross-country hiking, motorcycle riding, mountain biking, horseback 

riding, and hunting, may be interrupted by the sights, sounds and smells of activities. Hunters and 

dispersed hunting camps may be displaced while activities are taking place. The sense of solitude at 

campsites located near treatment areas may also be reduced while project activities are taking place. In 

the long term treatment areas would again be available although the primitive setting some recreationists 

seek would be reduced to varying degrees on the treated acres. The vast majority of these IRAs would 

continue to offer the current level of recreation opportunities in natural settings.

Naturally Appearing Landscapes with High Scenic Quality: Evidence of activity would be apparent to 

varying degrees in treatment areas. The natural appearance of the landscape would be reduced following 

treatment activities in areas where past harvest has not occurred. Stumps, skid trails and slash would be 

evident where harvest and fuels reduction occur. Tree density would be reduced, which would result in 

more open stands compared with neighboring untreated areas. The stands would not likely be opened to 

the point that the skyline of the forest canopy appears highly manipulated to the casual observer. The 

commercial thinning treatments would favor pine and larch species that have the desired large tree 

character, and greater fire resiliency. This effort would improve the scenic quality and the scenic stability 

of the area. Landscape character changes would be seen as thinned stands of trees and a more open 

forested canopy character emblematic of natural processes and stand development for this IRA. 

Alternative 2 would improve species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy 

closure to more closely resemble the historic (native) range of variability for these structure attributes and 

restore the native fire regime pattern to increase the degree this area appears ecologically natural, thereby 

maintaining and improving this IRA landscape.

The Joseph Canyon IRA has the highest visual sensitivity in the project area. Oregon State Highway 3 

borders the west side, and the Wild &Scenic River is the most sensitive visual quality area in the IRA. On 

the west side of the Joseph Canyon IRA, the immediate foreground (up to 300’ distance zone) and 

foreground (up to 1⁄2 mile distance zone) of the Oregon Highway 3 travel route is highly sensitive for any 

new visual impacts, maintaining large trees along the travel route, and the foreground, middleground, and 

background visible from the Joseph Creek Overlook. Alternative 2 would increase visibility into stands 

along the eastside of Highway 3 in limited cases through single tree selection, savanna treatments, and 

stand improvement by removing trees density. The landscape slopes down from Highway 3 to the east, so 

visibility of treatment units would be limited to the immediate foreground, if at all. The commercial 

thinning treatments would leave the pine and larch species that have the desired large tree character, and 

greater fire resiliency. This effort would improve the scenic character and the scenic stability of the area. 

Landscape character changes would be seen as thinned out stands of trees and a more open forested 

canopy character. Alternative 2 would improve species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder 

fuels and canopy closure, thereby maintaining and improving this IRA characteristic.

The Wildhorse IRA is less visually sensitive than the Joseph Canyon IRA. Parts of the IRA are visible 

from FS Road 46. Forest Road 46 is the main travelway through the project area. It has a visual quality 

objective of Partial Retention in the foreground, and generally Modification in the middleground. All 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 199

treatments proposed in the foreground, middleground and background along this travelway (single tree 

selection, group selection, intermediate, savanna, and stand improvement) would meet Partial Retention 

visual quality objectives. One small portion of the middleground on the western side of Cold Spring 

Ridge, within the Inventoried Roadless Area has a visual quality objective of Partial Retention in the 

middleground. In Alternative 2, only stand improvement treatments would occur in this area, and would 

only slightly alter the appearance in the short-term. Over the longer-term, scenic integrity and stability 

would be improved throughout this viewshed.

There would be one decommissioned road located off Forest Road 46 in the foreground and 

middleground of this viewshed adjacent to the IRA (FS Road 570). Decomissioning this road would 

improve scenic integrity by restoring the landscape back to a more natural appearing character by 

reducing linear corridors and allowing vegetation to become reestablished. There would not be any new 

roads that would result in introducing new linear corridors in the landscape.

In the short term, it is expected that Alternative 2 would not reduce the scenic integrity and retain the 

existing visual quality objective standards established in the Forest Plan, CMP (HCNRA) and the Imnaha 

Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. In the long term (20+ years) these features are expected to 

improve as natural processes began to operate with characteristic influence on vegetation and associated 

scenic quality.

Reference Landscapes

Joseph Canyon IRA – Reseaerch Natural Areas

Two proposed research natural areas (RNAs) occur within the boundaries of the Joseph Canyon IRA 

(Haystack Rock and Horse Pasture Ridge). Horse Pasture Ridge proposed area would contribute to the 

national network of RNAs by providing an example of Idaho fescue-prairie junegrass and Idaho fescue –

bluebunch wheatgrass plant associations in ridge top communities. The Haystack Rock proposed area 

would contribute to the national network of RNAs by providing an example of Idaho fescue-bluebunch 

wheatgrass-arrowleaf balsamroot and bluebunch wheatgrass-Sandberg’s bluegrass-narrow-leaved 

skullcap plant associations.

There are no known significant mineral resources within the RNAs. Recreation use is light, consists of 

big game hunting, and is expected to continue. Loss of timber utilization is minimal because the area 

contains few trees. Grazing is incidental to none since they are located on the steep rocky slopes above 

Joseph Canyon. There are no threatened or endangered plants or animals known in the area, and there are 

no system roads or trails nor a need for system roads or trails in either proposed RNA.

No activity is proposed within the RNAs and therefore there would be no effect in providing the 

opportunity to be utilized as reference landscapes; this IRA characteristic would be maintained. 

Joseph Canyon IRA – Outside Reseaerch Natural Areas

The Joseph Canyon IRA has evidence of harvest on approximately 41 percent of the forested acres and 

due to post fire salvage in the late 1980s. Therefore the opportunity to utilize this IRA as a “barometer to 

measure the effects of development on other parts of the landscape (36 CFR Part 294, page 3245)” is 

limited due to the nature and location of past harvest and current management (e.g. grazing and fire 

suppression). Alternative 2 proposes to harvest approximately 877 acres of which about 200 acres share a 

footprint with past harvest leaving approximately 677 acres (<3 percent) of the IRA newly harvested. 

Approximately 231 acres of stand improvement treatment would occur with about 182 acres in past 

harvest areas. About 50 new acres (<1 percent) of stand improvement would occur within the Joseph 

Canyon IRA.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

200 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Wildhorse IRA

The Wildhorse IRA has evidence of harvest on approximately 28 percent of the forested acres due to 

uncharacteristically severe fire and the post fire salvage in the late 1980s. Therefore the opportunity to 

utilize this IRA as a “barometer to measure the effects of development on other parts of the landscape (36 

CFR Part 294, page 3245)” is limited due to the nature and location of past harvest and current 

management (e.g. grazing and fire suppression). Alternative 2 proposes to harvest approximately 2,500

acres of which about 350 acres share a footprint with past harvest leaving approximately 2,200 acres (11

percent) of the IRA newly harvested. Approximately 2,000 acres of stand improvement treatment would 

occur with about 1,200 acres in past harvest areas. About 800 new acres (<4 percent) of stand 

improvement would occur within the Wildhorse IRA.

Cook Ridge IRA

The Cook Ridge IRA has evidence of harvest on approximately 14 percent of the forested acres due to 

uncharacteristically severe fire and the post fire salvage in the late 1980s. Therefore the opportunity to 

utilize this IRA as a “barometer to measure the effects of development on other parts of the landscape (36 

CFR Part 294, page 3245)” is reduced due to the nature and location of past harvest and current 

management (e.g. grazing and fire suppression). Alternative 2 proposes to harvest approximately 40 acres,

of which about 20 acres share a footprint with past harvest leaving approximately 30 acres (<<1 percentt) 

of the IRA newly harvested. Approximately 200 acres of stand improvement treatment would occur with 

about 144 acres in past harvest areas. About 20 new acres (<<1 percent) of stand improvement would 

occur within the Cook Ridge IRA.

Also see disclosure of effects common to all action alternatives. 

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites: See effects common to all action alternatives.

Other locally identified unique characteristics: Joseph Canyon is popular with tourists, largely due to its 

proximity to State Highway 3, deep canyons, local history, and scenic viewpoints. Alternative 2 would 

improve the scenic quality and the scenic stability of this area. Landscape character changes would be 

seen as open stands of trees and a more open forested canopy character emblematic of natural processes 

and stand development for this IRA. There would be minimal effect to this roadless characteristic given 

the topographic nature of the Joseph Canyon IRA and location of the viewpoints due to inclusion of 

project design criteria related to visual and scenic quality (Appendix J). Therefore, this IRA characteristic 

would be maintained.

There are no “locally identified unique characteristics” available in the Wildhorse IRA, therefore there 

would be no effect to this Roadless Characteristic under any alternative.

Potential Wilderness Areas

Potential Wilderness Areas are identified through an inventory process outlined in the IRA/PWA report in 

the project record. Indicators for effects to potential wilderness characteristic include roadless 

characteristics outlined in the RACR and the change in the number of acres meeting PWA inventory 

criteria.

Potential Wilderness Area Roadless Characteristics

Approximately 1 percentof Joseph PWA and 13 percent of Wildhorse PWA would be directly affected 

through the harvest and removal of trees and stand improvement. These acres are confined to the outer 

edges of the PWA, on flatter areas above topographic breaks, generally adjacent to roads, private land and 

areas with evidence of past human activity. The majority of PWA acres (90 percent for Alternative 2) 

would remain undisturbed and retain the existing degree of roadless characteristics. Due to the degree of 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 201

overlap with the Joseph Canyon and Wildhorse IRAs the description of effects to roadless characteristics 

are applicable to the Joseph and Wildhorse PWAs.

Remainder of acres meeting PWA Inventory Criteria

Under Alternative 2 proposed project activities would have a direct effect on 70 acres of the 6,500 acre 

Joseph PWA (approximately 1 percent of the PWA) and about 1,600 acres of the 15,400 acre Wildhorse 

PWA (approximately 14 percent of the PWA). 

There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the Cook Mountain PWA from harvest or 

stand improvement treatments. There would be approximately 70 acres of high priority prescribed fire 

treatment. Effects are disclosed effects common to action alternatives. Table 65 shows the acres of PWA 

within the LJCRP boundary that are affected by harvest or SI treatments and the acres that would continue 

to meet PWA criteria after implementation identified in Alternative 2.

Table 65. Affected acres in potential Wilderness areas.

Potential 

Wilderness 

Areas

Acres within 

Lower Joseph 

Project Area

Alternative 2 Proposed Acres Remaining Area Meeting 

PWA Criteria*

Harvest SI

Joseph 6,500 70 0 6,400

Wildhorse 15,400 1,600 370 13,800

Cook Mountain 350 0 0 350

Total 22,250 1,670 370 20,550

*Acre estimates are for areas within the LJCRP boundary only; PWAs extend outside this boundary but 

would not be affected by actions under Alternative 2.

Harvest treatments generally involve implementation of the Individuals, Clumps, Openings (ICO) method 

of harvest creating heterogeneity in these areas. Stumps and skid roads would remain visible for a longer 

period than those associated with SI. Harvest would result in reducing the area meeting PWA criteria per 

FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71.

No temporary roads would be constructed in PWAs under any alternative; therefore, there would be no 

effect due to temporary road construction to areas meeting PWA criteria.

Other Undeveloped Lands

Harvest would occur on approximately 5,600 acres (1,200 in IRA and 4,400 outside IRA) of other 

undeveloped lands under Alternative 2. Stand improvement would occur on approximately 700 acres (400 

in IRA and 300 outside IRA) of other undeveloped lands under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, about 

16,400 acres would be identified as high priority for fire treatment, which could be accomplished via 

prescribed or unplanned fire. Effects in this section pertain only to acres occurring outside IRA because 

effects to the IRA characteristics are addressed in the IRA sections of this FEIS.

Social Values (apparent naturalness, degree of solitude, sense of remoteness)

Proposed harvest and stand improvement activity in other undeveloped lands would create stumps, which 

would reduce the size of the undeveloped areas. The lands where harvest occurs would appear managed 

and developed. This effect would be less noticeable and for a shorter duration in stand improvement 

treatments due to the general small size of material treated. Prescribed fire in general would maintain the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

202 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

character of natural disturbance; therefore, it is assumed there would be minimum effect due to managing 

fire in these areas. 

The sights, sounds, and changes in vegetation from activities and use would further decrease the apparent 

naturalness and sense of solitude within harvest units and along roads during logging operations. All 

treated stands would remain forested and skid trails, stumps, and landings would be evident. Impacts to 

social integrity and sense of naturalness would likely be evident until stumps, skid trails, or temporary 

roads are no longer substantially recognizable (approximately 75 – 100 years, maybe less considering the 

character of younger trees, dependent upon deterioration of stumps due to decay or fire). The sounds of 

machinery from activity would reduce the sense of naturalness and solitude during implementation but 

would not persist in the long term. Other impacts, such as tree marking paint and logging slash would be 

visible in the short term (5 to 10 years). Impacts such as skid trails and tree stumps would be evident for a 

longer period. The increased number of stumps and reduced stand density would likely be the most 

apparent visual change resulting from implementation.

Change in acres of other undeveloped lands

The character and intrinsic value of other undeveloped lands outside of treatment units under Alternative 

2 would retain those characteristics (physical, biological, and social values) as described in the affected 

environment. They would remain free of developments such as skid trails, temporary roads, or harvest 

created stumps. 

All 5,600 acres of other undeveloped lands identified for harvest or 700 acres of stand improvement 

would continue to not meet PWA inventory criteria. Table 66 is a summary of changes in acres for other 

undeveloped land in Alternative 2. 

Table 66. Change in acres of other undeveloped land in Alternative 2.

Acres of Other 

Undeveloped Land

Acres affected by 

Harvest or SI

Acres Remaining Percent Change

IRA 16,200 1,600 14,600 -10%

Non-IRA 24,100 4,700 19,400 -20%

Areas Identified as Unroaded by Oregon Wild

Direct effects are those that would occur immediately following activity at the stand scale, while indirect 

effects are those that would occur in the future both at the stand and areas identified as unroaded by 

Oregon Wild at the project scale.

The effects to the 44,100 acres of areas identified as unroaded by Oregon Wild that intersect Forest 

Service IRAs are similar to that disclosed in the IRA section. Likewise the effects to the 21,800 acres of 

areas identified as unroaded by Oregon Wild that intersect areas that meet PWA criteria are disclosed in 

the PWA section. An additional 30,100 acres intersect the Forest Service’s identification of other 

undeveloped land and the effects to those areas are disclosed in the Other Undeveloped Land section. 

Table 67 shows the acres of harvest and stand improvement within the areas identified as unroaded by 

Oregon Wild. The change in acres for the remaining 6,900 acres of OW is also shown in this table. After 

consideration of past harvest and the Forest Service’s road influence area there are only about 80 acres 

(less than one percent) of areas identified as unroaded by Oregon Wild dispersed in very small polygons 

of what could be considered outside the effects disclosed in other sections of this document. Areas that 

contain past harvest or system roads would not be considered for PWA and would remain unavailable for 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 203

the duration of the LJCRP. See Map B-1 in the IRA/PWA report in the project record showing the 

relationship between areas identified as unroaded by Oregon Wild, treatments, and other land 

designations addressed in this FEIS.

Table 67. Acres of harvest and stand improvement within unroaded areas identified by Oregon Wild

Oregon Wild’s

Unroaded Area 

Name

Acres outside 

of IRA, PWA, 

and other 

undeveloped 

land

Acres outside (IRA, 

PWA other 

undeveloped land) 

intersecting past 

harvest (1974 –

2009) FACTS 

Database

Acres outside (IRA, 

PWA, other 

undeveloped land and 

past 

harvest)intersecting 

300’ road influence 

zone

Acres outside treated 

with Harvest/SI –

Alternative 2

Harvest SI

Joseph Canyon 4,700 3,800 800 1,500 500

Cottonwood 

Creek – Broady 

Creek

1,500 850 650 380 200

Sumac Creek 200 10 190 50 0

Yew Wood 

Springs

300 130 170 160 0

Boner Gulch 200 30 170 50 0

Total 6,900 4,820 1,980 2,140 700

Cumulative Effects 

Physical Environment

Climate

Alternative 2 would bring the LJCRP area closer to reference conditions in vegetation and disturbance 

regime in comparison to Alternatives 1 or 3, creating a more resilient and sustainable condition in the face 

of climate change. See Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives - Climate, for more 

information.

Soils

If Alternative 2 is implemented, there is a greater potential to create Detrimental Soils Conditions through 

active vegetation management activities compared to Alternatives 1 or 3. Alternative 2 proposes 

approximately 1,500 more acres of ground-based harvest, 900 more acres of skyline and 3,000 more acres 

of helicopter harvest. Implementation of these additional proposed activities would also facilitate the 

remediation of legacy impacts and would also most effectively reduce the landscape’s susceptibility for an 

uncharacteristic disturbance. See the discussion under Cumulative Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives – Soils, for background information.

Water Quality

With the implementation of Alternative 2, there would be a higher potential for erosion and subsequent 

sediment delivery from the proposed management activities. Additionally, under Alternative 2, 31 acres of
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

204 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category 1 (Swamp Creek), and 1,800 acres of Category 4 RHCAs would be thinned with equipment that 

may deliver additional sediment to streams. Sediment contributions from RHCA thinning, as prescribed, 

are unlikely to be detectable beyond the site scale (see Physical Environment supporting documentation). 

Alternative 2 would also be more effective at reducing the risk of uncharacteristic disturbances, in 

comparison to Alternatives 1 or 3, thus having the potential to mitigate future sediment inputs from high 

intensity wildfires. See Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives – Water Quality, for 

additional information.

Air Quality

See Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Biological Environment

Vegetation and Disturbance

Alternative 2 restoration treatments would contribute approximately 22,000 acres toward moving forest 

composition, structure, density toward desired conditions or enhancing forest pattern or size class 

distribution or improving trends in insect and disease susceptibility.

Cumulative Effects of Amending the Forest Plan (Eastside Screens)

Proposed amendment to cut trees greater than or equal to 21” diameter at breast height

Alternative 2 is the only LJCRP alternative that proposes a Forest Plan amendment to enable the cutting 

of trees >21 in. dbh (see chapter 3 for an explanation of the conditions under which this could occur). 

Analysis of past Forest Plan amendments relative to the Eastside Screens (Appendix B, amendment 

numbers 26, 38, and 40), and scenario modeling specific to both the LJCRP area and the WWNF as a 

whole were done to assess the effects of Alternative 2 on the number of large trees across the landscape. 

Alternative 2 proposes harvest on 5,000 acres where trees >21 in dbh could be cut (Map 14). Based on 

estimates from stand surveys measured within the LJCRP area, about 15 percent of existing trees >21 in

dbh within treatment units would be cut under Alternative 2. Previous amendments to the WWNF Forest 

Plan since 1991 that allowed the cutting of trees >21 in dbh encompassed approximately 395 acres 

(Tremble Aspen Restoration Project – 56 acres; Starkey Research, Restoration and Fuels Reduction 

Project - 194 acres; Horse Fly Vegetation Management Project – 145 acres). The area that would be 

affected by this amendment under Alternative 2 in combination with previous projects with similar 

amendments represents a very small proportion of the Forest (0.3 percent).

For the LJCRP area, a scenario model was run for 30 years to estimate the projected direct and/or indirect 

effects of Alternatives 1 or 2 on the average numbers of large trees that would be removed from the 

landscape due to harvest and natural disturbance. Project scale scenario modeling results showed that 

under Alternative 2, natural disturbances would remove more large trees from the landscape than harvest

(Appendix C). The no action (Alternative 1) scenario, due to continued high fuel loads and 

uncharacteristic disturbances, would likely remove more large trees in total, than Alternative 2 (or a more 

intensive scenario that would harvest a higher proportion of large trees than the 15 percent of large trees 

in treatment units that is expected under Alternative 2; see Appendix C for modeling methods). In general, 

across the LJCRP area, the Alternative 2 scenario, including both trees lost to harvest and to fire, would 

likely remove less than half the number of large trees, in total, compared to the no action scenario.

To put the cumulative effects of proposed and past Forest Plan amendments to cut trees >21 in dbh 

(encompassing 0.3 percentof the WWNF) into perspective, similar scenario modeling was done for the 

WWNF as a whole. This scenario modeling assumed that forest treatment rates similar to the last 15 years 

would continue, and that trees >21 indbh could be cut (at both relatively low and high rates; see Appendix 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 205

C for modeling methods). In other words, this scenario assumes not only that the past amendments 

occurred, but also that a forest-wide Forest Plan amendment to cut large trees would operate across the 

landscape into the future (30 year scenario). While this analysis is not considered”cumulative effects” (as 

per 40 CFR 1508.7) because it makes assumptions about future treatments that have not been proposed, 

results of Forest-scale modeling showed that the likely loss of large trees to natural disturbances would be 

about 33 times the amount of trees that would likely be lost to forest treatments. 

Likely loss of large trees to management in the LJCRP area under Alternative 2 would be a very small 

portion (about 0.3 percent) of the loss that might occur across the whole Forest in any scenario. 

Consequently, the cumulative effects of these amendments is expected to be generally beneficial relative 

to specifically maintaining large trees on the landscape over the long-term, and restoring forest structure, 

composition, pattern, and disturbance regimes toward RV.

Proposed amendment for forest vegetation treatments in old forest single story

Of the approximately 9,400 acres of dry and moist, OFSS located on the WWNF (USDA Forest Service 

2014b), approximately 306 acres (3 percent) have been treated to date under previous project-specific 

plan amendments (Medical Springs EA - 45 acres; Horsefly Vegetation Management EA - 29 acres; Snow 

Basin Vegetation Management EA - 232 acres). This percentage is likely lower since some past 

treatments on the WWNF had the objective to increase the amount of OFSS; however, no more recent 

data currently exists on the extent of OFSS structure. Goals of past and proposed treatments in OFSS 

were to restore stands to their historic structure, enhance the health of the stands, and provide for the 

habitat needs of old-growth associated wildlife species, in particular those species that rely on OFSS stand 

structural components. Old forest single story structure is well below the 10 – 65 percent range of 

variation for moist and dry forests forest-wide. These treatments have and would maintain old growth 

habitat, as defined by Forest Standards, while maintaining adequate levels of down logs and snags. 

Alternative 2 proposes to treat approximately 25 acres of OFSS to restore or maintain OFSS structure, 

which is currently less than 1 percent of the forested landscape, and substantially below RV (Table 11). 

The cumulative effects of implementing the plan amendment under Alternative 2 to treat OFSS stands to 

restore structure and composition, and maintain old forest habitat, in combination with similar past 

amendments on the WWNF are minor, but positive relative to the extent of the restoration need Forestwide.

Also see “Alterantives 2 and 3 - Effects of Not Amending the Forest Plan”, below.

Threatened, Endangered and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants, Rangelands, and Understory 

Vegetation

While there are no documented sensitive plant species within coniferous forest, sensitive white fleabanes 

and Wallowa needlegrass grow at the edges of treatment areas that have been entered for management a 

number of times. Wallowa needlegrass is found in rocky shallow soil (lithosol) areas often with rigid 

sagebrush and Sandberg’s bluegrass. About 22 acres of Wallowa needlegrass (25 percent of the site acres 

in the LJCRP area) are within 300 feet of units in Alternative 2 that have had multiple entries. Road 

grading, piling and landings associated with past and proposed future vegetation treatments is the main 

concern. Only one population is within the Joseph Starvation (1986)/ Starvation (1994) fire perimeter. 

The Wallowa needlegrass is in the southeastern portion of LJCRP area, south of Red Hill. Dewey (2013) 

noted that Wallowa needlegrass does not compete well with other grasses. Wildfire likely does not impact 

Wallowa needlegrass directly, but wildfire suppression and post-fire seeding have the potential to 

decrease Wallowa needlegrass populations. Suppression efforts can include the use of lithosols for staging 

areas, safety zones, and firelines, all of which can remove Wallowa needlegrass through crushing, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

206 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

uprooting, smothering, and removal. Wildfire suppression efforts may also spread non-native annual 

grasses through ground disturbing activities that create bare soil. Post-fire seeding that is not targeted to 

specific areas of concern, such as the aerial seeding of non-native forage species after the 

Joseph/Starvation fire, may have had adverse impacts on native grass species including Wallowa 

needlegrass.

About 1,100 acres of white fleabane (about 50 percent of the site acres in LJCRP area) are within 300 feet 

of units in Alternative 2 that have had multiple entries. Road grading, piling and landings associated with 

past and proposed future vegetation treatments is a concern. The area of primary concern is the Cold 

Springs Road area. This area has also experienced multiple wildfires (Cache Creek, both Jim Creek, and 

Teepee Butte fires). Because the white fleabane grows on rocky areas, fire most likely has had, and would 

have little impact. The R6 sensitive plant Davis fleabane is found in both Joseph Canyon IRA and 

Wildhorse IRA. It straddles the Cold Springs cutoff road on the northeastern side of the project area on 

the eastern side of Wildhorse IRA. The Davis fleabane’s habitat is open shallow soil to rocky areas in 

grasslands. The only site for rough rabbit weed in the project area is in the Joseph Canyon IRA. Lithosols 

in LJCRP seem to be found as dry forest inclusions and are all outside of IRAs in the project area.

The Nez Perce mariposa lily is another sensitive plant species that occupies grasslands, often near 

forested stringers, and is found in the Joseph Canyon IRA. Alternative 2 would include stand 

improvement and commercial treatments in IRAs. The main threats to grassland sensitive plants would be 

from commercial logging activities. Reintroduction of natural fire cycles should benefit all native plants,

if project design criteria are followed. 

Grazing is an ongoing activity that would occur in addition to Alternative 2 activities, and would 

contribute to cumulative effects of the LJCRP, although project design criteria are followed, including the 

following: TESP-2 (no road construction activities, or staging areas (such as landings, parking, piling) on 

non-forested habitats such as lithosols, grasslands, or meadows); BIO –1 (avoid disturbing natural seeps 

and springs, wet meadows, moist meadows, this includes removing shrubs and trees); BIOD–2 (leave tree 

islands in coniferous forest for conservation of native mycorrhizal fungi, yew, wet areas when these 

features are found or suspected in units. Mycorrhizae, bryophytes, and mushrooms should always be 

suspected in coniferous forest units); and BIOD–3 (maintain woody debris as per guidance from eastside 

screens to provide habitat for nonvascular plants and fungi).

Wildlife

The harvest of trees >21 in dbhin alternative would have an adverse cumulative effect on goshawk and 

pileated woodpecker habitat as this is an important habitat component especially for pileated 

woodpeckers as it potentially transforms to a snag. Large live trees provide an important nesting habitat 

component for goshawks. Current wood cutting policies and lack of law enforcement may be detriment to 

future snag habitat in the Lower Joseph project area especially for pileated woodpeckers. Because 

Alternative 2 proposes to close the most miles of roads, the future potential for loss of snags due to safety 

and firewood harvest is reduced the most in this alternative. The harvest of trees >21 in dbh (Alternative 

2) would have an adverse cumulative effect on longer-term marten habitat as this is an important habitat 

component especially as it creates large down-log habitat (Table 58). Because Alternative 2 proposes to 

close the most miles of roads, the future potential for loss of snags due to safety and firewood harvest is 

reduced the most. The proposed projects’ reduction in cover is offset in Alternative 2 to some degree by 

road closures allowing for elk security within the project areas. Open road densities would be reduced in 

Alternative 2 and generally maintained in Alternative 3. See the discussion under Cumulative Effects 

Common to All Action Alternatives – Wildlife, for background information.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 207

Aquatic Habitat

See the discussion under Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives – Aquatic Habitat, for 

more information.

Social Environment

Recreation / Scenery

See Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Heritage / Tribal

See Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives. Relatively speaking, Alternatives 2 and 3 

would pose a similar cumulative risk to heritage and tribal values over time, as both alternatives are 

within approximate percent of ground based total harvest treatments percentages (see table 50). 

Cumulative effects on heritage resources as a result of Alternative 2 would be mitigated via compliance 

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the 2004 Programmatic Agreement, and 

implementation of design criteria (Appendix J, PDC’s #2, 3, and 10). Also see Alternative 2 effects 

analyses in the sections for Wildlife, Aquatics, and TES Plants and Understory Vegetation for associated 

effects to treaty resources and habitats.

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

areas identified as unroaded by Oregon Wild

Potential Wilderness Areas

Since the boundaries of PWAs were delineated based on current system roads and past timber harvest 

activity there are no past actions that affect these areas. Currently there are no additional present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions that would remove any portion of these areas from consideration as 

potential wilderness. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects associated with PWAs.

Cumulative effects from ongoing activities for Alternative 2 are the same as Alternative 1. The smells, 

sounds and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities proposed in areas 

adjacent to PWA under Alternative2 would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, 

during project activity. Adjacent activity would not preclude the PWAs from being retained in the PWA 

inventory.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in approximately 70 fewer acres of Joseph PWA and about 

1,300 fewer acres of Wildhorse PWA. These acres of PWA would be removed from the PWA inventory 

because there would be a reduction to their natural appearing landscape and no longer meet PWA 

inventory criteria found in Forest Service handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 71. Removal of these acres 

would represent about a 1 percent and 11percentreduction in acres of PWA respectively. The effects on 

roadless characteristics would be mostly confined to the treated acres due to the topographic nature and 

proximity to existing developed character of the PWA. Considering past, present and possible future 

activities, the majority of the PWAs would retain roadless characteristics. Cumulative effects to roadless 

area characteristics where this PWA overlaps with the IRA are similar to those documented in the 

previous section for Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

There would be no cumulative effect to Cook Mountain PWA because no activities overlap therefore there 

would be no direct or indirect effects. 

The effect of implementing Alternative 2 is consistent with Forest-wide standards and guidelines and

LRMP management area standards and guidelines.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

208 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Other Undeveloped Land

The LJCRP boundary provides the geographic extent for the analysis of cumulative effects to other 

undeveloped land. This boundary is appropriate because it can reasonably be expected that the 

direct/indirect effects resulting from LJCRP are not expected to interact with any similar effects that 

might occur elsewhere. The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. The 

effects to the intrinsic values of these lands would be limited to activities are occurring for the LJCRP. 

For other undeveloped land in which the project activities would occur, cumulative effects to the physical 

(climate, soil, minerals, water quality, air quality) biological (vegetation, disturbance, wildlife, fisheries, 

botany), and social environments (heritage, recreation, scenery, transportation) are disclosed in other 

sections and will not be reiterated here. Cumulative effects for other undeveloped land within IRAs are 

described in that section. Cumulative effects for other undeveloped lands outside the IRAs would be 

similar to those disclosed in the IRA section of this document. 

Cattle grazing, dispersed camping, and road use would present a minor cumulative impact to apparent 

naturalness, solitude, and remoteness. Overall cumulative impacts to characteristics associated with other 

undeveloped lands would be minor in proportion to the anticipated direct and indirect effects.

Areas Identified as Unroaded by Oregon Wild (OW)

Because OW areas contain similar intrinsic social values as IRA, PWA, or Other Undeveloped Land the 

cumulative effect to OW would not differ from previously disclosed effects for those sections. Only an 

additional 80 acres of land exist outside of past harvest, forest road influence zones, IRAs, PWAs, and 

other undeveloped lands therefore cumulative effects are adequately addressed within other sections of 

the FEIS overlapping OW. 

Socioeconomics

Access

Effects to access to WWNF land was an issue brought up through public comments and meetings. The 

attitude toward the LJCRP from a subsection of the community is generally negative because, although it 

may not contain significant access restrictions, the LJCRP is seen as an addition to the previous 

restrictions put in place and is viewed as a trend toward limiting access to public lands. Travel 

management planning on the WWNF is on-going and this could change cross-country travel and the 

existing network of roads on the Forest. If some roads on the WWNF are closed in the future for crosscountry travel, commenters expressed that the value of maintained roads would increase. Under the 

Proposed Action alternative, the cumulative effects on access to NFS lands are greater than the effects 

from Alternative 3 since 170 miles of USFS roads would be open.

Treatment and Restoration

The effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable treatment activities in the project area would 

improve forest health relative to existing conditions even without the implementation of LJCRP. 

According to the vegetation report, from 2004 to 2013, approximately 1,300 acres have been 

commercially harvested in the Lower Joseph area. Under Alternative 2, 16,000 acres are expected to be 

commercially harvested over the ten year span of the project. Under the Proposed Action alternative, the 

activity in the forest sector would be higher than the present situation and the associated local economic 

impact of current and future restoration activities would increase from the present conditions. The 

estimated employment and income consequences of non-LJCRP treatment activities, therefore, are likely 

underestimated in the related environmental compliance documents if they depend on present conditions 

for those analyses. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 209

The LJCRP treatments and other ongoing and foreseeable treatments could increase exposure to smoke 

emissions, which could cause cumulative effects to health and quality of life for individuals who are 

sensitive to smoke. According to the vegetation report, from 2004 to 2013, approximately 600 acres have 

been broadcast burned and 24,000 acres have incurred wildfire in the Lower Joseph area. Under 

Alternative 2, up to 50,000 acres are expected to be broadcast burned over the ten year span of the project. 

However, the cumulative effect of these treatments would be to decrease the risk of uncharacteristic 

wildfire, which would decrease the probability of smoke emissions associated with these events. 

Recreation

Other on-going and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the project area would reduce the 

opportunities for substitute behavior when the preferred recreation site is unavailable. As a result, 

individuals may choose to stay home, which would decrease visitor spending and consumer surplus to a 

greater extent than estimated in the direct and indirect effects analysis. However, the cumulative effects to 

the social and economic impacts from recreation cannot be precisely described. Based on the available 

information, the effect to visitor spending and consumer surplus from on-going and reasonably 

foreseeable actions is not expected to change. Although Alternative 2 would likely have more short-term 

disturbances to recreation (from smoke and limited access), the long term effects to recreation would be 

improved viewsheds and opportunities to recreate in a healthy forest with reduced risk of wildfire.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

See “Unavoidable adverse effects” under the section “Effects common to the action alternatives”. 

Alternative 2 would affect potential wilderness characteristics on approximately 70 acres of Joseph PWA 

and approximately 1,600 acres of Wildhorse PWA. Treatment would create recognizable stumps and 

evidence of harvest that would remain substantially noticeable for several decades until they are 

consumed by fire or succumb to decay. Until these improvements are no longer substantially recognizable 

and meet inventory criteria in 1909.12 Chapter 70 these acres would not be available for recommended as 

wilderness under Forest Plan Revision processes.

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

See “Irreversible/Irretrievable commitments of resources” under “Effects common to the action 

alternatives.

Alternative 3: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The Physical Environment

Soils

Surface Erosion

The potential for surface erosion as a direct result of the proposed management activities in Alternative 3 

would be lower than in Alternative 2 because there would be fewer stands treated and therefore fewer 

disturbances. Additionally, fewer roads would be decommissioned under Alternative 3 so there would be a 

lower potential for surface erosion from this disturbance. However, indirectly, there is greater potential for 

long term surface erosion and sediment production under Alternative 3 because fewer are being 

conditions and the proposed treatments would be less effective at moving the landscape toward a more 

resilient condition. Alternative 2 and 3 have the same proposed temporary road system (12.6 miles). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

210 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Road traffic would likely increase under Alternative 3 but would not be measurably different from 

Alternative 2. 

Sediment from Log Haul 

See ”Effects common to all action alternatives”. 

Mass Wasting 

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”. 

Soil Productivity

There is the potential for Alternative 3 to produce fewer detrimental soil conditions (DSC) than 

Alternative 2 but the activities that contribute most to DSCs (ground based harvest and temporary road 

building) are the same between both alternatives. Alternatively, there would be more units evaluated for 

DSCs in Alternative 2 and thus more opportunity for appropriate remediation as described in the Project 

Design Criteria (Soils-7, Soils-8). See “Effects common to all action alternatives”.

Air Quality

See “Effects common to all action alternatives”.

The Biological Environment

Vegetation and Disturbance Regimes

Table 68 lists the cutting treatments proposed under Alternative 3, approximate acres for each treatment 

and the percent of the total treatment acres each treatment type represents. A total of 12,800 acres of 

cutting treatments are proposed. Moderate and high intensity single tree selection treatment types account 

for 62 percent of the treatment acres and stand improvement (non-sawlog) treatments add another 20 

percent. Under this alternative, approximately 23 percent of the forested acres within the project area 

would have a cutting treatment.

Compared to the modified proposed action (Alternative 2), Alternative 3 proposes 2,840 fewer acres of 

stand improvement, 6,000 fewer acres of STS/GS/IT treatments, 270 fewer acres of savanna treatments, 

and 0 acres of meadow restoration. 

Within the 880 acres of units with a group selection treatment type, there may be a need to plant 

approximately 200 acres to ensure the prescribed post treatment stocking and species mix is attained.

Logging Systems

Logging systems were estimated by the interdisciplinary team using a combination of slope, distance to 

specified roads, and limited use of temporary roads to access the proposed harvest units. The associated 

acres by estimated logging system are listed in Table 69. Map 25 shows the estimated logging system by 

unit and logging system type. The final logging system selection by stand would be completed during 

implementation, considering the final decision and site specific constraints and opportunities. 

During FEIS analyses, the Regional logging engineer field verified an 11 percent sample of treatment 

stands, and found the original estimates to differ from the field verification by -9 percent, 85 percent, and 

-26 percent for ground based, line, and helicopter system, respectively (see the project record for more 

information). Consequently, the analysis of effects for all resources took a conservative approach and 

considered the potential range in acres by logging system represented by -26 to +85 percent of the 

original estimated acres. Further, individual resource effects were assessed by stand relative to the 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 211

potential for implementation of more impactful logging system(s) than the original estimated system (e.g., 

if a ground based system were implemented instead of an estimated helicopter or skyline system), and no 

specific resource concerns were identified. In general, as a result of project design criteria, best 

management practices, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines applied at the stand level by resource, 

implementation of logging systems within the ranges specified in Table 50 would result in no differences 

in effects. Specific design features and best management practices for each logging system are listed in 

Appendix J.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

212 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Table 68. Alternative 3 – Acres by cutting treatment type in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

Cutting Treatment Type Approximate Acres 

(Change from Alt. 2)

Percent of Forested 

Area Treated

Stand Improvement 3,000 (-2,400) 5%

Single Tree Selection – High Intensity 3,700 (-1,100) 7%

Single Tree Selection – Moderate Intensity 4,400 (-1,400) 8%

Single Tree Selection – Low Intensity 820 (-380) 1%

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Moderate Intensity 0 (-650) 0%

Single Tree Selection in MA15 – Low Intensity 0 (-10) 0%

Group Selection – High Intensity 380 (-1,420) 1%

Group Selection –Moderate Intensity 470 (-120) 1%

Group Selection – Low Intensity 30 (-10) <1%

Intermediate Treatment – High Intensity 70 (-50) <1%

Intermediate Treatment – Mod Intensity 50 (-70) <1%

Intermediate Treatment – Low Intensity 80 (-10) <1%

Savanna* 290 (-240) 1%

Meadow Restoration* (Swamp Creek) 0 (-31) 0%

Cutting Treatment Total (Forested Acres) 13,340 (13,050) 24%

Forested Acres – No Cutting Treatment 42,250 (76%)

Total Forested Acres 55,300 (100%)

*Savanna and meadow restoration treatments are in areas that do not meet the definition of forested.

Table 69. Alternative 3 - Acres by logging system

Logging

System

Approximate 

Acres

Percent of Total 

Harvest 

Treatment 

Acres

Analyzed Range in 

Approximate Acres 

(-26 to +85% of the 

original estimate)

Analyzed Range in 

Approximate Percent of 

Total Harvest Treatment 

Acres

Ground Based 

(Tractor) 4,700 46% 3,500-8,700 34-84%

Line 3,600 35% 2,700-6,700 26-65%

Helicopter 2,000 19% 1,500-3,700 15-36%

Total Harvest 

Acres: 10,300 100%

Forest Cover Type

Cover type percent by potential vegetation group and percent change from existing due to Alternative 3 

treatments are listed in Table 70. The prevalent effect in terms of movement toward RV would be in the 

ponderosa pine cover type. There would be a seven percent increase in the dry PVG and another one 

percent increase in the moist PVG. There would also be notable changes to the Douglas-fir cover type 

with a six percent reduction in the dry PVG and a one percent reduction in the moist PVG. Overall, 

Alternative 3 would move all cover types in both PVGs closer to RV with the exception of lodgepole pine 

in the moist PVG.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 213

Table 70. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of forest cover types in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Cover Type Acres

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from 

Existing)

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa 

pine 14,700 35% (+7) 50-80

Douglas-fir 19,200 45% (-6) 5-20

Western larch 610 1% (+<1) 1-10

Lodgepole pine 200 <1% (-<1) 0

Grand fir 7,300 17% (-1) 1-10

Engelmann 

spruce

0 0% 0

Unknown 260 1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

Ponderosa 

pine 1,600 12% (+1) 5-15

Douglas-fir 5,700 44% (-1) 15-30

Western larch 730 6% (+2) 10-30

Lodgepole pine 180 1% (-<1) 25-45

Grand fir 4,600 36% (-<1) 15-30

Engelmann 

spruce

90 1% (-<1) 1-10

Unknown 40 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Forest Structural Stages

Table 71 summarizes the forest structural stage percent by potential vegetation group and percent change 

from existing due to Alternative 3 treatments. Highest movement toward RV would be in the OFSS 

structural stage with a five percent increase in the dry PVG and two percent increase in moist. The SE 

stage would experience movement away from RV in both PVGs. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in a 

similar pattern in relation to RV as compared to Alternative 2 at slightly lesser amount due to less acres 

treated.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

214 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Table 71. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of forest structural stages in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Structural 

Stage

Acres

Percentage of 

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from 

Existing)

Range of 

variation (%) 

(Powell 2010)

Dry UF

OFSS 2,000 5% (+5) 40-60

OFMS 8,300 20% (-<1) 5-15

YFMS 3,000

19,000

7% (-1) 45% 

(0) UR 5-10

16,000 38%

(+1)

SE 5,700 13% (-5) 10-20

SI 7,100 17% (+<1) 15-25

Unknown 180 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist UF

OFSS 210 2% (+2) 10-20

OFMS 4,200 32% (+2) 15-20

YFMS 1,800

4500

14%

(-1) 35%

(-1) 10-20

UR 2,700 21%

(+1)

SE 1,900 15% (-3) 20-30

SI 2,100 16% (+<1) 20-30

Unknown 20 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Tree Density Class 

Table 72 displays the density class percent by potential vegetation group and percent change from 

existing due to Alternative 3 treatments. Overall, Alternative 3 would move or maintain all density classes 

within RV for both PVGs with the exception of dry high, which would remain outside RV.

Table 72. Alternative 3 – Post treatment distribution of tree density classes in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Density 

Class Acres

Percentage of 

Potential Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from Existing)

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Dry UF

Dry High 10,100 24% (-9) 5-15

Dry Mod 10,100 24% (-8) 15-30

Dry Low 21,900 52% (+18) 40-85

Unknown 180 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 215

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Density 

Class Acres

Percentage of 

Potential Vegetation 

Group (Percent 

Change from Existing)

Range of 

variation (%)

(Powell 2010)

Moist UF

Moist High 3,800 29% (-16) 15-30

Moist Mod 4,900 37% (+9) 25-60

Moist Low 4,200 32% (+7) 20-40

Unknown 50 2%

Moist UF Total 13,00 100%

Grand Total 55,300

Pattern

Alternative 3 would treat 13,050 acres using the Individuals, Clumps and Openings (ICO) approach to 

restoring forest spatial pattern.

Size Class Distribution

Similar to Alternative 2, thinning treatments would result in an immediate increase in average tree 

diameter by favoring dominant and codominant trees. The treatments would also increase average tree 

diameter in the short term by reducing inter-tree competition and improving individual tree growth.

Table 73 displays the estimated post treatment size class distribution and the percent change from the

existing distribution. For both the dry and moist PVGs, tree size class would be trending toward larger 

tree size classes with a five and six percent increase respectively in the >20 size class.

Table 73. Alternative 3 - Tree size class distribution in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Tree Size 

Class 

(diameter 

range in 

inches)

Acres

Percentage of Potential 

Vegetation Group 

(Percent Change from 

Existing)

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

<5 6,600 16% (-1)

5-10 1,300 3% (+1)

10-15 13,000 31% (-7)

15-20 12,300 29% (-1)

>20 8,900 21% (+5)

Unknown 180 <1%

Dry UF Total 42,300 100%

Moist upland 

forest (UF)

<5 1,900 15% (-1)

5-10 900 7% (+1)

10-15 2,900 22% (-5)

15-20 3,500 26% (+2)

>20 3,700 29% (+6)

Unknown 70 <1%

Moist UF Total 13,000 100%

Grand Total 55,300
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

216 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Disturbance and Fire Regimes

The effects of harvest, SI, and prescribed fire are described in “Effects common to all action alternatives”, 

above. The action alternatives vary in effect based solely on intensity of treatment represented by the 

number of acres. Alternative 3 includes fewer acres of harvest and SI thereby improving forest structure, 

density, and composition and associated fire regime characteristics to a lesser degree than under 

Alternative 2.

Prescribed Fire 

Alternative 3 has less area identified as a high priority for prescribed fire (46,500 acres) than Alternative 2

(48,600 acres), primarily due to the relatively lower forest area treated mechanically, and thus needing 

activity fuels treatment. Alternative 3 has similar beneficial impact on fire regime departure and landscape 

resiliency by burning approximately four to six percent of the landscape per year compared to Alternative 

2 (modeled results, see Appendix C). Where Alternative 3 departs from Alternative 2 in that benefit 

occurs during high fire years where approximately 15– 25 percent is predicted to burn. This is outside the 

reference fire regime and expected natural burn pattern insofar as the area moving toward fire as a natural 

disturbance process. During high fire years, even with treating approximately four to six percent/year with 

prescribed fire, Alternative 3 further departs from reference and desired landscape conditions and is 

relatively similar to conditions under Alternative. 1.

Activity Fuels

There would be less activity fuels created with the implementation of Alternative 3 as compared to 

Alternative 2. The treatment of activity fuels in “Effects common to all action alternatives” remains the 

same. Disposition of activity fuels is a key part in ensuring that fire severity does not increase due to the 

additional accumulation of fuels as a result of silvicultural activity. There is no increased impact to fire 

risk under Alternative 3 when compared to Alternative 2. 

Fire Management Decision Space

Alternative 3 creates limited decision space to manage wildland fire (planned and unplanned ignitions). 

State-and-transition simulation modeling (Appendix C) indicates that during a high fire year in the LJCRP 

area the amount of the landscape that burns is greater than the historical fire regime extent (6-15

percent//year). Although there is no difference between expected acres burned with planned and 

unplanned ignitions, (4 – 6 percent) depending on the year, there is limited benefit to managing unplanned 

ignitions under Alternative 3 due to not actively managing IRA, PWA, Designated Old Growth, and 

RHCAs. This creates an environment similar to the no action in terms of ecological and social risk of 

having unwanted fire effects such as uncharacteristically severe fire or fire affecting a large portion of the 

area (particularly within or adjacent to IRA, PWA, Designated Old Growth, and RHCAs) in a given year 

such as to impact the character of forest succession and fire regime. Alternative 3 has limited effect to 

areas around and within IRA, PWA, Designated Old Growth, and RHCAs on the ability of wildland fire 

to become a restorative process at an ecologically appropriate scale and severity without active 

management in those areas.

Insects and Disease Susceptibility

Table 74 lists the estimated, Alternative 3 post treatment susceptibility ratings for the six insect and

disease agents associated with the PVGs and cover types within the LJCRP area. The ratings and trends 

are similar to Alternative 2 with the following exceptions. 

Dry and Moist PVG 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 217

• Douglas fir mistletoe would be outside RV for the low and high ratings and within RV for the 

moderate rating. The low is the same as existing with the moderate rating higher than existing and the 

high rating lower than existing.

Table 74. Alternative 3 – Post treatment insect and disease susceptibility in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Agent

Susceptibility Rating - % of Forested Area

Low Moderate High

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Post 

Trt.

RV 

Range

Dry upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 29%+ 40-85% 40%+ 15-30% 31%- 5-15%

Douglas-fir Beetle 15%= 35-75% 50%+ 15-30% 35%- 10-25%

Fir Engraver 40%= 45-90% 45%= 10-25% 14%= 5-10%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 22%- 5-10% 58%+ 15-30% 19%- 40-90%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 14%= 25-55% 40%+ 15-40% 46%- 20-35%

Root Diseases 31%= 30-60% 51%+ 25-50% 18%- 5-25%

Moist 

upland 

forest (UF)

Defoliators 9%+ 5-10% 28%- 20-30% 62%- 35-90%

Douglas-fir Beetle 5%= 30-60% 27%+ 20-40% 67%- 10-30%

Fir Engraver 20%+ 30-70% 35%+ 20-35% 45%- 10-20%

Bark Beetles in P Pine 30%- 40-70% 61%+ 15-35% 10%- 5-25%

Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe 11%= 30-65% 34%+ 20-45% 55%- 10-20%

Root Diseases 17%+ 5-15% 55%+ 20-50% 27%- 35-75%

+ increase from current; - decrease from current; = same as current.

Dwarf Mistletoe and the Degree of Mistletoe Infestation - Design criteria are the same as for Alternative 

2, but Alternative 3 would result in a reduced mistletoe infection on fewer acres of cutting treatment 

(12,493 acres versus 21,378 acres for Alterative 2). This includes 189 acres of cutting treatment in 

moderate to heavily mistletoe infected stands (versus 336 acres under Alternative 2).

Timber Resource

There would be approximately 10,300 acres of harvest treatment (acres treated that remove timber 

volume) and there would be approximately 6,600,000 cubic feet of timber volume removed as a result of 

restoration treatments. This would be a direct beneficial output of Alternative 3, but lower than 

Alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

218 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Threatened, Endangered, and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants, Rangelands, and Understory 

Vegetation

Rangelands

Treatments in Alternative 3 would have the most impact where post treatment takes density to less than 40

percent cover. Moist upland forest treatments where density would be reduced to less than 40 percent

canopy cover would occur on less than one percent of the LJCRP area. Using a conservative estimate of 

10 percent increase in forage for dry upland forest stands that are taken to low density, about 5-8 percent

of the project area would show increased forage production in Alternative 3. Allotments that would have 

over 1,000 acres treated to less than 40% canopy closure would be Cougar Creek and Swamp Creek. 

Allotments that would have 500-1,000 acres treated to less than 40 percent canopy closure would be 

Davis Creek, Hunting Camp, and Table Mountain. The amount of forage depends on many factors, such 

as annual variations in precipitation, heat, soil, and competing vegetation. Project design criteria Range-1

(coordinating timber sale operations with the timber sale administrator) would help avoid impacts to 

ongoing grazing operations. PDCs Range-2, 3 and 4 would help protect fences and keep livestock in 

planned locations.

Noxious Weeds and other Non-native Invasive Plants

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 in treatments, but would not treat areas in designated old growth 

(MA15) or in IRAs, resulting in less acres of commercial harvest and thinning. There would be less 

chance of spreading invasive plants and noxious weeds through logging and associated activities than 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Very few road segments would be closed in Alternative 3. The overall difference in 

risk of spread of noxious weeds by alternatives in miles is small. The length of external haul routes is 

common to both action alternatives.

Threatened, Endangered, and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants

Coniferous Forest

Sensitive plants found in coniferous forest are discussed in detail under effects common to all action 

alternatives.

Grasslands

Sensitive plants found in grasslands are discussed in detail in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 effects would 

be similar, although slightly less acreage adjacent to grasslands is proposed, because there are no 

treatments proposed in Old Growth Preservation Areas (MA15), IRAs, or PWAs. 

Lithosols/ Shallow Soils

Alternative 3 would have the substantial activities near lithosol habitat, but less so than Alternative 2. 

WWNF Forest Plan, as well as HCNRA CMP standards and guides would be followed for the white 

fleabanes. WWNF Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be followed for Wallowa needlegrass.

Project design criteria described in the discussion of direct and indirect effects for Alternative 2 would be 

identical for Alternative 3. 

Moist Meadows, Wet Meadows, Riparian Areas, Springs and Seeps

Compared to Alternative 2, suspected TES plant species found in moist meadows, wet meadows, riparian 

areas or springs and seeps would be more protected in Alternative 3, where riparian areas and other moist 

to wet habitats are protected by PACFISH buffers. Along Category 1 and 2 streams, a minimum 100 foot 

buffer would be maintained.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 219

Aquatic Habitat

Although difficult to quantify, the effects to aquatic habitat from fine sediment may be less than those 

described in Alternative 2 because of the exclusion of tree removal in the RHCAs under Alternative 3. 

However, modeling indicates a negligible difference in sediment delivery to streams between the action 

alternatives when Best Management Practices and Project Design Features are implemented. In addition 

there would be no commercial harvest in Category 4 RHCAs. Thus the overall short-term increase in 

erosion rates in the analysis area is likely to be less than Alternative 2 (see the Physical Environment 

supporting documentation). 

For Alternative 3, commercial thinning activities would not occur in RHCAs adjacent to Category 1 and 

Category 2 streams or Category 4. Restricting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs of Category 1 

and 2 streams would prevent adverse impacts to existing stream shading along streams in the analysis 

area. The RHCA widths adjacent to Category 1 streams (300 ft on either side) and Category 2 streams 

(200 ft on either side) are sufficient to prevent removal of trees that provide stream shading. Therefore, no 

measurable increases in stream temperatures would result from proposed thinning activities.

Burning activities under Alternative 3 would be less than Alternative 2 based on acres treated. With a 

reduction in activity fuels treatments the possibility of impacting large shade producing trees would be 

reduced thereby reducing the effects of the alternative on water temperature.

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

Alternative 3 of the LJCRP may affect Snake River steelhead or its designated critical habitat and is likely 

to adversely affect the species and its designated critical habitat. Impacts to Snake River steelhead may 

occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment (see effects to aquatic habitat 

section). This short term increase in fine sediment relative to the existing fine sediment levels would be 

immeasurable and be a result of the aquatic organism passage replacement.

Management Indicator Species – Aquatic Species

Alternative 3 of the LJCRP may impact individual redband trout and their habitat (MIIH), but would not 

likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to redband 

trout may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment and water temperature 

(see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Alternative 3 of the LJCRP may impact individual Snake River steelhead and their habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute toward loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts to Snake River 

steelhead may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment and water 

temperature (see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Current levels of fine sediment in the majority of streams in the analysis area are below the 20 percent

threshold used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids. In these areas short-term potential increases in 

fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are unlikely to result in 

measurable increases in fine sediment in streams in the analysis area. 

Impacts from activities proposed under Alternative 3 are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for 

Snake River steelhead and redband trout. Anticipated immeasurable increases in both fine sediment and 

water temperature are within habitat tolerances for steelhead and redband trout.

Cumulatively, aquatic habitat should improve over time in the analysis area. Fine sediment levels should 

decrease through time as a result of improved road closures and decommissioning activities. Alternative 3 

would likely not result in a short-term slowing of recovery of aquatic habitat in the analysis area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

220 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

In the long-term, Alternative 3 would improve vegetative conditions and maintain the natural fire regime 

in the project area which would have beneficial impacts to Snake River steelhead and redband trout and 

their habitat

Alternative 3 of the LJCRP may impact individual western ridge mussels and their habitat (MIIH), but 

would not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Impacts 

to western ridge mussels may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine sediment and 

water temperature (see effects to aquatic habitat section).

Current levels of fine sediment in the majority of streams in the analysis area are below the 20% threshold 

used to indicate adverse impacts to salmonids and likely the western ridge mussel. In these areas shortterm potential increases in fine sediment from proposed prescribed burning and thinning activities are 

unlikely to result in measurable increases in fine sediment in streams in the analysis area. 

Impacts from activities proposed under Alternative 3 are unlikely to result in degradation of habitat for 

western ridge mussels. Anticipated immeasurable increases in both fine sediment and water temperature 

are within habitat tolerances for western ridge mussels.

In the long-term, Alternative 3 would improve vegetative conditions and maintain the natural fire regime 

in the project area which would have beneficial impacts to western ridge mussels and their habitat.

Wildlife 

Primary Cavity Excavators

Effects assume project design criteria Wild1-14 (Appendix J) would be implemented. These include 

protection measures for large trees, large snags, downed logs during harvest and burning activities.

See ‘effects to all action alternatives.

Although removal of snag habitat (> 12 in dbh) is not prescribed, it is expected that population decreases 

in MIS for dead and defective wood habitat would be expected to occur. While additive cumulative 

effects may be anticipated, projects are consistent with LRMP objectives. 

The vegetation treatments proposed would adversely impact current and future dead and defective wood 

habitat. Harvest treatment is proposed on about 23 percent (13,290 acres) of the forested landscape. It can 

be assumed that within treatment areas there would be a reduction in snags and logs due to skid trails, 

landings, safety reasons and prescribed burning. Proposed activities (tree harvest and prescribed burning) 

are expected to help create habitat for PCEs using open forests (e.g. white-headed woodpeckers) and 

reduce habitat for those PCEs using dense forests (e.g. pileated woodpeckers). 

Because Alternative 3 does not remove trees > 21 in dbh and harvest occurs on fewer acres, the loss of 

current and future snag and down-log habitat is less than in Alternative 2.

The closure of roads would positively affect the abundance of snag and down wood habitat. However, this 

alternative maintains the most open miles of roads, which would be open to the public. Thus, there would 

be the greatest potential for continued loss of snags across the landscape due to safety and firewood 

harvesters.

Pileated Woodpecker

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-1-14, and Wild-26-27 (Appendix J) would be implemented. 

These include protection measures for large trees, large snags, and downed logs during harvest and 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 221

burning activities. Snags > 12 in dbh would only be removed due to safety considerations. Harvest of 

large trees is allowed only in Alternative 2 and on approximately 5,000 acres, excluding areas within 

MA15s, PFA’s, and cool-moist large tree – closed canopied forests. Wild29, 30, and 31 describe 

conservation measures to protect pileated woodpecker nests. 

Also see “effects common to all action alternatives”.

Quantity of source habitat declines the most in Alternative 3; however source habitat abundance would

remain within the RV (Table 34). Although the overall area with harvesting in Alternative 3 is less than in 

Alternative 2, the resulting amount of source habitat for pileated woodpeckers, appears to be lower. In 

Alternative 3 more acres of vegetation that is currently in the size class of medium (15-20 in), and postharvest the mean diameter of the stand actually increases and moves the stand in to the next size class 

(>20 indbh), while also maintaining >40 percent canopy closure.

Quality of habitat for pileated woodpeckers would decline through the loss of canopy closure, and loss of 

large snags. Although snags are not prescribed to be removed, snag densities would decline due to safety, 

skid trails, and landings. Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres than Alternative 2 of overall harvest (12,220) 

thus the loss of large snags would be less in this alternative. Additionally, Alternative 3 does not include 

removal of trees >21 in dbh, which would help to maintain higher quality of habitat on those areas treated 

that retain sufficient size class and tree canopy to remain source habitat.

The abundance of open roads across the planning area would be reduced by 8 miles. As compared to 

Alternatives 1 and 3, this reduction in the amount of open roads would have the least impact of any of the 

alternatives, and minimal change from the existing condition. The potential for removal of snags for 

firewood and safety would be reduced across the planning area on approximately 8 miles.

Because fewer acres would be harvested (including stand improvement prescriptions) in Alternative 3 

than Alternative 2, fewer acres of high priority prescribed fire has been identified. In the east Cascades of 

Washington, prescribed burning, and prescribed burning and thinning treatments tended to increase snag 

density in one study, although they were often small-diameter (e.g., 20–39.9 cm dbh) snags (Hessburg et 

al. 2010). Additionally, other researchers suggest prescribed fires would likely result in loss of snags, 

particularly in the large (>20 in dbh) size class (Finch et al. 1997, Pilliod et al. 2006). Fire severity during 

the burn operations contributes largely to the expected impacts to snags and downed wood loss and 

recruitment.

Though some current source habitat would be harvested, and the quality of the habitat may be reduced, 

overall source habitat would remain within the RV for this species in this project area. Therefore, 

Alternative 3 would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the WWNF for the pileated 

woodpecker.

Northern Goshawk

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-15-23 would be implemented. These include protection 

measures for PFAs. Additional protection measures exist to protect large trees, large snags, and down-logs 

during harvest and burning activities. 

Also see “effects common to all action alternatives”.

Through harvest, the abundance of source habitat for goshawks would be reduced under Alternative 3 by 

about 3,100 acres (Table 35). The amount of source habitat would remain within the RV at about 29

percent (1-46 percent). After harvest, approximately 11 percent (2,100 acres) of the source habitat would 

have had harvest, yet meet the definition of source habitat (canopy closure > 40 percent (dry forest PVG) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

222 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

or >60% (moist forest PVG) and overall tree size of >25” dbh). In Alternative 3, no trees >21 indbh 

would be harvested, which would provide for higher quality habitat within the treated areas relative to 

Alternative2, since large trees are an important habitat component for goshawks. Source habitat that has 

been harvested would likely be of lower quality than unharvested areas due to the loss of canopy closure, 

and loss of large snags and logs due to safety concerns and logging systems. 

Although trees with mistletoe are likely to be removed in all harvest units, especially in the prescriptions 

‘Intermediate Treatments’ (70 acres within source habitat), the loss of mistletoe may also reduce the 

quality of source habitat. The removal of trees with dwarf mistletoe brooms may be detrimental to 

northern goshawk and other species that nest in mistletoe brooms (Bull 1997). 

As compared to Alternatives 1 or 2, this alternative proposed the fewest road closures from the existing 

condition. A total of about 8 miles of road are proposed to be closed or decommissioned relative to the 

existing condition, offering the least benefit to goshawks, as human disturbance has been documented to 

adversely affect this species.

The amount of source habitat remains with the RV (1-46 percent of potential). 

Alternative 3 would impact goshawk habitat in the project area. Though some current source habitat 

would be harvested, and the quality of the habitat may be reduced, overall source habitat would remain 

within the RV for this species in the project area. Protection measures would be in place to conserve 

PFAs, large trees, large snags and downed logs during harvest and prescribed fire activities. Therefore, 

Alternative 3 would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the WWNF for northern goshawks.

American Marten

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-1-14, and Wild-24 (Appendix J) would be implemented. 

These include protection measures for large trees, large snags, and downed logs during harvest and 

burning activities. Wild-24 states: Because marten habitat is at the lower end of the RV, any harvesting 

within marten habitat (moist, large tree, closed canopy forests) is designed to maintain old forest 

characteristics. Canopy closure would remain >60 percent, and no harvest of trees >21 indbh in marten 

habitat. Snags and large down wood that American marten need for denning, rest areas, and hunting

would be maintained. Large broken top and potentially hollow grand fir would be maintained for denning 

habitat. 

Also see “effects common to all action alternatives”. 

Under Alternative 3, proposed commercial harvest in moist forests would be 2,700 acres, of which 730

acres is within what currently qualifies as marten source habitat (moist, large tree, closed canopy forests; 

Table 36). These 730 acres represents about 33 percent of the current source habitat for marten in the 

project area. The prescription on these 730 acres is a combination of group selection, moderate density

(110 acres), single tree selection, high density (120 acres), and single tree selection, moderate density

(500 acres). The design criteria for these prescriptions is to maintain >60 percentcanopy closure, and 

multi-story conditions; no trees > 21 in dbh would be harvested. It is assumed that post-harvest these 

stands would be maintained as source habitat. It is likely that in the short-term they may meet minimum 

qualifications as source habitat but the quality of the habitat may be reduced due to reduced complexity 

and tree density, and potential loss of snags and logs due to logging operations and safety. 

As discussed in the PCE section above, densities of large snags (>20 inches dbh) in moist forest are below 

reference conditions in the snag density classes that provide habitat for American marten. Snag habitat is 

likely to be an important habitat feature for marten in these habitat types. Harvesting on 2,700 acres 

would add to a reduction in snag habitat, further declining habitat quality for marten in this area. 

However, in Alternative 3 there would be no removal of trees >21” indbh, which should be beneficial in 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 223

long-term recruitment of snag habitat, as these trees would be available as potential snags and down 

wood. 

In Alternative 3, 110 acres of the marten habitat that would be commercially harvested is in the 

prescription ‘GS_Mod’ (group selection – moderate). Group selections can include openings that are 1/2-

4 acres. As described above, martens respond negatively to low levels of habitat fragmentation (Hargis et 

al. 1999). Openings as large as four acres may reduce the quality of the habitat for marten. In the longerterm, as trees continue to grow, American marten would continue to use these harvested areas for some or 

all of their life history functions. Vegetation treatments in both action alternatives are assumed to modify 

fire behavior and reduce the effects of an uncharacteristic stand replacement event, thereby potentially 

retaining source habitat in the long-term.

Open roads can contribute to a loss of quality of habitat through loss of snags and down wood due to 

firewood harvest and safety, and can reduce habitat quality (Godbout and Ouellet 2008). The closure or 

decommissioning of eight miles of road above existing condition should have minimal effect on marten, 

as human disturbance has been documented to adversely affect this species. This alternative maintains the 

most miles of open road as compared to Alternative 1 or 2.

The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would result in a small negative trend 

in habitat quality. The loss of habitat quality would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest and would

likely be short-term. Alternative 3 is consistent with the LRMP, and thus continued viability of the 

American marten is expected on the WWNF.

Rocky Mountain Elk

Effects assume project design criteria Wild-34 – Wild-37 (Appendix J) would be implemented. These 

protection measures serve to reduce human disturbance during winter and calving season. Additionally 

Wild-34 provides guidance on retaining hiding cover patches in areas where harvest activities occur. 

Table 37 summarizes Forest Plan standards for road density by management area, and alternative. Similar 

to Alternative 2, the Forest Plan standards for HEI and percent cover in MA1 areas would be met. The 

HEI standard of > 0.5 on MA1 is met in both the Lower and Upper Joseph watersheds. The percent cover 

on the summer ranges remains above 30 percent. The reduced cover may increase forage quantity and 

quality especially in the spring. The reduced harvest in Alternative 3 relative to Alternative 2 provides for 

more cover across the planning area than in Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 changes about 5,300 acres of cover to forage across the entire planning area (about 35

percent fewer acres than Alternative 2). Both harvest treatments and prescribed burning may also 

contribute an increase in forage quantity and quality, especially in the spring. Vegetation treatments have 

been designed to improve the overall landscape structure toward RV and become more resilient to natural 

disturbance patterns, and should benefit elk foraging opportunities.

Alternative 3 proposes a slight reduction in miles of open road as compared to the existing condition. This 

alternative maintains the nearly 70 more miles of open road than Alternative 2, the other action 

alternative. In five of the ten subwatersheds, open road densities in MA1 remain above 3.0 miles/miles2, 

above the LRMP standard of 2.5 miles/square mile (Table 38). Additionally, one other watershed remains 

at 2.8 miles/square mile. Higher road densities have adverse effects on habitat effectiveness for elk by 

reducing effectiveness of cover and increasing disturbance. Higher open road densities on NFS lands have 

added to the issue of elk relocating on adjacent private lands with fewer open roads. Currently there is a 

large segment of the elk in the Chesnimnus wildlife unit residing nearly year-round on private lands 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

224 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

adjacent to NFS lands. By only minimally reducing road densities in this Alternative, it is likely elk 

distribution on private lands would remain an issue in this wildlife unit. 

Additionally of concern within the analysis area is the unregulated OHV and full-sized vehicle use of 

closed roads, which has been shown to adversely affect elk and elk habitat.

Depending on the implementation schedule over space and time, this project would temporarily increase 

road density in the analysis area by constructing 12.6 miles of temporary roads and at times opening 

closed roads for administrative use. Combined with the loss of cover to harvest, there would likely be a 

short-term negative impact to habitat effectiveness for elk in some areas at some times.

Together with the loss of cover and higher road densities particularly in the Davis, Lower Swamp Creek 

subwatersheds, elk distribution and habitat effectiveness may be adversely affected.

Old Growth Management Areas, Late-old Forest Habitat, and Connectivity Corridors

Old Growth Preservation Areas (MA15)

Harvest is not prescribed in MA15 areas in Alternative 3. Changes in structural stage would only occur as 

a result of natural disturbance processes and continuing fire suppression (Table 60).

Late seral (old) Forest

The amount of OFMS and OFSS in dry and most forests increases by about 5 percent and 4 percent, 

respectively (Table 71). Although these areas of increase may meet the definition of old forest structures, 

the canopy closure and structural complexity would be less than the existing conditions.

Larger tree structure with open canopies would increase habitat for species such as the Sensitive whiteheaded woodpecker and Lewis’s woodpecker, but would reduce habitat for MIS such as pileated 

woodpecker and Northern goshawk.

Alternative 3 includes a proposed Forest Plan amendment to thin 20 acres in old forest single story 

conditions to maintain or enhance existing conditions. This treatment would not change the overall LOS 

structural conditions. The harvest would reduce the tree density resulting in a more open canopied forest. 

Open-canopied large tree forest is below RV within the project area, and an increase in this habitat would 

benefit species associated with this structure such as the white-headed woodpecker. The landscape is 

currently above RV in closed-canopied forests.

Connectivity

Table 61 summarizes commercial forest vegetation treatments within connectivity corridors for 

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would reduce the quality of connectivity corridors on about14 percent of the 

areas identified for connectivity. Harvest would reduce the canopy closure and structural complexity. The 

prescriptions in the proposed treatment units within the connectivity corridors have been designed to 

provide canopy closure at > 40 percent in the dry forest PVG, and > 50 percent in the moist forest PVG. 

Although canopy closure and structural complexity may be reduced, these stands are expected to maintain 

the function and objectives of connectivity as described in the Eastside Screens. 

Alternative 3 would allow for prescribed fire across much of the planning area, and 530 acres of treatment 

in seedling/sapling and pole stands within connectivity corridors. Some snags and logs may be consumed 

by prescribed fire, while new snags and logs are recruited from fire-killed trees. The burning, and small 

tree thinning in connective corridors would not have a measurable adverse effect on the quality or 

function of the corridors. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 225

Landbird and Migratory Bird Habitat

Effects assume that Project Design Criteria and mitigation measures in Appendix J would be 

implemented. Several mitigation measures include protections for large snags, trees and down-wood 

during harvest and prescribed burning activities. In particular, Wild12 states: To reduce the potential for 

impacts to nesting landbirds, prescribed burning activities projected to occur on or after May 20, and/or 

past the onset of vegetation leaf-out, would be reviewed by a district or forest wildlife biologist. The 

biologist would then provide recommendations concerning prescribed burning after May 20 and/or past 

the onset of vegetation leaf-out

Effects from this project to migratory birds would be variable depending on the species (see Wildlife 

specialist’s report). Alternative 3 would harvest fewer acres than Alternative 2. Therefore, canopy cover 

and snags would be reduced on fewer acres. Additionally, riparian areas would not be directly altered, nor 

would trees > 21in dbh be removed.

Higher road densities in Alternative 3 compared to Alternatives 1 or 2 would likely be more adverse for 

all of these migratory birds. Road-associated factors that adversely affect some species of migratory and 

resident birds include: snag and log reduction, habitat loss and fragmentation, negative edge effects, 

harassment or disturbance, collisions, displacement or avoidance, and chronic negative interactions with 

humans (Gaines et al. 2003). Also see “Effects common to all action alternatives”.

Threatened, Endangered, and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Wildlife Species

Potential habitat changes due to Alternative 3 for most threatened, endangered or USFS R6 sensitive 

species were covered under ‘effects common to all action alternatives’. The potential effect to habitats for 

the Columbia spotted frog, and Lewis’s woodpecker, and white-headed woodpecker are discussed below. 

No treatment within any category 1 RHCA s, which may represent source habitat for spotted frogs, is 

proposed in Alternative 3. Therefore, there would be No Impact (NI) to the Columbia spotted frog from 

treatments prescribed in this alternative. 

Vegetation treatments under Alternative 3 may produce source habitat for the Lewis’s woodpecker since 

this species is associated with large tree, open-canopied, xeric-pine habitats. Although snags are not 

proposed for harvest, some snags would be lost due to safety concerns and logging systems. Habitat 

abundance is expected to increase by less than 100 acres. Decreases in miles of open roads with 

Alternative 3 are minimal which would have minimal effects on the continued loss of larger snags due to 

fire wood cutting. Although snag densities may be reduced, the increase in source habitat following 

vegetation treatments in Alternative 3 would have a Beneficial Impact (BI) on the Lewis’ woodpecker.

Vegetation treatments in Alternative 3 are likely to increase habitat for white-headed woodpeckers since 

this species is associated with dry forests with large tree structure with open canopies (<40 percent). 

Treatments in Alternative 3 propose to increase habitat through reducing canopy closure in larger tree dry 

forest areas. Source habitat is predicted to increase from about 900 acres to about 4,300 acres. 

Large snag density would likely be reduced in and adjacent to harvest units due to safety and logging 

logistics; however, mitigation measures are in place to protect large pine trees and snags, and nesting trees 

(Appendix J). Assuming that Project Design Criteria and mitigation measures in Appendix J would be 

implemented, the large increase in source habitat following vegetation treatments would likely lead to a 

Beneficial Impact (BI) for the white headed woodpecker.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

226 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

The Social Environment

Socioeconomics

Activities under Alternative 3, such as timber harvest and restoration, would have the economic 

consequences described below. 

Financial Efficiency 

Table 75 summarizes the financial efficiency for Alternative 3. The PNV indicates the financial efficiency 

of the timber sale and restoration activities, including all costs (that are not included in the stumpage rate) 

and revenues associated with the activities and required design criteria (information obtained from the 

timber specialist assigned to the project). Restoration activities examined under this alternative include 

(among others) resiliency treatments, prescribed fire, and planting. A four percent discount rate was used 

over a period of 10 years (2014–2023), the estimated time required for full implementation of the project. 

Alternative 3 is not financially efficient for the timber harvest and required design criteria, as well as for 

all restoration activities noted above, as indicated by the negative PNV, -$5.1 million. However, since the 

PNV does not include non-market values, such as ecosystem services as discussed above, the benefits are 

likely underestimated. The estimated costs of treatment under Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2

since the restoration treatments are less intensive. Therefore, the expected non-market values derived 

from Alternative 3 would likely be less than Alternative 2 and greater than Alternative 1.

Indirect effects on financial efficiency could occur as a result of Alternative 3; however, estimates of these 

changes are not available. It is anticipated that fuels treatments under this alternative would contribute to 

fuels conditions that would have more resistance to wildland fire. This would tend to decrease wildland 

fire related costs such as property loss, lost revenues and suppression costs. 

Table 75. Present net value for Alternative 3. 

Alternative 3 Present Value of Benefits Present Value of Costs

BENEFITS

Revenue from commercial timber

volume

$1,231,234 

COSTS

Non-Mechanical $4,168,676 

Mechanical $852,394

Commercial timber harvest $1,369,119

Sum of discounted benefits and 

costs

$1,231,234 $6,390,190

Present Net Value $(5,158,956)

Economic Impacts

Alternative 3 would result in restoration activities with commercial timber production of 6,600 ccf per 

year for 10 years; mechanical, pre-commercial stand treatment on 584 acres per year; 142 acres of 

restoration treatment by hand labor; and some temporary road construction and road maintenance. 

Implementation of Alternative 3 is projected to support 34 jobs (Table 76) and $1.9 million in labor 

income in Wallowa and Union counties annually over 10 years. Those impacts in the local area include 

the jobs supported directly by completion of restoration treatments and processing of the commercial 

timber and the indirect and induced jobs related to those activities. The economic effect resulting from 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 227

restoration activities would be less under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2. The implementation of 

Alternative 3 would also yield employment changes in many economic sectors within Wallowa and Union 

counties. The greatest number of jobs supported would accrue to the Manufacturing and Agriculture and 

Forestry sectors. Other sectors affected by the LJCRP include Retail Trade, Construction, Professional 

Services, and Health Care. 

Table 76. Projected employment by major industry for Alternative 3

Industrial sector Jobs supported

Manufacturing 12

Agriculture and forestry 11

Professional, scientific, and technical services 2

Retail trade 2

Health care and social assistance 1

Accommodations and food services 1

Construction 1

Other industrial sectors (8) 4

Total 34

Economic impacts would also result from revenue sharing with local governments. However, payments to 

counties might vary depending on the mechanism used for the commercial timber sales. The commercial 

timber volume sold in this project could be sold as traditional timber sales or using stewardship 

authorities. In traditional timber sales, the Forest Service returns approximately 25 percent of the revenues 

back to states, which is then distributed to the counties. The returned revenues are used to fund roads and 

schools. In selling commercial timber using stewardship authorities, all of the revenue from the project 

remains with the selling National Forest (rather than going to the treasury or the counties) to be reinvested 

in other forest restoration projects. If the Forest implements traditional timber sales, the revenue 

distributed to counties would be less under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed alternative but more 

than the no action alternative because Alternative 3 has less timber harvest than the proposed action 

alternative.

Social Impacts

In addition to effects on the local economy, activities under Alternative 3 have the potential to affect the 

livelihood, cultural values, and natural resource values of people in the analysis area. The social 

consequences are measured qualitatively, with a particular focus on access, recreation uses, environmental 

justice and non-market values. 

Livelihood

The jobs and income, as detailed above under the economic impacts section, that Alternative 3 are 

expected to generate would likely improve the livelihood of area residents more than alternative 1 but less 

than Alternative 2. These jobs and income are expected to be generated over the next ten years, the life of 

the project. The increase in jobs and labor income in the analysis area from Alternative 3 would likely 

increase the tax base, public services, funding for schools, capital maintenance projects, and reduce 

poverty. Since the increase in jobs and income is less under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, the expected 

increase in the public services would be less than under Alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

228 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

The tax rates on timber harvested during 2014 under the Forest Products Harvest Tax (FPHT) is $3.53 per 

thousand board feet (MBF). The receipts from this tax program are dedicated to the partial funding of 

state-run programs that promote forest research, fire prevention and fire suppression, forest practices act 

administration, and improve public understanding of Oregon's forest resources (Oregon 2014). However, 

the funding for schools and other public services are more likely to come from personal income taxes 

(from 5 to 9.9 percent of taxable income) and property taxes. With increases in labor income, as detailed 

in the economic impacts section above, the state tax base and therefore public services could also 

increase.

Additionally, with more jobs and income in the area under Alternative 3 relative to Alternative 1, there 

likely would be more opportunities for younger generations. In turn, youth may choose to stay in the area 

and improve the age diversity. With a more balanced age composition, the economy would be more 

sustainable in the long-term. 

The long-term impacts to the tourism industry from changes to recreation uses (detailed under Cultural 

Values below) would likely be positive but less than the impacts from the proposed action alternative 

because Alternative 3 proposes less restoration treatment. The short-term impacts to the tourism industry 

would likely be negative but less than impacts from the proposed action. 

Alternative 3 would have 230 miles of open USFS roads, and close or decommission minimal miles of 

road, and would therefore have less of an impact on motorized access to WWNF public lands compared 

to the other alternatives. Many community members value access to public lands, but Alternative 3 would 

not change this value. Public access could be impacted by short-term increases in traffic but these effects 

would be intermittent during restoration. The potential increase in traffic is based on treatments in 

association with the timber sale. Under Alternative 3, there are less treated acres than Alternative 2, and 

therefore less short-term effects to traffic.

Cultural Values

As discussed in the Affected Environment section above, residents in the LJCRP area value the land 

mostly for recreation uses, such as hunting, fishing, gathering forest products, wildlife viewing and 

scenery, among others. See the Tribal report for effects to subsistence uses. These recreation uses are also 

linked to access, as discussed in the previous section. With more roads decommissioned, this limits access 

to public lands for recreation purposes. Since Alternative 3 has no new decommissioned or closed roads, 

there would be no change of effects relative to the existing condition; therefore the effects would be less 

than effects to access under Alternative 2. However, under Alternative 3, there could be intermittent 

disruption of access to the LJCRP area for treatments and therefore disturbance during hunting season. 

This effect is lower under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 since there are fewer acres likely to be treated.

Under Alternative 3, there could be greater detrimental effects to recreation uses for fishing, gathering 

special forest products, and hunting in the long term than Alternative 2 since there would be less 

restoration treatments and a corresponding higher risk of wildfire. As noted in the Wildlife section, 

prescribed burning in Alternatives 2 and 3 would generally benefit elk habitat through forage 

enhancement. With fewer improvements to ecosystem services from restoration, this would likely have 

greater impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, water and air quality and plant diversity for recreation uses by 

people in the analysis area. Effects to the fine sediment aquatic habitat and water temperature under 

Alternative 3 would be less compared to Alternative 2 because of a reduction in commercial thinning 

acres, burning activities, road reconstruction, and temporary road construction. Therefore, effects to 

recreational fishing are lower under Alternative 3 since the activities proposed are unlikely to result in 

degradation of habitat for redband trout. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, adverse recreation effects could be 

greater as the risk of fire is expected to be greater without any or less restoration treatment. For more 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 229

information on the effects to the specific resources, see the other specialist reports (Aquatics, Wildlife, 

and Botany). 

Vegetation management is needed to return these landscapes to a more natural appearance and higher 

scenic quality for recreation. More natural, park-like stands, which are substantially less abundant across 

the landscape than historically, have little likelihood of returning without mechanical restoration 

treatments to facilitate the reintroduction of fire. Alternative 3 meets the purpose and need to a much 

lesser extent than Alternative 2.

In the short-term, while prescribed burning treatments take place, smoke could affect the ability to 

recreate and enjoy the scenery in the LJCRP area. With fewer acres to be treated under Alternative 3, the 

short-term impacts are less than Alternative 2. However, the Forest Service is not planning to burn during 

peak visitor season so the impacts are expected to be minimal.

Biological Values

Commenters revealed that they value air and water quality, wildlife, and old growth trees, among others. 

Due to restoration under Alternative 3, improvements to ecosystem services and decreased risk of wildfire 

are less than under Alternative 2. These biological values would likely be improved more than under 

Alternative 1 but less than under Alternative 2 in the long term with less restoration treatments. However, 

the value for old growth trees is preserved under all alternatives because there is no old tree harvest. 

Rather than positively impacting this value (it is impossible to increase the amount of old growth trees in 

the short-term), by not harvesting old growth trees, the value is maintaining its integrity in the 

community. People would benefit from knowing that the trees exist and are continuing to provide 

biological services to the forest ecosystem. These non-market values are not included in the quantitative 

analysis yet have a strong hold in the local communities. For more information on the effects to the 

specific biological resources, see the other specialist reports (Aquatics, Wildlife, and Botany ). 

Timber Market and Forest Products

Alternative 3 would add timber to the regional supply and is expected to have beneficial impacts on the 

current timber market, though less than the Proposed Action. The timber mills in the area could increase 

their production within their current mill capacities. The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) and 

Associated Oregon Loggers (2014) estimated that the ten mills in the area are operating at an average of 

39 percent capacity. 

Contacts from the local logging industry believe that the demand for timber products in the region is 

expected to increase as the products are shipped around the world. Under Alternative 3, this distance and 

relevant transportation costs could decline as the industry receives more wood from the LJCRP.

Non-Market Values

Under Alternative 3, forest health is expected to improve more than Alternative 1 but less than Alternative 

2. Alternative 3 would decrease the likelihood of crown fire relative to existing conditions more than 

Alternative 1, but less than Alternative 2. Over time, forest restoration treatments would decrease fuel 

load and decrease potential smoke emissions from both planned and unplanned ignitions. The proposed 

activities under this alternative would protect ecosystem services and other social values, such as 

recreation opportunities and subsistence uses. Therefore, ecosystem functionality is expected to improve 

and contribute to community members’ non-market values more than Alternative 1, but less than 

Alternative 2. For more details on other social values, see the Social Impacts section above.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

230 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Environmental Justice

While minority and low-income populations exist in the area, Alternative 3 is not expected to have 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities. The 

environmental justice communities expected to be impacted the most are within the Nez Perce tribe. Since 

this community uses the LJCRP area for cultural and religious practices as well as for subsistence uses, 

they are more vulnerable to changes in the area’s natural resources due to the LJCRP. In the long-term, 

Alternative 3 is expected to improve natural resource conditions less than Alternative 2. However, in the 

short-term, the natural resource uses would be affected less under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 since it 

involves less treatment. These effects are addressed in the Tribal and Heritage report. 

The low income populations in the LJCRP analysis area could be affected by the access to recreation

opportunities and resource use. Under Alternative 3, 230 miles of USFS roads would be open, compared 

to the 170 miles of open USFS roads under the Proposed Action. However, since few roads would be 

decommissioned under this alternative there are no disproportionate effects on these communities.

Through public meetings, community members and representatives expressed that they expect the LJCRP 

to improve current environmental justice conditions, specifically related to low-income and children 

populations. With increased job opportunities for parents, they would be able to provide better 

opportunities for their children and the expected increase in the tax base under the proposed action 

alternative would presumably provide more support for schools. An increase in the tax base could also 

potentially increase social services for low-income populations and help alleviate poverty.

Heritage

Like Alternative 2, eligible and potentially eligible sites are located in, or near unit boundaries. Potential 

effects would be mitigated via site visits and site protection design features that would be implemented 

prior to ground disturbance (Appendix J, Heritage 2, 3, and 10). The greatest risk to heritage resources for 

Alternative 3 involves activities associated with ground based tractor treatments. Alternatve 3 includes 46

percent of the total harvesr units, or 34-84 percent of the analyzed percent of total harvest treatment acres 

(see Table 68) . For comparision, Alternative 2 tractor treatments include 39 percent of the total harvest 

units, or 29-73 percent of the analyzed percent of total harvest treatment acres (see Table 50). In general, 

Alternative 3 would treat less acres than Alternative 2 while staying mostly within the Alternative 2

analyzed percent of total harvest treatment acres. Therefore, potenial effects to heritage reources would 

be the same. 

Mechanical treatment types are the same as Alternative 2; involving ground, sky line and helicopter 

logging systems that include skidding, construction of temporary roads and landings. Again, Impacts to 

undiscovered sites could include rutting, erosion, dislocation, or breakage of artifacts and features, and 

destruction of sites and site stratigraphy. 

This alternative provides the greatest degree of public road access involving increased levels of off road 

uses and dispersed camping increasing the risk of damage to the integrity of heritage resources. Road 

activities causing rutting and erosion may expose artifacts making them more vulnerable to looting and 

breakage. 

Prescribed fire effects would be the same as Alternative 2. 

No treatments in IRAs, RHCA and MA15 may mean less overall potential effects to historic Cambium 

Peeled trees and dendroglyphs. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 231

Tribal 

Impacts on Hunting, Fishing and Gathering and Resource Risks of Accelerated Restoration

Generally, effects would be the same as Alternative 2, involving more acres of potential treatment. In 

addition, there would be less road decommissioning and closures, with an emphasis on maintaining 

current public road access levels. The effects of less road decommissioning and closures, along with 

emphasis on public road access, would be a beneficial effect for some tribal members who value greater 

access. Tribal members, concerned more about road impacts to resource values, would likely view 

Alternative 3 as having a greater adverse effect than Alternative 2. 

Concern for Value of Landscape over Economic Values

Generally, the effects would be the same as Alternative 2, but the estimated economic net value from 

timber harvest for Alternative 3 would be -$5.1 million, compared to -$5.9 million for Alternative 2. 

This demonstrates that positive economic net value is not a motivation for this alternative.

Maintain Old Growth Legacy Trees and Conservation of Inventoried Roadless Areas

Alternative 3 would not allow harvest in MA15 stands or IRAs, and does not remove trees greater than 21 

inches in diameter. Based on meetings with tribal staff (See Tribal Consultation and Coordination Record, 

Appendix G; and DEIS comments in the project record) effects of Alternative 3 on tribal values and 

concerns are expected to be positive. However, in the long term, threats to old growth and IRA values 

would likely increase without landscape treatments designed to create resilient landscapes and biological 

and structural diversity.

Resource Risks of Accelerated Restoration

Generally, the effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2 regarding tribal concerns but 

potential effects are commensurate with the smaller extent of proposed vegetation treatments. Effects to 

tribal values in the long term may be more adverse due to reduction of restoration acres treated; including 

no treatment of threatened old growth and IRAs. 

Impacts to Traditional Plant Resources 

Generally, the effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2, but less acres of plant habitat 

would be restored, possibly resulting in declining plant diversity and resiliency over time. 

Traditional Cultural Properties, Sacred Sites, and other Traditional Use Areas, may be at risk 

from implementation of the LJCRP 

Generally, the effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2, but at a lesser scale of risk.

Recreation

See effects common to all action alternatives.

Alternative 3 would close approximately three more miles of open road as compared to the existing 

condition, which would likely lead to no significant difference in recreational use compared to current 

conditions.

Scenery 

The overall effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would move stands 

toward desired future conditions, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire, but to a lesser degree than 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

232 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative 2. Effects to scenic integrity would be kept to a minimum, meeting all LRMP, HCNRA CMP, 

and Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan standards.

Alternative 3 would treat 13 percent of the project area (23% of forested acres) to improve species 

composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy closure. These treatments would improve 

scenic stability from low (dry forest PVG) or moderate (moist forest PVG) to high, but to a lesser degree 

than Alternative 2. The following discussion discloses effects of Alternative 3 by viewshed.

Oregon State Highway 3, Joseph Canyon Overlook

The direct effects of Alternative 3 in this viewshed are the same as Alternative 2, except no forest 

treatments would occur in RHCAs, and no trees greater than 21 in dbh would be cut. Alternative 3 would 

improve species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy closure to a slightly 

lesser degree than Alternative 2. 

The one stand (#193) partially in the background view of Highway 3 would not have a single tree 

selection harvest, but the intermediate treatment would occur on approximately 10 acres. This treatment 

would not change the density class of the stand, and would not be visibly evident from the Joseph Canyon 

Overlook. 

Joseph Canyon Wild and Scenic River Corridor

The direct effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2, except no forest treatments would 

occur in RHCAs, and no trees greater than 21 in dbh would be cut. There would be 10 fewer acres treated 

in the middleground view (visual quality objective of Partial Retention in the Table Rock area) than 

Alternative 2. This effort would improve the scenic character and the scenic stability of the area to 

generally the same degree as Alternative 2. 

Table Mountain

The effects of Alternative 3 would generally be the same as Alternative 2, except no forest treatments 

would occur in RHCAs, and no trees greater than 21 in dbhwould be cut. There would be 10 fewer acres 

treated in this area than Alternative 2, and there would be a slightly lower reduction in risk of 

uncharacteristic fire where more trees are left on the landscape due to the 21 in dbh cutting limit. The 

scenic character and the scenic stability of the area would be improved to a slightly lower level in this 

viewshed than Alternative 2. 

Forest Road 46, Cold Spring Ridge/Forest Road 4680

The direct effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2, except no forest treatments would 

occur in MA15, IRAs, or RHCAs, no trees greater than 21 in dbhwould be cut, and FS Road 4600570 

would not be decommissioned. These differences would result in very little difference in effect on visual 

quality, except in the case of scenic stability. Leaving more trees on the landscape, and not breaking up 

the horizontal homogeneity and ladder fuels of the IRAs, MA15, and RHCA areas would result in higher 

risk of uncharacteristic stand replacement fire compared to Alternative 2, but lower risk relative to 

Alternative 1.

It is expected that Alternative 3 would not reduce the scenic integrity and thus retain the existing visual 

quality objective standards established in the LRMP, CMP (HCNRA) and the Joseph Creek Wild and 

Scenic River Management Plan.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 233

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Potential Wilderness Areas

Alternative 3 direct and indirect effects are the same as those disclosed for Alternative 1 as no treatment is 

proposed in PWA or IRA.

Other Undeveloped Land

See effects analysis for Alternative 2 with the following change in acres affected for Alternative 3. The 

description of effects are similar to Alternative 2, however, the intensity (number of acres affected) is 

slightly less because less harvest and SI would occur in Alternative 3. Harvest would occur on 

approximately 3,500 acres of other undeveloped lands (all outside of IRA) under Alternative 3. Stand 

improvement would occur on approximately 400 acres of other undeveloped lands under Alternative 3. 

About 16,000 acres would be identified as high priority for fire treatment, which could be accomplished 

via prescribed or unplanned fire.

Areas Identified as Unroaded by Oregon Wild

See effects analysis for Alternative 2 with the following change in acres affected for Alternative 3 (Table 

77). The description of effects are similar to Alternative 2, however, the intensity (number of acres 

affected) is slightly less because less harvest and SI would occur in Alternative 3.

Table 77. Acres of harvest and stand improvement within OW outside of PWA, IRA and Other Undeveloped 

Land under Alternative 3. 

Oregon Wild 

Unroaded Area Name

Acres outside IRA, PWA, and other 

undeveloped lands treated with 

Harvest/SI Alternative 3

Harvest SI

Joseph Canyon 1,200 500

Cottonwood Creek –

Broady Creek

300 200

Sumac Creek 40 0

Yew Wood Springs 140 0

Boner Gulch 40 0

Total 1,720 700

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative 3 restoration treatments would contribute an additional 13,290 acres to moving forest 

composition, structure, density toward desired conditions or enhancing forest pattern or size class 

distribution or improving trends in insect and disease susceptibility.

Physical Environment

Climate

Treatments in Alternative 3 would move the project area closer to the reference condition in vegetation 

and disturbance regime, creating a more resilient and sustainable condition in the face of climate change 

when compared to Alternative 1, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 2 (also see Cumulative Effects 

Common to All Action Alternatives, above).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

234 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Soils

If Alternative 3 is implemented, there is a greater potential to create DSCs through active vegetation 

management activities compared to Alternative 1 and lower potential compared to Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 proposes approximately 1,500 fewer acres of ground-based harvest, 900 fewer acres of 

skyline and 3,000 fewer acres of helicopter harvest. There would be fewer opportunities to remediate 

legacy impacts but fewer new impacts to soils productivity would occur in comparison to Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 would reduce the landscape’s susceptibility for an uncharacteristic disturbance but perhaps 

not as effectively as Alternative 2. See the discussion under Cumulative Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives – Soils, for background information.

Water Quality

With the implementation of Alternative 3, there is a lower potential for erosion and subsequent sediment 

delivery compared to Alternative 2. Additionally, under Alternative 3, there would be no thinning within 

the RHCAs with equipment that may deliver additional sediment to streams. Our analysis indicates that 

sediment contributions from RHCA thinning, as prescribed, are unlikely to be detectable beyond the site 

scale (see Physical Environment Supporting Documentation). Alternative 3 would also be more effective 

at reducing the risk of uncharacteristic disturbances and potential future sediment inputs from high 

intensity wildfires, in comparison to Alternative 1 but less effective than Alternative 2. See Cumulative 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives – Water Quality, for additional information.

Air Quality

See Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Biological Environment

Vegetation

Alternative 3 restoration treatments would contribute approximately 12,500 acres to moving forest 

composition, structure, density toward desired conditions or enhancing forest pattern or size class 

distribution or improving trends in insect and disease susceptibility. This is less than that proposed in 

Alternative 2 and is therefore less effective at moving LJCRP Analysis Area to the desired condition for 

vegetation.

Disturbance

Past management actions and wildfires cumulatively affect fire managements’ ability to confidently return 

fire as an ecological process. Utilizing areas of reduced fire behavior, typically identified by past 

treatment and wildfire, can often decrease the risk (safety, social and ecological) of allowing an 

unplanned ignition to perform an ecologically important role and restore a natural disturbance regime. 

These past actions alongside treatments identified in Alternative 3 would facilitate somewhat limited 

acceptance of characteristic wildland fire and its ecological role in restoring disturbance processes in the 

LJCRP area. This is due in part to the large areas of untreated and ecologically important land that would 

continue to depart from historic disturbance severity and behavior. Adverse effects to these areas may not 

be socially or ecologically desirable given the expected effects of wildfire therefore the decision space is 

narrowed when fire occurs within or around these specific areas.

Cumulative Effects of Amending the Forest Plan (Eastside Screens)

Proposed Amendment for Forest Vegetation Treatments in Old Forest Single Story

Alternative 3 proposes to harvest approximately 20 acres in OFSS to restore or maintain OFSS structure, 

which is currently less than 1 percent of the forested landscape, and substantially below RV (Table 11).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 235

See “cumulative effects of amending the Forest Plan (Eastside Screens) for Alternative 2. The cumulative 

effects of implementing the plan amendment under Alternative 3 to treat OFMS and OFSS stands to 

restore RV, in combination with similar past amendments on the WWNF are similar to those for 

Alternative 2, and minor relative to the extent of the restoration need Forest-wide.

Also see “Alternatives 2 and 3- Effects of Not Amending the Forest Plan”, below.

Threatened, Endangered, and USFS Region 6 Sensitive Plants, and Understory Vegetation

With respect to cumulative effects on TES plants and understory vegetation, Alternative 3 has a lower 

potential than Alternative 2 to directly contribute to the previous impacts since there would be no 

treatments MA15, IRAs, RHCAs or PWAs. See the discussion under Cumulative Effects Common to All 

Action Alternatives for additional information.

Wildlife

Alternative 3 provides additional large tree structure by retaining all trees greater than 21in dbh. Open 

road densities would be reduced in Alternative 2 and generally maintained in Alternative 3. Although 

Alternative 3 proposes fewer acres harvested, it also proposes few road closures above the existing 

condition. See the discussion under Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives – Wildlife, for 

more information.

Aquatic Habitat

Under Alternative 3 there would be no thinning treatments of RHCAs. This would result in a reduction of 

a very negligible amount of sediment being delivered to stream channels and downstream fish bearing 

streams. This would result in a slightly less cumulative effect than Alternative 2. For all other effects see

the discussion under Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives – Aquatic Habitat, for more 

information..

Social Environment

Recreation / Scenery

See Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Heritage / Tribal

See Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives. Relatively speaking, Alternative 3 may pose 

a lower cumulative risk to heritage values over time compared to Alternative 2 as it proposes about half of 

the area of mechanical treatments. However, the cumulative effects on heritage resources as a result of 

Alternative 3 would be managed for no effect based on mitigation and design criteria ( Appendix J, PDC’s 

# 2,3,and 10) and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (1966) and 

Programmatic Agreement (2004).

See the biological sections of effects analyses for Wildlife, Aquatics and TES Plants and Understory 

Vegetation for cumulative effects associated with treaty resources and values.

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

areas identified as unroaded by Oregon Wild

Cumulative effects for PWAs and IRAs would be the same as disclosed in Alternative 1. There would be 

no cumulative effects because no activities would overlap in time or space and no direct or indirect effects 

would occur under this alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

236 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Cumulative effects to other undeveloped lands and OW would be the same as disclosed in Alternative 2. 

The description of effects are similar to Alternative 2, however, the intensity (number of acres affected) is 

slightly less because less harvest would occur in Alternative 3.

Socioeconomics

Access

Effects to access to WWNF land was an issue brought up through public comments and meetings. The 

attitude toward the LJCRP from a subsection of the community is generally negative because, although it 

may not contain significant motorized access restrictions, the LJCRP is seen as an addition to the previous 

restrictions put in place and is viewed as a trend toward limiting access to public lands. Travel 

management planning on the WWNF is on-going and this could change cross-country travel and the 

existing network of roads on the Forest. If some roads on the WWNF are closed to motorized access in 

the future for cross-country travel, commenters expressed that the value of maintained roads would 

increase. Under Alternative 3, the cumulative effects on motorized access to Forest Service lands are less 

than the effects from Alternative 2 since 230 miles are open Forest Service roads compared to 170 miles 

open under Alternative 2. 

Treatment and Restoration

The effect of past, present and reasonably foreseeable treatment activities in the project area would 

improve forest health relative to existing conditions even without the implementation of LJCRP. 

According to the vegetation report, from 2004 to 2013, approximately 1,300 acres have been 

commercially harvested in the Lower Joseph area. Under Alternative 3, 10,000 acres are expected to be 

commercially harvested over the ten year span of the project. Under Alternative 3, the activity in the 

forest sector would be higher than present and the associated local economic impact of current and future 

restoration activities would increase from the present conditions. The estimated employment and income 

consequences of non-LJCRP treatment activities, therefore, are likely underestimated in the related 

environmental compliance documents if they depend on present conditions for those analyses. 

The LJCRP treatments and other ongoing and foreseeable treatments could increase exposure to smoke 

emissions, which could cause cumulative effects to health and quality of life for individuals who are 

sensitive to smoke. According to the vegetation report, from 2004 to 2013, approximately 600 acres have 

been broadcast burned and 24,000 acres have incurred wildfire in the Lower Joseph area. Under 

Alternative 3, up to 50,000 acres are expected to be broadcast burned over the ten year span of the project. 

However, the cumulative effect of these treatments would be to decrease the risk of uncharacteristic 

wildfire, which would decrease the probability of smoke emissions associated with these events. 

Recreation

Other on-going and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the project area would reduce the 

opportunities for substitute behavior when the preferred recreation site is unavailable. As a result, 

individuals may choose to stay home, which would decrease visitor spending and consumer surplus to a 

greater extent than estimated in the direct and indirect effects analysis. However, the cumulative effects to 

the social and economic impacts from recreation cannot be precisely described. Based on the available 

information, the effect to visitor spending and consumer surplus from on-going and reasonably 

foreseeable actions is not expected to change. Although Alternative 3 would likely have less short-term 

disturbances to recreation (from smoke and limited access) than the Proposed Action, the long term 

effects to recreation would be also be less improved viewsheds and opportunities to recreate in a healthy 

forest with reduced risk of wildfire.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 237

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

See “Unavoidable adverse effects” under the section “Effects common to the action alternatives”. 

Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

See “Irreversible/Irretrievable commitments of resources” under “Effects common to the action 

alternatives.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – Effects of Not Amending the Forest Plan

The following is a description of how the Forest Plan amendments under this EIS would modify Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines and what the effects to the vegetation resource would be if the amendment 

did not occur.

Alternative 2 - Wildlife Standard (The Eastside Screens – Regional Forester’s Amendment # 2 for the 

Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). 

The amendment would authorize: a) Some of the large, but young, Douglas-fir, and grand fir trees that are 

≥ 21 in dbh, but less than 150 years in age (at breast height), would be removed from any of the structural 

stages being treated, except for units classified as the old forest single stratum structural stage (OFSS; this 

stage is called “single stratum with large trees” in the Screens); b) Thinning treatments would occur in 

OFSS.

If the amendment did not occur: 

a) Restoration treatments would be limited to a maximum of 21 in dbh thereby reducing the ability to 

restore forest structure and composition toward reference conditions (RV), particularly to increase the 

abundance of shade-intolerant tree species (ponderosa pine and western larch), reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristically severe fire and insect and disease outbreaks, and increase resiliency to natural 

disturbance and climate change. Scenario modeling specific to the LJCRP and the WWNF as a whole 

showed that more large trees would be lost to fire, insects and disease under a no action alternative than 

the combined loss to cutting and natural disturbances under Alternative 2 (see Appendix C for more 

information). While this analysis could not tease out the comparative of effects of implementing 

Alternative 2 treatments with a diameter cap of 21 in dbh, they do reveal the effects of leaving greater tree 

densities on the landscape relative to the RV.

b) Restoration treatments would not occur in the OFSS structural stage thereby negating the ability ensure 

maintenance and persistence of the large tree component into the future (in terms of improved tree vigor 

and resistance to western pine beetle attack and future wildfire risk or resiliency to climate change); 

contribute to species composition objectives for the LJCRP; contribute to density objectives for the 

LJCRP.

Alternative 3 - - Wildlife Standard (The Eastside Screens – Regional Forester’s Amendment # 2 for the 

Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)). The amendment would 

authorize: a) Thinning treatments would occur in OFSS.

If the amendment did not occur: 

a) Restoration treatments would not occur in the OFSS structural stage thereby negating the ability ensure 

maintenance and persistence of the large tree component into the future (in terms of improved tree vigor 

and resistance to western pine beetle attack and future wildfire risk or resiliency to climate change); 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

238 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

contribute to species composition objectives for the LJCRP; contribute to density objectives for the 

LJCRP.

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with ...other environmental review 

laws and executive orders.”
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 239

This page intentionally left blank
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

240 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

CHAPTER 5 Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and other 

organization and individuals during the development of this environmental impact statement:

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

Member Title Responsible Sections

Paul Boehne Fisheries Biologist Aquatics, Transportation

Michael Brown Physical Scientist Soils, Watershed, Minerals, 

Lands, GIS

Linda Dillavou (now retired) Support Assistant Administrative support.

Jenifer Ferriel Ecologist/Botanist Ecology, Range, Native and 

Invasive Plants

Amy Gowan Social Scientist Tribal, Socioeconomics, 

Heritage

Miles Hemstrom Scientist, Institute for Natural 

Resources

Ecological Modeling

Jodi Kramer (now retired) Public Affairs Officer, 

Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest 

External Communication

Kristen Loughery (TEAMS) Economist Socioeconomics

John Manderscheid Civil Engineering Technician Travel Access

Brenda McCants Support Services Administrative support

Neil McCusker Silviculturist Silviculture, Climate Change

Lonnie Ruchert Civil Engineering Technician Travel Access

Glen Sachet Public Affairs Specialist, R6 Communications

Ayn Shlisky (no longer with 

FS)

Team Lead Team Management, 

Environmental Coordination

Brian Spradlin (no longer 

with FS)

Disturbance Ecologist Fire Ecology, Fuels, Air, 

Wilderness, IRAs, 

Environmental Coordination

Kris Stein District Ranger Oversight, Direction

Barb Wales Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Recreation, 

Transportation

Eric White Research Associate 

(Ecosystem Workforce 

Program, Univ. of Oregon

Socioeconomics

Darcy Weseman Public Affairs/Writer-Editor Writer-editor/Public 

Engagement

Chris Zanger (no longer with 

TNC)

Forest Analyst 

(The Nature Conservancy)

Fire Modeling

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Tribes

Nez Perce Tribe
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 241

This page intentionally left blank 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

242 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to whom 

Copies of the Statement were Sent

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically requested a 

copy of the document (and those who submitted substantive comments on the draft environmental impact 

statement). In addition, copies have been sent to the following Federal agencies, federally recognized 

tribes, State and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views.

Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Chief of Naval Operations, Energy and Environmental Readiness Division

Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Geology and Minerals Industries

Department of the Interior, Office of Envrionmental Policy & Compliance

Department of Land Conservation and Development

Division of State Lands

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

FAA, Northwest Mountain Region

Federal Highway Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning

Northwest Power Planning Council

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

Oregon State Economist

Oregon State Water Resources Department

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

USDA National Agricultural Library

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Organizations

AFRC

Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc.

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project

Boise Cascade
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 243

Hells Canyon Preservation Council

Oregon Wild

Union County

Wallowa County Board of Commissioners

WildEarth Guardians

Individuals

Shawn Mork

Dick Artley

J. Lantini

Vincent J. Naughton

David Mildrexler

Roseann Dudrick

Jon Lee

William Gray

Danne Johnson

Tribes

Nez Perce Tribe
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

244 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Index 

Affected Environment, 7

air quality, 260, 588, 591

American marten, 3, 4, 25, 26, 30, 93, 96, 126, 127, 155, 179, 180, 222, 223

aquatic habitat, 37

cambium peeled trees, 43, 190

climate change, 309, 558

climate change scenarios, 36

connectivity, 14, 30, 48, 56, 65, 67, 72, 74, 88, 98, 104, 138, 181, 182, 183, 224, 263, 272, 306, 552, 555, 

578, 580

Cook Ridge Roadless Area, 49

Davis fleabane, 24, 144, 540

Disturbance regimes, 10, 69, 90

Douglas-fir, 1, 6, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 26, 31, 39, 49, 50, 68, 71, 74, 89, 90, 107, 166, 169, 170, 212, 213, 

217, 237, 265, 320, 331, 339, 555, 556

dry upland forest, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 31, 79, 117, 142, 262

Dry upland forests, 10

endangered species, 263, 267

environmental justice, 186, 189, 227, 230

financial efficiency, 185, 226

fisheries, 261, 371, 589, 591

forage production, 22

Forest structure and composition, 17

green-band mariposa lily, 24

HCNRA, 7, 2, 6, 11, 21, 23, 24, 43, 46, 49, 50, 58, 66, 67, 72, 73, 107, 194, 199, 232, 273, 307, 308, 346, 

546

HEI, 7, 27, 28, 156

insects and diseases, 15, 16, 265

inventoried roadless areas, iii, 6, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 75, 105, 191, 231

jobs supported, 186, 226

Joseph Canyon Roadless Area, 49

Joseph Canyon Wild and Scenic River, 45, 193, 232

livelihood, 102, 186, 187, 227

management indicator species, 2, 25, 26, 55, 56, 275, 278

migratory bird, 33, 99, 130, 155, 156, 183, 225, 310

Moist upland forest, 8, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 166, 167, 169, 213, 215, 217

Mountain Sheep Roadless Area, 50

National Historic Preservation Act, 308

Nez Perce tribe, iv, 2, 4, 7, 105, 144, 189, 230

Nez Perce Tribe, 308, 309, 369

non-native invasive plant, 23

Northern goshawk, 26, 95, 129, 153, 180

old growth, 277, 315, 316

PACFISH, 37, 73, 111, 113, 132, 134, 159, 173, 175, 283, 314, 315, 556, 560, 562, 566, 601
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 245

pileated woodpecker, 25, 30, 93, 94, 127, 154, 178, 220, 314

Ponderosa pine, 6, 19, 20, 146, 166, 213, 556, 592

Potential Wilderness Areas, 50, 61, 83, 107, 108, 144, 160, 200, 201, 207, 233, 235

Precious Lands Management Area, 42

prescribed burning, 303, 311, 589

primary cavity excavators, 26, 93, 125, 177, 220

Public Involvement, 54, 59, 378

range vegetation, 22

recreation, 6, 29, 40, 43, 45, 46, 48, 52, 64, 75, 76, 102, 106, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 155, 159, 160, 

186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 198, 208, 209, 227, 228, 229, 230, 236, 261, 265, 268, 280, 282, 285, 287, 

288, 289, 292, 293, 307, 308, 558, 582, 591

redband trout, 3, 92, 159, 175, 177, 188, 219, 220, 228, 289

Research Natural Areas, 43, 58, 59, 66, 67, 72, 73, 75, 79, 107, 141, 289, 307, 308, 377

resiliency, 6, 2, 6, 54, 68, 72, 74, 117, 138, 144, 156, 185, 191, 193, 196, 198, 216, 226, 231, 237, 297, 

580

riparian management objectives, 8, 37, 87

Rocky Mountain elk, 26, 28, 156

rough rabbitweed, 24, 144

scablands, 40

Snake River daisy, 24

Snake River steelhead, 3, 4, 92, 157, 159, 161, 175, 176, 177, 219, 220

soil productivity, 39

Spalding’s catchfly, 24, 313

stream temperature, 38, 63, 173, 174

Table Mountain, 46, 193, 194, 232

temporary roads, 65, 84, 108, 110, 112, 114, 141, 147, 175, 181, 190, 201, 202, 224, 230, 291, 543, 570, 

572, 576, 577, 579, 588, 597, 604

TES plants, 21, 23, 24

timber production, 2, 186, 226, 276, 301

timber volume, 226

traditional plants, 41, 105, 191

Tribal relations, 41

Understory vegetation, 21, 119

Wallowa County, iii, 2, 5, 22, 30, 40, 41, 43, 57, 61, 191, 313, 355, 374

Wallowa ricegrass, 144

water quality limited, 38

Wildhorse Roadless Area, 49

wolf, 32
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

246 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Bibliography

Uncategorized References

2012. LEAGUE OF WILDERNESS DEFENDERS/BLUE MOUNTAINS BIODIVERSITY PROJECT VS. UNITED 

STATES FOREST SERVICE and KENT CONNAUGHTON. Page 1279 Simon, Michael H. THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION.

Abele, S. C., V. A. Saab, and E. O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a technical 

conservation assessment. [Online]. Page Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdf. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region.

Abella, S. R., C. W. Denton, R. W. Steinke, and D. G. Brewer. 2013. Soil development in vegetation patches 

of Pinus ponderosa forests: Interface with restoration thinning and carbon storage. Forest 

Ecology and Management 310:632-642.

Agee, J. K. 2002. Fire as a coarse filter. Reno, Nev.

Agee, J. K., and K. R. Maruoka. 1994. Historical fire regimes of the Blue Mountains. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute, La Grande, OR.

Allen, S. D., D. A. Wickwar, F. P. Clark, R. R. Dow, R. Potts, and S. A. Snyder. 2009. Values, Beliefs, and 

Attitudes Technical Guide for Forest Service Land and Resource Management, Planning, 

and Decisionmaking. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), and Associated Oregon Loggers. 2014. Forest Sector 

Infrastructure in Northeast Oregon's Blue Mountains.

Anacker, B. L., M. Gogol-Prokurat, K. Leidholm, and S. Schoenig. 2013. Climate Change Vulnerability 

Assessment of Rare Plants in California. Madroño 60:193-210.

Anderson, P. D., D. J. Larson, and C. S.S. 2007. Riparian buffer and density management influences on 

microclimate of young headwater forests of western Oregon. Forest Science 53:254-268.

Anderson, R. 1998. A Preliminary Assessment of bats along Snake River, Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area. Page 85 in H. C. c. F. N. Bonneville Power Administration, editor.

Archuleta, J. G. 1997. Lakeview #4 Monitoring of Soil Compaction and Severely Burned Soil. Umpqua 

National Forest, Diamond Lake Ranger District.

Archuleta, J. G. 1999. Bearpaw #17 Post harvest evaluation of ground based equipment. Umpqua 

National Forest, Diamond Lake Ranger District.

Ashley, P. E., and J. T. Robinson. 1996. Road mortality of amphibians, reptiles, and other wildlife on the 

Long Point Causeway, Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 110:403-412.

Baker, W. L. 1989. A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 2:111-133.

Barrett, S., D. Havlina, J. Jones, W. Hann, C. Frame, D. Hamilton, K. Schon, T. Demeo, L. Hutter, and J. 

Menakis. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0. 

http://www.frcc.gov/.

Bate, L. J., M. J. Wisdom, and B. C. Wales. 2007. Snag densities in relation to human access and 

associated management factors in forests of Northeastern Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 80:278-291.

Bennett, K. A. 1982. Effects of slash burning on surface soil erosion rates in the Oregon Coast Range., 

Siuslaw National Forest.

Bestelmeyer, B. T., J. R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J. E. Herrick. 2003. 

Development and Use of State-and-Transition Models for Rangelands. Journal of Range 

Management 56:114-126.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 247

Bestelmeyer, B. T., G. L. Tugel, G. L. Peacock, D. G. Robinett, P. L. Shaver, J. R. Brown, J. E. Herrick, H. 

Sanchez, and K. M. Havstad. 2009. State-and-Transition Models for Heterogeneous Landscapes: 

A Strategy for Development and Application. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:1-15.

Bock, C. E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). University of 

California Publication of Zoology 92:1-100.

Boyd, D. K., R. R. Ream, D. H. Pletscher, and M. W. Fairchild. 1994. Prey taken by colonizing wolves and 

hunters in the Glacier National Park area. The Journal of Wildlife Management 58:289-295.

Briske, D. D., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and F. E. Smeins. 2005. State-and-Transition Models, Thresholds, and 

Rangeland Health: A Synthesis of Ecological Concepts and Perspectives. Rangeland Ecology & 

Management 58:1-10.

Brooks, P. J. 2009. Rare White Erigeron Identification Project. Interagency Special Status and Sensitive 

Species website.

Bull, E. L. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia spotted frog in northeastern Oregon. Page 46 p. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Bull, E. L., and A. K. Blumton. 1999. Effect of Fuels Reduction on American Martens and Their Prey. Page 

12. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Bull, E. L., and B. E. Carter. 1996. Tailed frogs: distribution, ecology, and association with timber harvest 

in northeastern Oregon. Page 11 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Bull, E. L., and D. B. Marx. 2002. Influence of fish and habitat on amphibian communities in high 

elevation lakes in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 76:240-248.

Bull, E. L., S. R. Peterson, and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. Page 20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR.

Bull, E. L. e. a. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. USDA 

Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

Buonopane, M., G. Snider, B. K. Kerns, and P. S. Doescher. 2013. Complex restoration challenges: weeds, 

seeds, and roads in a forested Wildland Urban Interface. Forest Ecology and Management 

295:87-96.

Burcsu, T., J. Halofsky, S. Bisrat, T. Christopher, M. K. Creutzburg, E. Henderson, M. Hemstrom, and M. 

Whitman. In press. Dynamic Vegetation Modeling of Forested, Woodland, Shrubland, and 

Grassland Vegetation Communities in the Pacific Northwest and Southwest Regions of the 

United States. In Halofsky, J.e., M.K. Creutzburg, and M.A. Hemstrom. Mid-scale Landscape 

Assment: Mehods Ussed in the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project.in U. F. S. P. R. Lab, 

editor., Portland, OR.

Burnett, D. J. M. a. K. M. 2007. Effects of forest cover, topography, and sampling extent on the measured 

density of shallow, translational landslides. Water Resources Research 43.

Busing, R. T., C. B. Halpern, and T. A. Spies. 1995. Ecology of Pacific Yew (Taxus brevifolia) in Western 

Oregon and Washington. Conservation Biology 9:1199-1207.

Cansler, C. A., and D. McKenzie. 2014. Climate, fire size, and biophysical setting control fire severity and 

spatial pattern in the northern Cascade Range, USA. Ecological Applications 24:1037-1056.

Caraher, D. L., J. Henshaw, F. Hall, W. H. Knapp, B. P. McCammon, J. Nesbitt, R. J. Pedersen, I. Regenovitch, 

and C. Tietz. 1992. Restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains: a report to the Regional 

Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain forests. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, [Portland, OR].

Cassirer, F., and C. R. Groves. 1990. Distribution, habitat use and status of harlequin ducks (Histrionicus 

histrionicus) in northern Idaho.in I. D. o. F. a. Game, editor.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

248 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Cederholm, C. J., and L. M. Reid. 1987. Impact of forest management on Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) populations of the Clearwater River, Washington: a project summary. Pages 373-397 in

E. O. Salo and T. W. Gundy, editors. Streamside management forestry and fishery interactions. 

Contribution No. 57. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA.

Chambers, C. L., and M. J. Herder. 2005. Species accounts Euderma maculatum spotted bat. Page 5 p. 

Developed for 2005 Portland Bennial Meeting of the Western Bat Working Group. Western Bat 

Working Group, Rapid City, SD.

Chan, S., Chan S., D. Larson, and P. D. Anderson. 2004. Microclimate patterns associated with density 

management and riparian buffers. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Corvallis, OR.

Charles C. Rhoades , D. E. a. D. B. 2011. The influence of wildfire extent and severity on streamwater 

chemistry, sediment and temperature following the Hayman Fire, Colorado. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire 20:430-442.

Christensen, H. H., D. R. Johnson, and M. H. Brooks. 1992. Vandalism: Research, prevention and social 

policy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR.

Cook, R. C., J. G. Cook, D. J. Vales, B. K. Johnson, M. S. M., L. A. Shipley, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, S. L. 

Murphie, B. L. Murphie, K. A. Schoenecker, F. Geyer, P. B. Hall, R. D. Spencer, D. A. Immell, D. H. 

Jackson, B. L. Tiller, P. J. Miller, and L. Schmitz. 2013. Regional and Seasonal Patterns of 

Nutritional Condition and Reproduction in Elk. Wildlife Monographs 18:1-44.

Countryman, B., D.K. Swanson, S. Mellmann-Brown. 2012. Rangeland Condition and Trend for the Blue 

Mountains Forest Plan Revision - Final.in B. M. F. P. Revision, editor. Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, Baker City, OR.

Crane, M. F., and W. C. Fischer. 1986. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of central Idaho. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Crawford, R. C. 1983. Pacific yes community ecologin in north-central Idaho with implications to forest 

land management. Ph.D., University of Idaho, Moscow.

Danehy, R. J., and B. J. Kirpes. 2000. Relative humidity gradients across riparian areas in eastern Oregon 

and Washington forests. Northwest Science 74.

Davis, R., and K. Weever. 2011. Johnson’s hairstreak surveys in Oregon and Washington (2010). Page 19 

p. Unpublished report prepared for the Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program 

(ISSSSP). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

DeBano, L. F. 2000. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: a 

review. Journal of Hydrology 231–232:195–206.

Dewey, R. 2013. Conservation Assessment For Henderson's Needlegrass (Achnatherum hendersonii) and 

Wallowa Needlegrass (Achnatherum wallowaense). U.S.D.A. Forest Service Region 6 and U.S.D.I. 

Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington, ISSSSP website.

Diaz, Nancy; Apostol, Dean. 1992. Forest landscape analysis and design: a process for developing and 

implementing land management objectives for landscape patterns. R6 ECO-TP-043-92. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Dixon, R. D. 1995. 

Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use and behaviour of 

white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Page 70 pages 

Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife. Nongame Rep. 93-3-01, Portland.

Dunham, J. B., A. E. Rosenberger, C. H. Luce, and B. E. Rieman. 2007. Influences of wildfire and channel 

reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and the distribution of 

fish and amphibians. Ecosystems 10:325-336.

Finch, D. M., J. L. Ganey, W. Young, R. T. Kimball, and R. Sallabanks. 1997. Effects and interactions of fire, 

logging, and grazing. .in F. S. United States Department of Agriculture, editor.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 249

Foltz, S. 2009. Species fact sheet: intermountain sulphur Colias occidentalis pseudochristina = Colias 

christina pseudochristina. Page 5 p. Unpublished report prepared for the Interagency Special 

Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). Washington Department of Natural Resources, 

Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR.

Forbis, T., L. Provencher, L. Frid, and G. Medlyn. 2006. Great Basin Land Management Planning Using 

Ecological Modeling. Environmental Management 38:62-83.

Franklin, J. F., K. N. Johnson, D. J. Churchill, K. Hagmann, D. Johnson, and J. Johnston. 2013. Restoration 

of dry forests in eastern Oregon: A field guide.in T. N. Conservancy, editor. The Nature 

Conservancy, Portland, OR.

Frederick, G. P., and T. L. Moore. 1991. Distribution and habitat of white-headed woodpecker (Picoides 

albolarvatus) in west central Idaho. Page 53 pages. Conservation Data Center, Nongame and 

Endangered. Wildlife Program, Bureau of Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, 

ID.

Frenzel, R. W. 2002. Nest sites, nesting success and turnover rates of white-headed woodpeckers on the 

Deschutes and Winema National Forest, Oregon in 2002. Page 45 pages Oregon Natural 

Heritage Program. The Nature Conservancy, Portland.

Fritts, S. H., E. E. Bangs, and J. F. Gore. 1994. The relationship of wolf recovery to habitat conservation 

and biodiversity in the northwestern United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 28:23-32.

Gaines, W. L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation 

routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Page 79 pages. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Garrett, K. L., M. G. Raphael, and R. D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), 

The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Retrieved from the Birds of North America 

Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/252. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Gast, W. R., Jr., D. W. Scott, C. Schmitt, D. Clemens, S. Howes, C. G. Johnson, Jr., R. Mason, F. Mohr, and R. 

A. Clapp. 1991. Blue Mountains forest health report: "new perspectives in forest health". U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur, Umatilla and 

Wallowa-Whitman national forests, Portland, OR.

Gecy, R. A. 2010. Analysis of SNOTEL data for Blue Mountains. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker 

City, Oregon.

Gibeau, M. L., and K. Heuer. 1996. Effects of transportation corridors on large carnivores in the Bow River 

Valley, Alberta. Page unknown in G. Z. Evink, D.; Garrett, P. (et al). editor. Highways and 

movement of wildlife: improving habitat connections and wildlife passageways across 

transportation corridors. U.S. Department of Transportation, Orlando, FL.

Gillen, R. L., W. C. Krueger, and R. F. Miller. 1984. Cattle Distribution on Mountain Rangeland in 

Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 37:549-553.

Godbout, G., and J.-P. Ouellet. 2008. Habitat selection of American marten in a logged landscape at the 

southern fringe of the boreal forest. Ecoscience 15:332-342.

Goodman, L. 2003. 2430/2600 Guidance for Implementing Eastside Screens. Page 1 p. in U. F. S. P. 

Region, editor.

Grigal, D. F. 2000. Effects of extensive forest management on soil productivity. Forest Ecology and 

Management. Pages 167–185.

Gruver, J. C., and D. A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical 

conservation assessment. Page 93 pages [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Hall, F. C. 1977. Ecology of natural underburning in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Hall, F. C. 1998. Pacific Northwest ecoclass codes for seral and potential natural plant communities.in U. 

F. S. P. N. R. Station, editor., Portland, OR.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

250 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Halofsky, J. S., J. E. Halofsky, T. Burcsu, and M. A. Hemstrom. 2014. Dry forest resilience varies under 

simulated climate-management scenarios in a central Oregon, USA landscape. Ecological 

Applications 24:1908–1925.

Hann, W. J., J. L. Jones, M. G. Karl, P. F. Hessburg, R. E. Kean, D. G. Long, J. P. Menakis, C. H. McNicoll, S. G. 

Leonard, R. A. Gravenmier, and B. G. Smith. . 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in 

the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Vol. II. Landscape 

dynamics of the basin. USDA Forest Service.

Hansen, M. J., and A. P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on the presence of 

non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125:249-259.

Hardy, C. C., K. M. Schmidt, J. P. Menakis, and R. N. Sampson. 2001. Spatial data for national fire planning 

and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:353-372.

Hargis, C. D., J. A. Bissonette, and D. L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape 

pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172.

Harrod , R. J., D. W. Peterson, N. A. Povak, and E. K. Dodson. 2009. Thinning and prescribed fire effects on 

overstory tree and snag structure in dry coniferous forests of the interior Pacific Northwest. 

Forest Ecology and Managment 258:712-721.

Hayes, G. E., and J. B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the peregrine falcon. Page 87. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Hays, D. W., and R. L. Milner. 2004. Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus. Pages 11:11-14 in E. Larsen, J. M. 

Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority 

Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, 

USA.

Heath, L. S., J. E. Smith, C. W. Woodall, D. L. Azuma, and K. L. Waddell. 2011. Carbon stocks on forestland 

of the United States, with emphasis on USDA Forest Service ownership. Ecosphere 2:Article 6.

Hemstrom, M. A., J. Merzenich, A. Reger, and B. Wales. 2007. Integrated analysis of landscape 

management scenarios using state and transition models in the upper Grande Ronde River 

Subbasin, Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:198-211.

Hessburg, P. F., R. G. Mitchell, and G. M. Filip. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens 

in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Hessburg, P. F., N. A. Povak, and S. R.B. 2010. Thinning and prescribed fire effects on snag abundance and 

spatial pattern in an eastern cascade range dry forest, Washington, USA. Forest Science 56:74-

87.

Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, S. D. Kreiter, C. A. Miller, R. B. Salter, C. H. McNicoll, and W. J. Hann. 1999. 

Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the Interior Columbia River Basin and 

portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Page 60 in T. Quigley, M. , editor. Gen. Tech. Report 

PNW-GTR-458 Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment. . 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PNW Research Station Portland, Oregon.

Heyerdahl, E. K. 1997. Spatial and temporal variation in historical fire regimes of the Blue Mountains, 

Oregon and Washington: the influence of climate. Doctor of Philosophy. University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA.

Heyerdahl, E. K., and J. K. Agee. 1996. Historical fire regimes of four sites in the Blue Mountains, Oregon 

and Washington. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA.

Hickman, S. 1990. Evidence of edge species attraction to nature trails within deciduous forest. Natural 

Areas Journal 10:3-5.

Hollenbeck, J. P., L. J. Bate, V. A. Saab, and J. F. Lehmkuhl. 2013. Snag distributions in relation to human 

access in ponderosa pine forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:256-266.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 251

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource 

management. Conservation Biology 10:328-337.

Huff, M. H. e. a. 1995. Historical and Current Forest Landscapes in Eastern Oregon and Washington. Page 

50 pp. in U. F. Service, editor.

Hustafa, J. 2014. Direct personal communication (phone and in person) with Jenifer Ferriel.

Hutto, R. L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky 

Mountain conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and II to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., PICC, Geneva, 

Switzerland.

Isley, A. unpublished data. Revegetation Summary for Joseph Creek Complex Fire 1986. Page 2.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America: biology and natural history. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, B. K., J. W. Kern, M. J. Wisdom, S. L. Findholt, and J. G. Kie. 2000. Resource selection and spatial 

separation of mule deer and elk during spring. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64:685-697.

Johnson, C. G., Jr. 1998. Common Plants of the Inland Pacific Northwest. USDA USFS PNW Research 

Station, Portland, OR.

Johnson, C. G., Jr and D.K. Swanson. . 2005. Bunchgrass plant communities of the Blue and Ochoco 

Mountains: a guide for managers.

Johnson, C. G., Jr, and D. K. Swanson. 2005. Bunchgrass plant communities of the Blue and Ochoco 

Mountains: a guide for managers.

Johnson, C. G., Jr,, and S. A. Simon. 1987. Plant Associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province. Page 400 in

W. W. N. Forest, editor. R6 Ecology Program, Portland, OR.

Johnson, C. G., Jr., and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. 

Page 164 p. in USDA Forest Service, editor. R6-ERW-TP-036-92, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Johnson, K. A. 2000. Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana. Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory.

Kauffman, J., J. Boone, and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside 

management implications, a review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-438.

Keinath, D. A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment Page 63 

pages [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird behavioral responses to human disturbances. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

21:31-39.

Knopf, F. L. 1996. Prairie Legaces- birds. Prairie conservation: preserving North America's most 

endangered ecosystem:135-148.

Koch, J. B., J. P. Strange, and P. H. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. USDA 

Forest Service and the Pollinator Partnership.

Kolb, Peter F. and Robberecht, Ronald, "Pinus Ponderosa Seedling Establishment and the Influence of 

Competition with the Bunchgrass Agropyron Spicatum" (1996). Forest Management Faculty 

Publications. Paper 28.

Kolb, P. F. 1999. Forestland Grazing: Understory forage management. Montana Forest Owners 

Association Newsletter.Korol, J. J., M. A. Hemstrom, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. 

Snags and Down Wood in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Pages 

649-663 in L. Jr., W. F., P. J. Shea, B. E. Valentine, C. P. Weatherspoon, and T. E. Lisle, editors. 

Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology and Management of Dead Wood in Western 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

252 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forests. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Reno, 

NV.

Kozma, J. M. 2011. Composition of forest stands used by white-headed woodpeckers for nesting in 

Washington. Western North American Naturalist 71:1-9.

Kunkel, K. E., T. K. Ruth, D. H. Pletscher, and M. G. Hornocker. 1999. Winter prey selection by wolves and 

cougars in and near Glacier National Park Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63:901-

910.

Kunz, T. H., and R. A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mammalian Species:1-6.

LaBonte, J. R., D. W. Scott, J. McIver, and J. L. Hayes. 2001. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive insects 

in eastern Oregon and Washington forests and adjacent lands. Northwest Science 75:185-198.

Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in 

managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9:1179-1188.

Landsburg, J. D., and A.R. Tiedemann. 2000. “Fire management,” in Drinking water from forests and 

grasslands: A synthesis of the scientific literature. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station GTR-SRS-39:124-138.

Larsen, E., E. Rodrick, and R. Milner. 1995. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority 

species, Volume I: invertebrates. Page 82 p. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington.

Lehmkuhl, J. F., P. F. Hessburg, R. L. Everett, M. H. Huff, and R. D. Ottmar. 1994. Historical and current 

forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington; part I: vegetation pattern and insect and 

disease hazards. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR.

Lehnert, M., L. Romin, and J. Bissonette. 1996. Mule deer highway mortality in northeastern Utah: 

causes, patterns, and a new mitigation technique. Pages 101-107 in G. Evink, D. Ziegler, P. 

Garrett, and e. al), editors. Highways and movement of wildlife: improving habitat connections 

and wildlife passageways across transportation corridors. U.S. Department of transportation, 

Orlando, FL.

Linnell, J. D. C., E. S. Jon, R. Andersen, and B. Barnes. 2000. How Vulnerable Are Denning Bears to 

Disturbance? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:400-413.

Long, R. A., Janet L.Rachlow, M. John G.Kie, and Vavra. 2008a. Fuels Reduction in a Western Coniferous 

Forest: Effects on Quantity and Quality of Forage for Elk. Rangeland Ecology & Management 

61:302-313.

Long, R. A., J. L. Rachlow, and J. G. Kie. 2008a. Effects of Season and Scale on Response of Elk and Mule 

Deer to Habitat Manipulation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1133-1142.

Long, R. A., J. L. Rachlow, J. G. Kie, and M. Vavra. 2008b. Fuels Reduction in a Western Coniferous Forest: 

Effects on Quantity and Quality of Forage for Elk. Rangeland Ecology & Management 61:302-313.

Mace, R. D., J. S. Waller, and T. L. Manley. 1996. Relationship among grizzly bears, roads and habitat in 

the Swam Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1395-1404.

Mace, R. D., J. S. Waller, and T. L. Manley. 1999. Landscape evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in western 

Montana. Conservation Biology 13:367-377.

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2010. Climate Change Impacts on Streamflow Extremes and 

Summertime Stream Temperature and Their Possible Consequences for Freshwater Salmon 

Habitat in Washington State. Climatic Change 102 (1): 187-223. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9845-

2. 102:187-223.

Marshall, A. G. 1999. Unusual Gardens: the Nez Perce and Wild Horticulture on the Eastern Columbia 

Plateau. Northwest Lands, Northwest Peoples: Readings in Environmental History 173-87.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 253

Maruoka, K. R., and J. K. Agee. 1994. Fire histories: overview of methods and applications. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute, La 

Grande, OR.

Matthews, P. 2014. personal communication.in B. M. R. S. IDT, editor.

Matthews, R. F. 2000. Calamagrostis rubescens. Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory, http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/.

McIver, J., K. Erickson, and A. Youngblood. 2012. Principal short-term findings of the National Fire and

Fire Surrogate study. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR.

McKenzie, D., Z. e. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18:890-902.

Mech, L. D., S. H. Fritts, G. L. Radde, and W. J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in 

Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87.

Melillo, J. M., T. C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The

Third National Climate Assessment Page 841 in U. S. G. C. R. Program, editor.

Mellen-McLean, K., B. G. Marcot, J. L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S. A. Livingston, E. A. Willhite, B. B. Hostetler, 

C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, 

partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. 

Version 2.20. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research 

Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon.

Mercer, D. E., J. M. Pye, J. P. Prestemon, D. T. Butry, and T. P. Holmes. 2000. Economic Effects of 

Catastrophic Wildfires: Assessing the Effectiveness of Fuel Reduction Programs for Reducing the 

Economic Impacts of Catastrophic Forest Fire Events.

Merriam, K. E., J. E. KEELEY, and J. L. BEYERS. 2006. Fuel breaks affect non-native species abundance in 

Californian plant communities. Ecological Applications 16:515–527.

Miller, J. C., and P. C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and moths of Pacific Northwest forests and 

woodlands: rare, endangered, and management-sensitive species. Page 234 p. Forest Health 

Technology Enterprise Team, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and K. M. Clinton. 1998. Influence of Recreational Trails on Breeding Bird 

Communities. Ecological Applications 8:162-169.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, I. 2014. IMpacts for PLANning (IMPLAN).

Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, and A. P. Wydeven. 1999. Predicting gray wolf landscape recolonizaiton: 

logistic regression models vs. new field data. Ecological Applications 9:37-44.

Morgan, P., G. H. Aplet, J. B. Haufler, H. C. Humphries, M. M. Moore, and W. D. Wilson. 1994. Historical 

range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. Journal of Sustainable 

Forestry 2:87-111.

Mote, P. W. 2003. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest during the twentieth 

century. Northwest Science 77:271-282.

Munger, T. T. 1917. Western yellow pine in Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Murray, M. 2001. Habitat Prediction Mapping for Three Rare Plants on the Wallowa Whitman National 

Forest: Mirabilis macfarlanei, Silene spaldingii, Spiranthes diluvialis. Challenge Cost-Share 

Agreement No. 00-CS-11061600-28, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (formerly Oregon 

Natural Heritage Program), Portland, OR.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2014. Temperature and precipitation data for the 

Joseph, Oregon weather station National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]; 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

254 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Naylor, L. M., M. J. Wisdom, and R. G. Anthony. 2009. Behavioral responses of North American elk to 

recreational activity. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73:328-338.

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan, and L. F. DeBano, eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils 

and water. Page 250 p. in R. M. R. S. USDA Forest Service, editor., Ogend, UT.

Nez Perce Tribe. 2013. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management Department 

Management Plan · 2013-2028. Nez Perce Tribe.

Nielson, M., K. Lohman, and J. Sullivan. 2001. Phylogeography of the tailed frog (Ascaphus truei): 

implications for the biogeography of the Pacific Northwest. Evolution 55:147-160.

NRAC. 2014. Lower Joseph Creek Watershed Assessment.in L. J. C. W. C. P. G. o. t. W. C. N. R. A. Council, 

editor.

O'Hara, K. L., P. A. Latham, P. Hessburg, and B. G. Smith. 1996. A structural classification for inland 

northwest forest vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 11:97-102.

Ohmann, J. L., and M. J. Gregory. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with 

direct gradient analysis and nearest neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon. Ecological 

Applications 17:18-33.

Oliver, C. D., and B. C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. Update edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 

New York.

Olson, D. L. 2000. Fire in riparian zones: a comparison of historical fire occurrence in riparian and 

upslope forests in the Blue Mountains and southern Cascades of Oregon. Master of Science. 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

ORBIC, O. B. I. C. 2013. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Oregon. Institute for Natural 

Resources, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

Oregon, S. o. 2014. Property Taxes: Timber Taxes, Forest Products Harvest Tax (ORS 321.005-185).

Papouchis, C. M., F. J. Singer, and W. B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased 

Human Recreation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65:573-582.

Parker, T. J., K. M. Clancy, and R. L. Mathiasen. 2006. Interactions among fire, insects and pathogens in 

coniferous forests of the interior western United States and Canada. Agricultural and Forest 

Entomology 8:167–189.

Pauchard, A., and P. B. Alaback. 2006. Edge type defines alien plant species invasions along Pinus 

contorta burned, highway and clearcut forest edges. Forest Ecology and Management 223:327-

335.

Petersen, S. L., T. K. Stringham, and B. A. Roundy. 2009. A Process-based Application of State-andTransition Models: A Case Study of Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) Encroachment. 

Rangeland Ecology and Management 62:186-192.

Peterson, D. W., B. K. Kerns, and E. K. Dodson. 2014. Climate Change Effects on Vegetation in the Pacific 

Northwest: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Literature and Simulation Model Projections. 

Page 198 pp. in U. F. Service and P. R. Station, editors.

Philipek, F. M. 1985. Over-Snow Logging: Analysis of impacts to Lithic Scatters. Studies in Cultural 

Resources Management No. 5. Page 41 in U. F. S. R. 6, editor., Portland, OR.

Piaggio, A., and R. E. Sherwin. 2005. Species accounts Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared 

bat. Page 5 p. Developed for 2005 Portland Bennial Meeting of the Western Bat Working Group. 

Western Bat Working Group, Rapid City, SD.

Pierson, E. D., M. C. Wackenhut, J. S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. L. Genter, C. E. Harris, B. L. Keller, B. 

Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. W. Navo, J. M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species 

conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii 

townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Page 73 p. Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Boise, Idaho.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 255

Pilliod, D. S., E. L. Bull, J. L. Hayes, and B. C. Wales. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel 

reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the Western United States: a synthesis.

Pilliod, D. S., C. R. Peterson, and P. I. Ritson. 2002. Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana 

luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. Canadian Journal of 

Zoology 80:1849-1862.

Powell, D. C. 2012. Range of variation recommendations for dry, moist, and cold forests. Page 42 in F. S. 

US Department of Agricuture, Pacific Northwest Region, editor. Umatilla National Forest, 

Pendleton, Oregon.

Powell, D. C., J. Johnson, Charles G., E. A. Crowe, A. Wells, and D. K. Swanson. 2007. Potential Vegetation 

Hierarchy for the Blue Mountains Section of Northeastern Oregon, Southeastern Washington, 

and West-Central Idaho. Page 96 in U. F. Service and P. N. R. Station, editors.

Provencher, L., K. Blankenship, J. Smith, J. Campbell, and M. Polly. 2009. Comparing Locally Derived and 

Landfire Geo-Layers in the Great Basin, USA. Fire Ecology 5:126-132.

Quality, O. D. o. E. 2010. Lower Grande Ronde Subbasins TMDLS. Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality, Portland, Oregon.

Quigley, T. M., R. W. Haynes, and R. T. Graham. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem 

management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Ramankutty, N. and J.A. Foley. 2010. ISLSCP II Potential Natural Vegetation Cover. In Hall, Forest G., G. 

Collatz, B. Meeson, S. Los, E. Brown de Colstoun, and D. Landis (eds.). ISLSCP Initiative II 

Collection. Data set. Available on-line [http://daac.ornl.gov/] from Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S.A. 

doi:10.3334/ORNLDAAC/961

Ramos- Scharrón, C. E., and L.H. MacDonald. 2007. Measurement and prediction of natural and 

anthropogenic sediment sources, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Catena 71:250-266.

Raphael, M. G. 1981. Interspecific differences in nesting habitat of sympatric woodpeckers and 

nuthatches. Pages 142-151 in D. E. Capen, editor. The use of multivariate statistics in studies of 

wildlfie habitat U.S.D.A. for. Serv., Rogky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Stn.

Raphael, M. G., M. L. Morrison, and M. P. Yoder-Williams. 1987. Breeding bird populations during 

twenty-five years of postfire succession in the Sierra Nevada. The Condor 89:614-626.

Raphael, M. G., and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife 

Monographs:3-66.

Reaser, J. K., and D. S. Pilliod. 2005. Rana luteiventris, Columbia spotted frog. Pages 559–563 in M. J. 

Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University 

of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Reeves, D., D. Page-Dumroese, and M. Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance associated with 

timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Page 12. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Reid, L. M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources 

Research 20:1753-1761.

Roath, L. R., and W. C. Krueger. 1982. Cattle Grazing and Behavior on a Forested Range. Journal of Range 

Management 35:332-338.

Rollins, M. G. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:235-249.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in 

relation to roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64:672-684.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

256 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and M. A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on elk: 

implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52. Alliance Communications 

Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Saab, V. A., and J. G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and 

salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Page 17 pages. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Saab, V. A., and K. T. Vierling. 2001. Reproductive success of Lewis's woodpecker in burned pine and 

cottonwood riparian forests. The Condor 103:491-501.

Samson, F. B., F. L. Knopf, C. W. McCarthy, B. R. Noon, W. R. Ostlie, S. M. Rinehart, S. Larson, G. E. Plumb, 

G. L. Schenbeck, D. N. Svingen, and T. W. Byer. 2003. Planning for population viability on 

Northern Great Plains National Grasslands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:1-13.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North 

American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011 USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W. J. Hann, and D. L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of coarsescale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Schmitt, C. L., and D. C. Powell. 2005. Rating Forest Stands for Insect and Disease Susceptibility: A 

Simplified Approach. Page 22 pp. in U. F. Service, editor., La Grande, OR.

Schmitt, C. L., and L. H. Spiegel. 2008. Johnson's hairstreak butterfly and dwarf mistletoe backgrounder. 

Page 8 p. unpublished memo to Forest Supervisors. USDA Forest Service Blue Mountains Pest 

Management Service Center, La Grande, OR.

Scott, D. W., and C. L. Schmitt. 1996. Analysis of insect and disease risks for the Umatilla/Meacham 

watershed; Umatilla NF. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Blue Mountain Pest Management Zone, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, 

OR.

seq., U. S. C. a. e. 1966. National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106.in GPO, editor.

Service, U. F. 2013. 1500/2360 Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service Region 6, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. Page 

2 pp. in U. F. Service, editor.

Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 

379–423 and 623–656.

Sherwin, R. E., D. Stricklan, and D. S. Rogers. 2000. Roosting Affinities of Townsend's Big-Eared Bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii) in Northern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 81:939-947.

Siskiyou National Forest. 1997. Soil Disturbances from Helicopter Yarding in the Upper Pistol Timber Sale. 

Southwestern Oregon.

Skagen, S. K., R. L. Knight, and H. O. Gordon. 1991. Human disturbance of an avian scavenging guild. 

Ecological Applications 1:215-225.

Sondenaa, A., and S. Kozusko. 2003. Precious lands wildlife area final mangement plan. PROJECT ID 

#199608000, Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai, Idaho.

Stephens, S. L., J. J. Moghaddas, C. Edminster, C. E. Fiedler, S. Haase, M. Harrington, J. E. Keeley, E. E. 

Knapp, J. D. McIver, K. Metlen, C. N. Skinner, and A. Youngblood. 2009. Fire treatment effects on 

vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological 

Applications 19:305-320.

Stine, P., P. Hessburg, T. Spies, M. Kramer, C. J. Fettig, A. Hansen, J. Lehmkuhl, K. O'Hara, K. Polivka, P. 

Singleton, S. Charnley, A. Merschel, and R. White. 2014. The ecology and management of moist 

mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a synthesis of the relevant biophysical 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 257

science and implications for future land management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Stringham, T. K., W. C. Krueger, and P. L. Shaver. 2003. State and transition modeling: An ecological 

process approach. Journal of Range Management 56:106 -113.

Swetnam, T. W., B. E. Wickman, H. G. Paul, and C. Baisan. 1995. Historical patterns of western spruce 

budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth outbreaks in the northern Blue Mountains, Oregon, 

since A.D. 1700. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR.

Thomas, J. W., D. A. Leckenby, M. Henjum, R. J. Pedersen, and L. D. Bryant. 1988. Habitat-effectiveness 

index for elk on Blue Mountain Winter Ranges.

Tobalske, B. W. 1997. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), The Birds of North America Online (A. 

Poole, Ed.). Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/284. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Toupin, R. L., G. Filip, T. Erkert, and M. Barger. 2008. Field guide for danger tree identification and 

response. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon.

Traylor, D., L. Hubbell, B. Fiedler, and N. Wood. 1990. The 1977 La Mesa Fire Study: an investigation of 

fire and fire suppression impact on cultural resources in Bandelier National Monument. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Division of Anthropology, Santa Fe, NM.

Tribe, N. P. 2013. Management Plan 2013-2028. Page 69 in D. o. F. R. Management, editor.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, F. S., and F. a. W. S. U.S. Department of Interior. 2006. Revised lynx 

conservation agreement. Letter to Forest Supervisors: Okanogan-Wenatchee, Colville, Umatilla, 

Malheur, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, On file with: Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, N. R. C. S. 2014. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for WallowaWhitman National Forest, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Fort Worth, Texas.

US Department of Agriculture, F. S. 1995. Inland native fish strategy environmental assessment decision 

notice and finding of no significant impact: Interim strategies for managing fish-producing 

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of 

Nevada [INFISH].in N. Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest Regions., editor.

US Geological Survey. 2014. USGS Current Water Data for Oregon, Daily Streamflow Conditions.

USDA Forest Service. 1974. The Visual Management System.in N. F. L. M. N. Handbooks, editor. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Record of Decision, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Region, Baker City, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Scenery Management System, Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for 

Scenery Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest 

Transportation System.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan. 

Page 88 in P. R. USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, editor. USDA Forest 

Service, PNW Region, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program, preventing and managing 

invasive plants, record of decision. Page 64 in P. N. R. USDA Forest Service, editor. USDA Forest 

Service, Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Travel Management Plan: Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. Baker City, OR.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

258 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed condition classification technical guide. Page 49 in F. S. US 

Department of Agriculture, editor. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Watershed Condition Framework: A framework for assessing and tracking 

changes to watershed condition. Page 34. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington, 

D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Interim Directive 2020-2013-1 Ecological Restoration and Resilience. Page 12 

in U. D. O. Agriculture, editor. Forest Service, Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. 2070 Invasive, Non-Native species Restricted for Use during Revegetation 

and Restoration. Page 2 pp. in U. F. S. R. 1, editor., Missoula, MT.

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Blue Mountains National Forests proposed Revised Land Management Plan 

(draft). Page 165 pp. in U. a. W.-W. N. F. Malheur, editor.

USDA Forest Service. 2014c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed revised land management 

plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Baker City, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY2015-2020. Page 60 pp. Forest 

Service, Washington D.C. June 2015.

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Project, Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.in U. F. Service, editor.

USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Interim strategies for managing 

anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions 

of California (PACFISH).

USDI. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific bald eagle. Page 160 p. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Van Pelt, R. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests in eastern Washington. Page 166p. Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.

Vavra, M., M. A. Hemstrom, and M. J. Wisdom. 2007. Modeling the effects of herbivores on the 

abundance of forest overstory states using a simple state-transition approach. Landscape and 

Urban Planning 80:212-222.

Wales, B. C., K. Mellen-McClean, W. L. Gaines, and L. Suring. 2011. Focal species assessment of current 

condition and the proposed action (alternative B) for the Blue Mountains forest plan revisionDRAFT. Page?? Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision Team, Baker City, OR.

Wales, B. C., L. H. Suring, and M. A. Hemstrom. 2007. Modeling potential outcomes of fire and fuel 

management scenarios on the structure of forested habitats in northeast Oregon, USA. 

Landscape and Urban Planning 80:223-236.

Wallowa County. 2006. Wallowa County community wildfire protection plan. Page 88. Wallowa County, 

Wallowa County, Oregon.

Wallowa County. 2014. Draft Lower Joseph Creek Watershed Assessment. Wallowa County, Oregon.

Wallowa County, and Nez Perce Tribe. 1999. Wallowa County- Nez Perce tribe salmon habitat recovery 

plan with multi-species habitat stragey. Wallowa County, OR.

Warren, A. D. 2005. Butterflies of Oregon: their taxonomy, distribution, and biology. Page 408 pp. 

Lepidoptera of North America 6. C.P. Gillette Museum. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 

CO.

Weller, T. J. 2005. Species accounts Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis. Page 3 p. Developed for 2005 

Portland Bennial Meeting of the Western Bat Working Group. Western Bat Working Group, 

Rapid CIty, SD.

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring 

increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940-943.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 259

Western Forestry Leadership Coalition (WFLC). 2009. The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western US. 

Lakewood, CO.

Wightman, C. S., V. A. Saab, C. Forristal, K. Mellen-McLean, and A. Markus. 2010. White-headed 

woodpecker nesting ecology after wildfire. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1098-1106.

Wisdom, M. J., and L. J. Bate. 2008. Snag density varies with intensity of timber harvest and human 

access. Forest Ecology and Management 255:2085-2093.

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. 

M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of 

focus in the interior Columbia basin: broadscale trends and management implications. Volume 

1—Overview. Page 156 pp. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Witmer, G. W., S. K. Martin, and R. D. Sayler. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management in the 

interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. Page 51 pages. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Wright, C. S., and J. K. Agee. 2004. Fire and vegetation history in the eastern Cascade Mountains, 

Washington. Ecological Applications 14:443-459.

Xiao Tana, S. X. C., Richard Kabzemsb. 2005. Effects of soil compaction and forest floor removal on soil 

microbial properties and N transformations in a boreal forest long-term soil productivity study. 

Forest Ecology and Management 217:158-170.

Young, J. A. 1965. Forage production and utilization in a mixed conifer forest in the wallowa Mountains 

foothills. Oregon State University.

Zhang, J., R. F. Powers, and C. N. Skinner. 2010. To Manage or Not to Manage: The Role of Silviculture in 

Sequestering Carbon in the Specter of Climate Change.in U. F. Service, editor.

Zhou, X., and M. A. Hemstrom. 2010. Timber volume and aboveground live tree biomass estimations for 

landscape analyses in the Pacific Northwest.in P. N. R. S. USDA Forest Service, editor., Portland, 

OR.

Zimmerman, G.T. and L.F. Neuenschwander. 1984. Livestock grazing influences on community structure, 

fire intensity, and fire frequency within the Douglas-fir/ninebark habitat type. Journal of Range 

Management 37(2):104-110.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

260 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Glossary

A

active management: Planned, intentional actions in an area that are specifically designed to obtain a 

desired objective or result.

active restoration: Refer to restoration.

administrative site: Areas such as work centers, fire lookouts, permitted ranch headquarters, seed 

orchards, communication sites, utility corridors, developed campgrounds, and other areas that are 

occupied or used by the Forest Service during the administration of work associated with national forest 

lands.

air pollutant: Any substance in air that could, if in high enough concentration, harm humans, animals, 

vegetation, or material. Air pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial matter capable of being 

airborne, in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or a combination of these. 

air quality: The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein, used most frequently in 

connection with standards of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations.

allotment (grazing): Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock grazing for a 

prescribed period. 

allotment management plan (AMP): A document that specifies the actions to be taken to manage and 

protect the rangeland resources and reach a given set of objectives. 

anadromous fish: Fish that hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, mature there, and return to fresh 

water to reproduce; for example, salmon and steelhead. 

animal unit: One mature cow of approximately 1,000 pounds, either dry or with calf up to 6 months of 

age, or the equivalent (one horse, five domestic sheep). This concept is based on a standardized amount of 

forage consumed. 

animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage required by one mature (1,000 lb.) cow or its 

equivalent for one month (based upon average forage consumption of 26 lb. of dry matter per day). 

anthropogenic: Caused or produced through the agency of man; the scientific study of the origin of man. 

aquatic: Pertaining to water. 

aquatic ecosystem: Waters that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting communities and 

populations of plants and animals. The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water, biotic communities and 

the habitat features that occur therein. 

assessment: The collection, integration, examination, and evaluation of information and values.

B

basal area: The cross-sectional area of the trunk of a tree or stand of trees at breast height (4.5 feet).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 261

basalt: A finely or fine grained, dark, dense volcanic rock.

basin (river): (1) In general, the area of land that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a 

common point along a stream channel. River basins are composed of large river systems; (2) the term 

refers to the equivalent of a 3rd-field hydrologic unit code, an area of about nine million acres, such as the 

Snake River Basin.

benches: Mid-elevation flat or gently sloping sites. Grazing and homesteading/ranching activities were 

concentrated in these areas, which were also used by American Indians for pasturing livestock. Benches 

from 2,000 to 4,500 feet generally have potential to support the bunchgrass associations described for the 

lower and mid-position slopes. Cheatgrass brome, Kentucky bluegrass, and an assortment of annual and 

perennial forbs (including some noxious weeds) dominate much of the benchland, some of which was 

severely disturbed by early farming and ranching activities.

beneficial uses: Any of the various uses which may be made of the water, including, but not limited to, 

domestic water supplies, fisheries and other aquatic life, industrial water supplies, agricultural water 

supplies, navigation, recreation in and on the water, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.

best management practices (BMPs): Practice or set of practices that enable a planned activity to occur 

while still protecting the resource managed, normally implemented and applied during the activity rather 

than after the activity.

best management practices (BMPs) (Watershed): A practice or a combination of practices, that is 

determined by the state (or designated area-wide planning agency) after problem assessment, examination 

of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective, practicable 

(including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of preventing, or reducing the 

amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.

big game: Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resource. Generally 

includes; elk, moose, white-tailed deer, mule deer, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, black bear and 

mountain lion.

biological diversity (biodiversity): The variety and variability among living organisms and the 

ecological complexes in which they occur.

biological soil crust: Thin crust of living organisms on or just below the soil surface composed of dense, 

low-growing community of various combinations of algae, mosses, liverworts, cyanobacteria (blue-green 

algae), micro fungi, bacteria, and lichens; and provide important components of grassland, shrub-steppe, 

and subalpine habitats. Also referred to as cryptogrammatic or microbiotic crust.

biophysical: The combination or grouping of biological and physical components in an ecosystem.

biotic: Living.

biomass: Dry weight of organic matter in plants and animals in an ecosystem, both above and below 

ground.

broad scale: A large, regional area, such as an entire river basin and typically a multi-state area.

browse: That part of leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for animal 

consumption.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

262 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): An agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior with land 

management responsibility for the public domain lands.

C

candidate species: Plant and animal species that may be proposed for listing as endangered or threatened 

in the future by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NFMS); these species have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

canopy: In a forest, the branches from the uppermost layer of trees; on rangeland, the vertical projection 

downward of the aerial portion of vegetation.

canopy cover: The proportion of the forest floor covered by the vertical projection of the tree crowns.

capability: The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow 

resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of management 

intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, 

soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, such as silviculture or protection 

from fire, insects, and disease.

carrying capacity: The number of animals or plants that can be maintained over a specific period of time 

on a specified amount of land without damage to either the organisms or the habitat.

cavity: The hollow excavated in a tree that is used by birds or mammals for roosting and/or reproduction.

ceded lands: Lands that American Indian tribes ceded to the United States by treaty in exchange for 

reservation of specific land and resource rights, annuities, and other promises in the treaties.

channel (stream): The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main current of water 

flows.

channel morphology: The dimension (width, depth), shape and pattern (sinuous, meandering, straight) of 

a stream channel.

class I airshed: Under the Clean Air Act amendments, all international parks, national parks larger than 

6,000 acres, and national wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres which existed on August 7, 1977. This 

class provides the most protection to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of additional air 

pollution that can be added to these areas.

climax: The final or mature seral stage in secondary plant succession that persists for an indefinite period 

of time if no major disturbances occur.

closed canopy: Greater than or equal to 60 percent canopy cover within the moist and cold upland forest 

potential vegetation groups; greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover within the dry upland forest

potential vegetation group.

coarse woody material or debris: Pieces of woody material derived from tree limbs, boles, and roots in 

various stages of decay, having a diameter of at least three inches.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register (FR) by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 263

cold forest: High elevation forests dominated by subalpine fir, whitebark pine, spruce, and sometimes 

lodgepole pine.

collaboration: Working together; to cooperate willingly with an agency or instrumentality with which 

one is not immediately connected.

compaction: Making soil hard and dense and decreasing its ability to support vegetation because the soil 

can hold less water and air and because roots have trouble penetrating the soil.

compatible: Capable of existing together in harmony.

comprehensive management plan (CMP): The document that establishes the array, levels, and manner 

of resource uses within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area on the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. It was incorporated in 2003 as a part of the 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan.

connectivity: The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to move across 

the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by corridors of appropriate 

vegetation. Connectivity is the opposite of fragmentation.

conservation strategy or agreement: Plans to remove or reduce threats to candidate and sensitive 

species of plants and animals so that a listing as threatened or endangered is unnecessary.

consultation: (1) An active, affirmative process that (a) identifies issues and seeks input from appropriate 

American Indian governments, community groups, and individuals; and (b) considers their interests as a 

necessary and integral part of the Forest Service’s decision-making process; (2) the federal government 

has a legal obligation to consult with American Indian tribes. This legal obligation is based in such laws 

as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act, and numerous other executive orders and statutes. This legal responsibility is, through consultation, 

to consider Indian interests and account for those interests in the decision; (3) the term also refers to a 

requirement under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for federal agencies to consult with the 

USFWS and/or NOAA-Fisheries with regard to federal actions that may affect listed threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat.

corridor: A tract of land forming a passageway. Can refer to areas of wildlife movement, boundaries 

along rivers, or the present or future location of transportation or utility rights-of-way within its 

boundaries.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The council reviews federal programs for their 

effects on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental 

matters.

cover: (1) Trees, shrubs, rocks, or other landscape features that allow an animal to conceal itself partly or 

fully for protection from predators, or to ameliorate conditions of weather, or in which to reproduce; (2) 

the area of ground covered by plants of one or more species.

cover type: A vegetation classification depicting a genus, species, group of species, or life form of tree, 

shrub, grass, or sedge of an area.

crown: The part of a tree containing live foliage; treetops.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

264 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

culture: The ideals, values, and beliefs that members of a society share to interpret experience and 

generate behavior that is reflected by their work and thought (Haviland 1999).

cultural resources: An object or definite location of human activity, occupation, or use identifiable 

through field survey, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources are prehistoric, 

historic, archaeological, or architectural sites, structures, places, or objects and traditional cultural 

properties. Cultural resources include the entire spectrum of resources for which the Heritage Program is 

responsible, from artifacts to cultural landscapes, without regard to eligibility for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places

cumulative effects or impacts: Cumulative effects or impacts are the impacts on the environment that 

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time. Effects and impact are synonymous (40 CFR 1508.7).

cunit (one hundred cubit feet or CCF): 1 CCF is equal to 100 cubic feet of true volume. CCF to MBF 

(thousand board feet) conversions varies by log diameter. For example, larger diameter logs will generally 

yield more MBF volume per CCF than smaller logs. CCF to Ton conversions vary by species, moisture 

content, site index, and other factors.

D

decommission (road): Permanently closing a road to vehicular use and left in a hydrological 

maintenance free condition. Decommissioning would include activities such as water barring, out sloping, 

recontouring, decompaction of road surface, removal of drainage structures, and road barricades as 

needed. Decommissioning removes the road from the transportation system data base and is no longer 

used to calculate maintenance costs for the transporation system.

deferred maintenance: Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when it was 

scheduled and which, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period. When allowed to accumulate 

without limits or consideration of useful life, deferred maintenance leads to deterioration of performance, 

increased costs to repair, and decrease in asset value. Deferred maintenance needs may be categorized as 

critical or noncritical at any point in time. Continued deferral of noncritical maintenance will normally 

result in an increase in critical deferred maintenance. Code compliance (such as safety, ADA, OSHA, or 

environmental), plan direction, best management practices, biological evaluations other regulatory or 

executive order compliance requirements, or applicable standards not met on schedule are considered 

deferred maintenance.

departure: The difference between an existing condition and the desired condition. 

density (stand): The number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in terms of trees per 

acre.

design criteria: Provides the parameters, including guidelines, for how future site-specific activities can 

occur within the context of the plan.

designated critical habitat: Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species at the time 

of listing under Endangered Species Act that contain physical or biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 265

desired condition: A portrayal of the land or resource condition that is expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved.

developed recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that in turn result in concentrated use of an area; 

for example, a campground. Examples of developed recreation areas are campgrounds and ski areas; 

facilities in these areas might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, ski lifts, 

and buildings.

developed site: Facility provided for developed recreation use. Refer to facilities.

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.): Tree diameter measured at 4.5 feet from the ground.

direct effects: Impacts on the environment caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

disease: A harmful deviation from normal functioning of physiological processes, usually pathogenic or 

abiotic in origin.

disjunct: Populations that are separated geographically from the main distribution of a species. Many 

plants with disjunct populations are biologically unique because they are not found again for dozens to 

over one hundred miles. Disjunct populations are thus rare in this portion of their distribution.

dispersed (recreation): Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site; for example, 

hunting or backpacking.

dispersed campsites: Primitive sites typically used for overnight, dispersed recreation. Usually includes 

a hardened area around a fire pit, a barren area, and/or user-constructed facility. 

disturbance: Events that alter the structure, composition, or function of terrestrial or aquatic habitats. 

Natural disturbances include, among others, drought, floods, wind, fires, wildlife grazing, and insects and 

diseases. Human–caused disturbances include, among others, actions such as timber harvest, livestock 

grazing, roads, and the introduction of exotic species.

disturbance process: Events that alter the structure, function, or composition of aquatic or terrestrial 

habitats. 

disturbance regime: Natural pattern of periodic disturbances, such as fire or flood, followed by a period 

of recovery from the disturbance such as growth of a forest after fire.

diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within 

the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

down woody material: A tree or part of a tree that is dead and laying on the ground.

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS): The draft statement of predicted environmental effects 

that is required for major federal actions and released to the public and other agencies for comment and 

review.

dry forest: Low elevation forest dominated by ponderosa pine and sometimes Douglas-fir or grand fir.

E

early seral: Refer to seral stages.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

266 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

early spring: Early spring is defined as that period when the perennial cool–season forage plants initiate 

growth and begin shoot elongation. It extends through the period of maximum carbohydrate use and the 

beginning of carbohydrate storage. The end of this period is determined by soil moisture. It ends prior to 

the time that soil moisture is expected to become limiting to the extent that essentially full regrowth 

cannot be ensured.

Eastside Screens: Regional Forester’s Amendment 1, Interim management direction establishing 

riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber sales on NFS lands in eastern Oregon and 

Washington (USDA Forest Service 1994).

ecological function: Refer to ecological processes.

ecological integrity: In general, ecological integrity refers to the degree to which all ecological 

components and their interactions are represented and functioning; the quality of being complete; a sense 

of wholeness. Absolute measures of integrity do not exist. Proxies provide useful measures to estimate the 

integrity of major ecosystem components (forestland, rangeland, aquatic, and hydrologic). Estimating 

these integrity components in a relative sense for an area helps to explain current conditions and to 

prioritize future management. Thus, areas of high integrity would represent areas where ecological 

functions and processes are better represented and functioning than areas rated as low integrity.

ecological processes: The flow and cycling of energy, materials, and organisms in an ecosystem. 

Examples of ecosystem processes include the carbon and hydrologic cycles, terrestrial and aquatic food 

webs, and plant succession, among others.

ecological status: The degree of departure of current vegetation from the potential natural vegetation, or 

potential natural community often synonymous with seral stage.

economics: A social science concerned primarily with description, distribution, and consumption of 

goods and services.

economic well-being: A condition that enables people to work, provide income for their families, and 

generate economic wealth to local communities, the region, and the nation.

economic efficiency: Producing goods and services in areas best suited for that production based on 

natural biophysical advantage or an area’s ability to best serve regional demands of people.

economic impacts:

direct economic impact: Effects caused directly by forest product harvest or processing or by forest uses.

indirect economic impact: Effects that occur when supporting industries sell goods or services to 

directly affected industries.

induced economic impact: Effects that occur when employees or owners of directly or indirectly 

affected industries spend their income within the economy.

economy: System of production, distribution, and consumption of economic goods.

ecosystem: A complete, interacting system of living organisms and the land and water that make up their 

environment; the home places of all living things, including humans.

ecosystem diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem types, including their composition, 

structure, and processes within all or a part of an area of analysis. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 267

ecosystem management: The use of an ecological approach to achieve multiple-use management of 

public lands by blending the needs of people and environmental values in such a way that lands represent 

diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems.

ecosystem function (processes): The major process of ecosystems that regulate or influence the 

structure, composition, and pattern. These include nutrient cycles, energy flows, trophic levels (food 

chains), diversity patterns in time/space development and evolution, cybernetics (control), hydrologic 

cycles and weathering processes.

ecosystem health: A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over time and 

where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, values, and services of 

the ecosystem are met.

ecosystem sustainability: The ability to sustain diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, health, 

renewability and/or yield of desired values, resource uses, products, or services from an ecosystem, while 

maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem over time. 

edge: An area where plant communities meet or where successional stages or vegetation conditions 

within the plant communities come together.

effects: Environmental changes resulting from an action. Included are direct effects, which are caused by 

the action and occur at the same time and place, and indirect effects, which are caused by the action and 

are later in time or further removed in distance, but which are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects 

may include growth–inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land 

use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, 

including ecosystems.

Effects include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and 

functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic quality, historic, cultural, economic, social, or healthy 

effects, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that 

may have both beneficial and detrimental effects even if on balance the agency believes that the effects 

will be beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8, 2).

eligible wild and scenic rivers: River segments that have been identified as eligible for inclusion in the 

national Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the authority of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The river 

segment must be free-flowing and it must possess one or more outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, ecological or other value.

embeddedness: The degree that larger streambed particles (boulders, rubble, or gravel) are surrounded or 

covered by finer particle sizes such as fine sediment (Rhodes et al. 1994).

emission: A release of air contaminants into the outdoor atmosphere.

endangered species: Species listed under the Endangered Species Act by either the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Any species of animal or plant that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

endemic: Occurring naturally in a certain region and distribution is relatively limited to a particular 

locality. Endemism is the occurrence of endemic species in an area.

environmental assessment (EA): A comprehensive evaluation of actions and their predictable short– and 

long–term environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, social, and environmental 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

268 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

design factors and their interactions. It is a formal document that must follow the requirements of NEPA, 

the CEQ, and guidelines and directives of the agency responsible for the project proposal.

environmental impact statement (EIS): A statement of the environmental effects of a proposed action 

and alternatives to it. It is required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. 

A draft EIS is released to the public and other agencies for review and comment. A final EIS is issued 

after consideration of public comments. A record of decisionis based on the information and analysis in 

the final EIS.

ephemeral: A channel in which streamflow occurs inconsistently, infrequently, or seasonally and, except 

during periods of streamflow, does not intersect the local groundwater table.

erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other geological 

activities; can be accelerated or intensified by human activities that reduce the stability of slopes or soils.

essential fish habitat: Identification by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of habitat

essential to conserve and enhance federal fishery resources that are fished commercially under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

evaluation: An essential companion activity to monitoring; the tool for translating data gathered by 

monitoring into useful information that could result in change or changing future strategies.

even-aged management: The application of a combination of actions that results in the creation of stands 

in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed even-aged forests are characterized by 

a distribution of stands of varying ages (and, therefore, tree sizes) throughout the forest area. The 

difference in age between trees forming the main canopy level of a stand usually does not exceed 20 

percent of the age of the stand at harvest rotation age. Regeneration in a particular stand is obtained 

during a short period at or near the time that a stand has reached the desired age or size for regeneration 

and is harvested. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting methods produce even-aged stands.

evolutionarily significant units (ESU): The minimal unit of conservation management, the smallest 

population unit that can receive federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. An ESU is a set of 

populations that is morphologically and genetically distinct from other similar populations or a set of 

populations with a distinct evolutionary history.8

exotic species: A plant or animal species introduced from a distant place; not native to the area.

extinction: Complete disappearance of a species from the earth.

extirpation: Loss of populations from all or part of a species’ range within a specified area.

F

facility: A single or contiguous group of improvements that exists to shelter or to support Forest Service 

programs. The term may be used in either a broad or narrow context; for example, a facility may be a 

ranger station compound, lookout tower, leased office, work center, separate housing area, visitor center, 

research laboratory, recreation complex, utility system, or telecommunications site.

 8 http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/systematics/systematicsli3.html
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 269

fauna: The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an area or region.

fall/winter season: This period basically begins when all key perennial forage plants have achieved 

dormancy. It runs through the dormant period and ends just before the initiation of new growth on the key 

cool season perennial forage species in the spring. In very general terms, this often begins in mid to late 

October and runs through February, March, or April depending on the elevation, aspect and the weather 

patterns for a given year.

Federal trust responsibility: The Forest Service shares in the federal government’s overall trust 

responsibility to American Indian tribes where treaty or other legally defined rights apply to national 

forest lands. In redeeming this shared responsibility, the agency assists in carrying out the intent of the 

treaty and any subsequent case law or amendments, by operating in a just and responsive way; making 

efforts to adjust the management of national forest lands in favor of the concerns of the respective 

American Indian tribe(s), as far as practicable, while still maintaining a responsibility to all the people –

the general public. These actions and adjustments need to be carried out through consultations with other 

tribal officials or their designees, on a government–to–government basis.

federally listed species: Species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

fine organic matter: Plant litter, duff, and woody material less than 3 inches in diameter.

fine-scale: A single landscape, such as a watershed or subwatershed.

fire-dependent systems: Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of species of 

plants that evolved with and are maintained by fire regimes.

fire cycle, fire frequency: Refer to fire return interval.

low fire intensity: Soil surface litter and humus have not been destroyed by fire. Root crowns and surface 

roots will resprout. Potential surface erosion has not changed because of fire.

moderate fire intensity: On up to 40 percent of the area, the soil surface litter and humus have been 

destroyed by fire and the A horizon has had intense heating. Crusting of the soil surface produces 

accelerated erosion. Intensively burned areas may be water repellent. Root crowns and surface roots of 

grasses in the intensively burned area are dead and will not resprout.

high fire intensity: On 40 percent or more of the area, the soil surface litter and humus have been 

destroyed by fire and the A horizon has had intense heating. Crusting of the soil surface produces 

accelerated erosion. Intensively burned areas may be water repellent. Root crowns and surface roots of 

grasses in the intensively burned area are dead and will not resprout.

fire intolerant: Species of plants that do not grow well with, or die from, the effects of too much fire. 

Generally, these are shade-tolerant species.

fire management plan: A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and related 

activities within the context of approved land/resource management plans. It defines a program to manage 

wildland fires (wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use). The plan is supplemented by operational 

plans, including but limited to preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, and prevention plans. Fire 

management plans assure that wildland fire management goals and components are coordinated. 

fire regime: The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, such as the frequency, predictability, 

intensity, and seasonality of fire. A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

270 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

play across a landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention but including the 

influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993; Brown 1995). Coarse-scale definitions for natural fire 

regimes were developed by Hardy and others (2001) and Schmidt and others (2002) and interpreted for 

fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The five natural fire regimes are classified based 

on the average number of years between fires (fire frequency or Mean Fire Interval [MFI]) combined with 

the severity of the fire (the amount of vegetation replacement) and its effect on the dominant overstory 

vegetation. These five natural fire regimes are as follows: 

fire regime 1: 0- to 35-year frequency and of low severity (most commonly associated with surface 

fires) to mixed severity (in which less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation is 

replaced).

fire regime 2: 0- to 35-year frequency and of high severity (stand replacement: greater than 75 

percent of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced).

fire regime 3: 35- to 200-year frequency and of mixed severity.

fire regime 4: 35- to 200-year frequency and of high severity.

fire regime 5: 200-year-plus frequency and of high severity.

fire regime condition class (FRCC): A classification of the degree of departure from the natural fire 

regime. The fire regime condition class classification is based on a relative measure describing the degree 

of departure from the historical natural fire regime. This departure can result in changes (or risks) to one, 

or more, of the following ecological components: vegetation (species composition, structural stages, stand 

age, canopy cover, and mosaic pattern across the landscape); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, 

and pattern; and other associated disturbances. 

condition class 1: Fire regimes are within the natural (historical) range, and the risk of losing key 

ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition, structure, and pattern) are 

intact and functioning within the natural (historical) range.

condition class 2: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical) range. 

Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from natural 

frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This result in moderate 

changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape patterns. 

Vegetation and fuel attributes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical) range.

condition class 3: Fire regimes have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) range. 

The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from natural 

frequencies by multiple return intervals. Dramatic changes occur to one or more of the following: fire 

size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been substantially altered 

from their natural (historical) range. 

fire return interval: The average time between fires in a given area.

fire suppression: All work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operation, beginning with 

discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.

fire-tolerant: Species of plants that can withstand a certain frequency and intensity of fire. Generally, 

these are shade-intolerant species.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 271

fish-producing: Streams, rivers, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs that serve as spawning or rearing 

habitat for fish.

fledgling: A young bird that has acquired the feathers necessary for flight.

floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas joining inland and coastal waters including debris cones 

and flood-prone areas of off-shore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent 

(100-year recurrence) or greater chance of flooding in any given year (Executive Order 11988, Section 

6c); or the area of relatively flat land adjacent to streams that is inundated during times of high flow; or an 

area formed by the deposition of stream-transported sediment.

floodplain function: Collectively, the normal physical and biological processes that are responsible for 

the formation and maintenance of river floodplains and the biotic communities that inhabit them.

flow regime: The range of magnitude, duration, timing and frequency of streamflows characteristic of a 

given stream.

forb: Broad-leafed, herbaceous, nongrass-like plant species other than true grasses, sedges, and non–

woody plants; fleshy leafed plants; having little or no woody material.

forage: All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals. It may be grazed or 

harvested for feeding. Refer to rangeland vegetation.

forested vegetation treatment: Combination of uneven-aged management methods that may be used to 

achieve a desired forested structure including single-tree selection, group selection, precommercial 

thinning, commercial thinning, salvage, and sanitation cutting.

forest fragmentation: Refer to fragmentation.

forest health: The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors as its age, 

structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects and disease and resilience to 

disturbance. Perception and interpretation of forest health are influenced by individual and cultural 

viewpoints, land management objectives, spatial and temporal scales, the relative health in stands that 

comprise the forest, and the appearance of the forest at a point in time.

forest land: Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having had such tree 

cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. Lands developed for non-forest use include areas 

for crops, improved pasture, residential, or administrative areas, improved roads of any width, and 

adjoining road clearing and powerline clearing of any width.

forest roads: Any road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the national forest and which 

is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the national forests and the use and 

development of its resources (23 USC 101).

Forest Service Handbook (FSH): Directives that provide detailed instructions on how to proceed with a 

specialized phase of a program or activity.

Forest Service Manual (FSM): A system of manuals that provides direction for Forest Service activities.

forest transportation facility: A classified road, designated trail, or designated airfield, including 

bridges, culverts, parking lots, log transfer facilities, safety devices and other transportation network 

appurtenances under Forest Service jurisdiction that is wholly or partially within or adjacent to National 

Forest System lands (36 CFR 212.1).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

272 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

forest transportation system management: The planning, inventory, analysis, classification, record 

keeping, scheduling, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, decommissioning, and other operations 

undertaken to achieve environmentally sound, safe, cost-effective access for use, protection, 

administration, and management of national forest lands.

fragmentation (habitat): The break-up of a large continuous land area by reducing and dividing into 

smaller patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type. Habitat can be fragmented by natural 

events or development activities.

fragmentation (forest): The breakup of a large land forest area into smaller patches isolated by areas 

converted to a different land type. Opposite of connectivity.

free-flowing: A river or stream that exists or flows in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway (16 U.S.C. §1286).

fuel: Plants, both living and dead, and woody vegetative materials capable of burning.

fuel load: The dry weight of combustible materials per unit area; usually expressed as tons per acre.

fuel treatment: Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition or to lessen 

potential damage and resistance to control.

functioning-at-risk: Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition but an existing soil, water, or 

vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation (USDA Forest Service1993).

G

geographic information system (GIS): An information processing technology to input, store, 

manipulate, analyze, and display data; a system of computer maps with corresponding site-specific 

information that can be combined electronically to provide reports and maps.

geologic: Based on geology which is the study of the structure, processes, and chronology of the earth.

geological/geomorphic process: The actions or events that shape and control the distribution of 

materials, their states, and their morphology, within the interior and on the surface of the earth. Examples 

of geologic processes include: volcanism, glaciation, streamflow, metamorphism (partial melting of 

rocks), and landsliding.

goal: A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. It is 

normally expressed in broad, general terms and is timeless in that it has no specific date by which it is to 

be completed. Goal statements form the principal basis from which objectives are developed.

goods and services: The various outputs, including on-site uses, produced from forest and rangeland 

resources. 

government-to-government consultation: The active and continuous process of contacting tribal 

leadership, soliciting their participation, involvement, comments, concerns, contributions, and traditional 

knowledge that will assist the agency in making informed decisions in planning, managing and decisionmaking actions.

graminoid: Grasses and grass-like plants such as sedges and rushes.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 273

grassland: Land on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, or forbs.

grazing: The consumption of standing forage by livestock or wildlife.

grazing allotment: Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock for a prescribed 

period.

grazing lands: Any vegetated land that is grazed or has the potential to be grazed by animals (domestic 

or wild). This includes rangeland and grazable forestland.

grazing permit: Document authorizing livestock to use national forest lands or other lands under Forest 

Service control for livestock production.

groundwater: All of the water that has percolated through the surface soil into the bedrock.

Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: Communities of plants, animals, and other organisms whose 

extent and life processes are dependent on access to or discharge of groundwater. (USDA Forest Service 

2011)

guideline: A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for departure 

from its terms, so long as the intent of the guideline is met. (§ 219.15(d)(3)). Guidelines are established to 

help achieve a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet 

applicable legal requirements.

H

habitat: A place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter, and other environmental 

conditions for an organism, community, or population of plants or animals.

harvest: (1) Felling and removal of trees from the forest; and (2) removal of game animals or fish from a 

population, typically by hunting or fishing.

harvestable/harvestability: With regard to American Indian tribes, refers to a population of plants or 

animals that is self-sustaining and capable of producing a dependable harvest annually to meet spiritual, 

cultural, subsistence, and commercial needs.

headwaters: Beginning of a watershed; the uppermost, unbranched tributaries of a stream.

healthy ecosystem: An ecosystem in which structure and functions allow the maintenance of the desired 

conditions of biological diversity, biotic integrity and ecological processes over time.

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA) Act: The Act of December 31, 1975, as amended 

(PL 94-199, 89 Statute 117), which established the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

herbaceous: Green and leaf-like in appearance or texture; includes grasses, grass-like plants, and forbs, 

with little, or no woody component.

herbicide: A pesticide used for killing or controlling the growth of plants.

herbivore: An animal that subsists on plants or plant materials, either primarily or entirely.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

274 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

hiding cover: Vegetation, primarily trees, capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult game animal 

from the view of a human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet during all seasons of the year that elk 

or deer use the area. Generally, any vegetation used for security or to escape from danger.

high-severity fire: Refer to fire intensity.

historical conditions: Range of historical variation; range of the spatial, structural, compositional and 

temporal characteristics of ecosystem elements during a period specified to represent natural conditions.

historic property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. This term includes artifacts, records, and 

remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional 

religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the 

National Register of Historic Places criteria.

Historic Range of Variability (HRV): A means to define the boundaries of ecosystem behavior and 

patterns that have remained relatively consistent over long periods. HRV is usually defined for centuries 

to millennia before the period of widespread human population increases and associated ecosystem 

changes that began in roughly the early to middle 1800s for many regions of western North America.

human-caused disturbance: Refer to disturbance.

hydrologic: Refers to the properties, distribution, and effects of water. Hydrology refers to the broad 

science of the waters of the earth, their occurrence, circulation, distribution, chemical and physical 

properties, and their reaction with the environment.

hydrologic function: The behavioral characteristics of a watershed described in terms of ability to sustain 

favorable conditions of water flow. Favorable conditions of water flow are defined in terms of water 

quality, quantity, and timing.

hydrological regimes: The spatiotemporal dynamics of water flow and associated fluvial process in an 

ecosystem. Refer to flow regime.

hydrologic unit: A hydrologic unit is a drainage area delineated to nest in a multi-level, hierarchical 

drainage system. Its boundaries are defined by hydrographic and topographic criteria that delineate an 

area of land upstream from a specific point on a river, stream or similar surface waters. A hydrologic unit 

can accept surface water directly from upstream drainage areas, and indirectly from associated surface 

areas such as remnant, noncontributing, and diversions to form a drainage area with single or multiple 

outlet points.

hydrologic unit code (HUC): A hierarchical coding system developed by the U.S. Geological Survey to 

identify geographic boundaries of watersheds of various sizes (12). 

4th-code HUC refers a subbasin generally about 450,000 acres in size. 

5th-code HUC refers to a watershed. These areas generally range from 40,000 to 250,000 acres in 

size. 

6th-code HUC refers to a subwatershed HU that generally ranges from 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size.

Individual Clumps and Openings (ICO) - this approach uses historical information at the stand- and 

landscape-level to design restoration strategies and prescriptions for restoration (e.g., see (Franklin et al. 

2013b)). For example, the pattern of old trees, stumps and snags currently on the landscape provide 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 275

indicators of natural tree clumping and spacing, and thus the degree of horizontal spatial heterogeneity. In 

places where legacies of historic forest patterns are absent (e.g., young, post-fire forests), information is 

used from similar habitats.

impacts: Refer to effects.

implement: To carry out.

indicator species: Refer to management indicator species

indirect effects: Impacts on the environments that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable.

infestation: The attack or invasion by parasites or pests.

infiltration: The process by which water seeps into the soil, influenced by soil texture, aspect, and 

vegetation cover.

infrastructure: The basic facilities, equipment, and installation needed for the functioning of a system; 

commonly refers to items such as roads, bridges, power facilities, and the like.

insecticide: A pesticide employed against insects.

instream flow: Flow of water in its natural setting (as opposed to waters diverted for off-stream uses such 

as industry or agriculture). Instream flow levels provided for environmental reasons enhance or maintain 

the habitat for riparian and aquatic life, with timing and quantities of flow characteristic of the natural 

setting.

integration: Bringing the values and systems of different disciplines together to address questions with a 

common framework using consistent techniques and measurement units.

interagency: Involving the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and/or other Federal agencies.

interdisciplinary team (IDT): A group of specialists assembled as a cohesive team with frequent 

interactions to solve a problem or perform a task.

intermittent stream: A stream in which the flow of water on the surface is discontinuous, or that 

alternates between zones of surface and sub-surface flow.

invasion (plant): The movement of a plant species into a new area outside its former range.

invasive nonnative species: Are those animal and plant species with an extraordinary capacity for 

multiplication and spread at the expense of other native species. Plants in this category may or may not be 

designated as noxious weeds.

invasive plant species: Nonnative plant species that invade or are introduced into an environment or 

ecosystem in which they did not evolve where they have the ability to compete with, and at times 

overshadow, the existing native plant species. Invasive species are also likely to cause economic or 

environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species include seeds, eggs, spores, or other 

biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem (with respect 

to a particular ecosystem). Noxious weeds are a specific type of invasive plants that carry a legal 

designation due to their potential for detrimental impacts to the environment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

276 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs): Those areas identified in the Land Management Plan and listed on a 

set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, (USDA Forest Service 2000), which are held at the 

Washington Office of the Forest Service, or any update, correction, or revision of those maps through the 

land management planning process.

invertebrate: Small animals that lack a backbone or spinal column. Spiders, insects, and worms are 

examples of invertebrates.

irretrievable commitment: Applies to losses of production or commitment of renewable natural 

resources. For example, while an area is used as a ski area, some or all of the timber production there is 

“irretrievably” lost. If the ski area closes, timber production could resume; therefore, the loss of timber 

production during the time the area is devoted to skiing is irretrievable but not irreversible, because it is 

possible for timber production to resume if the area is no longer used as a ski area.

irreversible commitment: Applies to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals and archaeological sites. 

Losses of these resources cannot be reversed. Irreversible effects can also refer to effects of actions on 

resources that can be renewed only after a very long period, such as the loss of soil productivity.

issue: A point, matter of controversy, dispute, question of public discussion, or general concern over 

resource management activities or land uses to be addressed or decided through the planning process. To 

be considered a significant environmental impact statement issue, it must be well defined, relevant to the 

proposed action, and within the ability of the agency to address through alternative management 

strategies.

L

ladder fuels: Vegetation located below the crown level of forest trees, which can carry fire from the 

forest floor to tree crowns. Ladder fuels may be low growing tree branches, shrubs, or smaller trees. Fire 

can move from surface fuels by convection into the crowns with relative ease.

landform: One of the attributes or features that make up the Earth’s surface such as a plain, mountain, or 

valley, as defined by its particular combination of bedrock and soils, erosion processes, and climatic 

influences.

land and resource management plan (LRMP) or land management plan: A document that provides 

broad strategic guidance and information for project and activity decision making in a national forest 

through plan components (desired conditions, suitable uses, guidelines, special areas, and objectives), as 

required by the National Forest Management Act and the Planning Rule. 

landscape: All the natural features such as grasslands, hills, forest, and water, which distinguish one part 

of the earth’s surface from another part; usually that portion of land which the eye can comprehend in a 

single view, including all its natural characteristics.

landscape character: Identifiable image made by particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape.

landscape ecology: The study of ecological effects to spatial patterns in ecosystems.

landscape-level/landscape-scale: Refer to broad-scale.

landscape pattern: Number, frequency, size and juxtaposition of landscape elements (stands and 

patches) that are important to the determination or interpretation of ecological processes.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 277

landscape structure: The mix and distribution of stand or patch sizes across a given area of land. Patch 

sizes, shapes, and distributions are a reflection of the major disturbance regimes operating on the 

landscape.

late/old structure: Forest stands whose structural development incorporates the elements of the late and 

the old structural stages. The understory species can be found in all canopy layers. Overstory vigor begins 

to decline, as does tolerance to native pathogens and insects. In the late stage, the understory has become 

the dominant cover and the overstory is beginning to decline and collapse. In the old stage, stands in 

which all of the relic (pioneering) trees have died and which consist entirely of trees that grew from 

beneath. These structural stages may or may not contain the various characteristics sometimes identified 

with old growth structure.

late seral: Refer to seral stages.

late spring season: Late spring is defined as that period when the key perennial cool season forage plant 

growth is still occurring but soil moisture is beginning to limit growth. Livestock removal is not planned 

to occur during the time when assurance can be made that essentially full regrowth would occur.

late successional: The stage of ecological succession and type of vegetation that develops after a long 

period of time following a stand-replacing disturbance.

legacy tree: Trees that have been spared or have survived stand replacing disturbances (Mazurek and 

Zielinski, 2004). A legacy tree is any live tree greater than or equal to 21 inches d.b.h. and greater than 

150 years old, located in a non-old forest stand.

lethal (stand-replacing) fires: Fires that result in stand replacement of the existing forested vegetation. 

Mortality levels are very high at all canopy levels within the stand. In forests, fires in which less than 20 

percent of the basal area or less than 10 percent of the canopy cover remains; in rangelands, fires in which 

most of the shrub overstory or encroaching trees are killed.

lichens: Organisms made up of specific algae and fungi, forming identifiable crusts on soil, rocks, tree 

bark, and other surfaces. Lichens are primary producers in ecosystems; they contribute living material and 

nutrients, enrich the soil and increase soil moisture-holding capacity, and serve as food sources for certain 

animals. Lichens are slow growing and sensitive to chemical and physical disturbances.

litter: The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, which is essentially the freshly fallen or 

slightly decomposed vegetation material such as stems, leaves, twigs, and fruits.

local population: A group of individuals that spawn or breed in a particular area; the smallest group of 

individuals that is known to represent an interacting reproductive unit.

loess: Fine grained wind-deposited material predominantly of silt-size particles.

long term: Generally refers to a period longer than 10 years up to 100 years.

lower montane: A terrestrial community that generally is found in drier and warmer environments than 

the montane terrestrial community. The lower montane community supports a unique clustering of 

wildlife species.

M
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

278 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

mainstem: The main channel of the river in a river basin, as opposed to the streams and smaller rivers 

that feed into it.

maintain: To continue; or keep ecosystem functions, processes, and/or components (such as soil, air, 

water, vegetation) in such a condition that the ecosystem’s ability to accomplish current and future 

management objectives is not weakened. Management activities may be compatible with ecosystem 

maintenance if actions are designed to maintain or improve current ecosystem condition.

major population group: A group of either salmon populations or group of steelhead populations that 

are geographically and genetically cohesive. The major population group is a level of organization 

between demographically independent populations and evolutionarily significant units or distinct 

population segments.

management area: An area with similar management objectives and a common management 

prescription, as prescribed by the land management plan.

management concern: An issue, problem, or a condition which constrains the range of management 

practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process.

management direction: A statement of multiple-use and other goals and objectives, the associated 

management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them.

management indicator species (MIS): In the original Forest Plans, a species selected because its welfare 

is presumed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species using the same habitat. A species whose 

condition can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area.

management intensity: A management practice or combination of management practices and associated 

costs designed to obtain different levels of goods and services.

management practice: A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment.

management prescription: Management practices and intensity selected and scheduled for application 

on a specific area to attain multiple-use and other goals and objectives.

mechanical equipment: Any contrivance which travels over ground, snow, or water on wheels, tracks, 

skids, or by flotation that is powered by a living source. This term does not include nonmotorized river 

craft, wheelchairs, or other similar devices used solely to assist persons with disabilities.

mechanical fuel treatment: Treatment of fuels using mechanical means, such as thinning by chainsaw, 

crushing down wood, or piling down wood.

mechanized: Wheeled forms of transportation (including nonmotorized carts, wheelbarrows, bicycles and 

any other nonmotorized, wheeled vehicle.

mesic: Pertaining to conditions of moderate moisture or water supply; used of organisms occupying moist 

habitats.

metapopulations: A group of conspecific populations coexisting in time but not space.

microclimate: The climatic conditions within a small habitat such as: a tree stump, under a boulder, in 

the space between grasses, or on the side of a slope.

migration corridor: The habitat pathway an animal uses to move from one place to another.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 279

minerals-locatable: Those hardrock minerals that are mined and processed for the recovery of metals. 

They also may include certain nonmetallic minerals and uncommon varieties of mineral materials, such as 

valuable and distinctive deposits of limestone or silica. 

minerals-leasable: Coal, oil, gas, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil shale, sulphur, and geothermal 

resources.

minerals-materials (salable): A collective term to describe common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, 

pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, and other similar materials. Common varieties do not include deposits of 

those materials that may be locatable.

mining: Any activity related to the discovery, extraction, and exploration of minerals under the Mining 

Act of 1872 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 through the use of, among other things, hydraulic 

equipment, pans, ground sluicing, sluice boxes, rockers, or suction dredges.

mining claim: A particular parcel of public land, valuable for a specific mineral deposit or deposits, for 

which an individual has asserted a right of possession. The right is for developing and extracting a 

discovered mineral deposit.

mining lands: Lands primarily used for mining purposes as of June 13, 1994 and which are assigned to 

the mining land category in 36 CFR 292.22 of the private land use regulations.

mitigation: Measures designed and implemented to counteract environmental impacts or to make impacts 

less severe.

mixed-severity fire: These fire regimes will have the greatest toll on thinner barked and/or young age 

classes within the stand. Low intensity fires within the stand will favor overstory fire-resistant species 

(ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas fir). Crown fire potential does exist depending on stand 

structures and age classes of different stand cohorts of any available ladder fuels. If it occurs, the result 

will favor the return to grass and forbs.

moist forest: Area between drier, low elevation forests and higher elevation, cold forests.

mollisol - a soil order in USDA soil taxonomy. Mollisols have deep, high organic matter, nutrientenriched surface soil (A horizon), typically between 60–80 cm in depth. This fertile surface horizon, 

known as a mollic epipedon, is the defining diagnostic feature of Mollisols. Mollic epipedons result from 

the long-term addition of organic materials derived from plant roots, and typically have soft, granular, soil 

structure. These environments have historically been strongly influenced by fire and organisms such as 

ants and earth worms.

monitoring: A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project and its 

mitigation plan are being realized. Monitoring allows detection of undesirable and desirable changes so 

that management actions can be modified or designed to achieve desired goals and objectives while 

avoiding adverse effects to ecosystems.

montane: A terrestrial community that generally is found in moderate (ponderosa pine) and subalpine 

terrestrial communities. Montane communities are generally moister than lower montane and warmer 

than subalpine communities, and support a unique clustering of wildlife species.

mosaic: A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of communities are interspersed in patches, 

such as clumps of shrubs with grassland between.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

280 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

motorized equipment: Any machine powered by a nonliving source. This term does not include 

motorized river craft or small hand-held devices such as flashlights, shavers, wristwatches, and Geiger 

counters.

multi-story: More than one canopy layer.

multiple-use management: The management philosophy articulated by the Multiple Use Sustained Yield 

Act of 1960. This law provides that the renewable resources of the national forests are to be managed in 

the combination that best meets the needs of the American people. It further stipulates that the Forest 

Service is to make judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources and related services over 

areas large enough to ensure that sufficient latitude exists to subsequently adjust management in 

conformity with changing needs and conditions.

municipal watersheds (public supply watersheds): A watershed that serves a public water system as 

defined in Public Law 93-523 (Safe Drinking Water Act) or as defined in state safe drinking water 

regulations. The definition does not include communities served by a well or confined groundwater 

unaffected by Forest Service activities.

mycorrhizae: The symbiotic relationship between certain fungi and the roots of certain plants, especially 

trees; important for plants to take nutrients from soil.

N

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs): Standards set by the Federal Environmental 

Protection Agency for the maximum levels of air pollutants that can exist in the outdoor air without 

unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act to declare a national policy which will encourage 

productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment, to promote efforts which 

will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare 

of humanity, to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 

nation, and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring the preparation of Forest Plans and the 

preparation of regulations to guide that development.

National Forest System (NFS): All national forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain 

of the United States; all national forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other 

means; the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under Title III of the BankheadJones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and other lands, waters, or interests therein 

which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration through the Forest 

Service as a part of the system.

National Forest System road: A classified forest road under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The 

term National Forest System roads is synonymous with the term forest development roads as used in 23 

USC 205. Generally referred to as a Forest Road (FR).

National Recreation Trail: Trails designated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 

Agriculture as part of the national system of trails authorized by the National Trails System Act. National 

recreation trails provide a variety of outdoor recreation uses.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 281

National Register of Historic Places: A listing (maintained by the U.S. National Park Service) of areas 

that have been designated as being of historical significance. The Register includes places of local and 

state significance as well as those of value to the Nation.

National Wild and Scenic River System: Includes rivers with outstanding scenic, recreational, 

geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values designated by Congress under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for preservation of their free-flowing condition. Refer to Wild and Scenic 

River.

native species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. Animals or plants that 

have historically occupied a given aquatic or terrestrial area.

natural disturbance: Periodic impact of natural events such as: fire, severe drought, insect or disease 

attack, or wind.

neotropical: Those species of birds that nest in the United States or Canada and winter regularly in the 

Neotropics (south of the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn) in Mexico, the Caribbean Islands, or Central or 

South America. 2).

no action alternative: The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if current management 

direction were to continue unchanged.

nongame species: Those species of animals that are not managed as a sport hunting resource.

nonlethal fire: Fires that consist of low intensity under burns with limited single tree or group torching. 

Fire related mortality to the dominant-fire resistant species is slow, but occurs because of this type of 

localized fire behavior. In forests, fires in which more than 70 percent of the basal area or more than 90 

percent of the canopy cover survives; in rangelands, fires in which more than 90 percent of the vegetative 

cover survives (implies that fire is occurring in an herbaceous-dominated community).

nonnative invasive species (NNIS): Plant species that are introduced into an area in which they did not 

evolve and in which they usually have few or no natural enemies to limit their reproduction and spread. 

These species can cause environmental harm by significantly changing ecosystem composition, structure, 

or processes and can cause economic harm or harm to human health.

nonpoint source pollution: Pollution whose source is general rather than specific in location; the sources 

of the pollutant discharge are dispersed, not well defined or constant. Examples include sediments from 

logging activities and runoff from agricultural chemicals. It is widely used in reference to agricultural and 

related pollutants, such as production of sediments by logging operations, agricultural pesticide 

applications, or automobile exhaust pollution.

noxious weeds: Plants designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible 

state official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive 

and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, and 

being native or new to or not common to the united states or parts thereof. A noxious weed is one that 

causes disease or has other adverse effects on the human environment and therefore is detrimental to the 

agriculture and commerce of the United States and to the public health.

nutrient cycling: Ecological processes in which nutrients and elements such as carbon, phosphorous, 

nitrogen, calcium, and others, circulate among animals, plants, soils, and air.

O
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

282 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

objective: A concise, time-specific statement that describes the incremental progress expected to take 

place to meet goals (desired conditions) over the planning period with respect to estimated quantities of 

services and accomplishments. Objectives are projections of outcomes based on certain social, economic, 

and ecological indicators that measure the plans performance and identify specific opportunities and 

possible future proposals in terms of ongoing programs and future projects to support the goals for the 

planning area. 

off-channel: Aquatic habitats separated from the main stream or river, such as side-channels, oxbows, 

ponds, or sloughs, which may or may not be directly connected to a river or stream.

off-highway vehicle (OHV): Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or 

immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.

old forest: Old forests are ecosystems distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old 

forest encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in a 

variety of characteristics which may include tree size, accumulation of large dead woody material, 

number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function. 

old forest multistory (OFMS): This structure class includes multiple age classes and vegetation layers, 

along with large, old trees. Decaying fallen trees may also be present that leave a discontinuous overstory 

canopy. Overstory diameters are generally greater than 20 inches.

old forest single story (OFSS): This structure class can include multiple age classes, but generally only 

includes one main overstory strata. Large, old trees are common. Decaying fallen trees may also be 

present that leave a discontinuous overstory canopy. Overstory diameters are generally greater than 20 

inches.

ongoing actions: Those actions that have been implemented, or have contracts awarded or permits issued. 

Refer to new actions.

openings: Refers to meadows, clearcuts, and other areas of vegetation that do not provide hiding or 

thermal cover.

outcome: The long-term results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose (Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306)). Outcome is a state of being similar to long-term 

ecological, social, or economic condition or goal (such as the maintenance of an ecosystem’s biodiversity, 

jobs and income, or the quality of a regions’ surface water as measured by indicators).

outfitting: Providing through rental or livery any saddle or pack animal, vehicle or boat, tents or camping 

gear, or similar supplies or equipment, for pecuniary remuneration or other gain. The term guide includes 

the holder’s employees, agents, and instructors. Pecuniary remuneration means monetary reward 

(Washington Office Amendment 2709.11-95-11, 41-53C).

outputs: A broad term for describing any result, product, service or concern that a system produces by its 

activities. They are measurable and capable of being used to determine the effectiveness of programs and 

activities in meeting objectives. The unit of measure should indicate or serve as a proxy for what the 

recipients get rather than what the agency does in the process of producing the given output. Example: 

timber sold, recreation use, livestock grazing use, etc. Any good, service, or on-site use that is produced 

from rural resources.

outslope: Roads that are sloped toward the downhill side of the roadway to better match the natural 

drainage patterns and minimize the potential for diversion.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 283

outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs): Term used in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968; to 

qualify as outstandingly remarkable, a resource value must be a unique, rare, or exemplary feature that is 

significant at a regional or national level.

overgrazing: Consumption of rangeland grass by grazing animals to the point that it cannot be renewed, 

or can be only slowly renewed, because of damage to the root system.

overstory: Portion of the trees, in a forest or in a forested stand of more than one story, forming the upper 

or uppermost canopy.

overwinter: To keep livestock or plants alive through the winter by sheltering them, or to be kept alive in 

this way.

P

PACFISH: Regional Forester’s Amendment 3, Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish–

producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (USDA and 

USDI 1995).

paleontological sites: Areas that contain any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been 

preserved in the earth’s crust before the Holocene epoch.

parcel: Contiguous tax lots under one ownership. For the purposes of the Private LURs, rights-of-way do 

not divide parcels into smaller units.

particulate emissions: Solid particles or liquid droplets that can be suspended or carried in the air, or 

released as air contaminants into the outdoor atmosphere. 

PM10 – Particulate matter that measures 10 micrometers in diameter or less, a size considered small 

enough to invade the alveolar regions of the lung. PM10 is one of the six pollutants for which there are 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

PM2.5 – Particulate matter that measures 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less.

passive management: Allowing nature to restore (heal) the natural balance between erosion/deposition, 

hydrologic, and vegetation processes by removing identified adversely affecting agents.

patch: An area of vegetation that is relatively homogeneous internally and differs from surrounding 

elements.

pathogen: An agent such as a fungus, virus, or bacterium that causes disease.

pattern: The spatial arrangement of landscape elements (patches, corridors, matrix) that determines the 

function of a landscape as an ecological system.

pesticide: A chemical preparation used to control individuals or populations of injurious organisms.

permittee (livestock): Any entity that has been issued a grazing permit.

phases: Plant communities or seral stages within a steady state connected to each other by community 

pathways.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

284 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

plan amendment: The process for making substantive changes to a land management plan for the desired 

conditions, suitable uses, special areas, objectives and guidelines.

planning area: The area of the National Forest System covered by a regional guide or Forest Plan.

planning horizon: The overall time period considered in the planning process that spans all activities 

covered in the analysis or plan and all future conditions and effects of proposed actions which would 

influence the planning decisions.

planning record: A written record of the land management plan revision process containing detailed 

information and analysis used support conclusions and decisions made in the plan.

plant associations: A plant community type based on the land management potential, successional 

patterns and species composition.

plant communities: Any grouping of plants that have some structural similarity (Johnson and Simon 

1987).

plateau: Any comparatively flat area of great extent and elevation; specifically an extensive land region 

considerably more elevated above the adjacent country; it is commonly limited on at least one side by an 

abrupt descent.

point source pollution: Pollution that comes from a single identifiable source such as a smokestack, a 

sewer, or a pipe.

pool: Portion of a stream where the current is slow, often with deeper water than surrounding areas and 

with a smooth surface texture. Often occur above and below riffles and generally are formed around 

stream bends or obstructions such as logs, root, wads, or boulders. Pools provide important feeding and 

resting areas for fish.

potential natural community (PNC): The biotic community that would become established if all 

successional sequences were completed without interference by humans under present environmental 

conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development.

potential vegetation group (PVG): A group of potential vegetation types grouped on the basis of similar 

general moisture or temperature environment and similar types of life forms.

potential vegetation types (PVT): A kind of physical and biological environment that produces a kind of 

vegetation; the species that might grow on a specific site I the absence of disturbance; can also refer to 

vegetation that would grow on a site in the presence of frequent disturbance that is an integral part of the 

ecosystem and its evolution.

precommercial thinning: The removal of trees not for immediate financial return but to reduce stocking 

to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees.

prehistoric site: An area that contains important evidence and remains of the life and activities of early 

societies that did not record their history.

prescribed fire: Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, approved 

prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements (where applicable) must be met, prior to ignition.

prescription: A management pathway to achieve a desired objective(s).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 285

present net value (PNV): The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs to which 

monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs of managing the 

planning area.

primitive recreation: Those types of recreation activities associated with unroaded land, for example: 

hiking, backpacking, and cross–country travel.

private land: Land not in federal, state, or local government ownership.

productive capacity: The growth and accumulation of plant biomass (primary productivity) as well as 

the growth of animal species that use the products (secondary productivity). Key elements of productivity 

include the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils which provide for vegetative growth and 

the accumulation and cycling of nutrients.

productivity: Productivity is based on using natural resources no faster than they are produced or can be 

replaced and using natural resources without impairment of the long-term productive capacity of the 

ecosystem from which they are derived.

programmatic agreement (PA): This is a historic preservation document that records the terms and 

conditions agreed upon to resolve the potential adverse effects of a Federal agency program, complex 

undertaking or other situations in accordance with the Section 106 review under NHPA 

[36CFR800.14(b)].

proper functioning condition (PFC): Riparian and wetland areas achieve proper functioning condition 

when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy 

associated with high water flows. This thereby reduces erosion and improves water quality; filters 

sediment, captures bedload, and aids floodplain development; improve flood–water retention and ground 

water recharge; develops root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; develops diverse 

ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and water depths, duration, and temperature 

necessary for aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate production, waterfowl breeding, and other issues; and 

supports greater biodiversity. The functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas is a result of the 

interaction among geology, soil, water and vegetation.

project: An organized effort to achieve an objective identified by location, timing, activities, outputs, 

effects, and time period and responsibilities for executions.

project-level: Site-specific analysis and planning processes for a specific project or set of projects usually 

on an individual ranger district.

proposed action: A proposal by a federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement a management 

action.

public issue: A subject or question of widespread public interest relating to management of the National 

Forest System.

public roads: Any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open 

to public travel (23 U.S.C. §101(a)).

Q

qualitative: Traits or characteristics that relate to quality and cannot be measured with numbers.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

286 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

quality of life: Refers to the satisfaction people feel for the places where they live (or may visit) and for 

the places they occupy as part of that experience.

quantitative: Traits or characteristics that can be measured with numbers.

R

range forage condition: The current composition or productivity of rangeland relative to what that 

rangeland is capable of producing as a potential natural community, and often synonymous with forage 

condition.

range analysis: The systematic interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of data for rangeland resource 

management planning. It provides ecological and other information for overall forestland and resource 

management planning and allotment management planning.

rangeland (range): Lands where the vegetation is predominately grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or 

shrubs. Rangelands include natural grasslands, shrublands, savannahs, tundra, most deserts, and riparian 

and wetland plant communities, including marshes and wet meadows, with greater than about 200 pounds 

of forage production per year per acre.

rangeland resources: The physical and biotic resources of rangeland ecosystems.

rangeland resource inventory: The systematic acquisition of inventory data that characterizes the 

vegetation, soil, and other rangeland resources.

rangeland vegetation: Vegetation on all land with rangeland resource objectives or rangeland resource 

values, including riparian areas. Generally, the focus is on land supporting grass or grass-like plants, 

forbs, or shrubs during one or more ecological stages. Forested and nonforested sites providing forage and 

habitat for wild and domestic animal species are included.

rare plants: Plants that are federally listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for federal listing; 

Forest Service Sensitive for Regions 1, 4, and 6, or disjunct species. This includes plants considered rare 

both globally (G1, G2, G3) or within states (S1, S2 or S3). Refer to the project record for a complete 

description.

rearing habitat: Area in rivers or streams where juvenile salmon and trout find food and shelter to live 

and grow.

recontour: To move soil back (usually with mechanical or hand tools) to a previous condition thus 

making an area blend with the natural landscape.

record of decision (ROD): An official document separate from, but associated, with a final 

environmental impact statement in which a deciding official identifies all alternatives, and specifies which 

were environmentally preferable, states the decision, and states whether all practicable means to avoid 

environmental harm from the alternative have been adopted, and if not, why not (40 CFR 1505.2).

recovery plans: A plan for the survival and conservation of species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act. The Act [Section 4(f)] requires that recovery plans contain: 1) objectives, measurable goals for 

delisting; 2) a comprehensive list of the actions necessary to achieve the delisting goals; and 3) an 

estimate of the cost and time required to carry out those actions. In addition, NOAA Recovery Planning 

Guidelines suggest that recovery plans include an assessment of the factors that led to population declines 

and/or which are impeding recovery. Finally, it is important that the plans include a comprehensive 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 287

monitoring and evaluation program for gauging the effectiveness of recovery measures and overall 

progress toward recovery (USDI 1988).

recreation: Leisure time activity such as swimming, picnicking, boating, hunting, and fishing.

developed recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated use of an 

area. Examples of developed recreation areas are campgrounds and ski areas; facilities in these areas 

might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, ski lifts, and buildings. 

dispersed recreation: A general term referring to recreation use outside developed recreation sites; 

this includes activities such as scenic driving, hiking, backpacking, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, 

horseback riding, cross–country skiing, and recreation in primitive environments.

recreation opportunity: The availability of choices for users to participate in the recreational activities 

they prefer within the settings they prefer.

recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS): A recreation opportunity setting is the combination of 

physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place. Thus, an opportunity 

includes qualities provided by-nature (vegetation; landscape, topography, scenery), qualities associated 

with recreational use (levels and types of use), and conditions provided by management (developments, 

roads, regulations). By combining variations of these qualities and conditions, management can provide a 

variety of opportunities for recreationists. The settings, activities, and opportunities for obtaining 

experiences have been arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into six classes: primitive, 

semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban (40 CFR 1505.2).

primitive - Area is characterized by an essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size 

Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The area is managed to 

be essentially free from evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within 

the area is not permitted.

semiprimitive nonmotorized – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural appearing 

environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of 

other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be 

present, but would be subtle. Motorized recreation use is not permitted, but local roads used for other 

resource management activities may be present on a limited basis. Use of such roads is restricted to 

minimize impacts on recreational experience opportunities.

semiprimitive motorized – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural appearing 

environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of 

other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions use of 

local primitive or collector roads with predominantly natural surfaces and trails suitable for motor 

bikes is permitted.

roaded natural -Area is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with 

moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the 

natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users 

prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural 

environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and 

design of facilities 

rural -Area is characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource modification 

and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

288 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often 

moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities is designed for use by a large number of people 

Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from 

developed sites Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available. 

urban - Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the background 

may have natural appearing elements. Renewable resource modification and utilization practices are 

to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Sights and 

sounds of humans, on-site, are predominant. Large numbers of users can be expected, both on site and 

in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and parking are available with forms of 

mass transit often available to carry people throughout the site.

recreation residences: Privately owned recreation cabins authorized by special use permit on National 

Forest System land that occupy planned, approved tracts or those groups of tracts established for 

recreation residence use.

recreation site: Specific places in the forest other than roads and trails that are used for recreational 

activities. These sites include a wide range of recreational activities and associated development. These 

sites include highly developed facilities like ski areas, resorts, and campgrounds. It also includes 

dispersed recreation sites that have few or no improvements but show the effects of repeated recreation 

use. 

recreation visit: An entry of one person to a recreation site or area of land or water for the purpose of 

participating in one or more recreation activities for an unspecified period.

recreational facilities: Refers to facilities associated with or required for outdoor recreational activities 

and includes, but are not limited to, parks, campgrounds, hunting and fishing lodges, and interpretive 

displays.

recreational river: Refer to Wild And Scenic River.

redd: Nest in gravel of stream bottom where a fish deposits eggs.

reforestation: Treatments or activities that help to regenerate stands of trees after disturbances such as 

timber harvest or wildfire. Typically, reforestation activities include preparing soil, controlling pests, and 

planting seeds or seedlings.

refugia: Areas that have not been exposed to great environmental changes and disturbances undergone by 

the region as a whole; refugia provide conditions suitable for survival of species that may be declining 

elsewhere.

regeneration: The process of establishing new plant seedlings, whether by natural means or artificial 

measures (planting).

regeneration harvest: A timber harvest by which a new age class is created by using clearcutting, seed 

tree, shelterwood, or selection methods.

regulations: Generally refers to the CFR, Title 36, chapter II, which covers management of the Forest 

Service.

rehabilitate: To repair and protect certain aspects of a system so that essential structures and functions 

are recovered, even though the overall system may not be exactly as it was before.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 289

relic: Persistent remnants of formerly widespread fauna or flora species existing in certain isolated areas 

or habitats. The existence of an organism or species in an otherwise extinct taxon (phylum, order, family, 

genus, or species) from an earlier time that has survived in an environment that has undergone 

considerable change.

renewable energy: Energy derived from natural sources, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, or 

geothermal resources, that does not consume the resource when used.

research natural area (RNA): An area set aside by a public or private agency specifically to preserve a 

representative sample of an ecological community, primarily for scientific and educational purposes. In 

Forest Service usage, Research Natural Areas are areas designated to ensure representative samples of as 

many of the major naturally–occurring plant communities as possible.

resident fish: Fish that spend their entire life in freshwater; examples include redband trout and bull trout 

a.

resource: Anything which is beneficial or useful, be it animal, vegetable, mineral, a location, a labor 

force, a view, an experience, etc. Resources, in the context of land use planning, thus vary from such 

commodities as timber and minerals to such amenities as scenery, scenic viewpoints, or recreation

opportunities.

responsible official: The Forest Service employee who has the authority to select and/or carry out a 

specific planning action.

restoration: Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, 

damaged, or destroyed. It is an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an 

ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity, and sustainability. Restoration is an attempt to return an 

ecosystem to its historic trajectory, but not necessarily to a former state.

resource allocation: The action of apportioning the supply of a resource to specific uses or to particular 

persons or organizations.

riparian area: An area with distinctive soils and vegetation between a stream, or other body of water, and 

the adjacent upland area consisting of vegetation that requires free, or unbound, water for survival.

riparian-dependent species: Plant species that rely on free or unbound water for establishment and 

survival, and animal species that would normally occupy, or rely on, riparian habitats.

riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs): Portions of watershed where riparian–dependent 

resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and 

guidelines. Riparian habitat conservation areas include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, 

intermittent headwater streams, and other areas where proper ecological functioning is crucial to 

maintenance of the streams’ water, sediment, woody debris, and nutrient delivery system.

fish-bearing streams: Riparian habitat conservation areas consist of the stream and the area on each 

side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, 

or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a 

distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet total, 

including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. In degraded or incised streams, the 

riparian management area should extend from the edge of the active channel to the outer extent of the 

former floodplain. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

290 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: Riparian habitat conservation areas consist of the 

stream and the area on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel 

to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of 

riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope 

distance (300 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. In 

degraded or incised streams, the riparian management area should extend from the water’s edge to the 

outer extent of the former floodplain.

ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: Riparian habitat conservation areas 

consist of the body of water or wetland and: the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or 

to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, or the extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas, or to 

a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the 

wetland greater than 1 acre or the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs, 

whichever is greatest.

seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands, seeps and springs less than 1 acre, and

landslide and landslide prone areas: This category applies to features with high variability in size 

and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum, the riparian habitat conservation areas should include:

o The extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas (including earthflows).

o The stream channel and extend to the top of the inner gorge, or in incised streams, to the edge of 

the former floodplain.

o The stream channel or wetland and the area from the edges of the stream channel or wetland to 

the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, extending from the edges of the stream channel to a 

distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is 

greatest. A site-potential tree height is the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees 

for a given site class.

o Intermittent streams are defined as any nonpermanent flowing drainage feature having a definable 

channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. This includes what are sometimes referred to 

as ephemeral streams if they meet these two physical criteria.. Accurate identification of these 

features is critical to the correct implementation of the strategy and protection of the intermittent 

stream and wetland functions and processes. Identification of these features is difficult at times 

due to the lack of surface water or wet soils during dry periods. Fish-bearing intermittent streams 

are distinguished from non-fish-bearing intermittent streams by the presence of any species of 

fish for any duration. Many intermittent streams may be used as spawning and rearing streams, 

refuge areas during flood events in larger rivers and streams or travel routes for fish emigrating 

from lakes. In these instances, the guidelines for fish-bearing streams would apply to those 

sections of the intermittent stream used by the fish.

.

riverine: On or near the banks of a river; riparian.

road: A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A road may 

be classified, unclassified, or temporary (36 CFR 212.1).

classified roads: Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to national forest lands that are 

determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including state roads, county roads, 

privately owned roads, forest roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service (36 CFR 212.1).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 291

closed road: A road with all use suspended year–long by an active form of facility management 

utilizing regulations and appropriate enforcement to secure and ensure user compliance with closure.

open road: A road that has no use restrictions or regulations imposed and is available for use by 

vehicles at any time during the year.

temporary roads: Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or 

emergency operation not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not necessary 

for long-term resource management (36 CFR 212.1).

unclassified roads: Roads on national forest lands that are not managed as part of the forest 

transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travel ways, and off-road vehicle tracks 

that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or 

other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization (36 CFR 

212.1).

road construction: Activity that results in the addition of forest classified or temporary road miles (36 

CFR 212.1). New construction activities may include vegetation clearing and grubbing, earthwork, 

drainage installation, instream activities, pit development or expansion, surfacing (including paving), and 

aggregate placement.

road decommissioning: Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a 

more natural state (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7703). Road decommissioning activities include revegetation, 

recontouring, water barring, roadbed scarification or ripping, culvert removal, berm construction, and side 

cast pullback. A road can also be “decommissioned” by taking it off the transportation system data base 

and removing the road sign that indicates the road number. This approach is used when a road is naturally 

closed and is hydrologically stable.

road density: An indicator of the concentration of roads in an area.

road maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the approved 

road management objective.

road maintenance levels (MLs): Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by, and 

maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with road management 

objectives and maintenance criteria. Roads assigned to MLs 2 through 5 are either constant service roads 

or intermittent service roads during the time they are open to traffic. 

Level 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the times they are closed to vehicular traffic. 

The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to 

adjacent resources to acceptable levels and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management 

activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned 

road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are prohibit and 

eliminate.

Roads receiving ML 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be 

managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while 

being maintained at ML 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, subject to prohibitions and restrictions, 

and may be available and suitable for nonmotorized users. 

ML 1 maintenance activities include road condition surveys, evaluation, and monitoring of 

maintenance needs. Activities include limited equipment operation, opening closed roads, manual 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

292 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

cleaning of drainage structures, and vegetation management that stabilizes or reduces erosion. Repairs 

are scheduled and completed within funding limitations when critical resource damage is reported.

Roadway activities including blading, clearing logs, and noncritical repairs that can be delayed are 

accomplished when the road is placed in an active status.

Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Providing access for passenger 

cars is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of administrative, permitted, 

dispersed recreation, and/or other specialized uses. Log hauling may occur. Appropriate traffic 

management strategies are either to discourage or prohibit passenger cars or to accept or discourage 

high-clearance vehicles.

ML 2 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, surface blading, 

drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip cleanup and repair, sign 

maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil stabilization are of prime 

importance. Many roads in this category have grass in the travel way. User comfort is not a 

consideration.

Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard passenger 

cars. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities.

Roads in this maintenance level are typically low-speed, single-lane, with turnouts and spot surfacing. 

Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic 

management strategies are encourage or accept. Discourage or prohibit strategies may be employed 

for certain classes of vehicles or users.

ML 3 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, surface blading, 

drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip cleanup and repair, sign 

maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil stabilization are of prime 

importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be needed on segments of multi-purpose 

roads.

Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at 

moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double-lane and aggregate-surfaced. However, some roads 

may be single-lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate trafficmanagement strategy is encourage. However, the prohibit strategy may apply to specific classes of 

vehicles or users at certain times.

ML 4 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard tree removal, surface blading, 

drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip cleanup and repair, sign 

maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil stabilization are of prime 

importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be needed on segments of multi-purpose 

roads.

Level 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. These roads 

are normally double lane, paved. Some may be aggregate-surfaced and dust-abated. The appropriate 

traffic management strategy is encourage.

ML 5 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, surface blading, 

drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, logging out, slide and slip cleanup and repair, sign 

maintenance and surfacing replacement. Drainage function and soil stabilization are of prime 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 293

importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be needed on segments of multi-purpose 

roads. All of the ML 5 roads within a national forest have a permanent (paved) surface.

road management objectives: Road management objectives define the level of service provided by a 

National Forest System road consistent with the surrounding recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) 

class.

semi–primitive nonmotorized (SPNM): Most semi-primitive nonmotorized areas do not have 

developed roads. All motorized traffic is prohibited. Semi-primitive nonmotorized roads provide 

hiking or equestrian trails on closed or decommissioned roads. 

semi–primitive motorized (SPM): Semi-primitive motorized roads are generally used for fourwheel drive, logging, or ranching activities. Passenger-car use is discouraged by entrance conditions 

or signage. Users can expect SPM roads where there are no attractions such as viewpoints or 

trailheads.

rural (R): Rural is generally the highest standard of road. These arterial roads provide the main

access to the national forest lands but generally lack the speeds and alignment provided by state 

highways. Roads are double–lane with a road-surface treatment and generally 24-feet wide. The road 

has center striping and often stripes marking the shoulders. Corresponds to a road Maintenance Level 

5 and Traffic Service Level A (abbreviated: 5-A).

road prism: an area consisting of the road surfaces and any cut slope and road fill.

road reconstruction: Activity that results in improvement or realignment of an existing classified road as 

defined below. Reconstruction activities may include vegetation clearing and grubbing, earthwork, 

drainage installation, instream activities, surfacing (including paving), and aggregate placement.

road improvement: Activity that results in an increase of an existing road’s traffic service level, expands 

its capacity, or changes its original design function.

road realignment: Activity that results in a new location of an existing road or portions of an existing 

road and treatment of the old roadway (36 CFR 212.1).

road restoration: Road restoration activities are commensurate with the assigned maintenance level and 

include storm proofing, bridge replacement, installation of drainage dips and water bars, culvert 

installation and upgrade, surface shaping, and draining, surface material processing. Refer to road 

maintenance.

roads subject to the Highway Safety Act: National Forest System roads open to use by the public for 

standard passenger cars. This includes roads with access restricted on a seasonal basis and roads closed 

during extreme weather conditions or for emergencies, but which are otherwise open for general public 

use.

road surface types: 

asphalt/concrete: A well-graded aggregate and asphalt cement.

aggregate: Stone, slag, gravel, or any other hard, inert, mineral material meeting certain specified 

quality requirements for use in a road pavement or surfacing structure.

chip seal: A road surface treatment consisting of one or more spray applications of asphalt followed 

immediately by an application of aggregate (chips) on a paved surface.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

294 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

grid–rolled: Aggregate consisting of native materials of a quality that can be taken directly from a 

given source, without crushing or screening, and broken down to a specified maximum dimension on 

the road by grid–rolling.

paved: One or more bituminous bound layers of aggregate placed on a prepared road foundation.

pit run: Aggregate consisting of native materials from a given source with a maximum size and 

grading suitable for placing directly on a road without crushing or screening.

native surface: A road surface consisting of soil or aggregate materials naturally existing at the road 

location.

spot rock: Aggregate placed on a road as a pavement or surfacing structure in designated areas that 

are not continuous throughout the entire length of the road.

strip rock: Aggregate placed on a road as a surfacing structure in designated areas or portions of a 

road greater than 200 feet in length but not continuous throughout the entire length of the road.

surface treated: One or more applications of asphalt or other processed or natural materials to a road 

surface to provide traction, abate dust, protect, or renew the surface without increasing pavement 

structural capacity. Surface treatment is commensurate with existing surface.

runoff (surface): Fresh water from precipitation and melting ice that flows on the earth’s surface into 

nearby streams, lakes, wetlands, or reservoirs.

S

salmonids: Fishes of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, chars, whitefish, ciscoes, and 

grayling.

salvage harvest: Harvest of trees that are dead, dying, or deteriorating due to fire, wind, insect or other 

damage, or disease.

satisfactory condition: A condition in which the soil is adequately protected and the forage species 

composition and production meets the land management plan objectives or the trend in forage species 

composition and production is acceptable.

savannah: The transitional biome between grassland and desert or desert and rainforest, typically having 

drought resistant vegetation dominated by grasses with scattered tall trees.

scabland: A region characterized by elevated tracts of rocky ground with little or no soil cover.

scale: (1) The level of resolution under consideration (for example, broad-scale or fine-scale); (2) the 

ratio of length on a map to true length.

scenery management system (SMS): The SMS is the method that was adopted after the Forest Plan was 

completed in 1990. The SMS utilizes two indicators to determine desired landscape character: ecological 

landscape integrity and scenic integrity. Ecological landscape integrity evaluates whether the landscape is 

managed in a sustainable and ecologically sound manner. Scenic integrity evaluates whether the 

landscape character is being managed in a way that conserves constituent values in terms of the level of 

human-caused deviations that are acceptable to the public (USDA Forest Service 1993 SMS 

HANDBOOK).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 295

scenic area: Places of outstanding or matchless beauty that require special management to preserve these 

qualities. They may be established under 36 CFR 294.1 whenever lands possessing outstanding or unique 

natural beauty warrant this classification. 

scenic class: Scenic class indicates the importance or value of a particular landscape determined by 

constituent information. 

scenic identity: The scenic image and identity is the landscape character of an area. The landscape 

character identifies the “ideal” or optimal set of valued scenery attributes and describes the setting 

provided by these scenery attributes within each biophysical setting. It is important to understanding of 

the process, structure, and functions that support the valued set of scenery attributes. This understanding 

helps identify conditions and stressors that put scenery resources at risk.

scenic integrity level: Measures the degree to which a landscape is free from visible disturbances that 

detract from the natural or socially valued appearance. Scenic integrity objectives establish the desired 

level of scenic integrity for an area. Scenic stability measures the degree to which the valued landscape 

character and its scenery attributes can be sustained through time and ecological progression. Scenic

stability objectives establish the desired level of scenic stability for a particular area. It is used to describe 

an existing situation, an objective for management, or desired conditions. 

very high scenic integrity: Scenery with fully intact landscape features and scenic compositions 

presenting the optimal landscape character in complete harmony, with very minute, if any, scenic 

discordance. Due to the optimal scenic integrity of the physical, biological, and cultural features in 

these scenic compositions, the landscape character and sense of place are expressed at the highest 

possible level. Very high scenic integrity is most compatible with wilderness, backcountry, 

biophysical, or cultural preserves, and other special classification areas.

high scenic integrity: Scenery with whole or nearly intact landscape features and scenic 

compositions that present the optimal landscape character completely or nearly in full, and contain 

scenic discordances that are not evident.

moderately high scenic integrity: Scenery with slightly altered landscape features and compositions 

in which the valued landscape character is the dominant scenic impression, yet minor discordance is 

apparent, but visually subordinate. The “moderate” level of scenic integrity in the Scenery 

Management Handbook has been split into two categories to reflect more accurately the scenic 

conditions on the in the Blue Mountains.

moderately low scenic integrity: Scenery with altered landscape features and compositions that 

display a beginning dominance of valued landscape character expression and readily noticeable 

discordance.

low scenic integrity: Scenery with obviously altered landscape features and compositions that 

dominate yet still express some aspects of valued landscape character. The scenic harmony of the 

valued landscape character is seriously fragmented and barely restorable within reasonable periods 

and resource expenditures.

very low scenic integrity: Scenery with extremely altered landscape features and composition that no 

longer sustains significant aspects of valued landscape character. The scenic harmony of the optimal 

landscape character does not exist and its restoration may be impossible if not unrealistic.

scenic integrity objective: An established goal for the management of the scenic resource applied to a 

specific portion of the forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

296 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

scenic river areas: Refer to Wild and Scenic River.

scenic river: Refer to Wild and Scenic River.

scoping process: A part of the NEPA process; the early stages of preparation of an environmental impact 

statement, early and open activities used to solicit public opinion, receive comments and suggestions, and 

determine the scope and significance of the issues to be considered in the development and analysis of a 

range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. Scoping may involve public meetings, 

telephone conversations, mailings, letters, or other contacts (40 CFR 1501.7).

screening: The reduction or elimination of the visual impact of any structure or land modification as seen 

from any public travel route within the national forests.

security: An area where wildlife, such as elk, retreat to for safety when disturbance in their usual range is 

intensified, such as by logging activities or during the hunting season.

secondary productivity: The growth of animal species that use the products derived from the growth and 

accumulation of plant biomass (primary productivity).

sediment: Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, gravity, ice, 

or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually will settle to the 

bottom.

sediment regime: The rate, frequency, magnitude, and duration of sediment movement. Refer to flow 

regime.

self-sustaining populations: Populations that are sufficiently abundant, interacting, and well-distributed 

in the plan area, within the bounds of their life history and distribution of the species and the capability of 

the landscape, to provide for their long-term persistence, resilience and adaptability over multiple 

generations.

sensitive soils: Forest land areas that have a moderate to very high hazard for soil compaction. Erosion, 

displacement, mass wasting, or forest floor displacement.

sensitive species: Plant or animal species identified by a regional forester for which population viability 

is a concern either: 1) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers 

or density; or 2) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that 

would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Those species that have appeared in the Federal Register as 

proposed for classification or are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened 

species, that are on an official state list, or that are recognized by the regional forester as needing special 

management to prevent placement on federal or state lists.

seral: Refers to the stages that plant communities go through during the progression in structure and 

composition over time. Development stages have characteristic structure and plant species composition. 

See succession for definitions of different seral stages.

seral stage: The developmental phase of a forest stand or rangeland with characteristic structure and plant 

species composition.

shade intolerant: Species of plants that do not grow well in or die from the effects of too much shade. 

Generally, these are fire-tolerant species.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 297

shade tolerant: Species of plants that can develop and grow in the shade of other plants. Generally, these 

are fire-intolerant species.

shrubland: Area of land where the potential vegetation is dominated by shrubs.

short term: Generally refers to a period of 10 years or less.

silvicultural system: A management process whereby forests are tended, harvested, and replaced, 

resulting in a forest of distinctive form. Systems are classified according to the method of carrying out the 

fellings that remove the mature crop and provide for regeneration and according to the type of forest 

thereby produced.

single-story: Vegetation with a single canopy layer.

site: (1)A specific location of an activity or project, such as a campground, a lake, or a stand of trees to be 

harvested; (2) The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a 

building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location itself maintains historical 

or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure [36CFR65] (historic or 

archaeological definition).

site-potential tree: The average maximum height of the tallest trees for a given site class.

snag: A standing dead tree usually greater than five feet in height and six inches in diameter at breast 

height (d.b.h.).

social well-being: A condition that enables citizens, communities, and visitors to contribute to their 

wellness, values and quality of life.

society: A group of people who have a common homeland, are interdependent, and share a common 

culture.

soil: The earth material that has been so modified and acted upon by physical, chemical, and biological 

agents that it will support rooted plants.

soil function: The characteristic physical and biological activity of soils that influences productivity, 

capability, and resiliency.

soil productivity: The inherent capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil’s chemical, 

physical, and biological properties (such as depth, temperature, water-holding capacity, and mineral, 

nutrient, and organic matter content). It is often expressed by some measure of biomass accumulation.

soil quality: The capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biological 

productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health.

soil stability: (1) Mass stability of the soil profile or resistance to mass failure; (2) stability of the soil 

surface with respect to accelerated sheet, rill, and gully erosion processes.

soil surveys: All soil surveys are made by examining, describing, and classifying soils in the field and 

delineating their areas on maps. The map scale for field mapping must be large enough to allow areas of 

minimum size to be delineated legibly. Recognition of the different soil survey levels is helpful for 

communicating about soil surveys and maps, even though the levels cannot be sharply separated from 

each other. The order of a survey is consequence of field procedures, the minimum size of delineation, 

and the kinds of map units that are used.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

298 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

source habitat: Habitat in such conditions that result in a positive or increasing population growth for a 

particular species. Those characteristics of vegetation that support long-term wildlife species persistence, 

or characteristics of vegetation that contribute to stable or positive population growth for a species in a 

specified area and time. Source habitats are described using dominant vegetation cover type and structural 

stage combinations that can be estimated reliably at the 247-acre (100-hectare) patch scale. Various 

combinations of these cover type–structural stages make up the source habitats for the terrestrial species 

discussed in this FEIS, and provide the range of vegetation conditions required by these species for food, 

reproduction, and other needs (Wisdom et al. 2000).

spatial: Related to or having the nature of space.

special habitat: A habitat which has a special function not provided by plant communities and 

successional stages. Includes riparian zones, snags, dead and downed wood, and edges (Thomas 1979).

specially designated areas: Also referred to as special areas and is one of the plan components. Areas 

designated because of their unique or special characteristics, such as botanical areas or areas designated 

by stature or administrative processes such as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, or research natural areas.

special use authorization: A permit, term permit lease, or easement which allows occupancy, use, rights, 

or privileges of national forest lands (36 CFR 251.51).

species: A population or series of populations of organisms that can interbreed freely with each other but 

not with members of other species.

species composition: The species that occur on a site or in a successional stage of a plant community 

(Thomas 1979).

species diversity: The number of species occurring in a given area.

species of concern: Species for which management actions may be necessary to prevent listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. Criteria for selection as a species of concern include:

• Identified as candidate and proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

• Has a G1 to G3 NatureServe ranking.

• Intraspecific taxa with NatureServe ranking of T1 to T3. 

• Has been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

sprouter: Flora capable of vegetative reproduction from roots or stems.

stand: A group of trees in a specific area that re sufficiently alike in composition, age, arrangement, and 

condition so as to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas.

stand composition: The vegetative species that make up the stand.

stand density: Refers to the number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in trees per acre.

stand initiation (SI): Stand conditions that arise following a stand-replacing disturbance such as wildfire 

or timber harvest. Colonizers disperse seed into disturbed areas, the seed germinates, and new seedlings 

establish and develop. A single canopy stratum of tree seedlings and saplings is present. Average tree 

diameters are generally less than five inches.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 299

stand-replacement fire: A fire severity classification where at least 75 percent replacement of the upper 

layer of vegetation is removed.

stand structure: The mix and distribution of tree sizes, layers, and ages in a forest. Some stands are all 

one size (single-story) some are two-story, and some are a mix of trees of different ages and sizes.

standard: A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decision making, established to 

help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to 

meet applicable legal requirements.

state and transition model: Nonequilibrium ecological model to describe vegetation dynamics of 

rangeland sites as adopted by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Models recognize multiple 

steady states of vegetation and emphasize disturbance processes.

strategy: Part two of a land management plan that explains the suitable uses and includes the special 

designated areas, and management categories.

stream channel: Refer to channel.

stem exclusion: The stage created when vigorous, fast growing trees occupy the growing space. 

Establishment of new trees is precluded by a lack of sunlight or moisture. This stage could be maintained 

by thinning or fire. Stands only have one dominant layer. Average tree diameters range from 5 to 20 

inches.

stringers: Relatively narrow areas suitable to be occupied by forested plant associations within a 

landscape that is otherwise unsuitable due to site or environmental factors.

stronghold: Directly associated with strong populations. For native fish, strong populations have stable 

numbers or are increasing, and all major life history forms that historically occurred within the watershed 

are present.

stocking level: The ratio of the current stand density to an assumed ideal level of stand density.

structure: (1) Any permanent building or facility, or part thereof such as barns, outhouses, residences, 

and storage sheds including transmission line systems, substations, commercial radio transmitters, relays 

or repeater stations, antennas, and other electronic sites and associated structures; or (2) the size and 

arrangement of vegetation, both vertically and horizontally.

structural stage: A stage of development of a vegetation community that is classified on the dominant 

processes of growth, development, competition, and mortality.

subalpine: A terrestrial community that generally is found in harsher environments than the montane 

terrestrial community. Subalpine communities are generally colder than montane and support a unique 

clustering of wildlife species.

subbasin: A drainage area of approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 acres, equivalent to a 4th-field HUC 

watershed.

subsistence: Customary and traditional uses of wild renewable resources (plants and animals) for food, 

shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, etc.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

300 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

subwatershed: A drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field HUC (12 digit). 

Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th field HUC) are contained within watersheds (5th field HUC, which in 

turn are contained within a subbasin (4th field HUC).

succession: The sequential replacement over time of one plant community by another, in the absence of 

major disturbance. Conditions of the prior plant community or successional stage create conditions that 

are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. The different stages of succession are often referred 

to as seral stages. Developmental stages are as follows: 

early seral: Communities that occur early in the successional path and generally have less complex 

structural developmental than other successional communities. Seedling and sapling size classes are 

an example of early seral forests. 

mid-seral: Communities that occur in the middle of the successional path. For forests, this usually 

corresponds to the pole or medium sawtimber growth stages. 

late-seral: Communities that occur in the later stage of the successional path with mature, generally 

larger individuals, such as mature forests.

suitable habitat: Habitat that currently has both the fixed and variable stand attributes for a given species 

habitat requirements. Variable attributes change over time and may include seral stage, cover type and 

overstory canopy cover.

suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of 

land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the alternative 

uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management 

practices.

suitable uses: Uses that are compatible with the desired conditions and objectives for a given area which 

are identified as guidance for project and activity decision making and do not represent a commitment or 

final decision approving projects or activities.

surface fire: A fire that burns surface litter, dead woody fuels, other loose debris on the forest floor, and 

some small vegetation without significant movement into the overstory, usually with a flame less than a 

few feet high.

surface water development: The practice of diverting or impounding surface water sources by the 

construction of dams, diversions, canals, or ditches for use, such as irrigation, livestock watering, and 

human consumption.

sustainability: Meeting needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future 

generations to meet their needs. Sustainability is composed of desirable social, economic, and ecological 

conditions or trends interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales, embodying the principles of 

multiple-use and sustained-yield (FSM 1905).

sustained-yield of products and services: The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a highlevel annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the National Forest System 

without impairment of the productivity of the land.

T

talus: A slope formed by the accumulation of rock debris at the base of a cliff.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 301

temporal: Related to time.

terrestrial: Pertaining to the land.

terrestrial wildlife: Wildlife species that dwell primarily on land (Thomas 1979).

thermal regulation: The processes by which many animals actively maintain the temperature of all or 

parts of their body; the protection against local climatic extremes provided by, for example, shade 

produced by vegetation, protection from wind or sun, or protection from extreme cold.

thinning: An operation to remove stems from a forest for the purpose of reducing fuel, maintaining stand 

vigor, regulating stand density/composition, or for other resource benefits. Although thinning can result in 

commercial products, thinning generally refers to noncommercial operations.

threatened species: Species listed under the Endangered Species Act by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. These species are likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range.

timber harvest: The removal of trees for wood fiber utilization and other multiple-use purposes.

timber production: The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated crops of 

trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use. For purposes of this 

subpart, the term timber production does not include production of fuelwood.

total maximum daily load (TMDL): A calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a 

waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the 

pollutant’s sources. The Clean Water Act, Section 303, establishes the water quality standards and TMDL 

programs.

traditional cultural areas: Those areas of the forest used by Native American Indian tribes for 

traditional activities and often referred to as “religious use areas” or “sacred areas.” They may include 

areas traditionally used for gathering of special forest products.

travel corridors: An area of vegetation that provides completely or partially suitable habitat for animals 

to travel from one location to another.

travel route: A route, such as a county or national forest road or river or trail, that is open for use by 

members of the public.

treaty-reserved right: Tribal rights or interests reserved in treaties, by Native American Indian tribes for 

the use and benefit of their members. The uses include such activities as described in the respective treaty 

document. Only Congress may abolish or modify treaties or treaty rights.

treaty resource: A resource associated with the language in a specific treaty, usually interpreted to 

include collections or association of species; not limited to a single species. For example: fish may 

include all fish species (some treaties included rights to erect temporary houses for curing fish); roots and 

berries may include a wide variety of plants that will encompass the nature of the plants as they were used 

historically; grasses are necessarily included for the treaty reserved right to graze cattle or livestock. 

Hunting rights may include all species of animals hunted in historic and prehistoric times. As these apply 

to the Forest Service, they are public natural resources on national forest lands, to which American Indian 

tribes have reserved certain rights for taking or gathering.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

302 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

trend: As used to define range conditions, the direction of change in range or forage condition or in 

ecological status.

tribe: Term used to designate any native American Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 

community which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United 

States to Indians because of their status as Indians.

trust resource: A resource or property that constitutes a corpus or object of trust that is held in trust status 

by another (trustee) on behalf of a beneficiary. A trustee is usually a governmental entity (Secretary of the 

Interior) who is assigned a trust duty to care for resources that are for the exclusive use and benefit of 

Indian tribes and/or their members. A beneficiary may be an Indian tribe or individual tribal member, who 

has property being held in trust status, for example: land, money, timber, or any Indian-owned asset.

U

understory: Lower vegetation in a forest, the small trees and other woody species/shrubs growing under 

a more–or–less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by the taller adjacent trees 

and other woody growth.

understory reinitiation (UR): New age classes of trees establish as the overstory trees die or are thinned 

and no longer occupy all of the growing space. Regrowth of understory vegetation then occurs, and trees 

begin to develop in vertical layers. This stage contains multiple layers and multiple tree sizes. Average 

tree diameters range from 5 to 20 inches.

uneven-aged management: The application of a combination of actions needed to simultaneously 

maintain continuous high-forest cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, and the orderly growth 

and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes to provide a sustained yield of forest 

products. Cutting is usually regulated by specifying the number or proportion of trees of particular sizes 

to retain within each area, thereby maintaining a planned distribution of size classes. Cutting methods that 

develop and maintain uneven-aged stands are single-tree selection and group selection.

uneven-aged management (group selection): The group selection variant of uneven–aged 

management is designed to facilitate the establishment of shade intolerant species, reduce damage to 

the residual stand, and lengthen the cyclic entry period. The opening created under the group selection 

prescription would often be no larger than one to two tree heights (as influenced by aspect and slope) 

so as not to lose the site protection afforded by the surrounding trees. Size, shape, and location of 

groups should be designed to achieve landscape character goals and scenic integrity objectives.

uneven-aged management (single-tree selection): This silvicultural system is intended to perpetuate 

uneven–aged stands composed of intermingled trees of differing ages, species, and sizes. Individually 

selected trees are removed to maintain a desired range of tree sizes over a prescribed distribution. 

Cyclic entries designed to control the structure and species composition and provide the openings 

necessary for establishment and growth of the continuously occurring regeneration are a function of 

the site quality and resource considerations.

ungulates: Hoofed, plant-eating mammals such as elk, deer, and cattle.

upland: The portion of the landscape above the valley floor or stream.

unroaded area: Portion of the national forest that does not contain classified roads. Refer to road.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 303

utility corridor: A parcel of land, without fixed limits or boundaries that is being used as the location for 

one or more transportation or utility rights-of-way.

V

vascular plants: Plants that have specialized tissues which conduct nutrients, water, and sugars, along 

with other specialized parts such as roots, stems, and reproductive structures. Vascular plants include 

flowering plants, ferns, shrubs, grasses, trees, and many others.

vector: An organism that carries or transmits a pathogenic agent from one host to another.

vegetation management: Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest vegetation in 

order to achieve desired results. Vegetation management is the practice of manipulating the species mix, 

age, fuel load, and /or distribution of wildland plant communities within a prescribed or designated area in 

order to achieve desired results. It includes prescribed burning, grazing, chemical applications, biomass 

harvesting, and any other economically feasible method of enhancing, retarding, modifying, transplanting, 

or removing the aboveground parts of plants.

vertebrate: An animal with a backbone; mammals, fishes, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are vertebrates.

viability: In general, viability means the ability of a population of a plant or animal species to persist for 

some specified time into the future.

viable population: A population that is regarded as having the estimated numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to ensure that its continued existence is well distributed in the project area.

vision: Part one of a land management plan that describes the roles, contribution, and desired conditions 

of the national. This section also contains monitoring measures to assess progress toward the desired 

conditions.

W

water right: A right to use surface water or ground water evidenced by a court decree or by a permit or 

certificate approved by the state water resources department. Statutory exempt uses of surface water and 

ground water are not water rights, nor are time-limited licenses. A perfected water right is defined by 

applicant name, source, purpose, amount (quantity, rate and duty), season of use, priority date, point of 

diversion, place of use, and certificate number.

water quality: A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, 

usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose.

watershed: (1) The region draining into a river, river system or body of water; or (2) subdivisions within 

a subbasin, which generally range in size from 40,000 to 250,000 acres; the fifth level (10-digit) in the 

hydrologic hierarchy.

watershed condition classes: Watersheds are rated as Class 1, 2, or 3.

Class 1 Condition: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

their natural potential condition. Drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and 

biological] conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in 

terms of supporting beneficial uses.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

304 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Class 2 Condition: Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable 

drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biological conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and 

riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses.

Class 3 Condition: Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to 

their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, 

chemical, and biological conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems do not support 

beneficial uses.

watershed function: The processes acting on hillslopes and stream channel within a drainage basin that 

control the movement of water, wood, sediment, and nutrients.

weed: A plant considered undesirable, unattractive, or troublesome, usually introduced and growing 

without intentional cultivation.

wetlands: Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to 

support and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life 

that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, 

river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds (Executive Order 11990, Section 7c).

wild and scenic river (WSR): Those rivers or sections of rivers designated as such by congressional 

action under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as supplemented and amended. Wild and scenic 

rivers include all national forest lands within the designated wild and scenic river corridor (15). The 

following classifications are used:

wild river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted.

scenic river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with watersheds 

still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

recreational river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or 

railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past.

study river areas: Those rivers formally designated by Congress to be studied under Sections 5(a) 

and 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

wildfire: An unplanned wildland fire including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped wildland fire 

use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where the objective is to put the 

fire out (NWCG 2012).

wildland: A nonurban, natural area that contains uncultivated land, timber, range, watershed, brush or 

grassland.

wildland fire: Any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct types of wildland fire 

have been defined and include wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. (NWCG 2012).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 305

wildland fire situation analysis (WFSA): A decision-making process that evaluates alternative 

management strategies against selected safety, environmental, social, economic, political, and resource 

management objectives (USDA Forest Service 1998).

wildland fire suppression: An appropriate management response to wildland fire that results in 

curtailment of fire spread and eliminates all identified threats from the particular fire. All wildland fire 

suppression activities provide for firefighter and public safety as the highest consideration, but minimize 

loss of resource values, economic expenditures, and/or the use of critical firefighting resources (USDA 

Forest Service 1998).

wildland fire use: The application of the appropriate management response to naturally-ignited wildland 

fires to accomplish specific resource management objectives in pre-defined designated areas outlined in 

Fire Management Plans. Operational management is described in the Wildland Fire Implementation Plan 

(WFIP) (NWCG 2012).

wildland-urban interface (WUI): The area directly adjacent to home and communities.

winter range: The area available to and used by wildlife (big game) during the winter season. Generally, 

lands below 4,000 feet in elevation, on south and west aspects, that provides forage and thermal/snow 

intercept.

woodland: Dry, low elevation areas with a potential vegetation type of juniper.

X

xeric: Very dry region or climate; tolerating or adapted to dry conditions. Dry soil moisture regime. Some 

moisture is present but does not occur at optimum levels for plant growth. Irrigation or summer fallow is 

often necessary for crop production
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

306 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Appendices

Appendix A – Maps (In a separate map packet)

Map 1. Location of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Map 2. Watershed Condition Framework ratings for the LJCRP area

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

Map 4. Droughty soils within the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

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

Map 6. Current level of connectivity between designated old groth (MA15) and other late seral old forest.

Map 7. Current forest canopy cover classes across the LJCRP area.

Map 8.Water quality limited waters associated with the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 9. Soils of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Map 10. Five Panel Map illustrating applicaton of FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71 potential wilderness criteria

Map 11a. Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan management areas and Alternative 2 treatments within the 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project boundaries

Map 11b. Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan management areas and Alternative 3 treatments within the 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project boundaries

Map 12. Existing condition – road status

Map 13. Alternative 1 - Road status

Map 14. Alternative 2 -Forest vegetation treatments, including the location of Alternative 2 treatments 

areas where the proposed Forest Plan (Eastside Screens) amendment would apply

Map 15. Alternative 2 - Road network

Map 16. Alternative 3 - Vegetation treatments, including location of Alternative 3 treatments areas where 

the proposed Forest Plan (Eastside Screens) amendment would apply 

Map 17. Alternative 3 - Road network

Map 18. Landforms of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project 

Map 19. Grazing allotments of the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project and Alternative 2 vegetation 

treatments

Map 20. Alternative 2 - Prescribed fire priorities

Map 21. Alternative 3 - Prescribed fire priorities

Map 22. Overlap of vegetation treatments under alternatives 2 and 3 with IRA, PWA, and other 

undeveloped lands

Map 23. Overlap of vegetation treatments under alternatives 2 and 3 with areas identified as unroaded by 

Oregon Wild

Map 24. Sensitive plant surveys and locations in the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area

Map 25. Estimated logging systems needed to implement Alternative 2

Map 26. Estimated logging systems needed to implement Alternative 3
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 307

Appendix B - Forest Plan Direction, and Other policies, Laws, 

Regulations, and Agreements

This appendix compiles or summarizes:

• General Forest Plan direction applicable to the LJCRP.

• More information on other policies, laws, treaties, and regulations pertinent to the LJCRP mentioned 

in Chapter 2.

• Relevant amendments to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan

Tiering and Incorporating by Reference 

In order to eliminate repetition and focus on site-specific analysis, this environmental impact statement is 

tiered to the following documents as permitted by 40 CFR 1502.20. 

Forest Plan Management Direction

This FEIS is tiered to the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the WWNF Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as amended (USDA Forest Service 1990)(WWNF Forest Plan) and the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan FEIS and Record of Decision dated April 

1982, as amended in 1983, 1984, and 2003 (USDA Forest Service 2003). The Comprehensive 

Management Plan (CMP) was incorporated into the WWNF Forest Plan.

The Forest Plan, as amended, includes management goals and objectives and standards and guidelines, 

both forestwide and specific to land allocations (management areas). 

The project area includes 8 Management Areas (MA) as described in the WWNF Forest Plan (starting pg. 

4-56). Timber Production Emphasis (MA-1) makes up approximately 28,256 acres of the project area. 

Wildlife/Timber (MA 3) includes another 36,068 acres. Outside the HCNRA, Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(MA 7), Research Natural Areas (MA 12) and Old Growth Preservation (MA 15) comprise approximately 

6,350 acres. The remaining 3 management areas within the project areas (approximately 28,735 acres) are 

within the HCNRA as described in the CMP (Appendix C, Table C1) and consist of HCNRA Dispersed 

Recreation/Native Vegetation (MA 9), HCNRA Forage Production (MA 10) and HCNRA Dispersed 

Recreation/Timber Management (MA 11).

MA 1 - Timber Production - emphasizes wood fiber production on suitable timber lands while 

providing high levels of forage and recreation opportunities. 

MA 3 - Wildlife/Timber - are similar to MA 1; however, timber management is designed to 

provide near-optimum cover and forage conditions on big game winter ranges .

MA7 - Wild and Scenic Rivers - Management is intended to preserve the special values of those 

rivers, such as Joseph Creek, which are part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

MA 9 – HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Native Vegetation - all activities will be managed to 

provide many opportunities for dispersed recreation and to enhance native vegetation. It is 

envisioned that these areas will eventually be almost entirely occupied by native plant species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

308 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

MA 10 - HCNRA Forage Emphasis - This management area lies within the grasslands 

interwoven with timbered stringers in the HCNRA. Timbered portions will provide old-growth 

habitat at approximately current levels.

MA 11- HCNRA Dispersed Recreation/Timber Management - These areas combine dispersed 

recreation with timber management on the more productive sites within the HCNRA. The 

management objective is to provide a variety of tree species, a diversity of healthy timber stands, 

and ample dispersed recreation opportunities.

MA 12 - Research Natural Areas (RNAs) - emphasizes the preservation of natural ecosystems for 

comparison with those influenced by humans; provides educational and research areas for 

ecological and environmental studies; and preserves gene pools for typical, rare, and endangered 

plants and animals. 

MA 15 - Old Growth Preservation- are intended to maintain habitat diversity, preserve aesthetic 

values, and provide old growth habitat for wildlife. 

Policies, Treaties and Regulations Pertinent to the LJCRP

Nez Perce Tribe Ceded Lands

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, including the LJCRP, contains lands ceded by the Nez Perce 

Tribe in 1855 through Treaty with the United States. Although tribal lands were ceded to the Federal 

Government, tribal sovereignty and treaty rights were reserved. The Forest Service, through the Secretary 

of Agriculture, lies within the executive branch of government and therefore has a trust responsibility to 

consult, cooperate, and coordinate with federally recognized tribes regarding decisions or policies that 

have the potential to affect tribal interests. The Forest Service is also vested with a statutory authority and 

responsibility for managing natural resources and their associated habitats on NFS lands. These natural 

resources are considered treaty resources by the Nez Perce Tribe. The LJCRP is located entirely within 

traditional territory of the Chief Joseph Band of the Nez Perce subject to the rights the Tribe reserved, and 

the United States secured, in the Treaty of 1855. The Chief Joseph Band of the Nez Perce is a constituent 

member of, and, represented by, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR). The CTCR 

was created by the Executive Order of 1872 as amended by the North-Half Agreement of 1891. The 

Colville Business Commission (CCT) delegated to the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) the 

responsibility of representing the CCT with regard to cultural resource management issues throughout the 

traditional territories of their constituent tribes (pers. comm. Guy Mora, THPO).

Tribal Consultation

The Forest Service Tribal consultation responsibilities are guided by a variety of laws and Executive 

Orders, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) as amended, Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

(AIRFA). Executive Orders and Memoranda include Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and E.O. 13007 (Accommodation of Sacred Sites). 

Consultation is also guided by Forest Service policy to maintain a government-to-government 

relationship with federally recognized Tribes, coordinate land and resources management plans and 

actions with tribal land and resource management plans and actions to promote the health of ecosystems, 

and consult with Tribes on matters that may affect tribal rights and interests (FSM 1563.03). Forest 

Service policy also provides direction to develop land management goals and objectives within the 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 309

framework defined by laws, Indian treaties, regulations, collaboratively developed public and Indian 

tribal values and desires, historical conditions, current and likely future ecological capabilities, a range of 

climate change predictions, the best available science, information, and technical and economic feasibility 

(FSM 2020.3). For a summary of staff to staff and government consultation between the IDT, WallowaWhitman National Forest, and the Nez Perce Tribe, refer to the Tribal Relations Specialist report.

Heritage Resources

The 2004 Programmatic Agreement between Region 6 of the Forest Service and the Oregon State 

Heritage Protection Office (SHPO) will guide compliance on heritage resource concerns.

Travel Management

Travel analysis assesses the current forest transportation system and identifies issues and assesses 

benefits, problems, and risks to inform decisions related to identification of the minimum road system per 

36 CFR Part 212.5(b)(1) and designation of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use per 36 CFR Part 

212.51. Travel analysis is not a decision-making process. Rather, travel analysis informs decisions 

relating to administration of the forest transportation system and helps to identify proposals for changes in 

travel management direction. Travel analysis (FSH 7709.55, chapter 20) is used to inform decisions 

related to identification of the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for 

administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1) and to inform decisions 

related to the designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use per 36 CFR 212.51. 2. Travel 

analysis for purposes of identification of the minimum road system is separate from travel analysis for 

purposes of designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Travel analysis for both purposes 

may be conducted concurrently or separately. Any proposals resulting from travel analysis for either 

purpose may be addressed in the same or different environmental analyses. The LJCRP decision may 

include proposed changes to the transportation system, or the responsible official may choose to defer any 

changes until the Subpart B travel analysis is complete.

Invasive Plant Management

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

species management documented prevention actions and Region-wide standards for invasive species 

management (USDA Forest Service 2005). In March 2010, the Final EIS for the WWNF Invasive Plants 

Treatment was completed. A Record of Decision was signed on April 2, 2010, but due to litigation, could 

not be fully implemented until a supplemental EIS (SEIS) was completed. The SEIS was signed in 2016. , 

Research Natural Areas

Establishment of research natural areas has been sanctioned in the Code of Federal Regulations in Section 

7 CFR 2.42, 36 CFR 251.23, and 36 CFR 219.25. Direction for establishment is provided in Forest 

Service Manual 4063 and in “A Guide for Developing Natural Area Management and Monitoring Plans” 

written by the Pacific Northwest Interagency Natural Area Committee.

Legal Requirements and Required Disclosures 

This FEIS adheres to the following Federal legal requirements 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190): The purposes of this act 

are “to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man 

and his environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and 

biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological 

systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

310 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Quality.” (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321). NEPA establishes the format and content requirements for 

environmental analyses and documentation. The preparation of this FEIS complies with NEPA. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (Pub. L. 4-588): This act guides development 

and revision of national forest land and resource management plans and contains regulations that 

prescribe how land and resource management planning is to be conducted on NFS lands to protect 

national forest resources. The different alternatives for this project were developed to comply with NFMA 

and to represent varying degrees of resource protection. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended: This act provides for the conservation of 

threatened and endangered species and their habitats. ESA requires that the Forest Service ensure that any 

actions it approves will not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Refer to the PETS wildlife and plants 

non-significant issue and the additional information provided in the plants, wildlife and fisheries sections 

in chapter 3. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918: This establishes an international framework for the 

protection and conservation of migratory birds. MBTA implements various treaties and conventions 

between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory 

birds. The act makes taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds, including nests and eggs, unlawful. A 

list of Neotropical migratory birds protected by MBTA is provided in 50 CFR 10.13. Additional 

information on MBTA can be found in the Wildlife Resources section in chapter 3. 

Executive Order (EO) 13186 (MBTA): In January 2001, the President signed an executive order 

outlining responsibilities of Federal agencies to protect migratory birds in compliance with MBTA. As a 

complementary measure to the executive order, the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to strengthen migratory bird conservation through 

enhanced collaboration between the agencies, in coordination with state, tribal, and local governments. 

Forest Service & FWS MOU: The purpose of this MOU is, “to strengthen migratory bird conservation 

by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts on migratory birds through enhanced collaboration between the Parties, in coordination with 

State, Tribal, and local governments.”. Under the MOU the FS Shall: Address the conservation of 

migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or revising management plans for 

national forests and grasslands, consistent with NFMA, ESA, and other authorities listed above. When 

developing the list of species to be considered in the planning process, consult the current (updated 

every 5 years) FWS Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008 (BCC), State lists, and comprehensive 

planning efforts for migratory birds. Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions 

on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and 

key risk factors.

Executive Order 11644 (February 8, 1972) “Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands,” as 

amended by EO 11989 (May 24, 1977): National direction for travel planning, specifically off-road use 

of motor vehicles on Federal lands, is provided by EO 11644 as amended. Section 3(a) of EO 11644 

directs the Forest Service to promulgate regulations that provide for designation of trails and areas for offroad motor vehicle use. The regulations require that designation of these trails and areas be based upon 

protection of NFS resources, promotion of public safety, and minimization of conflicts among uses of 

NFS lands. Section 9(b) was added to EO 11644 when it was amended by EO 11989. Section 9(b) 

specifically authorizes the Forest Service to adopt the policy to designate those areas or trails that are 

suitable for motor vehicle use and to close all other areas and trails to that use. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 311

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule: The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) sets forth 

particular requirements when timber may be cut, sold, or removed within Inventoried Roadless Areas. 

Criteria that only apply to the management within IRAs include:

• The timber is generally small diameter. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1).

• Timber cutting, sale, and/or removal are needed to maintain or improve one or more of the roadless 

area characteristics. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(1).

• The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental to the implementation of a management activity 

not otherwise prohibited. 36 CFR 294.13 (b)(2). This criterion would only be applied to cutting and 

removal of roadside danger trees.

• The cutting and sale of timber is expected to be infrequent. 36 CFR 294.13 (b).

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990: All proposed prescribed burning would be conducted in

compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) regulations and restrictions contained in the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (ODEQ 

Directive 1-4-1-601). Fuel activities can be timed to minimize the impacts of smoke on forest users and 

local communities. An operator’s burn plan is developed prior to ignition. On site weather conditions are 

monitored before, during, and after an ignition. Ocular smoke observations are made throughout the 

ignition phase. Residual smoke is monitored for dispersion and direction. No ignitions would occur if 

there is an air stagnation advisory in place within the northeast Oregon geographic area. No ignitions 

would occur if existing or forecast conditions would transport measurable smoke into downwind 

communities. The removal and direct treatment of biomass would reduce emissions should a wildfire 

occur. The effect of smoke under any action alternative would be short term. Particulate matter is not 

expected to exceed standards

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500) as amended in 1977 (Pub. L. 95-

217) and 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4), also known as the Clean Water Act: The primary objective of this act 

is to restore and maintain the integrity of the Nation’s waters by: 1) Eliminating the discharge of 

pollutants into the Nation’s waters; and 2) Achieving water quality levels that are fishable and 

swimmable. This act establishes a non-degradation policy for all federally proposed projects to be 

accomplished through planning, application, and monitoring of best management practices (BMPs) (see 

appendix G). Identification of BMPs is mandated by Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 (also 

referred to as the Clean Water Act), which states, “It is national policy that programs for the control of 

nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and implemented.” Additional information about BMPs is 

provided in appendix G and the Soil and Water Resources section in chapter 3. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplains: Requires that the Forest Service “avoid to the extent possible the 

long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupation or modification of floodplains. The 

proposed action is consistent with this executive order as it does not propose to occupy or modify any 

floodplains.

Executive Order 11990, Wetlands: Requires the Forest Service “avoid to the extent possible the long 

and short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. The proposed 

action is consistent with this executive order as it does not propose to cause the destruction or 

modification of any wetland.

The Antiquities Act of 1906: This act provides penalties for any person who shall appropriate, excavate, 

injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on 

lands owned by the government of the United States. Cultural resource surveys would be completed for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

312 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

any proposed addition to the current designated travel system and any cultural resources identified would 

be protected as required through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Nonsignificant Issues section). 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended: This act requires Federal 

agencies to consult with SHPO and local interested parties and American Indian tribes before 

nonrenewable cultural resources, such as archaeological sites and historic structures are damaged or 

destroyed. Section 106 of this act requires Federal agencies to review the effects that project proposals 

may have on cultural resources in the project area. It requires agencies to consider the effects of 

undertakings on properties eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by 

following the regulatory process specified in 36 CFR 800. Actions permitted, approved, or initiated by the 

Forest Service that may affect cultural resources must comply with provisions of the NHPA of 1966, as 

amended, and as implemented by Federal guidelines 36 CFR 800. Section 106 of the NHPA requires a 

Federal agency to take into account the effects of the agency’s undertaking on properties listed on, or 

eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979: ARPA prohibits the excavation, 

removal, damage, or destruction of archaeological resources located on public lands and specifies civil 

and criminal penalties for persons found guilty of violations. Authorized excavation and removal of 

archaeological resources requires a permit issued by the managing Federal agency. ARPA, as referenced 

in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552[b]), protects the confidentiality of 

archaeological sites from public disclosure. Other provisions of the law promote communication and 

cooperation between Federal agencies, American Indian tribes, professional archaeologists, and private 

individuals for the protection of archaeological resources on public lands. The procedures for 

implementing ARPA are outlined in 36 CFR, Part 296. 

Federal statutes governing theft and destruction of government property also prohibit the removal, 

damage, or destruction of archaeological resources on public lands (18 U.S.C. 641 and 18 U.S.C. 1361) 

(see Non-significant Issues section).

Invasive Species Executive Order (EO) 13112 of February 3, 1999: The Forest Service is obligated by 

law, and regulations such as Executive Order 13112, to respond to invasive species that threaten terrestrial 

and aquatic resources of the National Forest System and to collaborate with Federal, State, and local 

partners to address invasive species that can spread from adjacent lands. Forest Service policy for 

invasive species management and research has recently been updated by direction provided in Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 2900 and by directions provided in FSMs 3400 and 4000.

2013 National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management: The 2013 National Strategic 

Framework for Invasive Species Management prioritizes and guides the prevention, detection, and control 

of invasive insects, pathogens, plants, wildlife, and fish that threaten our Nation’s terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems. The Framework incorporates the Invasive Species Systems Approach (ISSA) developed by 

the Forest Service to respond to these threats over the next 5 to 10 years and supersedes the Invasive 

Species Strategy and Implementation Plan (2004). This Framework describes how National and Regional 

Invasive Species Issue Teams (NISIT and RISITs, respectively) will coordinate activities within the Forest 

Service and with Federal, State, and local partners. National priorities will be reviewed at least once every 

5 years and adjusted as needed. RISITs will assess and adjust their regional invasive species priorities for 

their respective ecosystems at least once every 5 years.

2013 Oregon Dept. of Agriculture Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System: Noxious weeds, 

for the purpose of this system, shall be listed as either A or B, and may be added to the T List, as directed 

by the Oregon State Weed Board.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 313

A Listed Weed – a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough 

infestations to make eradication or containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in 

neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent. Infestations are subject to 

eradication or intensive control when and where found.

B Listed Weed – a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have 

limited distribution in some counties. Limited to intensive control at the state, county or regional level as 

determined on a site specific, case-by-case basis. Where implementation of a fully integrated statewide 

management plan is not feasible, biological control (when available) shall be the primary control method.

T Designated Weed – Annually, a designated list of weed species is selected that will be the focus for 

prevention and control by the Noxious Weed Control Program. Action against these weeds will receive 

priority. T designated noxious weeds are determined by the Oregon State Weed Board and directs ODA to 

develop and implement a statewide management plan. T designated noxious weeds are species selected 

from either the A or B list.

Executive Order 12898: Executive Order 12898 directs Federal agencies to make environmental justice 

part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations 

and low-income populations. An associated memorandum emphasizes the need to consider these types of 

effects during NEPA analysis. The proposed action and alternatives would not disproportionately 

adversely affect minority or low-income populations (including American Indians) because the WWNF 

Travel Management Plan affords access to all groups equally

Hunting: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates hunting in the Chesnimnus and Sled 

Springs Game Management Unit through controlled hunts which requires a hunting tag.

Other Policies, Laws, Treaties and Regulations

This project is also consistent with:

• Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ)

• Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements

• ORS 2013 564.105 (Responsibility to protect and conserve native plants by Oregon state law)

• USDA viability regulation 9500-004 2008

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

• Other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations, and Forest Service manuals and handbooks. 

• Wallowa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Wallowa County 2006). 

• 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.

• National Fire Plan (August 2000) developed with the intent of responding to severe wildland fires and 

their impacts to communities while addressing five key points: firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous 

fuels reduction, community assistance and accountability. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

314 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

• The Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan with Multi-Species Habitat 

Strategy (Wallowa County and Nez Perce Tribe 1999) provides a plan to restore and maintain habitat 

for chinook salmon and possibly other salmonid fish in Wallowa County, Oregon. 

Plan Amendments

Major plan amendments relevant to this project include:

PACFISH – In 1995, the “Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous fish-producing Watersheds in 

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

amended the Forest Plan (US Department of Agriculture 1995). PACFISH added goals and objectives for 

anadromous fish habitat condition and function, and identified Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

(RHCAs), where management activities will meet interim standards and guidelines.

Eastside Screens -In 1993, the Forest Service adopted interim measures to preserve latesuccessional/old-growth forests on the eastside of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington until they 

could be replaced by more permanent and complete decisions. These measures, known as the Eastside 

Screens, consist of a series of procedures for screening proposed timber sales. Among other things, the 

Eastside Screens prohibit logging live trees greater than 21-inches in diameter at breast height. The 

adoption of the Eastside Screens amended all land and resource management plans (Forest Plans) for 

National Forests east of the Cascade Crest.

These and other relevant Forest Plan amendments are summarized chronologically in the table below:

Amendments to the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan

Amendment 

Number Date Amendment Topic

4 04/02/1992 Changed standards and guidelines to say management of competing and 

unwanted vegetation will tier to the FEIS for Managing Competing and 

Unwanted Vegetation, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

December 1988 or subsequent NEPA documents.

14 (RF#1) 05/20/1994 Extended interim management direction establishing riparian, ecosystem, and 

wildlife standards for timber sales on Eastside forests pending completion of the 

Eastside Ecosystem Management Strategy. (Regional Forester Amendment 

#1).

11 05/26/1994 Added direction for long and short term snag management levels. Redesigned 

Sufferin Smith Timber Sale to meet eastside ecosystem screens.

13 06/07/1994 Incorporated management direction for the Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic 

River.

17 02/22/1995 Documented selection of the preferred alternative for the Washington 

Watershed Project for fuels reduction within the Baker City Watershed. 

Amendments are 1) eliminate the Washington Gulch C&H domestic grazing 

allotment and close the area to domestic livestock grazing; 2) treatment of 

late/old structure stands – treatment will not meet RF 1; 3) allocate 300 acres of 

old-growth habitat (MA 15) and a 300-acre pileated woodpecker feeding area.

RF 3 02/24/1995 Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH). 

(Regional Forester Amendment #3). 

RF 2 06/08/1995 Revised Interim Standards for Timber Sales on Eastside Forests. (Regional 

Forester Amendment #2). 

RF 4 07/28/1995 Interim Strategies for Managing Inland Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern 

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (INFISH). (Regional 

Forester Amendment #4). 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 315

Amendments to the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan

Amendment 

Number Date Amendment Topic

19 07/31/1995 Documented selection of the preferred alternative for the Eagle-Paddy Timber 

Sale, which affected the Eastside Screens.

22 12/18/1996 Documented selection of the preferred alternative for Dark Horn Salvage Sale 

Project. Affected PACFISH by treating riparian habitat conservation areas.

23 12/18/1996 Documented selection of the preferred alternative for Eagle Holcomb Timber 

Sale. Affected Eastside Screens by harvesting trees greater than 21 inches 

DBH. As a result of administrative appeals, trees greater than 21 inches were 

dropped from the sale.

21 05/13/1997 Documented selection of preferred alternative for Spring Creek Restoration 

Project. Affected PACFISH by treating riparian habitat conservation areas. 

24 07/14/1997 Allowed harvest in 34 acres of Late Old Structure stands in the Dry Melon 

Timber Sale. Affected Regional Forester Amendment #2 by harvesting LOS 

stages in a watershed that is below the Historic Range of Variation for LOS.

26 03/20/2000 Allowed cutting of trees greater than 21 inches in diameter on the Starkey 

Research Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project to validate squirrel/dwarf 

mistletoe research.

27a 05/10/2000 Changed the Government Draw Research Natural Area from a “proposed RNA” 

to an “established RNA”. Name was later changed to Gerald S. Strickler RNA.

27b 05/01/2001 Carrol Creek Fire Salvage and Restoration Project – Modified area of Old Growth 

designation.

28 05/25/2001 Changed Vance Knoll Research Natural Area from a “proposed RNA” to an 

“established RNA”. 

29 07/21/2003 Revised Comprehensive Management Plan for the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area.

31 11/10/2004 Changed Duck Lake Research Natural Area from a “proposed RNA” to an 

“established RNA”.

32 12/15/2004 Mt. Emily Fuels Reduction project – The Forest Plan Amendment includes 

changes to two sections in the Forest Plan for the Mt. Emily analysis area. The 

two sections are: 1) treatment of late and old structure that are below the 

historic range of variability and 2) treatment in the Bull Canyon allocated old 

growth (MA 15). 

RF 5 10/11/2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing 

Invasive Plants – new goals, objectives, and standards for managing invasive 

plants.

34 6/28/2006 Mt. Emily II – Forest Plan amendments for: 1) treatment of late and old structure 

that are below the historic range of variability and 2) added applicable 

conservation measures from the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy for the project area.

35 2/22/2007 Bald Angel Vegetation Management Project –Forest Plan amendment needed 

for treatment of late and old structure that is below the historic range of 

variability – Decision pulled in July 2006, new decision made in February, 2007

36 12/18/2006 Mt. Howard - Forest Plan amendments for: 1) treatment of late and old 

structure below the historic range of variability and 2) added applicable 

conservation measures from the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy for the project area.

38 8/18/2008 Horsefly Vegetation Management Project – Forest Plan Amendments needed 

for 1) 1) treatment of late and old structure below the historic range of variability, 

2) treatment in areas of marginal cover in MA 3, and 3) removal of trees over 

21” dbh to treat mistletoe infestation
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

316 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Amendments to the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan

Amendment 

Number Date Amendment Topic

39 4/9/2010 Sugar Vegetation Management Project – Forest Plan amendment for treatment 

of LOS below HRV. 

40 8/26/2010 Tremble Aspen Restoration Project – Forest Plan amendment for 1) harvest of 

live trees greater than 21-inch diameter, and 2) harvest within LOS for other 

than moving from one LOS stage to another.

42 11/30/11 Cove II WUI – Forest Plan amendments for 1) harvest in MSLT below HRV, and 

2) harvest in MA 15 old growth.

43 Decision 

Withdrawn

Travel Management Plan

44 Snow Basin Vegetation Management Project – Forest Plan amendment for 1) 

harvest of live trees great than 21-inch diameter, and 2) harvest in LOS below 

HRV.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 317

Appendix C - Landscape Modeling Methods 

State-and-transition Modeling Overview

Scenario projections for vegetation growth, development, management, natural disturbance, climate 

change interactions, and some cumulative effects for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration project area 

were done using state and transition models (STMs) developed as part of the Integrated Landscape 

Assessment Project (ILAP). ILAP was designed to support ecosystem management planning and 

assessments across all forests, woodlands, and arid lands of Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and 

Washington. The project explored the dynamics of broad scale, multi-ownership, vegetated landscapes by 

integrating information about current and future vegetation and fuel conditions, climate change, wildlife 

habitat, fuel treatment economics, and community economics (Burcsu et al. In press). STMs were used by 

the ILAP effort to represent the range of vegetation types from forested to arid lands and project changes 

from vegetation community development, natural disturbances, and management events. 

According to Burcsu et al. (In press):

“STMs can be thought of as box and arrow diagrams of vegetation where boxes represent states 

within the vegetation type in which properties are temporally-related and can be described using 

structural and functional attributes, and may include one or more successional phases 

(Bestelmeyer et al. 2009). In this concept arrows represent the drivers causing state change, such 

as succession, disturbance, and management (Stringham et al. 2003). STMs can be designed to 

address both broad- and fine-scale research questions. STMs have been used extensively in 

rangeland management to represent highly dynamic and perturbation-sensitive rangeland 

ecosystems (Stringham et al. 2003, Briske et al. 2005, Petersen et al. 2009), examine ecosystem 

resilience and the effects of restoration (Forbis et al. 2006), to project the distribution of states on 

the landscape and their associated changes through time as part of an integrative modeling 

framework for planning (Baker 1989, Hemstrom et al. 2007, Vavra et al. 2007, Wales et al. 2007, 

Bestelmeyer et al. 2009). As a decision support tool, this type of model allows synthesis of 

assumptions about vegetation growth, natural disturbance regimes, and management regimes in a 

single modeling environment (Bestelmeyer et al. 2003, Hemstrom et al. 2007). Models developed 

under this framework are also relatively simple to parameterize and can integrate information from 

expert opinions with information derived from data (Stringham et al. 2003, Provencher et al. 

2009).”

“...individual STMs represented vegetation dynamics (alternate states, successional processes, 

disturbance, etc.) within units of potential vegetation. Potential vegetation was a useful modeling 

unit because common species assemblages, site productivity and disturbance patterns could be 

represented, and finer classifications (plant association groups and plant associations) commonly 

used by federal land management agencies for planning and project implementation (e.g., (Hall 

1998)) could also be included. More importantly, potential vegetation types provided concise 

descriptions of biophysical conditions and disturbance regimes. Within our project area, potential 

vegetation maps provided the ecological boundaries and area in which each STM operated, similar 

to the use of Biophysical Setting (BpS) by the LANDFIRE project (Rollins 2009), or the 

Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) by the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(www.nrcs.usda.gov).”

Burcsu et al. (In press) describe the individual state classes (boxes) within ILAP STMs as representing 

cover types, usually the dominant species or vegetation assemblage, and structural stages, based on 

physical attributes such as vegetation height, percent cover, and canopy layers. For example, in a forest 

type STM a state may have represented ponderosa pine of the 10-15” diameter class in multiple structural 

stages, depending on whether it had open, mid, or closed canopy cover. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

318 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

The transitions (arrows) in the STMs simulated successional processes such as growth and development, 

natural disturbances such as wildfire and insect outbreaks, and management actions such as prescribed 

wildfire and tree harvesting (Burcsu et al. In press). Transitions were classified as either deterministic or 

probabilistic. Deterministic transitions occurred at a specific vegetation age, whereas probabilistic 

transitions were defined by an annual transition probability. Some transitions moved vegetation from one 

state class to another, for instance a stand-replacing disturbance moved vegetation from a dense forest to a 

grass/forb state. Other transitions resulted in vegetation remaining in the same state, such as surface fires, 

mild insect activity, drought, and some types of grazing. 

To link these abstract STM states to current landscape conditions, spatial data representing current 

vegetation conditions were used. The spatial area in each of the current vegetation’s discrete classes (of 

cover type and structure) allocated area by modeling strata into the various states within a model, forming 

the modeling initial conditions. These initial conditions provided the starting point from which STMs 

projections began. Current vegetation data came from a combination of maps developed from recent stand 

examinations for those vegetation stands within the Lower Joseph project area and ILAP data for the 

stands surrounding the project area. Current and potential vegetation data were re-sampled from the 

original ILAP 30m pixels to 90m pixels or, in the case of recent stand exams, from stand exam polygons 

to 90m pixels. 

STMs were run using the StSim modeling platform (http://www.apexrms.com/projects/stsm). All models 

used Monte Carlo simulations of variation in wildfire and insect/disease disturbances. Except for the 

Historical Range of Variability simulations, wildfire and other natural disturbance probabilities were from 

the ILAP models and, for wildfire, were derived from Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity data 

(www.mtbs.gov). Annual variation in wildfire was estimated from the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity 

data. Annual variation in insect/disease disturbances came from expert opinion supplied by Craig Schmidt 

(entomologist, USDA Forest Service, retired) and other local experts. 

General Assumptions and Data Sources

The modeling area is a rectangle that includes the LJCRP area. The rectangle is large enough to reduce or 

eliminate edge effects for fire and other disturbances that propagate into the Lower Joseph Project Area 

from origin points outside the project area. The modeling rectangle is about 453,000 acres in size. 

National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Project Area are about 100,000 acres. Project area boundary 

spatial data were supplied by the Blue Mountains Restoration Team (BMRT). Hemstrom selected the 

modeling rectangle.

To model direct and indirect effects, management disturbances are turned off on all lands outside the 

project area. Cumulative effects assessments used management disturbance assumptions for non-NFS 

lands based on the best available information.

Outside the project area, existing vegetation condition spatial data for cover type and structure stage are 

from the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP) as modified by Chris Zanger (TNC) using 

methods developed by Mike Simpson and others. Data were re-sampled to a 90m grid (approximately 2 

acres per grid cell).

For the project area only, data from local stand exams and the Wallowa-Whitman NF EVG database were 

substituted for ILAP data. These local data for the project area were supplied by the BMRT and were 

cross-walked to modeling cover types and structure classes by Hemstrom.

Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) spatial data came from ILAP.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 319

Spatial data on Management Areas from the existing Wallowa-Whitman NF Plan were supplied by the 

BMRT, accessed from: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/data-library/gis/umatilla/index.shtml (Wallowa-Whitman, 

Umatilla, Malheur), and http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/data-library/gis/ochoco/ (Ochoco).

Proposed and alternative commercial harvest unit and potential pre-commercial thinning unit spatial data 

were supplied by the BMRT.

Preliminary timber volume outputs were estimated using volume tables for each state class generated by 

Xiaoping Zhou (PNW Research Station) specifically for the Blue Mountains. She used Forest Inventory 

and Analysis plot data to estimate volume, biomass, and other characteristics as part of the ILAP effort 

(Zhou and Hemstrom 2010). A difference method was used to estimate removed volume: volume in the 

ending state class following a timber harvest transition was subtracted from volume in the beginning state 

class before harvest. The difference was assumed to approximate or index the timber volume removed by 

harvest transitions. 

All spatial inputs to the model were re-sampled to a 90m grid to match the existing and potential 

vegetation data inputs. This resulted in the generalization of finer-scale data.

Reference Conditions Scenario

The Reference Conditions (RC) scenario reflects the long-term effects of no management and no wildfire 

suppression, hypothetically representing the Historic Range of Variation, e.g. conditions prior to about 

1850. 

Wildfire probabilities were cross-walked to ILAP PVTs from LANDFIRE National (2010) models and 

biophysical environment data. A group involving Shlisky, Zanger (TNC), Simpson, Hemstrom, and others 

developed the cross-walk of LANDFIRE biophysical environments to PVTs. In general, LANDFIRE 

wildfire probabilities for the reference condition were four to eight times greater than current annual 

probabilities, though there was considerable variation.

There were no available assumptions to use for reference conditions insect and disease disturbances, so 

current insect and disease disturbance assumptions were used. 

RC models were run for 500 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations, beginning with current conditions. 

Examination of the results suggested that vegetation and disturbance conditions changed rapidly for the 

first 150 years, then stabilized around a set of values after about 300 years. Model results from years 300 

to 500 years were used for analysis.

Initial conditions are not considered to highly influence final, stable conditions produced after 300-500 

years of simulation.

Wildfire Scenarios Methods

The Reference Condition (HRV) model was run for 500 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations. The last 50 

years from each Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the average amount of stand replacement 

wildfire (WFSR), mixed severity wildfire (WFMS), and non-lethal wildfire (WFNL). The standard 

deviation was also calculated.

Each management scenario (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) was run for 30 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations. 

All 30 years from each Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the average amount of stand 

replacement wildfire (WFSR), mixed severity wildfire (WFMS), and non-lethal wildfire (WFNL). The 

standard deviation was also calculated.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

320 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

All potential vegetation types were lumped as were all management areas when statistics were computed. 

This gave overall estimates of the average (and SD) amount of WFSR, WFMS, and WFNL that allows 

comparison of the amount of wildfire by severity class for the HRV, Alt 1, Alt 2, and Alt 3 Scenarios.

No Action Scenario (Alternative 1)

The No Action (NA) scenario reflects short to mid-term effects of current levels of stand growth and 

succession without management, aside from current levels of fire suppression. 

All management activities aside from current levels of fire suppression were turned off on all lands.

Models were run for 30 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations, starting with current conditions.

Proposed Action Scenario (Alternative 2)

The Proposed Action (PA) scenario reflects short to mid-term effects of the proposed actions developed 

by the BMRT. The PA is designed to actively move as much area as realistically possible toward reference 

conditions across multiple management areas.

Commercial thinning was applied to all commercial thinning unit areas within boundaries supplied by the 

BMRT. These treatment boundaries crossed an assortment of management areas. The PA allowed limited 

harvest of trees over 21” DBH as long as the trees were not old. The state and transition model includes 

two kinds of commercial thinning partial harvests (PH); one that causes a change in cover type (e.g. from 

Douglas-fir to western larch in cool, moist forests) and one that does not. Modeling assumed that 

commercial thinning targeted to change cover types might harvest some level of trees over 21” DBH, but 

commercial thinning that does not change cover type would remove very few, if any, trees over 21” DBH. 

Since the PA scenario was designed to move cover type to that reflected by reference conditions, the 

model emphasized thinning that changed cover type by equally splitting harvest targets between the two 

types of thinning. 

Stand improvement is also known as pre-commercial thinning (PCT), and was applied in a similar fashion 

to treatment area boundaries supplied by the BMRT. PCT was applied in two ways in the model; one that 

changed cover type and one that did not. PCT was only applied to seedling/sapling and pole size classes 

in the model and was assumed not to remove any trees over 21” DBH regardless of scenario. Since the PA 

scenario attempted to move forest cover type toward reference conditions, the models targeted equal 

amounts of PCT that changed cover type and PCT that did not. The model assumed that PCT would be 

done over a period of 10 years and would target the entire area within the PCT unit boundaries supplied 

by the BMRT. Where commercial and PCT unit boundaries overlapped, they were targeted for 

commercial harvest rather than PCT.

Prescribed Fire was modeled for all appropriate dry forest stands (e.g. where trees were large enough to 

survive prescribed fire). This dry forest prescribed fire effort started after the initial 10 year period and 

continued for 20 years was allowed in any management area within the 103,000 acre project area. 

Prescribed fire was modeled to achieve a 1 in 20 probability for any acre to be treated in any one year. 

Time since treatment for prescribed fire was set to 20 years to prevent re-treating the same areas within 

the 20 year time frame.

Models were run for 30 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 (A3) removes PH and PCT treatment from management areas designated as inventoried 

roadless, old growth management areas (MA 15), and the riparian habitat conservation area network. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 321

Excluded management area designations were supplied by the BMRT. It also removes harvest of trees 

over 21” DBH. 

The models were run on vegetation data derived from the area excluded from both PH and PCT 

treatments using designations supplied by the BMRT. This removed considerable area from treatment 

compared to the PA scenario and resulted in relatively lower treatment amounts over the 10 year treatment 

period compared to the PA.

The model turned off all PH treatments that changed forest cover type since these treatments were 

assumed to remove some trees over 21” DBH. However, the model did not turn off PCT treatments that 

changed cover type because A3 still had the goal of moving cover type toward reference conditions within 

the constraints imposed. PCT was assumed not to remove trees over 21” DBH. 

Prescribed fire was modeled for all appropriate dry forest stands (e.g. where trees were large enough to 

survive prescribed fire). This dry forest prescribed fire effort started after the initial 10 year period and 

continued for 20 years. Prescribed fire was allowed in any management area within the 103,000 acre

project area. Prescribed fire was modeled to achieve a 1 in 20 probability for any acre to be treated in any 

one year. Time since treatment for prescribed fire was set to 20 years to prevent re-treating the same areas 

within the 20 year time frame.

Models were run for 30 years and 5 Monte Carlo simulations.

Results – Vegetation Change under Current Climatic Conditions

The tables below summarize the percentage of each PVG in each cover type and average tree size for the 

current condition and conditions projected 10 and 30 years into the future. Current conditions of forest 

cover type and stand size class were compared to projected future conditions at years 10 and 30 for 

alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Potential vegetation types were combined into three potential vegetation groups 

(non-forest, moist forest, and dry forest) to simplify analysis and results. Currently (year 0), Douglas-fir 

(DF) cover types make up 57% of the moist forest PVG while 28% is grand-fir/Engelmann spruce 

(GFES) and the rest is in Douglas-fir/grand fir (DG), ponderosa pine (PP), and western larch/lodgepole 

pine (WLLP) cover types. Projected 30-year results indicate that alternatives 2 and 3 are likely to increase 

WLLP compared to alternative 1 in moist forests. Similarly, dry forests currently are dominated by 

Douglas-fir cover types with lesser amounts of PP and DG cover types. Projections indicated that after 30 

years, the representation of PP cover types in dry forests would increase in alternatives 2 and 3 compared 

to alternative 1. Due variation in data sources, minor data correction since modeling was conducted, and 

rounding errors, current conditions displayed here may differ slightly from those displayed in the 

Vegetation sections of the FEIS, although trends are consistent.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

322 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

% of PVG year 

0

nonforest DF DG GFES PP WLLPTotal 

%

non-forest 89 7 2 0 2 0 100

moist forest 4 57 2 28 2 6 100

dry forest 9 53 17 1 21 0 100

Alt 1 - % of 

PVG year 10

nonforest DF DG GFES PP WLLPTotal 

%

Alt 1 - % of 

PVG year 30

nonforest DF DG GFES PP WLLPTotal 

%

non-forest 89 7 2 0 2 0 100 non-forest 89 7 2 0 2 0 100

moist forest 4 54 2 31 2 6 100 moist forest 4 50 2 33 2 8 100

dry forest 9 52 17 1 22 0 100 dry forest 9 50 16 1 24 0 100

Alt 2 - % of 

PVG year 10

nonforest DF DG GFES PP WLLPTotal 

%

Alt 2 - % of 

PVG year 30

nonforest DF DG GFES PP WLLPTotal 

%

non-forest 89 7 2 0 2 0 100 non-forest 89 7 2 0 2 0 100

moist forest 4 56 2 25 2 10 100 moist forest 4 52 2 27 2 13 100

dry forest 9 47 15 1 29 0 100 dry forest 9 45 14 1 31 0 100

Alt 3 - % of 

PVG year 10

nonforest DF DG GFES PP WLLPTotal 

%

Alt 3 - % of 

PVG year 30

nonforest DF DG GFES PP WLLPTotal 

%

non-forest 89 7 2 0 2 0 100 non-forest 89 7 2 0 2 0 100

moist forest 4 56 2 27 2 9 100 moist forest 4 51 2 28 2 13 100

dry forest 9 48 16 1 26 0 100 dry forest 9 46 15 1 29 0 100

Moist forests are currently dominated by an even mix of small (10-15” DBH), medium (15-20” DBH), and large (over 20” DBH) trees. Thirty year 

projections indicated that all three alternatives might produce declines in large trees and an increase in small or medium trees, due mostly to losses of large 

trees to insects and disease. Alternatives two and three retain more large trees than alternative one, with Alternative 2 retaining slightly more than 

Alternative 3. The story is different in dry forests where alternatives two and three produce higher proportions of large trees than are present in the current 

condition or that might be produced by alternative one. Alternatives two and three produce about the same amounts of large trees after 30 years in dry 

forests. Due variation in data sources, minor data correction since modeling was conducted, and rounding errors, current conditions displayed here may 

differ slightly from those displayed in the Vegetation sections of the FEIS, although trends are consistent.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 323

% of PVG 

year 0

nonforest Grass/Forb <5"5-

10"

10-

15"

15-

20" >20"

Total 

%

nonforest 89 0 2 0 4 3 2 100

moist 

forest 4 0 15 9 25 24 23 100

dry forest 9 1 15 26 2 34 14 100

Alt 1 - % 

of PVG 

year 10

nonforest GF <5"5-

10"

10-

15"

15-

20" >20"

Total 

%

Alt 1 - % 

of PVG 

year 30

nonforest GF <5"5-

10"

10-

15"

15-

20" >20"

Total 

%

nonforest 89 0 2 0 4 3 2 100 non-forest 89 0 2 3 0 4 2 100

moist 

forest 4 2 12 14 37 17 13 100

moist 

forest 4 3 7 13 20 45 9 100

dry forest 9 7 11 14 24 26 10 100 dry forest 9 5 8 30 19 21 8 100

Alt 2 - % 

of PVG 

year 10

nonforest GF <5"5-

10"

10-

15"

15-

20" >20"

Total 

%

Alt 2 - % 

of PVG 

year 30

nonforest GF <5"5-

10"

10-

15"

15-

20" >20"

Total 

%

nonforest 89 0 2 0 4 3 2 100 non-forest 89 0 2 0 4 3 2 100

moist 

forest 4 2 13 14 31 19 17 100

moist 

forest 4 3 10 17 33 18 15 100

dry forest 9 4 11 9 23 29 14 100 dry forest 9 3 6 10 14 37 21 100
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

324 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alt 3 - % 

of PVG 

year 10

nonforest GF <5"5-

10"

10-

15"

15-

20" >20"

Total 

%

Alt 3 - % 

of PVG 

year 30

nonforest GF <5"5-

10"

10-

15"

15-

20" >20"

Total 

%

nonforest 89 0 2 0 4 3 2 100 non-forest 89 0 2 0 4 3 2 100

moist 

forest 4 2 13 13 32 21 16 100

moist 

forest 4 4 11 15 34 18 13 100

dry forest 9 5 11 10 23 29 14 100 dry forest 9 4 7 9 14 36 20 100

Trends in forest tree canopy cover varied over time and by alternative as well. Moist forests are currently dominated by medium (40-60% canopy cover) 

and high density conditions with smaller amounts of low (10-40%) and open (non-forest) conditions. After 30 years, Alternative 1 produced declines in 

both medium and high density conditions, with an increase in low density conditions, as the result of insect and disease activity. Alternatives 2 and 3 also 

produced declines in medium and high density conditions, but the change was smaller than in Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 differed little in the 

amount of medium and high density forests after 30 years. Dry forests, on the other hand, had very little dense forest canopy conditions (about 1%) in the 

current condition or in any of the alternatives. Open and medium density canopy conditions currently dominate dry forests. After 30 years, Alternative 1 

produced a small decline in moderate canopy density conditions and an increase in open conditions. Alternatives 2 and 3 produced nearly identical results 

after 30 years; substantial increases in open conditions and corresponding declines in moderate conditions. Due variation in data sources, minor data 

correction since modeling was conducted, and rounding errors, current conditions displayed here may differ slightly from those displayed in the Vegetation 

sections of the FEIS, although trends are consistent.

% of PVG year 0

nonforest10-

40%

40-

60% >60%

total 

%

non-forest 89 4 7 0 100

moist forest 4 4 54 38 100

dry forest 9 29 61 1 100

Alt 1 - % of PVG year 

10

nonforest10-

40%

40-

60% >60%

total 

%

Alt 1 - % of PVG year 

30

nonforest10-

40%

40-

60% >60%

total 

%

non-forest 89 4 7 0 100 non-forest 89 4 7 0 100

moist forest 4 31 37 28 100 moist forest 4 53 16 27 100

dry forest 9 36 54 1 100 dry forest 9 43 48 1 100
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 325

Alt 2 - % of PVG year 

10

nonforest10-

40%

40-

60% >60%

total 

%

Alt 2 - % of PVG year 

30

nonforest10-

40%

40-

60% >60%

total 

%

non-forest 89 4 7 0 100 non-forest 89 4 7 0 100

moist forest 4 26 54 16 100 moist forest 4 36 39 20 100

dry forest 9 69 21 1 100 dry forest 9 74 17 1 100

Alt 3 - % of PVG year 

10

nonforest10-

40%

40-

60% >60%

total 

%

Alt 3 - % of PVG year 

30

nonforest10-

40%

40-

60% >60%

total 

%

non-forest 89 4 7 0 100 non-forest 89 4 7 0 100

moist forest 4 25 50 20 100 moist forest 4 41 33 22 100

dry forest 9 68 23 1 100 dry forest 9 73 17 1 100
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

326 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Reference Condition by Land Type Association

Land Type Associations (LTA) are mapping units that distinguish geographic areas with differing 

topography, soils, climate, and potential vegetation (available from Karen Bennett, Regional Soil 

Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon). Reference conditions were 

simulated by LTA groups for the Lower Joseph area to quantify the differences that these factors have in 

reference condition vegetation and disturbance regimes. The Lower Joseph area is dominated by two LTA 

units. Canyonlands are deeply eroded canyons that cut through lower elevations of the area. Wildfire 

frequently encounters fuel breaks along exposed ridges and forest vegetation patches tend to be highly 

dissected and naturally fragmented. Incised Plateaus are relatively more uniform and gentle terrain cut by 

Canyonlands. Wildfires spread more easily across this gentler terrain, generating somewhat larger and 

more contiguous patches.

Project Area

Canyonlands

Incised 

Plateaus
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 327

Reference condition modeling by LTA focused on the ranges of stand structural conditions and patch 

sizes. Stand structural conditions, both current and reference conditions, were somewhat different in the 

two LTAs. Grass/forb/shrub and seedling/sapling conditions were more abundant under the reference 

condition in Incised Canyonlands and slightly more abundant in the current conditions as well. Medium 

and large tree closed structures were generally more abundant in Canyonlands than in Incised Plateaus. In 

addition, current amounts of large tree closed stands were more highly departed from reference conditions 

in the Canyonlands.

More importantly, patch sizes in the current conditions were much smaller than those in the reference 

condition. In both Canyonlands and Incised Plateaus, all current patches were less than 32 acres in size 

(red line indicates intersection of both LGc and LGo structure classes with 100% of cumulative patches at 

a patch size of less than 32 acres). Cumulative percent of patches less than the given size
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

328 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

However, patches were considerably 

larger in the reference condition. More than 

50% of Incised Plateau patches exceeded 256 acres in size while those 

in Canyonlands were somewhat smaller (half exceeded 128 acres). This decrease in patch sizes from 

reference condition to current condition is due to a combination of management activities that tend to 

generate relatively small patches and somewhat smaller wildfires under the current fire suppression 

regime. Canyonlands have smaller patches than Incised Plateaus under reference conditions due to natural 

fragmentation by ridges and areas that do not burn. Cumulative percent of patches less than the given size Cumulative percent of patches less than the given size
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 329 Cumulative percent of patches less than the given size
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

330 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Climate Informed Modeling

“Climate-informed” STMs (Halofsky et al. 2014), produced by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, were used to investigate the interaction between the alternatives and projected climate effects 

under a variety of emissions scenarios. These climate-informed STMs use output from the dynamic global 

vegetation model (DGVM) MC2 for four climate scenarios to develop state-and-transition simulation 

models (STSM) for vegetation change. Climate scenarios included one representative concentration 

pathway (RCP 8.5) and simulated data from four downscaled (30-arc sec) general circulation models from 

the newer CMIP5 process (NOR, MIROC, Hadley, and CSIRO). 

Predicting vegetation response to climate change requires consideration of interacting physical and 

biological processes at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Dynamic global vegetation models are 

currently considered to be among the most advanced tools to assess climate change effects on ecosystems. 

DGVMs integrate state-of-the-art knowledge of plant physiology, biogeography, biogeochemistry, and 

biophysics, with climate model projections to simulate changes in vegetation structure and composition 

(biogeography) as well as ecosystem function (biogeochemistry) through time. MC2 is new more efficient 

version of MC1 that integrates biogeography, biogeochemistry, and fire into a single modeling 

environment. MC1 has been extensively used for regional- to global-scale assessments of potential 

climate change effects on ecosystems in the published scientific literature. Results from MC2 can be 

translated into directions and magnitude of change applicable to STMs and community- and species-level 

dynamics, making output more useful for sub-regional management and planning efforts. 

The climate change and vegetation model building was accomplished by Becky Kerns and John Kim 

(USFS PNW Station), Jessica Halofsky (University of Washington), and Dave Conklin (Common 

Futures). Land management alternatives of the LJCRP were incorporated into the climate-informed STMs 

to project comparative interactions between the No Action alternative and Alternative 2.

Methods

Modeling scenarios representing Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were run using methods from Halofsky et al. 

(2014) and the results from 4 climate models:

• MIROC – the best case (least change from current) scenario

• CSIRO – the worst case (most change from current) scenario

• NOR – an intermediate scenario (results similar to CSIRO)

• Hadley – an intermediate scenario (results similar to CSIRO)

Results from the MIROC (best case) and CSIRO (worst case) climate models were compared to illustrate 

the potential range of effects of climate change in the future. Results for alternatives 2 and 3 were very 

similar; only Alternative 2 results are shown.

Climate change models were run for 90 years (2010 to 2100). Only one Monte Carlo simulation was run 

for each scenario because the climate models themselves are not stochastic; each climate model generates 

one deterministic estimate of future conditions.

Climate change models have been simplified (fewer potential vegetation types) compared to non-climate 

change models due to lower vegetation resolution in the climate models.

Climate change models were not run spatially due to concerns about how accurate spatial representations 

of climate change might be at this scale. Results from spatial and non-spatial models will not be the same 

because non-spatial models do not model disturbance contagion in the same way that spatial models do.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 331

Because the climate change models were run non-spatially and because they are simplified from the STM 

used for all other analyses, initial conditions for climate change models do not exactly match those for 

non-climate change models.

Results – Vegetation Change under Future Climate Projections

Change in Potential Vegetation Type – best case climate model (MIROC)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 1 shows a strong decline in Douglas-fir potential vegetation types and a strong increase in 

ponderosa pine over 9 decades under the MIROC scenario (which is the best case climate scenario for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

332 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

forests). Alt. 2 keeps a strong Douglas-fir PVT component with a slight increase in ponderosa pine 

compared to Alt 1. Shrublands increase at the expense of forests under both alternatives.

Change in Potential Vegetation type – worst case climate model (CSIRO)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

The CSIRO climate model is the worst-case for conversion of forested lands to arid lands in the project 

area. Alt 2 slows the conversion just a little, but the differences are not large. All forested potential 

vegetation types decline substantially under both alternatives.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 333

Change in Forest Structure – best case climate model (MIROC)

Alternative 1 (see Alternative 2 for legend)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

334 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative 2

Alternative 1 maintains or slightly increases large trees over the simulation period while Alternative 2

generates a strong increase in large trees.

Change in Forest structure – worst case climate model (CSIRO)

Alternative 1 (see Alternative 2 for legend)
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 335

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 maintains slightly more large tree structure compared to Alternative 1 under the worst-case 

climate model, but the difference is not large.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

336 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Summary

• Three out of four climate scenarios indicate a strong conversion of forested lands to arid lands in the 

next 9 decades. In most cases, the landscape becomes dominated by mountain big sagebrush 

communities, often with exotic grasses. 

• One out of four climate scenarios indicates continued strong representation of forests, but conversion 

of most forests to ponderosa pine.

• Alternative 1 allows a bit more conversion of forest land to arid lands than Alternatives 2 and 3.

• Alternatives 2 and 3 generate considerably more large tree forest than Alternative 1 under the best 

case climate model. But, very little large tree forests remain after 90 years under the other 3 climate 

models.

Effects of Past, Present and Projected Potential Future Forest 

Treatments on Large Tree Numbers

Methods and Data Sources

Inventory plots (CVS and FIA) for Blue Mountains ecoregion were used (about 3,317 plots) to get a large 

sample. This sample represents average conditions for each structure class over the entire Blue Mountains 

ecoregion. Plots for only the Wallowa-Whitman NF or the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration project area 

were not used because the sample sizes became too small.

Each plot was assigned to a Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) and structure class category. Cover type was 

not used as an additional stratification because sample sizes became too small.

Trees per acre greater than or equal to 20” DBH (large trees) were calculated for each plot by the 

LEMMA Team (http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/).

The average number of large trees per acre (TPA) was computed for each PVT-structure category by 

taking the average of all plots that had been assigned to each structure class category (see Table A, 

below). 

Existing vegetation map data came from a combination of field inventory data (for FS-managed lands) 

and imputed conditions from Gradient Nearest Neighbor analysis (http://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/). 

These data were current as of 2012 and included the effects of past amendments for 21” trees were in 

2000, 2008, and 2010.

Project Level Analyses

StSim model acreage outputs were summarized to Planning Area, PVT, and structure classes for the 

Modified Proposed Action (PA) and No Management scenarios in the Lower Joseph area. Two “flavors” 

of the PA were examined. These differed only by how many large trees were assumed to be removed.

• (PA)-High - Assumed that management would remove relatively high numbers of large trees; enough 

so that the resulting managed stands would have the same average number of large trees as the natural 

and managed stands of the same structure that were sampled by the inventory plots. The PA-High is 

about the maximum level of large tree removal that could occur while still meeting PA objectives.

• Modified Proposed Action (PA) - Assumes that management would attempt to retain a high level of 

large trees; removing only those necessary to achieve silvicultural/ecological objectives. Neil 

McCusker estimated that management under the PA might remove only 15% of the potentially 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 337

available large trees. The PA is our best estimate of large tree effects for the Modified Proposed 

Action.

• No Management – Assumes that no active management except continued wildfire suppression would 

happen.

Changes in big trees were summarized by transition type into groups: Natural Disturbances 

(Wildfire+Insects+Disease), Growth, and Management Activities for all scenarios. Note, the Management 

Activities category is missing from the No Management scenario because there was no management in 

this scenario.

The annual change in large trees was computed for every simulated transition that occurred every year for 

30 years for each Planning Area, PVT, and structure class for all scenarios.

The average change in large trees per acre was computed for different management areas. This adjusts for 

the differing spatial size of the management areas and makes the numbers more comparable across land 

units of differing sizes.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Level Analyses

For a larger scale context, hypothetical “Resilience Management” and “No Management” scenarios were 

run for the entire Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for 30 years and 10 Monte Carlo simulations. The 

Resilience scenario does skips-and-gaps management across the whole Forest using average annual 

activity rates calculated from 15 years’ worth of activity data (2000-2014) supplied by the Forest (Table 

B, below). The No Management scenario turned off all management except continued wildfire 

suppression. Estimated changes in large trees were computed using the same methods as above for these 

scenarios.

The effects of two “flavors” of the Resilience scenario were examined to bracket likely management 

effects on large trees. 

The first (Management-High) assumes that management would remove relatively high numbers of large 

trees; enough so that the resulting managed stands would have the same average number of large trees as 

the natural and managed stands of the same structure that were sampled by the inventory plots. 

The second (Management-Low) assumes that management would attempt to retain a high level of large 

trees; removing only those necessary to achieve silvicultural/ecological objectives. The estimate was that 

management under Management-Low might remove 15% of the potentially available large trees.

Considerations

The model does not capture the increased growth rate of thinned stands of large trees compared to unthinned stands. The rate of increase in large trees from growth for the Modified Proposed Action is likely 

an under estimate.

These estimates are only approximate, based on modeling and inventory plot data. These estimates are 

intended to provide a perspective on the relative changes that may occur with and without management 

over time. Actual changes in large trees over time will be different.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

338 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Results –Potential Changes in Large Tree Abundance at the Project and National 

Forest Scales

Potential Changes in Large Trees per Acre over 30 Years for the Lower Joseph Project under 

the Modified Proposed Action, PA-High, and No Management Scenarios

Potential Changes in Large Trees per Acre over 30 Years for the Wallowa-Whitman NF under 

the Management-High, Management-Low, and No-Management Scenarios

Discussion

Summary of local effects in the Lower Joseph Area:

• Natural disturbances remove more large trees than harvest.

• The no-management scenario removes more large trees, in total, than the Modified Proposed Action 

or PA-high.

No Management

Modified PA

PA-High

No Management

Modified PA

PA-High
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 339

• The Modified Proposed Action scenario removes less than half the number of large trees, in total, 

compared to the no-management scenario.

Summary of Effects across the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest:

• Likely loss of large trees to natural disturbances is considerably larger (4.8 million) than likely loss to 

management (146,000, Management-Low).

• The Management- High scenario removes about the same number of large trees from all disturbances 

as the No Management scenario...but a considerable portion of those removed under Management –

High are used for economic purposes.

• Management-High is not likely to happen. This scenario illustrates maximum potential removal. 

Actual treatments are aimed at retaining as many large trees as possible: Management-Low.

• Likely loss of large trees to management in Lower Joseph (about 11,000 trees, PA-Low) is a very 

small portion (about 0.3%) of the loss that might occur across the whole Forest in any scenario (over 

4 million). 

Table A. Average trees per acre by PVT-structure class from CVS/FIA plots

Structure Class Definitions 

First character indicates tree size: L = Large (over 20” DBH), M = Medium (15-20” DBH), S = Small 

(10-14” DBH), P = Pole (5-9” DBH), Y = Seedling/Sapling (less than 5” DBH), GF = Grass/Forb/Shrub. 

Second character indicates canopy closure: c = closed (over 60% canopy closure), m = medium (40-60% 

canopy closure), o = open (less than 40% canopy closure). Third character indicates canopy layering or 

post-disturbance condition: 1 = single canopy layer, 2 = multiple canopy layers, p = post-disturbance.

Forested Potential Vegetation Type

Structure 

Class

Cold, 

Dry

Cool, 

Moist

Dry 

DouglasFir

Douglasfir/Grand 

Fir

Dry 

Ponderos

a Pine

Subalpine 

Woodland

Xeric 

Ponderos

a Pine

Average 

for all 

PVTs

Lc2 18.3 20.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20.5

Lc1 17.2 20.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20.3

Lm2 13.6 14.7 11.6 12.8 13.1 N/A 12.9 13.1

Lo2 N/A* N/A 8.4 8.6 10.2 N/A 9.5 9.2

Lm1 11.7 7.9 7.7 3.7 5.0 N/A 10.8 8.3

Lo1 N/A N/A 5.5 5.1 10.3 N/A 6.7 6.7

Mc2 6.3 8.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.9

Mm1 6.9 5.5 3.8 3.4 5.0 N/A 5.5 5.5

Mm2 6.4 5.6 3.7 4.8 6.6 N/A 6.9 5.4

Pc2 3.0 4.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.5

Sc2 3.0 4.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.5

Mo2 N/A N/A 2.5 1.7 2.9 N/A 3.0 2.8

Pm2 2.2 2.6 1.8 2.1 3.7 3.5 3.4 2.6

Sm2 2.2 2.6 1.8 2.1 3.7 3.5 3.4 2.6

Mo1 N/A N/A 2.0 2.2 2.0 N/A 2.4 2.2
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

340 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forested Potential Vegetation Type

Structure 

Class

Cold, 

Dry

Cool, 

Moist

Dry 

DouglasFir

Douglasfir/Grand 

Fir

Dry 

Ponderos

a Pine

Subalpine 

Woodland

Xeric 

Ponderos

a Pine

Average 

for all 

PVTs

Sm1 2.8 0.1 3.6 1.8 3.1 N/A 5.1 1.9

Pc1 1.2 1.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.3

Sc1 1.2 1.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.3

So1 N/A N/A 0.8 1.3 1.5 N/A 1.4 1.3

Po2 N/A N/A 0.6 1.1 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.2

So2 N/A N/A 0.6 1.1 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.2

Pm1 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 4.3 N/A 2.1 0.8

GF 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.8

Po1 N/A N/A 0.8 0.0 0.6 N/A 0.6 0.5

Ym 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.3 N/A N/A 0.5

Yo 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1

GFp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0

P1p 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0

P2p 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0

S1p 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A 0.0

S2p 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0

Yop 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A N/A 0.0

*N/A – class does not exist in this Potential Vegetation Type.

Table B. Target annual acres treated by Potential Vegetation Type and Management Area, 

Wallowa-Whitman NF.

Data for 15 years (2000-2014) supplied by BMRT GIS specialist. Acres have been rounded to nearest 

whole number. A key to management area codes is provided following the table.

Forested Potential 

Vegetation Type

Management Area Transition Type 15 year 

acres treated

average 

annual 

acres

Cold, Dry 5 AllPartialHarvest 8 1

Cold, Dry 5 AllPCT 18 1

Cold, Dry 5 AllPFire 34 2

Cool, Moist 5 AllPartialHarvest 9 1

Cool, Moist 5 AllPCT 4 0

Cool, Moist 5 AllPFire 43 3

Dry Douglas-Fir 5 AllPartialHarvest 465 31

Dry Douglas-Fir 5 AllPCT 159 11

Dry Douglas-Fir 5 AllPFire 200 13

Dry Douglas-Fir 5 Plant 38 3

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 5 AllPartialHarvest 29 2
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 341

Forested Potential 

Vegetation Type

Management Area Transition Type 15 year 

acres treated

average 

annual 

acres

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 5 AllPCT 19 1

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 5 AllPFire 74 5

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 5 Plant 5 0

Dry Ponderosa Pine 5 AllPartialHarvest 73 5

Dry Ponderosa Pine 5 AllPCT 35 2

Dry Ponderosa Pine 5 AllPFire 52 3

Dry Ponderosa Pine 5 Plant 17 1

Subalpine Woodland 5 AllPCT 33 2

Subalpine Woodland 5 AllPFire 2 0

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 5 AllPartialHarvest 176 12

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 5 AllPCT 15 1

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 5 AllPFire 153 10

Cold, Dry Forest 1A AllPFire 66 4

Cold, Dry Forest 1A Plant 1 0

Cool, Moist Forest 1A AllPCT 1 0

Cool, Moist Forest 1A AllPFire 114 8

Dry Douglas-Fir 1A AllPCT 0 0

Dry Douglas-Fir 1A AllPFire 23 2

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 1A Plant 4 0

Subalpine Woodland 1A AllPFire 23 2

Cool, Moist Forest 2A AllPartialHarvest 131 9

Cool, Moist Forest 2A AllPCT 145 10

Cool, Moist Forest 2A AllPFire 119 8

Cool, Moist Forest 2A RegHarv 1 0

Dry Douglas-Fir 2A AllPartialHarvest 178 12

Dry Douglas-Fir 2A AllPCT 102 7

Dry Douglas-Fir 2A AllPFire 95 6

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 2A AllPartialHarvest 43 3

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 2A AllPCT 46 3

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 2A AllPFire 18 1

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 2A RegHarv 0 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 2A Sel 0 0

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 2A AllPartialHarvest 3 0

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 2A AllPCT 3 0

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 2A AllPFire 3 0

Cool, Moist Forest 2B AllPCT 4 0

Cool, Moist Forest 2B AllPFire 1 0

Cold, Dry Forest 2I AllPartialHarvest 91 6

Cold, Dry Forest 2I AllPFire 90 6
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

342 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forested Potential 

Vegetation Type

Management Area Transition Type 15 year 

acres treated

average 

annual 

acres

Cool, Moist Forest 2I AllPartialHarvest 501 33

Cool, Moist Forest 2I AllPCT 44 3

Cool, Moist Forest 2I AllPFire 203 14

Dry Douglas-Fir 2I AllPartialHarvest 485 32

Dry Douglas-Fir 2I AllPCT 26 2

Dry Douglas-Fir 2I AllPFire 512 34

Dry Douglas-Fir 2I RegHarv 4 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 2I AllPartialHarvest 259 17

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 2I AllPCT 8 1

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 2I AllPFire 214 14

Dry Ponderosa Pine 2I AllPartialHarvest 127 8

Dry Ponderosa Pine 2I AllPCT 7 0

Dry Ponderosa Pine 2I AllPFire 37 2

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 2I AllPartialHarvest 255 17

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 2I AllPCT 53 4

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 2I AllPFire 92 6

Cold, Dry Forest 3B AllPartialHarvest 27 2

Cold, Dry Forest 3B AllPCT 10 1

Cold, Dry Forest 3B AllPFire 15 1

Cold, Dry Forest 3B Plant 0 0

Cool, Moist Forest 3B AllPartialHarvest 77 5

Cool, Moist Forest 3B AllPCT 58 4

Cool, Moist Forest 3B AllPFire 356 24

Cool, Moist Forest 3B Plant 1 0

Dry Douglas-Fir 3B AllPartialHarvest 25 2

Dry Douglas-Fir 3B AllPCT 6 0

Dry Douglas-Fir 3B AllPFire 14 1

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 3B AllPartialHarvest 26 2

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 3B AllPCT 8 1

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 3B AllPFire 6 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 3B Plant 0 0

Subalpine Woodland 3B AllPFire 0 0

Cold, Dry Forest 4A AllPartialHarvest 654 44

Cold, Dry Forest 4A AllPCT 727 48

Cold, Dry Forest 4A AllPFire 864 58

Cold, Dry Forest 4A Plant 491 33

Cold, Dry Forest 4A RegHarv 166 11

Cold, Dry Forest 4A Sel 5 0

Cool, Moist Forest 4A AllPartialHarvest 10681 712
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 343

Forested Potential 

Vegetation Type

Management Area Transition Type 15 year 

acres treated

average 

annual 

acres

Cool, Moist Forest 4A AllPCT 17702 1,180

Cool, Moist Forest 4A AllPFire 15899 1,060

Cool, Moist Forest 4A Plant 1947 130

Cool, Moist Forest 4A RegHarv 2301 153

Cool, Moist Forest 4A Sel 1281 85

Dry Douglas-Fir 4A AllPartialHarvest 11841 789

Dry Douglas-Fir 4A AllPCT 8358 557

Dry Douglas-Fir 4A AllPFire 14988 999

Dry Douglas-Fir 4A Plant 620 41

Dry Douglas-Fir 4A RegHarv 464 31

Dry Douglas-Fir 4A Sel 520 35

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4A AllPartialHarvest 15245 1,016

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4A AllPCT 12071 805

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4A AllPFire 20457 1,364

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4A Plant 2255 150

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4A RegHarv 1035 69

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4A Sel 344 23

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4A AllPartialHarvest 6905 460

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4A AllPCT 3149 210

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4A AllPFire 14977 998

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4A Plant 126 8

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4A RegHarv 78 5

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4A Sel 71 5

Subalpine Woodland 4A AllPartialHarvest 25 2

Subalpine Woodland 4A Plant 11 1

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4A AllPartialHarvest 4369 291

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4A AllPCT 2634 176

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4A AllPFire 7591 506

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4A Plant 117 8

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4A RegHarv 24 2

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4A Sel 211 14

Cold, Dry Forest 4C AllPartialHarvest 0 0

Cold, Dry Forest 4C AllPCT 6 0

Cold, Dry Forest 4C AllPFire 40 3

Cold, Dry Forest 4C Plant 2 0

Cold, Dry Forest 4C RegHarv 2 0

Cool, Moist Forest 4C AllPartialHarvest 206 14

Cool, Moist Forest 4C AllPCT 237 16

Cool, Moist Forest 4C AllPFire 485 32
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

344 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forested Potential 

Vegetation Type

Management Area Transition Type 15 year 

acres treated

average 

annual 

acres

Cool, Moist Forest 4C Plant 11 1

Cool, Moist Forest 4C RegHarv 1 0

Cool, Moist Forest 4C Sel 11 1

Dry Douglas-Fir 4C AllPartialHarvest 355 24

Dry Douglas-Fir 4C AllPCT 201 13

Dry Douglas-Fir 4C AllPFire 818 55

Dry Douglas-Fir 4C RegHarv 0 0

Dry Douglas-Fir 4C Sel 0 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4C AllPartialHarvest 147 10

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4C AllPCT 341 23

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4C AllPFire 769 51

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4C Plant 7 0

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4C AllPartialHarvest 92 6

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4C AllPCT 105 7

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4C AllPFire 199 13

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4C Plant 0 0

Subalpine Woodland 4C AllPartialHarvest 3 0

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4C AllPartialHarvest 46 3

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4C AllPCT 123 8

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4C AllPFire 230 15

Cold, Dry Forest 4D AllPartialHarvest 119 8

Cold, Dry Forest 4D AllPCT 570 38

Cold, Dry Forest 4D AllPFire 592 39

Cold, Dry Forest 4D Plant 74 5

Cold, Dry Forest 4D RegHarv 101 7

Cold, Dry Forest 4D Sel 10 1

Cool, Moist Forest 4D AllPartialHarvest 3342 223

Cool, Moist Forest 4D AllPCT 4194 280

Cool, Moist Forest 4D AllPFire 5722 381

Cool, Moist Forest 4D Plant 860 57

Cool, Moist Forest 4D RegHarv 497 33

Cool, Moist Forest 4D Sel 176 12

Dry Douglas-Fir 4D AllPartialHarvest 6016 401

Dry Douglas-Fir 4D AllPCT 4131 275

Dry Douglas-Fir 4D AllPFire 13863 924

Dry Douglas-Fir 4D Plant 205 14

Dry Douglas-Fir 4D RegHarv 120 8

Dry Douglas-Fir 4D Sel 74 5

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4D AllPartialHarvest 3404 227
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 345

Forested Potential 

Vegetation Type

Management Area Transition Type 15 year 

acres treated

average 

annual 

acres

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4D AllPCT 3048 203

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4D AllPFire 5880 392

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4D Plant 117 8

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4D RegHarv 117 8

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4D Sel 42 3

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4D AllPartialHarvest 2892 193

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4D AllPCT 1951 130

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4D AllPFire 7493 500

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4D Plant 61 4

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4D RegHarv 1 0

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4D Sel 19 1

Subalpine Woodland 4D AllPartialHarvest 1 0

Subalpine Woodland 4D AllPCT 4 0

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4D AllPartialHarvest 1975 132

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4D AllPCT 1287 86

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4D AllPFire 7236 482

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4D Plant 150 10

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4D RegHarv 24 2

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4D Sel 21 1

Cold, Dry Forest 4E AllPCT 0 0

Cold, Dry Forest 4E AllPFire 0 0

Cool, Moist Forest 4E AllPartialHarvest 2 0

Cool, Moist Forest 4E AllPCT 22 1

Cool, Moist Forest 4E AllPFire 7 0

Cool, Moist Forest 4E Plant 15 1

Dry Douglas-Fir 4E AllPCT 4 0

Dry Douglas-Fir 4E AllPFire 7 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4E AllPartialHarvest 3 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4E AllPCT 6 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4E AllPFire 3 0

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4E AllPCT 2 0

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4E AllPFire 12 1

Cool, Moist Forest 4F AllPartialHarvest 22 1

Cool, Moist Forest 4F AllPCT 4 0

Cool, Moist Forest 4F AllPFire 0 2

Dry Douglas-Fir 4F AllPartialHarvest 0 0

Dry Douglas-Fir 4F AllPFire 41 41

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4F AllPartialHarvest 0 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4F AllPCT 0 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

346 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forested Potential 

Vegetation Type

Management Area Transition Type 15 year 

acres treated

average 

annual 

acres

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir 4F AllPFire 0 1

Dry Ponderosa Pine 4F AllPFire 20 1

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4F AllPartialHarvest 18 1

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4F AllPCT 54 4

Xeric Ponderosa Pine 4F AllPFire 517 589

Cold, Dry Forest HCNRA AllPCT 3 0

Cool, Moist Forest HCNRA AllPartialHarvest 195 13

Cool, Moist Forest HCNRA AllPCT 206 14

Cool, Moist Forest HCNRA AllPFire 368 377

Cool, Moist Forest HCNRA Plant 2 0

Dry Douglas-Fir HCNRA AllPartialHarvest 11 1

Dry Douglas-Fir HCNRA AllPCT 10 1

Dry Douglas-Fir HCNRA AllPFire 193 200

Dry Douglas-Fir HCNRA Plant 4 0

Dry Douglas-Fir HCNRA Sel 2 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir HCNRA AllPartialHarvest 147 10

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir HCNRA AllPCT 134 9

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir HCNRA AllPFire 25 26

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir HCNRA Plant 1 0

Douglas-Fir/Grand Fir HCNRA Sel 0 0

Key to Management Area Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

1A Wilderness

2A Wild and Scenic Rivers

2B Research Natural Area

2C Special Interest Area 2C

2D Special Interest Area 2D

2E Special Interest Area 2E

2H Scenic Area 2H

2I Scenic Area? 2I

2J Municipal watershed

3A Semi-primitive non-motorized

3B Semi-primitive motorized

4A Timber Production Emphasis

4B Riparian area

4C Old Growth

4D Winter Range

4E Wildlife emphasis
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 347

Abbreviation Description

4F Visual management

5 Admin and Developed
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

348 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

References

Baker, W. L. 1989. A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecology 2:111-133.

Bestelmeyer, B. T., J. R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chavez, and J. E. Herrick. 2003. 

Development and Use of State-and-Transition Models for Rangelands. Journal of Range Management 

56:114-126.

Bestelmeyer, B. T., A. J. Tugel, G. L. Peacock, D. G. Robinett, P. L. Shaver, J. R. Brown, J. E. Herrick, 

H. Sanchez, and K. M. Havstad. 2009. State-and-Transition Models for Heterogeneous Landscapes: A 

Strategy for Development and Application. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:1-15.

Briske, D. D., S. D. Fuhlendorf, and F. E. Smeins. 2005. State-and-Transition Models, Thresholds, and 

Rangeland Health: A Synthesis of Ecological Concepts and Perspectives. Rangeland Ecology & 

Management 58:1-10.

Burcsu, T., J. Halofsky, S. Bisrat, T. Christopher, M.K. Creutzburg, E. Henderson, M. Hemstrom, M. 

Whitman. In Press. Dynamic Vegetation Modeling of Forested, Woodland, Shrubland, and Grassland 

Vegetation Communities in the Pacific Northwest and Southwest Regions of the United States. In

Halofsky, J.E., M.K. Creutzburg, and M.A. Hemstrom. Mid-Scale Landscape Assessment: Methods Used 

in the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-XXX. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Forbis, T., L. Provencher, L. Frid, and G. Medlyn. 2006. Great Basin Land Management Planning Using 

Ecological Modeling. Environmental Management 38:62-83.

Hall, F. C. 1998. Pacific Northwest ecoclass codes for seral and potential natural plant communities. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-418, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Hemstrom, M. A., J. Merzenich, A. Reger, and B. Wales. 2007. Integrated analysis of landscape 

management scenarios using state and transition models in the upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin, 

Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:198-211.

Petersen, S. L., T. K. Stringham, and B. A. Roundy. 2009. A Process-Based Application of State-andTransition Models: A Case Study of Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) Encroachment. Rangeland 

Ecology & Management 62:186-192.

Provencher, L., G. Low, and S. Abele. 2009. Bodie Hills Conservation Action Planning: Final report to 

the Bureau of Land Managment Bishop Field Office. The Nature Conservancy, Reno, NV.

Rollins, M. G. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:235-249.

Vavra, M., M. A. Hemstrom, and M. J. Wisdom. 2007. Modeling the effects of herbivores on the 

abundance of forest overstory states using a simple state-transition approach. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 80:212-222.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 349

Wales, B. C., L. H. Suring, and M. A. Hemstrom. 2007. Modeling potential outcomes of fire and fuel 

management scenarios on the structure of forested habitats in northeast Oregon, USA. Landscape and 

Urban Planning 80:223-236.

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at 

equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42:266-274.

Zhou, X. and M. A. Hemstrom (2010). Timber volume and aboveground live tree biomass estimations for 

landscape analyses in the Pacific Northwest. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-819. Portland, OR, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

350 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Appendix D – Burn probability modeling methods and summary of 

results

The Blue Mountains Restoration Team analyzed wildland fire probability as a component of the 

landscape analysis for the LJCRP and surrounding lands (as a potential influence to disturbance 

probabilities outside the project boundary). The FSim platform was chosen since it offers the most robust 

modeling framework with rich inputs for weather, wind, and historic fires. The large-fire simulation 

system, FSim, consists of modules for weather, fire occurrence, fire growth, and fire suppression. The 

system is designed to simulate the occurrence and growth of fires for thousands of years in order to 

estimate average burn probabilities and fire size distributions. It was applied independently to 6-10 

delineated areasof the landscape, called Fire Planning Units (FPUs,) in the Blue Mountains. Each model 

component, data inputs and outputs and FPU are described in the following sections. 

Inputs

Fire Planning Units (FPU’s) – Due to the large size of the Blue Mountains landscape and the associated 

large and cumbersome database size, the landscape was too large for FSim to effectively run. Given this 

modeling limitation, the landscape was broken into areas used by the Blue Mountains Forests known as 

FPUs. The USFS’s Fire Danger Rating Areas (FDRAs) were used as the starting geography point for 

analysis. The FDRAs were further reduced based on vegetation condition and Forest Boundaries. The 

intent was to create similar sized rectangular blocks with similar vegetation, management, and fire 

behavior influences such as weather, topography, and assumed fire regime.

Weather – The necessary weather files for each FPU were generated from Fire Family Plus based on 

expert opinion and Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) data. In some cases the multiple RAWS 

data were combined for an FPU. Local expert opinion was utilized to give a weighted percent to each 

RAWS station so that the Fire Family Plus weather input represented the most frequent trend for each 

FPU.

Historical Fire Occurrences Density - The historical fire data used in this analysis was based on the 

Historical national fire occurrences data that Karen Short compiled for the Continental US Analysis with 

Mark Finney. 

Fuels and topography - Spatial information on fuels and topography was obtained at 30 m resolution from 

2012 LANDFIRE in a Landscape file (.LCP) and then resampled to 90 m resolution to achieve practical 

simulation run times.

Outputs 

Each FPU was buffered 10 miles to allow for fires to burn onto the landscape and limit edge effect. The 

outputs from all the FPUs merged into a single landscape level output using a statistical overlay for the 

overlapping areas. The landscape outputs are described below, and spatial data is located in the project 

record.

• Burn Probability – A spatial layer with 0-100 % probability of a pixel burning in a given year.

• Fire Intensity Level (FIL) – Six spatial layers with intensity by Flame Length categories from 1 (low) 

to high (6). Each spatial FIL has a probability, the sum of all 6 equal the overall Burn Probability.

• Mean Fire Intensity – A spatial layer with the mean intensity values for each pixel

• Current probability of Fire Intensity Level by forested PVG (Dry/Moist).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 351

• Figure D-1 below shows the probability of fire intensity levels (from low (1) to high (6)) 

occurring within the LJCRP area for dry and moist upland forest. 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Figure D-1: Probability of Fire Intensity Level summarized by Dry or Moist Upland Forest within the LJCRP area.

• Probability of Fire Intensity Level by forested PVG and Landtype Association groups.

• Appendix C describes reference conditions by grouping of Landtype Associations, specifically 

Canyonlands and Incised Plateaus. Disturbance regimes and stand dynamic process differences may 

be evident due to the physiographic differences between these landtypes. Summarizing the 

probability of different Fire Intensity Levels by landtype association group helps to understand the 

underlying influence of topography, soils, climate, and potential vegetation on fire probability and 

intensity levels. Incised Plauteaus and Canyonlands represent the majority of the LJCRP area. Figure 

D-2 below shows the probability of fire intensity levels (from low (1) to high (6)) occurring within 

the LJCRP area for dry and moist upland forest in canyonlands.

Figure D-2: Probability of Fire Intensity Level summarized by upland forest type and Landtype Association Group 

– Canyonlands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

352 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Figure D-3: Probability of Fire Intensity Level summarized by upland forest type and Landtype 

Association Group – Incised Plateaus.

Figure D-4: Probability of Fire Intensity Level summarized by upland forest type and Landtype Association Group 

– Fluvial Valleys.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 353

Figure D-5: Probability of Fire Intensity Level summarized by upland forest type and Landtype Association Group 

– Angulate Plateaus.

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 355

Appendix E – Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Wildlife and Aquatic Species (TES)

This appendix lists the existing conditions for proposed, threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife and aquatic species applicable to the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project area. The list of federally-listed species applicable to the planning area was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). No proposed or federally-listed terrestrial wildlife species were described for Wallowa County, Oregon. The USFS 

Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, dated January 31, 2011 (USDA Forest Service 2011) was reviewed for sensitive species potentially 

applicable to the Lower Joseph Project. A key to codes follows the table.

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name

Federal 

Status

Global 

Rank

Subspecies 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Breeding 

Rank

ODA 

ODFW 

State 

Status

USFS 

Sensitive 

Species

Category

WallowaWhitman 

NF LJCRP

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

MYKISS (MIDDLE 

COLUMBIA RIVER)

STEELHEAD

FT G5Q T2 S2 CR FT I N

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

MYKISS (SNAKE 

RIVER BASIN)

STEELHEAD

FT G5Q T2T3 S2S3 V FT D D

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

NERKA (SNAKE 

RIVER, MIGRATORY 

HABITAT ONLY)

SOCKEYE SALMON

FE G5Q T1 S1M SXB FE D N

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

TSHAWYTSCHA 

(SNAKE RIVER 

SPRING/SUMMER 

RUNS)

CHINOOK SALMON

FT G5Q T1 S1 ST FT D N

Anadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

TSHAWYTSCHA 

(SNAKE RIVER FALL 

RUNS)

CHINOOK SALMON

FT G5Q T1 S1 ST FT D N

Nonanadromous 

Fish

ONCORHYNCHUS 

CLARKII LEWISI

WESTSLOPE 

CUTTHROAT 

TROUT G4 T3 S3 CR OR-SEN D N
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

356 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name

Federal 

Status

Global 

Rank

Subspecies 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Breeding 

Rank

ODA 

ODFW 

State 

Status

USFS 

Sensitive 

Species

Category

WallowaWhitman 

NF LJCRP

Nonanadromous 

Fish

SALVELINUS 

CONFLUENTUS

BULL TROUT

FT G3Q T2 S2 CR/V FT D N

Bird BARTRAMIA 

LONGICAUDA

UPLAND 

SANDPIPER G5 S1B CR OR-SEN D N

Bird BUCEPHALA 

ALBEOLA

BUFFLEHEAD

G5 S5N S2B OR-SEN S N

Bird CENTROCERCUS 

UROPHASIANUS 

(OUTSIDE COLUMBIA 

BASIN)

GREATER SAGEGROUSE

FC G4 S3 V OR-SEN D N

Bird CYPSELOIDES NIGER BLACK SWIFT

G4 S2B OR-SEN D N

Bird FALCO PEREGRINUS 

ANATUM

AMERICAN 

PEREGRINE 

FALCON G4 T4 S2B V SEN D D

Bird HALIAEETUS 

LEUCOCEPHALUS

BALD EAGLE

G5 S4N S4B ST SEN D S

Bird HISTRIONICUS 

HISTRIONICUS

HARLEQUIN DUCK

G4 S3N S2B SEN D N

Bird LEUCOSTICTE 

ATRATA

BLACK ROSY 

FINCH G4 S2B OR-SEN S N

Bird LEUCOSTICTE 

TEPHROCOTIS 

WALLOWA

WALLOWA ROSY 

FINCH

G5 T2 S2?N S2B OR-SEN D N

Bird MELANERPES LEWIS LEWIS' 

WOODPECKER G4 S2S3B CR SEN D S

Bird PICOIDES 

ALBOLARVATUS 

WHITE-HEADED 

WOODPECKER G4 S2S3 CR SEN D S

Bird TYMPANUCHUS 

PHASIANELLUS 

COLUMBIANUS

COLUMBIAN 

SHARP-TAILED 

GROUSE G4 T3 S1 CR OR-SEN D N
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 357

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name

Federal 

Status

Global 

Rank

Subspecies 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Breeding 

Rank

ODA 

ODFW 

State 

Status

USFS 

Sensitive 

Species

Category

WallowaWhitman 

NF LJCRP

Amphibian ASCAPHUS 

MONTANUS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

TAILED FROG G4 S2 V SEN D D

Amphibian RANA LUTEIVENTRIS 

(OUTSIDE GREAT 

BASIN)

COLUMBIA 

SPOTTED FROG

G4 S2S3 CR/V OR-SEN D S

Mammal CANIS LUPUS 

(NORTHERN ROCKY 

MTN.)

GRAY WOLF

G4 S1S2 SE SEN D D

Mammal CORYNORHINUS 

TOWNSENDII

TOWNSEND'S BIGEARED BAT G4 S2 CR SEN D D

Mammal EUDERMA 

MACULATUM

SPOTTED BAT

G4 S2 V OR-SEN D S

Mammal GULO GULO LUSCUS NORTH AMERICAN 

WOLVERINE FC G4 T3 S1 ST SEN D N

Mammal LYNX CANADENSIS CANADA LYNX FT G5 S1? FT D N

Mammal MYOTIS 

THYSANODES

FRINGED MYOTIS

G4G5 S2 V OR-SEN D S

Bivalva: 

Clams, 

Oysters & 

Mussels

GONIDEA ANGULATA WESTERN RIDGED 

MUSSEL

G3 S2S3 SEN S S

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

CRYPTOMASTIX 

POPULI

HELLS CANYON 

LAND SNAIL

G2 S1 SEN S N

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

FISHEROLA NUTTALLI SHORTFACE LANX

G2 S1S2 OR-SEN D N

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

FLUMINICOLA 

FUSCUS 

COLUMBIA 

PEBBLESNAIL

G2 S1 OR-SEN D N
Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

358 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Taxon Scientific Name Common Name

Federal 

Status

Global 

Rank

Subspecies 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Breeding 

Rank

ODA 

ODFW 

State 

Status

USFS 

Sensitive 

Species

Category

WallowaWhitman 

NF LJCRP

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

RADIODISCUS 

ABIETUM

FIR PINWHEEL

G4 S1 SEN D N

Gastropoda: 

Snails & 

Slugs

TAYLORCONCHA 

SERPENTICOLA

BLISS RAPID SNAIL

FT G1 FT D N

Order 

Hymenoptera: 

Ants, Bees & 

Wasps

BOMBUS 

OCCIDENTALIS

WESTERN 

BUMBLEBEE

GU S1S2 OR-SEN D S

Order 

Lepidoptera: 

Butterflies & 

Moths

BOLORIA SELENE SILVERBORDERED 

FRITILLARY

G5 S2 OR-SEN D N

Order 

Lepidoptera: 

Butterflies & 

Moths

CALLOPHRYS 

JOHNSONI

JOHNSON'S 

HAIRSTREAK 

G3G4 S2 SEN S S

Order 

Lepidoptera: 

Butterflies & 

Moths

COLIAS CHRISTINA 

PSEUDOCHRISTINA 

INTERMOUNTAIN 

SULPHUR

G3G4 T2T4 S2 OR-SEN D S

Order 

Lepidoptera: 

Butterflies & 

Moths

OCHLODES YUMA YUMA SKIPPER 

G5 S1? OR-SEN D N
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 359

Key to codes

Rank and Status Information:

Global (G), National (N) and Subnational (State/Province) (S) Ranks:

1 = Critically imperiled 

2 = Imperiled

3 = Rare and uncommon; vulnerable.

4 = Not rare and apparently secure

5 = Demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure

U = Unrankable

H = Possible extinct; Historical occurrence, formerly part of the native biota with the implied expectation that it may be rediscovered

X = Presumed extinct

NR = Not yet ranked

Rank Qualifiers:

? = Inexact numeric rank

Q = Questionable taxonomy

C = Captive or Cultivated only

Breeding Status Qualifiers:

B = Breeding, conservation status refers to breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province

N = Non-breeding, conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province.

M = Migrant, migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention

Subspecies Rank (T = trinomial):

T# = Status of a infraspecific taxon (subspecies or varieties) are indicated by a T-rank following the species' global rank.

Rules for assigning T-ranks follow the same definitions for Global, National and Subnational/State ranks.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) List Rank:

1 = contains taxa that are threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their entire range

2 = contains taxa that are threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from the state of Oregon; 

these are often peripheral or disjunct species which are of concern when considering species diversity within Oregon's borders.

3 = contains taxa for which more information is needed before status can be determined, but which may be threatened or endangered in Oregon or throughout their range

4 = contains taxa which are of conservation concern but are not currently threatened or endangered
Final Environmental Impact Statement

360 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Appendix F - Region 6 Sensitive Plants documented on the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest and effects calls the LJCRP 

The Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List was reviewed for sensitive species potentially applicable to the Lower Joseph Project. A 

key to codes follows the table.

Code Scientific Name Common 

Name

Global 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

Novembe

r 2014 

SSS 

Category

WW

NF

Presence 

in 

Planning 

Area

Effects 

Calls 

Alternative

s 2 & 3

Habitat Category

ACWA Achnatherum 

wallowaense

Wallowa 

needlegrass

G2G3 S2S3 OR-SEN D Document

ed

MIIH Lithosol/shallow soil

ALGEG Allium geyeri 

var. geyeri

Geyer's onion G4G5 S1 OR-SEN D Suspected NI Moist meadows

ANMI8 Anastrophyllum 

minutum

Liverwort G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

ANJU Anthelia julacea Liverwort G3G4 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Limestone

ASVI10 Asplenium viride Green 

spleenwort

G4 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Limestone

BALY Barbilophozia 

lycopodioides

Liverwort G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

BOHA3 Boechera 

hastatula

Hells canyon 

rockcress

G2 S2 OR-SEN D Suspected NI Talus, cliffs, rock outcrops

BOAS2 Botrychium 

ascendens

Upward-lobed 

moonwort

G3 S2 SEN D No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

BOCA5 Botrychium 

campestre

Prairie 

moonwort

G3G4 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

BOCR Botrychium 

crenulatum

Crenulate 

moonwort

G3 S2 SEN D Suspected NI Moist meadows

BOHE5 Botrychium 

hesperium

Western 

moonwort

G4 S1 SEN D Suspected NI Moist meadows

BOLI7 Botrychium 

lineare

Slender 

moonwort

G2G3 S1 SEN D No habitat NI Cold Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 361

Code Scientific Name Common 

Name

Global 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

Novembe

r 2014 

SSS 

Category

WW

NF

Presence 

in 

Planning 

Area

Effects 

Calls 

Alternative

s 2 & 3

Habitat Category

BOLU Botrychium 

lunaria

Moonwort G5 S2 OR-SEN D Suspected NI Moist meadows

BOMO Botrychium 

montanum

Mountain 

grape-fern

G3 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

BOPA9 Botrychium 

paradoxum

Twin-spiked 

moonwart

G3G4 S1 SEN D No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

BOPE4 Botrychium 

pedunculosum

Stalked 

moonwort

G2G3 S1 SEN D Suspected NI Moist meadows

BUAM2 Bupleurum 

americanum

Bupleurum G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CAMAM Calochortus 

macrocarpus 

var. maculosus

green-band 

mariposa-lily

G5 S2 SEN D Document

ed

MIIH Grasslands

CANI Calochortus 

nitidus

Broad-fruit 

mariposa-lily

G3 S1 ORSTR/WASENS No habitat NI Grasslands*

CAAT8 Carex 

atrosquama

Blackened 

sedge

G5 S1 ORSEN/WASTRD No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CACA1

2

Carex capillaris Hairlike sedge G5 S2 SEN D No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

CACA1

3

Carex capitata Capitate sedge G5 S2 ORSEN/WASTR

S No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

CACO8

1

Carex 

cordillerana

Cordilleran 

sedge

G3G4 S2 OR-SEN D Suspected MIIH Coniferous Forest

CADI4 Carex diandra Lesser panicled 

sedge

G5 S1 OR-SEN S No habitat NI Fens

CAGY2 Carex 

gynocrates

Yellow bog 

sedge

G5 S1 SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine
Final Environmental Impact Statement

362 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Code Scientific Name Common 

Name

Global 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

Novembe

r 2014 

SSS 

Category

WW

NF

Presence 

in 

Planning 

Area

Effects 

Calls 

Alternative

s 2 & 3

Habitat Category

CAID Carex idahoa Idaho sedge G2G3 S1 OR-SEN S No habitat NI Moist meadows*

CALAA Carex lasiocarpa 

var. americana

Slender sedge G5 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Fens

CAME9 Carex media Intermediate 

sedge

G5? S1 SEN D No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

CAMI16 Carex 

micropoda

Pyrenaean 

sedge

G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CANA2 Carex nardina Spikenard 

sedge

G4G5 S2? OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CAPE5 Carex pelocarpa New sedge G4G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CARE4 Carex retrorsa Retrorse sedge G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Wet meadows and riparian*

CASA1

0

Carex saxatilis Russet sedge G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Fens

CASU7 Carex 

subnigricans

Dark alpine 

sedge

G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CAVE5 Carex vernacula Native sedge G5 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CAFLR Castilleja flava 

var. rustica

Rural 

paintbrush

G4G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CAFR8 Castilleja 

fraterna

Fraternal 

paintbrush

G2 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CARU8 Castilleja rubida Purple alpine 

paintbrush

G2 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

CHFE Cheilanthes feei Fee's lip-fern G5 S2 SEN D No habitat NI Limestone

COTE1

3

Comastoma 

tenellum

Slender gentian G4G5 S1 SEN S No habitat NI Fens

CRST2 Cryptogramma 

stelleri

Steller's 

rockbrake

G5 S1 SEN D No habitat NI Limestone
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 363

Code Scientific Name Common 

Name

Global 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

Novembe

r 2014 

SSS 

Category

WW

NF

Presence 

in 

Planning 

Area

Effects 

Calls 

Alternative

s 2 & 3

Habitat Category

CYLUL Cyperus 

lupulinus ssp. 

lupulinus

A cyperus G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Low elevation riparian

CYFA Cypripedium 

fasciculatum 

Clustered 

lady's-slipper

G4 S2 OR-SEN D Suspected MIIH Coniferous Forest

ELBR5 Elatine 

brachysperma

Short seeded 

waterwort

G5 S1 OR-SEN S No habitat NI Low elevation riparian

ELBO Eleocharis 

bolanderi

Bolander's 

spikerush

G4 S2 OR-SEN D Document

ed

NI Seeps, springs

ENBR2 Encalypta 

brevipes

Moss G3 S1 OR-SEN S Suspected NI Talus, cliffs, rock outcrops

ENFA2 Entosthodon 

fascicularis

Moss G4G5 S1 ORSEN/WASTRS Suspected NI Seeps, springs

ERDA3 Erigeron davisii Engelmann's 

daisy

G3 S1 ORSEN/WASTRD Document

ed

MIIH Lithosol/shallow soil

ERDI3 Erigeron 

disparipilus

White cushion 

erigeron

G5 S2 OR-SEN D Document

ed

MIIH Lithosol/shallow soil

EUME1

7

Eurybia merita Arctic aster G5 SNR ORSTR/WASEN

D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

GEPR3 Gentiana 

prostrata

Moss gentian G4G5 S2 OR-SEN S No habitat NI Fens

GEROT Geum rossii var. 

turbinatum

Slenderstemmed 

avens

G5 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

HAFL9 Harpanthus 

flotovianus

Liverwort G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine
Final Environmental Impact Statement

364 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Code Scientific Name Common 

Name

Global 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

Novembe

r 2014 

SSS 

Category

WW

NF

Presence 

in 

Planning 

Area

Effects 

Calls 

Alternative

s 2 & 3

Habitat Category

HECU3 Heliotropium 

curassavicum

Salt heliotrope G5 S2 OR-SEN S No habitat NI Low elevation riparian

JUTRA

2

Juncus triglumis 

var. albescens

Three-flowered 

rush

G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

JUPO3 Jungermannia 

polaris

Liverwort G4 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Limestone

KOMY Kobresia 

myosuroides

Bellard's 

kobresia

G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

KOSI2 Kobresia 

simpliciuscula

Simple 

kobresia

G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

LIAR6 Lipocarpha 

aristulata

Aristulate 

lipocarpha

G5? S1 SEN D No habitat NI Low elevation riparian

LIBO4 Listera borealis Northern 

twayblade

G4 S1 OR-SEN D Suspected MIIH Coniferous Forest

LOER2 Lomatium 

erythrocarpum

Red-fruited 

lomatium

G1G2 S1S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

LOGR2 Lomatium 

greenmanii

Greenman's 

desert parsley

G1 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

LOGI3 Lophozia 

gillmanii

Liverwort G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Limestone

LYCO3 Lycopodium 

complanatum

Ground cedar G5 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Coniferous Forest*

MIHY Mimulus 

hymenophyllus

Membraneleaved 

monkeyflower

G2 S1S2 OR-SEN D Suspected NI Talus, cliffs, rock outcrops

MIMA2 Mirabilis 

macfarlaneiFT

Macfarlane's 

four o'clock

G2 S1 FT D No Habitat No Effect Grasslands*

MUMI2 Muhlenbergia 

minutissima

Annual 

dropseed

G5 S2 OR-SEN S Suspected NI Moist meadows
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 365

Code Scientific Name Common 

Name

Global 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

Novembe

r 2014 

SSS 

Category

WW

NF

Presence 

in 

Planning 

Area

Effects 

Calls 

Alternative

s 2 & 3

Habitat Category

OPPU3 Ophioglossum 

pusillum

Adder's-tongue G5 S1 SEN D No habitat NI Wet meadows and riparian*

PAPO1

2

Packera porteri Porter's 

butterweed

G4 SH ORSTR/WASENS No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

PEBR5 Pellaea bridgesii Bridges' cliffbrakeG4 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Cold Forest

PEQU7 Peltolepis 

quadrata

Liverwort G4 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Limestone

PHMI7 Phacelia 

minutissima

Dwarf phacelia G3 S1 SEN D Suspected NI Moist meadow

PHMU3 Phlox multiflora Many-flowered 

phlox

G4 S1 OR-SEN D Suspected NI Talus, cliffs, rock outcrops

PIAL Pinus albicaulis

FC

Whitebark pine G3G4 S3 SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

PIFL2 Pinus flexilis Limber pine G4 S2? OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

PLOB Platanthera 

obtusata

Small northern 

bog-orchid

G5 S1 SEN D No habitat NI Fens

PLOR3 Pleuropogon 

oregonus

Oregon 

semaphoregras

s

G1 S1 OR-SEN S Suspected NI Wet meadows and riparian

PODI Potamogeton 

diversifolius

Rafinesque's 

pondweed

G5 S1 OR-SEN S No habitat NI Wet meadows and riparian*

PRQU2 Preissia 

quadrata

Liverwort G5 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Limestone

PSTR5 Pseudocalliergo

n trifarium

Moss G4 S1 OR-SEN S No habitat NI Fens

PTPU2 Ptilidium 

pulcherrimum

Liverwort G5 S1 OR-SEN D Suspected MIIH Coniferous Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement

366 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Code Scientific Name Common 

Name

Global 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

Novembe

r 2014 

SSS 

Category

WW

NF

Presence 

in 

Planning 

Area

Effects 

Calls 

Alternative

s 2 & 3

Habitat Category

PYSC4 Pyrrocoma 

scaberula

Rough 

pyrrocoma

G2 S1 OR-SEN D Document

ed

MIIH Grasslands

ROCO3 Rorippa 

columbiae

Columbia cress G3 S3 SEN S Suspected NI Wet meadows and riparian

RORA Rotala ramosior Lowland 

toothcup

G5 S2 SEN S Suspected NI Wet meadows and riparian

RUBA Rubus 

bartonianus

Bartonberry G2 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Low elevation riparian

SAFA Salix farriae Farr's willow G4 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

SAWO Salix wolfii Wolf's willow G5? S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Cold riparian forest

SAADO

2

Saxifraga 

adscendens ssp. 

oregonensis

Wedge-leaf 

saxifrage

G5 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

SCCI5 Schistidium 

cinclidodonteum

Moss G2G3 S2 OR-SEN D Suspected MIIH Coniferous Forest

SISP2 Silene 

spaldingiiFT

Spalding's 

catchfly

G2 S2 FT D Suspected May Effect 

– NLAA

Grasslands

SUVI Suksdorfia 

violacea

Violet 

suksdorfia

G4 S1 OR-SEN S Suspected NI Talus, cliffs, rock outcrops

TEGE Tetraphis 

geniculata 

Moss G3G5 S1 ORSEN/WASTRS Suspected MIIH Coniferous Forest

THAL Thalictrum 

alpinum

Alpine 

meadowrue

G5 S2 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

THEU Thelypodium 

eucosmum

Arrow-leaf 

thelypody

G2 S2 OR-SEN S No habitat NI Low elevation riparian

TOMU7

0

Tortula 

mucronifolia

Moss G5 S2 OR-SEN S Suspected NI Talus, cliffs, rock outcrops
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 367

Code Scientific Name Common 

Name

Global 

Rank

ORBIC 

State 

Rank

Novembe

r 2014 

SSS 

Category

WW

NF

Presence 

in 

Planning 

Area

Effects 

Calls 

Alternative

s 2 & 3

Habitat Category

TOMO Townsendia 

montana

Mountain 

townsendia

G4 S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

TOPA2 Townsendia 

parryi

Parry's 

townsendia

G4? S1 OR-SEN D No habitat NI Subalpine/ alpine

TRDO Trifolium 

douglasii

Douglas' clover G2 S1 SEN D Suspected NI Moist meadows

TRLAA

2

Trollius laxus 

ssp. albiflorus

American 

globeflower

G5 S1 OR-SEN D Suspected NI Wet meadows, riparian

UTMI Utricularia minor Lesser 

bladderwort

G5 S2 OR-SEN D Document

ed

NI Fens

Key to codes

* based on expert opinion, species is not expected in LJCRP.

FC = federal candidate 

FT = federal threatened

Rank and Status Information:

Global (G), National (N) and Subnational (State/Province) (S) Ranks:

1 = Critically imperiled 

2 = Imperiled

3 = Rare and uncommon; vulnerable.

4 = Not rare and apparently secure

5 = Demonstrably widespread, abundant and secure

U = Unrankable

H = Possible extinct; Historical occurrence, formerly part of the native biota with the implied expectation that it may be rediscovered

X = Presumed extinct

NR = Not yet ranked

Rank Qualifiers:

? = Inexact numeric rank
Final Environmental Impact Statement

368 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Q = Questionable taxonomy

C = Captive or Cultivated only

Breeding Status Qualifiers:

B = Breeding, conservation status refers to breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province

N = Non-breeding, conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province.

M = Migrant, migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation 

attention

Subspecies Rank (T = trinomial):

T# = Status of a infraspecific taxon (subspecies or varieties) are indicated by a T-rank following the species' global rank.

Rules for assigning T-ranks follow the same definitions for Global, National and Subnational/State ranks.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) List Rank:

1 = contains taxa that are threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their entire range

2 = contains taxa that are threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from the state of Oregon; 

these are often peripheral or disjunct species which are of concern when considering species diversity within Oregon's borders.

3 = contains taxa for which more information is needed before status can be determined, but which may be threatened or endangered in Oregon or throughout 

their range

4 = contains taxa which are of conservation concern but are not currently threatened or endangered

Effects Determinations for Alternatives 2 and 3

NI – No Impact; MIIH- May Impact Individuals and Habitat but will not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species; 

NLAA – Not Likely to Adversely Affect; 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 369

Appendix G - Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) Consultation and Coordination Record

Key to acronyms: TRL = Tribal Relations Liaison; NPT = Nez Perce Tribe; NPTEC = Nez Perce Tribes Executive Counsel; THPO = Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer

Date Contact/Consulta

tion Type 

Topic Parties Involved Outcome/Actions

08-28-13 Field Tour

Information 

sharing

LJCRP existing condition and restoration 

treatment needs

W-W collaborative, FS, 

NRAC, NP staff, public

TRL met NPT Acting Fisheries Program 

Director. Received information on who to 

work with to begin LJCRP staff to staff 

coordination

09-30-13 Phone call Request to coordinate briefing regarding 3 Blue 

Mountains Landscape Restoration projects i.e. 

LJCRP, Strategic Fuels Reduction and Dry 

Forest Restoration Projects

TRL and NPT Acting 

Fisheries Program 

Director 

Received names and contact information 

for NPT Legal Counsel and NPT Natural 

Resource Director

11-05-13 Formal Letter From 4 Blue Mountains Forest Supervisors i.e. 

Wallowa-Whitman, Ochoco, Umatilla and 

Malheur National Forests requesting 

coordination to initiate Govt-Govt consultation 

regarding 3 Blue Mountains projects

Forest Supervisors, TRL, 

NPTEC, NPT Directors 

and Staff

Received

11-06-13 Email/phone calls Schedule briefing for 3 Blue Mountains 

Landscape Restoration projects i.e. LJCRP, 

Strategic Fuels Reduction and Dry Forest 

Restoration Projects 

TRL, NPT Legal Counsel 

and NPT Natural 

Resource Director

Check calendars and NPTEC Sub 

Committee agenda and get back later. 

11-19-13 NPTEC Natural 

Resource SubCommittee 

Meeting

Team Leader and TRL briefing for Blue Mountain 

projects i.e. LJCRP, Strategic Fuels Reduction 

and Dry Forest Restoration Projects 

NR Committee, NR 

Director and staff

Agreement to review and initiate Govt-Govt 

consultation in near future

01-08-14 Staff to Staff 

meeting

Wallowa-Whitman NF SOPA review including 

LJCRP

District Ranger ,staff, 

LJCRP IDT members and 

NPT staff

LJCRP briefing, issues and concerns 

shared, introductions and discussion of 

how NPT staff and IDT will work together 

01-22-14 Wallowa-Whitman 

Collaborative 

Meeting. La 

Grande RD

Review and discuss status of LJCRP 

environmental analysis

Members of public and 

collaborative. Nez Perce 

staff joined via con call

Tribal staff concerned about apparent lack 

of understanding of trust responsibilities 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

370 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Date Contact/Consulta

tion Type 

Topic Parties Involved Outcome/Actions

02-12-14 Conference call NPT THPO cultural resource interest in 

conducting archaeological survey for LJCRP

Forest Archaeologist, 

District Archaeologist, 

TRL and NPT THPO

TRL look into contract authorities 

02-21-14 Conference call LJCRP planning update; discuss historic range 

of variability and alternative development 

IDT Lead, TRL, NPT staff 

i.e. THPO, Botanist, 

Biologist and Planner

Information sharing 

03-03-14 IDT meeting 

Conference call

LJCRP analysis update i.e. proposed indicators 

and measures and themes for alternatives

Wallowa County NRAC, 

IDT, Wallowa- Whitman 

Forest Collaborative lead, 

NPT planner 

Info requests for maps showing land 

allocations, RCHAs relative to units, wildlife 

corridors, heritage, wildlife, botany surveys. 

03-04-14 Conference call NPT THPO interest in sole source contracting for 

cultural resources inventories 

FS Contract Officer, TRL 

and NPT THPO

No agreement

03-04-14 Conference call Follow up with tribal staff per 01-013-14 meeting. 

Roads, IRAs, Old growth issues, RCHAs

IDT members and NPT 

THPO, planning and 

biology staff

Agreed to meet face to face to move 

forward with coordination 

03-13-14 Video Teleconference and 

face to face 

meeting in 

Clarkston 

Look at alternatives and explore options. Discuss 

how work together

IDT members and NPT 

THPO, planning, botany 

and wildlife staff

NPT staff want IDT to address tribal 

interests and sensitivities 

03-14-14 Follow up on NPT 

staff 3/13 request 

for copies of 

LJCRP public 

comments 

 LJCRP public comments NPT planning staff FedEx 2 copies to NPT staff

03-17-14 IDT Conference 

call 

Updates on data collection, models, HRV, effects NPT botanist Continue consultation/IDT participation

03-27-14 IDT meeting 

conference call

Finalize alternatives Wallowa County NRAC, 

IDT, Wallow- Whitman 

Forest Collaborative lead, 

Alternatives developed to compare 

outcomes of varying levels of treatments 

per resource concerns
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 371

Date Contact/Consulta

tion Type 

Topic Parties Involved Outcome/Actions

NPT planner, biologist and 

botanist

04-15-14 Email Government-Government consultation 

scheduling 

Deputy Forest Supervisor 

and NPT legal counsel

Pending schedules

04-29-14 Conference call June 24 staff to staff LoJo field trip. NPT staff 

concerned why no recent engagement 

IDT members and NPT 

planning, wildlife and 

botany staff 

Identified field trip locations and next face 

to face meeting for May 12 in Joseph 

05-12-14 Staff to staff 

meeting at Tribal 

Fisheries office in 

Joseph

Field trip planning, status of analysis, 

Alternatives themes and comparison discussion

IDT members and NPT 

planning, fisheries and 

botany staff

Ongoing

05-27-14 Phone 

conversation 

Heritage Resource Inventory/NHPA Compliance TRL and Guy Moura, 

Confederated Tribes of 

Colville THPO

TRL to share inventory results with THPO 

when complete

06-16-14 Field Trip Reviewed and discussed cultural and other 

traditional resources in the LJCRP

THPO, NPT 

ethnographer, TRL, Zone 

Archaeologist 

Ongoing coordination

06-24-14 Field Trip Reviewed proposed actions in the LJCRP IDT and tribal staff Agreement to continue coordination

07-08-14 Meeting Government to Government consultation to 

discuss LJCRP tribal issues and concerns 

Forest Supervisor, IDT 

lead, TRL and NPTEC

Continue staff to staff coordination. 

Address interests in EIS 

09-24-14 Field Trip Review types of treatments proposed in RCHA’s Tribal staff and IDT Ongoing coordination

10-24-14 Field Trip Review types of treatments in Inventoried 

Roadless areas and MA15

Tribal staff and IDT Ongoing coordination

January 

2015 to 

June 2015 

Phone calls & 

meeting (04-10-15)

Several calls and meetings regarding 

ethnographic study and participating agreement

TRL, Forest Arch, Zone 

Arch, THPO, NPT Cultural 

Director

Ongoing coordination
Final Environmental Impact Statement

372 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Date Contact/Consulta

tion Type 

Topic Parties Involved Outcome/Actions

02-05-15 Phone 

conversation 

Reviewed LJCRP Cultural Resource Inventory 

findings and effects. 

THPO, TRL Some concerns regarding survey strategy

03-04-15 Phone 

conversation

Staff to staff coordination to plan the DEIS 

response to comments meeting

TRL and NPT NEPA Done

03-18-15 Meeting Consult regarding traditional cultural values 

associated with LJCRP

TRL, Forest Arch, NPT 

Cultural Resource Staff

Ongoing coordination

03-26-15 Meeting Held at Hells Canyon office to review and 

discuss team’s response to Tribes DEIS 

comments

Blues IDT and NPT Staff Blues IDT to revise responses based on 

issues/edits discussed 

04-09-15 Formal Letter Formal consultation via letter from Tom Montoya 

to Tribal Chairman Silas Whitman responding to 

Tribe’s comments as discussed at 3/26 meeting

Forest Supervisor and 

Tribal Chairman

ongoing

05-14-15 Phone 

conversation

Coordination to plan and prepare for June 9 

Forest Service-NPTEC government to 

government meeting regarding response to 

Tribes comments and concerns

TRL and NPT NEPA No intermediate meeting needed. More info 

to come regarding meeting time 

06-09-15 Meeting Formal government to government consultation 

regarding LJCRP 

NPTEC, NPT legal 

counsel, resource staff, 

Forest Supervisor, District 

Ranger and Blues IDT 

members

Consultation ongoing

06-15-15 Meeting Review of NPT FEIS to ensure IDT and decision 

maker understands issues and concerns. NPT 

staff requests review of latest FEIS

Blues IDT and NPT Staff IDT leader shares latest FEIS to NPT staff 

via email on 6-23-15

06-23-15 Phone 

conversations and 

email 

Ethnographic Study Participating Agreement 

ready to review and sign

NPT admin staff and 

Forest province grants 

and agreement staff

Delivered via email 06-29-15

07-30-15 Email Ethnographic Study signed by Tribe and Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 373

Appendix H. Non-native Invasive Plants Documented in LJCRP area

Scientific Name Common Name ODA

1

Wallowa 

County2

utilization

response 3

fire 

adaptations4

Wetland 

Status5

Habitat Type High 

Priority? 6

Acres 7

Aegilops cylindrica jointed goat grass B A IU invader UPL Open areas No 0.01

Arctium minus common burdock B IU invader FACU Open Areas No S

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass IU invader FACU Rangeland No S

Cardaria draba white top B IU invader, sprouter UPL Open Areas Yes 0.01

Centaurea cyanus bachelor button W IU invader FACU Open Areas No S

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed B B IU sprouter UPL Open Areas No 173

Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed B A IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No 126

Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle B A IU invader FACU Rangeland No 66

Chondrilla juncea rush 

skeletonweed

B A IP invader, sprouter UPL Rangeland

Yes

0.4

Cichorium intybus chicory B IP invader FACU Open Areas No S

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B B IU invader, sprouter FACU Mesic 

Openings No

54

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle B B IU invader FACU Open Areas No 284

Conium maculatum hemlock B A IU avoider FACW Mesic 

Openings No

S

Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed B B IU invader UPL Open Areas No S

Crupina vulgaris common crupina A IU invader UPL Rangeland No S

Cynoglossum officinale hounds tongue B B IU invader FACU Open Areas No S

Dipsacus fullonum teasel B IU sprouter FAC Open Areas No S

Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed A A IU sprouter FACU Mesic 

Openings Yes

10

Hieracium pratense meadow 

knapweed

A IU sprouter FACU Mesic 

Openings Yes

2385
Final Environmental Impact Statement

374 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Scientific Name Common Name ODA

1

Wallowa 

County2

utilization

response 3

fire 

adaptations4

Wetland 

Status5

Habitat Type High 

Priority? 6

Acres 7

Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort B B IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No S

Kochia scoparia kochia B B IP* toxic invader FAC Open Areas No S

Linaria dalmatica Dalmation toadflax B B IP sprouter UPL Rangeland No S

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle B A IU invader FAC Mesic 

Openings No

440

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass B IP avoider OBL Mesic 

Openings No

S

Potentilla recta sulfur cinquefoil B A IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No 7

Ranunculus acris tall buttercup B IU sprouter FACW Mesic 

Openings No

S

Ranunculus testiculatus bur buttercup B IU invader UPL Open Areas No S

Rosa eglanteria sweet briar rose B IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No S

Rubus discolor blackberry B B IU sprouter FACU Open Areas No S

Senecio jacobaea tansy ragwort B A IU sprouter FACU Mesic 

Openings No

5.5

Silene alba white campion B IU invader UPL Open Areas No S

Taeniatherum caput-medusae medusahead rye B A IU invader UPL Rangeland No 0.5

Ventenata dubia ventenata B IU invader UPL Rangeland No S

Verbascum thapsus mullein B IU seeder FACU Open Areas No S

1/ Oregon Department of Agriculture codes: A = a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication or containment 

possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent; B = a weed of economic importance which is 

regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties

2/ Wallowa County Codes: “A” Designated Weed – a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the county in small enough infestations to make eradication or 

containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring counties make future occurrence in Wallowa County seem imminent.

“B” Designated Weed – a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some areas. “W” Watch List - Weeds that are 

known or are likely to occur in Wallowa County that have economic or ecological importance but, for whatever reason have not been given the emphasis of rating as an A or B 

Noxious Weed are listed in the Watch List. (Wallowa County Weed Board 2010).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 375

3/ The Blue Mountain Ecology program, NRCS Plants, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) databases were queried for information on utilization response, fire 

adaptations, and wetland status. Utilization response (response to grazing): IU = increases with utilization and is unpalatable, IP increases and is palatable. 

4/ Fire adaptations: invader = comes in after fire and thrives in post fire conditions, sprouter = survives and resprouts after fire, seeder = regenerates from copious seed after fire, 

avoider = occupies habitats rarely visited by fire.

5/ Wetland Status: UPL = upland, FACU = faculatative upland, FACW = facultative wetland, OBL = obligate wetland 

6/ This column refers to whether the species is considered a high priority for eradication by the Wallowa Mountains District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

7/ Species without acres listed have been observed in the project area but not documented in the NRM database
Final Environmental Impact Statement

376

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Appendix I – Response to Comments on the DEIS

As per Section 102 (c) of NEPA and FSH 1909.15 Chapter 20, Section 25, this appendix includes 

a summary of all specific written, substantive comments received on the DEIS. Comments that 

are pertinent to the same subject have been aggregated by categories. The project record includes 

responses to each individual comment received on the DEIS.

This appendix also includes copies of the full text of all comments received on the DEIS from 

Federal, State, and local agencies and elected officials.

Content Analysis Process

Public responses on the LJCRP were documented and analyzed using a process called content 

analysis. This is a systematic process of compiling and categorizing all public viewpoints and 

concerns submitted on a plan or project. Content analysis is intended to help the planning team 

clarify or adjust the FEIS. Information from public meetings, letters, emails, and other sources are 

all included in this analysis. 

In the content analysis process, each response is assigned a unique number. This number allows 

analysts to link specific comments to original responses. All respondents’ names and addresses 

are entered into a project-specific database program, enabling creation of a complete list of all 

respondents. 

The project planning team read and coded responses using the coding structure. Each comment is 

coded by subject. Then all coded comments are entered verbatim into a comment database. 

Database reports track all input and allow analysts to identify public concerns and to analyze the 

relationships among them. Each public concern statement is composed of one or more sample 

excerpts from original comments. Unique commenter identification numbers corresponding to 

summary comments and responses are noted. A key to commenter identities is available in the 

project record.

This appendix does not replace responses in their original form. Rather, they provide a map to the 

responses and other input on file at the Wallowa Mountains Office, Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest.

It is important to recognize that the consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting 

process in which the outcome is determined by the majority opinion. Relative depth of feeling 

and interest among the public can serve to provide a general context for decision-making. 

However, it is the appropriateness, specificity, and factual accuracy of comment content that 

serves to provide the basis for modifications to planning documents and decisions. Further, 

because respondents are self-selected, they do not constitute a random or representative public 

sample. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) encourages all interested parties to 

submit comments as often as they wish regardless of age, citizenship, or eligibility to vote. 

Respondents may therefore include businesses, people from other countries, children, and people 

who submit multiple responses. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting comparative 

terms in this appendix. Every substantive comment and suggestion has value, whether expressed 

by one respondent or many. All input is read and evaluated and the analysis team attempts to 

capture all relevant public concerns in the analysis process.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 377

Coding Structure

Presented below is the list of categories or “codes” used to sort and analyze public comments on the LJCRP. 

Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition

101 Code TBD/Pending 122 Effects 

Analysis 141.04 Chemical Veg. 

Treatment 150.03 Transportation 

Analysis 165.09 Rec. in Wilderness, 

Roadless, etc.

102 No Further 

Response Required 122.01

Cumulative 

Effects 

Analysis

141.05 Structural 

Stages 151 Roads Management 170 Land Ownership, 

Uses

102.01 Beyond Scope 123 Technical, 

Editorial 141.06 Use of HRV 151.01 Road Construction,

Maint. 170.01 Special Use 

Authorizations

102.02 Position, No 

Rationale 123.01

Adeqacy of 

Info Provided 

(Maps)

141.07 Methods (eg. 

Heavy equip) 151.02 Road Closure, 

Decomm. 170.02 Land Use Changes

102.03 Already Addressed 130 Resource & 

Area Mgmt 142 Timber Mgmt 152 Trails Management 170.03 Land Acquisition 

and Exchanges

110 Decision Process 130.01 Monitoring 142.01 Timber Sales 

(Green) 152.01 Trails Construction, 

Maint. 170.04 Landlines, 

Boundary Fences

110.01 Roles, Authorities 130.02 Inventories, 

Mapping, GIS 142.02 Timber Sales 

(Salvage) 152.02 Trails Closure, 

Decomm. 171 Land 

Designations/Mgmt

110.02 Coordination, 

Consultation 130.03 Enforcement 142.03 Harvest Levels 

(Actual) 153 Road/Trail 

Structures, Signs 171.01 Roadless Areas

110.03 Trust, Credibility 131 Physical 

Elements 142.04 Harvest 

Methods 160 Recreation Mgmt 171.02 Designated 

Wilderness Areas

110.04 Laws, Policies 132

Water, 

Watershed 

Mgt, Stream 

Restoration

142.05 Suitability 

Determinations 160.01 Rec. Opportunity 

Spectrum 171.03 Wilderness Study, 

Recommend.

110.05 General Use of 

Science, Analyses 132.01 Riparian Area Mgmt 142.06 Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) 160.02 User Education 171.04 Biosphere Reserve

110.06 Land Mgmt 

Emphasis, RHCAs 132.02

Water 

Infrastructure 

Mgmt

142.07 Biofuels 160.03 User Fees 171.05 Research Natural 

Areas/ACECs
Final Environmental Impact Statement

378 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition

110.0601 Multiple Use Mgmt 132.03 Wetlands, 

Springs 142.08 Other Uses 160.04 Visual Resource 

Mgmt 171.06 Scenic Roads & 

Trails

110.0602 Preservation Mgmt 133 Air and Climate 142.09 Biomass 

Utilization 161 Recreation Use 

Permits 171.07 Wild and Scenic 

Rivers

110.0603 Adaptive Mgmt 133.01 Air Quality 

Mgmt 142.1 Silvicultural 

Methods 161.01 Commercial Permits 180 Econ. & Soc. 

Actions, Analyses

110.0604 Ecosystem 

Restoration 133.02 Climate 

Change 143 Wildlife/Animals 

Mgmt 161.02 Non-commercial 

Permits 181 Econ. Actions, 

Analyses

110.0605 Forest Health 134 Soils Mgmt 143.01 Stock, Breed, 

Reintroduce 162 Recreational Access 181.01 Estimating 

Costs/Values

110.0606 Sustainablity 134.01 Slope or 

Erosion Control 143.02 Animal Disease 

Mgmt 162.01 Rec. Access 

Restrictions 181.02 Comparing 

Costs/Benefits

110.07

Appeals, 

Objections, 

Litigation

135 Minerals & 

Geology Mgmt 143.03 Invasive Animal 

Mgmt 162.02 Seasonal 

Closures/Access 181.03 Community Econ. 

Effects Analysis

111 Public Involvement 135.01 Minerals & 

Rock 143.04

Chemical 

Animal 

Treatment

163 Developed Rec. and 

Facilities 181.04 Local Timber 

Industry

111.01 Outreach/Education 135.02 Oil & Gas 143.05

Wildlife Harvest 

Levels, 

Methods

163.01 Campgrounds/Picnic 

Areas 181.05 Fire adapted ecosystems

111.02 Collaboration, 

Meetings 135.03

Plan of 

Operation, 

Processes

143.06

Wildlife 

Structures 

(barriers, etc.)

163.02 Restrooms 182 Social Actions or 

Analyses

111.03 Comment Period 135.04

Reclamation, 

Cleanup, 

Bonding

144

Domestic 

Livestock, 

Grazing Mgmt

163.03 Trailheads, Signs, 

Parking 182.01 Cultural, Hist., 

Anthro. Mgmt

112 Agency 

Organization 135.05 Mineral Uses, 

Alternatives 144.01

Grazing 

Permits, 

Allotments

163.04 Water Activities 182.02 Public Health, 

Safety

112.01 Funding, General 136 Fire and Fuels 

Mgmt 144.02 Fences, 

Structures 164 Motorized 

Recreation Mgmt 182.03 Env. Justice, Civil 

Rights Analysis
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 379

Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition

112.02 Staffing 136.01 Suppression 144.03

Rangeland 

Veg. 

Improvements

164.01 OHV use

112.0202 Volunteers 136.02

Fuel 

Treatment, 

Reduction

144.04

Monitoring 

(Livestock 

Effects)

164.0101 Full size vehicle use

112.03 Outsourcing, 

Contracting 136.03 Prescribed 

Burns 144.05 Water 

developments 164.0102 Single-track 

motorcycle use

120 Proposed Action, 

Decision 136.04 Unit Fire Plans 149 Other Activities 

Mgmt 164.0103 4- and 3-wheeler 

use

120.01 Purpose and Need 136.05 Safety, Risk 

Mgmt. 149.01 Utility Corridors, 

Facilities 164.02 Over-snow vehicle 

use

120.02 Analysis type (CE, 

EA, EIS) 136.06 Wildland/Urban Interface 149.02

Research 

Facilities, 

Projects

164.03 Motorized 

Watercraft use

121 Issues, Alternatives 136.07 Smoke Mgmt 149.03 Military 

Activities 165 Dispersed Recreation Mgmt

121.01 Alts. Not Analyzed 

In Detail 136.08 The role of fire 149.04 Hydroelectric 165.01 Hiking, Backpacking

121.02 Alternatives 

(comparing, range) 136.09

Fire Regime 

Condition 

Class

149.05 Permits (excl. 

rec. & grazing) 165.02 Dispersed Camping

121.0201 Preferred 

Alternative 136.1

Amount or 

Scale of 

Prescribed Fire

149.06 Valid Existing 

Rights 165.03 Hunting, Shooting

121.0202 No Action 

Alternative 140

Biological 

Resources 

Mgt, Ground 

Disturbing 

Activities

149.07 Special Forest 

Prod. Collection 165.04 Fishing

121.0203 Alternative X 141 Vegetation 

Mgmt 149.08 Firewood 165.05 Equestrian/Pack 

Animals
Final Environmental Impact Statement

380 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition Code Definition

121.03 Suggested New 

Alternative 141.01

Introduction, 

Planting, 

Seeding

150

Trans. Sys. 

Mgmt (& nonrec. access)

165.06 Bicycling

122 Effects Analysis 141.02

Insects and 

Disease 

Treatment

150.01 Rights-Of-Way 165.07 Canoeing, 

Kayaking, Rafting

122.01 Cumulative Effects 

Analysis 141.03

Invasive 

Vegetation 

Treatment

150.02 Non-System, 

User-Created 165.08 Spelunking

Organized Response Report

Organized responses represented 98% of the total responses received during the public comment period for the LJCRP. Five or more responses 

received from different individuals but containing identical text, or identical text plus brief additional comments similar in content, are defined as 

organized response campaigns. One organized response campaign was received for the LJCRP.

Once an organized response campaign letter is identified, a “master” is entered into the database with all of the content information. All responses 

with matching text are then linked to this master within the database with a designated number. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 381

Summary of Comments and Responses by Category

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Eastside Screen 

amendment

244, 262, 

264

Harvesting trees over 21” dbh is a necessary component to 

implement this project—to accomplish all the stated resource 

objectives, including restoring the project area toward the 

historic range of variability; promoting resilience, economic 

values, and habitat management; reducing fuels and enhancing 

the health of the residual trees in this particular watershed; and 

reducing mistletoe disease problems. Furthermore, we urge 

you to change the proposal to expand the 21”-plus limit—to 

include harvest of some additional large trees beyond the 

currently-defined specs—at the Silviculturist’s professional 

discretion and written prescription. There are trees subject to 

imminent mortality, forest health problem, or safety issue, 

which would warrant removal. This area is moisture limited with 

regards to growing capacity and we are concerned that leaving 

too many trees on the landscape will contribute to the 

susceptibility of the forest to insects, disease and wildfire.

The design of prescriptions for cutting of any trees >21” 

would be based on the desire to restore forest structure and 

composition toward reference ranges of variation (RV), 

particularly to increase the abundance of shade-intolerant 

tree species (ponderosa pine and western larch), reduce the 

risk of uncharacteristically severe fire and insect and disease 

outbreaks, and increase resiliency to natural disturbance and 

climate change (FEIS Chapter 1). Trees that are deemed a 

safety concern to forest operations may be removed, 

although those subject to imminent mortality and are not a 

safety concern would be left as wildlife habitat trees and will 

contribute to the future snag pool. Trees that are considered 

a forest health problem (i.e. mistletoe infection) would be 

managed per the design recommended for the LJCRP by the 

USFS Forest Health Protection Program. For example, 

establishment of non-host or an unstocked buffer of at least 

50' between infected trees and uninfected residuals wherever 

trees infected with mistletoe are left (See FEIS Apendix J, 

Project Design Criteria, Silviculture Design).

Vegetation 

Management: 

Eastside Screen 

amendment

284 While the DEIS makes clear the intent behind the removal of 

trees >21" dbh, it does not fully disclose the circumstances 

under which those trees would be removed. The EPA 

recommends including a marking guide in the FEIS, as well as 

clarifying the way in which old trees will be identified.

With the intent to conserve all old trees, the project would 

adopt scientifically-derived guidelines (similar to Van Pelt 

(2008)) to assess tree age regardless of the diameter of 

individual trees. The FEIS has updated project design criteria 

(Appendix J) that illuminate specific treatment designs to 

meet the objectives of improving forest resiliency and 

conserving old forest structure.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

382 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Eastside Screen 

amendment

243 We can support a carefully defined amendment allowing 

removal of some (not all) large-young trees that are in direct 

competition (crowns touching) with more desired larger older 

trees. This activity should be exceptional and applied to a 

subset of the project area. This exception should not be used to 

“de-clump” natural clumps of trees. The FS should consider 

girdling the large-young trees to better meet objectives. This 

would reduce cone production, competition, and achieve other 

stated objectives while helping to provide large snag habitat in 

a way that commercial removal will not.

Treatment design concerning releasing old trees has been 

updated in the FEIS (Appendix J, Silviculture Design) and 

states: "Remove young trees within 1 to 2 drip-lines (the line 

extending vertically from the exterior edge of a tree’s live 

crown to the ground) of old ponderosa pine, western larch 

and Douglas-fir. Occasional individual large, vigorous trees 

may be left when they do not interfere with the objective to 

reduce crown competition and increase growing space 

adjacent to old trees". Forest thinning prescriptions would 

follow a practical, science based approach intended to 

restore characteristic functionality, and resistance and 

resilience to disturbance. Known as “ICO” (individuals, 

clumps and openings), this approach uses historical 

information at the stand- and landscape-level to design 

restoration strategies and prescriptions for restoration (e.g., 

see Franklin et al. 2013). For example, the pattern of old 

trees, stumps and snags currently on the landscape provide 

indicators of natural tree clumping and spacing, and thus the 

degree of horizontal spatial heterogeneity. In places where 

legacies of historic forest patterns are absent (e.g., young, 

post-fire forests), information is used from similar habitats. 

The decision-maker has been informed of the option to girdle 

rather than cut and remove large trees, and he could add this 

to the Record of Decision.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 383

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Eastside Screen 

amendment

225, 266 Eastside screens include direction that stands should move 

towards LOS (late old structure) conditions and also that large 

diameter trees over 21” should be retained and protected. This 

project follows neither of these Forest Plan directions, as tree 

species composition in many areas will be shifted towards early 

seral stages, and large diameter trees will be logged. The Tribe 

does not support the amendment to harvest trees greater than 

21' due to significant impacts to stand structural characteristics,

snag recruitment, etc.

Alternative 3 does not include a proposal to amend the forest 

plan to cut trees >21”, and could be selected by the decisionmaker. In Alternative 2, only under certain circumstances 

would trees >21" dbh be cut. Any proposed harvest is 

designed to move the landscape toward RV for all habitats. 

The effects analysis in Chapter 4 of the FEIS shows no net 

loss of old forest structure (OFSS or OFMS) in either of the 

action alternatives. It also shows the treatments would result 

in positive movement toward the desired condition for the 

larger tree size classes. Alternative 2 proposes a Forest Plan 

amendment to cut trees >21" dbh where appropriate (FEIS 

Chapter 3). The Eastside Screens were adopted as interim 

direction in 1993, amending the WWNF Forest Plan in 1994 

(Regional Forester’s Amendment #1) and with minor changes 

in 1995. In 2003, after nine years of implementation, the 

Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region examined 

whether the Eastside Screens were functioning as intended 

(Goodman 2003). It was found that interpretation of screens 

direction, including 21-inch diameter limitations, no harvest in 

stands below HRV, and prescriptive connectivity corridors, at 

times limits the ability to meet policy objectives of providing 

late, old forest structure (LOS), particularly in dry single-story 

ponderosa pine or western larch stands. Restoring species 

composition toward HRV can at times require removing 

larger, but younger (<150 year) shade-tolerant species, many 

of which germinated as anindirect result of decades of fire 

suppression, to favor shade-intolerant species, such as 

ponderosa pine and western larch. Alternative 2 effects 

analyses show effects on structural characteristics, snag 

recruitment, and cultural resources given this forest plan 

amendment. The importance of large trees for many wildlife 

species is described in the FEIS in chapter 2, Wildlife Habitat 

section.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

384 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Project scope

4 Your insane proposal to log 47.1 square miles in an area 

sacred to Chief Joseph Band of the Nez Perce Tribe will 

certainly be stopped.

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). The FEIS 

considers concerns raised directly by the tribe. The FEIS 

discloses the effects of the No Action and action alternatives 

to tribal resources (FEIS chapter 4, Tribal).

Vegetation 

Management: 

General

243, 263 [We] support many of the silvicultural design features described 

in the Lower Joseph Creek Draft EIS (pp. 385-388). We 

support the use of ICO (individuals, clumps opening) method, 

but it must be recognized that this is a new and largely 

untested method and it must be carefully implemented and 

monitored to ensure that it is achieving desired objectives (such 

as variability and adequate retention of trees for future 

recruitment of large trees, and future snags and down wood), 

and avoiding undesired objectives (such as large gaps lacking 

live trees and or dead wood structure).

The planning team worked with Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, Wallowa Mountains Ranger District, and Regional 

Office staff to develop an implementation guide that will 

bridge the project vision presented in the EIS to 

implementation on the ground. The team is also consulting 

with ICO experts to present a LJCRP specific ICO training to 

the implementation crews, and bring silviculture staff and 

prescriptionist up to speed on ICO techniques and 

prescription development. The silviculture design in Appendix 

J of the FEIS has been updated from the version in the DEIS 

and contains design specific to large trees, snags, down 

wood and openings (gaps). These project design criteria 

serve as the foundation for the implementation guide. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 385

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment extent

242, 243, 

263

Commercial treatments in MA-15 (Old Growth Preservation 

Areas) could be more acceptable if the Forest Service identified 

alternative sites to protect, or dropped all moist forest 

treatments in MA-15. HCPC does not support: The logging and 

removal of trees > 21 inches dbh to create canopy gaps or to 

reduce seed sources; commercial harvest in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas or other 

ecologically significant unroaded areas; commercial harvest in 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) or Old Growth 

Management Areas (MA-15). Ongoing discussions within the 

(Wallowa Whitman Forest) collaborative may facilitate limited 

agreement for specific treatments in these areas. In old growth 

dry forests, some commenters support low-impact restoration 

through removal of small and some mid-sized trees (<12 inch 

dbh), and restoration of fire if proper preparations are made. 

All of the action alternatives conserve the existing amount of 

old forest on the landscape, and increase the amount of 

large-tree and old forests (FEIS Chapter 4, tables 52, 54, 71, 

73). One way to conserve old forest structure is to improve 

the resiliency of old trees to insects, fire and climate change. 

We have designed all treatments including those treatments 

that would occur within designated old growth areas 

(Management Area 15) with this in mind. Proven techniques 

for improving resiliency include reducing crown competition 

and increase growing space adjacent to old trees. 

Alternative 3 does not propose harvest activties in MA15, 

IRAs, and PWAs, nor the cutting of trees >21" dbh, and could 

be selected by the decision-maker. Canopy gaps are used to 

encourage regeneration of shade-intolerant species, and 

create landscape heterogeneity, relative to the range of 

natural variability. Franklin et al. (2013) specify that creation 

of gaps should in-part be determined by the landscape 

context, and need to shift species composition toward 

desired conditions. It could be ineffective to create canopy 

gaps to encourage shade-intolerant species without 

considering the landscape context, and taking advantage of 

the opportunity and need for gaps to also reduce seed 

sources of shade-tolerant tree species. Scientific analyses of 

forest patterns in the Blue Mountains concluded that early 

seral (stand initiation) gaps historically ranged in size (on 

ecological contexts including the Lower Joseph Creek 

landscape) up to about 180 acres (Hessburg 1999). The 

FEIS analyzes the effects of a range of alternatives that 

include cutting versus not cutting trees >21", and harvest 

versus no harvest in IRAs, PWAs, RHCAs, and MA15 . The 

relative effects disclosed in the FEIS will be used to inform 

the final decision. The FEIS includes updated project design 

criteria (Appendix J) that illuminate specific treatment design 

to meet the objectives of improving forest resiliency and 

conserving old forest structure.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

386 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Designated Old 

Forest (MA-15)

225 Treatments in old growth areas is fairly aggressive and leaves 

very little opportunity for recruitment of the next generation, 

retards snag development and destablize the stand. The Tribe 

proposes a more moderate approach that retains more larger 

trees and all trees over 21 regardless of species. The tribe 

recommends the district or forest wildlife biologist review and 

approve the prescriptions and marking prior to treatment. A 

robust monitoring and evaluation plan should be required.

The FEIS was improved to clarify how the treatments are 

designed to meet Forest Plan desired conditions for wildlife, 

and the intent of the implementation plan. Specific to MA15 

treatment design - Alternative 3 foregoes treatment in MA-15 

and would leave the existing condition intact. Treatments 

proposed in MA-15 under Alternative 2 were designed to be 

conservative. For example: no trees 21" and larger would be 

removed; changes in density would be low to moderate (none 

of the treatments would result in a low density class where it 

doesn't already exist). Leaving an overall denser condition 

increases the number of replacement trees available when 

the old trees complete their life cycle. These treatments are 

also designed with improving resiliency of the old trees and 

old forest structure to insects, fire and climate change in 

mind. Proven techniques for improving resiliency of old trees 

include reducing crown competition and increase growing 

space adjacent to the old trees. Collaborators and the Forest 

Service are working together using the stated goals and 

objectives in the project DEIS, and the resulting decision, to 

develop specific monitoring questions and implement 

monitoring strategies. Key issues currently being considered 

for multi-party monitoring by the Wallowa-Whitman Forest 

Collaborative’s monitoring subcommittee include 

effectiveness of treatments in designated old growth 

preservation areas (MA 15), among others. The deciding 

official has been made aware of desires for specifically 

monitoring treatments in designated old forest in the LJCRP 

area, which can be made a part of the Record of Decision.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 387

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Moist Forest

243, 265, 

266

We ask that all commercial logging and roading in moist forest 

types be dropped as this is evidently a less abundant forest 

type in the project area and is important as source habitat for 

American marten and for foraging and potential nesting habitat 

for Pileated woodpecker. Further, densities of large snags (>20 

inches dbh) in moist forest are below reference conditions in 

the snag density classes that provide habitat for American 

marten, and snag habitat is likely to be a limiting factor for 

marten in these habitat types. Harvesting on 3,423 acres will 

add to a reduction in snag habitat, further declining potential 

and future habitat quality for marten in this area. There is not 

nearly the same consensus on moist forest treatments or the 

need for restoration as in dry forests. The Forest Service 

should consider non-commercial treatments or no treatment in 

moist forests.

Most of the DEIS Alternative 2 proposal to treat the moist 

forest potential vegetation group within MA-15 was dropped 

due to wildlife habitat concerns. The remaining moist forest 

areas (about 50 acres) did not meet marten habitat criteria 

and they remain as part of Alternative 2 planned treatments 

to move toward the desired conditions in terms of forest 

composition, structure and density. We recognize that large 

tree, closed canopied, moist forests (also described as 

'marten habitat') are at the low end of desired conditions 

(range of variation; RV). The design criteria for the proposed 

harvest within moist forests overall (including 800 and 700 

acres in Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively) is to maintain 

>60% canopy closure, and multi-story conditions; and no 

trees > 21” would be harvested. It is assumed that postharvest, these stands would be maintained as marten source 

habitat. Vegetation treatments in both action alternatives are 

assumed to modify fire behavior and reduce the likelihood of 

a stand replacement event, thereby potentially retaining 

source habitat in the long-term. Treatment units remain 

outside a larger block of moist forest with larger tree structure 

within and adjacent to the MA-15 located along Peavine 

Creek, perhaps providing some protection to this area by 

lessening the risk for high severity fire. In Alternative 3, there 

would be no harvest of trees > 21" dbh, which would likely 

provide higher quality habitat for species associated with 

these larger tree structures. Effects of harvest on habitat 

quality are expected to be short-term as the forests continue 

to grow. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

388 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment extent

265 We are concerned by the proposed 5,500 acres of thinning 

after a stand replacement wild fire... The Forest Service fails to 

disclose this recent scientific finding or to analyze the impacts 

of not leaving naturally recovering forest alone after a stand 

replacement fire in the Lower Joseph Creek DEIS. The Forest 

Service fails to recognize and analyze the biodiversity created 

by stand replacement fire and its necessary role in the 

ecosystem, which evolved with fire. 

We are not certain of which stand replacement fire, or 

the"recent scientific findings" that this commment refers to. 

Stand improvement treatments in areas recovering from 

stand replacement fire thin small diameter trees to provide for 

spatial heterogeneity and accelerate tree growth toward 

stands dominated by larger diameter trees, which are far 

below RV in this landscape. Many of the stand replacement 

fires that occured in this landscape were located within IRAs, 

the majority of which would continue to develop without 

human intervention under any alternative. In Alternative 2, 

stand improvement treatments would reduce the abundance 

of stands dominated by trees less than 5" in diameter by 4 

and 5% in dry and moist upland forests, respectively (FEIS 

table 54). In Alternative 3, stand improvement treatments 

would reduce the abundance of stands dominated by trees 

less than 5" in diameter by 1% in both dry and moist upland 

forests (FEIS table 73). 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 389

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment in 

LOS

265 The rationale of increasing “resiliency to climate change and 

the safety and effectiveness of prescribed fire applications” 

(DEIS p.28) is a landscape scale objective, not significantly 

influenced by 31 acres of stand structure manipulation in 

existing late-old structure (LOS). Even if logged stands 

continue to meet Forest Service definitions of LOS, habitat 

quality has been lost and persistence as LOS over time may 

have been diminished due to the loss of future large live trees, 

snags, and logs. Any concerns about uncharacteristic 

understory density in a dry Ponderosa pine OFSS stand could 

otherwise be addressed with “non-commercial” size (e.g. up to 

8” dbh) thinning or prescribed burning, as most trees in an 

uncharacteristic understory (assuming there is anything 

uncharacteristic about a young understory) would be small.

Our RV analysis has shown that in the dry forests we 

currently have less old forest single story (OFSS) habitat, and 

more old forest multistory (OFMS) habitat than would be 

expected. Moving stands from an OFMS condition toward 

OFSS, is expected to increase the resiliency that is more 

characteristic of dry, frequent-fire forests. The vast majority of 

trees removed woud be relatively small diameter. 

Additionally, wildlife species associated with OFSS habitats, 

which are far below RV, would benefit from these treatments 

(FEIS chapter 4, WIldlife Habitat). The rationale for treating 

31 acres of existing old forest single story structure is to 

conserve the only representative of this structure left on the 

LJCRP landscape. This stand structure was much more 

abundant prior to the implementation of fire suppression, and 

project objectives include to increase the abundance of 

OFSS forests. Hence, it is prudent to maintain what currently 

exists by removing smaller diameter ladder fuels, and 

reducing the risk of loss of this rare structure to fire, insects 

and disease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

390 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment 

intensity

225, 243, 

265

The structural benefits of all large trees outweighs any concern 

over the specific species or age of that tree. The presence of 

large trees in general (which tend to be older trees, regardless 

of species) increases resiliency to natural disturbance 

(including insects) and climate change, as evidenced by their 

persistence. Large trees are not the trees to cut to increase 

resiliency to natural disturbance and climate change. This is 

well established in the science. It’s smaller firs that are more 

abundant on the landscape since heavy logging, not large firs. 

For several reasons (sensitive wildlife species that depend on 

dense forests; snag and down wood habitat; the moderating 

effects of dense canopy on winds, temperature, moisture, and 

in-turn fire behavior; carbon storage; etc), tree removal should 

be modest. How does extensive logging removal of existing 

large trees (already scarce compared to the historical range of 

variability) increase the abundance of “large tree dominated 

forests”? The Forest Service does not give any site-specific 

evidence that there is an overabundance of large “late seral” 

tree species (e.g. firs) or that there is any scientifically sound 

reason to remove large trees or any trees with old growth 

characteristics. There is no well documented, scientifically fieldverified, significant threat from large grand fir or Douglas-fir 

regarding their “outcompeting” or killing old Ponderosa pine. 

The Tribe recommends retention of all tress older than 150 

years regardless of species. 

Old forest structure was more widespread throughout the 

Blue Mountains historically. This old forest condition was 

dominated by fire tolerant species such as ponderosa pine 

and western larch, and is true of the remaining old forest 

within the LJRCP area. Conserving old forest structure 

regardless of where it exists, and retaining all old trees (>150 

years) are project objectives. Project Design Criteria common 

to all action alternatives (FEIS Appendix J, Silviculture 

Design) includes "retain and release old trees" and "reduce 

stand densities and increase mean diameter", as well as 

specific treatment designs to accomplish these. All 

alternatives retain trees greater than 150 years of age. The 

desired conditions for forest density include a range of 

conditions from low to high (FEIS table 13). The effects 

analysis indicates that post treatment condition for density is 

moving toward desired conditions, and contains a range of 

low to high density classes (see FEIS tables 53 and 72). 

Currently the forested landscape is deficient in opencanopied forests, and has an abundance (above RV) of 

closed-canopied forests. No alternative results in closed 

forest conditions that fall below the RV. Large numbers of 

snags are not expected to decline, and closing roads 

(Alternative 2) would reduce the risk to continued loss of 

snags. Project Design Criteria (FEIS Appendix J) are 

designed to protect all large snags during implementation of 

burning or harvesting, and harvest prescriptions should 

benefit snag-associated species of open canopied habitats. 

State and transition modeling was used to estimate the 

relative abundance of tree size classes (in 5" increments) 

given historical disturbance regimes, and the alternatives 

(e.g., see FEIS Appendix C). This modeling indicates that 

areas dominated by trees >20", <5" and 5 to 10" are 

underrespresented while areas dominated by trees 10 to 15" 

and 15 to 20" are overrepresented. The effects analysis 

shows the treatments would result in movement toward the 

desired condition for the larger tree size classes. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 391

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment 

intensity

265 For the Forest Service to imply there is a restoration need to 

turn the forest into more ponderosa pine and western larch and 

omit saying they would do this even in moister areas where 

grand fir and Douglas-fir naturally grow large and old, such as 

riparian areas, canyon bottoms, north-facing slopes, and higher 

elevation mixed conifer sites, is misleading and inaccurate use 

of the science through omission. Notably the Lower Joseph 

Creek area encompasses a lot of canyons, which usually 

contain streams and have moister micro-climates which 

typically have more fir naturally growing on north to northeast 

facing slopes and canyon bottoms.

Alternative 2 of the LJCRP proposes treatments in only 10% 

of the project area RHCAs, and Alternative 3 does not 

propose treatments in any RHCA. All RHCA treatments in 

Alternative 2, except for 31 acres in Swamp Creek, are in 

Category 4 RHCAs, which in most cases, due to topography 

and moisture availability, have vegetation dynamics very 

similar to the adjacent uplands. Further, the LJCRP 

landscape is composed of a mosaic of dry and moist forests, 

where pockets of moist forests are surrounded by dry forests. 

Due to this site-specific landscape pattern, the composition of 

moist forests is strongly influenced by the naturally frequent 

fire dynamics of adjacent dry forests, which favor fire-tolerant 

tree species such as ponderosa pine and western larch. 

Nonethless, forest treatments have been designed to be 

specific to the RV of the respective potential vegetation group 

(i.e, dry, moist).

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment 

rationale

Form email I urge you to do more than facilitate the logging of Joseph 

Canyon--please fulfill your mission as the trustee of our multivalue public forests and protect this rare resource, and allow 

only minimum-impact methods for thinning and fuels reduction.

Forest Plan standards and guides are designed to meet the 

multiple resource mission of National Forest System lands. 

This project will meet the objectives outlined in the Forest 

Plan and Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

Comprehensive Management Plan except where noted 

through amendment. FEIS Appendix J contains a list of 

project design criteria and best management practices that 

must be followed during implementation to mitigate or reduce 

impact to multiple resources.

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment 

rationale

226 We suggest that you elaborate on the effects of competition 

between the younger, less desirable trees with the older, more 

desirable trees in the project area. Specifically, please 

elaborate on how in the project area the competition negatively 

affects forest resilience and how the use of the amendment will 

benefit desirable trees and accomplish the purpose and need 

of the project.

The FEIS includes a discussion related to forest resiliency 

and competition specific to the range of variation (RV) in the 

Vegetation and Disturbance Regimes discussion in Chapter 2 

(Affected Environment). The FEIS also includes detailed 

analysis of the need and desired outcomes of the proposed 

Forest Plan amendment to the Eastside Screens (FEIS 

chapter 3).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

392 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment 

rationale

243 The problem that needs addressing is the seedlings, which can 

and should be controlled by restoring fire to its natural role.

The FEIS analyzes up to 90,000 acres of prescribed fire in 

the action alternatives, which can be used along with stand 

improvement treatments to restore heterogeneity in younger 

stands.

Vegetation 

Management: 

Treatment 

intensity

225 The Tribe urges caution in the application of the Franklin et al. 

2013 methodology.

In general, the Franklin et al. (2013) approach most 

appropriately achieves the desired conditions similar to other 

approaches taken in the Blue Mountains that attempt to 

achieve variable density. We will clarify how the approach 

we're taking meet Forest Plan desired conditions for 

vegetation and wildlife habitat.

Vegetation 

Management: 

Gap creation

243 We are opposed to removing large trees for purposes of 

creating canopy gaps or to reduce seed sources. We do not 

support “group selection” resulting in large gaps up to 4 acres. 

This does not mimic natural processes. It removes far too much 

structure from the forest. Fire does not result in large clearings. 

It leaves snag patches which are not only an important habitat 

type, but they help jump-start late-successional habitat 

development by retaining legacies of the past in the stands of 

the future. We urge the FS to modify group selection 

prescriptions to “share the bounty” of the forest, by removing 

some of the trees and leaving others (either live or dead) to 

better mimic natural disturbance processes.

The design of prescriptions for cutting of any trees >21” 

and/or creating canopy gaps would be based on the desire to 

restore forest structure and composition toward reference 

conditions, or the range of variation (RV), particularly to 

increase the abundance of shade-intolerant tree species 

(ponderosa pine and western larch), reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristically severe fire and insect and disease 

outbreaks, and increase resiliency to natural disturbance and 

climate change. The expressed purpose of the canopy gaps 

(regeneration openings) is to regenerate and culture 

ponderosa pine and or western larch and the design is 

specific to that purpose. The treatment design and guidance 

for creating canopy gaps and reducing seed sources has 

been updated in the FEIS (Appendix J, Silviculture Design) 

and states: "Create canopy gaps of appropriate orientation 

and size to facilitate natural regeneration of ponderosa pine 

and western larch" and "reduce grand fir, lodgepole pine and 

Douglas-fir seed sources adjacent to canopy gaps to 

minimize regeneration potential of these species". Another 

design specific to the regeneration groups within the group 

selection treatments is "leave old trees and available 

ponderosa pine and western larch seed trees within 

regeneration groups".
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 393

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Salvage

265 We are opposed to post-fire logging, including logging of forest 

in natural recovery after stand replacement fire. 

There is no post-fire logging (salvage) proposed in the 

LJCRP area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

394 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Estimation of the 

range of variation

265 While we don’t take issue with the importance of ecological 

resilience, we do take issue with how HRV and the concept of 

restoring ecological resilience are being mis-used in the Lower 

Joseph DEIS by omitting analysis and acknowledgement of the 

ecological impacts of the planned logging, roading, and heavy 

human manipulation of a land area that is now providing 

significant ecological wildlife, fish, recreational, and carbonstoring values. Localized state-and-transition simulation 

modeling is inherently flawed due to over-generalizing highly 

variable conditions (e.g. variable moisture regimes, solar 

aspect, elevation, soil type, and other micro-climate 

differences) and generally being based on insufficient or 

inaccurate data that cannot reflect such important variations 

that determine forest structure, tree species composition, plant 

community type, wild fire severity and frequency, and 

associated wildlife species use. The Forest Service's project 

does not adequately account for climate change. 

The range of variation estimates used in the analysis of the 

LJCRP were based primarily on the locally-recognized USFS 

standard (Powell 2012), and validated against local, spatiallyexplicit ecological modeling and empirically derived estimates 

from historical aerial photography completed for the 

ecological subregion (see FEIS Appendix C, and Hessburg et 

al. 1999). Powell 2012 compiled the best available science 

on estimated ranges of variation with the intent to reflect 

ecosystem properties free of major influence by EuroAmerican humans, providing insights into ecosystem 

resilience. The range of variation estimates were used to help 

us understand what an ecosystem is capable of, how 

historical disturbance regimes functioned, and inherent 

variation in ecosystem conditions and processes. Hence, the 

RV estimates used in the LJCRP are in no way "artificially 

biased toward more heavy logging, roading, and heavyhanded management"; they are based on natural ecological 

processes. By moving the forested landscape toward the 

estimated range of variation, the treated landscape will be 

more resilient in the case of a changing climate (warmer/less 

snow). Compared to local conditions, Powell (2012) ranges 

actually represent conservative estimates of historical 

conditions for dense forests since the LJCRP landscape is 

influenced by frequent fires that originate from grassland 

communities at lower elevations, and has experienced higher 

fire frequencies than moister and cooler systems in the Blue 

Mountains. Localized, spatial, climate-informed state-andtransition modeling, which projected the interacting effects of 

the LJCRP propsoed action, and the best available science 

on projected climate change effects (considering four climate 

change emission scenarios), was used to evaluate potential 

future effects on key forest values, such as the abundance of 

large, fire resilient trees (FEIS Appendix C).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 395

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Estimation of the 

range of variation

265 What project area-specific field work went into the 

determination of historic versus existing forest patch size 

distribution patterns? Were changes in forest patch size 

distribution due to past logging, roading, and livestock grazing 

taken into account? What are the implications of these 

management associated forest patch changes and for planned 

similar management in the Lower Joseph project? Why is this 

critical issue not analyzed in depth? How did past management 

practices affect HRV for forest and riparian plants, wildlife 

habitat, water quality and quantity, and natural disturbance 

regimes, and what does that suggest for developing and 

ecologically sound restoration plan that is at odds with planned 

actions for the Lower Joseph project? Why is this key 

component of sound restoration planning not addressed in the 

DEIS? These significant issues are not addressed yet these 

“ranges in reference conditions” in conjunction with the Forest 

Plan and other policies and collaboration (notably not project 

area-specific data) “were used as the primary basis for 

developing the desired conditions for the LJCRP.” (DEIS p.6) 

This results in inherent significant flaws in the foundational 

assumptions of the analysis.

A description of the existing biological environment including 

a characterization of disturbance regimes and current and 

historical stand patterns can be found in the FEIS, chapters 2 

anad 3, Vegetation and Disturbance). Forest patterns are 

easily determined from remote imagery, and field-based 

surveys in this regard would add little to the analysis. Desired 

stand-level patterns are based on the "individuals, clumps, 

and openings" (ICO) approach described in Franklin et al. 

2013, which uses site-specific evidence to determine 

appropriate treatment designs and prescriptions (see FEIS, 

Project Design Criteria, Appendix J). Based on spatiallyexplicit analysis and modeling, patch sizes in the current 

conditions are much smaller than those in the reference 

condition. In both canyonland and incised plateau landofrms, 

all current patches were less than 32 acres in size, and 

patches were considerably larger for the reference condition. 

More than 50% of incised plateau patches exceeded 256 

acres in size while those in canyonlands were somewhat 

smaller (half exceeded 128 acres). This decrease in patch 

sizes from reference condition to current condition is due to a 

combination of management activities that tend to generate 

relatively small patches and somewhat smaller wildfires 

under the current fire suppression regime. Canyonlands have 

smaller patches than incised plateaus under reference 

conditions due to natural fragmentation by ridges and areas 

that do not burn. Hessburg et al. 1999 also summarizes 

historical patch sizes for the ecologial subregion that includes 

the project area, providing an indicator of patch sizes that 

preceded the effects of forest management practices on foret 

patterns since that period (1950s).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

396 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Estimation of the 

range of variation

265 How is the percentage of a type of forest “highly susceptible” to 

defoliating insects or mistletoe determined, and what does this 

assessment really mean? “Highly susceptible” does not 

necessarily mean that insects are at epidemic levels or that the 

forest is in an unnatural condition at all.

Ecosystem management and restoration strives to maintain 

an endemic level of insects and disease disturbance 

consistent with historical levels of activity within the range of 

variability for those plant communities, thus providing for 

resilience and adaptability of those systems. A description of 

insect and disease susceptibility and specific references that 

support the information can be found in the FEIS chapter 2, 

Vegetation and Disturbance (e.g., table 10).

Vegetation 

Management: 

Effects of past 

management

265, Form 

email 

The Forest Service fails to acknowledge the historical context 

that the National Forests were originally created as Forest 

Reserves (e.g. the Wallowa Forest Reserve) in order to protect 

these lands and forests from heavy private logging and 

unregulated livestock grazing, as well as from associated other 

environmental impacts. Ecologically sound restoration cannot 

be planned without fully acknowledging the root causes of the 

ecological destruction to be remedied, in order to avoid 

repeating the same mistakes and further damaging, rather than 

healing, the ecosystem. Thus the assumptions behind the 

purpose and need for the Lower Joseph project are flawed and 

it is grossly misleading to the public to call it a “restoration” 

project. (See DEIS p.5). As someone who values our National 

Forests, it is important that we learn from the mistakes of the 

past and restore landscapes abused by decades of 

mismanagement that included aggressive logging, livestock 

grazing, roadbuilding, and other destructive development. 

We agree that we should learn from the mistakes of the past. 

Forest management practices have been evolving 

substantially over the past few decades to be more 

ecologically appropriate, and based on achieving more 

natural structure and function. The purpose and need for this 

project is based on sound scientific comparisons of existing 

forest conditions against a widely accepted reference 

condition. This comparison demonstrated a need to reduce 

forest density, and increase the abundance of seral tree 

species such as ponderosa pine and western larch toward 

more natural conditions. The design of silvicultural 

prescriptions are based on ground-based evidence of native 

patterns of tree establishment and successional growth. The 

"root causes" of ecosystem degradation that are mentioned, 

including heavy logging and unregulated livestock grazing, 

have been abated to some degree. See the purpose and 

need and affected environment sections (FEIS chapters 1 

and 2) characterizing how this project is aimed an ecological 

restoration versus timber production, road building, and 

widespread development. No alternative proposes system 

road construction, and management of domestic livestock 

grazing is outside the purpose and need of this project.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 397

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Snags

225, 243, 

248, 266

The enclosure to the 2003 Eastside Screen guidance says 

"These findings reinforce the importance of retaining and 

recruiting large, old trees in the eastside landscape, .... It is 

critical that silvicultural prescriptions provide for large snags in 

adequate numbers (as indicated by DecAID and other tools) 

through time to provide habitat for these species." This 

indicates not only that retention of large trees continues to be 

important, but also indicates that the FS must use quantitative 

methods (such as DecAID) to determine when adequate 

numbers of large snags and large green recruitment trees are 

available. Any amendments proposed for removal of large trees 

must consider these functions and disclose whether and how 

the needs of species will be met over time. We urge the FS to 

limit cutting of hazard trees to those that pose an imminent 

hazard to well-travelled roads or other high use areas. In areas 

that are used infrequently by people, hazard should be 

managed by keeping workers out of the hazard area. This will 

help retain large old trees and help ensure future recruitment of 

snags and down wood habitat. 

There is no prescribed harvest of snags > 12" dbh. Project 

design criteria (FEIS Appendix J, Wild-1-Wild-16) include 

mitigation measures for the protection of large trees, large 

snags, and down-logs during harvest and burning activities. 

Snags > 12” are only to be removed due to safety 

considerations. Alternative 3 does not propose harvest of 

trees > 21" dbh, which would likely support more large snags 

in the future. A DecAid analysis was completed for the 

project, which showed that dry forests are currently within the 

RV for large and small snags, while moister forests are at the 

lower end of the RV. Because we would not be harvesting 

snags, and design criteria would be in place to protect large 

snags, large snag densities would be provided within the RV. 

The removal of trees > 21" dbh (Alternative 2 only) may 

reduce large snag density at localized locations. At the 

broadscale, both action alternatives would move the 

landscape toward RV. Habitats that are well below RV 

include large tree, and open habitats. Species associated 

with these limitied habitas would benefit from the action 

alternatives. No alternative is anticipated to reduce habitats 

below RV for any structural stage. Over the longer term, 

creating a more resilient landscape would help provide 

habitat for all species, including those associated with large 

trees and snags. Cutting of hazard trees is expected to be 

minimized (FEIS Appendix J). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

398 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Mistletoe

243 We urge the Forest Service to adopt an ecological approach to 

managing mistletoe. Large trees infected with mistletoe are 

ecologically valuable, maybe even more valuable than large 

trees not hosting mistletoe. Mistletoe brooms provide unique, 

limiting, and perhaps irreplaceable habitat values to a wide 

variety of wildlife, including species of concern in the project 

area identified by the Forest Service and other agencies. 

Mistletoe seeds provide food for birds. Removal of mistletoe 

trees is not a benefit but a harm to the ecosystem. Attempting 

to isolate mistletoe patches won’t work either. Mistletoe can 

easily spread across gaps. It is unlikely that the FS can afford 

to eliminate all host trees and maintain that condition over the 

long term. The cumulative habitat consequences of maintaining 

those host-free gaps is not acceptable.

Recognizing that mistletoe is a historic component of the 

landscape, the LJCRP treatment design for mistletoe infected 

trees is a "discrimination" approach rather than a "sanitation" 

approach. This is accomplished by discriminating against 

dwarf mistletoe infected trees, and host species for Douglasfir mistletoe, and creating conditions that minimizes potential 

for spread to uninfected trees. Silvicultural designs specific to 

mistletoe (FEIS Appendix J, Silviculture Design) includes: 

retention of mistletoe infected trees that are old regardless of 

infection level; retention of young trees with the lowest 

mistletoe infection rating when needed to meet stocking 

objective; and the establishment of non-host or unstocked 

buffer of at least 50' between infected trees and uninfected 

residuals, wherever trees infected with mistletoe are left. The 

establishment of a non-host or unstocked buffer of at least 

50' between infected trees and uninfected residuals is a 

recommendation provided by the local (La Grande) office of 

the Forest Service Forest Health Protection group (see 

Schmitt 1997). Eliminating all host trees is not included as an 

the objective of this project. Creating openings (gaps) is in 

sync with the "individuals, clumps and openings" (ICO) 

approach, which is intended to restore characteristic 

functionality, and resistance and resilience to disturbance. 

Vegetation 

Management: 

Wildlife habitat

243 The NEPA analysis must take a hard look at the habitat needs 

of primary cavity excavators over the long term. It is not enough 

to meet the needs of woodpeckers for a few years after 

harvest. Maintaining viable populations of primary cavity 

excavators will require retention of virtually all the overstory 

trees so that there is a long-term supply of snags and dead 

wood.

At the scale of the project, both action alternatives would 

move the landscape toward RV. Habitats that are well below 

RV include large tree, open habitats. Species associated 

with these limitied habitats would benefit. Over the longer 

term, creating a more resilient landscape will help to provide 

for all species, including those associated with large trees 

and snags.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 399

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Vegetation 

Management: 

Heterogeneity

226 Landscape heterogeneity is incredibly important for both the 

wildlife and overall vegetation resilience in the moist mixed 

conifer landscape. A critical feature of wildlife habitat in mixedconifer landscapes in eastern Washington and Oregon is the 

multi-scale (landscape and stand) diversity and juxtaposition of 

patch types of differing composition and structure (Perry et al. 

2011 ). While somewhat counterintuitive, it is important to note 

that a landscape can be highly fragmented or patchy, as is 

commonly the case in landscapes with mixed-severity fire 

regimes, and still be highly connected for a variety of ecological 

processes (Stine et al).

The Forest Service agrees and incorporates these concepts 

by using "individuals, clumps, and openings" (ICO) informed 

marking and treatment in moist mixed conifer as well as dry 

upland forest. In reference to Stine et al 2014, the 

commenter highlighted the glossary definition of connectivity 

in the context of a mixed severity fire regime. This points to 

the necessity to utilize evidence based management to help 

retain structures and openings within this landscape to 

support disturbance processes that create representative 

connectedness in the LJCRP landscape.

Vegetation 

Management: 

Large trees, 

snags, hazard 

trees

243 We urge the FS to limit cutting of hazard trees to those that 

pose an imminent hazard to well-travelled roads or other high 

use areas. In areas that are used infrequently by people, 

hazard should be managed by keeping workers out of the 

hazard area. This will help retain large old trees and help 

ensure future recruitment of snags and down wood habitat.

Public safety is the highest priority, and Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, agency policy, and project design 

criteria (Appendix J) provide guidance to ensure public 

safety, while also considering needs for habitat. Selection of 

hazard trees is best done during implementation, and on a 

case-by-case basis. Though we recognize that some snags 

will be lost due to logging operations, the goal is to minimize 

loss of these important habitat features. Project design 

criteria are designed to protect all large snags during 

implementation of burning or harvesting (FEIS Appendix J). 

Closing roads in Alternative 2 would reduce the risk to 

continued loss of snags.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

400 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Riparian Habitat 

Conservation 

Area (RHCA) 

treatments

243 The cows and lack of beaver are what have allowed lodgepole 

encroachment on Swamp Creek. While cutting lodgepole may 

be fine ecologically, it would better fit the purpose and need to 

exclude cows and return beavers rather than cut trees. Beavers 

do exist in the system but are routinely trapped out. 

Treatments are described as “meadow restoration” and appear 

to be more about protecting/improving grazing than ecological 

restoration. Rather than “meadow restoration” the FS should be 

working to restore the historic wetlands from which the creek 

gained its name. Historically, the area was beaver swamp, not 

meadows (or bluegrass). What are the impacts of equipment? 

Does this really – or best – meet the purpose and need?

It is difficult to definitively establish a cause and effect 

relationship between domestic grazing, lack of beaver, and 

lodgepole encroachment in Swamp Creek. All of these 

factors, and possibly others, likely all play a role. 

Management of domestic grazing and reintroduction of native 

animal species is outside the scope of this project. The 

allotment management planning process, and related 

environmental assessment (EA) is the appropriate venue to 

address the need to manage domestic livestock grazing for 

the purposes of ecosystem and watershed improvement. 

Meadow restoration is intended to restore the ecological 

function of the floodplain in Swamp Creek, and wetland 

function would be restored to the specific area of Swamp 

Creek. The purpose and need for this project is primarily 

restoration of forest vegetation to improve structure and 

composition relative to more natural ranges of variation. 

Broadscale restoration of native wetlands project wide, and 

improvement of forage for domestic grazing were not primary 

purposes of this project, although both would experience 

ancillary benefits. Management activities, including 

vegetation treatments in Swamp Creek would follow Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidleines, as well as national best 

managemet practices, which are designed to ensure 

protection of soil and water resources.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 401

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Riparian Habitat 

Conservation 

Area (RHCA) 

treatments

225, 226, 

243, 244, 

246, 247, 

262, 263, 

264, 284

Logging in RHCAs should be carefully planned and 

implemented to protect soil, water, wildlife habitat, carbon, and 

avoid the spread of weeds. Heavy equipment must be excluded 

from the Swamp Creek floodplain, wet meadows, and 

tributaries. Livestock grazing practices should be modified to 

better protect that natural and cultural resource. It is important 

to recognize that high-severity fire is by no means certain to 

occur in the absence of thinning. Data on wildfire shows a 

healthy mix of fire effects across the federal landscape. We 

should not feel compelled to treat sensitive areas based on an 

unwarranted fear of fire. RHCAs are often capable of carrying 

greater basal areas, so they should not be treated the same as 

uplands. It is critical to recognize that commercial removal in 

RHCAs comes at the expense of future recruitment of wood 

(and this is a long-term adverse effect), so it is important to 

maintain medium and large trees in order to ensure adequate 

recruitment of future large trees and dead wood that is 

essential to riparian function, both instream and uplands. A “25 

foot variable width buffer” for logging next to streams makes no 

sense. AFRC fully supports work in all categories of RHCAs 

and strongly encourages that activity. The EPA is pleased to 

note that RHCA treatments are proposed in the higher gradient 

Category 4 RHCAs.

Forest treatments in RHCAs in Alternative 2 would move the 

RHCAs, in concert with the adjacent forest vegatation to a 

more resilient lanscape condition. Category 4 RHCAs are 

the primary target for riparian area treatment because they 

are intermittant, non-fish bearing streams, and are more 

similar to upland conditions relative to forest structure than 

perennial streams. Although there may be situations where 

Category 4 RHCAs are carrying greater basal areas today, 

they developed under very similar disturbance regimes as the 

uplands and therefore the forest RV for density is an 

appropriate desired range. Protection measures would 

maintain riparian management objectives (RMOs) in the short 

term while providing for resiliency in the longer term. Forest 

thinning in RHCAs under Alternative 2 would move toward 

attainment of RMOs for large woody debris, and restoration 

of native fire regimes. Silvicultural treatments in RHCAs are 

designed to cut from all tree size classes, as guided by 

natural forest patterns, and would release growing space, 

nutrients and water for increased growth rates in the residual 

trees. Increased growth in residual trees would support future 

recruitment of large downed wood. The project landscape is 

fire-adapted, and naturally experienced low, moderate, and 

high severity fires at different rates. About 50-80% of all fires 

landscape-wide were naturally low severity (FEIS table 8). 

Today, only about half of all fires or less are low severity. 

The FEIS provides rationale for a 25 foot "no equipment" 

buffer, and layout on the ground would follow landform and 

large tree location. Twenty five feet is considered to be a 

minimum, and additional restrictions on equipment within the 

25 to 100 foot RHCA would limit sediment delivery. The 

Physical Environment supporting documentation includes 

results of sediment modelling that showed no appreciable 

sediment delivery to the channel from the alternatives. 

Alternative 3 does not propose commerical RHCA 

treatments, and could be selected by the decision-maker. 

Management of domestic livestock grazing is outside the 

purpose and need of this project. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

402 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Riparian Habitat 

Conservation 

Area (RHCA) 

treatments

225 The Tribe recommends that the Blue Mountain PDCs be used 

for the forest treatments in Category 4. There is a disconnect 

between the determination in the Blue Mountain PDCs and the 

DEIS.

The use of the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria (BM 

PDC) for stand improvement is recommended for use for all 

category streams in the FEIS and in the aquatic Biological 

Assessment (BA). The determination of effect for the BM 

PDCs is consistent in the FEIS and the BA. Use of forest 

treatments for CAT 4 streams utilizes the same effects 

analysis in the FEIS and the BA. The determination of effect 

for the BA is consistent with other forest treatment analysis in 

the Blue Mountains. The determination language for an EIS 

and a BA are not similar.

Sediment 225, 239, 

263, 267

There is concern regarding the production of sediment from 

management activities and the delivery of that sediment to 

waterways. There is also concern about the assumptions 

around DEIS analyses regarding sediment, sediment delivery 

and stream function.

We conducted a robust analysis with regard to sediment 

production and sediment delivery to waterways. The 

conclusions from this analysis are disclosed in the FEIS 

(chapter 4, Physical Environment). The details associated 

with this analysis are in the Physical Environment Supporting 

Documentation. We improved the discussion in the FEIS to 

clarify the process. Sediment inputs to waterways can be a 

problem for many upland aquatic systems.The Lower Grande 

Ronde TMDL, 2010 cites sediment as an issue for streams

within the LJCRP analysis area. However, there are no 

303(d) listings for sediment within the analysis area. There is 

a large body of literature (see References Cited) that point to 

grazing and roads as chronic sources of sediment. 

Furthermore, direct field observations during the LJCRP field 

reconnaissance revealed roads and grazing as sources of 

fine sediment. Our analysis indicates that with 

implementation of Best Management Practices and Project 

Design Criteria (FEIS Appendix J), sediment delivery to 

waterways from temporary road construction, the haul 

system and vegetation management activities are unlikely to 

have adverse or measurable effects to the aquatic systems 

within the subject watersheds. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 403

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Soil Productivity 225, 242, 

263, 267

The DEIS analysis and disclosures are inadequate regarding 

potential effects to soils productivity as a result of the proposed 

management activities. Concerns include disclosures regarding 

how we were evaluating existing and projected Detrimental 

Soils Conditions (DSC), the cumulative effects to soils 

productivity, and other general effects to soils productivity. 

Upon reviewing these comments, we expanded the 

discussion in the FEIS and the Physical Environment 

Supporting Documentation accordingly. Between the DEIS 

and FEIS, we conducted a very detailed stand by stand 

evaluation of legacy effects on soil productivity (Detrimental 

Soils Conditions), and projected additional possible effects 

from the proposed management. These surveys were 

conducted in a manner consistent with Forest Service 

regional guidelines. The Forest Service will be consistent with 

all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, including those 

pertaining to soils and Detrimental Soils Conditions (DSC). 

Details about our DSC surveys and effects to soils 

productivity can be found in Chapter 4 of the FEIS and in the 

Physical Environment Supporting Documentation. As 

prescribed in the Best Management Practices, potential 

sediment delivery to streams will be monitored during 

implementation (FEIS Appendix J).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

404 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Ash Soils 242, 263, 

266

Did you consider effects to ash/ashy soils in the LJCRP 

Analysis Area? The DEIS didn’t adequately address the effects 

to this resource. 

We used the latest soils survey data (SSURGO, 2014), which 

happens to be amongst the most detailed soils surveys in the 

country, to map and characterize the soils in the LJCRP, 

specifically ashy soils. We also reviewed the commenters 

suggested literature pertaining to ashy soils and effects to 

soils resources. A co-author to one of their citations was a 

key collaborator for the LJCRP project design, specific to the 

management practices associated with ash/ashy soils. Upon 

reviewing the literature, conducting our analyses, performing 

field investigations and employing professional judgement,

we feel that our analysis adequately discloses effects to ashy 

soils and describes appropriate methods and conditions to 

mitigate adverse effects to ash soils and soils resources in 

general. We also took a hard look at the Ash-Grande Fir 

Series as mentioned by one commenter and felt that it was 

appropriate to analyze in the context of other ashy soils, 

combined with other soils properties, because management 

practices would not differ from the Ash-Grande Fir 

specifically. We improved the discussion pertaining to ash 

soils in the FEIS and in the Physical Environment Supporting 

Documentation.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 405

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Corridors 242, 243, 

245, 265, 

266

For most animals and plants, all of these types of movement 

require a well-connected natural landscape. TheDEIS states 

that Alternative 2 would reduce the quality of connectivity 

corridors on 4,155 acres by reducing the canopy closure and 

structural complexity. The Forest Service does not seem to 

address the significant corridor functions of the canyonlands 

travel corridor for wildlife with sufficient in-depth analysis or 

remedies to avoid significant impacts to these corridor functions 

for wildlife migration, dispersal, and security. Did the FS 

analyze impacts on factors like habitat connectivity (including, 

but not limited to elk), hardwood recruitment, thermal refugia, 

livestock exclusion, structural complexity, etc.? 

Any reduction in quality of connectivity corridors as a result of 

the action alternatives is a short-term effect, resulting in 

longer-term beneficial effects relative to the development of 

large tree structure and reduction in risk to their disturbance 

from stand replacement fire or insect and disease outbreaks. 

Any treatments proposed in connectivity corridors have been 

designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and 

provide functional, suitable habitat for the purpose of 

connectivity between older forest stands. Connectivity 

corridors were developed with a large emphasis along many 

of the RHCAs. In Alternative 2, where some RHCAs are 

proposed for harvest, if the area is within a connectivity 

corridor the harvest prescription would be modified 

appropriately for wildlife concerns. The harvest prescription 

for connectivity corridors is to maintain a minimum canopy 

closure of 40% in the dry forests, and 50% in the moist 

forests. It is expected that these prescriptions would allow for 

more and better habitats regarding wildlife cover, structural 

complexity and recruitment of snags. Closing roads in 

Alternative 2 would reduce the risk to continued loss of snags 

and other adverse impacts to most wildlife species. 

Alternative 3 includes no activities in the roadless 

canyonlands travel corridor. Harvest is proposed in this area 

only in Alternative 2. The FEIS provides a better description 

of the affects of the proposed project specifically relating to 

the roadless area (FEIS chapter 4, Social Environment). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

406 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 242, 243, 

266

We are very concerned that terrestrial species, including listed 

and at-risk species, that depend on snags, riparian habitats, 

and wet meadows, or are sensitive to high road densities and 

human disturbance, will be negatively impacted by this project. 

The project will significant degrade critically important wildlife 

habitat, and adversely impact interior forest dependent wildlife 

species including ESA and Oregon State listed species such as 

bald eagles, peregrine falcons, wolves, lynx, wolverine, 

salmonid species, and others; regional species of concern 

including American marten, Northern goshawk, Neotropical 

migrant and native birds, bats, butterflies, and others; and 

management indicator species including pileated, three-toed, 

downy and other woodpeckers and MIS species.We are 

concerned that Wildlife Emphasis areas, which are supposed to 

be managed for high quality fish and wildlife habitat, will have 

their populations and habitats negatively impacted by logging. 

Maintaining viable populations of primary cavity excavators will 

require retention of virtually all the overstory trees so that there 

is a long-term supply of snags and dead wood. Here are a few 

suggested design elements and mitigation: Maintain stocking in 

order to ensure sufficient dead wood and recruitment potential; 

work hard to improve hardwood understory (this will probably 

require seriously addressing grazing); restore beavers and 

beaver habitat. 

Although some short-term effects may occur, the long-term 

the benefits of project treatments would result in a more 

resilient landscape structure. Large number of snags are not 

expected to decline due to harvest activities, and closing 

roads in Alternative 2 would reduce the risk to continued loss 

of snags and other adverse impacts to most wildlife species. 

Project design criteria are designed to protect all large snags 

and downed wood during implementation of burning or 

harvesting (FEIS Appendix J). Currently, the forested 

landscape is deficient in open-canopied forests, and has an 

abundance (above HRV) of closed-canopied forests. 

Although treatments would reduce closed-canopied forests, 

they would not push the abundance of closed canopied 

forests below RV. Harvest prescriptions should benefit 

species that are associated with open canopied habitats, 

which across the landscape habitats are below the RV. The 

project would follow all Forest Standards and Guidelines, 

except where a forest plan amendment is proposed. The 

prescriptions in MA-15 have been crafted to be fairly 

conservative to maintain all older forest characteristics (e.g. 

no harvest of trees > 21"), yet also move the stand to a more 

resilient state. The analysis regarding the effects on wildlife 

has been tiered to the Forest level. Recently a wildlife 

viability analysis was completed for the Wallowa-Whitman 

NF. Tiering to this report helps give a multi-scaled approach 

to analyzing likely changes in different habitats. Habitat 

viability determinations for each MIS species is addressed in 

the FEIS (chapter 4, WIldlife Habitat). Management of 

grazing and re-introduction of beaver are outside the scope 

of this project. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 407

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 5, 226, 244, 

265

Forage in the overstocked timbered areas is now shaded out 

forcing deer and elk to places like Zumwalt Prairie that is 

essentially locked up to hunting resulting in fewer elk and 

hunters on public land. I am happy to see that the HEI has 

been met and will continue to be met during the project 

implementation, however, please review the newer elk model 

that discusses summer forage as the main driver of elk health 

(Lehmkuhl et al. 2013; John Cook 2005). Hunting and tourism 

are major draws for the local area. The forest should focus on 

creating more forage for the large ungulates within the area. 

We are concerned by ongoing cumulative impacts to Rocky 

Mountain elk across the National Forests we monitor, including 

the Wallowa Whitman National Forest, from timber sale 

reduction of satisfactory and hiding cover and construction and 

re-opening of roads across elk habitat.

Recent research shows that providing for nutrition 

availability, and providing access to this nutrition (away from 

roads) is important. The proposed harvest may increase 

forage availability for ungulates especially in the spring (Long 

2008). Closing roads (Alternative 2) would also benefit elk, as 

numerous studies have shown. Elk use of forage areas often 

depends on their proximity to cover areas (to forest stands 

with overhead canopy cover 40% or higher) and the distance 

to roads and trails open to motorized uses. Forage areas 

within 100 yards of cover areas are most heavily used by elk, 

as are forage areas farther than 1000 yards from roads or 

trails open to motorized uses. In addition, maintenance of 

adequate cover areas provides security for elk during hunting 

seasons and reduces elk vulnerability to harvest, such that 

harvest goals for elk can be met but not exceeded. Whether 

cover areas provide security for elk during hunting seasons, 

however, often requires motorized closures of large networks 

of roads and trails during hunting seasons. The need for 

motorized closures of many road and trail networks to 

provide effective security for elk during hunting seasons is 

higher on landscapes dominated by flat, open terrain, and 

lower in areas of steep, convex topography with more cover. 

Alternative 2 proposes to close 69 miles of road (relative to 

existing conditions) in areas with currently higher road 

densities. These road closures would help mitigate the 

potential loss of cover in areas where nutrition is increased 

due to opening up the canopy and allowing for understory 

vegetation development. Proposed harvest (in Alternative 2

or 3), would likely improve forage production due to the 

opening up of the canopy. We are hopeful that with improved 

conditions for elk, the abundance of elk on public lands would 

improve (see FEIS chapter 4, Wildlife).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

408 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 267 The relationship of Johnson's Hairstreak butterfly with host 

plants makes no sense.

Butterfly species life cycles are usually tied to specific plant 

species. With these butterflies, pupae overwinter, then adults 

are present as early as mid-April until early July, and eggs 

are laid singly directly on host plants (James and Nunnallee 

2011). Larvae feed from early to mid-summer. The Johnson’s 

hairstreak larvae feed exclusively on the aerial shoots of 

dwarf mistletoe plants (Arceuthobium spp.) (LaBonte et al. 

2001). The Johnson’s hairstreaks found in northeastern 

Oregon have been found feeding on western dwarf mistletoe 

(A. campylopodum) on ponderosa pine (McCorkle, pers. 

com.). Other dwarf mistletoes occurring in the Blue 

Mountains include dwarf mistletoes on lodgepole pine, 

western larch, and Douglas-fir, and these are also possible 

hosts. 

Wildlife Habitat 267 Cover is over rated as a need for elk (see the vast numbers in 

the Zumwalt). There is still plenty of cover and feed in the area.

Cover is described and addressed as required by the Forest 

Plan, and it is an important habitat attribute for elk.

Wildlife Habitat 266 Potential impacts to the Columbia spotted frog were not 

adequately addressed. The DEIS (pg. 12) mentions Columbia 

spotted frogs, but fails to analyze impacts to them in relation to 

this project, even though they are listed as sensitive.

The proposed harvest along Swamp Creek (31 acres) is the 

only area that may affect habitat for Columbia spotted frogs. 

All other areas of proposed harvest are outside of these frogs 

habitats, as they rely on a close proximity to water, and there 

are no additional treatments proposed within 200 feet of 

these habitats. The treament along Swamp Creek includes a 

25' variable widt,h no-equipment buffer. The potential effects 

of this treatment on spotted frogs is minimal. The effects to 

this species have been better described and evaluated in the 

FEIS.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 409

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 243 We ask the Forest Service to disclose full details of where the 

recent goshawk studies were conducted, what they found, what 

they did not find, and with whom they consulted. Especially 

given the loss of records in a recent fire, it is important that 

previous researchers were consulted. MA-15 slated for 

commercial logging in southern portions of the Western edge of 

project area were originally designated to support goshawks 

(which prefer complex forests and are unlikely to benefit from 

density reduction). These stands are now surrounded by 

heavily logged Hancock Timberlands (formerly Boise Cascade) 

that may have compromised alternative sites making this oldgrowth area even more valuable. 

Goshawk surveys were completed in the summer of 2014. 

Six gowhawk nest areas were located along with several 

other individual sightings/responses (see the project record). 

As per direction in the Eastside Screens, protection 

measures for nests and the surrounding post-fledgling areas 

(PFA) would be taken. Specifically in Alternatives 2 and 3, all 

PFAs have been identified, and among other criteria, no 

harvesting of large tree closed canopied forests, or harvest of 

trees > 21" (Alternative 2 only) would occur within these 

PFAs. If additional nests are located during project

implementation, PFAs would be developed and the goshawk 

PDCs would be followed. A goshawk nest was located in the 

area near the beginning of the Chico trail, which is adjacent 

to an MA 15 area. In this particular PFA, the area within the 

MA15 that meets the criteria of large tree closed canopied 

forest would not be harvested. 

Wildlife Habitat 244 There are a number of errors in the wildlife presence table 

including, but not limited to: white-headed woodpecker 

sightings have occurred in the Elk Creek area; numerous bald 

eagle observations; spotted bats have been documented 

(audio) by FS personnel at McGraw Lookout (docs may have 

burned up with FS building). There are flammulated owl 

colonies in the Swamp Creek-Roberts Butte-Miller Ridge area.

We would appreciate any information you may have on these 

wildlife sightings and we will update this information in the 

FEIS. We are not aware of data existing on known locations 

of white-headed woodpeckers in the project area, except for 

1 audio call collected in the summer of 2014. We are aware 

of sightings of a flammulated owl nest in the area though we 

have no documentation/explanation beyond a mapped 

location. We are aware of sightings fo bald eagles in the 

project area, although we have no records of nesting. We are 

not aware of any documented sightings of spotted bats. If 

known nesting sites of these species are located, the project 

design criteria (FEIS Appendix J) ensure that any 

known/discovered nest tree for any of these species is 

protected from harvest and prescribed fire-only treatments. 

Additionally, we provide a guideline to conduct prescribed fire 

treatments within these stands outside the nesting season 

(after July 31), when possible, unless the nest tree is known 

to be unoccupied. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

410 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 226, 267 Please explain if the marten source habitat described in the 

DEIS was historically marten habitat or if it has become marten 

habitat due to increased densities and lack of fire in the 

ecosystem. It needs to be pointed out that even though we are 

removing some of these larger trees, the treatment is opening 

up the sites, reducing competition which will increase the rate 

of growth on the remaining trees thereby producing better, 

healthier and more fire resistant sites and marten habitat. The 

analysis needs to identify the tradeoff of some short term 

concerns for good long term results. 

We defined source habitat for this species as moist forests 

with a structural stage of large trees > 21" dbh and >60% 

canopy closure. This definition of source habitat is based on 

several different research studies, many completed in 

northeast Oregon (see Wales et al. 2012). The habitat 

analysis found that the current amount of source habitat for 

marten was at the lower range of the RV. The FEIS 

acknowledges that in the short-term at least some marten 

habitat may be adversely affected by harvest. The overall 

goal of the project is to move the landscape to a more 

resilent landscape. Although some short-term effects may 

occur, in the long-term the benefits of these treatments will 

result in a more natural a resilient landscape structure.

Wildlife Habitat 244 It is important to create more old forest single story (OFSS). 

These treatments will benefit our local economies, and 

increase habitat for the whiteheaded woodpecker.

We agree that restoring the landscape toward RV will benefit 

species such as white-headed woodpeckers, whose habitat 

is below HRV. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 411

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 242, 243, 

244, 265

Under NFMA and the implementing regulations, the WWNF is 

required to manage wildlife habitat to maintain viable 

populations of Management Indicator Species (MIS). A 

diversity of insects are favored by a wide variety of bird 

species, each with different requirements to complete their life 

cycles. Other animals, both resident and migratory, require a 

range of conditions not available in a forest with simplified 

structure and frequent disturbance. These tradeoffs are not 

adequately addressed in the DEIS. Modeling is no substitute 

for ground-based intensive field surveying and long-term 

species population studies, both of which the Forest Service 

usually lacks for the full range of sites involved and the listed 

and MIS thought to exist in the project area habitat. In general 

the Lower Joseph Creek DEIS fails to adequately analyze 

cumulative effects of the action alternatives, including 

cumulative effects of many similar timber sale projects to 

wildlife species. We ask the Forest Service to drop all source 

habitat for northern goshawk from commercial logging due to 

ongoing declines and timber sale elimination of habitat for this 

MIS across the Blue Mountains National Forests.

The wildlife MIS analysis has been tiered to the viability 

analysis completed for the Wallowa-Whitman NF (WWNF), 

which found goshawks to be at an “A” outcome, which is 

described as ‘suitable environments are broadly distributed 

and of high abundance across the historical range of the 

species.’ Management Indicator Species (MIS) are discussed 

in Chapters 2 and 4 of the FEIS (Wildlife). All activities 

associated with the action alternatives have been found to be 

consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended, for this 

category of species. Additionally, the alternatives would not 

result in a long-term reduction in the number of acres of 

available habitat for any of the MIS, and does not contribute 

towards a negative trend in viability on the WWNF. For more 

detailed information and effects disclosures, see Chapter 4 of 

the FEIS (Wildlife), and the Wildlife specialist’s report and 

aquatics biological assessment in the project record. The 

action alternatives would increase diversity of forest 

structure, composition, and density within both moist and dry 

potential vegetation groups and move the landscape toward 

the desired conditions. Six gowhawk nest areas were located 

in the project area along with several other individual 

sightings/responses. As per direction in the Eastside 

Screens, protection measures for nests and the surrounding 

post-fledgling areas (PFA) would be taken. Specifically, no 

harvesting of large tree closed canopied forests, or harvest of 

trees > 21" (Alternative 2 only) would occur within these 

PFAs. If additional nests are located during project 

implementation, post-fledling areas would be developed and 

the project design criteria would be followed. Although we 

described the adverse effects of harvesting on the quality of 

goshawk habitat, the amount of habitat would remain within 

the RV, and in the long-term the benefits of treatment would 

result in a more resilient landscape structure. Additionally, by 

protecting known goshawk nests and the PFAs surrounding 

them, goshawk habitat would further benefit. The cumulative 

effects analyses have been improved between the DEIS and 

FEIS (FEIS chapter 4, Cumulative Effects sections). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

412 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 263 The DEIS fails to adequately analyze impacts to wildlife from 

development in unroaded areas. In the Lower Joseph Creek 

DEIS, the Forest Service inadequately analyzes impacts to 

both listed species and regionally sensitive species from 

development in unroaded areas. The roadless areas within the 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project area make up a key 

travel corridor for many wildlife species. They connect the 

remote Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and the 

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness. While the discussion of effects 

of the proposed action alternatives acknowledges that the 

proposed activities would negatively affect wildlife, it does not 

discuss how these impacts may be amplified by the loss of 

roadless habitat. 

Alternative 3 includes no activities in the roadless areas. 

Harvest is proposed in this area only in Alternative 2, and 

none of the alternatives propose road construction in IRAs. 

The description of effects on roadless characteristics has 

been improved between the DEIS and FEIS. The FEIS 

discloses the comparative effects on wildlife habitat of the no 

action and action alternatives in IRAs, other undeveloped 

lands, and throughout the project area (FEIS chapter 4, 

wildlife). 

Wildlife Habitat 243 Korol et al (2002) found that large snag habitat is below the 

historic range of variability across the Interior Columbia Basin 

and they estimated that even if the agencies apply enlightened 

forest management on federal lands in the Interior Columbia 

Basin for the next 100 years, we will still reach only 75% of the 

historic large snag abundance, and most of the increase in 

large snags will occur in roadless and wilderness areas. 

Wisdom et al (2008) found that snag abundance in the Pacific 

Northwest forests is inversely related to past harvest and 

proximity to roads. 

We used the existing data available (GNN) to complete a 

snag analysis using the DecAID data (Mellen-Meclean et al. 

2012) (p. 6-8, 88-90). Large numbers of snags are not 

expected to decline due to harvest activities. Closing roads 

in Alternative 2 would reduce the risk to continued loss of 

snags. Project design criteria are designed to protect all large 

snags during implementation of burning or harvesting. 

Harvest prescriptions should benefit snag associated species 

that are associated with open canopied habitats, which are 

below the RV across the project landscape. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 413

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 243, 265 Wildlife species, including many bird species and cavity 

denning mammals such as Pacific Fisher and American 

marten, require cavities and disease induced rot for foraging, 

nesting, or denning. It is important to recognize that the deficit 

in large tree structure has been well established for the region 

by the Interior Columbia Ecosystem Basin Management Project 

science and other science and that wildlife are specifically 

noted in the scientific literature to require large structure far 

more than any need for old structure is recognized. Thus the 

definition of “desirable” leave trees appears to be driven by 

Forest Service and timber industry desire to grow better trees 

for lumber, not by any implied ecological or site specific need to 

remove the other trees.

Trees > 21" are not proposed for harvest in Alternative 3. In 

Alternative 2, only under certain circumstances would trees >

21" dbh be harvested. The importance of large trees for 

many wildlife species is described in the FEIS chapters 2 and 

4, WIldlife.

Wildlife Habitat 243, 265 Alternative 2 would log trees over 21” dbh over 47% of the area 

subject to management activities (DEIS p.190), posing a large 

threat to Pileated woodpeckers and to other species needing 

large snags and down wood such as Lewis woodpeckers, 

White-headed woodpeckers, American marten, and Pacific 

Fisher. Species requiring large live trees would also be 

negatively affected by Alternative 2 logging of large trees, 

including Northern goshawk and Bald eagle. The DEIS also 

admits that the “Group selection-moderate” logging proposed in 

Alternative 2 will also likely harm American marten.

The FEIS effects of harvesting trees > 21" dbh on 

management indicator species (MIS) are disclosed in the 

FEIS (chapter 4, Wildlife). Also in the FEIS, we acknowledge 

that the Wallowa-Whitman NF considers the Pacific fisher to 

be extirpated on the Forest, thus no effects to this species 

are expected to occur. Harvesting of trees > 21" or within 

MA-15 areas are not proposed in Alternative 3. The FEIS 

acknowledges that in the short-term at least some marten 

habitat may be adversely affected by harvest. The overall 

goal of the project is to move the landscape to a more 

resilent landscape, although some short-term effects may 

occur, in the long-term the benefits of these treatments would 

result in a more natural a resilient landscape structure.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

414 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Wildlife Habitat 265 We are opposed to prescribed burning during the spring 

reproductive season, in Pileated woodpecker foraging habitat, 

and in American marten and Pacific fisher (which is not 

discussed at all in the DEIS) source habitat. We are also 

opposed to prescribed burning in moist and cold, naturally 

denser forest types, including high elevation forest.

A more comprehensive description of prescribed fire effects 

to wildlife and other habitat was added between the DEIS 

and FEIS (FEIS chapter 4). Additional information has also 

been added to the FEIS regarding prioritization for prescribed 

fire (FEIS Table 9).

Wildlife Habitat 265 We are concerned by potential impacts of the Lower Joseph

Creek Restoration Projectto Neotropical songbirds, particularly 

to those species that are associated with large tree and interior 

forest habitat, and denser or multilayered canopy habitat and 

old growth.

The relative effects of the alternatives on landbird and 

migratory bird habitat are disclosed in chapter 4 of the FEIS. 

The effects to wildlife habitats is driven by the assumption 

that habitat can serve as a proxy for poulation. Additionally 

our assumption is that if habitat structural conditions are 

within the RV, populations of different wildlife species will 

also be within RV. 

Wildlife Habitat 267 The DEIS states that, to reduce disturbance to big game on 

winter ranges, timber sale activities, including log haul, would 

be implemented in ways to minimize activities during periods of 

low temperatures and accumulated snow depths, typically from 

December 15 through March 31st. This has not been agreed 

to, in fact we have discussed winter logging as a preferred 

alternative to reduce soil damage, compaction etc. We are 

over MO in Chesnimnus and even though we are below 

numbers we want on forest lands, these small disturbances are 

acceptable in this area. 

Winter logging as an alternative to reduce soil damage, and 

compaction is not precluded by the FEIS. During the 

implementation of the project, attention would be made to 

minimize activities during winter, especially on elk winter 

ranges. Communication with the District Wildlife Biologists 

and Biologists with ODFW would be needed and anticipated.

Wildlife Habitat 265 The Forest Service fails to recognize and analyze the 

biodiversity created by stand replacement fire and its 

necessary role in the ecosystem, which evolved with fire.

Post-fire habitat plays an important role for some wildlife 

species (and many other values). Table 19 in the FEIS 

describes some species that are associated with stand 

replacement fires, Chapter 4 (Wildlife) analyzes the effects of 

the alternatives on relevant wildlife species, and the Wildlife 

specialist's report in the project file provides more 

information. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 415

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Watershed 

Condition

225, 265 We are concerned that Forest Service lands surrounding the 

project area are acknowledged to have watershed function 

classified as “functioning at risk.” (DEIS p.4) This makes it all 

that more important to fully protect watershed functioning within 

the project area, which is not protected, but further degraded, 

by heavy and extensive logging as proposed, including logging 

of more pristine headwater areas such as Inventoried Roadless 

Areas and Potential Wilderness Areas, and commercial logging 

of RHCAs, Dedicated Old Growth Management Areas 

(OGMAs), and LOS below HRV.

The proposed forest treatments in the action alternatives 

would not result in a change in Watershed Condition 

Framework class, which was not a purpose and need of this 

project. This watershed condition classification is based on 

integration of aquatic and terrestrial scores that are weighted 

toward aquatic parameters. These aquatic perameters are 

being protected in the proposed treatments analyzed in the 

EIS.

Watershed 

Condition

267 On DEIS p.20, there is a great problem of using "functioning 

properly" here. If this is in the sense of "properly functioning 

condition", it is misused. 

The use of "proper functioning condition" is displayed relative 

to the Forest Service's Watershed Condition Framework, 

which uses this term. This can be confused with the Proper 

Functioning Conditon assessment used for range analysis 

and Proper Function Condition assessment used for 

consultation under ESA.

PACFISH stream 

buffers

265 Why are full size INFISH or PACFISH buffers not proposed for 

Category 1 and 2 streams? INFISH and PACFISH buffers of 

150 feet on each side is required for Category 2 streams and 

buffers of 300 feet on each side (horizontal distance) are 

required for Category 1 streams, so this is an undisclosed 

violation of the Forest Plan and the EastsideScreens (See 

DEIS p. 184) We are opposed to the violation of INFISH and 

PACFISH buffers.

PACFISH buffers are being proposed for all Category 

streams. The proposed forest treatments in only some of the 

Category 4 and one Category 1 stream retain the buffer 

width, but propose treatment within the defined PACFISH 

buffer. PACFISH allows this treatement with site specific 

data to support the treatment, in consultation with NOAA 

Fisheries.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

416 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Water Storage 266 It is not clear how moving the vegetation towards the historic 

range of variation and creating a more fire resilient landscape 

will mitigate some of the effects of a seasonal reduction in 

water storage (DEIS pg. 47). The mechanisms for this 

conclusion and its assumptions need to be disclosed, and the 

statement needs to be clarified.

A more resilient landscape will have a lower probability of 

uncharactistic wildfire and associated effects. High intensity 

wildfires can adversly effect soil productivity, increase erosion 

and increase runoff.

Stream 

Temperature

266 Stream temperatures in Swamp Creek far exceed rearing and 

migration temperature standards; disclosure of compliance with 

seasonal spawning and rearing standards was not included in 

the DEIS. Removal of trees from the RHCA in Swamp Creek is 

likely to exacerbate stream temperature violations and water 

quality degradation in this stream. What are the population 

trends for fish stocks in these streams? It is highly likely that 

canopy removal will have significant negative impacts to diurnal 

temperature fluctuation regimes, thus affecting steelhead and 

redband survivability and overall viability. Negative impacts to 

stream temperature could have larger implications for habitat 

degradation to important and critical habitat than was 

considered in the DEIS.

The analysis of the effects of treatment of the 0.5 miles of 

Swamp Creek is displayed in the FEIS. The use of a 25 foot 

buffer and the limited treatment along Swamp Creek would 

not produce a measurable increase in stream temperature. 

According to the Northeast Oregon Snake River Spring and 

Summer Chinook and Steelhead Recovery Plan, the Joseph 

Creek steelhead population currently meets the viablity 

criteria. The population's overall viablity is "highly viable", with 

an abundance and productivity rating of "very low risk" and a 

spatial structure and diversity rating of "low risk". The 10-

year gometric mean abundance of natural spawners is 2,186 

which is 4.4 times the minimum abundance threshold of 500 

spawners. The 10-year geometric mean productivity (1.94 

redds) per spawner is above the 1.49 redds per spawner 

required at the minimum abundance threshold for a risk of 

extinction less than 1 percent over 100 years. There are no 

other RHCA treatments proposed for and Category 1 or 2 

streams that would increase stream temperature in the 

project area.

Stream 

Temperature

266 It is our understanding that while the year-round temperature 

standard for the basin is indeed 64.4 degrees Celsius based on

salmon and steelhead rearing and migration, there is a second 

temperature standard in certain creeks with designated 

spawning and rearing habitats.

The Oregon temperature standard for the Lower Grande 

Ronde is 64.4 degrees F for salmon and trout rearing and 

migration. For the Lower Grande Ronde the standard is the 

same 64.4 degrees for spawning and rearing.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 417

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Water Quality 266 We are concerned that water quality will be degraded, and that 

water quality impacts were not adequately addressed or 

analyzed, and that relevant information was not accurately 

portrayed.

The FEIS (chapter 4, Water Quality and Temperature) 

analyzes the effects of the alternatives on water quality. A 

few corrections to inaccurate or conflicting information was 

corrected between publication of the DEIS and FEIS.

Water Quality 267 Any idea what stream modification has been done? To our 

knowledge Davis Creek has had very limited modifications. 

What evidence do you have that there are degraded 

streambanks from grazing? Also, isn't flow modification usually 

due to irrigation or dams? Where do we have stream flow 

modification?

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality manages 

Oregon's Water Quality Assessment and current list of all 

water quality impairments, including those pertaining to flow 

modifications for all listed waterways. Please consult the 

latest 303(d) listings for all information pertaining to water 

quality impaired waters at 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/assessment.htm 

Regarding evidence for streambank degradation from 

grazing; we directly observed grazing related impacts during 

field investigations for the LJCRP at multiple sites. Evidence 

included: hoof shear at streambanks and within channels, 

loss of riparian vegetation by trampling or browsing which 

reduced stability and stream crossings by livestock.

Best 

Management 

Practices

266 Many of the BMPs are so flexible as to be unenforceable.-Most 

BMPs carry multiple conditions and loopholes such as “when 

practical” or direction to “avoid” or “minimize”, all of which result 

in the BMP becoming subject to personal interpretation and 

convenience. It is possible that many BMPs could not be 

implemented as intended, based on practicality and 

convenience, and that this would be perfectly legal, but it would 

not protect water quality. Without clear and fixed goals, 

standards, guidelines that are quantified and guaranteed to be 

implemented, BMPs do not provide adequate mechanisms of 

enforceability and they cannot be assumed to protect water 

quality parameters.

The Forest Service was given guidance in April of 2012 to 

use standardized framework for Best Management Practices 

to meet applicable water quality standards and other Clean 

Water Act requirments (FS-990a). In the EIS, we adopted 

these standards and used them through project design so 

that all alternatives are consistenet with local water quality 

management plans, the Clean Water Act and all other 

policies, rules, laws and regulations. BMPs are evealutated at 

multiple levels starting at the site specific level and then 

aggregated up to the Forest level.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

418 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

225, 265, 

266

the DEIS does not adequately consider the negative impacts 

from logging, nor does it disclose or consider that fish are able 

to recover from high severity fires relatively quickly, and that 

long-term impacts from roads, logging, and grazing far 

outweigh impacts from fire on listed fish. All action alternatives 

should ensure an upward trend in fish habitat condition. 

Alternative 2 is likely to adversely affect listed species.

The FEIS displays the effects on aquatic resources from the 

treatment of forest vegetation through silvicultural and fuel 

reduction (fire) treatments. It also displays the effects on 

aquatic resources of the transporation system.The potential 

impacts from any alternative are disclosed fully in the FEIS, 

Chapter 4. The FEIS also describes protection and mitigation 

measures that would protect listed fish and their habitat. The 

forest treatments and the RHCA treatments in concert would 

lead to a more resilent landscape to prevent adverse effects 

at the landscape scale and allow the restoration of Snake 

River steelhead and their designated critical habitat over the 

long term at the subwatershed scale.

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

225, 266 We are concerned that the Lower Joseph Creek DEIS did not 

adequately analyze the impacts of the proposed action on 

either species (Pacific Lamprey, Western Brook Lamprey), and 

that it does not provide for their continued viability. Because of 

the restoration potential for Pacific Lamprey habitat in Lower 

Joseph Creek and its tributaries, the Tribe would recommend 

adding a fisheires monitoring plan to determine presence or 

absence in the LJCRP prior to initiating activies.

Potential habitat for Pacific lamprey is located outside the 

project area; in Lower Joseph Creek. Hence, this is outside 

the scope of the project. However, the discussion of 

downstream cumulative effects of the project relative to 

Pacific lamprey have been improved in the FEIS (Chapter 4, 

Aquatic Habitat). Further, if during monitoring this species is 

found in the project area, protection measures would be put 

in place.

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

243 Road-stream crossings are high-risk hotspots of aquatic and 

hydrologic impacts and should be rigorously avoided. 

No new road construction is proposed, and there would be no 

increase the road stream crossings. Temporary Roads 

would be located to avoid road stream crosssings.

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

225, 266, 

267

The discrepancy in the level of fine sedment in critical aquatic 

habitats defines the need for quantitative surveys to determine

the level of impact from sediment in any proposed alternative.

This was an inadvertent contradiction and has been 

corrected in the FEIS. We are using the best available 

information, and modeling indicates that the alternatives 

would not adversely affect sediment levels. Aquatic inventory 

survey results are displayed in the FEIS, and in-channel fine 

sediment is at an acceptable level.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 419

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

266 The DEIS only included information regarding the Joseph 

Creek steelhead population, without taking into account or 

analyzing the importance of this population in the context of the 

entire Snake River DPS.

The FEIS addresses only land management activities on 

federally administered lands. As such, the analysis of effects 

for listed fish extends to the appropriate scale of the 

population; in this case the independent population of Joseph 

Creek steelehead within the major population group of the 

Grande Ronde River.

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

266 There are many studies suggesting that increased 

temperatures, fine sediment, and other water-quality related 

impacts and riparian habitat impacts related to land 

management activities can and do affect downstream reaches. 

In addition, it was not clear if there is designated Bull trout 

habitat within the project area, even though the project area is 

not currently occupied by Bull trout. If so, then project impacts 

to Bull trout habitat need to be analyzed.

The FEIS addresses only land management activities on 

federal administered lands. As such the analysis of effects 

extends to the appropriate scale for the analysis area. There 

are no bull trout or designated critical habitat in the analsysis 

area.

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

266 If no surveys have been done for Redband trout in the project 

area, and they are sensitive to changes in water quality and 

habitat, how can it be assumed that their populations are doing 

well when taking into account the excessively high stream 

temperatures in the area?

The proposed PACFISH buffers implemented for category 1 

and 2 streams for the project would provide protection from 

any change in water quality or habitat values for redband 

trout.

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

266 The DEIS (pg. 189) states that Western ridge mussels may be 

negatively affected, but that these effects would not contribute 

towards listing. What about the cumulative effects on Western 

ridge mussels from other projects in the area?

A more complete cumulative effects analysis has been 

completed for the FEIS (chapter 4, Cumulative Effects).

Aquatic Species 

and Habitat

267 The DEIS states that Alternative 1 (No Action) of the LJCRP 

may impact individual Snake River steelhead and their habitat, 

but will not likely contribute toward loss of viability to the 

population or species (MIIH). If you do nothing, how is it 

impacting anything?

"Doing nothing" does not necessarily equate to "no effects". 

Doing nothing can have indirect effects, such as continuation 

of uncharacteristic fire severities, which can in-turn indirectly 

effect sedimentation. Alternative 1 has potential effects that 

are described in chapter 4 of the FEIS.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

420 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Cultural 

Resources

225 Cultural resource concerns of the Nez Perce Tribe remain 

unaddressed in the document. Overall, the DEIS asserts that 

large-scale, catastrophic, stand replacing, intense, or 

uncharacteristic fires are the greatest threat to all resources, 

including all cultural and heritage resources. As a result, any 

measures expected to reduce the threat of these fires is 

predetermined to be beneficial. Cultural Resource Program 

staff agrees that large scale fires threaten many resources, but 

many resources, especially precontact archaeological sites and 

traditional cultural properties, have burned many times in the 

past, and yet remain deeply significant to the Tribe and Tribal 

members.

The variable effects of stand replacement fire on cultural 

resources has been clarified in the FEIS. For example, 

historic wooden structures are vulnerable to high severity fire, 

but a buried archaeological site would likely be less 

vulnerable. The FEIS addresses differential effects of fire on 

fire sensitive versus fire tolerant cultural resources (FEIS 

Chapter 4, Heritge). Effects analyses revealed that the no 

action alternative poses the most risk to cultural resources. 

The FEIS also discloses that there is a paucity of information 

regarding traditional cultural properties and other traditional 

use areas for the LJCRP area. We will continue to consult 

with the Nez Perce Tribe to better understand values and 

potential effects to archaeological sites and traditional cultural 

resources. 

Cultural 

Resources

225 There is disagreement or confusion regarding the process to 

determine of effect with the State Heritage Preservation Office 

(SHPO), Tribe and Forest Service. The DEIS promises that the 

Forest will consult with the Tribe, "should specific concerns 

arise regarding potential effects to Nez Perce traditional use 

areas and resources (p 142)," and that the Tribe will be 

consulted before project implementation to identify "historically 

significant traditional use areas, or other areas of interest (p 

142)." These statements and guidelines suggest that the Forest 

only has an obligation to Nez Perce Tribe for traditional cultural 

places and "historically significant" use areas, and that 

archaeological and historical resources should be resolved 

between the between the FS and SHPO without Tribal input.

The FEIS acknowledges the Federal-Tribal trust 

responsibility and tiers to laws and Executive Orders that call 

for government to government consultation. Language used 

in the DEIS was not intended to exclude the Nez Perce 

Tribe's interest in archaeological or historic resources. The 

Heritage IDT member and Forest Archeologist are currently 

coordinating with the Nez Perce Cultural Director in an effort 

to move forward on agreements and consultation designed to 

address the Tribe’s interest in the protection of both 

traditional and archeological sites and values. The 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) does require tribal 

consultation (PA Stipulation I.1, II.A). In preparation for the 

FEIS, we followed every step of the National Historic 

Preservation Act Section 106 compliance process, including 

determination of effects on cultural resources. The cultural 

inventory report for the LJCRP was shared and discussed 

with the Nez Perce Tribe’s THPO.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 421

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Tribal 225 There appears to be a definition disagreement over the Nez 

Perce's "aboriginal territory". The comment suggests 

inaccuracy of source material coming from Sahaptin speakers 

because that is not consistent with the Nez Perce Tribe 

homeland; and suggests that we should replace 

believes/beliefs with recognize to avoid confusion about the 

perception of insensitivity. It is also unclear why the DEIS 

suggests that the precontact resources may be from "Sahaptin 

speakers," when the entire project is located in the homeland of 

the Nez Perce Tribe

The aboriginal territory definition was a clerical error that has 

been corrected in the FEIS. The reference to Sahaptin 

speakers has been removed. Wording has been changed in 

the FEIS to stress importance of tribal positions instead of 

tribal beliefs. "Sahaptin speakers" is a linguistic title that 

covers a broad area of tribal territory. We acknowledge the 

Tribe’s concern and will remove it for the FEIS.

Tribal 225 The DEIS states that the Nez Perce Tribe has not shared 

information or locations of traditional cultural properties, sacred 

sites, and other traditional use areas (p 168). The Cultural 

Resource Program staff has repeatedly requested funding to 

conduct a traditional use study of the project area to gather the 

information requested, but no funding has been made 

available.

We are currently consulting with the Nez Perce Tribe’s 

Cultural Director to conduct an ethnographic inventory and 

traditional use study that will better inform potential effects to 

traditional cultural places and values. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

422 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Tribal 242, 243, 

265

We are concerned LJCRP activities will degrade the cultural, 

historical, and natural values of the traditional homeland of the 

Chief Joseph Band of the Nez Perce tribe, degrading or 

eliminating spiritual and cultural values and treaty rights 

associated with this historical sense of place. The area is a rich 

ecological and cultural laboratory to explore and share with 

others. In fact the Joseph Canyon Roadless Area has one of 

the highest cultural site densities of all the RARE 2 study areas 

including lithic scatters, rock shelters, peeled trees, log 

structures, cairns, and corrals, some of which may be protohistoric. Nearly all the high ground in the area contains shellfish 

middens. In addition to impacts from operations, increased 

grazing that results from treatment could cause further damage 

and should be fully analyzed.These sites are extremely 

vulnerable to damage from logging and motorized vehicles. 

A lot is known about the types, integrity, and locations of 

cultural sites in the LJCRP. 40 cultural resource inventories 

have been conducted between 1980 and 2014 within the 

analysis area resulting in the coverage of ~26,000 acres and 

the identification of hundreds of cultural sites. Compliance 

procedures set forth in Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) are being followed including tribal 

consultation and the development of site protection 

measures designed to protect or avoid cultural resources 

during project implementation. The amount of forage 

depends on many factors, such as annual variations in 

precipitation, heat, soil, and competing vegetation. The 

indirect grazing effects of reduced forest canopy cover as a 

result of the project have been improved between DEIS and 

FEIS (FEIS chapter 4, Rangelands)

Tribal 225 The DEIS provides a limited background of the heritage 

resources in the project area. It is unclear why the DEIS refers 

to documents from Wallowa County to describe the heritage 

resources and values in the project area. 

Wallowa County's Watershed Assessment (2014) provided a 

useful chronology and summary of the history of European 

settlement for the county and the LJCRP area. We did not 

use the Watershed Assessment to describe or consider the 

pre-contact era or archaeology of the LJCRP.

Tribal 4 Why is it more important to you to increase forest health than 

protecting a sacred Native American religious site?

Proposed treatments would improve forest heath and protect 

cultural values. Tribal consultation regarding protection of 

traditional or spiritual values is ongoing.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 423

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Tribal 225 The DEIS states that Nez Perce cattle herds in the Wallowa 

Valley peaked in 1875-1876, but it is unclear exactly where the 

information came from. The reference appears to be cited 

incorrectly, but the document that we believe is referenced 

(Williams and Melville 2005) is highly opinionated and 

conclusions disputed.

Thanks for pointing out a potentially controversial reference. 

This has been considered in development of the FEIS.

Cultural History 226 Cultural history is important to many of the residents of 

Northeast Oregon. Historically, this area has been a hub for 

timber production and activity in the woods. This should be 

addressed in the EIS as a major portion of the analysis. The 

amount of timber harvest and management on the ground is 

extremely important to the cultural history of the local 

communities.

The Socioeconomics section of FEIS chapter 2 and the 

Socioeconomic Specialist report provide descriptions of the 

values, beliefs, and attitudes of people in the area as they 

relate to livelihood, cultural and biological values. The history 

of the timber industry and how it relates to cultural values is 

also summarized. The social and economic sections of the 

FEIS analyze the effects of the alternatives on timber volume 

outputs, and this analysis will be a consideration in the final 

decision.

Cultural 

Resources

267 The greatest threat to heritage resources is ground disturbing 

activities associated with mechanical treatments. DEIS Tables 

66 and 89 don't answer the issue. 

Between the DEIS and FEIS, we added the number of acres 

treated, in addition to the the percentageto these tables. 

Further, given uncertainty in the estimation of logging 

systems, and to provide more flexibility during 

implementation to select the best logging system to fit sitespecific conditions, individual resource effects were assessed 

by stand relative to the estimated logging system, as well as 

the potential effects if a more impactful logging system were 

used (e.g., if a ground based system were implemented 

instead of an estimated helicopter or skyline system) (see 

FEIS tables 50 and 69).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

424 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Cultural 

Resources

225 Given the significance of elk resources to the cultural and 

economic vitality of the local communities and the magnitude of 

the proposed LJCRP, more in depth analysis using the best 

available science is warranted.....use of distance band analysis 

is recommended.

The IDT recognizes the high value of elk as a Nez Perce 

tribal treaty resource. The FEIS clarifies how the treatments 

are designed to meet forest plan desired conditions for 

wildlife, and the implementation plan clarifies how this intent 

would be implemented. Our experience with running HEI 

using the distance band analysis does not show a substantial 

change in the HEI values, and HEI values would still meet 

Forest Plan Standards. The more recent research shows 

that providing for nutrition, and providing access to this 

nutrition (away from roads) is important. Nonetheless, a 

distance band analysis was conducted between the DEIS 

and FEIS. Alternative 2 proposes to close nearly 70 miles of 

road, and these road closures would help mitigate the 

potential loss of cover in areas where nutrition increases with 

canopy cover reduction. Implementation of project design 

criteria (FEIS Appendix J) would contribute to hiding cover 

through small inclusions of no treatment ("skips") within each

treatment unit, and intermittently along open roads, where 

necessary. The FEIS includes a better description of these 

issues compared to the DEIS. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 425

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Economics 5, 226, 244, 

261, 262

The Forest Service should focus on the economic analysis and 

make this a priority in the current EIS. Restoration should be 

ecological, but it should also contribute to the socio-economic 

status of the local communities. It is important to create more 

old forest single story (OFSS); these treatments will benefit our 

local economies. Economic factors are critical to accomplish a 

viable forest management project. Optional removal of unmerchantable material from the sale area; sawlog timber 

volume per acre harvested; a practical forest road network; and 

optimizing the sawlog harvest of trees over 21” dbh are the 

economic means to help pay for the thousands of acres of nonmerchantable thinning in this project. Without cost-effective 

sawlog revenue included, the non-commercial treatments 

become infeasible. Economic assessment must identify timber 

contributions. The economic analysis understate the benefits 

of the proposed timber harvest operations . Please delineate 

the proposed treatments by commercial and non-commercial 

as well as by logging system in the EIS.

The LJCRP purpose and need includes to contribute to the 

socioeconomic vitality of local communities, and the 

proposed stand treatments would result in economic 

contributions to the local economy. We have improved the 

clarity of the FEIS relative to logging systems (e.g., Tables 50 

and 69), and commercial versus non-commercial treatments 

(chapter 4 of the FEIS). The socioeconomic analysis 

addresses social and economic effects to the local area by 

alternative (FEIS chapter 4, Socioeconomics). The action 

alternatives would increase the abundance of old forest 

single story OFSS in the short and long term. The 

Socioeconomic analysis is meant to serve as a comparison 

tool amongst alternatives. However, the financial efficiency 

analysis does not include non-market values that are difficult 

to quantify, therefore the benefits may be underestimated. 

Additionally, there are tools, and other economic means 

available to cover the costs of treating un-merchantable 

material, including stewardship contracting and other sources 

of revenue to pay for treating these treatment needs. The 

FEIS chapter 4 (Socioeconomics) identifies the economic 

impacts of timber harvest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

426 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Economics 3, 5, 226, 

264

Timber production in the area has gone down 70% and 

associated infrastructure jobs 80%, according to the 

background data in the new Forest Plan. What percent of the 

harvest will be sawlog material? The higher this percentage is, 

the more options the Forest Service will have to complete noneconomical work (such as culvert replacement and helicopter 

treatments). The biomass created after a forest thinning can be 

converted to valuable timber and generates energy. What were 

historic management outputs compared to today and the effect 

on community socio economic factors?

FEIS table 32 lists acres by treatment type for the action 

alternatives. All cutting treatments listed with the exception of 

stand improvement include a chance for harvest of sawlog 

material. The FEIS shows that the action alternatives would 

provide approximately 7-10 million cubic feet of timber 

volume (FEIS chapter 4, table 33). This is far greater than 

has been produced from projects on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest over the past several decades. Changes to 

timber harvest and associated infrastructure in the area is 

summarized on page 22 of the Socioeconomics Specialist 

report. The Socioeconomics report (page 14) assumes that 

75% of the commercial product volume would be sawtimber; 

the remainder pulpwood. The relevant socioeconomic effects 

of the management alternatives for this EIS are analyzed in 

the Socioeconomics section of chapter 4 of the FEIS. It is 

beyond the scope to analyze socioeconomic effects of 

historic management. 

Economics 226 Please enumerate the number of jobs both created and 

maintained specifically for the job but also include jobs created 

and maintained in the local communities. Normally the 

accepted multiplier is 2.81 per every one job created.

In the economic impact tables, direct jobs to complete the 

work are reported along with the indirect and induced jobs in 

the local community (the ripple effects) (FEIS tables 63 and 

76). We used the economic software IMPLAN to model the 

multiplier effect within the impact area.

Economics 267 Table 84 depicts employment and specialization in logging and 

wood products manufacturing. Where are these? I do not find 

the tables present showing that information.

This reference to Table 84 in the DEIS has been corrected in 

the FEIS.

Economics 267 Financial efficiency Page 195 Table 83 summarizes the 

financial efficiency for Alternative 2. These are not the numbers 

that came from the Eric White report. Where did these come 

from?

Table 62 in the FEIS details the financial efficiency analysis 

for Alternative 2, which uses current Forest Service 

assumptions about the stumpage rates and costs of 

treatments. Economic impacts are detailed in Table 63.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 427

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Economics 226 In discussing the social environment, please include a 

discussion of local county government and how the Forest 

Service's activities in the forest will affect the revenue sharing 

of this project. This project will also have an impact on local 

schools and roads funding as well because the Forest Service 

is required by law to share 25% of the timber sale revenue with 

the county. I'm concerned that this was not taken into account 

during the design of this project and with the amount of noneconomical units in the project area; it could detrimentally affect 

the local communities through reduced revenues.

The Socioeconomic specialist’s report now describes how 

payments to counties might vary depending on the 

mechanism used for the commercial timber sales and how 

this project might affect road and school funding in Wallowa 

County. The commercial timber volume sold in this project 

could be sold as traditional timber sales or using stewardship 

authorities. In traditional timber sales, the Forest Service 

returns approximately 25% of the revenues back to states, 

which is then distributed to the counties. The returned 

revenues are used to fund roads and schools. In selling 

commercial timber using stewardship authorities, all of the 

revenue from the project remains with the selling National 

Forest (rather than going to the treasury or the counties) to 

be reinvested in other forest restoration projects.

Economics 265 When the DEIS states that local communities “remain natural 

resource dependent to some degree”(DEIS p.5), the Forest 

Service fails to disclose that local economies have diversified 

and that the degree of local and regional economic 

dependence on natural resource extraction from the National 

Forests has diminished significantly as eco-tourism, residential, 

and recreational uses threatened by such extraction have 

increased significantly. Local socio-economic context is not the 

only relevant social context.

The social effects of the project are addressed in the 

Socioeconomic section of chapter 4 of the FEIS. The social 

analysis area was chosen based on the area with likely social 

impacts from this project, which includes Wallowa County 

and the Nez Perce Reservation. Chapter 1 of the FEIS 

clearly states that the purpose and need of this project is to 

restore forest resiliency and contribute to social and 

economic vitality of local communities. Chapter 2 of the FEIS 

summarizes available socioeconomic data, concluding that 

agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; government; and 

retail trade sectors contain the largest shares of employment 

in Wallowa County.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

428 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Economics 265 The “desirable” tree species preference listing given on DEIS 

pages 27-28 is clearly the same order as timber industry 

species preference for logging in eastern Oregon: ponderosa 

pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, Englemann spruce, grand fir, 

lodgepole pine, and juniper. The Forest Service is evidently 

trying to clear out less desired, but still merchantable tree 

species in order to plant the preferred timber industry tree 

species lost in abundance to past logging selection. Large trees 

are worth more to the timber industry and Forest Service 

revenues.

The post treatment species composition for the project area 

is disclosed for each alternative in Chapter 4 of the DEIS. 

Our analysis shows that the action alternatives would 

increase diversity of forest composition within both moist and 

dry potential vegetation groups and move the landscape 

toward the desired, and ecologically resilient forest 

conditions.

Economics 266 Currently, economic short-term benefits of logging and grazing 

do not adequately consider long term costs, impacts, or 

externalities associated with the environmental degradation 

taking place.

The physical, biological, and socioeconomic effects analyses 

(FEIS chapter 4, Socioeconomics) include cumulative effects 

analysis that considers multiple projects in the analysis area 

over the long term. The estimated economic impacts and 

costs are estimated to occur over a ten year period, which is 

the approximate time span of the project. Beyond this 

timeframe, it is too difficult to estimate actions and 

corresponding costs and impacts.

Economics 267 The estimated volume to be removed under Alternatives 2 and 

3 is grossly conservative based on the treatments to be 

implemented on the ground. Wallowa County’s Watershed 

Assessment gives a much closer estimate of volume to be 

removed 17,680,000 cubic feet (105mmbf) and 11,220,000 

cubic feet (66mbf) respectively. Wallowa County believes that 

their closer estimate of volume to be removed should be used 

in the LJCDEIS to avoid future objections to the process.

The volume estimates used in the FEIS are based on 

estimates derived from the best available Forest Inventory 

and Analysis Program data, and modeling (Zhou and 

Hemstrom 2010), and are used to compare the relative 

effects between alternatives. Other methods may deliver 

differing estimates, but it is the relative volume between 

alternatives that are the focus of this decision criteria.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 429

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Economics 264 I am concerned about a change in values under the no action 

alternative, and salvage value and availablity after a wildfire. 

There is a need to address cumulative effects for 

socioeconomics.

The FEIS, chapter 4, social environment and socioeconomics 

specialist's report addresses socioeconomic impacts from 

wildfire, cumulative effects and changes in values under the 

no action alternative.

Economics 226 I'm concerned about the prevalence of skyline and helicopter 

logging in both alternatives. Both of these types of logging 

systems are extremely expensive and will need to be packaged 

appropriately in order to ensure that there is an economic 

benefit derived from these treatments.

We recognize that the various logging systems differ in cost, 

and the local District staff can package treatments for 

implementation in various ways. The stumpage rate estimate 

is based on previous appraisals for ground-based logging 

systems. However, if the Lower Joseph timber harvest were 

to include skyline and/or helicopter logging, the harvest costs 

would increase and therefore the stumpage rate would 

decrease. According to specialists on the Forest, skyline 

logging costs are about 55 to 60 percent higher than groundbased logging costs and helicopter logging usually costs 3-4 

times that of ground-based logging. For both of these cases, 

the stumpage values would likely be negative, meaning that 

the FS is paying to have the timber harvested rather than 

collecting revenue. However, due to uncertainty in costs and 

volumes for the logging systems and how the harvest would 

be implemented, the stumpage rates for each logging system 

are not provided. There is the potential for the costs to 

increase depending on the logging system employed and this 

would reduce the PNV. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

430 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Economics 226, 266 Economic cost and benefits analyses should take a broader 

and more in-depth approach in order to give an accurate 

portrayal of true costs and benefits. The DEIS discusses socioeconomics and only discusses the logging sector in Wallowa 

County. While these are important jobs, this focus should be 

expanded regionally and should include the entire supply chain 

as well as non-logging forest contractors that assist in forest 

restoration, such as roads and non-commercial thinning 

contractors. Not only that, but these jobs have a ripple effect 

that tends to create additional economic activity and jobs in the 

local communities.

The socioeconomic effects analysis in chapter 4 of the FEIS 

details the financial efficiency of the project (costs and 

benefits to the FS), as well as the economic impacts (jobs 

and labor income contributed to local economy) from the 

alternatives. Many benefits cannot be quantified in economic 

terms, and are analyzed qualitatively. Wallowa and Union 

counties comprise the economic analysis area for the 

economic impact analysis. Together, the two counties contain 

many of the businesses that will likely complete the 

contracted restoration work, the facilities that will process 

much of the commercial timber material removed, and 

represent the functional economy for many of the individuals 

residing and working in the area. In the economic impact 

tables, direct, indirect, and induced contributions are included 

in the estimated impacts

Economics 226 Many times the analysis is skewed toward the ecological 

benefits. Please ensure that social and economic benefits are 

outlined properly to ensure a balanced project that will not only 

benefit the ecology of the project area but also the socioeconomic needs of the communities.

Social and economic effects of the alternatives are discussed 

in the Socioeconomic effects section of the FEIS (Chapter 4).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 431

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Economics 267 Over the 10-year treatment period, the LJCRP is expected to 

cost the Forest Service between approximately $6.4 and $7.9 

million. This is the discounted cost to the government of the 

project. The anticipated revenue from the timber harvest 

(benefits) is expected to range from approximately $10.2 to $16 

million. Therefore, the positive PNVs are $8. 1 million for the 

Proposed Action and $3.8 million for Alternative 3. The DEIS 

displays the PNV to the Federal Government. The overall 

economic benefit to Wallowa County and northeast Oregon is 

over $100 million as shown in the Wallowa County Lower 

Joseph Creek Watershed Assessment and should be identified 

in the document.

The estimated PNV revenue is $1.9 million for Alternative 2

and $1.2 million for Alternative 3 (tables 62 and 75) based on 

the assumptions outlined in the Socioeconomics 

methodology section. Present net values are -$5.9 and -$5.2 

million for Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. The efficiency 

analysis uses current Forest Service assumptions about the 

stumpage rates and costs of treatments. There are two 

economic analyses completed in the FEIS: the financial 

efficiency analysis and the economic impact analysis. The 

“over $100 million” figure in the Wallowa County Lower 

Joseph Creek Watershed Assessment is comparable to the 

economic impact analysis in the FEIS. The economic impact 

analysis for Alternative 2 shows that it is projected to support 

55 jobs and $2.9 million in labor income in Wallowa and 

Union counties annually over 10 years, which is comparable 

to the analysis reported in the Wallowa County Watershed 

Assessment. Financial efficiency measures are calculated in 

this analysis to provide a means of comparing the financial 

efficiency of alternatives. The economic impact analysis 

estimates jobs and labor income changes in the analysis 

area resulting from the alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

432 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Economics 264 The DEIS states that “under the No Action alternative, initial 

impacts to livelihood, cultural values, and biological values 

would not change from the present”. Are you sure about that? 

This section goes on to discuss wildfire and the potential for 

lowering timber values because of the sudden pulse of burned 

wood on local markets. It is unclear to me where these burned 

logs might be produced from – salvage off Forest Service lands 

had generally been pretty nominal lately. And salvage is a short 

term enterprise and not likely to affect anything much in the 

long term.

Under the no action alternative, the initial direct impacts are 

not expected to change from the present condition. For 

example, no new harvest would be provided under the no 

action alternative, therefore, the jobs contributed to the local 

economy are not expected to change. However, if the

incidence of wildfire increases as a result of not completing 

restoration treatments, large fires could damage existing 

forest stocks and increase the amount of salvaged wood on 

the market, leading to decreases in delivered log prices. This 

is an example of a potential impact to the timber market 

because of more severe fire events that might occur under 

the no-action alternative but should not be seen as a direct 

impact of the no action alternative. Whether salvage does or 

does not actually occur following fire in the future cannot be 

predicted through this analysis; however, considering these 

potential effects has value withni the context of comparing 

the relative effects between alternatives.

Recreation 264, 265 We are concerned by negative effects of the Lower Joseph 

Creek Restoration Project to recreational values (barely 

discussed in the DEIS) and scenery, and to indigenous 

people’s treaty rights, cultural plants, and traditional use sites. 

We are opposed to logging or roadbuilding in Wild and Scenic 

River corridors. What are the socioeconomic benefits or losses 

to recreation within the project area if objectives for reducing 

fuels and restoring the area to hisitoric conditions are met or 

not met?

No tree cutting or road building is proposed in the Wild and 

Scenic River corridor in any alternative. Recreational 

opportunites would not change greatly, though depending on 

the alternative, either non-motorized or motorized 

opportunities would vary with the amount of popen and 

closed raods. The amount of forage for ungulates would likely 

increase toward the RV, potentially providing better habitat 

conditions for elk and potentially benefit hunting 

opportunities.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 433

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Recreation 243 The project area has unique potential to be a major driver in 

fueling interest and growth in the tourism, retail, and recreation 

sectors, as well as a magnate for retirees and entrepreneurs. 

Major attractions like the Eagle Cap Wilderness are popular in 

part because of the explicit protections they enjoy but are 

largely inaccessible or inhospitable for much/most of the year. 

The project area is much more accessible and could play a role 

in supporting the many local businesses that shut down in 

winter. If values on these lands (including wilderness potential) 

are compromised, the economic growth potential of the area 

will also suffer.

Impacts to recreational values are addressed in the 

Socioeconomics section of chapter 4 of the FEIS, and the 

Socioeconomic Specialist report. Under Alternative 2, the 

positive effects to recreation uses for fishing, gathering 

special forest products, and hunting are greater in the long 

term since there will be more restoration treatments and a 

corresponding lower risk of uncharacteristically severe 

wildfire, which adversely. The link between recreation and its 

effects on tourism has now been made in the FEIS, chapter 

4, Socioeconomics. Effects regarding the resiliency of forest 

lands in the project area can be found in FEIS chapter 4, 

Vegetation and Disturbance. Restoring and maintaining 

resilient forests would maintain aesthetic values (FEIS, 

chapter 4, Scenery), and opportunities for recreation industry 

growth.

Recreation 226 On page 138 the DEIS discusses dispersed recreation and 

states that " .... proposed treatments such as harvesting trees, 

reducing slash or altering canopy cover displace or discourage 

certain types of recreational activities (i.e. studying nature, 

viewing wildlife)." I disagree with this statement as it is 

prejudicial and incorrect. Treatments do not degrade nature as 

they are designed to enhance the ecological status of the forest 

as well as improve

habitat. Stating that those studying nature and wildlife will be 

adversely affected is wrong and this should be re-written. 

Please also explain that many of these treatments will result in 

temporary slash piles, dust, smoke and noise.

We agree that the statement in the DEIS did not capture the 

whole story, and appeared biased. We have changed the 

FEIS (chapter 4, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives) 

to better describe the effects, including that in some cases, 

the changing landscape would displace or change the 

appearance of certain types of dispersed recreational 

activities (i.e. studying nature, viewing wildlife, big game 

hunting, photography).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

434 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Social Values Form email Public lands belong to everyone. They are valuable for clean 

water, clean air, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, as 

places to find solitude, and where natural processes can play 

their role. The proposed Lower Joseph project risks many of 

these values by pushing controversial and aggressive actions 

like commercial logging in roadless areas. 

The impacts to social values, such as recreation and 

ecosystem services, are discussed in the socioeconomic 

analysis. Scoping comments revealed that some people 

value air and water quality, wildlife, and old growth trees, 

among others. The FEIS discloses that the effects of the 

action alternatives include maintained or improved water 

quality, suitable or improved wildlife habitat, conservation of 

large, old trees, and decreased risk of severe, unwanted 

wildfire. In addition, the action alternatives are anticipated to 

have positive effects to fishing, gathering special forest 

products, and hunting over the long term. In addition, the 

Scenery section states that the sights, sounds, and changes 

in vegetation from activities and use would further decrease 

the apparent naturalness and sense of solitude within harvest 

units and along roads during logging operations.

Social Values 242 The Forest Service is not recognizing the social/cultural 

aspects of Wilderness.

There is no Wilderness found within the project area. 

Analysis of project effects to potential wilderness, Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, and other undeveloped lands are disclosed 

in chapter 4 of the FEIS (Social Environment). 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 435

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Scenery 259 I believe we should be especially conservative in considering 

impacts of logging in steep, environmentally and aesthetically 

significant areas.

We are taking a very cautious approach to managing 

vegetation on steep slopes through the implementation of 

Project Design Criteria (PDC) (FEIS Appendix J, Soils; and 

the Physical Environment Supporting Documentation). PDCs 

would limit the potential for soil and vegetation disturbance 

and sediment mobility. Best Management Practices, and 

Forest Plan guidance also help ensure the use of appropriate 

silvicultural methods to protect the environment and 

aesthetically valuable areas. All forest restoration treatment 

types, regardless of slope, would use an approach which 

uses historical stand tree patterns as one indicator of 

resiliency and restoration need. These types of treatments 

provide greater viewing distances, which is in general 

aesthetically preferable. The resilience and appearance of 

the stands would also be improved by retaining large trees. 

These and other benefits contribute to both protection of the 

environment, and the improvement of aesthetics. 

Scenery 267 Page 111 Table 52. Proportion of the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project in each landscape visibility ....“Other” 

needs defined when it is more than 50% of landscape. What is 

not within 1/2 mile to more than four miles? Recommend 

remove this piece from EIS. 

You are correct. DEIS Table 52 did not add value to the 

analysis of effects, and has been removed from the FEIS. 

The scenery analyses follow agency direction (National 

Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1 the 

Visual Management System (Agriculture Handbook 462, 

USDA Forest Service 1974); Landscape Aesthetics, A 

Handbook for Scenery Management (Agriculture Handbook 

701, USDA Forest Service 1995); and Wallowa-Whitman 

Forest Plan direction.

Firewood 1 Firewood is an important resource to the communities of 

Wallowa County, please find all the manners possible to allow 

us access.

The FEIS analyzes a range of alternative open system road 

networks from 170 to 230 miles of open roads. The 

availability of firewood is determined by the local decisionmaker. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

436 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Prescribed Fire 225, 226, 

244, 265

The cumulative effects of not being able to place 48,000 acres 

of prescribed fire on the landscape over the next 10-20 years 

are of concern. I am concerned that the Forest Service will not 

be able to fully implement the project, which could have a 

significant effect on the desired outcomes of this project. The 

magnitude of proposed burning is problematic due to labor, 

funding and timing. Please consider alternatives to prescribed 

fire that will emulate the same effect in order to ensure that the 

area is properly treated. We are opposed to prescribed burning 

in moister, colder and high elevation mixed conifer forest types 

(including active Pileated woodpecker foraging habitat, and 

American marten habitat), which are naturally subject to 

infrequent, high severity fire. 

Prescribed burning activities are designed to be compatible 

with mechanical vegetation treatments, and able to make the 

most use of unplanned and planned ignitions. The use of 

planned and unplanned ignitions to achieve theproject 

purpose and need would be much less costly than using 

mechanical means alone. The FEIS recognizes that using 

prescribed fire on all 90,000 acres could prove difficult given 

available funding and appropriate prescribed fire weather to 

meet the desired conditions. Therefore, the landscape was 

prioritized by restoration need to first address the fuels 

created through silvicultural management and maintenance 

of dry upland forest, followed by moist upland forest where 

appropriate, and non-forest areas (FEIS table 9). The USFS 

Wallowa Mountains Office (WMO) burns approximately 3,000 

acres on average per year and over the 10 to 20 year 

planning horizon it would be reasonably feasible to burn 30-

50,000 acres of the project depending on resource availability 

and burn windows. The underlying assumption of burning "up 

to 90,000 acres" is established to recognize the ecologic role 

fire once had in this area and provide implementation 

flexibility to prioritize and take advantage of "burn windows" 

and available personnel to complete the job of restoration.

The FEIS describes the landscape prescribed fire 

prioritization strategy. 

Prescribed Fire 267 By not treating the riparian areas and connecting areas, it will 

reduce the ability to implement prescribed fire because of 

existing fuel loads and the risk of losing these areas to the fire.

The FEIS analyses the effects of treating (Alternative 2) 

versus not treating (Alternatives 1 and 3) RHCAs. The FEIS 

acknowledges the challenge of actively re-introducing fire to 

the landscape with and withour pre-treating existing stand 

structure and fuel loads (FEIS, chapter 4).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 437

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Activity fuels 

treatments

262 The treatment of residual debris is too prescriptive and limiting. Activity fuel treatment methods include flexibility to determine 

the appropriate method during implementation. The FEIS 

discloses that activity fuels would be treated in a variety of 

ways including, but not limited to, mastication, removal, pile 

(grapple or hand) and burn, cutting and scattering limbs, or 

prescribed fire (chapter 4, Effects Common to All Action 

Alternatives).

Fire effects 225 The DEIS would benefit from a more comprehensive analysis 

of the effects of prescribed fire on a variety of resources: 

snags, ground and shrub nesting birds, sediment from fire 

activities, noxious weeds, microbiotic crusts, air quality, rare 

plants and soils.

Interdisciplinary team specialists have reviewed the fire 

effects analyses for adequacy, and made adjustments in the 

FEIS as needed (chapter 4, Biological Environment). The 

FEIS includes more complete analyses of prescribed burning 

effects to these resources, including more explicit linkages 

between the discussions of effects and the FEIS project 

design criteria (Appendix J). Effects analyses to microbiotic 

crusts have been added to the FEIS. Prior to implementation 

of prescribed fire, a burn plan would be prepared with 

consideration from the district interdisciplinary team. This 

would include input and suggestions from district range, 

noxious weed, and botany specialists, among others. 

Fireline 

construction

243

Firelines used to facilitate prescribed fire in unroaded areas 

should be minimized and mitigated to protect soil, water, and 

scenic values. Where possible, firelines should be located on 

the outside rather than inside of the roadless boundary. 

See project design criteria (FEIS Appendix J) for fireline 

construction and placement guidelines.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

438 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Smoke 

production and 

human health

264 What are the health risks associated with doing nothing versus 

providing a project that restores the area? What are the 

socioeconomic benefits of treating stands and returning them to 

conditions that allow prescribed underburns, versus the costs 

and impacts of wildland fire? There are numerous studies and 

articles related to the socioeconomic impacts to health 

associated with wildfire. Recent articles that I am providing can 

provide a quick glimpse of why and how the smoke impacts 

should be a part of your analysis.

Thank you for providing supporting references for your 

comment. Smoke production comparisons between 

prescribed fire and wildfire are displayed in the FEIS (chapter 

4, Physical Environment, Air Quality). The Oregon 

Department of Forestry is the administrative agency that 

ensures smoke management during prescribed fire is within 

the Clean Air Act standards and approves smoke 

management plans and permits smoke production levels with 

consideration of public health and safety at the time of 

implementing prescribed fire. The socioeconomic analysis 

qualitatively addressed the recreation and human health 

impacts of smoke. The LJCRP treatments and other ongoing 

and foreseeable treatments could increase exposure to 

smoke emissions, which could cause cumulative effects to 

health and quality of life for individuals who are sensitive to 

smoke. However, but the action alternatives would also 

decrease the risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire, 

which would decrease the probability of pulses of smoke 

emissions associated with these events (see FEIS chapter 4 

for the socioeconomic effects to recreation and human 

health from smoke). 

Prescribed fire 243 It may be that a significant progress toward vegetation 

management goals can be realized through prescribed fire or 

other means, rather than commercial extraction with associated 

roads and loss of forest structure. 

One purpose of this project is to introduce fire on up to 

90,000 acres with planned or unplanned ignitions. In other 

places the existing species composition, structure and 

density is such that fire may do more ecological harm than 

good. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 439

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Prescribed fire 266 Please respond to the scientific articles provided in this section 

in relating to fire: Williams and Baker (2012); Sheriff et al. 2014; 

Polluck et al. (2012); Lydersen et al. 2014; Odion et al.2014; 

Hanson and Odion 2014...Please provide evidence, including 

data, to show that logging encourages, provides for, or 

supports these processes - or that BMPs/PDCs sufficiently 

protect them.

Fule et al. 2013 provides a systematic assessment of 

Williams and Baker (2012) in regards to methodology and 

interpretation of disturbance regimes based solely on tree 

size, species, and density. To the degree that there is 

uncertainty about the character of fire disturbance in the Blue 

Mountains, local research is available. Specifically 

Heyerdahl and Agee 1996 and Heyerdahl 1997 characterized 

fire history within the Blue Mountains. Stand reconstruction in 

the Blue Mountains (following methods in Churchill et al. 

2012) has been completed to support the recommendations 

in the Dry Forest Restoration Guide (Franklin et al 2013). 

This guide recognizes the heterogeneity of stand and 

landscape patterns and associated fire behavior. The 

restoration objectives within the LJCRP include the same 

structural attributes Williams and Baker indicate drive 

disturbance processes (tree size, density, composition, and 

number of strata). Sheriff et al 2014. studied wildfire severity 

in Coloradoo montane forests, and would be of limited 

application to the LJCRP area. Polluck et al. (2012) 

discusses using reference conditions in riparian areas to test 

similarity between restoration treatments and reference 

ranges of variability. Odion et al 2014 studied Northern 

Spotted Owl habitats that very considerably from the project 

area. The LJCRP objective is to restore the diverse range of 

variability in forest vegetation and disturbance characterized 

by the unique landscape setting where it is found. See the 

project record for a more complete and detailed analysis of 

the references you provided, and there application to the 

project FEIS. 

Effects analysis 226 Please be sure to include the beneficial effects that the 

implementation of this project will have. Many times 

Environmental Impact Statements do not emphasize the 

benefits of the project, the main focus is the detrimental effects.

We have improved the "story" of this project in the FEIS, 

including a more thorough discussion of benefits.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

440 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Effects analysis 262 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) are not fully-addressed. The 

DEIS also does not adequately consider the benefits of wildfire, 

insects, and disease to species within these areas, particularly 

in relation to the no action alternative,even though there is a 

large body of scientific evidence documenting those benefits. 

The DEIS also fails to discuss the positive benefits of passive 

restoration.

The effects analysis for Alternative 1 (No Action) discusses 

the benefits of no action - which largely takes a passive 

approach to restoration - in terms of its relative achievement 

of desired conditions. Alternatives 2 and 3 use active forest 

restoration across 37 and 24% of the project landscape, 

leaving the remainder to grow, develop, and change under a 

passive approach. Active and passive fire management could 

occur across the vast majority of the project landscape, 

although all alternatives assume fire suppression will 

continue into the future. There is a section specific to insect 

and disease susceptibility for the existing condition for all 

alternatives (FEIS table 10). Effects of the alternatives -

including active management and projected natural 

disturbance regimes - are measured in-part by the degree to 

which desired conditions are achieved. In other words, the 

effects of natural disturbances are not ignored in the analysis 

of effects, but in fact are considered in terms of how they 

interact with active manangement to result in comparative 

levels of fire resilient species, large tree abundance, and 

mosaics of stand structures and densities.

Effects analysis 264 The DEIS is insufficient in the Human Element analysis as 

needed in CEQ regs and FSM direction. 

The preparation of the FEIS was guided by CEQ regulations 

for implementing NEPA [40 CFR 1500-1508]. NEPA requires 

that consequences to the human environment be analyzed 

and disclosed. The social and economic specialist report 

details the human component of the affected environment 

and the anticipated social and economic effects from the 

alternatives.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 441

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Effects analysis 265 The Forest Service is violating NEPA and NFMA legal 

requirements by planning a large scale, ecologically destructive 

timber sale under the guise of “restoration” that will actually 

threaten the viability of listed and Management Indicator 

Species in the project area, and that will potentially violate the 

Clean Water Act, the Wallowa Whitman Forest Plan, and other 

relevant statutes.

Our analysis did not find that the activities proposed in this 

project within any alternative would lead to a negative trend 

in viability on the Wallowa-Whitman NF. Viability of wildlife 

species is primarily assessed using the historical range of 

variability (HRV) concept; comparing current amounts and 

distribution of habitat to historical conditions. By managing 

habitat within HRV it is assumed that adequate habitat will be 

provided because species survived those levels of habitat in 

the past to be present today. Thus, if we manage current 

habitats within the range of historic variability, we are likely to 

do an adequate job of maintaining population viability. This 

project would not reduce any habitat conditions to below the 

HRV (FEIS tables 51-55, 70-74). The project is also 

consistent with the Clean Water Act (FEIS, chapter 4, Effects 

Common to All Action ALternatives, Water Quality and 

Temperature).

Effects analysis 225, 243, 

266

Lands immediately adjacent to the project area have been 

adversely affected by intensive management that includes 

recent clearcuts, herbicide application, trapping, roadbuilding, 

and grazing. An important function of federal lands is to 

mitigate for degraded conditions on non-federal lands. The 

cumulative effects summary for aquatic habitat does not 

adequately quantify the proposed actions cumulative effects for 

sediment. The cumulative effects analysis of wildlife was too 

narrow in scope and scale, and should not have been limited to 

the project area.

Cumulative effects analyses were improved between 

publication of the DEIS and FEIS (see FEIS Chapter 4).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

442 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Effects analysis 266 The DEIS does not include current best science in its 

assumptions or analyses regarding the appropriateness or 

efficacy of thinning with regard to 1) the scientific controversy in 

determining HRV determinations 2) scientific controversy 

regarding risks of vegetation manipulation as active 

“restoration” potentially outweighing the perceived or predicted 

benefits 3) scientific controversy regarding the effectiveness of 

logging/thinning treatments for restoration. The DEIS analysis 

of the alternatives, including the “no action” alternative fails to 

disclose scientific controversy or use best science in its 

analysis of fuels treatment effectiveness in controlling future fire 

severity or risk (Lydersen et al. 2014, Hanson and Odion 2014). 

The Forest Service fails to disclose the ongoing scientific 

controversy over their use of “fire condition class” and “fire 

regimes” to characterize departure from assumed historical 

range of variability of fire frequency and severity for a particular 

area.

The estimation of HRV for this project came from Powell 

2012, which was a response to the requirement of the 

Eastside Screens to complete a landscape-level assessment 

of the historical range of variability for structural stages, 

including a determination of how existing structural stage 

percentages compare with their historical ranges. Powell 

2012 compiled the best available science to estimated 

ranges of variation for species composition, structural stages 

and density classes with the intent to reflect ecosystem 

properties free of major influence by Euro-American humans, 

providing insights into ecosystem resilience. In this context, 

the range of variation estimates were intended to help us 

understand what an ecosystem is capable of, how historical 

disturbance regimes functioned, and inherent variation in 

ecosystem conditions and processes – the patterns, 

connectivity, seral stages, and cover types produced by 

ecological systems at a landscape scale. Hence, the HRV 

estimates used in the LJCRP are based on pre-European 

settlement natural ecological proceses as a foundation. FEIS 

recognizes the importance of heterogeneity in disturbance 

regimes and forest structure, density, composition, and 

pattern (e.g., Williams and Baker 2012). The FEIS analyzes a 

range of alternatives, from no action (Alternative 1) to active 

management of differing extents (Alternatives 2 and 3), and 

their relative beneficial and adverse effects. Lydersen et al. 

(2014) is a study of the Rim Fire in Yosemite National Park 

indicating that moderate to severe fire effects occured under 

plume dominated conditions regardless of forest conditions, 

fire history, or topography. TheLJCRP is not designed to 

mitigate fires occuring under extreme fire weather. Hanson 

and Odion (2014) describes fire severity in the Sierra Nevada 

of California. To the extent that this literature is relevant and 

consistent with the Lower Joseph landscape, it recognizes 

the role of using wildfire to "restore landscape structure and 

heterogeneity...as well as fire effects associated with natural 

diversity." Fire condition class is not used in the project 

analysis. Fire regimes are broad descriptions of the severity 

and frequency of this disturbance process. Departure in the 

LJCRP area is primarily described using forest vegetation 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 443

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

structural attributes such as density, pattern, and structural 

stage. The Eastside Screens Amendment to the Forest Plan 

(Regional Forester's Amendment #2) directed the Forest 

Service to complete an HRV departure analysis. 

Disturbances such as fire played a role in creating and 

maintaing the HRV characteristics on the landscape. As 

vegetation changes so does frequency and severity of 

disturbance. Fire behavior modeling (See appendix D) 

informed the "departure" of severity within the LJCRP area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

444 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Effects analysis 267 DEIS Page 148 says that there are no other vegetation projects 

planned in the project area for the foreseeable future. This is 

incorrect. Wallowa County’s Lower Joseph Creek Watershed 

Assessment plans for vegetation projects to be accomplished 

on the acres not mechanically treated at this time, to be 

treated in the future (possibly 20 years).

Cumulative effects analyses of projects planned "for the 

reasonably foreseeable future" include those that have a high 

likelihood of being implemented. In practical terms, they are 

projects that have been at least initiated through public 

scoping. Potential projects included in watershed 

assessments, but not yet proposed by the Forest Service nor 

scoped, are not considered to yet be part of "reasonably 

foreseeable future" projects.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 445

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Effects analysis 263 The Forest Service has a legal obligation under NEPA to 

accurately, scientifically, and objectively describe the 

environmental consequences of logging and road building in 

ecologically significant areas. The analysis for this project, 

including the two developed action alternatives, both degrade 

undeveloped lands and fail the requirements of the NEPA 

concerning these requirements, and the requisite disclosure of 

scientific research and recommendations pertaining to roadless 

and unroaded areas. Despite the well-established science 

supporting the protection of roadless areas 1,000 acres or 

larger along with all ecologically significant roadless areas 

regardless of size, Alternative 2 would commercially harvest 

4,919 acres outside IRAs. The majority of those acres – 4,761 

acres – would be within roadless polygons of 1,000 to 4,999 

acres. LJCRP DEIS p. 208. Alternative 3 would commercially 

log 3,607 acres of undeveloped lands outside of IRAs. The 

majority of those acres – 3,503 acres – would be within 

roadless polygons of 1,000 to 4,999 acres. LJCRP DEIS p. 

234. Furthermore, the analysis of these proposed actions is 

lacking. The Draft EIS does not recognize the literature that 

recommends protection of these areas or the impacts to these 

ecologically significant areas should either alternative move 

forward.

Parts of LJCRP are designated inventoried roadless areas 

and are managed under the Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule. Other parts have no evidence of past management or 

road building such as PWAs or other undeveloped lands. 

Effects to intrinsic characteristics of these lands are disclosed 

in the FEIS. Lands within IRAs still maintain their associated 

Forest Plan Management Area designations, goals, and, 

objectivesalong with RACR and agency policy related to 

IRAs. There are no designated wilderness areas within or 

adjacent to the LJCRP, and NationalForest System lands are 

managed under the multiple use objectives outlined in the 

respective managment plans as amended (Forest Plan or 

HCNRA CMP). There are no forest-wide or management 

area standards specific to "other undeveloped lands" (e.g., 

outside IRAs). It is outside the scope of this project to amend 

the forest plan for designation of new protected areas that 

would be free from mechanical treatment. All lands, including 

other undeveloped lands (OULs) in patches less than 5,000 

acres, are managed consistent with forest-wide standards 

and guidelines and by designated Forest Plan management 

area allocations. The majority (51%) of other undeveloped 

lands in the LJCRP fall into management area 3 –

Wildlife/Timber emphasis (FEIS, chapter 2, social 

environment). The objectives for any management actions 

proposed in OULs in the LJCRP area, regardless of size, do 

not substantially impair the ecological significance of these 

areas. System road construction is not proposed in any 

alternative. "Other undeveloped lands" have intrinsic 

ecological and social values because they do not contain 

roads and evidence of past timber harvest. These values are 

used as indicators for comparison to display effects between 

alternatives in the FEIS (chapter 4, social environment). 

Other undeveloped lands are not inventoried roadless areas 

or potential wilderness areas and therefore are described 

using different indicators of comparison. The FEIS 

adequately discloses the environmental impacts of forest 

vegetation treatments in IRAs, PWAs, and "other 

undeveloped lands" (FEIS, chapter 4, social environment). A 

request to change the management direction for areas not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

446 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

currently defined as IRAs or Wilderness is better directed to 

the Forest Plan revision process.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 447

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

NEPA process 243 The accelerated NEPA process used for this project resulted in 

abbreviated analysis of road impacts. We think that NEPA must 

be fully implemented to ensure informed public comment and 

fully informed decisions. NEPA short-cuts can have adverse 

ecological consequences if it means that impacts are not fully 

considered and mitigated and alternatives are not thoroughly 

explored. NEPA mandates accuracy information and analysis. 

40 CFR 1500.1(b). 

The NEPA process for this project was faster than the norm 

due to the establishment of a dedicated interdisciplinary team 

with no other duties than project planning; and analyses met 

the legal, regulatory, and policy requirements regarding 

NEPA analyses. The Wallowa Whitman National Forest is 

currently undergoing a review of its transporation system for 

preparation of a Travel Management Plan. The current 

direction from the Forest Supervisor is to conduct a Roads 

Analysis on a project by project basis and determine the 

resulting transportation system that meets forest plan 

standards and guidelline and consultation requirements. A 

roads analsysis was conducted for this EIS and the resulting 

analysis was used to define a range in motor vehicle access 

and trends towards forest plan standards, and the FEIS 

meets consultation requirements. The interdisciplinary team 

met all NEPA requirements of the code of federal regulations. 

40 CFR 1500.1.(b) states, "(b) NEPA procedures must insure 

that environmental information is available to public officials 

and citizens before decisions are made and before actions 

are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate 

scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public 

scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA. Most important, 

NEPA documents must concentrate on the issues that are 

truly significant to the action in question, rather than 

amassing needless detail." 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

448 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

NEPA process 263 In our scoping comments, HCPC “requested an alternative in 

the pending EIS that does not log within any undeveloped 

lands.” Neither action alternative (nor any of the alternative 

considered but eliminated from detailed study) excluded 

commercial logging activities on undeveloped lands outside of 

IRAs. By failing to analyze such an alternative the Forest 

Service failed to meet NEPA‘s requirements to incorporate the 

best available science and develop a scientifically sound 

environmentally protective action alternative.

The action alternatives are designed to meet the purpose and 

need for the project. "Other undeveloped lands" (areas that 

do not meet potential wilderness criteria, nor were included 

within inventoried roadless area boundaries) do not have any 

special management direction beyond that of the underlying 

management allocation. The FEIS analyzes a range of 

effects from no treatment in "other undeveloped lands" (No 

Action alternative) to varying levels of treatment in these 

areas to meet the project purpose and need (alternatives 2 

and 3). Any of these alternatives, or a blended alterantive can 

be selected for the decision. The analysis follows all NEPA 

requirements for analysis of the range of effects. 

NEPA process 265 The Forest Service fails to analyze the great similarity between 

European colonist practices that significantly degraded the 

land, waterways, forests, wildlife, fish, and native plant 

biodiversity in the project area and the greater WallowaWhitman National Forest area and the planned extractive and 

natural value-degrading activities in the Lower Joseph timber 

sale, roading, and associated activities.

Current conditions of the LJCRP landscape reflect the long 

history of human use, and as such, effects of past land 

management practices are considered within the purpose 

and need of the project. The purpose and need of the project 

includes contributing to local restoration economies built on 

natural resource products. The FEIS analyzes the effects of 

alternative restoration approaches, which would have varying 

socioeconomic effects. The design of restoration treatments 

are largely ecologically-based, and the alternatives are

designed to provide a range of alternatives that allow for 

trade-offs between social, economic and ecological issues 

and values during the decision-making process. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 449

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Consistency with 

the Forest Plan

262, 265

The proposed action relationship to the Forest Plan is unclear. 

What is meant by efforts being made “to align wherever 

possible, desired conditions of the LJCRP with the current 

Forest Plan, and the DEIS for the Forest Plan revision?" The 

Forest Plan Revision has not gone through the complete NEPA 

public process yet and has not been approved. The existing 

LRMP for the Wallowa Whitman National Forest must be 

followed for meeting Forest Plan standards and existing Forest 

Plan direction. (See LJCRP DEIS p. 3)

Chapter 3, and Appendix B of the FEIS clarifies connections 

between project objectives and the current Forest Plan. The 

statement "to align wherever possible" indicates 

consideration of the Forest Plan Revision process and the 

landscape goals and objectives identified for the Wallowa 

Whitman National Forest. Exising forest plan standards, 

guidelines, and direction are being met unless otherwise 

otherwise stated, or included in a proposed amendment. 

Consistency with 

the Forest Plan

225 The DEIS does not adequately delineate standards and 

guidelines between the HCNRA and WWNF.

See FEIS Chapter 3, tables 26, 27,and 29, and Appendix B in 

the FEIS, which shows activity in the HCNRA, other Forest 

Plan management areas, and associated standards and 

guidelines by reference.

Other plans 267

You have missed the following documents: Wallowa County 

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan, Wallowa 

County Comprehensive Management Plan ;Custom and 

Culture of Wallowa County , Oregon; Wallowa County's 

Economic Base;Lower Joseph Creek Watershed Assessment, 

Article 36 SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION known 

collectively as Wallowa County's local Land use plan.

Page 313 in the DEIS listed key federal and state policies. 

Between the DEIS and FEIS, we added other plans and 

policies that are important for the management of the Lower 

Joseph Creek Restoration Project area (FEIS chapter 3, and 

Appendix B).

Preferred 

Alternative

5, 284

The EPA prefers the road-related actions proposed under 

Alternative 2. They find these to more fully support needed 

reductions in fine sediment to streams in the planning area. 

Alternative 2 is a step forward; I hope it will be adopted.

EPA's preference for Alternative 2 is noted.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

450 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Preferred 

Alternative

225 The tribe does not feel that Alternative 2 is the enviornmentally 

preferable alternative that would best promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in NEPA section 101. The 

Tribe suggest blending specific elements of both alternatives 

with new approaches to old growth and fire management 

resulting in an alternative which best protects and preserves 

historic, cultural and natural resources.

Alternative 3 does not propose commercial harvest in 

designated old growth (MA-15), RHCAs, PWAs and IRAs, 

nor does it allow cutting of trees >21" dbh; and Alternative 2

approaches Forest Plan road density standards for fish and 

wildlife. Depending on the comparisons of decision criteria, 

and ecological, social and economic concerns, the decisionmaker can select parts of each alterantive to build the final 

Record of Decision.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 451

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

225, 242, 

243, 259, 

260, 263, 

265, 266, 

268, 285, 

Form email

We are strongly opposed to management (including 

commercial and non-commercial logging, prescribed burning, 

roading, etc.) in Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential 

Wilderness Areas, and “Undeveloped lands”, and to 

commercial-size logging in old growth management areas and 

any Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, including category 4 

RHCAs. The Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

proposes to log ~800 acres in MA15 Designated Old Growth 

Areas, including 50 acres of Moist Mixed Conifer Forest. 

Logging in these areas runs counter to Forest Plan direction to 

manage these areas to “maintain habitat diversity, preserve 

aesthetic values, and to provide old growth habitat for wildlife. 

In addition, the standards indicate that no scheduled harvest 

will occur in Designated Old Growth Areas. The Tribe 

recommends no commercial harvest in IRAs with minimal 

ground based disturbance.

In Alternative 3, no treatments are proposed in IRAs, PWAs, 

and MA15, and only non-commercial thinning could occur in 

category 4 RHCAs outside old forest multi-story and old 

forest single story structures (OFMS and OFSS) in 

accordance with the Blue Mountains PDCs. No system road 

construction is proposed in IRAs or elsewhere under any 

alternative. Under certain circumstances, management is 

appropriate and allowed by policy, law and/or regulation in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), Potential Widlerness 

Areas (PWAs), designated old growth (MA15), and Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). The appropriateness 

of management is determined by specific Forest Plan desired 

conditions, mangement area direction, and standards and 

guidelines (as amended, in the case of RHCAs), or policy (in 

the case of IRAs). PWAs delineate areas that may have 

wilderness characteristics, but in and of themselves did not 

meet the standards for proposed Wilderness in the Forest 

Plan. The site-specific identification of PWAs in the EIS is for 

effects analysis purposes and does not confer any other 

management direction than that given in the Forest Plan 

under the management area(s) for which they are a part. 

Proposed management in MA15 and RHCAs also adheres to 

Forest Plan direction, and is intended to achieve goals for 

restoring old growth characteristics, or riparian mangement 

objectives, respectively. Active management of MA15 areas 

is allowed by the Forest Plan if it serves to restore or 

maintain old forest characteristics. Particularly in the dry 

forests, habitats for large tree open-canopied associated 

species is below the HRV. Proposed harvest to create more 

large tree open-canopied forests may benefit species 

associated with larger tree structure and open canopies. The 

prescriptions for these areas are to maintain all trees > 21" 

dbh, and large snags will be protected. Prescriptions within 

MA 15 dry forests, are designed to maintain old forest 

characteristics and to move the areas toward a more resilient 

state that is more characteristic of the natural conditions in 

drier environments. Harvesting in MA15s or of trees > 21" 

dbh is not proposed in Alternative 3. The treatments 

proposed for MA15 areas under the Modified Proposed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

452 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Action would not be considered "scheduled harvest". 

"Scheduled harvest" refers to regulated harvest that occurs 

on a rotating and regular basis for the purposes of timber 

production. No such harvests are planned for MA15 areas. 

Additionally, the MA15 designation does not necessarily 

mean that the current condition of the area is high quality "old 

forest". The 51 acres of moist forests within MA15 is not 

currently in an old forest condition. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 453

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

242, 243, 

259, 260, 

263, 265, 

267

I don't understand how the USFS can legally carry out timber 

sales in a roadless area.

Alternative 2 includes cutting of generally small diameter 

trees, and some larger trees that have grown-in since the 

start of the fire suppression era, for the purpose of improving 

roadless area characteristics as defined in 36 CFR 294.11 

(diversity of plant and animal communities). These activities 

fall within those exceptions provided in the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (RACR) at 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(ii) 

(cutting ...generally small diameter timber ...to ...restore the 

characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure). The 

activities also fall within those authorities re-delegated to the 

Forest Service on October 2, 2009 for the cutting, sale or 

removal of generally small diameter timber when needed to 

maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem 

compositions and structure. No new road construction is 

proposed in IRAs in any alternative. "Undeveloped lands" do 

not represent a Forest Service management area, but rather 

a condition, and management falls within the Forest Plan 

guidance for the respective management area within which it 

is a part. The FEIS describes how the proposed treatments 

meet these requirements and encourage forest resiliency and 

restoration of disturbance processes in the LJCRP. The 

RACR also requires effects to IRA characteristics to be 

disclosed. These are disclosed within the FEIS (Chapter 4, 

IRAs). There would be no road building associated with 

treatment within any IRA. Access to identified treatment 

areas is facilitated with existing roads or designated as 

helicopter yarding.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

454 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

243 Why did you not use Peter Morrison, Susan Snetsinger and 

George Wooten 1998? (Unprotected Wild Lands In Washington 

State An Analysis of Their Current Status and Future under 

Current Management Direction, A report by The Pacific 

Biodiversity Institute, February 1998 

http://www.okanogan1.com/research/roads/Roadless_Report_b

y_Morrison_et_al_2000.pdf )

This report is focused on Washington State. The LJCRP 

activites are entirely within the state of Oregon. This report is 

applicable to the following National Forests as indicated 

within the report. Roadless Areas in Individual National 

Forests; Okanogan, Colville, Wenatchee, Umatilla, Kaniksu, 

Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie, Olympic.

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

226 We...endorse the work in the Inventoried Roadless Areas that 

the collaborative discussed. While we were disappointed that 

commercial harvest was excluded, we still believe that the 

Forest Service is moving in the right direction and implementing 

the non-commercial treatments will assist in reducing 

uncharacteristic fire behavior and will improve the ecological 

situation of these areas.

The Stand Improvement (SI) treatments within the IRA would 

reduce the departure between current and desired conditions 

in terms of species composition, structure, density and 

pattern as well contribute to a more resilient ecosystem. 

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

265 We are supportive of establishing the two Research Natural 

Areas, which may actually be an appropriate use of sitespecific Forest Plan amendments, as opposed to other Forest 

Plan amendments which would effectively serve to violate 

existing Forest Plan standards.

Thanks for your support. Forest Plan amendments serve to 

change outdated Forest Plan direction, or direction not 

appropriate for a specific case or changed conditions.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 455

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

242, 243, 

263, 285, 

Form email

Under both action alternatives, the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project would conduct logging, road building, 

mechanized activities, thinning, and/or extensive burning in 

undeveloped and unroaded areas that currently provide 

ecologically important habitat and refugia. The DEIS fails to 

accurately disclose and address the ecological importance and 

actual contiguous roadless extent of these areas, fails to 

correctly disclose their ecological site-specific conditions, and 

fails to adequately address the proposed project’s logging, 

roading, mechanized thinning, and other management action 

impacts upon these areas. The Forest Service failed to 

adequately disclose the environmental impacts of logging in 

roadless expanses. The implementation plan (Appendix J) and 

analysis of small diameter tree removal in IRAs are both 

incomplete. The FEIS should be sure to provide more complete 

information in these areas. Some of the proposed activities 

have the potential to undermine the roadless designation of 

IRAs.

Additional information has been added to the FEIS (Chapter 

4, IRAs/PWAs). The FEIS (Chapter 4, Social Environment) 

compares the alternatives relative to "undeveloped" lands in 

the project area. The process used to identify other 

undeveloped lands is described in the "PWA"/IRA/Wilderness 

report located in the project record. Human influences have 

had an impact on long-term ecological processes within 

these lands particularly through the use of grazing and 

wildfire suppression. The FEIS, Chapter 4 includes detailed 

analyses regading this project's effects on the apparent 

naturalness, degree of solitude, sense of remoteness, aerial 

extent, and patch sizes of "other undeveloped lands". 

Alternative 3 addresses concerns about implementing forest 

restoration activities in IRAs, PWAs, and RHCAs and does 

not include treatments in these areas. Alternative 1 - the no 

action alternative - takes a largely passive approach in these 

areas. The FEIS discloses the social and ecological tradeoffs of these management aproaches, and the decisionmaker has the space to select an alternative in the record of 

decision that blends components of multiple alternatives. 

Inventoried Roadless Area designation and boundaries would 

not be impacted or changed due to the activies identified in 

this project. No roads are proposed for construction in IRAs 

under any alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

456 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

266 All Wild and Scenic values of within the entire project area 

should be protected from detrimental management impacts. 

Unfortunately, we are concerned that logging in or adjacent to 

Wild and Scenic areas will degrade the values associated with 

Wild and Scenic designation, as well as exacerbate invasive 

weed issues in these areas (such as the invasive weed issues 

with cheat grass along Joseph Creek as discussed in the DEIS 

pg. 76)

The LJCRP incorporates all Forest Plan objectives, 

standards and guidelines for scenic quality, which together 

represent the goal to manage all National Forest lands to 

obtain the highest possible visual quality, commensurate with 

other appropriate public uses, cost and benefits. The scenery 

analysis evaluated view sheds from the Wild and Scenic 

River, and found that treatments in the viewsheds would be 

in the background, and would enhance scenic quality by 

restoring natural structure and composition, and increasing 

landscape stability through the reduced risk of 

uncharacteristic stand replacement fire (FEIS Chapter 4, 

Scenery). No treatments are proposed adjacent to the Wild 

and Scenic River itself.

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

225, 243 Commercial logging and road construction within the National 

Recreation Area should be discouraged in favor of 

conservation, reliance on natural processes, and traditional 

quiet recreation.

HCNRA CMP outlines management areas with specific goals 

and objectives. Some of these areas do not allow for 

commercial harvest (such as Management Area 9), and thus 

do not contain commerical activities or road construction. 

The intent of this project is to use, to the degree possible 

natural processes such as fire to restore a resilient 

landscape. Sometimes this is possible through just using 

prescribed fire; other times the fire behavior would put 

underrepresented landscape features such as old trees of 

seral species, or large trees of any species at greater risk of 

mortality. The LJCRP action alternatives are compliant with 

the WW LRMP and the HCNRA CMP, as amended. The 

inadvertent inclusion of treatment units in MA 9 in the DEIS 

have been removed from the FEIS.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 457

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

243, 263, 

285

Because the Lower Joseph Creek Draft EIS only included 

areas “5,000 acres or greater or contiguous to an existing 

wilderness area, or potential wilderness areas in other Federal 

ownership” (LJCRP DEIS p. 118) in its Potential Wilderness 

evaluation, it fails to adequately consider the irretrievable 

impacts of the wilderness qualities of roadless expanses that 

are functionally contiguous with identified Potential Wilderness 

Areas (PWA) but under 5000 acres. Together these areas are 

of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired condition...Aside from avoiding 

compliance with Ninth Circuit precedent, the agency’s inventory 

of potential wilderness areas fails for another reason. The 

agency excluded 300 feet on either side of forest service 

system roads and areas with part harvest from consideration 

for Potential Wilderness. LJCRP DEIS p. 118. The 

methodology and justification for ruling out these areas was not 

provided in the Draft EIS or elsewhere in the project record1. 

Such an approach does not conform with the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH), the Wilderness Act, or Congress’ explicit 

direction. The 300 foot buffer along roads should be rejected in 

order to comply with the Forest Service’s Planning Handbook 

which calls for “broad and inclusive” identification of potential 

wilderness. Region 6 needs to justify why is chooses to apply a 

300 foot buffer.

Effects to all these lands (regardless of size) and their 

intrinsic, ecologic, physical, or biologic values were 

considered and disclosed in the FEIS. In Lands Council; 

HCPC; BMBP V. USFS decision regarding the South George 

Opinion upheld the agency's use of 300 foot buffer in 

identification of potential wilderness area boundaries. The 

300 foot buffer is a specific situation that has mainly been 

used on the Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests. 

Criteria found in FSH1909.12 Ch. 71, allow for the 

boundaries of PWA be "locate(d) at prominent natural or 

semi-permanent human made features to facilitat an easy onthe-ground-identification (emphasis added)." The Forest 

Service recognizes that the types of development that 

excludes areas from being included in the PWA inventory 

such as stumps would not occur on all these acres 

(particularly in the non-forested lands adjacent to roads). 

However, to allow for easy identification and to account for 

the developed character existing in the forested land a 300 

foot influence zone was selected. The 9th circuit court of 

appeals on February 18, 2015 upheld the Forest Service's 

application of this specific criteria in PWA analysis stating 

that the Forest Service has complied with NEPA (Lands 

Council, HCPC, LOWD-BMBP v. USFS). FSH 1909.12 Ch. 

71 Wilderness directives effective January 2007 provides the 

guidance for PWA analysis for the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project. Regional direction for implementing 

2012 planning rule directives are very clear that the 

application of the directives is at the Forest Plan level only. 

The transition language for the planning directives allow us to 

continue with our current methodologies for forest plan 

revision, depending on how far along we are in the process 

(FSM 1920.3(9)(b)). We can apply that same logic to our 

project planning. The deciding official determined that the 

LJCRP would continue to use the 2007 directives for PWA 

analysis due to the timing of notice and comment. The 

methodology is disclosed in the FEIS.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

458 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

243 The FS Potential Wilderness Area inventory excludes all past 

harvest even though some past harvest was selective.

Past harvest was identifed in the spatial analysis (GIS) 

database. This is the best available information and maps 

we currently have to determine the extent of past harvest that 

is still evident. Aerial photo interpretation, personal 

communication, and field exams were utilized to verify that 

past harvest areas still contained developed features 

(stumps, skid trails, etc) that are substantially recognizable 

and thus would be excluded from the PWA inventory. Only 

harverst that occured post 1971 was considered in this 

analysis, although there is a long history of logging that 

extends much further back in time (such as railroad logging). 

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

226, 244 Please explain how the treatments fall in to the forest plan 

management areas, for example, what percentage of the 

treatments are in MA 15 and what percentage are in timber 

emphasis areas? The amount of commercial logging broken 

out by management area or by logging system was not 

specified.

The FEIS clarifies the distribution of management areas 

across the project area, treatments across management 

areas, and the distribution of logging systems (FEIS Tables 

26, 27, 29, 50, and 69).

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

226 I am encouraged by the Forest Service's approach to this 

project to do what is right for the land regardless of the 

administrative designation of the land base. It is important that 

the Forest Service continue to recognize that administrative 

designations do not protect the land from uncharacteristic 

disturbance.

The project design is consistent with all land designations, as 

specified in the existing Forest Plan, HCNRA Comprehensive 

Management Plan, and the Roadless Rule.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 459

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

243 We have provided documentation to the Forest Service and 

members of the collaborative group demarcating and 

explaining what we call our Citizen Roadless Inventory and 

what has also been called “other unroaded areas.” An 

interactive statewide map can be found at 

http://www.oregonwild.org/explore-oregon/oregon-wild-mapgallery. By whatever name they are called, we generally define 

these areas as those that meet the IRA criteria set forth by the 

USFS but applied to areas over 1,000 acres. They are 

generally in fairly good shape with no substantial/obvious 

logging, development, or roads. 

The citizens roadless inventory contains areas that overlap 

inventoried roadless areas, potential wilderness areas, and 

other areas where evidence of logging, road building, or 

harvest are not recognizable. It also contains areas that 

contain roads and other improvements (roads, skid trails, 

stumps, etc) that exclude it from consideration in the PWA 

inventory (FSH 1909.12 Ch. 71). Affects to areas identified in 

this "citizens unroaded" map have been analyzed in the FEIS 

(chapter 4, Social Environment). 

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

226 Boise Cascade does not support the use of the maps created 

by Oregon Wild to determine unroaded/undeveloped areas 

within the project area. The methodology behind the creation of 

these maps is flawed and...The Forest Service has identified a 

suite a of treatments that are scientifically based and show a 

need to actively manage the landscape to increase habitat 

suitability, decrease fire danger, and increase economic 

activity.

The FEIS (Chapter 4, Social Environment) compares the 

alternatives relative to "undeveloped" lands, and areas 

identified by Oregon Wild as "unroaded" in the project area. 

The process used to identify other undeveloped lands is 

described in the "PWA"/IRA/Wilderness report located in the 

project record. 

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

263 Joseph Canyon roadless area meets the inventory criteria for 

areas with wilderness potential. Logging in these areas will 

degrade potential wilderness characteristics - characteristics 

which the agency is responsible for preserving.

Portions of the Joseph Canyon IRA do meet inventory criteria 

for Potential Wilderness. However, portions that include 

existing roads and evidence of past harvest do not meet 

these criteria. Affects to Potential Wilderness character and 

size are disclosed in the FEIS.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

460 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Management 

Areas and other 

land areas

225, 265 We support the LJCRP in establishment of two RNAs. This is 

an appropriate use of site-specific Forest Plan amendments.

Establishing the two RNAs as part of the LJCRP would serve 

to implement Forest Plan direction, establish a locallyrelevant control site for improving our understanding of 

invasive species spread, grassland productivity and diversity, 

and other resource values, and increase NEPA efficiency 

relative to the establishment of RNAs proposed in Forest 

Plans across the Region in general.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 461

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Purpose and 

need

243, 265, 

266

We ask the Forest Service to drop this project as it stands due 

to it being obviously conflicting with ecologically sound 

restoration goals, wildlife and fish species’ habitat needs for 

biodiversity, and sound forest management in general, 

including the need to protect de facto wilderness in roadless 

areas, potential wilderness areas, and undeveloped lands for 

wildlife, water quality, fish, and future generations of people--

including indigenous peoples’ treaty rights, and to slow climate 

change by sequestering carbon. The project proposal to log 

thousands of acres- including in Designated Old Growth Areas, 

Moist Mixed Conifer forests, RHCAs, Roadless, Potential 

Wilderness, and undeveloped lands- does not align with and 

will not address the primary threats and stressors to ecosystem 

health. Regardless of vegetative condition relative to historic 

frequency, the primary threats to ecosystem integrity and forest 

health are continued grazing, road related impacts, and 

impacts from logging. We encourage the Forest Service to 

broaden these efforts to include range management, fish 

passage, road densities, weeds, carbon storage, etc. The FS 

should consider conducting a “critical element/function 

analysis” may provide insights to determine what features of 

the ecosystem are most in need of restoration. The FS might 

look at soil fertility, beaver habitat, hydrological function, 

standing and down dead wood, extirpated or otherwise 

sensitive species, nitrogen fixation, soil function and 

composition, distribution of old and mature forests. 

Given the relatively large geographic scale, the purpose and 

need for this project was narrow and focused on restoration 

of forest composition and structure toward a more resilient 

condition, and access management. Range and invasive 

species management was not included in the project's 

purpose and need, although the project does include project 

design criteria to address prevention or mitigation of adverse 

effects to these resources. Both action alternatives propose 

improvement of aquatic organizsm passage at 6 locations. 

This project does not preclude analyses of other projects in 

the same area with different objectives. The purpose and 

need, proposed action, modified proposed action and 

Alternative 3, as described and analyzed in the FEIS, is in 

keeping with policy, law and regulation, as well as the treaty 

rights of the Nez Perce Tribe. Hence, there are no policy, 

legal, or regulatory justifications for dropping of this project 

from the Forest Service’s program of work. Further, the 

Forest Service has engaged the public on the purpose and 

need for the project, and has been working closely with the 

Wallowa Whitman Forest Collaborative, which represents a 

broad group of stakeholder groups and is open to the public. 

The action alternatives follow ecologically sound restoration 

goals that have broad scientific agreement (e.g., Franklin et 

al 2014). Proposed Forest Plan amendments are specific, 

and have ecologically, and scientifically based justifications 

(see FEIS Chapter 3). Project-specific climate change 

mitigation strategies of carbon sequestration have not been 

institutionalized as an agency policy, beyond goals to restore 

and maintain ecosystems that are resilient to disturbance, 

and thus do not lose carbon storage to uncharacteristic fire. 

Ecologically-based forestry practices can increase the ability 

of forests to sequester atmospheric carbon while enhancing 

other ecosystem services, such as improved soil and water 

quality. Ensuring adequate regeneration and improving forest 

health through thinning and prescribed burning are some of 

the ways to increase forest carbon in the long run. Harvesting 

and regenerating forests can also result in net carbon 

sequestration in wood products and new forest growth. The 

appropriateness of carbon sequestration strategies that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

462 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

represent a departure from natural forest structure and 

composition must be weighed against the risk of carbon 

emissions through uncharacteristic fire. The proposed 

treatments are designed to move the forest closer to desired 

conditions regardless of where it is on the landscape. The 

effects to disturbance regimes (change in stressors to forest 

health) are disclosed in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. The FEIS 

analyzes the effects of the alternatives on soils, hydrologic 

function, standing and down dead wood, sensitive species, 

and distribution of old and mature forests, and these effects 

will in-turn inform the final decision. The need to increase the 

distribution of old and mature forests toward the historic 

range of variation is already included as one driving force for 

the alternatives. USFS project planning policy does not 

require the analysis of re-introducing extirpated species. The 

pupose and need of this project was published for public 

comment in January 2014, and the factors mentioned did not 

rise to the level of significance needed to change the purpose 

and need, nor analyze alternatives to make these factors the 

driving force behind restoration. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 463

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Purpose and 

need

265 The DEIS fails to adequately explain through analysis how the 

either of the action alternatives would actually meet this 

restoration purpose and need, given the excessively damaging 

scale and intensity of planned logging, roading, and other 

proposed activities. How would further logging and roading 

degradation of the landscape aim “to maintain healthy and 

restored conditions for future generations?” (DEIS p.5) How will 

wildlife and fish species dependent on more variable, dense, 

large tree, LOS, or intact and large relatively pristine habitat 

survive this proposed large timber sale’s impacts to hydrology, 

streams, forest canopy, wildlife corridors, large tree structure, 

Late and Old structure forest, Dedicated Old Growth 

Management Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential 

Wilderness Areas, and Undeveloped lands in the near, 

intermediate, or long-term?

The FEIS includes analysis topics and corresponding 

indicators specific to the vegetation resource and disturbance 

regimes (fire, insects and disease; Chapter 4). These 

analysis topics have been tracked throughout the effects 

analysis in order to address whether, or to what degree, the 

project meets purpose and need objectives. The effects 

analyses in the FEIS demonstrate the relative attainment of 

the project purpose and need by alternative. The action 

alternatives vary in their attainment of the purpose and need. 

Both action alternatives reduce departures between current 

and desired forest structure, composition and pattern, to 

different degrees. The No Action alternative, in fact, harbors 

the greatest risk of further landscape degradation through the 

loss of high value resources to the likely continuation of 

uncharacteristic fire and insect disturbances. None of the 

alternatives reduce the amount of LOS structure or wildlife 

corridors, and treatments proposed in IRAs and PWAs in the 

modified proposed action are aimed at restoring resilient 

structure and function. None of the alternatives proposed 

road construction, and the modified proposed action serves 

to reduce road densities to within or toward Forest Plan 

standards for fish and wildlife habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

464 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Purpose and 

need

4, 264 Rework the Purpose and Need statement to be concise and 

detailed enough so that you agency can meaningfully develop 

and analyze alternatives. The LoJo project is also about 

maintaining and enhancing natural resource dependent 

lifestyles. Also include providing economic and social 

contributions as part of you purpose and need. Please redraft 

this P&N so that it is conscies and defendable and ensure that 

it clearly identifies wood products, including but not limited to 

mechantable sawlogs, to focus at least a portion of this project 

on timber and wood products production. Are there less 

sensitive areas for timber sales that will provide jobs and raw 

materials? 

The purpose and need of the project is determined by Forest 

Service leadership at the start of a project, and lays out the 

sideboards for subsequent environmental analyses. Relative 

timber production was one of many decision criteria. The 

FEIS discloses the relative social and economic effects of the 

alternatives, and will be used by the decision-maker in 

determination of the selected alternative. Please see the 

Purpose and Need in Chapter 1 of the FEIS. The LJCRP 

would implement a suite of restoration activities that are 

intended to make the LJCRP landscape more resilient to 

uncharacterisitc disturbances and climate change thus 

helping to protect sensitive areas within the LJCRP analysis 

area. Jobs and raw materials will be an additional benefit of 

restoration activities and the analysis indicates that they are 

not mutually exclusive (See Chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS 

and Appendix J for the Project Design Criteria and Best 

Management Practices).

Purpose and 

need

5, 242, 262 Larger size and scope of project area is correct. This landscape 

means a lot to me. I think it should be managed with ecological 

integrity as the top priority. I would like all resources protected 

and managed to encourage resilience yet maintain 

heterogeneity and key natural processes such as wildfire and 

their inherent diversity across the landscape. The absence of 

resource management has had a catastrophic impact on fuel 

loads and consequent fires.

Chapter one in the DEIS discusses the the purpose of and 

need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving 

that purpose and need. The desired conditions listed in 

chapter 1 are very much in sync with the topics highlighted in 

this comment such as resiliency, heterogeneity, diversity and 

fire as a key process across the Lower Joseph Creek 

landscape. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 465

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Purpose and 

need

242 For Lower Joseph Canyon to be effective, the proposed 

thinning and fuel reduction program will need to be repeated at 

frequent intervals over wide areas. This will result in 

simplification of stand structure and a reduction in biodiversity. 

Forests of mixed ages and species composition are generally 

not subject to complete defoliation because native insects have 

discrete numbers of hosts. As a result, the growth of ponderosa 

pine increases when spruce budworm attack grand fir, and the 

reverse happens when Pandora moth attack pine in a stand of 

mixed composition (Speer et al. 2001). There are similar 

advantages to multi-species stands when it comes to diseases, 

as outlined in a recent publication on ‘Managing insects and 

diseases of Oregon Conifers’ (Shaw et al. 2009). The 

disadvantages of repeated thinning and slash disposal need to 

be considered particularly in the mixed conifer type.

The proposed action in the LJCRP DEIS covers a discreet 

spatial and temporal scale. Future planning for this particular 

landscape beyond this proposed action has not been 

accomplished nor has the need for repeated thinnings been 

determined. The post treatment stand structure and species 

composition for the project area is disclosed for each 

alternative in Chapter 4 of the FEIS. Our analysis shows that 

the action alternatives would increase diversity of forest 

structure, composition, and density within both moist and dry 

potential vegetation groups and move the landscape toward 

the desired conditions. As for current multispecies stands that 

are proposed for treatment, the treatment design would not 

eliminate any species from those stands. The design is to 

favor ponderosa pine and western larch wherever that 

opportunity exists within the treatment units. This is

consistent with the desired conditions. 

Purpose and 

need

265 “Uncharacteristic” disturbance from wild fire, insects, and 

disease needs to be demonstrated to be actually 

uncharacteristic. The Lower Joseph DEIS does not appear to 

substantiate the claim that there is an “uncharacteristic” level of 

disturbance from wild fires, insects, or disease within the 

project area. (See DEIS p. 26, 1st par.)

Table 6 of the FEIS is derived from fire behavior modeling 

predicting the existing fire severity. The desired/historical fire 

severity is derived from expert opinion and literature used to 

produce the information and data under the Landfire effort. 

Fire behavior modeling considers current fuel and vegetation 

conditions with actual sampled weather data as described in 

FEIS Appendix D. The results are not related to the most 

severe weather days but are distributed across the entire 

"burn season" therefore they are a more reasonable 

representation of expected fire severity. Table 6 shows that 

fire severity and effects to overstory vegetation is not 

characteristic of historic or desired conditions, therefore it is 

currently uncharacteristic.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

466 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Purpose and 

need

265 There is scientific controversy over assumed fire suppression 

effectiveness and assumed mature tree “encroachment” due to 

fire suppression that is not disclosed or analyzed in the Lower 

Joseph DEIS.

Fire suppression in the Blue Mountains has been effective 

enough to lead to the well established trends in forest change 

described in Hessburg et al 2005, Hessburg and Agee 2003, 

etc.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 467

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Forest Plan 

amendments

225, 243, 

263, 265, 

266

We can agree that there may be limited circumstances under 

which it may be desirable to remove large-young shadetolerant trees in order to protect large-old shade-intolerant trees 

that are even more important. These circumstances are 

uncommon. In order to preserve public trust, the plan 

amendment allowing removal of such trees much be very 

carefully crafted to focus on appropriate ecological 

circumstances, such as when the crowns of the trees are 

touching. There is concern about setting precedent for Forestwide implementation of Forest Plan amendments. The rationale 

for amending the Eastside Screens is not unique. It is nearly 

identical as the rationale used on the Snow Basin Project and 

the other fourteen projects on the Wallowa Whitman where the 

wildlife portion of the Eastside Screen was amended. Even the 

Lower Joseph Creek analysis acknowledges that the 

amendment is needed to address conditions within the Lower 

Joseph Creek Restoration Project area that are similar to the 

regional examples that the Regional Forester provided in her 

2003 letter referenced by the Lower Joseph Creek analysis and 

by a regional forest management field guide: Restoration of Dry 

Forests in Eastern Oregon: A Field Guide (Franklin et. al. 

2013). Because these amendments are addressing conditions 

that occur elsewhere on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 

they are not site-specific. In order to move forward with the 

proposal to log in LOS stands below HRV and remove trees 21 

inches and greater, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest must 

prepare a forest-wide amendment.

The alternatives analyzed in the FEIS include Alternative 3, 

which does not propose cutting of trees >21". Laws and 

regulations applicable to project planning acknowledges that 

our understanding of ecosystems can change with new 

information, and thus allows for the amendment of out-dated 

policies and direction, or for changed conditions. Forest 

Service guidance for implementation of the Eastside Screens 

explicity requires a landscape assessment of the range of 

variability of forest structure and composition, and a 

comparison to current conditions. Proposed Forest Plan 

amendments are based on these analysis, and represent 

project-specific needs for forest restoration (see FEIS 

Chapter 3 for the rationale for proposed Forest Plan 

amendments).The Forest Plan amendments proposed are 

project specific, appropriate for this unique landscape and 

restoration need, and not intended for application Forestwide. Project specific amendments must be just that - specific 

to the project. Amendments elsewhere would not be justified 

by the fact that they were implemented in the LJCRP. The 

rationale for amending the Eastside Screens for the Lower 

Joseph Creek Restoration Project is site-specific, addressing 

specific conditions of species composition and forest 

structure observed on the unique landtype associations and 

emergent disturbance regimes of the landscape, and 

compared to historical references that have been integrated 

into Forest policy (FEIS, Chapter 3, Forest Plan 

Amendments). Site specific analysis of current conditions in 

LOS stands relative to the historic reference shows an 

overabundance of high density, multi-layered LOS conditions, 

and an underabundance of single story, low density LOS 

conditions. Vegetation treatments in LOS within the project 

area will not reduce the overall abundance of LOS conditions, 

but rather redstribute conditions between overabundant and 

underabundant states. We agree that implementation of a 

Forest Plan amendment for the cutting of trees >21" in 

diameter will be relatively rare across the landscape (it is 

estimated that about 15% of trees >21" dbh in harvest units 

coud be cut; see Vegetation and Disturbance specialist's 

report). The proposed Forest Plan amendments have been 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

468 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

carefully crafted to be ecologically-appropriate. Any 

prescriptions that lead to the cutting of trees >21"in diameter 

are based on ground-based evidence of tree patterns within 

stands. Whether the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest does 

or does not develop a forest-wide amendment to the Eastside 

Screens is not within the purvue of this project. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 469

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Forest Plan 

amendments

226, 243, 

265

Please explain the Forest Plan Amendment for Alternative 2

regarding Old Forest; is this amendment to work in Designated 

Old Growth or is it an amendment just to work in LOS? Why do 

you need an amendment to work in LOS if there is no net loss 

of Old Growth?

The forest plan amendment proposed for Alternative 2 and 3 

applies to the entire project area, regardless of management 

area designation. Scenario A of the Eastside Screens wildlife 

standard allows timber harvest activity in LOS under two 

circumstances: 1. To transform some portion of an LOS 

component that is within or above HRV into an LOS 

component that is deficient (e.g., transforming old forest 

multi-story stands into old forest single story); and 2. To 

maintain or enhance existing conditions in LOS stands within 

or above HRV. The LJCRP proposed action treatments in 

LOS are designed to transform old forest multi-story 

conditions (which is above HRV in the project area), into old 

forest single story, which is below HRV. The proposed action 

includes thinning about 30 acres in old forest single story 

conditions (out of a total 200 acres) to maintain or enhance 

existing conditions. According to the Eastside Screens 

Scenario A, this objective is permissible for old forest multistory conditions because it is within HRV, but it is not 

permissible for old forest single story conditions because 

abundance of this structure is below HRV. Therefore, a 

Forest Plan amendment is needed to accomplish this 

objective. This treatment would not change conditions from 

an LOS class, but would serve to restore more resilient 

structure consistent with natural disturbance regimes. This 

proposed treatment meets the intent of Scenario A because 

there would be no net loss of LOS as a result of proposed 

treatments. The understory thinning treatments proposed for 

these stands are designed to address species composition, 

stand density, insect susceptibility, climate change 

adaptation, and fire risk considerations. The FEIS, Chapter 3 

describes the rationale for the proposed amendment to treat 

25, and 20 acres in Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively that are 

currently in an OFSS condition, but are trending toward a 

multi-story condition.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

470 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Forest Plan 

amendments

225, 263, 

266

The Wallowa-Whitman has approved at least fifteen sitespecific amendments to the Eastside Screens item 6d, 

Scenario A since they were adopted. Despite these collectively 

significant actions, the cumulative impacts analysis for the 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project fails to acknowledge 

the cumulative effects of the proposed site-specific 

amendments to the Eastside Screens. The problem is that the 

amendment to the Forest Plan in the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project area is not an isolated amendment to the 

protections that are in place for live old growth trees.

The cumulative effects (FEIS, Chapter 4, Cumulative 

Effects), and Forest Plan amendment (Chapter 3) sections 

have been greatly improved in the FEIS. The FEIS analyzes 

whether there are vegetation management or prescribed 

burning activities ongoing or planned for the foreseeable 

future within the project area (Chapter 3; section "Past, 

Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to 

Cumulative Effects Analysis"). A forest-wide cumulative 

effects analysis for Eastside Screens was completed 

between DEIS and FEIS, and is included in the FEIS. Stateand-transition modeling for the project area and the WWNF 

as a whole also showed that, given no action, more large 

trees (>20”) would be lost to fire over a 30-year modeling 

scenario than would be cut or lost to fire under the action 

alternatives, or, for the WWNF as a whole, if current rates of 

forest management activity continued into the future (FEIS 

Appendix C). The statement on pg 213 of the DEIS was one 

contradiction to many other statements made throughout the 

document about prescribed burning activities that are 

foreseeable in the future. This contradiction is corrected in 

the FEIS. Additional cumulative effects analyses regarding 

site specific amendments to the Eastside Screens follow 

USFS Region 6 direction, and are included in the FEIS.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 471

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Forest Plan 

amendments

243, 265 There is nothing in the rationale given for removing trees 

greater than 21” dbh (DEIS pp.27-28) that identifies specific 

sites where this is considered necessary or explains the 

scientific method (with the relevant citation) for determining that 

a tree is “generally competing with a desirable tree.” (DEIS 

p.27) What does “generally competing” mean?...There is no 

scientific support given for the assumption that the younger 

trees actually “need” to be removed “based on the need to 

restore HRV in stand pattern and characteristic fire regime 

dynamics.” (DEIS p.27) Further, stand pattern and 

characteristic fire regimes are landscape scale dynamics, not 

site-specific problems.

The FEIS discloses the rationales and effects of amending 

the Eastside Screens (see FEIS chapters 3 and 4). The 

proposed amendments and their rationales are consistent 

with current agency policy.One of the core principles for 

LJCRP is to retain and release old trees (FEIS Appendix J -

Project Design Criteria). Franklin et. al. 2013 recommends 

that younger trees and other competing vegetation should be 

removed from the vicinity of older trees to reduce competition 

and for water and to reduce ladder fuels which could spread 

fire into the canopy of older trees. The FEIS has been 

improved in its discussion of the site-specific need for Forest 

Plan amendment to cut trees > 21"dbh, and to treat old forest 

single story stands (FEIS Chapter 3), and includes a map of 

areas where this amendment would occur.

Forest Plan 

amendments

5 What is the validity of Eastside screens, contract provisions 

and harvest in RHCAs?

The use of PACFISH, Eastside Screens (Forest Plan 

Amendments) and contract provisions is intended to protect 

those resources that the Forest Plan Amendments were set 

forth to protect. With site specific data, the Amendments can 

be adjusted to address long term goals of restoration if 

meeting the objective of the Amendment. Site specific data 

was used to validate the need for treatment to both protect 

and restore those resources.

Forest Plan 

amendments

226 Boise Cascade supports the Forest Plan amendments as 

detailed in the DEIS because the NFMA provides abundant 

discretion for the Forest Service to amend their plans "in any 

manner whatsoever." We believe that these amendments make 

sense for the project given that an arbitrary diameter limit such 

as the 21" limitation limits the ability of the Forest Service to 

achieve the desired conditions, composition, and structure for 

the Lower Joseph Project area.

The design of prescriptions for cutting of any trees >21” 

would be based on the desire to restore forest structure and 

composition toward reference conditions (HRV), particularly 

to increase the abundance of shade-intolerant tree species 

(ponderosa pine and western larch), reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristically severe fire and insect and disease 

outbreaks, and increase resiliency to natural disturbance and 

climate change (FEIS Chapter 3). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

472 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Alternatives 225 The Tribe encourages protecting watersheds by developing a 

new alternative that blends elements of the Proposed Modified 

Action Alternative (Alternative 2), and Alternative 3 with more 

moderate treatments in old growth management areas and a 

more thoughtful approach to prescribed fire. This new 

alternative would result in a less aggressive harvest treatment 

(especially in old growth areas), no removal of trees >21" DBH, 

a minimum 100 foot no-harvest buffer in category 4 streams, a 

decrease in overall road density, larger elk security areas, more 

focused burning, and no timber treatments in inventoried 

roadless areas (IRAs), potential wilderness areas (PW As), or 

in any category of riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). 

Most of this comment can be dealt with as a blended 

alternative during development of the Record of Decision. 

Alternative 3 does not propose commercial harvest in 

designated old growth, RHCAs and IRAs, and Alternative 2

approaches Forest Plan road density standards for fish and 

wildlife. The FEIS will better clarify how the treatments are 

designed to meet forest plan desired conditions for wildlife. 

The implementation guide is not a prt of the EIS. Specific to 

the treatment design for designated old forest (MA-15) -

Alternative 3 foregoes treatment in MA-15 and would leave 

the existing condition intact. Treatments proposed in MA-15 

under Alternative 2 were designed to be conservative. For

example: no trees 21" and larger would be removed; changes 

in density would be low to moderate (none of the treatments 

would result in a low density class where it doesn't already 

exist). Leaving an overall denser condition increases the 

number of replacement trees available when the old trees 

complete their life cycle. These treatments are also designed 

with improving resiliency of the old trees and old forest 

structure to insects, fire and climate change in mind. Proven 

techniques for improving resiliency of old trees include 

reducing crown competition and increase growing space 

adjacent to the old trees.

Alternatives 225 The Tribe suggests blending specific elements of both 

alternatives with new approaches to old growth and fire 

management resulting in an alternative which best protects and 

preserves historic, cultural, and natural resources. On such a 

large landscape scale, the 100,000 acre LJCRP needs more 

watershed restoration work proposed instead of forest 

restoration through prescription harvests.

The action alterantives have the same level of protection of 

cultural and historic resources. Given project design criteria, 

the closer we are to moving toward RV, the greater the 

reduction in risk to natural resources. Proposing more 

watershed restoration work is outside ther purpose and need 

of this project. A blended alterantive to address concerns can 

be addressed duriing development of the Record of Decision.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 473

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Alternatives 263 The composition of the two Lower Joseph Creek action 

alternatives is strange. The Proposed Action would log in 

ecologically sensitive areas but take a more reasoned 

approached to managing roads. Alternative 3, drops some of 

the roadless area logging but would defer to Wallowa County 

on how to manage the road system. Neither alternative would 

fulfill the Forest Service obligations and duties under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), or other relevant statutes and 

regulations. HCPC suggests blending elements of both 

alternatives and include new approaches to managing 

ecologically significant roadless areas outside of IRAs and 

PWAs, old growth forests, and RHCAs to result in a decision 

that better protects and preserves the resources within the 

project area.

The Proposed Action emphasizes active ecological 

restoration, including forest restoration toward more natural 

ranges of variation, and reductions in road density toward 

Forest Plan standards for the benefit of fish and wildlife 

habitat. Alterantive 3 aims to achieve ecological restoration 

to the degree possible given two primary social values: 

desires to not actively restore certain areas (Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, 

Potential WiIderness Areas), and desires to not actively 

restore road-related degradation of wildlife and fish habitat so 

as to provide more public road access. It is not clear what is 

meant by "ecologically sensitive areas", since areas like 

IRAs, PWAs, and RHCAs are not defined by "ecological 

sensitivity". However, since these are the areas not actively 

treated in Alternative 3, we assume that these are the types 

of areas being referenced. Vegetation treatments in either 

alternative would be ecologically- and scientifically-based, 

and would follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, as 

well as national best management practices to ensure 

protection of species diversity, fish and wildlife habitat, soil, 

water, traditional cultural values, and other resources, while 

facilitating more natural ecological processes. The no action 

alternative effects analysis discloses that there can be 

adverse effects of doing nothing to reverse human-caused 

departures between current conditions and ranges of natural 

variability. The NEPA analysis for this project follows NEPA, 

NFMA and other relevant laws and regulations. The comment 

is not specific enough to respond more directly about which 

sections of these laws and regulations the commenter is 

referencing. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

474 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Alternatives 265 There is still an insufficient range of alternatives in that there is 

no action alternative we could support, as there is none that 

significantly reduces the volume and scale of proposed 

commercial logging and also significantly reduces the amount 

of planned excessive road construction and reconstruction.

The range of alternatives in the FEIS covers wholy passive 

restoration with no commercial nor non-commercial tree 

harvest (No Action alternative) to active restoration to meet 

the project purpose and need. The range of alternatives is 

adequate to address the range of effects of any of these 

selectable alternatives. 

Alternatives 265 The reasons given for rejecting “alternative 4”, which remains 

largely unclear, are vague and confusing. Was this an attempt 

to better protect “resources” than Alternative 2 would do? Was 

it an attempt to keep more roads open under Alternative 2? 

Why would another alternative not be developed at the DEIS 

stage? Accelerated time frames and NEPA “efficiencies” are 

not legal requirements, whereas a full range of alternatives is a 

legal requirement under NEPA. Clearly Forest Plan direction is 

not respected in Alternative 2 (and to a lesser extent, not fully 

in Alternative 3) so Forest Plan direction can not necessarily 

substitute for any proposed increased ecological protections for 

Alternative 2.

"Alternative 4" was considered but eliminated from further 

analysis because its components were already considered as 

part of Alternative 2. Discussion of this rationale has been 

clarified in the FEIS. A full range of alternatives was analyzed 

relative to the identified purpose and need for this project, as 

published in the Federal Register in January 2014. All Forest 

Plan direction has been followed, except where specifically 

described in proposed Forest Plan amendments.

Alternatives 226, 264 Please develop an alternative - based on the key issue of 

economic and social need - that maximizes wood products, 

including merchantable saw logs, generated for local and 

regional economies. Remember, if we are going to “create 

resilient ecosystems” we have to find a feasible way to pay for 

it.

Maximizing income and the amount of sawlogs were not a 

part of the purpose and need for this project, as idenified by 

Forest Service leadership. Hence, the suggested alternative 

is outside the scope of this project. Timber volume 

production was one of many decision criteria used to assess 

the relative effectiveness of each alternative in meeting the 

purpose and need. The FEIS discloses the relative social and 

economic contributions of each alternative (FEIS chapter 4, 

Socioeconomics).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 475

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Alternatives 242 I suggest another alternative that responds to the ecological 

trade-offs of road reconstruction and temporary road building.

The range of alternatives, and comparisons of their relative 

effects in the FEIS covers the ecological trade-offs between 

road reconstruction and temporary road construction (none in 

the No Action alternative compared to 12.6 and 82.6 miles of 

temporary road construction and road 

maintenance/reconstruction in the action alternatives, 

respectively (see chapter 4, wildlife, aquatic habitat, physical 

environment sections).

Alternatives 243 To earn broad public support and better achieve legitimate 

restoration goals, we encourage the Forest Service to broaden 

these efforts to include range management, fish passage, road 

densities, weeds, carbon storage, etc

Resource concerns are analyzed in the FEIS and provided 

for in Forest Plan standards and guidelines, project design 

criteria (FEIS Appendix J), and policy, regulation, and law. 

The LJCRP includes improvement of 6 aquatic organism 

passages in both action alternatives. The alternatives vary in 

the degree of road closures, with Alternative 2 moving the 

landscape closest to Forest Plan road density standards. A 

number of project design criteria (FEIS Appendix J) address 

management of non-native invasive plant species, and 

prevention of invasive species expansion. The FEIS also 

describes effects on carbon storage. Range management is 

outside the scope of this project.

Alternatives 265 We are in favor of reducing open road densities to Forest Plan 

standards or better, but not as a side benefit to appease us into 

accepting an ecologically devastating timber sale. The Forest 

Service should focus on restoring ecological conditions 

degraded by past management (including the use of passive 

restoration and protection measures) without adding more 

damage from logging and roading.

The selected alternative for the project decision can combine 

components of multiple alternatives analyzed in the FEIS, 

including any actions analyzed within ithe range of effects. 

The range of alternatives include the No Action alternative, 

which almost exclusively uses "passive" forest restoration 

(other than fire suppression), and two action alternatives, 

which apply active forest management to 24-37% of the 

project area and largely use passive restoration on the rest 

(other than prescribed fire). The range of alternatives also 

assessed the effects of open road networks ranging from 170 

to 230 miles. The decision-maker can select any of these 

alternatives or a blended alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

476 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Collaboration 226, 243 Given that the Wallowa Whitman Forest Collaborative is a 

relatively new group in a challenging ecological, political, and 

social landscape, the aggressiveness of the project has 

strained nascent trust and common ground. For this project to 

be a success, for the greater and long term good of the 

landscape, the Collaborative, its members, and all 

stakeholders, we urge the Forest Service to constrain its 

decision to those parts of the project that have the full support 

of the Collaborative and other stakeholders. Boise Cascade 

supports the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative consensus 

positions on the Lower Joseph Watershed Restoration Project. 

We hope that the Forest Service takes these proposals 

seriously when making the final decision about this project. 

The positions of the local collaborative, Nez Perce Tribe, 

Wallowa County, other agencies, and general public will be 

taken into consideration as part of the Record of Decision. 

Collaboration with the WAWFC has been an ongoing and 

integral part of the planning process since this project was 

initiatied. The range of alternatives analyzed in the FEIS 

cover the positions included in the draft consensus of the 

WAWFC (the draft consensus document is included in the 

project record).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 477

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Collaboration 226, 230, 

243, 244, 

285

When conditions prompt the consideration of road closures or 

decommissioning, I recommend the U.S. Forest Service utilize 

a site specific collaborative process in coordination with the 

local County Government, involving all interested stakeholders

to determine a solution that maintains motorized public access 

as well as meeting resource protection goals. Roads are 

extremely important for the future needs of both the 

communities and forest health. Roads are important for 

recreation, timber harvest, and fire management on the 

landscape. Boise Cascade supports a road system on the 

landscape that will meet all of these needs. This may entail 

road closures and obliteration to mitigate environmental 

damage done by roads, but we strongly encourage the Forest 

Service to work with stakeholders to address the roads issues. 

We also strongly encourage the Forest Service explore 

seasonal closures prior to obliteration of roads. The Wilderness 

Society...objects to the reference in the DEIS to the road 

network meeting "public access needs as identified by Wallowa 

County." Since the travel management plan for the WallowaWhitman National Forest appears to be in limbo for the 

immediate future, it is inappropriate for the Forest Service to 

appear to be giving "access needs ... identified by Wallowa 

County" any particular weight in projects like the Lower Joseph 

project. It is...clear that the road network proposed under 

Alternative 3 is entirely insufficient to meet the standards of 

Subpart A since it appears to be based on one factor alone: 

public access, as determined by a very small interest group.

Developing land management projects collaboratively is a 

desirable and worthy goal. The interdisciplinary project 

planning team engaged the general public, Wallowa County, 

Nez Perce tribe, and the Wallowa Whitman Forest 

Collaborative (which is open to the public) throughout 

development of the project. Wallowa County is a cooperating 

agency on this project, and through a detailed site-specific 

assessment, provided the best available information on the 

levels of actual public use of the existing road system. The 

use of the best available information in the development of 

alternatives does not result in the weighting of any one 

alternative relative to the final decision. The final decision 

uses the relative effects on ecological, social and economic 

decision criteria (FEIS, chapter 4). Opportunities for the 

public to provide input were provided through formal 

comment periods, public meetings and field trips. The 

process was as collaborative as possible, given 

administrative, procedural and resource constraints, and the 

willingness or availability of interested parties to engage in 

collaboration. However, providing oportunities for 

collaboration does not mean that all interested parties will be 

represented. The NEPA process requires that any interested 

party will have the opportunity to provide input on a project, 

regardless of their availability or interest to engage in sitespecific collaboration. Road management was determined to

be a significant issue for this project because the conflicting 

concerns raised during public scoping could not be rectified 

under the proposed action. Hence, this conflict led to the 

development of alternatives and analysis and comparison of 

effects of a range of alternatives representing the range of 

road concerns. The alternatives attempt to incorporate 

various sources of input - from collaboration, formal comment 

periods, consultation with the Nez Perce tribe, working 

sessions with Wallowa County, and other means - to be able 

to assess the trade-offs between road network options. In 

preparation of the FEIS, the project planning team 

considered seasonal closures of roads; however, the 

negative effects of open roads on elk and other wildlife 

species is not seasonal. Also, the road denstiy standards in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

478 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

the Forest Plan are a year-long standard which is consistent 

with the best available science of this issue (FEIS, chapter 4, 

Wildlife). 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). 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. The TMP process is another opportunity to collaborate 

with the Forest in travel management. Until a Forest-wide 

TMP is finalized, access management is occurring on a 

project-by-project basis to the degree necessary, but this 

process does not supersede the TMP process. The Forest 

Service is working on the TMP collaboratively with local 

communities, interest groups, Tribes, other agencies, and 

Wallowa-Whitman employees, while also adhering to local, 

state and federal regulations and caring for the land. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 479

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Collaboration 265 “Desired” future conditions appear to be determined by the 

Forest Service alone, and often do not represent adherence to 

applicable laws (e.g. planned violation of the existing Forest 

Plan through Forest Plan amendments), or the desires of the 

broader regional and national public, who are by majority 

typically opposed to logging of the National Forests, and by 

great majority opposed to logging and roading of roadless 

areas.

Forest Plan desired future conditions were developed under 

a public planning process, and further quantified by expert 

ecologists through review of the best available scientific 

literature and ecological modeling (see Powell 2012). Forest 

Service guidance for implementation of the Eastside Screens 

explicity requires a landscape assessment of the range of 

variability of forest structure and composition, and a 

comparison to current conditions. Laws and regulations 

applicable to project planning acknowledges that our 

udnerstanding of ecosystems can change with new 

information, and thus allows for the amendment of out-dated 

policies and direction. Public scoping and DEIS comments on 

the LJCRP do not bear-out the assumption that the majority, 

much less the great majority, of the public are opposed to 

active management of National Forest System lands in the 

project area.

Collaboration 243 We urge the FS to harmonize NEPA and collaborative efforts. 

Collaboration is not a substitute for NEPA or other broad public 

engagement. NEPA and collaboration should reinforce each 

other. We are still learning how to do collaboration, but ideally 

collaborative groups can help the FS identify issues that need 

to be analyzed, and NEPA analysis can inform better 

collaboration and better decisions.

Throughout the LJCRP NEPA process, we have worked 

closely with the local collaborative to build their capacity in 

understanding and applying NEPA, while we build our 

capacity to effectively capture local concerns within the 

NEPA process.

Collaboration 244 I am a member of the Wallowa Whitman Forest Collaborative 

and support the consensus positions that the collaborative has 

drafted regarding the treatments in the project area.

We appreciate the time and effort the Wallowa Whitman 

Forest Collaborative has invested in discussing the LJCRP 

project, and revealing where there is, and is not collaborative 

consensus. The draft WAWFC consensus positions will be 

considered during decision-making along with Tribal, 

cooperating agency, and other public input on the LJCRP. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

480 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Public comment 2 You have consciously excluded electronic public comment 

opportunities on the DEIS by conveniently forgetting to post the 

email address for comments online.

The planning team followed the letter of the law in making the 

DEIS available for comment, and providing details on how to 

submit comments. The notice of availability of the DEIS and 

the various means by which the public could submit 

comments was published in the federal register, the local 

newspaper of record, and on the project website. Letters 

were also sent to the project mailing list, including to the 

address of this commenter, announcing the availability of the 

DEIS for public comment and how to submit comments by 

email, postal mail, or in-person. The Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest website included a link to the project, the 

address to which comments could be sent, and contact 

information of the team lead in case anyone had questions 

about how to submit comments. The comment period was 

90-days, about 2-3 times longer than the average project, so 

there was plenty of time to get clarification if a commenter 

was unsure of comment submission procedures.

Policies and 

plans

267 Where do you list the county policies that are part of the 

Wallowa County Natural Resources Plan? They include: 

Wallowa County Comprehensive Management Plan; Lower 

Joseph Creek Watershed Assessment; Upper Joseph Creek 

Watershed Assessment; Wallowa County Custom and Culture, 

Wallowa County Economic Base; Travel Management Plan for 

Wallowa County; Alternative W of the HCNRA Comprehensive 

Management Plan. 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS lists policies and plans that are 

germane to the project objectives, including the Wallowa 

County Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP), the 

HCNRA CMP. Appendix B provides detail about the Forest 

Plan and HCNRA CMP guidance relevant to the LJCRP. 

Chapter 1 ezxplains how Wallowa County's Lower Joseph 

Creek Watershed Assessment was used as the original 

project proposal.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 481

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Monitoring 243, 265, 

284

It is important to include a credible monitoring plan in a project 

this scale. Monitoring questions must be carefully chosen and 

sampling designs must yield meaningful results. Why is there 

no specific monitoring strategy proposed in the DEIS for 

consideration during the public comment period? Without 

credible monitoring protocols established, it is highly unlikely 

that adaptive management will actually be implemented, 

allowing ecological impacts to continue un-checked. Why aren’t 

connected actions, project design elements, site-specific 

mitigation measures, and a monitoring strategy included in the 

DEIS analysis? The EPA recommends that the FEIS and ROD 

highlight the need to employ multiparty monitoring and to track 

the result of management effort and follow disturbances and 

recovery efforts over a long term with the RHCAs. 

Chapter 3 ("Monitoring and Learning") of the FEIS describes 

monitoring for the LJCRP. The FEIS does a better job of 

clarifying where these components are tied to the effects 

analyses. Where monitoring is required as a part of 

implementation, and assumed to have bearing on 

environmental effects, it is discussed in the relevant resource 

section (e.g., see FEIS chapter 4, Water Quality and 

Temperature, Heritage), and Appendix J, Project Design 

Criteria. A multi-party monitoring plan is currently being 

designed by the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative to 

further study management uncertainties in the project area, 

and represents a long-lasting means to learn and adjust 

National Forest management through time. Connected 

action, project design elements, and site-specific mitigation 

measures were analyzed as part of the effects analyses. The 

implementation and monitoring budgeting process is outside 

the purvue of the NEPA process.

Biological 

Assessments

266 Hydrologist reports and biological opinions or assessments for 

fish should have been included in the appendices of the DEIS. The aquatics Biological Assessment will be available in the 

FEIS as well as the Biological Opinion. These documents 

are not part of the public record until a Biological Opinion has 

been rendered by NOAA Fisheries. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

482 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Temporary 

roads: Legacy 

and soils effects

230, 265, 

266

Temporary roads left in a state of non-use can have impacts on 

forests and soils that last for decades. The public often 

continues to use these roads long after implementation of 

camouflaging and other activities designed to leave them in a 

state of nonuse. As a result, soil compaction/ disturbance and 

sedimentation impacts persist. The adverse impacts of building 

temporary roads likely outweigh any possible benefits to forest 

health. We are asking the Forest Service to drop all new and 

“temporary” road construction, and not to re-open closed roads. 

Many closed roads are now overgrown or were closed to 

protect wildlife or water quality and soils, and should not be reopened. Roads density and traffic negatively affect terrestrial 

wildlife such as deer and elk, as well as bobcat, lynx, wolves, 

and other animals sensitive to roads.

It is acknoweledged in the effects section (FEIS chapter 4) 

that roads and their use have a negative impact on most 

wildlife species. Alternative 2 proposes to close additional 

roads to better meet forest plan standards, which will 

benefically affect most wildlife species. Alternative 3 

proposes to leave the most miles of roads open. During 

implementation of the project, development of temporary 

roads will be evaluated relative to the cost:benefit of each 

individual site. It is possible that some of the roads identified 

as needed for the logging operations will not be needed. 

Given the project purpose and need, temporary road 

construction was minimized to the extent possible. In order to 

access many of the stands proposed for restoration 

treatments, temporary roads provide the greatest cost:benefit 

ratio (e.g., relative to alternatively using helicopters). What 

isn't diplayed in the effects analysis are all of the areas where 

temporary roads were originally proposed (26 miles) but the 

anticipated effects of using these roads would be too great. 

The process used to determine temporary road suitability is 

discussed in FEIS Chapter 4, and Project Design Criteria and 

Best Management Practices (FEIS, Appendix J). The 

description of the process of identfying suitable locations for 

temporary roads has been improved in the FEIS. All 

temporary roads will be obliterated upon completion of 

project implementation, so will only have a short-term effect 

on wildlife habitat, and do not represent a lasting increase in 

road density realtive to Forest Plan standards for road 

density. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 483

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: 

Rationales for 

road actions

262 We strongly support your efforts to implement proposed 

harvest treatments in the project area; but this simply cannot be 

accomplished without improving an effective transportation 

system that includes forest roads—whether “temporary” or 

otherwise classified. Roads are an important part of the 

logging/transportation plans—and are identified in the WallowaWhitman Forest Plan as important attributes of these 

management areas. The NEPA decision document language 

should accommodate a full range of modern road access 

technologies; rather than needlessly prescribing a narrow set of 

specifically-limiting methods. Forest roads are necessary; 

please fully disclose where and what they are proposed. 

Harvest, protection, and active forest management cannot be 

successful without sufficient road developments.

The FEIS accomodates a full range of transporation planning 

to facilitate vegetative treatments. The alternatives identify a 

range of varying combinations of road treatments by road 

segment, and the FEIS discloses their relative effects. The 

exisiting condition of the transporation system will need to be 

further assessed during implementation to refine more 

specifically where and how road reconstruction, closure and 

decommissioning needs to take place. The full suite of 

technologies would be availalable to implement road actions 

as a result of the project decision. Aside from Project Design 

Criteria (FEIS Appendix J), the FEIS alternatives propose 

which roads would be targeted for treatment, not necessarily 

how the treatment would be accomplished.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

484 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: Travel 

Management 

Rule

230, 267 Existing Wallowa-Whitman forest plan direction fails to comply 

with the substantive requirements of subpart A. Accordingly, 

the Forest Service may not rely on or otherwise incorporate 

existing plan direction to satisfy its substantive duties under 

subpart A (Roads Rule 2001. 66 Fed. Reg. 3206 (Jan. 12, 

2001); 36 C.F.R. part 212, subpart A). AND The WallowaWhitman is also in gross violation of the Travel Management 

Rule: Subpart B, which requires forests to manage motor 

vehicle access. 36 C.F.R. § 212.51. Once motorized routes are 

designated, cross-country travel is prohibited. 36 C.F.R. § 

212.52; 36 C.F.R. § 261.13. We were told that this area would 

be finished with road issues once this project is complete. If 

the DEIS does not provide direction towards achieving a 

sustainable, minimum road system, it is unlikely that the Forest 

Service will satisfy the requirements of subpart A in the 

foreseeable future. The Lower Joseph DEIS refers to a travel 

analysis as part of the process for this project (DEIS at 29), but 

it does not describe the criteria by which the roads were 

analyzed. For this travel analysis to meet the Roads Rule, all 

four criteria listed above must be addressed. There is no 

evidence that all criteria were examined.Please clarify if this is 

the decision of road closures for this area or if we will endure 

this pain again with TMP for this area. 

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). 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 to the degree 

necessary, but this process does not supersede the TMP 

process. The Forest Service is working collaboratively with 

local communities, interest groups, Tribes, 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 in 

conjunction with the FEIS to inform the development of 

planning alternatives relative to the designation of roads for 

motor vehicle use in the LJCRP area. Management of crosscountry 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 of the direct and indirect effects of proposed 

road actions. The LJCRP decision may include proposed 

changes to the transportation system, or the responsible 

official may choose to defer any changes until the Subpart B 

travel analysis is complete, and include changes in that 

decision. Input on the TMP and design for cross-country 

travel is best directed to that specific project and process. For 

more information on how you can provide relevant and 

effective input on travel management planning on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest can be found at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowawhitman/landmanagement/projects/?cid=fsbdev7_008909
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 485

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: Effects 3, 230, 243, 

263, 265, 

266, 267

While well-sited and maintained roads undoubtedly provide 

important services to society, the adverse ecological and 

environmental impacts associated with the Forest Service’s 

massive and deteriorating road system are well-documented. 

Building more new and “temporary” roads appears to be in 

violation of Forest Plan standards for road densities in the 

project area, and contrary to Wallowa Whitman transportation 

management objectives. Such excessive road building and reconstruction must also be in conflict with legal guidance for 

protecting federally listed fish, especially as Lower Joseph 

Creek apparently is habitat for Steelhead trout and is a tributary 

to the Grande Ronde River, where there are listed Salmon 

downstream. The DEIS does not adequately consider the welldocumented cumulative impacts of roads and management in 

relation to the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project. The 

final decision for the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration 

Projectmust meet the forest plan road density standards in all 

sub watersheds. Also see The Wilderness Society's literature 

review on the impacts of roads to natural resources. 

The FEIS alternatives propose no system new road 

construction, 12.6 miles of temporary road construction and 

86 miles of road reconstruction and maintenance. The action 

alternatives also propose improving aquatic organism 

passage at 6 sites (culverts), and reducing barriers to fish 

migration. What isn't diplayed in the effects analysis are all of 

the areas where temporary roads were originally proposed 

during scoping of the proposed action (26 miles) but were 

removed from the modified proposed action because the 

anticipated effects of these roads on natural resources were 

deemed to be be too great. Temporary roads would be 

obliterated upon completion of project implementation, and 

as such do not represent a mid- or long term increase in road 

density relative to aquatic and wildlife standards and 

guidelines (FEIS, chapter 4, Aquatic Habitat, and Wildlife). 

The alternatives also propose varying levels of road closure 

and decommissioning, resulting in varying levels of open and 

total road density, and their relative effects to aquatic and 

wildlife habitat are disclosed in the FEIS (FEIS, chapter 4, 

Wildlife, Aquatic Habitat). The FEIS discloses the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of these road actions on soils, 

water, aquatic, plant, and wildlife habitat, aquatic and wildlife 

species habitat connectivity, public and tribal access, 

recreation, native and invasive plant species, characteristics 

of unroaded areas, threatened and endangered species, and 

scenery, to name a few (FEIS chapter 4). The project is 

undergoing consultation regarding federally listed species, 

and will receive determinations from the National Marine 

Fisheries Service before a final decision is signed. The 

deciding official will consider these effects, in conjunction with 

effects of forest restoration actions, and social values such as 

forest access, when making a final decision. The deciding 

official can select an alternative, an alternative that combines 

attributes from the alternatives or, select no action. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

486 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: Access 

for public uses

1, 5, 263, 

267

Road closures cause a reduction in the ability of the public to 

access their dispersed camp sites, firewood cutting, their 

favorite hunting sites and the ability to view or harvest the 

natural resources such as wildlife, berries and mushrooms. 

Most of the roads in Lower Joseph creek are far from the 

riparian areas. If a road is not close to a riparian and causing 

erosion issues then it should be kept open. The Forest Service 

should provide opportunities for people to explore the canyon 

lands of Northeast Oregon by maintaining the Chico trail and 

developing new recreation trails in the project area. 

The alternatives analysed in the FEIS cover a full range of 

effects on public access, with 187, 170, and 230 miles of 

open system roads for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 

Road treatments are for the purposes of improving wildlife 

and fish habitat to trend toward Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. The rationales for road closures in Alternative 2

are based on a roads analysis that was completed in 

conjunction with this project, as per FSH 7709.55, chapter 

20. The roads analysis evaluated the road network needed 

for the long term management of the landscape, as well as 

natural resource concerns regarding the existing road 

network. The road network in Alternative 3 is representative 

of that which would meet public access needs for such 

activities as firewood cutting, viewing vistas, recreation, and 

hunting; this alternative was informed by public access data 

provided by Wallowa County. The deciding official will use 

the FEIS effects analyses along with tribal, county, and public 

input to determine the best alternative that meets the project 

purpose and need, and balances resource and social needs. 

This project proposes no changes to the Chico trail or access 

to the trail. Recreational trail construction and maintenance is 

outside the scope of this project. The Wallowa Valley Ranger 

District will consider opportunities to provide public access to 

wood piles for firewood cutting.

Roads: Effects 

analysis

230 Did you consider the Wilderness Society's literature review 

titled "Transportation Infrastructure and Access on National 

Forests and Grasslands" (May 2014)?

The data and information in the literature cited is 

incorporated into the Roads Analsyis for the FEIS.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 487

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: Benefits 

from closures 

and 

decommissioning

5, 243, 263 Roads are important for public access to public lands. 

However, the over-abundance of existing roads on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest creates problems for water 

quality and habitat for fish and wildlife. The Lower Joseph

Creek Restoration Projectprovides an opportunity to improve 

habitat and water quality by implementing projects to 

decommission and close problematic roads. There are 

tremendous benefits from closing and decommissioning roads. 

Benefits include hydrologic stability, water quality, fish habitat, 

wildlife habitat (corridors, security, expanded area where snag 

habitat can be tolerated, etc), slope stability, soil health, 

reduced weed vectors, and reduced fire ignition risks.

The FEIS discloses the beneficial and adverse effects of road 

closures and decommissioning by alternative (FEIS chapter 

4, physical, biological and social environment sections). The 

deciding official will use the FEIS effects analyses along with 

tribal, county, and public input to determine the best 

alternative that meets the project purpose and need, and 

addresses resource and social issues.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

488 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: 

Accelerated 

timeline

243 The accelerated NEPA process used for this project resulted in 

abbreviated analysis of road impacts. We think that NEPA must 

be fully implemented to ensure informed public comment and 

fully informed decisions. NEPA short-cuts can have adverse 

ecological consequences if it means that impacts are not fully 

considered and mitigated and alternatives are not thoroughly 

explored. When conditions prompt the consideration of road 

closures or decommissioning, I recommend the U.S. Forest 

Service utilize a site specific collaborative process in 

coordination with the local County Government, involving all 

interested stakeholders to determine a solution that maintains 

motorized public access as well as meeting resource protection 

goals.

The Forest Service prepared the FEIS in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (36 CFR 220; 40 

CFR 1500-1518) and other relevant Federal and State laws 

and regulations, and tribal trust responsibilities (see FEIS, 

Appendix B). This project tiers to the WWNF Forest Plan, 

ROD and FEIS as amended (1990). A roads analysis was 

completed as a part of this project, as per FSH 7709.55, 

chapter 20. The roads analysis identified road needs and 

concerns, and along with tribal, cooperating agency, and 

public input, led to the development of alternative road 

management approaches. The FEIS adequately discloses 

the effects of these alternative road networks on aquatic and 

wildlife habitat, plants and special habitats, social and 

economic values, the physical environment, and other 

resources and values. The FEIS also includes Project Desgin 

Criteria that specifically address necessary mitigations and 

best manaement practices (FEIS, Appendix J). Project 

planning was completed by an interdisciplinary team 

dedicated to the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project; 

hence, the time taken for EIS analyses cannot be compared 

to other similar projects where the interdisciplinary team is 

engaged in numerous projects, tasks, and ancillary duties 

simultaneously. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 489

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: Invasive 

plant species

263, 267 Planned temporary roads are common to both alternatives, 

while mileage appears to be low (12.6 miles), the temporary 

roads would be constructed through weed populations and the 

risk of spread is high. Why are we not mitigating this issue with 

stated weed control program for these roads to stop the spread 

of these weeds? We should have a plan that includes seeding 

all disturbed sites to slow the spread of annuals. Additionally at 

some of the sites improved species should be included. Roads 

and trails serve as corridors for non-native invasions, and 

logging equipment is frequently cited as the key link in the 

transport and spread of invasive or noxious plants. [We] 

suggest that the final project include monitoring of the project 

area after completion so that weeds infestation sites can be 

identified and treated before spreading into adjacent areas. We 

also request an that the final decision drop all temporary road 

building and road re-construction as it creates disturbed soil 

conditions ideal for invasive weed spread.

Temporary road construction, and road improvements such 

as grading, rocking and clearing ditches are ground 

disturbing and have a high potential risk for spreading exiting 

noxious weed populations. It is relatively easy to observe that 

weeds tend to concentrate along roads, where there is 

frequently disturbed soil, and nutrient rich run-off that 

concentrates in roadside ditches. Due to litigation of the Final 

2010 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants 

Treatment EIS, use of herbicides within the LJCRP area is 

limited to sites approved in a court settlement. Treatments in 

new sites would be restricted to non-chemical treatments, 

such as hand-pulling (FEIS, chapter 2, Noxious weeds and 

other non-native invasive plants). Guidance for controlling 

noxious weeds can be found in both the Wallowa Whitman 

National Forest Plan, and Region 6 Invasive Species 

Program Management Direction. Project Design Criteria 

specific to the LJCRP (FEIS Appendix J) would help reduce 

the spread of noxious and invasive plants in the LJCRP. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

490 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: Wildife 

habitat

263 The distance band approach should be used for the Lower 

Joseph Creek Restoration Project. Elk have great cultural and 

economic significance to local communities, first nation people, 

and the Nation. Impacts on elk from project activities warrant 

more in depth analysis and the use of the best available 

science.

Our experience with running HEI using the distance band 

analysis does not show a substantial change in the HEI 

values and HEI values would still meet Forest Plan 

Standards (FEIS, chapter 4, WIldlife). Nonetheless, HEI was 

calculated using both the original technique for roads as well 

as using the distance band technique (FEIS table 37). The 

more recent research shows that providing for nutrition 

availability, and providing access to this nutrition (away from 

roads) is important. Alternative 2 includes 33 more miles of 

closed road than the current condition in areas with currently 

high road densities relative to Forest Plan standards. These 

road closures will help mitigate the potential loss of cover in 

areas where nutrition is increased due to opening up the 

canopy and allowing for understory vegetation development 

(FEIS, chapter 4, Wildlife). The FEIS includes a better 

description and analysis of these issues as compared to the 

DEIS. 

Roads: Adverse 

effects of road 

decommissioning

5 Transportation systems are at risk, as many fall in designated 

roadless lands that environmental groups want for wilderness. 

The practice destruction (decommissioning, see defiinition 

page 260 of glossary) of these roads with a goal of potential 

wilderness or reducing road maintenance costs is short 

sighted. It results in a lack of access for fire and timber 

management resulting in more blackened acres. The cost to 

destroy these roads is as much as the original funding to build 

them. The erosion I have seen from this misguided practice is 

more evident than during the construction and use. Installing 

erosion controls, restricting use, gates, green dot systems ect. 

is more cost effective and provides a balanaced land use 

alternative. 

The Roads Analysis conducted for this project has identified 

roads that could be decommissioned to meet Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines. Decommissioned roads can 

produce sediment delivery to streams for two years and then 

the delivery is generally reduced to pre project 

(decommissioned) levels. Access for treatment actions has 

been assessed in the FEIS. The FEIS proposed to close and 

decommission roads based on site specific needs to reduce 

the potential sediment delivery from the restoration action.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 491

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: Timing of

actions

226 We support the Forest Service's plans to reconstruct roads as 

well as the building of 12.6 miles of temporary roads to facilitate 

the proposed treatments; please explain the timeline for these 

road openings and temporary roads. Will they be opened 

incrementally or will all 60 miles of roads be opened at the 

same time?

Implementation of the proposed road treatments would take 

place over the course of 10 years as the decision is 

implemented. Road reconstruction would occur incrementally 

throughout the implementation period. The implementation 

period would start in the months following the publication of 

the Record of Decision and may last 10 years or more. 

Temporary roads would be constructed as they are needed 

to access the relevant proposed activity units and removed 

the same season. Temporary roads are not intented for 

public use. 

Roads: Methods 

of road 

decommissioning

225 Given the documented benefits of full road recontouring where 

funds are available, this should be the prefered method of road 

closure. Where funds are not available suggested priorities to 

be followed for road treatments. The comment included specific 

advice for prioritization of road decommissioning.

We have reviewed the 2007 reference provided. We 

acknowledge the importance of recontouring, but do not think 

that it is appropriate in every case. The FEIS alternatives do 

not limit the use of recontouring in the decommissioning of 

roads, and may be used on a case-by-case basis where it is 

deemed appropriate by local resource specialists. Wepp 

(sedimentation) modeling showed that sediment delivery from 

roads is not an issue in the LJCRP area. The FEIS 

accommodates a full range of transportation planning to 

facilitate vegetative treatments. The existing condition of the 

transportation system will need to be further assessed to 

evaluate specifically how road reconstruction, closure and 

decommissioning needs to take place. All roads analyzed for 

decommissioning may be candidates for recontouring, which 

will be prioritized based on resource need. We agree with 

much of the prioritization scheme provided by the Nez Perce 

tribe, and have incorporated appropriate parts of it in the 

project implementation guide (on file at the Wallowa Valley 

Ranger District office). 

Roads: Incorrect 

information

267 If they are closing more roads in Alt 2 then why are the 

numbers the same? 

This table in the DEIS was incorrect and has been corrected 

in the FEIS.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

492 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads: Location 

of vegetation 

treatments

243 Since an optimal landscape restoration plan includes a mix of 

treated and untreated areas, the agency can easily avoid road 

construction by co-locating untreated areas and inaccessible 

areas. This alternative should have been considered in the EIS.

The identification of areas needing treatment was based on 

departure between existing and desired forest structure, 

density, and composition. The roads analysis conducted as a 

part of this project (as per FSH 7709.55, chapter 20) 

assessed access needs for vegetation treatments, as well as 

resource concerns related to roads. The vast area of 

inventoried roadless areas, which exhibits a similar departure 

in conditions as the rest of the landscape, and where no new 

roads are proposed in any alternative, precludes treatment of 

a large proportion of the need. Limiting treatments only to 

areas with current road access would not serve to meet the 

purpose and need for this project to restore conditions toward 

the range of variability. There is a substantial difference 

between the alternatives in the extent of the open road 

network (170-230 miles, and the FEIS discloses the 

comparative physical, biological, social, and economic effects 

(FEIS chapter 4).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 493

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Temporary 

Roads

226, 242, 

243, 263, 

266

There are concerns over the proposed 12.6 miles of temporary 

roads, particularly as they relate to sediment production and 

delivery to streams, soils productivity and the tradeoffs between 

the effects and benefits of temporary road construction. 

The EIS acknowledges the effects associated with temporary 

road construction and thoroughly discloses those effects. The 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project does not propose 

any road construction, temporary or otherwise, in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas. As part of project design temporary roads 

were kept to a minimum to minimize effects such as soil 

disturbance and potential erosion. There were designed to 

specifically meet the greatest need, while having the smallest 

effect. Early in the planning stage the identified many more 

temporary roads to help reduce the cost of the 

implementation but those roads were removed from from 

further consideration because of a cost-benefit analysis. The 

proposed temporary roads are a result of our cost-benefit 

analysis. Furthermore, we conducted a rigorous analysis of 

effects temporary roads from the perspective of sediment 

production and delivery to waterways. The outcome of this 

analysis is incorporated in the project design and current 

proposal. Regarding soils productivity, the LJCRP will be 

consistent with all Rule, Law and Regulation pertaining to 

Detrimental Soils Conditions. Temporary roads will be 

designed whenever possible over existing disturbance 

footprints (legacy roads) and will give us mechanized access 

to other areas of legacy disturbance. This gives us an 

opportunity to partially remediate these legacy impacts, when 

appropriate, to improve soils productivity across the LJCRP 

Analysis Area. For more information on the effects and 

management practices associated with temporary roads, 

please see the Chapter 4 of the FEIS, the Physical 

Environment Supporting Documentation, Project Design 

Criteria and Best Management Practices.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

494 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads 1, 225, 226, 

230, 243, 

244, 262, 

263, 265, 

266, 267, 

285

We received a wide range of comments regarding the 

management of the road system with in the LJCRP. Several 

commenters expressed a strong desire to maintain the current 

road system for recreation, traditional uses and future 

managment. A few commenters indicated a desire to add 

additional roads to improve access for a variety of uses. Many 

other comments expressed a desire to close and/or 

decommission roads to improve wildlife habitat and remediate 

effects to the aquatic system. Finally, some commenters 

described a desire to maintain access as much as possible 

while prioritizing the most important roads to 

close/decommission for ecological benefit.

Based on the comments that we received during scoping, we 

analyzed the road system across the spectrum of balancing 

ecological need and access within the LJCRP. We 

incorporated the interests pertaining to roads within the range 

of effects analyzed across all alternatives in the LJCRP DEIS 

and expanding these discussions after reviewing comments 

following publication of the DEIS. 

Roads and 

Logging Systems

226 I suggest that the Forest Service look at alternatives to 

helicopter logging that will still treat the land as designed. 

Please explain why the Forest Service could not build a 

temporary road to treat these areas that are currently slated for 

helicopter logging.

Logging systems were estimated by the interdisciplinary team 

using a combination of slope, distance to specified roads, 

and limited use of temporary roads to access the proposed 

harvest units. The associated acres by estimated logging 

system are listed in tables 50 and 68 for Alternatives 2 and 3, 

respectively. Map 25 shows the estimated logging system by 

unit and logging system type for Alternative 2. Given that the 

appropriate logging systems were estimated, the FEIS 

analyzed logging systems effects based on a range of acres 

by logging system. The range was based on the results of an 

approximately 10% sample where detailed logging systems 

were designed in the field, compared to the estimate, and the 

differences were then used to estimate ranges. The final 

logging system selection by stand would be completed during 

implementation, considering the final decision and site 

specific constraints and opportunities. Specific design 

features and best management practices for each logging 

system are listed in Appendix J.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 495

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads 267 On Page 36 of the DEIS, is is stated that current activities such 

as permitted grazing, dispersed recreation use, fire protection, 

and scheduled road maintenance would continue within the 

project area. This is not true. Roads that are currently closed 

administratively but still open on the ground would continue to 

be closed. This is not really a no action alternative. Closing 

roads already administratively closed is an action?

The decision resulting from the analyses in the FEIS carries 

forward all previous road management decisions, unless 

otherwise noted in the final Record of Decision. The decision 

hypothetically could open roads that are currently closed 

under a previous decision as long as the decision is 

consistent with Forest Plan desired conditions, standards and 

guidelines, and other agency policies. Unless reveresed by 

this decision, roads that are currently closed would remain 

closed.

Roads 267 Table Mountain, accessed by Forest Service Road 4650, 

provides scenic viewpoints south and west across grassy 

hillsides and forested stringers into Joseph Canyon and the 

Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River, and has been identified 

as an important place to view scenery by local residents. Yet, in 

Alternative 2 you don't leave open the roads necessary to use 

those viewing sites. From this statement you should leave 

those roads open to allow this viewing opportunity.

There is a loop road that is left open (Rd #4650120). Limiting 

open roads does not necessarily remove viewing 

opportunities.

Roads 267 Under Alternative 3, the cumulative effects on access to FS 

lands are less than the effects from Alternative 2 since there 

are no new closures or decommissioned roads. There shouldn’t 

be any effect from current conditions because we are not 

proposing to close and roads.

A more complete cumulative effects analysis has been 

completed for the FEIS.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

496 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Roads 267 Wallowa County believes that two following comments from the 

LJCDEIS show that the conservative Wallowa – Whitman 

National Forests Standard road density requirements are not 

needed in this watershed and that the existing condition is 

more than satisfactory for elk and steelhead trout. 

We know of no data to support this claim that the existing 

condition is "more than satisfactory for elk and steelhead". 

As the County points out, the local ODFW biologists has 

stated that 'managing road densities is important', and has 

expressed a need in the scoping of this project that reducing 

overall road densities is important. The Wallowa Whitman 

National Forest is currently undergoing a review of its 

transporation system for preparation of a Travel Management 

Plan. The current direction from the Forest Supervisor is to 

conduct a Roads Analysis on a project by project basis and 

determine the resulting transportation system that meets 

forest plan standards and guidelline and consultation 

requirements. A roads analsysis was conducted for this EIS 

and the resulting analysis was used to define motor vehicle 

access while meeting or trending toward forest plan 

standards and consultation requirements
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 497

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Climate Change 243, 250, 

258, 263, 

265, 278

The NEPA analysis must avoid minimizing this project’s 

contribution to carbon emissions and global warming by saying 

the effects of this project would be negligible on a global scale. 

This is not an appropriate framework. Global climate change 

and ocean acidification are the result of the cumulative effects 

on the global carbon cycle which is spatially distributed. There 

is no single culprit, nor is there a silver bullet solution. All 

emissions are part of the problem, and all land management 

decisions must be part of the solution. Since the global carbon 

cycle is spatially distributed, carbon storage and carbon 

emissions will always be spread out around the globe, and the 

carbon flux at any given place and time may appear small, but 

cumulatively they help determine the temperature of our 

climate and the pH of our oceans. Given the current carbon 

overload in the atmosphere and oceans, the carbon 

consequences of every project must be carefully considered 

(rather than dismissed as negligible). The conclusions in Zhang 

et al (2010) conflict with the findings of many other studies 

showing that logging to reduce fire effects will emit more 

carbon than it saves. The FEIS needs to carefully document 

the adverse effects of logging on carbon storage and should 

strive to mitigate those effects by retaining more trees, such as 

in unroaded areas and with greater basal area retention. The 

literature clearly shows that mature forested areas provide 

opportunities for maintaining carbon stocks on federal lands. 

Project-specific climate change mitigation strategies of 

carbon sequestration have not been institutionalized as an 

agency policy, beyond goals to restore and maintain 

ecosystems that are resilient to disturbance, and thus do not 

lose carbon storage to uncharacteristic fire. Ecologicallybased forestry practices can increase the ability of forests to 

sequester atmospheric carbon while enhancing other 

ecosystem services, such as improved soil and water quality. 

Harvesting and regenerating forests can also result in net 

carbon sequestration in wood products and new forest 

growth. The effects analysis in Chapter 4 of the FEIS shows 

no net loss of old forest structure (OFSS or OFMS) in either 

of the action alternatives. It also shows the treatments would 

result in positive movement toward the desired condition for 

the larger tree size classes. Landscape modeling specific to 

the LJCRP area, using “climate-informed” state-and-transition 

models (e.g., sensu Halofsky et al. 2014) produced by the 

USFS Pacific Northwest Region Research Station projected 

that, over the next 90 years, Alternative 1 (no action), in 

combination with projected climate change effects, would 

likely result in a decline in large tree dominated stands to less 

than 5% of the landscape area. This outcome is largely due 

to the greater amount of stand replacement fire in closed 

forest conditions with climate change. Climate change 

models also project a likelihood that stand replacement 

disturbances may catalyze forest conversions to non-forest 

potential vegetation types (Halofsky et al. 2014). 

Comparatively, as a result of increased forest resiliency and 

less stand replacement fire in treated stands, Alternative 2, 

with continuing maintenance treatments, maintains an 

increasing trend in large tree open forest condition, which 

would compose over 25% of the landscape area after nine 

decades (see FEIS chapter 4, Climate, and Appendix C for 

more information). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

498 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Range 

management

263 Allowing grazing to continue within the project area will result in 

high density forest structure, lack of stand initiation structure, 

detrimental soil conditions and retarded RHCA conditions. 

Thinning, logging, and burning prescriptions, particularly within 

or adjacent to RHCAs, may result in increased livestock access 

to riparian areas. These issues were not analyzed in the Draft 

EIS. These issues must be addressed prior to finalization of 

this project. 

The purpose and need for this project did not include 

allotment management planning, which will be addressed by 

the Ranger District under a separate environmental 

assessment process and planning schedule. The following 

project design criteria (Appendix J) are included in the FEIS 

and are a part of the effects analyses (FEIS Chapter 4): 

Range–1 (The range manager will work with the timber sale 

officer with respect to the timing and location of logging 

operations. Timber harvest within the project area is not 

anticipated to impact ongoing grazing operations. All gates 

must be closed while livestock are within the allotment 

adjacent to the harvest units), Range–5 (The botanist, 

invasive species specialist and range manager will work 

together to determine whether prescribed fire or other 

vegetation restoration activities will require resting portions of 

the pasture treated), Range–6 (If any fences are damaged 

during burning operations, repairs must be made immediately 

to prevent livestock from entering areas outside of 

established allotments), and Range–7 (The range manager 

will work with fire management to determine timing and 

location of prescribed fire. Burn blocks should be planned in 

a manner that does not interrupt planned livestock 

management on the allotments. All burns will be coordinated 

with the District Range Management Specialist).
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 499

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Noxious Weeds 263, 265, 

266, 267

Roads and trails serve as corridors for non-native invasions, 

and logging equipment is frequently cited as the key link in the 

transport and spread of invasive or noxious plants.We also 

request an that the final decision drop all temporary road 

building and road re-construction as it creates disturbed soil 

conditions ideal for invasive weed spread. There is insufficient 

analysis in the DEIS as to effects of action alternatives to the 

introduction and dispersal of invasive exotic plants. We request 

that the Forest Service take full prevention measures for 

preventing the introduction and dispersal of invasive plants as 

required by the Region 6 FEIS on invasive plant management, 

identify likely vectors and site specific entry points for invasive 

plants, and thoroughly analyze how they will prevent invasive 

exotic plants from being introduced and dispersed by this 

project.

Noxious weed spread along roads and by logging equipment 

is addressed in the EIS and in the noxious weeds and 

invasive species specialist report. Project Design Criteria 

(FEIS Appendix J) are given in both the EIS and 

implementation guide to decrease the spead of noxious 

weeds along roads and by logging equipment and activities. 

Noxious Weeds 263 The final project should include monitoring of the project area 

after completion so that weeds infestation sites can be 

identified and treated before spreading into adjacent areas.

Weed population monitoring and mapping are part of the 

district's program of work. Wallowa county also monitors and 

maps.

Range 266 We are concerned that decreased shade in uplands across the 

project area will cause livestock to change grazing behavior in 

ways that have unintended negative consequences. Cattle will 

concentrate in riparian areas and further impact riparian areas, 

stream bank stability, erosion, and water quality.

Dry forest will have canopy closure taken below 40% on 11% 

of the entire project area. There will still be ample shade on 

the landscape for cattle. Only 10% of Category 4 streams 

(seasonal waterflow only) are planned for thinning. Project 

design criteria arein place to ensure that District resource 

specialists (botanist, invasive species specialist and range 

manager) would work together to determine whether 

prescribed fire or other vegetation restoration activities would 

require resting portions of treated pastures to help mitigate 

changes in cattle concentration areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

500 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Range 267 The DEIS states that past activities and ongoing fire 

suppression and grazing continue to add to the departure in 

density, composition, structure and characteristic disturbance 

regimes, while the actions proposed under this project are 

designed to restore that departure and disturbance. Since this 

has been grazed for over 300 years, how is grazing add in to 

the departure? 

Grazing has been a large part of the project area for a long 

time. However, there continue to be interactions between 

domestic grazing, abundance and continuity of fine fuels that 

carry frequent fire, and rates of tree regeneration. 

Range 243 The values of RHCA go beyond fish, temperature, and 

hydrology. Did the FS analyze impacts on factors like habitat 

connectivity (including, but not limited to elk), hardwood 

recruitment, thermal refugia, livestock exclusion, structural 

complexity, etc.?

Livestock exclusion is beyond the scope of this project.

Range 267 Reducing the risk of increased nonnative species infestations 

cannot be done in these settings without successfully seeding 

vegetative species. Reseeding areas impacted by logging and 

burning, preferably with improved grass and forb species 

reduces the weed problem, gives forage production long term 

in place of short term rest and retards the re-invasion of to 

many trees. Improved species seeding should be used to help 

mitigate this issue. 

A revegetation plan is being written as part of the 

implementation guide for this project, following current USFS 

policy.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 501

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Range 267 The DEIS states that grasslands of the LJCRP area generally 

burned historically with replacement severity, and still do, 

although high levels of domestic livestock grazing in some 

areas have reduced fire extent and frequency relative to 

historical levels. There is no area in Lower Jo that has high 

levels of livestock grazing. This statement needs removed. 

Wallowa County just completed two different range land 

assessments and were conducted with USFS personnel 

involved. The Lower Joseph Creek Watershed assessment 

was finished in 2014 and should be used as the basis for these 

assessments, not older and larger scale assessments.

Information from the 2014 Lower Joseph Creek Watershed 

Assessment has been incorporated between the DEIS and 

FEIS.

Range 263 Allowing grazing to continue within the project area will result in 

high density forest structure, lack of stand initiation structure, 

detrimental soil conditions and retarded RHCA conditions. 

Thinning, logging, and burning prescriptions, particularly within 

or adjacent to RHCAs, may result in increased livestock access 

to riparian areas. These issues were not analyzed in the Draft 

EIS. These issues must be addressed prior to finalization of 

this project. Also, the Final EIS must address the cumulative 

impacts on the project area from logging and grazing. Finally, 

we request that you consider reducing grazing activities within 

logged and burnedareas to allow them to recover post project.

Project design criteria (FEIS Appendix J) would ensure that 

District specialists work with the timber sale officer with 

respect to the timing and location of logging operations. 

Timber harvest within the project area is not anticipated to 

impact ongoing grazing operations. Further, the botanist, 

invasive species specialist and range manager would work 

together to determine whether prescribed fire or other 

vegetation restoration activities would require resting portions 

of the pasture treated, and if any fences are damaged during 

burning operations, repairs must be made immediately to 

prevent livestock from entering areas outside of established 

allotments. The PDCs also specify that the range manager 

would work with fire management to determine timing and

location of prescribed fire, and burn blocks should be planned 

in a manner that does not interrupt planned livestock 

management on the allotments. Cumulative effects analyses 

in the FEIS have been improvedsince the DEIS (FEIS 

chapter 4, Cumulative effects).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

502 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Range 263 The Final EIS must address the cumulative impacts on the 

project area from logging and grazing. Finally, we request that 

you consider reducing grazing activities within logged and 

burned areas to allow them to

recover post project.

Thanks for your comment. Project design criteria • Range–1 

The range manager will work with the timber sale officer with 

respect to the timing and location of logging operations. 

Timber harvest within the project area is not anticipated to 

impact ongoing grazing operations. All gates must be closed 

while livestock are within the allotment adjacent to the 

harvest units. • Range–5 The botanist, invasive species 

specialist and range manager will work together to determine 

whether prescribed fire or other vegetation restoration 

activities will require resting portions of the pasture treated.• 

Range–6 If any fences are damaged during burning 

operations, repairs must be made immediately to prevent 

livestock from entering areas outside of established 

allotments.• Range–7 The range manager will work with fire 

management to determine timing and location of prescribed 

fire. Burn blocks should be planned in a manner that does not 

interrupt planned livestock management on the allotments. 

All burns will be coordinated with the District Range 

Management Specialist.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 503

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

TES Plants 265 Lithosol habitat is very fragile and should be avoided with 

ground disturbing activities. The Wallowa rice grass and White 

fleabane species should be fully buffered and protected from 

ground-disturbing activities. We are concerned that 

cumulatively, across the Forests they occupy, sensitive 

Calochortus populations are being eliminated or diminished by 

various timber sales and road construction. We ask that the 

Forest Service protect any sensitive or TES plant populations 

from ground-disturbing activities through buffers of at least 100 

feet to prevent this cumulative loss. This should include both 

Calochortus macrocarpus v.

maculosus populations identified. (See DEIS p.183.)

Project Design Criteria (FEIS Appendix J) would be used to 

protect all sensitive plants in the project area. Identified 

treatment units falling outside of areas already inventoried for 

the presence of TES plant species would be evaluated for the 

need for further survey work. Those areas would be cleared 

for treatment through documenting the results of further 

surveys or through documenting the rationale why further 

surveys would not be necessary. This work will be overseen 

by the zone botanist. Known TES plant populations would be 

identified as needed on the ground and or on maps for 

implementation prior to road grading and other road 

improvements, designation of parking areas and landings, 

and logging, with work overseen by a journey level botanist. 

No road construction activities, or staging areas (such as 

landings, parking, piling) are allowed on non-forested habitats 

such as lithosols, grasslands, or meadows. PDCs also call for 

activities to avoid disturbing Davis fleabane/Snake River 

Daisy populations adjacent to Cold Springs Road (FS 4680) 

and feeder roads such as 4680200,4680208, 4680212, 

4680220, 4680219, and 4680170; and avoid ground 

disturbing activities on known TES plant sites.

Plant diversity 265 The “Native plant diversity” scoring system used in Table 1 is 

apparently absurdly biased by the inclusion of non-native 

species occurrence.

Thanks you for your comment, the table has been changed to 

show only native scores. However, in doing so the score 

changed by 0.1 percent.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

504 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Implementation 243 Much of the trust and agreement built on this project is because 

of demonstration marks from the Blue Mountain ID team that 

inspired confidence. The same team will not be responsible for 

the actual marks and implementation. Given the 

acknowledgement that these are complex prescriptions, the 

Forest Service must be able to demonstrate they are 

adequately equipped to meet the same standards of the 

planning team or identify resources to be so equipped.

The IDT worked with Wallowa-Whitman forest staff and 

implementation personnel to develop an implementation 

guide that will bridge the IDT vision presented in the FEIS to 

the implementation on the ground. The FEIS has an updated 

section of project design criteria (FEIS Appendix J) that will 

serve as the foundation for the implementation guide. The 

team is also consulting with ICO experts to present a LJCRP 

specific ICO training to the implemetation crews and bring 

silviculture staff and prescriptionist up to speed on ICO 

techniques and prescription development. 

Implementation 226 During implementation, I encourage the Forest Service to 

utilize the new tools from the Farm Bill that authorizes normal 

timber sales to be sold using designation by prescription. Using 

this form for implementation will reduce the implementation 

costs.

The implementation tools used will depend on contract 

authority determined to be most appropriate.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 505

Category Commenter 

ID#

Summary of comments Summary Response

Implementation 225, 243, 

263

Due to the complicated nature of the Lower Joseph Creek 

Restoration Project design features, migration measures and 

other proposed implementation guidelines we request a chance 

to review the project’s implementation plan. We also request 

that we are provided with an annual implementation monitoring 

plan. A lot of trust has been build with the Blue Mountain 

Restoration Team but this team will not be responsible for 

implementing the project. Given that there are complex 

prescriptions, the Forest Service must demonstrate that they 

have the resources and expertise to implement the planning 

team’s vision.

The IDT is currently working with Wallowa-Whitman forest 

staff and implementation personel to develop an 

implementation guide that will bridge the IDT vision 

presented in the FEIS to the implementation on the ground. 

The draft impelemntation plan was provided to the Nez Perce 

Tribal staff for review, and the final will be on file with the 

Wallowa Mountains District, Joseph, OR. We welcome input 

on the implementation and monitoring plan. The FEIS will 

have an updated section of project design criteria that will 

serve as the foundation for the implementation guide. The 

team is also consulting with ICO experts to present a LJCRP 

specific ICO training to the implemetation crews and bring 

silviculture staff and prescriptionist up to speed on ICO 

techniques and prescription development. The 

implementation plan for the LJCRP is a living document and 

is not a part of the NEPA process, although it is founded its 

propoed activities and project design criteria (FEIS Appendix 

J). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

506 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Comment Letters from Agencies

United States Department of Interior
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 507

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Final Environmental Impact Statement

508 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 509
Final Environmental Impact Statement

510 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Wallowa County Board of Commissioners 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 511
Final Environmental Impact Statement

512 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 513
Final Environmental Impact Statement

514 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 515
Final Environmental Impact Statement

516 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 517
Final Environmental Impact Statement

518 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 519
Final Environmental Impact Statement

520 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 521
Final Environmental Impact Statement

522 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 523
Final Environmental Impact Statement

524 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 525
Final Environmental Impact Statement

526 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 527
Final Environmental Impact Statement

528 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 529
Final Environmental Impact Statement

530 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 531
Final Environmental Impact Statement

532 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 533
Final Environmental Impact Statement

534 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 535
Final Environmental Impact Statement

536 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 537

Union County Board of Commissioners
Final Environmental Impact Statement

538 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 539
Final Environmental Impact Statement

540 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Appendix J - Project Design Features, Mitigation Measures 

and Best Management Practices 

Project Design Features 

Sensitive Plants

TESP – 1 

Identified treatment units falling outside of areas already inventoried for the presence of TES 

plant species will be evaluated for the need for further survey work. Those areas will be cleared 

for treatment through documenting the results of further surveys or through documenting the 

rationale why further surveys would not be necessary. This work will be overseen by the zone 

botanist. 

TESP – 2

Known TES plant populations will be identified as needed on the ground and or on maps for 

contract implementation prior to road grading and other road improvements, designation of 

parking areas and landings, and logging, with work overseen by a journey level botanist. 

TESP – 3 

Avoid placement of staging areas (such as landings, parking, piling) on non-forested habitats that 

have not been previously impacted such as lithosols, grasslands, or meadows. Where placement 

of staging areas on unimpacted non-forest habitats are necessary to facilitate operation consult 

with district botanist and soil scientist.

TESP – 4 

Avoid disturbing Davis fleabane/Snake River Daisy populations adjacent to Cold Springs Road 

(FS 4680) and feeder roads such as 4680200,4680208, 4680212, 4680220, 4680219, and 

4680170. 

TESP – 5 

Avoid ground disturbing activities on known TES plant sites.

Special Habitats

BIOD – 1 

Avoid disturbing natural seeps and springs, wet meadows, moist meadows, this includes 

removing shrubs and trees. 

BIOD – 2 

Leave tree islands in coniferous forest for conservation of native mycorrhizal fungi, yew, wet 

areas when these features are found or suspected in units. Mycorrhizae should always be 

suspected in coniferous forest units.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 541

BIOD – 3 

Maintain woody debris as per guidance from eastside screens to provide habitat for nonvascular 

plants and fungi.

BIOD – 4 

Avoid yarding over rock outcrops and talus slopes. Leave trees and shrubs adjacent to rock 

outcrops, talus as a microclimate buffer.

Noxious Weeds

INVP – 1 

The invasive plant program coordinator will determine and prioritize noxious weed treatments for 

existing and new sites, following ground disturbing activities.

INVP – 2 

Identified treatment units falling outside of areas already inventoried for the presence of invasive 

plant species will be evaluated for the need for further survey work. Those areas will be cleared 

for treatment through documenting the results of further surveys or through documenting the 

rationale why further surveys would not be necessary. This work will be overseen by the invasive 

plant program coordinator. 

Known invasive plant populations will be flagged and/or mapped prior to road grading and other 

road improvements, designation of parking areas and landings, and logging, with work overseen 

by the invasive species specialists. Equipment operators will receive maps with known sites and 

instructions to avoid flagged or otherwise identified areas.

INVP – 3 

Minimize prescribed fire and ground disturbance from activities such as logging operations and 

road grading where invasive plant populations, including non-native invasive grasses, are found. 

Consult local botany or invasive weed specialist prior to implementation for seasonal operation 

restriction or other mitigations such as equipment washing or avoidance of known populations.

INVP – 4 

Do not disturb Meadow Hawkweed in Swamp Creek, or other locations, such as the new meadow 

hawkweed population on 4600596, within the project area, through ground disturbance that will 

create bare soil or move seeds or vegetative parts of meadow hawkweed plants to new locations. 

Machinery used in Swamp Creek Meadow must be washed prior to leaving site.

INVP – 5 

No parking, decking or piling on established weed sites.

INVP – 6 

Prioritize rehabilitation of landing piles, burn piles, and skid trails with input from botanist, 

hydrologist, and/or soils specialist. Follow PNW Invasive Plant Program Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants Prevention Standard 2 and FSM 2070.3 with direction and approval 

from local botanist. .
Final Environmental Impact Statement

542 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Range

Range – 1 

The range manager will work with the timber sale officer with respect to the timing and location 

of logging operations. Timber harvest within the project area is not anticipated to impact ongoing 

grazing operations. All gates must be closed while livestock are within the allotment adjacent to 

the harvest units.

Range – 2 

There are numerous range improvements within the project area in addition to private land 

boundary fences in many locations. All improvements should be protected during timber harvest 

activities. If it is necessary to cut range fences, repair should be completed to Forest Service 

standard prior to use of allotment. These standards are available and should be made a part of the 

timber sale contract.

Range – 3 

No trees used as anchor trees along a fence line shall be marked for harvest.

Range – 4 

If it is necessary to cut a fence to enter a harvest unit where livestock are present, the purchaser 

must be required to close and secure the fence each day at the end of work activities.

Range – 5 

The botanist, invasive species specialist and range manager will work together to determine 

whether prescribed fire or other vegetation restoration activities will require resting portions of 

the pasture treated.

Range – 6 

If any fences are damaged during burning operations, repairs must be made prior to use of 

allotment to prevent livestock from entering areas outside of established allotments.

Range – 7 

The range manager will work with fire management to determine timing and location of 

prescribed fire. All burns will be coordinated with the District Range Management Specialist.

Soils

Soils – 1

All skid trails must be approved by the Forest Service and should be designed to minimize the 

area affected by logging operations; use pre-existing skid trails at the discretion of the sale 

administrator and to the extent feasible. 

Soils – 2

No mechanized equipment should operate within RHCA’s with slopes exceeding 35%. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 543

Soils – 3

Use of harvest equipment will not be permitted when soils reach field capacity for moisture, to 

limit the potential of long-term detrimental soil disturbance. Alternatively, the operators and 

Forest Service can monitor activities to ensure rutting does not exceed 6” in depth.

Soils – 4

Placement of new temporary roads will be on deep soils, if it is operationally feasible. This will 

allow for adequate restoration of temporary roads and over time will leave less measurable 

detrimental soil condition across the proposed activity units. Lithosol (scab flats/rocky, shallow 

soils) and meadows will not be used for landings and skid trails; unless no other location is 

practical. 

Soils – 5

The following are criteria for designated skid trails that would require more multiple passes in or 

around Class 4 stream RHCA. Limits are based on WEPP results and are designed to mitigate 

sediment delivery to waterways. Consult with the local soils specialist or hydrologist for 

exceptions.

Soils – 6 

The treatment of legacy and created compaction (new and existing temporary roads) within and 

adjacent to activity units should be evaluated for remediation in accordance with the parameters 

outlined in Soils-8.

Soils-7

All necessary Detrimental Soil Condition surveys will be conducted prior to implementation. If 

surveys reveal areas where the DSC exceed Forest Plan tolerances of 20% or the DSC will likely 

be exceeded following implementation of the selected alternative then mitigation should be 

designed. If mitigation is not suitable for the site (ie shallow or vertic soils and/or topographic 

constraints) then the treatment area should be excluded from treatment. If there are any questions, 

First 100' 

from stream 

edge = 

0-20% slope

Next 100' to 700' with 

slope < 35%

Skid trails not permitted within first 100’ of 

stream 

Skid trails are permitted perpendicular to channel 

beyond 100 feet.

Next 100' to 700' with 

slope > 35%

Skid trails not permitted within first 100’ of 

stream

No skid trails perpendicular to channel between 

100-700 feet

First 100' 

from stream 

edge = 

21% or more

slope

Next 100' to 300' with 

slope < 35%

Skid trails not permitted within first 100' of

stream

No skid trails perpendicular to channel between 

100-300 feet

100' to 300' with slope > 

35% Skid trails not permitted up to 300’ of stream
Final Environmental Impact Statement

544 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

contact your unit soils specialist. Initial surveys will be contracted for the LJCRP during the 2015 

field season after treatment units are identified when the draft ROD is published. 

Soils – 8

Whenever possible, operate on a bed of slash to mitigate soil compaction. Operations over 4 

inches of frozen ground or 2 feet of snow, will adequately protect all of the following soil types.

Soils with an Ash Component

• Soils with an ash component are very common in the LJCRP area. Ash soils are 

particularly susceptible to compaction and erosion. Therefore, care must be taken to 

maintain adequate ground cover, particularly on slopes.

• In deeper soils (>30cm) subsoiling is an appropriate mitigation in areas of compaction

• In areas of general disturbance, the top layer (A Horizon) should be pulled back over any 

disturbed surface. (Pull berms back over disturbed surfaces)

• Erosion control is very important for ash soils. A weed free straw or equivalent should be 

applied prior to seasonal precipitation on slopes exceeding 15%, adjacent to waterways 

and ditches (within 100 feet). See BMP AqEco-2 for additional information.

Vertic or Clay-Rich Soils

• Vertic soils typically have a high clay mineral content and are particularly susceptible to 

smearing and rutting. 

• Vertic soils can be operated on with caution when the soil column is either frozen or 

completely dry, otherwise avoidance should be practiced.

• Subsoiling deeper vertic soils can be beneficial if there is enough organic material to 

incorporate. If organic material is limited, there are no practical mitigations for impacts to 

vertic soils.

Shallow soils

• Avoid operating on shallow soils (<10 in depth) unless over frozen ground/snow as 

described above. 

Tribal Relations

Tribal – 1

Consult with The Nez Perce Tribe in compliance with Trust Responsibility NHPA, AIRFA, EO 

13007, EO 13175, and other applicable Executive Orders and legislation, particularly if new 

information regarding sensitive traditional use sites, or other potential properties within the area 

of potential effect, are revealed or discovered

Tribal – 2

Once treatment areas are laid out and marked on the ground, maps of the area will be shared with 

tribes through on-going consultation to determine if previously unknown sensitive tribal areas 

could be potentially impacted.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 545

Tribal – 3

The Forest should share operations schedules and treatment locations with the Tribes prior to 

management activities in an effort to minimize timing conflicts with, or impacts to, traditional 

uses such as plant gathering, hunting and fishing, ceremonial uses or family gatherings 

Tribal – 4

If at any time within project planning or implementation Traditional Cultural Properties or Sacred 

Sites are identified or discovered the Nez Perce Tribe will be contacted and management plans 

and/ or protection measures will be developed. 

Heritage Resources

Heritage – 1

Eligible, or potentially eligible, heritage resource properties (or sites) will be managed to achieve 

a “no effect” or “no adverse effect” determination whenever possible, in consultation with the 

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Advisory Council for Historic 

Preservation [ACHP (36 CFR 800)].

Heritage – 2

No effect to Heritage resources will be addressed through site avoidance strategies and other site 

management measures agreed to by the 2004 Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the Region 

6 Forest Service, Oregon SHPO and the ACHP.

Heritage – 3

Project leaders or sale administrators shall coordinate with a qualified archaeologist during lay 

out and prior to mechanical treatments, such as timber harvest activities and all associated ground 

disturbance, to ensure all eligible, or potentially eligible sites using a no-disturbance buffer as 

recommended by the local archaeologist.

Heritage – 4

In event that properties are located during treatment, the project will be redesigned to ensure that 

the properties will be avoided as determined by a qualified archaeologist. Documentation of all 

located properties will be sent to SHPO. If avoidance procedures are not possible, or if any 

question exists as to the effectiveness of avoidance, the project shall cease immediately, and the 

Zone Archaeologist shall consult with the SHPO and ACHP pursuant to 36 CFR Section 

800.13(b) to consider the discovery.

Heritage – 5

If bones, artifacts, foundations, or other indications of past human occupation are uncovered 

during the course of project ground disturbance activities will cease, and a qualified archaeologist 

will evaluate site conditions to access need for consultation with Oregon SHPO and Tribes

Heritage – 6

Locate and design landings and roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to heritage 

resources
Final Environmental Impact Statement

546 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Heritage – 7

A qualified archaeologist will work with prescribed fire fuels specialists to design and implement 

mitigation measures to protect historic and prehistoric sites that contain perishable or wooden 

materials, or that are near rock outcrops containing rock art, shelters or other historic rock 

features

Heritage – 8

Low intensity/short duration fires are permissible at lithic scatters, can dumps, stone features, 

earthen features, and sites with deeply buried deposits. No mop up activities allowed within site 

boundaries

Heritage –9

Fire control lines should not be constructed through Heritage resource sites. Mop up activities are 

not allowed within site boundaries as determined by qualified archaeologist.

Heritage – 10

All eligible and unevaluated heritage resources will be avoided when constructing erosion control 

features such as water bars and check dams

Scenery

The following design criteria are developed to meet the intent of high to moderate scenic integrity 

objectives for the viewsheds. Vegetative treatments would meet the established VQO of 

Preservation, Retention or Partial Retention as viewed from use areas and travelways. See 

standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan (pp. 4-42-4-44), HCNRA CMP (Appendix C, pp 

C-18-19, C-86), and Joseph Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (Landscape 

Management standards and guidelines 50-56).

Scenery – 1

Locate new landings out of seen areas or leave vegetative screen from Concern level 1 roads (OR 

Highway 3; FS Roads 4602090, 4602120, 4602080). 

Scenery – 2

Skid patterns, slash, soil exposure and stumps should be visually minor or unnoticed.

Scenery – 3

Cut stumps at a height less than 4” in immediate foreground (300’). 

Scenery – 4

Slash pile locations would not be within the immediate foreground, (300’) of Oregon Highway 3 

where possible. When slash piles are necessary in this area they will be prioritized for treatment.

Scenery – 5

Limit naturally shaped openings to be a maximum of 5 to 10 acres in size with blended edges. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 547

Scenery – 6

Develop marking guidelines to minimize the amount of paint seen from areas of scenic concern. 

Paint of backside (uphill) of leave trees or paint take trees along immediate foreground of Oregon 

Highway 3, FS Roads 46, 4602090, 4602120, and 4602080.

Wildlife

Unless noted, Design elements apply to Alternatives 2 and 3.

Trees

Wild – 1

No harvest of trees > 21” dbh within MA15s, Goshawk PFA’s (map provided and or newly found 

sites), moist forest, large tree (> 20” dbh), closed-canopied (>60%) forests (marten habitat).

Wild – 2

Trees with stem damage, heavy stem decay, poor form, broken tops, numerous large branches, or 

other characteristics that make them unsuitable for commercial products would be retained for 

wildlife habitat when available, in the longer term; these trees may become quality snag habitat. 

Consider skips, or the design of ‘clumps’ in thinning units to avoid thinning in vicinity of these 

unique trees.

Wild - 3 

No harvest of trees > 21” dbh (Alternative 3).

Wild - 4 

Retain designated leave trees damaged during logging operations in harvest areas, unless 

determined to be a safety hazard.

Snags 

Wild – 5

Retain all snags (dead trees) during harvest and stand improvement treatments except where they 

create and operational constraint (skid trail or skyline corridor) or an imminent operational safety 

hazard. 

Wild – 6

Removal of danger trees within the RHCAs, Dedicated Old growth (MA15s), Goshawk PFAs and 

Marten habitat areas is restricted. When felled from within these dedicated areas, only that 

portion of the tree within the roadway of the road can be removed. Danger tree determinations 

would meet Forest Service Danger Tree Policy and Guidelines.

Wild – 7

Utilize prescribed fire lighting techniques to help retain all snags during prescribed burning 

operations. Larger snags are of great value to primary cavity excavators and not easily replaced if 

loss occurs due to burning. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

548 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Wild – 8

For larger snags (> 20 inches DBH) at higher risk due to heavy fuels accumulations at the base, 

pullback of fuels or alteration of lighting techniques may be necessary prior to prescribed 

burning.

Wild – 9

In moist forests, because we are deficient in large snags, and in areas with known pileated 

woodpecker nests, prior to prescribed burning, rake duff away from the base of large live old 

growth trees and large snags with accumulations of bark and duff and/or use other protection 

measures where economically viable and reasonable to do. 

Wild – 10

Prescribed burning during active nesting period (e.g. May 20 or post leaf-out) for nesting 

landbirds will be coordinated with district or forest biologist.

Wild – 11

Road Management - To retain snags and reduce disturbance, currently closed roads that are 

needed for log haul, and other road closures included within the ROD, would be closed 

immediately after project implementation (harvest/thinning, and pile burning).

Down Wood, Woody Debris, and Large Logs 

Wild – 12

In all treated areas the minimum woody-debris ground cover listed in Table WL-1 below would 

be retained through all phases of the project where they currently exist. Existing large down logs 

(logs greater than 12”) would be retained during harvest and grapple piling activities. Standing 

dead trees within thinning units that present a safety hazard would be felled and left in place if the 

unit is deficient in woody debris.

Wild – 13

As part of the plan for retention of logs and snags, protection measures shall be used during 

prescribed under burning to reduce consumption of these large woody fuels needed for wildlife 

habitat and hydrologic stability. 

Wild – 14

Large snags (>20” dbh) felled for safety reasons in RHCAs, MA15s, Goshawk PFAs, and marten 

habitat will be retained on site to contribute to coarse wood. During any prescribed burning, the 

objective is to retain these logs, use burning techniques that support retention of these structures.

Table WL-1 Forest Plan Standards for Down Woody Debris

Species Pieces per 

acre

Minimum 

Diameter at 

Small End 

(inches)

Minimum Piece 

Length

Total Length 

feet/acre

Ponderosa Pine 3-6 12” greater than 6 feet 20-40 ft.

Mixed Conifer 15-20 12” greater than 6 feet 120-160 ft
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 549

Species Pieces per 

acre

Minimum 

Diameter at 

Small End 

(inches)

Minimum Piece 

Length

Total Length 

feet/acre

Lodgepole Pine 15-20 8” greater than 8 feet 120-160 ft

Goshawk

In order to meet Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plans Amendment #2, Goshawk Standards, 

the following measures would be applied:

Wild – 15

Protect known active and historically used (known nesting activity occurring at the site within the 

last five years) goshawk nest site from disturbance. Defer harvest from 30 acres of the most 

suitable nesting habitat surrounding all active and historical nest trees.

Wild – 16

Within the 6 mapped goshawk PFAs, no harvest in stands that are currently providing LOS 

source habitat for goshawks (>=20”dbh and canopy closure >=50% in the dry and >=60% in the 

moist).

Wild – 17

If a new goshawk nest site is located during monitoring (see Goshawk Monitoring) or sale 

preparation, the site would be protected by eliminating harvest on 30 acres of the most suitable 

nesting habitat around the nest site. A 400 acre post fledging area would be designated around the 

core nest area (if not already designated). Proposed harvest activities that move young stands 

toward a late old structure condition could occur. Late and Old (LOS) stands would be retained 

per Regional Foresters Amendment #2 (Senario A). Activities in the post fledging area would 

apply recommended guidelines for structural composition as described in Reynolds et al. 1992. 

Wild – 18

No harvesting of trees >=21” dbh within PFAs, unless a safety hazard. If trees of snags felled for 

safety purposes, retain them on site for down wood.

Wild – 19

Restrict project activities within 1⁄2 mile* of an active goshawk nests between April 1 to August 

31 to avoid possible disturbance of goshawk pairs while bonding and nesting. Prohibited 

management activities include all Forest Service and contracted activities, including but not 

limited to, such activities as timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, prescribed fire, and 

roadwork. 

*In site-specific cases, the 1⁄2 mile distance may be reduced to 1⁄4 mile along frequently traveled 

roads that would be used for haul routes, where the birds are habituated to traffic, or where 

topography and vegetation provide a buffer for noise disturbance. Consult District wildlife 

biologist for direction. Burning operations, non-commercial thinning operations in vicinity of 

post-fledgling area would generally require the 1⁄2 mile buffer.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

550 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Wild – 20

In the areas that are not providing LOS source habitat the intent is to enhance stands toward LOS 

habitat: the objective is to move young stands toward a late old structure. To the extent possible, 

retain multi-story characteristics, vegetation complexity, large snags, and large down logs. 

Consider designing unthinned patches (skips) near riparian, springs or seeps, as these can be 

favored by goshawks for nesting

Wild – 21

Closed roads within goshawk territories that have grown in with thickets would be maintained in 

an un-drivable state. Non-commercial thinning crews would leave sufficient clusters of trees 

along these roadbeds to prevent any vehicle access.

Wild – 22

Protect trees and snags >20” during prescribed fire operations using a number of methods 

including but not limited to raking, pull back, and altering ignition patterns to minimize loss of 

these structures within PFA. 

Wild – 23

A map including the nest areas, post-fledgling areas, and 1⁄2 mile restricted disturbance area (April 

1-September 30) will be provided to the purchaser.

Wild - 24

Because marten habitat is at the lower end of the RV, any harvesting within marten habitat (moist 

forests, large tree, closed canopy) is designed to maintain old forest characteristics. Canopy 

closure will remain > 60%, and no harvest of trees > 21” dbh in marten habitat. Maintain snags 

and large down wood that American marten need for denning, rest areas, and hunting. Large 

broken top and potentially hollow grand fir would be maintained for denning habitat.

Other Raptors / Pileated woodpeckers

Wild – 25

Contact district wildlife biologist for up-to-date raptor nest locations and activity status before 

implementation of management activities. 

Wild – 26

To conserve nesting habitat of raptors or pileated woodpecker, consult the wildlife biologist to 

establish a nest zone buffer around any new, or existing, nests discovered prior to or during 

project layout and implementation and, if appropriate, to restrict activities within the nest area 

during occupancy, according to requirements of the species involved.

Wild – 27

Protect known (and active) pileated woodpecker nests during all harvest or prescribed burning 

activities. Maintain a no-cut buffer within 50 feet. Protect nest tree through the use protection 

measures such as raking and lighting techniques during prescribed burning.

Wild – 28

Raptors are particularly sensitive to disturbance during the reproductive season. Table WL-2 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 551

displays seasonal restrictions and nest protection standards for raptor species with known nest 

sites in or adjacent to the project area. 

Effects to species can vary depending on the loudness and duration of the management activity 

and the topographical or vegetation screening between the management activity and the nest tree. 

This EIS permits waiver or adjustments to seasonal restrictions if recommended by the District 

wildlife biologist and approved by the District Ranger.

Table WL-2Summary of Raptor Timing Restrictions

Description

TimingActivities 

Prohibited

Buffer for 

TimingActivities 

Permitted

Timing –

Activities 

Permitted

Management 

Restrictions At 

All Times

Occupied 

goshawk nest 

sites

Activities are 

prohibited: April 

1 - August 31.

Within 1⁄2 mile 

of nest sites

Activities can 

occur: October 

1- March 31

No management 

within nest stands

Occupied 

raptor nest 

sites

Activities are 

prohibited: 

March 1 – July 

31

Within 660 

feet

Activities can 

occur: August 1-

February 28

No management 

within 100 feet of 

nest tree

Big Game

Wild - 29 

Provide hiding cover in accordance with Forest Plan standards and guides by retaining nonthinned patches of trees throughout the stand. Avoid placing ‘openings’ along more heavily used 

open roads. Areas more critical for hiding cover include flat topography, along main roads (eg. 

FS 46, FS 4602, FS 4605, FS 4615, FS 4650, FS 4655, FS 4680), and along fringes of meadows. 

Hiding cover is defined as vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult deer or elk 

from human view at 200 feet. 

Wild - 30 

Winter Range (MA 3): Limit activities associated with this EIS that have the potential to disturb 

wintering big game. Coordinate seasonal operating restrictions with wildlife biologist if 

necessary. 

Wild – 31

Known calving/fawning areas: Restrict timber harvest, non-commercial thinning, prescribed fire 

and road work from May 1st to June 30th. In areas not specifically identified for calving and 

fawning, instruct crews to watch for lone elk or deer. If crews see lone animals, they would 

search the immediate area for calves and fawns and avoid felling trees or igniting prescribed fire 

where young animals are discovered. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

552 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Connectivity 

Wild – 32

To maintain wildlife connectivity corridors in the Dry Forest treatment units maintain >40 canopy 

closure. In the Moist Forest connectivity treatment units maintain >50% canopy closure. 

Connectivity corridors have been mapped, and a map will be provided to the timber sale 

purchaser. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species.

Goal: To protect and, manage habitat for the perpetuation and recovery of plants and animals 

which are listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive. (A list of these species can be found in the 

Forest Plan EIS.) To assure that management activities do not jeopardize the continued existence 

of sensitive species or results in adverse modification of their essential habitat.

Wild – 33

To prevent spread of diseases to amphibians including Columbia spotted frog and Rock Mountain 

tailed frog, gear, hoses and dipping buckets used to transport or move water from streams, rivers, 

or ponds needs to be disinfected by drying in the sun (must be completely dry inside and out) or 

washing with a chemical disinfectant before changing to a different water source.

Vegetation Management

Range of Treatments

This EIS analyzed the maximum range of treatments. Implementation of the selected alternative 

would have the ability to adjust treatment types to on the ground conditions following the 

guidance presented in the treatment decision matrix. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 553

Treatment Decision Matrix

Density Class

Outside 

MA 15

PVG Compositi

on Type

DMR 

Rating Low Mod High

Any Persistent 

PIPO

None/Low STS_Low STS_Mod STS_High

Any Persistent 

Shade 

Tolerant

None/Low STS_Low STS_Low STS_Mod

Dry Any Mod/High IT_Low IT_Mod IT_High

Dry Recent 

PSME or

Recent 

ABGR

None/Low STS_Low STS_Mod or 

GS_Mod

STS_High or 

GS_High

Moist Any Mod/High IT_Low IT_Low IT_Mod

Moist Recent 

PSME or

Recent 

ABGR

None/Low STS_Low STS_Low or 

GS_Low

STS_Mod or 

GS_Mod

Dry NonConiferNone/Low Savanna

MA 15

Any Persistent 

PIPO STS_OG_Low STS_OG_Low STS_OG_Mod

Any Recent 

PSME or

Recent 

ABGR

STS_OG_Low STS_OG_Low STS_OG_Mod

Any Persistent 

Shade 

Tolerant

OG_NoTrt

Design Common to all GS, STS, IT and SI Treatments

Retain and release old trees. 

• Retain old trees regardless of size or species. These trees are generally over 150 years old.

• Remove young trees within 1 to 2 drip-lines (the line extending vertically from the exterior 

edge of a tree’s live crown to the ground) of old ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas 

fir. Occasional individual large, vigorous trees may be left when they do not interfere with the 

objective to reduce crown competition and increase growing space adjacent to old trees. 

(Note: For Alternative 2, this can include trees ≥21”. See other miscellaneous design below.)

Shift tree composition toward fire and drought tolerant species.

• Favor ponderosa pine and western larch as leave trees in all thinning operations.

Restore a mosaic spatial pattern.

• Follow Individual, Clumps and Openings (ICO) approach to quantifying and restoring forest 

spatial pattern.

o Leave tree individuals and clumps. Using observed reference condition as guidance for 

ratio of individuals to clumps and the number of trees per clump (2-20+). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

554 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

o Openings - .2 to 2 acres. Sinuous/amorphous shape and 50-100 feet across on average at 

the widest point. Number and size would vary depending on existing condition and the 

density class desired condition and would not exceed 15% of unit.

o Skips – 1/10 to 1 acre no cut areas. Number and size will vary depending on the existence 

of suitable conditions and would not exceed 20% of the treatment unit.

Reduce stand densities and increase mean diameter. 

• Manage tree density for each density class as prescribed by treatment intensity designation 

using the following stocking chart as guidance. Overall average density would vary within 

this range depending on observed reference condition and existing old tree density. 

Treatment Intensity Designation

Post Trt↘

Treatment Intensity:

High Moderate Low

Existing 

Density:

High Low Moderate High

Moderate Low Moderate

Low Low

Stocking Guidelines by PVG/Density Class

PVG/Tre

e Density 

Class SDI

BA 

Equivalen

t (Canopy 

Cover 

%):

 

↘

Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD)

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Dry Low <83 Less Than 41

(<39%)

45

(<40%)

49

(<41%)

52

(<42%)

55

(<43%)

57

(<44%)

60

(<45%)

62

(<45%)

Dry 

Moderate 

83-

128

Between 41-64

(39-

50%)

45-70

(40-

51%)

49-75

(41-

52%)

52-80

(42-

55%)

55-84

(43-

56%)

57-88

(44-

56%)

60-92

(45-

57%)

62-96

(45-

57%)

Dry High >128 Greater 

Than

64

(>50%)

70

(>51%)

75

(>52%)

80

(>55%)

84

(>56%)

88

(>56%)

92

(>57%)

96

(>57%)

Moist 

Low

<165 Less Than 82

(<67%)

90

(<68%)

97

(<69%)

103

(<70%)

109

(<71%)

114

(<71%)

119

(<72%)

123

(<73%)

Moist 

Moderate 

165-

248

Between 82-123

(67-

81%)

90-135

(68-

82%)

97-146

(69-

84%)

103-

155

(70-

85%)

109-

163

(71-

86%)

114-

171

(71-

87%)

119-

178

(72-

88%)

123-

185

(73-

89%)

Moist 

High 

>248 Greater 

Than

123

(>81%)

135

(>82%)

146

(>84%)

155

(>85%)

163

(>86%)

171

(>87%)

178

(>88%)

185

(>89%)

• Thin from below removing trees with poor crowns (<35% live crown ratio). 

• Retain young (individuals and clumps) replacement trees at a density of 10 to 30 basal area 

per acre regardless of density class. Young tree leave trees would consist of vigorous (>35% 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 555

live crown ratio) dominant and co-dominants with occasional (>45% live crown ratio) mid 

story and understory trees as individuals or as part of clump.

• Retain wildlife trees – live trees with existing cavities and dead tops.

Initiate fire where and when feasible.

• Burn objectives within thinning units are to increase tree canopy base height, reduce 

litter/duff cover and produce effects that stimulate regeneration and growth of native 

herbaceous vegetation. 

• Prescribed burns are designed to maintain and enhance desired forest structure, tree densities, 

snag densities, and CWD levels.

• Retain to the extent possible post-treatment skips. Use ignition patterns and techniques to 

maintain this structure.

Discriminate against dwarf mistletoe infected trees, host species for Douglas-fir mistletoe and 

create conditions that minimizes potential for spread to uninfected trees.

• Retention of mistletoe infected trees:

o Old trees regardless of infection level.

o Young trees with the lowest mistletoe infection rating when needed to meet stocking 

objective

• Wherever trees infected with mistletoe are left, establish a non-host or unstocked buffer of at 

least 50' between infected trees and uninfected residuals.

Other Miscellaneous Design

• Trees ≥21 inches DBH Alternative 2 – Grand fir, lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir trees greater 

than 21 inches DBH that do not meet the definition of old, may be removed in areas outside 

of marten source habitat with a STS_High or GS treatment type when necessary to 

o Daylight (reduce crown competition and increase growing space) adjacent to ponderosa 

pine and western larch.

o Create canopy gaps of appropriate orientation and size to facilitate natural regeneration of 

ponderosa pine and western larch 

o Reduce grand fir, lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir seed sources adjacent to canopy gaps to 

minimize regeneration potential of these species.

• Trees ≥21 inches DBH Alternative 3 – No trees greater than 21 inches DBH may be cut.

• Group selection treatments - No regeneration groups will be created within 100 feet of 

identified category 4 streams.

• Connectivity corridors –

o Dry forest PVG stands identified as part of a connectivity corridor, maintain an overall 

stand canopy cover of 40%+. Use estimates of canopy cover by basal area in stocking 

table for guidance.

o Moist forest PVG stands identified as part of a connectivity corridor, maintain an overall 

stand canopy cover of 50%+. Use estimates of canopy cover by basal area in stocking 

table for guidance.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

556 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

• Marten habitat – for stands identified as marten habitat (moist, large tree, closed canopy), 

maintain an overall stand canopy cover of 60%+. Use estimates of canopy cover by basal area 

in stocking table for guidance.

• Utilize PACFISH buffers for Category 1 and 3 streams. Follow design criteria for Category 4 

streams (see Fisheries PDC Summary).

• Activity fuels management – fuels associated with silvicultural treatments would be treated 

using mastication, removal, pile and burn, cutting and scattering limbs or other means. 

Residual fuel levels would be commensurate with predicted burn intensity to meet prescribed 

fire burn objectives. 

• Snags, coarse wood – incorporate the largest snags available and disturbance pockets as

indicated by snags, deadwood, or decadence into “skips” as described above.

• Manage coarse wood at the following levels where available:

o Exceptions to where trees may be removed would be made in the case of threats to 

human health and safety.

Species Pieces per 

Acre

Diameter Small 

End (inches)

Piece Length & Total Linear 

Length

Ponderosa pine 3-6 12 >6 feet; 20 – 40 feet

Mixed conifer 15-20 12 >6 feet; 100 -140 feet

Other Treatment Specific Design

Group Selection – Low, Moderate and High Intensity Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present; 1⁄2 to 4 acre group selection to initiate 

new cohort of seral species (PP/WL)

• Uneven age thinning and group selection would be used to establish openings between 

individual trees and tree clumps, thin tree clumps, and create regeneration openings.

• Establish 1⁄2 to 4 acre regeneration openings within up to 20% of each GS unit to initiate new 

cohort of ponderosa pine/western larch. Regeneration opening size and shape is dependent on 

extent of grand fir/Douglas-fir cohort that is being replaced, extent of available ponderosa 

pine/western larch seed trees, and sunlight requirement of species that is being regenerated. 

• Leave old trees and available ponderosa pine and western larch seed trees within regeneration 

openings.

Single Tree Selection - Low, Moderate and High Intensity Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present.

• Uneven age thinning would be used to establish openings between individual trees and tree 

clumps, and thin tree clumps.

Single Tree Selection Old Growth – Low and Moderate Intensity Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 557

• Retain existing old growth characteristics as described in the WW Forest Plan MA15 

description and the R6 Interim Old Growth Definition.

Intermediate Treatment - Low, Moderate and High Intensity Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within all age classes present with emphasis on isolating mistletoe 

infections and creating conditions that reduce intensification of infection.

• Favor non-host species as leave trees.

• Tree clumps/individuals would be managed to improve tree vigor and growth by retaining the 

best growing dominant and co-dominant trees with the least amount of mistletoe within each 

clump. 

• Isolate mistletoe infected clumps or individuals with a host tree buffer of approximately 50 

feet beginning at the last visible sign of infection

Stand Improvement – Seed/Sap and Pole Treatments

ICO variable density thinning within young, post disturbance stands.

• Thinning would be used to establish openings between individual trees and tree clumps, and 

thin tree clumps.

• Savanna Treatment/Meadow Restoration Treatment

• Reestablishment of grassland/forest edges and historic grasslands that have conifer 

encroachment.

• Restore pre-settlement tree density and pattern using pre-settlement evidence as guidance. 

• Tree group arrangement, size, and density are a function of existing pre-settlement trees and 

evidence. Retain old trees and the largest young trees that most closely resemble old trees in 

size and form as replacement trees

Prescribed Fire

Fire - 1 

Minimize construction of fire control line by utilizing wet line or existing barriers to fire spread 

as much as possible.

Best Management Practices – Water Quality

General Planning Activities

• Plan-1 Forest and Grassland Planning

• Plan-2 Project Planning and Analysis

• Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning

Plan-1 Forest and Grassland Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1900, FSM 1920, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, and 

FSM 2511.

Objective Use the land management planning and decision making processes to incorporate direction for 

water quality management consistent with laws, regulation, and policy into land management 

plans.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

558 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Practices Establish desired conditions, goals, and objectives for soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

that contribute to the overall sustainability of social, economic, and ecological systems in the plan 

area consistent with established State or national water quality goals for the plan area.

Consider the water quantity, quality, location, and timing of flows needed to provide water 

supplies for municipal, agricultural, commercial, and industrial uses; hydropower generation; 

water recreation, transportation, and spiritual uses; aesthetic appreciation; and tourism to 

contribute to social and economic sustainability.

Consider the water quantity, quality, location, and timing of flows needed to provide the ecological 

conditions to support diversity of native and desired nonnative plants and animal species in the 

plan area to contribute to ecological sustainability.

Include plan objectives to maintain or, where appropriate, improve or restore watershed 

conditions to achieve desired conditions of soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Consider watershed characteristics, current and expected environmental conditions (including 

climate change), and potential effects of land uses when determining suitability of NFS lands 

within the planning area for various uses.

Include standards and guidelines to maintain and, where appropriate, improve over time the 

quality of soil, water resources, and riparian areas when implementing site-specific projects and 

activities.

Include monitoring questions and associated performance measures to address watershed 

condition and water quality goals and objectives.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP or PDC To protect any raptor nests discovered during unit marking, implementation of disturbing activities 

will only occur after the young have fledged and are mobile at the end of August. This restriction 

should be extended to not later than September 30 if monitoring indicates that fledglings are still 

present in the nest stand after August 30

Plan-2 Project Planning and Analysis

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1950, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, and FSM 2524.

Objective Use the project planning, environmental analysis, and decision making processes to incorporate 

water quality management BMPs into project design and implementation.

Practices Include watershed specialists (hydrologist, soil scientist, geologist, and fish biologist) and other trained and 

qualified individuals on the interdisciplinary team for project planning, environmental analysis, and 

decision making to evaluate onsite watershed characteristics and the potential environmental consequences 

of the proposed activity(s).

Determine water quality management objectives for the project area.

Identify water quality management desired conditions and objectives from the land management plan.

Identify and evaluate the condition of water features in the project area (e.g., streams, lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, wetlands, riparian areas, springs, groundwater-dependent ecosystems, recharge areas, and 

floodplains).

Identify State-designated beneficial uses of waterbodies and the water quality parameters that are critical to 

those uses.

Identify locations of dams and diversions for municipal or irrigation water supplies, fish hatcheries, 

stockwater, fire protection, or other water uses within the project area.

Identify any impaired (e.g., 303[d] listed) waterbodies in the project area and associated Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) analyses or other restoration plans that may exist.

Identify threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in or near water, wetlands, and riparian areas in the 

project area and their habitat needs related to water quality.

Determine potential or likely direct and indirect impacts to chemical, physical, and biological water quality, 

and watershed condition from the proposed activity.

Always assume hydrological connections exist between groundwater and surface water in each watershed, 

unless it can reasonably be shown none exist in a local situation.

Consider the impacts of current and expected environmental conditions such as atmospheric deposition and 

climate change in the project area when analyzing effects of the proposed activities.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 559

Evaluate sources of waterbody impairment, including water quantity, streamflows, and water quality, and 

the likelihood that proposed activities would contribute to current or future impairment or restoration to 

achieve desired watershed conditions.

Identify and delineate unstable areas in the project area.

Identify soil limitations and productivity impacts of proposed activities.

Verify preliminary findings by inspecting the sites in the field.

Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions, design criteria, and mitigation measures to achieve water quality 

management objectives. Consult local, regional, State, or other agencies’ required or recommended BMPs 

that are applicable to the activity.

Consider enhanced BMPs identified in a TMDL or other watershed restoration plan to protect impaired 

waterbodies within the project area.

Use site evaluations, professional experience, monitoring results, and land management plan standards, 

guidelines, and other requirements.

Identify Federal, State, and local permits or requirements needed to implement the project.

Examples include water quality standards, CWA 401 certification, CWA 402 permits (including 

stormwater permits), CWA 404 permits, and Coastal Zone Management Act requirements.

Plan to limit surface disturbance to the extent practicable while still achieving project objectives.

Designate specific AMZs around water features in the project area (see BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).

Design activities on or near unstable areas and sensitive soils to minimize management induced impacts.

Use local direction and requirements for prevention and control of terrestrial and aquatic invasive species.

Use suitable tools to analyze the potential for cumulative watershed effects (CWE) to occur from the 

additive impacts of the proposed project and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on 

NFS and neighboring lands within the project watersheds.

Consider the natural sensitivity or tolerance of the watershed based on geology, climate, and other relevant 

factors.

Consider the existing condition of the watershed and water quality as a reflection of past land management 

activities and natural disturbances.

Estimate the potential for adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from current and 

reasonably foreseeable future activities on all lands within the watershed relative to existing watershed 

conditions.

Use land management plan direction; Federal, State, or local water quality standards; and other regulations 

to determine acceptable limits for CWE.

Modify the proposed project or activity as necessary by changing project design, location, and timing to 

reduce the potential for CWE to occur.

Consider including additional mitigation measures to reduce project effects.

Identify and implement opportunities for restoration activities to speed recovery of watershed condition 

before initiating additional anthropogenic disturbance in the watershed.

Coordinate and cooperate with other Federal, State, and private landowners in assessing and preventing 

CWE in multiple ownership watersheds.

Integrate restoration and rehabilitation needs into the project plan.

Consider water quality improvement actions identified in a TMDL or other watershed restoration plan to 

restore impaired waterbodies within the project area.

Identify project-specific monitoring needs.

Document site-specific BMP prescriptions, design criteria, mitigation measures, and restoration, 

rehabilitation, and monitoring needs in the applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documents, design plans, contracts, permits, authorizations, and operation and maintenance plans.

Delineate all protected or excluded areas, including, for example, AMZs and waterbodies, 303(d) listed and 

TMDL waterbodies, and municipal supply watersheds, on the project map.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

No Additional BMPs

Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2526
Final Environmental Impact Statement

560 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Reference

Objective To maintain and improve or restore the condition of land around and adjacent to waterbodies in 

the context of the environment in which they are located, recognizing their unique values and 

importance to water quality while implementing land and resource management activities.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, 

BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Proactively manage the AMZ to maintain or improve long-term health and sustainability of the riparian 

ecosystem and adjacent waterbody consistent with desired conditions, goals, and objectives in the land 

management plan.

Balance short-term impacts and benefits with long-term goals and desired future conditions, considering 

ecological structure, function, and processes, when evaluating proposed management activities in the AMZ.

Determine the width of the AMZ for waterbodies in the project area that may be affected by the proposed 

activities:

Evaluate the condition of aquatic and riparian habitat and beneficial riparian zone functions and their 

estimated response to the proposed activity in determining the need for and width of the AMZ.

Use stream class and type, channel condition, aspect, side slope steepness, precipitation and climate 

characteristics, soil erodibility, slope stability, groundwater features, and aquatic and riparian conditions 

and functions to determine appropriate AMZ widths to achieve desired conditions in the AMZ.

Include riparian vegetation within the designated AMZ and extend the AMZ to include steep slopes, highly 

erodible soils, or other sensitive or unstable areas.

Establish wider AMZ areas for waters with high resource value and quality.

Design and implement project activities within the AMZ to:

Avoid or minimize unacceptable impacts to riparian vegetation, groundwater recharge areas, steep slopes, 

highly erodible soils, or unstable areas.

Maintain or provide sufficient ground cover to encourage infiltration, avoid or minimize erosion, and to 

filter pollutants.

Avoid, minimize, or restore detrimental soil compaction.

Retain trees necessary for shading, bank stabilization, and as a future source of large woody debris.

Retain floodplain function.

Restore existing disturbed areas that are eroding and contributing sediment to the waterbody.

Mark the boundaries of the AMZ and sensitive areas like riparian areas, wetlands, and unstable areas on the 

ground before land disturbing activities.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

Utilize PACFISH RHCA buffers to protect stream course, wetlands and waterways in the project area in 

areas not identified for riparian management.

Protect all no-harvest stream and wetland buffers with directional felling, and waive debris cleanout of 

streams. 

Trees that are in no-harvest buffers and are damaged during timber harvest or road activities will be left on 

site.

Aquatic Ecosystems Management Activities

• AqEco-2. Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems

• AqEco-3. Ponds and Wetlands

• AqEco-4. Stream Channels and Shorelines
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 561

AqEco-2. Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known. 

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to water quality when working in aquatic 

ecosystems.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 (AMZ 

Planning) when planning operations in aquatic ecosystems.

Identify the aquatic and aquatic-dependent species that live in the waterbody, Aquatic Management 

Zone (AMZ), or on the floodplain and their life histories to determine protection strategies, such as 

timing of construction, sediment management, species relocation, and monitoring during 

construction.

Coordinate stream channel, shoreline, lake, pond, and wetland activities with appropriate State and 

Federal agencies.

Incorporate Clean Water Act (CWA) 404 permit requirements and other Federal, State, and local 

permits or requirements into the project design and plan.

Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when preparing the site for construction or 

maintenance activities.

Clearly delineate the work zone.

Locate access and staging areas near the project site but outside of work area boundaries, AMZs, 

wetlands, and sensitive soil areas.

Refuel and service equipment only in designated staging areas (see BMP Road-10 [Equipment 

Refueling and Servicing]).

Develop an erosion and sediment control plan to avoid or minimize downstream impacts using 

measures appropriate to the site and the proposed activity (see BMP Fac-2 [Facility Construction 

and Stormwater Control]).

Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures.

Consider needs for solid waste disposal and worksite sanitation.

Consider using small, low ground pressure equipment, and hand labor where practicable.

Ensure all equipment operated in or adjacent to the waterbody is clean of aquatic invasive species, 

as well as oil and grease, and is well maintained.

Use vegetable oil or other biodegradable hydraulic oil for heavy equipment hydraulics wherever 

practicable when operating in or near water.

Schedule construction or maintenance operations in waterbodies to occur in the least critical 

periods to avoid or minimize adverse effects to sensitive aquatic and aquatic-dependent species 

that live in or near the waterbody.

Avoid scheduling instream work during the spawning or migration seasons of resident or migratory 

fish and other important life history phases of sensitive species that could be affected by the 

project.

Avoid scheduling instream work during periods that could be interrupted by high flows.

Consider the growing season and dormant season for vegetation when scheduling activities within 

or near the waterbody to minimize the period of time that the land would remain exposed, thereby 

reducing erosion risks and length of time when aesthetics are poor.

Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when clearing the site.

Clearly delineate the geographic limits of the area to be cleared.

Use suitable drainage measures to improve the workability of wet sites.

Avoid or minimize unacceptable damage to existing vegetation, especially plants that are 

stabilizing the bank of the waterbody.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the waterbody when implementing 

construction and maintenance activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

562 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Minimize heavy equipment entry into or crossing water as is practicable.

Conduct operations during dry periods.

Stage construction operations as needed to limit the extent of disturbed areas without installed 

stabilization measures.

Promptly install and appropriately maintain erosion control measures.

Promptly install and appropriately maintain spill prevention and containment measures.

Promptly rehabilitate or stabilize disturbed areas as needed following construction or maintenance 

activities.

Stockpile and protect topsoil for reuse in site revegetation.

Minimize bank and riparian area excavation during construction to the extent practicable.

Keep excavated materials out of the waterbody.

Use only clean, suitable materials that are free of toxins and invasive species for fill.

Properly compact fills to avoid or minimize erosion.

Balance cuts and fills to minimize disposal needs.

Remove all project debris from the waterbody in a manner that will cause the least disturbance.

Identify suitable areas offsite or away from waterbodies for disposal sites before beginning 

operations.

Contour site to disperse runoff, minimize erosion, stabilize slopes, and provide a favorable 

environment for plant growth.

Use suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in compliance with local 

direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention 

and control of invasive species.

Use suitable measures to divert or partition channelized flow around the site or to dewater the site 

as needed to the extent practicable.

Remove aquatic organisms from the construction area before dewatering and prevent organisms 

from returning to the site during construction.

Return clean flows to channel or waterbody downstream of the activity.

Restore flows to their natural stream course as soon as practicable after construction or before 

seasonal closures.

Inspect the work site at suitable regular intervals during and after construction or maintenance 

activities to check on quality of the work and materials and identify need for midproject 

corrections.

Consider short- and long-term maintenance needs and unit capabilities when designing the project.

Develop a strategy for providing emergency maintenance when needed.

Include implementation and effectiveness monitoring to evaluate success of the project in meeting 

design objectives and avoiding or minimizing unacceptable impacts to water quality.

Consider long-term management of the site and nearby areas to promote project success.

Use suitable measures to limit human, vehicle, and livestock access to site as needed to allow for 

recovery of vegetation.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP The following are the recommended minimum no-harvest buffer width recommendations to ensure 

protection of unmapped streams and wet areas identified during project implementation. The 

district hydrologist or fish biologist will be consulted to assign appropriate stream buffers and 

these individuals may modify the recommended buffers but must assure compliance with 

PACFISH and the Lower Grande Ronde (2010) Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy by 

providing the following minimum buffers: 

Class 1, 2, 3 = 100 feet (except for 31 Acres along Swamp Creek in Alt 2)

Class 4 = 25 feet (variable) - Alt 2, 100 feet in Alt 3

AqEco-3. Ponds and Wetlands

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

 None known. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 563

Objective Design and implement pond and wetlands projects in a manner that increases the 

potential for success in meeting project objectives and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems) when working in 

or near waterbodies.

Obtain and manage water rights.

Clearly define goals and objectives in the project plan appropriate to the site for desired hydrology, 

wetland plant community associations, intended purpose, and function of the pond or wetland and 

expected values.

Select sites based on an analysis of landscape structure and associated ecological functions and 

values.

Construct ponds and wetlands on sites that have easy construction access where practicable.

Construct wetlands in landscape positions and soil types capable of supporting desired wetland 

functions and values.

Construct ponds outside of active floodplain to minimize overflow of groundwater-fed ponds into 

adjacent streams and avoid or minimize erosion of pond embankments by floods, unless location in 

the floodplain is integral to achieving project objectives.

Construct ponds with surface water supply off-channel rather than placing a dam across a stream.

Construct ponds and wetlands on sites with soils suitable to hold water with minimal seepage loss 

and that provide a stable foundation for any needed embankments.

Construct ponds and wetlands in locations where polluted surface water runoff or groundwater 

discharge do not reach the pond.

Consider the consequences of dam or embankment failure and resulting damage from sudden 

release of water on potentially affected areas.

Ensure that the natural water supply for the pond or wetland is sufficient to meet the needs of the 

intended use and that it will maintain the desired water levels and water quality.

Design the wetland to create hydrologic conditions (including the timing of inflow and outflow, 

duration, and frequency of water level fluctuations) that provide the desired wetland functions and 

values.

Avoid or minimize drawdown effects in a stream source by limiting timing and rate of water 

withdrawal to allow sufficient downstream water flow to maintain desired conditions in the source 

stream (see BMP WatUses-1 [Water Uses Planning]).

Design the wetland project to create a biologically and hydrologically functional system.

Design for function, not form.

Keep the design simple and avoid over engineering.

Design the project for minimal maintenance needs.

Use natural energies, such as gravity flow, in the design.

Avoid use of hard engineering structures or the use of supplemental watering to support system 

hydrology.

Plan to allow wetland system time to develop after construction activities are complete.

Design the pond or wetland to be of sufficient size and depth appropriate for the intended use and 

to optimize hydrologic regimes and wetland plant community development.

Size the pond or wetland appropriately for the contributing drainage area such that a desired water 

level can be maintained during drought conditions and that excess runoff during large storms can 

be reasonably accommodated without constructing large overflow structures.

Size the pond or wetland to an adequate depth to store sufficient amounts of water for the intended 

use and offset probable evaporation and seepage losses.

Integrate design with the natural topography of the site to minimize site disturbance.

Design the pond or wetland to have an irregular shape to reduce wind and wave impacts, disperse 

water flows, maximize retention times, and better mimic natural systems.

Create microtopography and macrotopography in wetlands to mimic natural conditions and 

achieve hydrologic and vegetative diversity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

564 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Avoid creating large areas of shallow water to minimize excessive evaporation losses and growth 

of noxious aquatic plants.

Avoid steep-sloped shorelines in areas with potential substrate instability problems to reduce 

erosion and sedimentation.

Include water control structures to manage water levels as necessary.

Design spillway or outlet to maintain desired water level under normal inflows from snowmelt, 

groundwater flow, and precipitation.

Design discharge capacity using a suitable hydrologic analysis of the drainage area to be sufficient 

to safely pass the flow resulting from the design storm event.

Size the spillway to release floodwaters in a volume and velocity that do not erode the spillway, 

the area beyond the outlet, or the downstream channel.

Consider the need for suitable measures to drain the pond or wetland.

Return overflow back to the original source to the extent practicable.

Use suitable measures to maintain desired downstream temperatures, dissolved oxygen levels, and 

aquatic habitats when water is released from the pond or impoundment.

Use materials appropriate for the purpose of the pond and site.

Select materials for a dam or embankment that will provide sufficient strength and, when properly 

compacted, will be tight enough to avoid or minimize excessive or harmful percolation of water 

through the dam or embankment.

Design the side slopes appropriately for the material being used to ensure stability of the dam or 

embankment.

Use wetland vegetation species and establishment methods suitable to the project site and 

objectives, consistent with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for 

vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Consider the timing of planting to achieve maximum survival, proposed benefit of each plant 

species, methods of planting, proposed use of mulch, potential soil amendment (organic material or 

fertilizer), and potential supplemental watering to help establish the plant community.

Properly maintain dams, embankments, and spillways to avoid or minimize soil erosion and 

leakage problems.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize erosion of dams and shores due to wind and wave 

action.

Design sufficient freeboard to avoid or minimize overtopping by wave action or other causes.

Stabilize or armor spillways for ponds with continuous flow releases or overflow during heavy 

rainfall events.

Manage uplands and surrounding areas to avoid or minimize unacceptable impacts to water quality 

in the pond or wetland.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, will be constructed 

during the inwater workwindow as prescribed by Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and 

approved by NOAA Fisheries

AqEco-4. Stream Channels and Shorelines

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known. 

Objective Design and implement stream channel and lake shoreline projects in a manner that 

increases the potential for success in meeting project objectives and avoids, minimizes, 

or mitigates adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

All Activities

Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems) when 

working in or near waterbodies.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 565

Stream Channels

Determine stream type and classification using suitable accepted protocols.

Determine need to control channel grade to avoid or minimize erosion of channel bed and 

banks before selecting measures for bank stabilization or protection.

Incorporate grade control measures into project design as needed.

Determine design flows based on the value or safety of area to be protected, repair cost, 

and the sensitivity and value of the ecological system involved.

Obtain peak flow, low flow, channel forming flow, and flow duration estimates.

Use these estimates to determine the best time to implement the project, as well as to 

select design flows.

Determine design velocities appropriate to the site.

Limit maximum velocity to the velocity that is nonscouring on the least resistant 

streambed and bank material.

Consider needs to transport bedload through the reach when determining minimum 

velocities.

Maintain the depth-area-velocity relationship of the upstream channel through the project 

reach.

Consider the effects of design velocities on desired aquatic organism habitat and 

passage.

Avoid changing channel alignment unless the change is to reconstruct the channel to a 

stable meander geometry consistent with stream type.

Design instream and streambank stabilization and protection measures suitable to 

channel alignment (straight reach versus curves).

Consider the effects of ice and freeze and thaw cycles on streambank erosion processes.

Consider the effects that structures may have on downstream structures and stream 

morphology, including streambanks, in the maintenance of a natural streambed.

Design channels with natural stream pattern and geometry and with stable beds and 

banks; provide habitat complexity where reconstruction of stream channels is necessary.

Consider sediment load (bedload and suspended load) and bed material size to 

determine desired sediment transport rate when designing channels.

Avoid relocating natural stream channels.

Return flow to natural channels, where practicable.

Include suitable measures to protect against erosion around the edges of stabilization 

structures.

Design revetments and similar structures to include sufficient freeboard to avoid or 

minimize overtopping at curves or other points where high-flow velocity can cause waves.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize water forces undermining the toe of the 

structure.

Tie structures into stable anchorage points, such as bridge abutments, rock outcrops, or 

well-vegetated stable sections, to avoid or minimize erosion around the ends.

Add or remove rocks, wood, or other material in streams only if such action maintains or 

improves stream condition, provides for safety and stability at bridges and culverts, is 

needed to avoid or minimize excessive erosion of streambanks, or reduces flooding 

hazard.

Leave rocks and portions of wood that are embedded in beds or banks to avoid or 

minimize channel scour and maintain natural habitat complexity.

Choose vegetation appropriate to the site to provide streambank stabilization and 

protection adequate to achieve project objectives.

Use vegetation species and establishment methods suitable to the project site and 

objectives, consistent with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 

for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Shorelines

Use mean high- and low-water levels to determine the design water surface.

Consider the effects of fluctuating water levels, freeze or thaw cycles, and floating ice on 

erosion processes at the site.

Design stabilization and protection measures suitable to the site.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

566 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Determine the shoreline slope configuration above and below the waterline.

Consider the effects of offshore depth, dynamic wave height, and wave action on 

shoreline erosion processes.

Determine the nature of the bank soil material to aid in estimating erosion rates.

Consider foundation material at the site when selecting structural measures.

Use vegetation species and establishment methods suitable to the project site and 

objectives and consistent with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 

2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Consider the rate, direction, supply, and seasonal changes in littoral transport when 

choosing the location and design of structural measures.

Consider the effect structures may have on adjacent shoreline or other nearby structures.

Adequately anchor end sections to existing stabilization measures or terminate in stable 

areas.

Local / Site 

Specific 

BMP

The following are the recommended minimum no-harvest buffer width recommendations to ensure 

protection of unmapped streams and wet areas identified during project implementation. The 

district hydrologist or fish biologist will be consulted to assign appropriate stream buffers and 

these individuals may modify the recommended buffers but must assure compliance with 

PACFISH and the Lower Grande Ronde (2010) Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategy by 

providing the following minimum buffers: 

Class 1, 2, 3 = 100 feet (except for 58 Acres along Swamp Creek in Alt 2)

Class 4 = 25 feet (variable) - Alt 2, 100 feet in Alt 3

Chemical Use Management Activities

Pertaining to the use of Magnesium Chloride and Water for Dust Abatement

• Chem-1. Chemical Use Planning

• Chem-3. Chemical Use Near Waterbodies

• Chem-6. Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation

Chem-1. Chemical Use Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2153; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2109.14, chapter 

10.

Objective Use the planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from chemical use on NFS lands.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 

(Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when planning activities that involve use of 

chemicals.

Identify municipal supply watersheds; private domestic water supplies; fish hatcheries; 

and threatened, endangered, and sensitive aquatic dependent species and fish 

populations near or downstream of chemical treatment areas.

Use Integrated Pest Management as the basis for all pesticide-use prescriptions in 

consultation with the unit Pesticide Use Coordinator.

Select chemical products suitable for use on the target species or that meet project 

objectives. (The Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project is not analyzing the use of 

chemical herbicides.)

Use chemicals that are registered for the intended uses.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 567

Consult the Materials Safety Data Sheet and product label for information on use, 

hazards, and safe handling procedures for chemicals products under consideration for 

use.

Consider chemical solubility, absorption, breakdown rate properties, and site factors 

when determining which chemical products to use.

Use chemicals with properties such that soil residual activity will persist only as long as 

needed to achieve treatment objectives.

Consider soil type, chemical mobility, distance to surface water, and depth to 

groundwater to avoid or minimize surface water and groundwater contamination.

Use a suitable pressure, nozzle size, and nozzle type combination to minimize off-target 

drift or droplet splatter. (The Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project is not analyzing 

the use of chemical herbicides.)

Use selective treatment methods for target organisms to the extent practicable. (The 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project is not analyzing the use of chemical 

herbicides.)

Specify management direction and appropriate site-specific response measures in 

project plans and safety plans (FSH 2109.14, chapter 60).

Ensure that planned chemical use projects conform to all applicable local, State, Federal, 

and agency laws, regulations, and policies.

Obtain necessary permits, including Clean Water Act (CWA) 402 permit coverage.

Develop spill contingency plans.

Obtain or provide training and licensing as required by the label and State regulations.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

No Additional BMPs

Chem-3. Chemical Use Near Waterbodies

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2109.14 Chapters 10, 50.

Objective Avoid or minimize the risk of chemical delivery to surface water or groundwater when 

treating areas near waterbodies.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Identify during project planning those perennial and intermittent surface waters, 

wetlands, springs, riparian areas, and groundwater recharge areas that may be impacted 

by the chemical use.

Use field observations to verify the extent of these areas identified from aerial 

observations, maps, or geographic information system data, as needed.

Determine the width of a buffer zone, if needed, based on a review of the project area, 

characteristics of the chemical to be used, and application method.

Consider the designated uses of water, adjacent land uses, expected rainfall, wind 

speed and direction, terrain, slope, soils, and geology.

Consider the persistence, mobility, toxicity profile, and bioaccumulation potential of any 

chemical formulation proposed for use.

Consider the type of equipment, spray pattern, droplet size, application height, and 

experience in similar projects.

Prescribe chemicals and application methods in the buffer zone suitable to achieve 

project objectives while minimizing risk to water quality.

Flag or otherwise mark or identify buffer zones as needed.

Clearly communicate to those applying the chemical what areas are to be avoided or 

where alternative treatments are to be used.

Locate operation bases on upland areas, outside of wetlands or areas with channel or 

ditch connection to surface water and AMZs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

568 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Use clean equipment and personnel to collect water needed for mixing.

Calibrate application equipment to apply chemicals uniformly and in the correct 

quantities.

Evaluate weather conditions before beginning spray operations and monitor throughout 

each day to avoid or minimize chemical drift.

Apply chemicals only under favorable weather conditions as identified in the label 

instructions.

Avoid applying chemicals before forecasted severe storm events to limit runoff and 

ensure the chemical reaches intended targets.

Suspend operations if project prescription or weather limitations have been exceeded.

Apply fertilizers during high nutrient-uptake periods to avoid or minimize leaching and 

translocation.

Base fertilizer type and application rate on soils and foliar analysis.

Use slow release fertilizers that deliver fertilizer to plants during extended periods in 

areas with long growing seasons when appropriate to meet project objectives. (The 

Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project is not analyzing the use of fertilizers.)

Monitor during chemical applications to determine if chemicals are reaching surface 

waters (see BMP Chem-6 [Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation]).

Implement the chemical spill contingency plan elements within the project safety plan if a 

spill occurs (FSH 2109.14, chapter 60).

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

No Additional BMPs

Chem-6. Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2150.1; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2109.14, chapter 

50.

Objective 1. Determine whether chemicals have been applied safely, have been restricted to 

intended targets, and have not resulted in unexpected nontarget effects.

2. Document and provide early warning of possible hazardous conditions resulting from 

potential contamination of water or other nontarget resources or areas by chemicals.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Identify the following elements in all water resource monitoring plans and specify the 

rationale for each:

What are the monitoring questions?

Who will be involved and what are their roles and responsibilities?

What parameters will be monitored and analyzed?

When and where will monitoring take place?

What methods will be used for sampling and analyses?

How will Chain of Custody requirements for sample handling be met?

What are the criteria for quality assurance and quality control?

Consider the following factors when developing monitoring questions:

The physical or biological resource of concern, including human health.

Applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

Type of chemical.

Type of application equipment used and method of application.

Site-related difficulties that affect both application and monitoring.

Public concerns.

Potential benefits of the application.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 569

Availability of analytic methods, detection limits, tools, and laboratories.

Costs of monitoring and resources available to implement monitoring plan.

Choose monitoring methods and sample locations suitable to address the monitoring 

questions.

Consider the need to take random batch or tank samples for future testing in the event of 

treatment failure or an unexpected adverse effect.

Monitor sensitive environments during and after chemical applications to detect and 

evaluate unanticipated events.

Use U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-certified laboratories for chemical sample 

analysis.

Use appropriate containers, preservation, and transportation to meet Standard Methods

requirements.

Implement proper Chain of Custody procedures for sample handling.

Evaluate and interpret the results of monitoring in terms of compliance with, and 

adequacy of, treatment objectives and specifications.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Road Management Activities

• Road-1. Travel Management Planning and Analysis

• Road-2. Road Location and Design

• Road-3. Road Construction and Reconstruction

• Road-4. Road Operations and Maintenance

• Road-5. Temporary Roads

• Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning

• Road-7. Stream Crossings

• Road-8. Snow Removal and Storage

• Road-9. Parking and Staging Areas

• Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing

• Road-11. Road Storm-Damage Surveys

Road-1. Travel Management Planning and Analysis

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7710; Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55; and FSH 

7709.59,

chapter 10.

Objective Use the travel management planning and analysis processes to develop measures to 

avoid, minimize,

or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during road 

management

activities.

Practices Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 

(Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when conducting travel management planning and 

analysis.

Use interdisciplinary coordination for travel planning and project-level transportation analysis, 

including engineers, hydrologists, soil scientists, and other resource specialists as needed, to 

balance protection of soil, water quality, and riparian resources with transportation and access 

needs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

570 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Design the transportation system to meet long-term land management plan desired conditions, 

goals, and objectives for access rather than to access individual sites.

Limit roads to the minimum practicable number, width, and total length consistent with the 

purpose of specific operations, local topography, geology, and climate to achieve land 

management plan desired conditions, goals, and objectives for access and water quality 

management.

Use existing roads when practicable.

Use system roads where access is needed for long-term management of an area or where control 

is needed in the location, design, or construction of the road to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Use temporary roads for short-term access needs if the road can be constructed, operated, and 

obliterated without specific control of techniques to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects 

to soil, water quality, and riparian resources (See BMP Road-5 [Temporary Roads]).

Decommission temporary roads and return to resource production when the access is no longer 

needed (See BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]).

Consider placing roads in storage (Maintenance Level 1) when the time between intermittent uses 

exceeds 1 year and the costs of annual maintenance (both economic and potential disturbance) or 

potential failures due to lack of maintenance exceed the benefits of keeping the road open in the

interim (See BMP Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]).

Consider decommissioning unneeded existing roads within a planning area when planning new 

system roads to reduce cumulative impacts to soil, water quality, and riparian resources (See BMP 

Road-6 [Road Storage and Decommissioning]).

Plan road networks to have the minimum number of waterbody crossings as is practicable and 

necessary to achieve transportation system desired conditions, goals, and objectives.

Develop or update RMOs for each system road to include design criteria, operation criteria, and 

maintenance criteria to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources.

Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design) to establish design 

elements and standards.

Use applicable practices of BMP Road-4 (Road Operations and Maintenance) to establish criteria 

on how the road is to be operated and maintained.

Revise RMOs as needed to meet changing conditions.

Identify and evaluate road segments causing, or with the potential to cause, adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resources.

Identify and prioritize suitable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects 

(see BMPs Road-2 (Road Location and Design), Road-3 (Road Construction and Reconstruction), 

Road-4 (Road Operations and Maintenance), Road-6 (Road Storage and Decommissioning), and 

Road-7 (Stream Crossings) for potential mitigation measures).

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

/ PDC

All new temporary road construction will be done using outslope designs, with drain dips and 

grade sags as needed, so that no new ditchlines will be built.

Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 roads, will have water 

bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to prevent damage after commercial use is 

complete, as appropriate. Level 1 aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will 

be barricaded and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems.

Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest Service to prevent future 

traffic and disperse subsurface water on all Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened 

and subsequently blocked.

The timber sale purchasers are required to obliterate temporary spur roads under the timber sale 

contract. This involves subsoiling the road as appropriate, seeding as needed, and pulling 

displaced soil and duff back over the road surface. Slash will be pulled over the top of the road to 

provide additional ground cover and bare soil protection. Obliteration of temporary roads (new or 

legacy) shall meet specifications of the Forest Service, for depth of treatment and use of effective 

ground cover on treatment area.

All opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for project implementation 

would be obliterated, and those still needed to complete project implementation would be 

winterized with all erosion control measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control, 

at a minimum, would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons weed free straw 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 571

per acre.. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access by the public, unless 

otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service.

To retain snags and reduce disturbance, currently closed roads that are needed for log haul, and 

other road closures included within the ROD, would be closed immediately after project 

implementation (harvest/thinning, and pile burning).

Road-2. Road Location and Design

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7720 and FSH 7709.56.

Objective Locate and design roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water 

quality, and

riparian resources.

Practices Location

Locate roads to fit the terrain, follow natural contours, and limit the need for excavation.

Avoid locations that require extended steep grades, sharp curves, or switchbacks.

Locate roads on stable geology with well-drained soils and rock formations that dip into the slope.

Avoid hydric soils, inner gorges, overly steep slopes, and unstable landforms to the extent 

practicable.

Locate roads as far from waterbodies as is practicable to achieve access objectives, with a 

minimum number of crossings and connections between the road and the waterbody.

Avoid sensitive areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, bogs, and fens, to the extent 

practicable.

Provide an AMZ of suitable width between the road and a waterbody to maintain desired 

conditions, goals, and objectives for structure, function, and processes of the AMZ and associated 

waterbody when a road must parallel a waterbody (See BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).

Relocate existing routes or segments that are causing, or have the potential to cause, adverse 

effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources, to the extent practicable.

Obliterate the existing road or segment after the relocated section is completed (see BMP Road-6 

[Road Storage and Decommissioning]).

Predesign

Consider design criteria relative to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from the decision 

document and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis document.

Consider the road RMOs and likely future maintenance schedule in the initial design.

Conduct suitable site investigations, data collection, and evaluations commensurate with the 

anticipated design and sensitivity of the area to soil, water quality, and riparian resource impacts.

Consider subsurface conditions and conduct suitable investigations and stability analyses for road 

and ridge locations where slope instability can occur due to road construction.

Conduct a suitable soils and geotechnical evaluation to identify susceptibility to erosion and 

stable angles of repose.

Design

Design the road to fit the ground and terrain with the least practicable impacts to soil, water 

quality, and riparian resources considering the purpose and life of the road, safety, and cost.

Use road standards that minimize impacts for grade and alignment (e.g., width, turning radius, 

and maximum slope).

Use low impact development treatments that reduce long-term maintenance needs wherever 

practicable.

Design the road to maintain stable road prism, cut, and fill slopes.

Design cut and fill slope ratios to reduce soil loss from mass failures.

Use structural or nonstructural measures as necessary to stabilize cut and fill slopes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

572 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Design the road surface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove water from the road 

surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that minimizes concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, 

and over fill slopes and road surfaces

Use structural or nonstructural measures suitable to the road materials, road gradient, and 

expected traffic levels.

Use an interval between drainage features that is suitable for the road gradient, surface material, 

and climate.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize erosion of ditches.

Design the road subsurface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove groundwater that 

may flow into the base course and subgrade, lower high-water tables, and drain water pockets.

Use suitable subsurface dispersion or collection measures to capture and disperse locally shallow 

groundwater flows intercepted by road cuts.

Use suitable measures to release groundwater into suitable areas without causing erosion or 

siltation.

Design the road for minimal disruption of natural drainage patterns and to minimize the 

hydrologic connection of the road segment or network with nearby waterbodies.

Use suitable structural or nonstructural measures to avoid or minimize gully formation and 

erosion of fill slopes at outfalls of road surface drainage structures.

Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges from road 

drainage structures to nearby waterbodies.

Provide sufficient buffer distance at the outfalls of road surface drainage structures for water to 

infiltrate before reaching the waterbody.

Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to limit the number and length of 

water crossing connected areas to the extent practicable.

Design road surface treatment to support wheel loads, stabilize the roadbed, reduce dust, and 

control erosion consistent with anticipated traffic and use.

Consider whether road closures or roadway surface drainage and erosion protection can 

adequately mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Design roads within the AMZ (when no practicable alternative exists outside of the AMZ to 

achieve access objectives) to maintain desired conditions, goals, and objectives for AMZ 

structure, function, and processes (See BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).

Use suitable measures to minimize or mitigate effects to waterbodies and other sensitive areas 

when adverse impacts cannot be practicably avoided.

Design waterbody crossings to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources to the extent practicable consistent with road use, legal requirements, and cost 

considerations (See BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]).

Design a post-construction site vegetation plan, including short- and long-term objectives, using 

suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in compliance with local 

direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention 

and control of invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 roads, will have water 

bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to prevent damage after commercial use is 

complete, as appropriate. Level 1 aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will 

be barricaded and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems.

Avoid blading ditches that are vegetated, functioning and effectively draining. Remove vegetation 

from swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill slopes only when it impedes adequate drainage, 

vehicle passage, or obstructs necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or 

excessive vegetation disturbance.

Aggregate will be placed on access roads into water sources to reduce sedimentation to streams, 

as needed.

Relief culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest Service before 

installation to ensure that water is routed only onto stable soil/vegetation.

Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest Service to prevent future 

traffic and disperse subsurface water on all Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened 

and subsequently blocked.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 573

No new temporary roads without previous ground disturbance will be constructed on slopes 

exceeding 35% slope.

No dust abatement chemicals will be applied within one foot of the outside edge of road ditch 

lines (See Chem-X).

Cease chemical dust abatement application within 25’ of streams.

Application of dust abatement will not be applied when raining and will only be applied if there is 

a 3-day forecast of clear weather.

All opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for project implementation 

would be obliterated, and those still needed to complete project implementation would be 

winterized with all erosion control measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control, 

at a minimum, would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons weed free straw 

per acre. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access, unless otherwise agreed to by 

the Forest Service. 

Road-3. Road Construction and Reconstruction

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7720, FSH 7709.56, and FSH 7709.57

Objective Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from 

erosion, sediment, and other pollutant delivery during road construction or 

reconstruction.

Practices Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for 

stormwater management and erosion control when constructing or reconstructing system roads.

Use suitable construction techniques to create stable fills.

Use full bench construction techniques or retaining walls where stable fill construction is not 

possible.

Avoid incorporating woody debris in the fill portion of the road prism.

Leave existing rooted trees or shrubs at the toe of the fill slope to stabilize the fill.

Avoid use of road fills for water impoundment dams unless specifically designed for that purpose.

Identify and locate waste areas before the start of operations.

Deposit and stabilize excess and unsuitable materials only in designated sites.

Do not place such materials on slopes with a risk of excessive erosion, sediment delivery to 

waterbodies, mass failure, or within the AMZ.

Provide adequate surface drainage and erosion protection at disposal sites.

Do not permit sidecasting within the AMZ.

Avoid or minimize excavated materials from entering waterbodies or AMZs.

Develop and follow blasting plans when necessary.

Use restrictive blasting techniques in sensitive areas and in sites that have high landslide potential.

Avoid blasting when soils are saturated.

Remove slash and cull logs to designated sites outside the AMZ for storage or disposal.

Consider using cull logs in aquatic ecosystem projects to achieve aquatic resource management 

objectives as opportunities arise.

Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species.

Construct pioneer roads using suitable measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to 

soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Confine construction of pioneer roads to the planned roadway limits unless otherwise specified.

Locate and construct pioneering roads to avoid or minimize undercutting of the designated final 

cut slope.

Avoid deposition of materials outside the designated roadway limits.

Use suitable crossing structures, or temporarily dewater live streams, where pioneer roads 

intersect streams.

Use suitable erosion and stormwater control measures as needed (see BMP Fac-2 [Facility 

Construction and Stormwater Control]).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

574 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Reconstruct existing roads to the degree necessary to provide adequate drainage and safety.

Avoid disturbing stable road surfaces.

Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges from road 

drainage structures to nearby waterbodies.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 roads, will have water 

bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to prevent damage after commercial use is 

complete, as appropriate. Level 1 aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will 

be barricaded and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems. S 

Avoid blading ditches that are vegetated, functioning and effectively draining. Remove vegetation 

from swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill slopes only when it impedes adequate drainage, 

vehicle passage, or obstructs necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or 

excessive vegetation disturbance.

During construction and reconstruction activities, unsuitable or excess excavated soil material 

shall be placed in Forest Service approved waste sites. Spread and shape material to drain. Finish 

slopes on waste no steeper than 1V:1.5H. Utilize hydromulch or weedfree mulch and place 

uniformly on finished slopesRelief culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the 

Forest Service before installation to ensure that water is routed only onto stable soil/vegetation.

Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest Service to prevent future 

traffic and disperse subsurface water on all Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened 

and subsequently blocked.

Road-4. Road Operations and Maintenance

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7732 and FSH 7709.59, chapter 60.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

by controlling road use and operations and providing adequate and appropriate 

maintenance to minimize sediment production and other pollutants during the useful life 

of the road.

Practices Operations

Designate season of use to avoid or restrict road use during periods when use would likely 

damage the roadway surface or road drainage features.

Designate class of vehicle and type of uses suitable for the road width, location, waterbody 

crossings, and road surfaces to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, or riparian 

resources to the extent practicable.

Use suitable measures to communicate and enforce road use restrictions.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, or riparian 

resources when proposed operations involve use of roads by traffic and during periods for which 

the road was not designed.

Strengthen the road surface in areas where surfaces are vulnerable to movement such as corners 

and steep sections.

Upgrade drainage structures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges into 

nearby waterbodies.

Restrict use to low-ground-pressure vehicles or frozen ground conditions.

Strengthen the road base if roads are tending to rut.

Adjust maintenance to handle the traffic while minimizing excessive erosion and damage to the 

road surface.

Ensure that drainage features are fully functional on completion of seasonal operations.

Shape road surfaces to drain as designed.

Construct or reconstruct drainage control structures as needed.

Ensure that ditches and culverts are clean and functioning.

Remove berms unless specifically designed for erosion control purposes.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 575

Consider potential for water quality effects from road damage when granting permits for oversize 

or overweight loads.

Use suitable road surface stabilization practices and dust abatement supplements on roads with 

high or heavy traffic use (See FSH 7709.56 and FSH 7709.59).

Use applicable practices of Chemical Use Management Activities BMPs when chemicals are used 

in road operations.

Inspection

Periodically inspect system travel routes to evaluate condition and assist in setting maintenance 

and improvement priorities.

Give inspection priority to roads at high risk of failure to reduce risk of diversions and cascading 

failures.

Inspect drainage structures and road surfaces after major storm events and perform any necessary 

maintenance (see BMP Road-11 [Road Storm-Damage Surveys]).

Repair and temporarily stabilize road failures actively producing and transporting sediment as 

soon as practicable and safe to do so.

Inspect roads frequently during all operations.

Restrict use if road damage such as unacceptable surface displacement or rutting is occurring.

Maintenance Planning

Develop and implement annual maintenance plans that prioritize road maintenance work for the 

forest or district.

Increase priority for road maintenance work on road sections where road damage is causing, or 

potentially would cause, adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Consider the risk and consequence of future failure at the site when prioritizing repair of road 

failures.

Develop and implement annual road maintenance plans for projects where contractors or 

permittees are responsible for maintenance activities.

Define responsibilities and maintenance timing in the plan.

Maintenance Activities

Maintain the road surface drainage system to intercept, collect, and remove water from the road 

surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, 

and over fill slopes and road surfaces.

Clean ditches and catch basins only as needed to keep them functioning.

Do not undercut the toe of the cut slope when cleaning ditches or catch basins.

Use suitable measures to avoid, to the extent practicable, or minimize direct discharges from road 

drainage structures to nearby waterbodies.

Identify diversion potential on roads and prioritize for treatment.

Minimize diversion potential through installation and maintenance of dips, drains, or other 

suitable measures.

Maintain road surface treatments to stabilize the roadbed, reduce dust, and control erosion 

consistent with anticipated traffic and use.

Grade road surfaces only as necessary to meet the smoothness requirements of the assigned 

operational maintenance level and to provide adequate surface drainage.

Do not undercut the toe of the cut slope when grading roads.

Do not permit sidecasting of maintenance-generated debris within the AMZ to avoid or minimize 

excavated materials entering waterbodies or riparian areas.

Avoid overwidening of roads due to repeated grading over time, especially where sidecast

material would encroach on waterbodies.

Use potential sidecast or other waste materials on the road surface where practicable.

Dispose of unusable waste materials in designated disposal sites.

Remove vegetation from swales, ditches, and shoulders, and cut and fill slopes only when it 

impedes adequate drainage, vehicle passage, or obstructs necessary sight distance to avoid or 

minimize unnecessary or excessive vegetation disturbance.

Maintain permanent stream crossings and associated fills and approaches to reduce the likelihood 

that water would be diverted onto the road or erode the fill if the structure becomes obstructed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

576 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Identify waterbody-crossing structures that lack sufficient capacity to pass expected flows, 

bedload, or debris, or that do not allow for desired aquatic organism passage, and prioritize for 

treatment.

Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to improve crossings.

Use applicable practices of BMP Road-6 (Road Storage and Decommissioning) for maintenance 

and management of Maintenance Level 1 roads.

Ensure the necessary specifications concerning prehaul maintenance, maintenance during haul, 

and posthaul maintenance (putting the road back in storage) are in place when maintenance level 

1 roads are opened for use on commercial resource management projects or other permitted 

activities.

Require the commercial operator or responsible party to leave roads in a satisfactory condition 

when project is completed.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Erosion control measures (e.g. silt fences, weed-free straw/straw bales, etc.) will be placed and 

maintained at sites that have potential to deliver sediment to the stream network during the wet 

season. If sediment delivery is noted, additional erosion control measures will be placed and 

maintained.

All new temporary road construction should have outslope designs, with drain dips and grade sags 

as needed so that no new ditchlines will be built. 

Road construction or reconstruction operations (including culvert replacements) will occur during 

minimal runoff periods and within the instream work window as prescribed by Oregon 

Department of Fish & Wildlife and approved by NOAA Fisheries. 

Roadwork contractors will have spill prevention and recovery equipment on site during all road 

construction operations as agreed to by the Forest Service.

Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 roads, will have water 

bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to prevent damage after commercial use is 

complete, as appropriate. Level 1 aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use will 

be barricaded and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems. 

Avoid blading ditches that are vegetated, functioning and effectively draining. Remove vegetation 

from swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill slopes only when it impedes adequate drainage, 

vehicle passage, or obstructs necessary sight distance to avoid or minimize unnecessary or 

excessive vegetation disturbance.

During construction and reconstruction activities, unsuitable or excess excavated soil material 

shall be placed in Forest Service approved waste sites. Spread and shape material to drain. Finish 

slopes on waste no steeper than 1V:1.5H. Utilize hydromulch or weed free mulch and place 

uniformly. Aggregate will be placed on access roads into water sources to reduce sedimentation to 

streams, as needed.

Haul on native surfaced roads should not occur during the wet season. Surface rock placement 

may be done outside the normal operating season as weather and road conditions permit, but no 

surface rock can be added to extend the season of haul on any of the abandoned roads that are to 

be obliterated after use. 

Relief culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest Service before 

installation to ensure that water is routed only onto stable soil/vegetation.

All exposed soils will have required erosion control treatments completed the same year they are 

constructed even if they are not completed to final acceptance specifications. If the same area 

requires further disturbance to complete the road construction, it will be treated for erosion 

control and re-vegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection.

Construction activities that may expose new soil (including clearing, grubbing, excavating, and 

fill placement) will be limited to the normal operating season. However, construction activities 

may be suspended anytime during wet weather to protect water quality of affected streams. 

Construction sites will be treated for erosion control and re-vegetated as needed to ensure surface 

soil protection.

Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest Service to prevent future 

traffic and disperse subsurface water on all Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened 

and subsequently blocked.

No chemical dust abatement will be applied within 25 feet of perennial streams or any other 

stream crossing in which water is flowing during chemical application. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 577

No dust abatement chemicals will be applied within one foot of the outside edge of road ditch 

lines. 

Application of dust abatement will occur when streams are at their seasonal baseflow. Dust 

abatement will not be applied when raining and will only be applied if there is a 3-day forecast of 

clear weather.

, all opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for project 

implementation would be obliterated, and those still needed to complete project implementation 

would be winterized with all erosion control measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. 

Erosion control, at a minimum, would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons 

of mulch. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access , unless otherwise agreed to 

by the Forest Service, Rock quarry benches, access roads and work areas should be sloped to 

drain and disperse surface water without ponding. Runoff should not flow directly into streams.

Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, will be completed 

during low flow conditions when the potential for delivery of construction-related sediment can 

be minimized. During construction, stream water will be diverted around the work site and back 

into the channel. 

Stream crossing culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest Service 

before installation.

Road-5. Temporary Roads

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

from the construction and use of temporary roads.

Practices Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design) to locate temporary roads.

Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for 

stormwater management and erosion control when constructing temporary roads.

Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surface-disturbing activities to the 

extent practicable.

Schedule construction activities to avoid direct soil and water-disturbance during periods of the 

year when heavy precipitation and runoff are likely to occur.

Routinely inspect temporary roads to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are 

implemented, functioning, and appropriately maintained.

Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper and effective functioning.

Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species.

Use temporary crossings suitable for the expected uses and timing of use (See BMP Road-7 

[Stream Crossings]).

Use applicable practices of BMP Road-6 (Road Storage and Decommissioning) to obliterate the 

temporary road and return the area to resource production after the access is no longer needed.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

All new temporary road construction will be done using outslope designs, with drain dips and 

grade sags as needed, so that no new ditchlines will be built. 

Road construction or reconstruction operations (including culvert replacements) will occur during 

minimal runoff periods. 

All exposed soils will have required erosion control treatments completed the same year they are 

constructed even if they are not completed to final acceptance specifications. If the same area 

requires further disturbance to complete the road construction, it will be treated for erosion 

control and re-vegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection.

The timber sale purchasers are required to obliterate temporary spur roads under the timber sale 

contract. This involves subsoiling the road as appropriate (See PDC Soils-8), seeding as needed, 

and pulling displaced soil and duff back over the road surface. Slash will be pulled over the top of 

the road to provide additional ground cover and bare soil protection. Obliteration of temporary 

roads (new or legacy) shall meet specifications of the Forest Service, for depth of treatment and 

use of effective ground cover on treatment area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

578 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

No new temporary roads without previous ground disturbance will be constructed on slopes 

exceeding 35% slope.

All opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for project implementation 

would be obliterated, and those still needed to complete project implementation would be 

winterized with all erosion control measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. Erosion control,

at a minimum, would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 tons of weed free 

mulch per acre. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access unless otherwise 

agreed to by the Forest Service, A watershed specialist shall review all temporary roads prior to 

treatment to initiate and finalize the treatment prescription; the effectiveness of the temporary 

road restoration prescription in preventing erosion and providing suitable plant habitat shall be 

monitored.

 

Road-6. Road Storage and Decommissioning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 7709.59, chapter 60 and FSM 7734.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

by storing closed roads not needed for at least 1 year (Intermittent Stored Service) and 

decommissioning unneeded roads in a hydrologically stable manner to eliminate 

hydrologic connectivity, restore natural flow patterns, and minimize soil erosion.

Practices All Activities

Implement suitable measures to close and physically block the road entrance so that 

unauthorized motorized vehicles cannot access the road.

Remove the road from the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) to include the change in the annual 

forestwide order associated with the MVUM.

Establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites to avoid or minimize accelerated erosion and 

soil loss.

Use suitable species and establishment techniques to stabilize and revegetate the site in 

compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation 

ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Road Storage

Evaluate all stream and waterbody crossings for potential for failure or diversion of flow if left 

without treatment.

Use suitable measures to reduce the risk of flow diversion onto the road surface.

Consider leaving existing crossings in low-risk situations where the culvert is not undersized, 

does not present an undesired passage barrier to aquatic organisms, and is relatively stable.

Remove culverts, fill material, and other structures that present an unacceptable risk of failure or 

diversion.

Reshape the channel and streambanks at the crossing-site to pass expected flows without 

scouring or ponding, minimize potential for undercutting or slumping of streambanks, and 

maintain continuation of channel dimensions and longitudinal profile through the crossing site.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize scour and downcutting.

Use suitable measures to ensure that the road surface drainage system will intercept, collect, and 

remove water from the road surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that reduces 

concentrated flow in ditches, culverts, and over fill slopes and road surfaces without frequent 

maintenance.

Use suitable measures to stabilize unstable road segments, seeps, slumps, or cut or fill slopes 

where evidence of potential failure exists.

Road Conversion to Trail

Reclaim unneeded road width, cut, and fill slopes when converting a road for future use as a 

trail.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 579

Use suitable measures to stabilize reclaimed sections to avoid or minimize undesired access and 

to restore desired ecologic structures or functions.

Use suitable measures to ensure that surface drainage will intercept, collect, and remove water 

from the trail surface and surrounding slopes in a manner that minimizes concentrated flow and 

erosion on the trail surfaces without frequent maintenance.

Use applicable practices of BMP Road-7 (Stream Crossings) to provide waterbody crossings 

suitable to the expected trail uses.

Road Decommissioning

Use existing roads identified for decommissioning as skid roads in timber sales or land 

stewardship projects before closing the road, where practicable, as the opportunity arises.

Evaluate risks to soil, water quality, and riparian resources and use the most practicable, 

costeffective treatments to achieve long-term desired conditions and water quality management 

goals and objectives.

Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for 

stormwater management and erosion control when obliterating system roads.

Implement suitable measures to re-establish stable slope contours and surface and subsurface 

hydrologic pathways where necessary to the extent practicable to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Remove drainage structures.

Recontour and stabilize cut slopes and fill material.

Reshape the channel and streambanks at crossing sites to pass expected flows without scouring 

or ponding, minimize potential for undercutting or slumping of streambanks, and maintain 

continuation of channel dimensions and longitudinal profile through the crossing site.

Restore or replace streambed materials to a particle size distribution suitable for the site.

Restore floodplain function.

Implement suitable measures to promote infiltration of runoff and intercepted flow and desired 

vegetation growth on the road prism and other compacted areas.

Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Under the timber sale contract, native-surfaced system roads, and level 1 roads, will have water 

bars installed and will be closed with road barriers to prevent damage after commercial use is 

complete, as appropriate. Level 1 aggregate surfaced system roads to be closed following use 

will be barricaded and treated with water bars if needed to prevent drainage problems. 

Haul on native surfaced roads should not occur during the wet season. Surface rock placement 

may be done outside the normal operating season as weather and road conditions permit, but no 

surface rock can be added to extend the season of haul on any of the abandoned roads that are to 

be obliterated after use. 

All exposed soils will have required erosion control treatments completed the same year they are 

constructed even if they are not completed to final acceptance specifications. If the same area 

requires further disturbance to complete the road construction, it will be treated for erosion 

control and re-vegetated as needed to insure surface soil protection.

Water bars sufficient to disperse water shall be designated by the Forest Service to prevent future 

traffic and disperse subsurface water on all Maintenance Level 1 system roads that are re-opened 

and subsequently blocked.

The timber sale purchasers are required to obliterate temporary spur roads under the timber sale 

contract. This involves subsoiling the road as appropriate, seeding as needed, and pulling 

displaced soil and duff back over the road surface. Slash will be pulled over the top of the road to 

provide additional ground cover and bare soil protection. Obliteration of temporary roads (new 

or legacy) shall meet specifications of the Forest Service, for depth of treatment and use of 

effective ground cover on treatment area.

All opened temporary roads within RHCAs that are not further needed for project 

implementation would be obliterated, and those still needed to complete project implementation 

would be winterized with all erosion control measures in place, and barricaded or blocked. 

Erosion control, at a minimum, would include water bars and ground cover equivalent to 1.5 of 

mulch per acre. All temporary roads would remain closed to winter access, unless otherwise 

agreed to by the Forest Service.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

580 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Road-7. Stream Crossings

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Manual or Handbook Reference: FSM 7722 and FSH 7709.56b.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

when constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent waterbody 

crossings.

Practices All Crossings

Plan and locate surface water crossings to limit the number and extent to those that are necessary 

to provide the level of access needed to meet resource management objectives as described in the 

RMOs.

Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems) when working in 

or near waterbodies.

Use crossing structures suitable for the site conditions and the RMOs.

Design and locate crossings to minimize disturbance to the waterbody.

Use suitable measures to locate, construct, and decommission or stabilize bypass roads to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Use suitable surface drainage and roadway stabilization measures to disconnect the road from 

the waterbody to avoid or minimize water and sediment from being channeled into surface 

waters and to dissipate concentrated flows.

Use suitable measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate damage to the waterbody and banks when 

transporting materials across the waterbody or AMZ during construction activities.

Stream Crossings

Locate stream crossings where the channel is narrow, straight, and uniform, and has stable soils 

and relatively flat terrain to the extent practicable.

Select a site where erosion potential is low.

Orient the stream crossing perpendicular to the channel to the extent practicable.

Keep approaches to stream crossings to as gentle a slope as practicable.

Consider natural channel adjustments and possible channel location changes over the design life 

of the structure.

Design the crossing to pass a normal range of flows for the site.

Design the crossing structure to have sufficient capacity to convey the design flow without 

appreciably altering streamflow characteristics.

Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope and maintain

streambed and bank resiliency and continuity through the structure.

Bridge, culvert, or otherwise design road fill to prevent restriction of flood flows.

Use site conditions and local requirements to determine design flood flows.

Use suitable measures to protect fill from erosion and to avoid or minimize failure of the 

crossing at flood flows.

Use suitable measures to provide floodplain connectivity to the extent practicable.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize scour and erosion of the channel, crossing structure, 

and foundation to maintain the stability of the channel and banks.

Design and construct the stream crossing to maintain the desired migration or other movement of 

fish and other aquatic life inhabiting the waterbody.

Consider the use of bottomless arch culverts where appropriate to allow for natural channel 

migration and desired aquatic organism passage.

Install or maintain fish migration barriers only where needed to protect endangered, threatened, 

sensitive, or unique native aquatic populations, and only where natural barriers do not exist.

Use stream simulation techniques where practicable to aid in crossing design.

Bridges

Use an adequately long bridge span to avoid constricting the natural active flow channel and 

minimize constriction of any overflow channel.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 581

Place foundations onto nonscour-susceptible material (e.g., bedrock or coarse rock material) or 

below the expected maximum depth of scour.

Set bridge abutments or footings into firm natural ground (e.g., not fill material or loose soil) 

when placed on natural slopes.

Use suitable measures as needed in steep, deep drainages to retain approach fills or use a 

relatively long bridge span.

Avoid placing abutments in the active stream channel to the extent practicable.

Place in-channel abutments in a direction parallel to the streamflow where necessary.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, damage to the bridge and 

associated road from expected flood flows, floating debris, and bedload.

Inspect the bridge at regular intervals and perform maintenance as needed to maintain the 

function of the structure.

Culverts

Align the culvert with the natural stream channel.

Cover culvert with sufficient fill to avoid or minimize damage by traffic.

Construct at or near natural elevation of the streambed to avoid or minimize potential flooding 

upstream of the crossing and erosion below the outlet.

Install culverts long enough to extend beyond the toe of the fill slopes to minimize erosion.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize water from seeping around the culvert.

Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize culvert plugging from transported bedload

and debris.

Regularly inspect culverts and clean as necessary.

Low-Water Crossings

Consider low-water crossings on roads with low traffic volume and slow speeds, and where 

water depth is safe for vehicle travel.

Consider low-water crossings to cross ephemeral streams, streams with relatively low baseflow 

and shallow water depth or streams with highly variable flows or in areas prone to landslides or 

debris flows.

Locate low-water crossings where streambanks are low with gentle slopes and channels are not 

deeply incised.

Select and design low-water crossing structures to maintain the function and bedload movement 

of the natural stream channel.

Locate unimproved fords in stable reaches with a firm rock or gravel base that has sufficient 

load-bearing strength for the expected vehicle traffic.

Construct the low-water crossing to conform to the site, channel shape, and original streambed 

elevation and to minimize flow restriction, site disturbance, and channel blockage to the extent 

practicable.

Use suitable measures to stabilize or harden the streambed and approaches, including the entire 

bankfull width and sufficient freeboard, where necessary to support the design vehicle traffic.

Use vented fords with high vent area ratio to maintain stream function and aquatic organism 

passage.

Construct the roadway-driving surface with material suitable to resist expected shear stress or 

lateral forces of water flow at the site.

Consider using temporary crossings on roads that provide short-term or intermittent access to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate erosion, damage to streambed or channel, and flooding.

Design and install temporary crossings suitable for the expected users, loads, and timing of use.

Design and install temporary crossing structures to pass a design storm determined based on 

local site conditions and requirements.

Install and remove temporary crossing structures in a timely manner as needed to provide access 

during use periods and minimize risk of washout.

Use suitable measures to stabilize temporary crossings that must remain in place during high 

runoff seasons.

Monitor temporary crossings regularly while installed to evaluate condition.

Remove temporary crossings and restore the waterbody profile and substrate when the need for 

the crossing no longer exists.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

582 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Standing Water and Wetland Crossings

Disturb the least amount of area as practicable when crossing a standing waterbody.

Provide for sufficient cross drainage to minimize changes to, and avoid restricting, natural 

surface and subsurface water flow of the wetland under the road to the extent practicable.

Locate and design roads or road drainage to avoid dewatering or polluting wetlands.

Avoid or minimize actions that would significantly alter the natural drainage for flow patterns on 

lands immediately adjacent to wetlands.

Use suitable measures to increase soil-bearing capacity and reduce rutting from expected vehicle 

traffic.

Construct fill roads only when necessary.

Construct fill roads parallel to water flow and to be as low to natural ground level as practicable.

Construct roads with sufficient surface drainage for surface water flows.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Erosion control measures (e.g. silt fences, weed-free straw/straw bales, etc.) will be placed and 

maintained at sites that have potential to deliver sediment to the stream network during the wet 

season if haul is going to take place. If sediment delivery is noted, additional erosion control 

measures will be placed and maintained Or haul will cease until conditions dry.

Application of dust abatement will occur when streams are at their seasonal baseflow. Dust 

abatement will not be applied when raining and will only be applied if there is a 3-day forecast 

of clear weather. 

Road work at perennial streams, to be done under the timber sale contract, will be completed 

during low flow conditions when the potential for delivery of construction-related sediment can 

be minimized. During construction, stream water will be diverted around the work site and back 

into the channel. 

Stream crossing culvert locations will be located, flagged, and approved by the Forest Service 

before installation.

Road-8. Snow Removal and Storage

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FS-7700-41 and FSH 7709.59, chapter 24.11.

Objective Avoid or minimize erosion, sedimentation, and chemical pollution that may result from 

snow removal and storage activities.

Practices Develop a snow removal plan for roads plowed for recreation, administrative, or other access to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Use existing standard contract language (C5.316# or similar) for snow removal during winter 

logging operations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources.

Limit use of approved deicing and traction control materials to areas where safety is critical (e.g., 

intersections, steep segments, and corners).

Use site-specific characteristics such as road width and design, traffic concentration, and 

proximity to surface waters to determine suitable amount of de-icing material to apply.

Use effective plowing techniques to optimize chemical de-icer use. 

Consider use of alternative materials to chemical de-icers, such as sand or gravel, in sensitive 

areas.

Use properly calibrated controllers to ensure material application rates are accurately regulated.

Limit spray distribution of chemical de-icers when near surface waters.

Design paved roads and parking lots to facilitate sand removal (e.g., curbs or paved ditches).

Use suitable measures when storing de-icing materials to avoid or minimize mobility of the 

materials.

Store de-icing materials on a flat, upland, impervious area of adequate size to accommodate 

material stockpiles and equipment movement.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 583

Stockpile de-icing materials under cover and provide runoff collection, containment, and 

treatment, as necessary, to avoid or minimize offsite movement.

Move snow in a manner that will avoid or minimize disturbance of or damage to road surfaces 

and drainage structures.

Mark drainage structures to avoid damage during plowing.

Conduct frequent inspections to ensure road drainage is not adversely affecting soil or water 

resources.

Control areas where snow removal equipment can operate to avoid or minimize damage to 

riparian areas, floodplains, and stream channels.

Install snow berms where such placement will preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and 

will serve to dissipate melt water.

Provide frequent drainage through snow berms to avoid concentration of snowmelt runoff on 

fillslopes and other erosive areas, to dissipate melt water, and to avoid or minimize sediment 

delivery to waterbodies.

Store snow in clearly delineated pre-approved areas where snowmelt runoff will not cause 

erosion or deliver snow, road de-icers, or traction-enhancing materials directly into surface 

waters.

Store or dispose of snow adjacent to or on pervious surfaces in upland areas away from 

waterbodies to the extent practicable.

Do not store or dispose of snow in riparian areas, wetlands, or streams unless no other 

practicable alternative exists.

Manage discharge of meltwater to avoid or minimize runoff of pollutants into surface 

waterbodies or groundwater.

Use suitable measures to filter and treat meltwater before reaching surface water or groundwater.

Use suitable measures to disperse meltwater to avoid creating concentrated overland flow.

Collect and properly dispose of onsite litter, debris, and sediment from meltwater settling areas.

Discontinue road use and snow removal when use would likely damage the roadway surface or 

road drainage features.

Modify snow removal procedures as necessary to meet water quality concerns.

Replace lost road surface materials with similar quality material and repair structures damaged in 

snow removal operations as soon as practicable.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

No Additional BMPs

Road-9. Parking and Staging Areas

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7710, FSM 7720, and FSM 7730.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

when constructing and maintaining parking and staging areas.

Practices Design and locate parking and staging areas of appropriate size and configuration to 

accommodate expected vehicles and avoid or minimize adverse effects to adjacent soil, water 

quality, and riparian resources.

Consider the number and type of vehicles to determine parking or staging area size.

Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-2 (Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for 

stormwater management and erosion control when designing, constructing, reconstructing, or 

maintaining parking or staging areas.

Use suitable measures to harden and avoid or minimize damage to parking area surfaces that 

experience heavy use or are used during wet periods.

Use and maintain suitable measures to collect and contain oil and grease in larger parking lots 

with high use and where drainage discharges directly to streams.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

584 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Connect drainage system to existing stormwater conveyance systems where available and 

practicable.

Conduct maintenance activities commensurate with parking or staging area surfacing and 

drainage requirements as well as precipitation timing, intensity, and duration.

Limit the size and extent of temporary parking or staging areas

Take advantage of existing openings, sites away from waterbodies, and areas that are apt to be 

more easily restored to the extent practicable.

Use temporary stormwater and erosion control measures as needed.

Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-10 (Facility Site Reclamation) to rehabilitate temporary 

parking or staging areas as soon as practicable following use.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Parking and Staging areas should not be located within 300 ft of perennial streams, unless 

approved by the Forest Service.

Botany design features specific to parking and staging – lithosols, meadows and grasslands.

Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 2160 and FSH 7109.19, chapter 40.

Objective Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from 

fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials discharging into nearby surface 

waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources during 

equipment refueling and servicing activities.

Practices Plan for suitable equipment refueling and servicing sites during project design.

Allow temporary refueling and servicing only at approved locations, located well away from the 

AMZ, groundwater recharge areas, and waterbodies.

Develop or use existing fuel and chemical management plans (e.g., Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures [SPCC], spill response plan, and emergency response plan) when developing 

the management prescription for refueling and servicing sites.

Locate, design, construct, and maintain petroleum and chemical delivery and storage facilities 

consistent with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.

Use suitable measures around vehicle service, storage and refueling areas, chemical storage and 

use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills and avoid or minimize soil contamination and 

seepage to groundwater.

Provide training for all agency personnel handling fuels and chemicals in their proper use, 

handling, storage, and disposal.

Ensure that contractors and permit holders provide documentation of proper training in handling 

hazardous materials.

Use suitable measures to avoid spilling fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other chemicals during 

handling and transporting.

Prohibit excess chemicals or wastes from being stored or accumulated in the project area.

Remove service residues, used oil, and other hazardous or undesirable materials from NFS land 

and properly dispose them as needed during and after completion of the project.

Clean up and dispose of spilled materials according to specified requirements in the appropriate 

guiding document.

Report spills and initiate suitable cleanup action in accordance with applicable State and Federal 

laws, rules, and regulations.

Remove contaminated soil and other material from NFS lands and dispose of this material in a 

manner consistent with controlling regulations.

Prepare and implement a certified SPCC Plan for each facility, including mobile and portable 

facilities, as required by Federal regulations.

Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-10 (Facility Site Reclamation) to reclaim equipment 

refueling and services site when the need for them ends.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 585

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Roadwork contractors will have spill prevention and recovery equipment on site during all road 

construction operations as agreed to by the Forest Service.

Fuel shall not be stored or equipment refueled within 300 feet of any stream channel or surface 

water feature.

Road-11. Road Storm-Damage Surveys

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 7730 and FSM 2350.

Objective Monitor road conditions following storm events to detect road failures; assess damage 

or potential damage to waterbodies, riparian resources, and watershed functions; 

determine the causes of the failures; and identify potential remedial actions at the 

damaged sites and preventative actions at similar sites.

Practices ERFO-Related Damage Surveys

Complete a Damage Survey Report (DSR) at damaged sites potentially eligible for ERFO funds.

Complete the Forest Service-developed supplemental form DSR+ in the field to more thoroughly 

describe, in categorical terms, the cause(s) and consequences of the damage.

The DSR+ form and instructions may be found at 

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/bmp/damagesurveys.

Record the following information from damage sites that have been documented on the DSR and

DSR+ forms in appropriate corporate database(s), including geographic information systems:

The geographic locations (points or road segments) where damage occurred.

The date of occurrence (year and month, if available).

The type of failure and its cause.

Special Storm Damage Surveys

Determine the need to do more comprehensive surveys and analysis of road damage after 

particularly large storm events.

Survey all roads in the area, typically an entire watershed, ranger district, or national forest or 

grassland, affected by the storm or those roads that may be particularly susceptible to failure.

All Damage Surveys

Analyze results from EFRO surveys, routine damage reconnaissance, and special surveys for 

patterns of damage and causes.

Use these patterns of road damage to formulate recommendations of practice changes to reduce 

the incidence of future damage. Consider practice changes such as—

Locating or relocating roads to more stable terrain (see BMP Road-2 [Road Location and 

Design]);

Disconnecting road surface drainage from crossings and channels (see BMP Road-3 [Road 

Construction and Reconstruction]);

Using special protections in locations on unstable landforms or areas with high erosion potential 

(see BMP Road-3 [Road Construction and Reconstruction]);

Increasing the capacity of stream-crossing structures to pass water, debris, and sediment to 

reduce the probabilities of failure (see BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]);

Building or rebuilding stream crossings to eliminate or reduce diversion potential (see BMP 

Road-7 [Stream Crossings]);

Building or rebuilding stream crossings to improve aquatic species passage (see BMP Road-7 

[Stream Crossings]); or

Decommissioning or storing roads in a hydrologically benign condition (see BMP Road-6 [Road 

Storage and Decommissioning]).

Enter and store the results of data analysis in corporate data management systems to facilitate 

sharing among units that have similar terrain and road practices.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP No Additional BMPs
Final Environmental Impact Statement

586 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Facilities and Nonrecreation Special Uses Management

• Fac-2. Facility Construction and Stormwater Control

Fac-2. Facility Construction and Stormwater Control

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

by controlling erosion and managing stormwater discharge originating from ground 

disturbance during construction of developed sites

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

Obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) 402 stormwater discharge permit coverage from the 

appropriate State agency or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when 

more than 1 acre of land will be disturbed through construction activities.

Obtain CWA 404 permit coverage from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when dredge 

or fill material will be discharged to waters of the United States.

Establish designated areas for equipment staging, stockpiling materials, and parking to 

minimize the area of ground disturbance (see BMP Road-9 [Parking Sites and Staging 

Areas] and BMP Road-10 [Equipment Refueling and Servicing]).

Establish and maintain construction area limits to the minimum area necessary for 

completing the project and confine disturbance to within this area.

Develop and implement an erosion control and sediment plan that covers all disturbed 

areas, including borrow, stockpile, fueling, and staging areas used during construction 

activities.

Calculate the expected runoff generated using a suitable design storm to determine 

necessary stormwater drainage capacity.

Use site conditions and local requirements to determine design storm.

Include run-on from any contributing areas.

Refer to State or local construction and stormwater BMP manuals, guidebooks, and 

trade publications for effective techniques to:

Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate 

to prevent accelerated erosion during construction or before the next growing season.

Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practicable.

Control, collect, detain, treat, and disperse stormwater runoff from the site.

Divert surface runoff around bare areas with appropriate energy dissipation and 

sediment filters.

Stabilize steep excavated slopes.

Develop and implement a postconstruction site vegetation plan using suitable species 

and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in compliance with local direction 

and requirements per Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation 

ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surface-disturbing activities to 

the extent practicable.

Do not use snow or frozen soil material in facility construction.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 587

Schedule, to the extent practicable, construction activities to avoid direct soil and water 

disturbance during periods of the year when heavy precipitation and runoff are likely to 

occur.

Limit the amount of exposed or disturbed soil at any one time to the minimum 

necessary to complete construction operations.

Limit operation of equipment when ground conditions could result in excessive rutting, 

soil puddling, or runoff of sediments directly into waterbodies.

Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize disturbed areas 

and waterways before seasonal shutdown of project operations or when severe or 

successive storms are expected.

Use low-impact development practices where practicable.

Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper and effective 

functioning.

Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures.

Implement corrective actions without delay when failures are discovered to prevent 

pollutant discharge to nearby waterbodies.

Routinely inspect construction sites to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are 

implemented and functioning as designed and are appropriately maintained.

Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control invasive 

species.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Wildland Fire Management Activities

• Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning

• Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire

Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 5120; FSM 5150; FSH 5109.19 Ch. 50

Objective Use the fire management planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during wildland fire 

management activities.

Practices Consider the beneficial and adverse effects of wildland fire on water quality and 

watershed condition when developing desired conditions and goals for the plan area. 

Identify areas where the adverse effects of unplanned wildland fire to water quality and 

watershed condition outweigh the benefits.

Include plan objectives and strategies that allow the use of wildland fire where suitable 

to restore watershed conditions.

Include design criteria, standards, and guidelines for fire management activities to avoid 

or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Consider the need to establish a network of permanent water sources in the plan area 

for fire control and suppression.

Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan3 (Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when planning prescribed fire 

treatments.

Consider prescription elements and ecosystem objectives at the appropriate watershed 

scale to determine the optimum and maximum burn unit size, total burn area, burn 

intensity, disturbance thresholds for local downstream water resources, area or length 

of water resources to be affected, and contingency strategies.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

588 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Consider the extent, severity, and recovery of fire disturbance a watershed has 

experienced in the past to evaluate cumulative effects and re-entry intervals.

Identify environmental conditions favorable for achieving desired condition or treatment 

objectives of the site while minimizing detrimental mechanical and heat disturbance to 

soil and water considering the following factors.

Existing and desired conditions for vegetation and fuel type, composition, structure, 

distribution, and density.

Short- and long-term site objectives.

Acceptable fire weather parameters.

Desirable soil, duff, and fuel moisture levels.

Existing duff and humus depths.

Site factors such as slope and soil conditions.

Expected fire behavior and burn severity based on past burn experience in vegetation 

types in the project area.

Extent and condition of roads, fuel breaks, and other resource activities and values.

Develop burn objectives that avoid or minimize creating water-repellent soil conditions 

to the extent practicable considering fuel load, fuel and soil moisture levels, fire 

residence times, and burn intensity.

Use low-intensity prescribed fire on steep slopes or highly erodible soils when 

prescribed fire is the only practicable means to achieve project objectives in these 

areas.

Set target levels for desired ground cover remaining after burning based on slope, soil 

type, and risk of soil and hillslope movement.

Plan burn areas to use natural or in-place barriers that reduce or limit fire spread, such 

as roads, canals, utility rights-of-way, barren or low fuel hazard areas, streams, lakes, 

or wetland features, where practicable, to minimize the need for fireline construction.

Identify the type, width, and location of firebreaks or firelines in the prescribed fire plan.

Use fire initiation techniques, control methods, and access locations for ignition and 

control (holding versus escape conditions) that minimize potential effects to soil, water 

quality, and riparian resources.

Use prescribed fire in the AMZ only when suitable to achieve long-term AMZ-desired 

conditions and management objectives (see BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

Air quality would be emphasized during prescribed fire planning. Mitigating measures 

would be considered including extending the burning season to spread emissions

throughout the year. All burning would be planned and conducted to comply with 

applicable air quality laws and regulations and coordinated with appropriate air quality 

regulatory agencies.

Equipment used to machine pile slash would use legacy skid trails, and temporary and 

permanent roads on slopes less than 35%, as much as possible.

Burning would be carried out when fuel moistures are sufficient to help retain existing 

snags and down wood to the extent feasible.

Maximum depth of slash on temporary roads and landings is 12 inches.

Grapple piles would be constructed to the following specifications: All slash from 1 inch 

in diameter up to 6 inches in diameter and exceeding 3 feet in length shall be piled. 

Piles would be constructed compactly with minimal soil in the piles and covered to shed 

water so they remain dry for burning during the fall or winter; height would be at least 6 

feet and no greater than 12 feet; width would be at least 6 feet and no greater than 10

feet. Piles would be evenly spaced between trees and snags left after harvest. Piles 

would be placed on temporary roads or designated equipment trails when possible. 

Piles would be placed at least 50 feet away from live streams.

Machine piles at landings will be built by grapple or shovel to keep dirt and rock debris 

out. No cat piling or pushing of piles.

Where the volume of landing and roadside slash exceeds the ability to create piles and 

meet pile size and location specifications above, slash would be returned to temporary 

roads and designated forwarding corridors for piling or dispersal after subsoiling, if 

needed.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 589

Slash pile construction and burning in and around riparian areas should be consistent 

with Blue Mountain PDCs.

Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 5140

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of prescribed fire and associated activities 

on soil, water quality, and riparian resources that may result from excessive soil 

disturbance as well as inputs of ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris.

Practices Conduct the prescribed fire in such a manner as to achieve the burn objectives outlined 

in the Prescribed Fire Plan (see BMP Fire-1 [Wildland Fire Management Planning]).

Locate access and staging areas near the project site but outside of AMZs, wetlands, 

and sensitive soil areas.

Keep staging areas as small as possible while allowing for safe and efficient operations.

Store fuel for ignition devices in areas away from surface water bodies and wetlands.

Install suitable measures to minimize and control concentrated water flow and sediment 

from staging areas.

Collect and properly dispose of trash and other solid waste.

Restore and stabilize staging areas after use (see BMP Veg-6 [Landings]).

Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting the 

burn objectives.

Manage fire intensity to maintain target levels of soil temperature and duff and residual 

vegetative cover within the limits and at locations described in the prescribed fire plan.

Construct fireline to the minimum size and standard necessary to contain the prescribed 

fire and meet overall project objectives.

Locate and construct fireline in a manner that minimizes erosion and runoff from directly 

entering waterbodies by considering site slope and soil conditions, and using and 

maintaining suitable water and erosion control measures.

Consider alternatives to ground-disturbing fireline construction such as using wet lines, 

rock outcrops, or other suitable features for firelines.

Establish permanent fireline with suitable water and erosion control measures in areas 

where prescribed fire treatments are used on a recurring basis.

Maintain firebreaks in a manner that minimizes exposed soil to the extent practicable.

Rehabilitate or otherwise stabilize fireline in areas that pose a risk to water quality.

Alter prescribed fire prescriptions and control actions in the AMZs as needed to maintain 

ecosystem structure, function, and processes and onsite and downstream water quality.

Pretreat AMZs and drainage ways to reduce excessive fuel loadings.

Avoid building firelines in or around riparian areas, wetlands, marshes, bogs, fens, or 

other sensitive water-dependent sites unless needed to protect life, property, or 

wetlands.

Construct any essential fireline in the AMZ in a manner that minimizes the amount of 

area and soil disturbed. 

Keep high-intensity fire out of the AMZ unless suitable measures are used to avoid or 

minimize adverse effects to water quality.

Avoid or minimize complete removal of the organic layer when burning in riparian areas 

or wetlands to maintain soil productivity, infiltration capacity, and nutrient retention. 

Rehabilitate fireline in the AMZ after prescribed fire treatment is completed. 

Remove debris added to stream channels as a result of the prescribed burning unless 

debris is prescribed to improve fisheries habitat.

Conduct prescribed fire treatments, including pile burning, for slash disposal in a manner 

that encourages efficient burning to minimize soil impacts while achieving treatment 

objectives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

590 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Pile and burn only the slash that is necessary to be disposed of to achieve treatment 

objectives. 

Locate slash piles in areas where the potential for soil effects is lessened (meadows, 

rock outcrops, etc.) and that do not interfere with natural drainage patterns. 

Remove wood products such as firewood or fence posts before piling and burning to 

reduce the amount of slash to be burned. 

Minimize the amount of dirt or other noncombustible material in slash piles to promote 

efficient burning. 

Construct piles in such a manner as to promote efficient burning. 

Avoid burning large stumps and sections of logs in slash piles to reduce the amount of 

time that the pile burns. 

Avoid burning when conditions will cause the fire to burn too hot and damage soil 

conditions. 

Avoid piling and burning for slash removal in AMZs to the extent practicable.

Minimize effects on soil, water quality, and riparian resources by appropriately planning 

pile size, fuel piece size limits, spacing, and burn prescriptions in compliance with State 

or local laws and regulations if no practical alternatives for slash disposal in the AMZ are 

available.

Evaluate the completed burn to identify sites that may need stabilization treatments or 

monitoring to minimize soil and site productivity loss and deterioration of water quality 

both on and off the site.

Provide for rapid revegetation of all denuded areas through natural processes 

supplemented by artificial revegetation where necessary. 

Use suitable measures to promote water retention and infiltration or to augment soil 

cover where necessary. 

Use suitable species and establishment techniques to stabilize the site in compliance 

with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation 

ecology and prevention and control of invasive species. 

Clear streams and ditches of debris introduced by fire control equipment during the 

prescribed fire operation. 

Consider long-term management of the site and nearby areas to promote project 

success. 

Use suitable measures to limit human, vehicle, and livestock access to site as needed to 

allow for recovery of vegetation.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 591

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

/ PDC

Burn plans would include water quality burn plans would include design that would 

mitigate adverse effects to water quality.

Burn plans for each prescribed fire will be prepared in advance of ignition, reviewed by a 

hydrologist, fisheries biologist, botanist, cultural resource specialist, wildlife biologist, 

range specialist, recreation/lands specialist and silviculturist and approved by the 

appropriate line officer.

As needed, fire lines would require water bars at slopes greater than 30%. Fire line 

water bars would deflect surface run-off from the trail down slope onto stable material 

such as rock surface cover. Fire line construction would generally avoid sensitive areas 

like unique habitats. 

Burning would be carried out when fuel moistures are sufficient to help retain existing 

snags and down wood to the extent prescribed burns are designed to maintain and 

enhance desired forest structure, tree densities, snag densities, and CWD levels.

Burning would be conducted to meet air quality standards as outlined by Oregon DEQ, 

and air quality monitoring would be conducted in conjunction with the DEQ.

Prescribed fire and mechanical hand treatments will follow the established Blue 

Mountain PDCs

During any prescribed burning, the objective is to retain these logs, use passive burning 

in the area of these structures. 

To help retain wildlife snags during prescribed burning operations, there would be no 

ignition within 50 feet of standing dead trees greater than 12” DBH

In moist forests, because we are deficient in large snags, and in areas with known 

pileated woodpecker nests, prior to prescribed burning, rake duff away from the base of 

large live old growth trees and large snags with accumulations of bark and duff and/or 

use other protection measures where economically viable and reasonable to do. 

To prevent spread of diseases to amphibians including Columbia spotted frogs, and 

Rock Mountain tailed frog, gear, hoses and dipping buckets used to transport or move 

water from streams, rivers, or ponds needs to be disinfected by drying in the sun (must 

be completely dry inside and out) or washing with a chemical disinfectant before 

changing to a different water source

Raptors -Any raptor sightings or active raptor nests observed during reconnaissance, 

layout, marking, or project activities will be reported to the Unit Wildlife Biologist for 

further assessment and potential mitigation associated with project activities

Pileated Woodpecker, White-headed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, Great Grey Owl 

Nest sites – Ensure that any known/ discovered nest tree is protected from harvest and 

during implementation of prescribed fire-only treatments. Also, conduct prescribed fire 

treatments within these stands outside the nesting season (after July 31), unless the 

nest tree is known to be unoccupied

Protect known (and active) pileated woodpecker nests during all harvest or prescribed 

burning activities. Maintain a no-cut buffer within 50 feet. Rake duff from the base of 

nest tree and use other protection measures to protect during prescribed burning.

Landbirds and Neotropical Migratory Birds - To reduce the potential for loss of snags 

during prescribed burning, employ passive lighting techniques near snags larger than 12 

inches. Techniques include lighting at a slope position above snags, and avoid lighting 

directly adjacent to or at slope positions directly below snags. For larger snags (> 20 

inches DBH) at higher risk due to heavy fuels accumulations at the base, pullback of 

fuels may be necessary prior to prescribed burning.

Landbirds and Neotropical Migratory Birds -To reduce the potential for impacts to 

nesting landbirds, prescribed burning activities projected to occur on or after May 20, 

and/or past the onset of vegetation leaf-out, will be reviewed by a district or forest 

wildlife biologist. The biologist will then provide recommendations concerning prescribed 

burning after May 20 and/or past the onset of vegetation leaf-out

Avoid lighting within 300 feet of any cave entrances if they are encountered. This would 

help protect the vegetative structure for bats and prevent potential smoke inhalation

Do not directly ignite ant mounds – ants provide foraging habitat for many of the MIS 

woodpeckers, migratory birds, and species such as bears. 

Develop burning prescriptions that retain and recruit logs within the standards set in the 

Eastside Screens. These standards are as follows:
Final Environmental Impact Statement

592 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Table down_logs. Burning prescriptions following Eastside Screen Standards for 

retention and log recruitment

Species

Pieces 

per 

Acre

Diameter at 

Small End 

(inches)

Piece Length 

(feet)

Total Lineal 

Length (feet)

Ponderosa pine 3-6 12 >6 20 to 40

Mixed conifer 15-20 8 >8 120 to 160

Minerals Management Activities

• Min-1. Minerals Planning

• Min-5. Mineral Materials Resource Sites

Min-1. Minerals Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 2810, FSM 2820, FSM 2830, and FSM 2850.

Objective Use the minerals planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during minerals 

exploration, production, operations, and reclamation activities.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

All Activities

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and 

BMP Plan-3 (Aquatic Management Zone [AMZ] Planning) when planning 

minerals activities.

□ Identify potential environmental risks of the proposed minerals activities and 

include measures in project plans to manage risk by removing or eliminating 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 593

the source of risk, changing the mining plan, or removing the resource at risk 

from harm’s way. 

□ Inform proponent that a Clean Water Act (CWA) 402 permit may be required 

if the minerals operation causes a point source or stormwater discharge of any 

pollutant to waters of the United States.

□ Inform proponent that a CWA 404 permit may be required if the mining 

operations will result in a discharge of dredge or fill material to waters of the 

United States.

□ Evaluate plan of operations to ensure that reasonable measures, including 

appropriate BMPs are included to avoid and minimize adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resources from the mining activities.

o Require suitable geotechnical or stability analyses to ensure that facilities 

are constructed to acceptable factors of safety using standard engineering 

practices and considering foundation conditions and material; 

construction materials and techniques; the seismicity of the area; and the 

water-related resources at risk.

o Require suitable characterization of ore, waste rock, and tailings using 

accepted protocols to identify materials that have the potential to release 

acidity or other contaminants when exposed during mining.

o Require suitable characterization of mine site hydrology commensurate 

with the potential for impacts to surface water and groundwater resources, 

to include physical and chemical characteristics of surface and 

groundwater systems, as needed, for the range of expected seasonal 

variation in precipitation and potential stormflow events likely to occur at 

the site for the duration of the minerals activities.

o Stipulate suitable requirements, including water treatment as needed, to 

avoid or minimize the development and release of acidic or other 

contaminants.

o Use applicable practices from the Minerals Management Activities 

BMPs.

o Evaluate the consumptive use of water in the mining operation and its 

effect on waterdependent ecosystems.

o Evaluate the potential for direct and indirect impacts to morphology, 

stability, and function of waterbodies, riparian areas, and wetland 

habitats.

o Identify suitable measures to avoid impacts to waterbodies, riparian areas, 

and wetland habitats through appropriate location, design, operation, and 

reclamation requirements.

o Identify suitable interim and post-project surface water and groundwater 

monitoring where needed to confirm predictions of impacts, detect 

adverse changes at the earliest practicable time, and develop appropriate 

changes in operations or recommend closure where needed.

o Request a copy of operator’s CWA 401 Certification from designated 

Federal, State, or local entity before approving a plan of operations that 

may result in any discharge into waters of the United States.

□ As outlined in the Forest Service Training Guide for Reclamation Bond Estimation 

and Administration for Minerals Plans of Operation, consider the direct and 

indirect costs of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of mineral 

operations to the appropriate standards for water quality and watershed condition 

as determined from the land management plan, State and Federal laws, regulations, 

plans, or permits when determining the reclamation bond amount. Include costs 

for:

o Operation and maintenance of facilities designed to divert, convey, store,

or treat water.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

594 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

o Decontaminating, neutralizing, disposing, treating, or isolating hazardous 

materials at the site to minimize potential for contamination of soil, 

surface water, and ground water.

o Water treatment needs predicted during planning and discovered during 

operations to achieve applicable water quality standards.

o Earthwork to reclaim roads; waste rock dumps; tailings; backfilling water 

features (diversions, ditches, and sediment ponds); and construction of 

diversion channels and drains, stream channels, and wetlands.

o Revegetation to stabilize the site and minimize soil erosion.

o Mitigation to restore natural function and value of streams, wetlands, and 

floodplains.

o Long-term operations, monitoring, and maintenance of mineral 

production-related facilities that must perform as designed to avoid or 

minimize contamination of surface or groundwater

resources, including roads, diversion ditches, dams, and water treatment 

systems.

o Protection of the reclaimed area until long-term stability, erosion control, 

and revegetation has been established.

Locatable Minerals

□ Evaluate Notice of Intent to Operate proposal to determine if it will likely 

cause significant disturbance to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Require a plan of operation from the mineral operator, lessee, or 

purchaser as required by law and regulation if proposed activities might 

cause significant disturbance of surface resources including soil, water 

quality, or riparian resources.

Minerals Leasing

□ Include in the land management plan, or other area wide decision document, 

direction for surface occupancy. Use lease stipulations to avoid riparian areas, 

wetlands, and areas subject to mass soil movement; to avoid or minimize erosion 

and sediment production; and to avoid or minimize adverse effects to water quality 

and municipal supply watersheds, if these issues are not adequately addressed by 

provisions in regulations at 36 CFR 228.108.

□ Use the applicable practices from the Minerals Activities BMPs for 

recommendations on post-lease approval of operations.

□ Require or work with BLM to require appropriate contingency plans to avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts to surface waters.

□ Coordinate with BLM to ensure the reclamation bond required for operations will 

be sufficient to guarantee reclamation work on NFS lands to the appropriate 

standards for water quality and watershed condition as determined from the land 

management plan, State and Federal laws, regulations, plans, or permits.

Mineral Materials

□ Include reasonable conditions and applicable practices of BMP Min-3 (Minerals 

Production) and BMP Min-5 (Mineral Materials Resource Sites) in the operating 

plan to ensure proper protection of soil, water quality, and riparian resources and 

timely reclamation of disturbed areas.

□ Consider the direct and indirect costs of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming 

the area of mineral materials operations to the appropriate standards for water 

quality and watershed condition as determined from the land management plan, 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 595

State and Federal laws, regulations, plans, or permits when determining the 

reclamation bond amount.

Mineral Reservations and Outstanding Mineral Rights

□ Evaluate the Operating Plan for Mineral Reservation Operations to ensure that 

reasonable measures, including appropriate BMPs, consistent with the terms of the 

deed, are included to minimize damage to NFS surface resources that could affect 

soil, water quality, and riparian resources and that provide for restoration and 

reclamation of disturbed lands.

□ Evaluate the Operating Plan for Outstanding Mineral Rights to ensure that 

reasonable measures, including appropriate BMPs, are included to control erosion, 

avoid or minimize water pollution, and reclaim the site consistent with land 

management plan direction for water quality management. 

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Min-5. Mineral Materials Resource Sites

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 2850.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian

resources when developing and using upland mineral materials resource sites or 

instream sand and gravel deposits.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or 

when required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management 

plan direction, BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

All Activities

□ Allow upland and instream sand and gravel mining where consistent with land 

management plan desired conditions, goals, and objectives for soils, aquatic and 

riparian habitats, and water quality.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Min-3 (Minerals Production) and BMP Fac-2 

(Facility Construction and Stormwater Control) for sanitation, solid waste, and 

transport and storage of petroleum products or other hazardous materials and to 

control erosion, manage stormwater, keep the site dry, and protect the waterbody 

when clearing the extraction and processing areas.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Min-6 (Ore Stockpiles, Mine Waste Storage and 

Disposal, Reserve Pits, and Settling Ponds) and BMP Min-7 (Produced Water) to 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources when processing materials.

Upland Gravel Pits

□ Plan operations at the site in advance to minimize disturbance area and more 

effectively and efficiently open and operate the site.

o Limit the area of the facility to the minimum necessary for efficient 

operations while providing sufficient area for materials processing and 

stockpiling.

o Phase development where practicable.

o Use suitable measures to avoid, mitigate, or treat metal leaching and 

formation of acid rock drainage.

□ Conduct extraction activities in such a manner as to minimize the potential for 

slope failures, limit slope steepness and length, limit disturbed areas to those 

actively used for extraction, retain existing vegetation as long as possible, and 

allow for progressive reclamation of the site where practicable.

Instream Sand and Gravel Mining
Final Environmental Impact Statement

596 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

□ Use applicable practices of BMP AqEco-2 (Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems), 

BMP AqEco-3 (Ponds and Wetlands), and BMP AqEco-4 (Stream Channels and 

Shorelines) when working in or near waterbodies to prevent or minimize adverse 

impacts to water quality.

□ Consider channel type and effects of the proposed operation on channel 

morphology and function when approving instream sand and gravel mining 

operations.

□ Limit access disturbance to designated areas on one streambank to reduce the 

effort required for site reclamation.

o Use suitable measures to protect the streambank at access points to 

minimize bank erosion.

□ Locate the material processing and stockpile site at a suitable distance from the 

active channel to leave a buffer zone along the waterbody to reduce risk of 

flooding.

o Consider historic channel migration patterns and site elevation when 

locating mineral processing and stockpile sites.

o Avoid or minimize disturbance to valuable riparian areas; wetlands; and 

aquatic-dependent threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat.

□ Include suitable measures to protect channel morphology and function when 

extracting sand and gravel deposits. 

o Specify the maximum depth of mining.

o Limit extraction depth to minimize slope changes along the stream, avoid 

or minimize channel and bank erosion, and retain existing natural channel 

armoring.

o Limit extraction amount to minimize upstream and downstream effects 

due to changes in bedload transport.

o Avoid modifying point bars to the extent where the resultant channel 

changes cause unacceptable reduced sinuosity or increased stream 

gradient, velocity, stream power, and bank instability.

o Schedule in-channel mining to occur during low-flow periods.

o Avoid or minimize changes to channel shape and reduce effects of mining 

on aquatic habitats by establishing a low-flow buffer.

o Avoid or minimize streambank erosion and instability during and after 

mining.

o Avoid or minimize headward erosion of the channel at the upstream end 

of the instream pit.

□ Design and construct diversion channels to handle anticipated flow volumes and to 

minimize upstream and downstream effects of changes in stream grade, width, 

depth, bed characteristics, bank instability, and groundwater inflows when 

temporarily or permanently dewatering stream channels to extract sand and gravel.

o Ensure barrier is able to adequately protect the dewatered 

mining area from flood flows.

□ Conduct excavation operations in such a manner as to avoid significant 

increases in downstream turbidity. 

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities 

□ Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning

□ Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

□ Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones

□ Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 597

□ Veg-5 Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations

□ Veg-6 Landings

□ Veg-7 Winter Logging

□ Veg-8 Mechanical Site Treatment

Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSM 1921.12

Objective Use the applicable vegetation management planning processes to develop measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during 

mechanical vegetation treatment activities.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, 

BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-2 (Project Planning and Analysis) and BMP Plan-3 

(Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) Planning) when planning vegetation management 

projects.

o Evaluate opportunities to use proposed mechanical vegetation treatment projects 

to achieve AMZ desired conditions, goals, and objectives in the project area.

□ Evaluate and field verify site conditions in the project area to design mechanical vegetation 

treatment prescriptions that avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water 

quality, and riparian resources.

o Validate land management plan timber suitability decisions for the project area.

o Design mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions to limit site disturbance, 

soil exposure, and displacement to acceptable levels as determined from the land 

management plan desired conditions, standards, and guidelines or other local 

direction or requirements.

o Evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of vegetation alteration on 

streamflow regimes and consequent channel responses at suitable watershed 

scales.

o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass wasting 

potential, and other soil or site properties to determine areas suitable for groundbased, cable, and aerial yarding systems (see BMP Veg-4 [Ground-Based 

Skidding and Yarding Operations] and BMP Veg-5 [Cable and Aerial Yarding 

Operations]).

o Use the most economically practicable yarding system that will minimize road 

densities.

o Consider site preparation and fuel treatment needs and options.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-8 (Mechanical Site Treatment) to 

determine areas suitable for mechanical treatments for site preparation, fuels 

treatment, habitat improvements, or other vegetation management purposes.

o Evaluate the capabilities of the machinery likely to operate in the landscape under 

consideration.

o Use preplanning to schedule entry or timing of mechanical and other vegetation 

treatments (e.g., prescribed fire or chemical treatments) when needed for large 

projects.

□ Evaluate and field verify site conditions in the project area to design a transportation plan 

associated with the mechanical vegetation treatments to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Use the logging system that best fits the topography, soil types, and season, while 

minimizing soil disturbance and road densities and that economically achieves 

silvicultural objectives.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-2 (Road Location and Design), BMP Veg4 (Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations), BMP Veg-5 (Cable and 

Aerial Yarding Operations), and BMP Veg-6 (Landings) to determine proposed 

location and size of roads, landings, skid trails, and cable corridors.

o Use applicable practices of BMP Road-1 (Travel Management Planning and 

Analysis) and BMP Road-5 (Temporary Roads) to determine the need for 

specified roads and temporary roads.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

598 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

o Evaluate the condition of system roads, including roads in storage, and 

unauthorized roads in the project area to determine their suitability for use in the 

project and any reconstruction or prehaul maintenance needs.

o Evaluate the Road Management Objective of system roads to determine where 

log hauling should be prohibited or restricted.

□ Identify sources of rock for roadwork, riprapping, and borrow materials (see BMP Min-6 

[Mineral Materials Resource Sites]).

□ Identify water sources available for purchasers’ use (see BMP WatUses-3 [Administrative 

Water Developments]).

□ Ensure the timber sale contract, stewardship contract, or other implementing document 

includes BMPs from the decision document to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects 

to soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Use appropriate standard B and C provisions and regional or local provisions to 

address measures and responsibilities consistent with the BMPs in the decision 

document in the timber sale or stewardship contract.

o Delineate all protected or excluded areas, including AMZs and waterbodies, on 

the sale area map or project map.

o Delineate approved water locations, staging areas, and borrow areas on the sale 

area map or project map.

o Ensure that the final unit location, layout, acreage, and logging system or 

mechanical treatment and Knutson-Vandenberg Act plans are consistent with the 

decision document.

□ Use contract modification procedures to the extent practicable to modify unit design, 

treatment methods, or other project activities where necessary to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources based on new 

information or changed conditions discovered during project implementation.

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2409.15.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by 

implementing measures to control surface erosion, gully formation, mass slope failure, and 

resulting sediment movement before, during, and after mechanical vegetation treatments.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, 

BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

□ Establish designated areas for equipment staging and parking to minimize the area of 

ground disturbance (see BMP Road-9 [Parking Sites and Staging Areas]).

□ Use provisions in the timber sale contract or land stewardship contract to implement 

and enforce erosion control on the project area.

o Work with the contractor to locate landings, skid trails, and slash piles in 

suitable sites to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential for erosion and 

sediment delivery to nearby waterbodies.

□ Develop an erosion control and sediment plan that covers all disturbed areas 

including skid trails and roads, landings, cable corridors, temporary road fills, water 

source sites, borrow sites, or other areas disturbed during mechanical vegetation 

treatments.

□ Refer to State or local forestry or silviculture BMP manuals, guidebooks, and trade 

publications for effective structural and nonstructural measures to—

□ Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is 

inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before the next growing season.

o Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practicable.

o Control, collect, detain, treat, and disperse stormwater runoff from disturbed 

areas.

o Divert surface runoff around bare areas with appropriate energy dissipation 

and sediment filters.

o Stabilize steep excavated slopes.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 599

□ Use suitable species and establishment techniques to cover or revegetate disturbed 

areas in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 

2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

□ Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and control 

invasive species.

□ Install sediment and stormwater controls before initiating surface-disturbing activities 

to the extent practicable.

□ Operate equipment when soil compaction, displacement, erosion, and sediment 

runoff would be minimized.

o Avoid ground equipment operations on unstable, wet, or easily compacted 

soils and on steep slopes unless operation can be conducted without causing 

excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments directly into 

waterbodies.

o Evaluate site conditions frequently to assess changing conditions.

o Adjust equipment operations as necessary to protect the site while 

maintaining efficient project operations.

□ Install suitable stormwater and erosion control measures to stabilize disturbed areas 

and waterways on incomplete projects before seasonal shutdown of operations or 

when severe storm or cumulative precipitation events that could result in sediment 

mobilization to waterbodies are expected.

□ Routinely inspect disturbed areas to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are 

implemented and functioning as designed and are suitably maintained.

□ Maintain erosion and stormwater controls as necessary to ensure proper and effective 

functioning.

o Prepare for unexpected failures of erosion control measures.

□ Implement mechanical treatments on the contour of sloping ground to avoid or 

minimize water concentration and subsequent accelerated erosion.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP □ No Additional BMPs

Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2526, 2527

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when 

conducting mechanical vegetation treatment activities in the AMZ.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, 

BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Plan-3 (AMZ Planning) to determine the need for and 

width of the AMZ considering the proposed mechanical vegetation treatments.

o Modify AMZ width as needed to provide assurance of leave-tree wind firmness 

where high windthrow risk is identified.

□ Clearly delineate AMZ locations and boundaries in the project area using suitable 

markings and structures.

o Maintain or reestablish these boundaries as necessary during project implementation 

or operation.

o Specify AMZ layout, maintenance, and operating requirements in contracts, design 

plans, and other necessary project documentation.

□ Use mechanical vegetation treatments in the AMZ only when suitable to achieve long-term 

AMZ-desired conditions and management objectives (see BMP Plan-3 [AMZ Planning]).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

600 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

□ Modify mechanical vegetation treatment prescriptions and operations in the AMZs as 

needed to maintain ecosystem structure, function, and processes.

□ Design silvicultural or other vegetation management prescriptions to maintain or improve 

the riparian ecosystem and adjacent waterbody.

□ Use yarding systems or mechanical treatments that avoid or minimize disturbance to the 

ground and vegetation consistent with project objectives.

o Conduct equipment operations in a manner that maintains or provides sufficient 

ground cover to meet land management plan desired conditions, goals, and 

objectives to minimize erosion and trap sediment.

o Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize soil disturbance from equipment 

operations to stay within acceptable disturbance levels when conducting mechanical 

vegetation treatment operations.

o Prescribe mechanical site preparation techniques and fuels and residual vegetation 

treatments that avoid or minimize excessive erosion, sediment delivery to nearby 

waterbodies, or damage to desired riparian vegetation.

o Conduct operations in a manner that avoids or minimizes introduction of excess 

slash or other vegetative debris into the AMZ and waterbodies; damage to 

streambanks, shorelines, and edges of wetlands; and adverse effects to floodplain 

functioning.

o Retain trees as necessary for canopy cover and shading, bank stabilization, and as a 

source of large woody debris within the AMZ.

o Avoid felling trees into streams or waterbodies, except as planned to create habitat 

features.

□ Locate transportation facilities for mechanical vegetation treatments, including roads, 

landings,and main skid trails, outside of the AMZ to the extent practicable.

o Minimize the number of stream crossings to the extent practicable.

o Evaluate options for routes that must cross waterbodies and choose the one (e.g., 

specified road vs. temporary road vs. skid road or trail) that avoids or minimizes 

adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources to the greatest extent 

practicable.

o Do not use drainage bottoms as turn-around areas for equipment during mechanical 

vegetation treatments.

□ Use suitable measures to disperse concentrated flows of water from road surface drainage

features to avoid or minimize surface erosion, gully formation, and mass failure in the 

AMZ and sediment transport to the waterbody.

□ Monitor the AMZ during mechanical operations to evaluate compliance with prescription 

and mitigation requirements in the authorizing document.

o Adjust operations in the AMZ to avoid, minimize, or mitigate detrimental soil 

impacts where they are occurring.

o Use suitable mitigation or restoration measures on areas in the AMZ that show signs 

of unacceptable erosion or those with high potential for erosion due to mechanical 

operations in the AMZ.

o Remove unauthorized debris from waterbodies using techniques that will limit 

disturbance to bed and banks, riparian areas, aquatic-dependent species, and the 

waterbody unless significant damage would occur during its removal or leaving it in 

meets desired conditions for the waterbody.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP □ The stream crossing replacements in perennial streams, to be done under a separate contract 

after the timber sale, will be completed during low flow conditions when the potential for 

delivery of construction-related sediment can be minimized. Stream water will be diverted 

out of the channel during construction to minimize turbidity. 
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 601

□ Equipment should not operate in any no cut buffers unless expressly analyzed through the 

NEPA analysis or consultation with local resource specialists.

□ Burning within the riparian zone to reduce fuel hazard near stream channels will be 

carefully controlled to minimize fire intensity and will be in accordance to the established 

Blue Mountain PDCs.

□ Implement PACFISH Buffers 

□ Where treatment in Category 4 streams is approve d a 25 ft no harvest buffer will be 

delineated on the ground by the silviculturist, the fish biologist or hydrologist.

Veg-4. Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 2409.15

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during 

ground-based skidding and yarding operations by minimizing site disturbance and controlling the 

introduction of sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, 

BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

□ Use ground-based yarding systems only where physical site characteristics are 

suitable to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources.

o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass wasting 

potential, and other soil or site properties to determine areas suitable for 

ground-based yarding systems.

□ Use existing roads and skid trail networks to the extent practicable.

o Create new roads and skid trail where re-use of existing ones would 

exacerbate soil, water quality, and riparian resource impacts.

□ Design and locate skid trails and skidding operations to minimize soil disturbance to 

the extent practicable.

o Designate skid trails to the extent practicable to limit site disturbance.

o Locate skid trails outside of the AMZ to the extent practicable.

o Locate skid trails to avoid concentrating runoff and provide breaks in grade.

o Limit the grade of constructed skid trails on geologically unstable, saturated, 

highly erodible, or easily compacted soils.

o Avoid long runs on steep slopes.

□ Use suitable measures during felling and skidding operations to avoid or minimize 

disturbance to soils and waterbodies to the extent practicable.

o Perform skidding or yarding operations when soil conditions are such that 

soil compaction, displacement, and erosion would be minimized.

o Suspend skidding or yarding operations when soil moisture levels could 

result in unacceptable soil damage.

o Avoid skidding logs in or adjacent to a stream channel or other waterbody to 

the extent practicable.

o Skid across streams only at designated locations.

o Use suitable measures at skid trail crossings to avoid or minimize damage to 

the stream channel and streambanks.

o Directionally fell trees to facilitate efficient removal along predetermined 

yarding patterns with the least number of passes and least amount of 

disturbed area (e.g., felling-to-the-lead).

o Directionally fell trees away from streambanks, shorelines, and other 

waterbody edges.

o Remove logs from wet meadows or AMZs using suitable techniques to 

minimize equipment operations in the sensitive area and minimize dragging 

the logs on the ground.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

602 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

o Winch or skid logs upslope, away from waterbodies.

o Use low ground pressure equipment when practicable, particularly on 

equipment traveling over large portions of units with sensitive soils or site 

conditions.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to 

minimize and control erosion to the extent practicable.

□ Use suitable measures to stabilize and restore skid trails after use.

o Reshape the surface to promote dispersed drainage.

o Install suitable drainage features.

o Mitigate soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions.

o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is 

inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before the next growing season.

o Use suitable measures to promote rapid revegetation.

o Use suitable measures in compliance with local direction to prevent and 

control invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP □ No Additional BMPs

Veg-5. Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 2409.15.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during 

cable and aerial yarding operations by minimizing site disturbance and controlling the 

introduction of sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, 

BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

□ Use cable or aerial yarding systems on steep slopes where ground-based equipment 

cannot operate without causing unacceptable ground disturbance.

o Use local direction or requirements for slope, erosion potential, mass wasting 

potential, and other soil or site properties to determine areas suitable for 

cable or aerial yarding systems.

o Consider slope shape, potential barriers, lift and deflection requirements, and 

availability of suitable landing locations when selecting cable-yarding 

systems.

□ Identify areas requiring cable or aerial yarding during project planning and in the 

contract.

□ Identify necessary equipment capabilities in the contract.

□ Locate cable corridors to efficiently yard materials with the least soil damage.

o Use suitable measures to minimize soil disturbance when yarding over 

breaks in slope.

□ Fully suspend logs to the extent practicable when yarding over AMZs and streams.

□ Postpone yarding operations when soil moisture levels are high if the specific type of 

yarding system results in unacceptable soil disturbance and erosion within cable 

corridors.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to 

minimize and control erosion in cable corridors to the extent practicable.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 603

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

□ No Additional BMPs

Veg-6. Landings

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 2409.15.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from 

the construction and use of log landings.

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, 

BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

□ Minimize the size and number of landings as practicable to accommodate safe, economical, 

and efficient operations.

□ Locate landings to limit the potential for pollutant delivery to waterbodies.

o Locate landings outside the AMZ and as far from waterbodies as reasonably 

practicable based on travel routes and environmental considerations.

o Avoid locating landings near any type of likely flow or sediment transport conduit 

during storms, such as ephemeral channels and swales, where practicable.

o Locate landings to minimize the number of required skid roads.

o Avoid locating landings on steep slopes or highly erodible soils.

o Avoid placing landings where skidding across drainage bottoms is required.

□ Design roads and trail approaches to minimize overland flow entering the landing.

□ Re-use existing landings where their location is compatible with management objectives and 

water quality protection.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to minimize and 

control erosion as needed during construction and use of log landings.

o Install and maintain suitable temporary erosion control and stabilization measures 

when the landing will be reused within the same year.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Fac-6 (Hazardous Materials) and BMP Road-10 

(Equipment Refueling and Servicing) when managing fuels, chemicals, or other hazardous 

materials on the landing.

□ Use suitable measures as needed to restore and stabilize landings after use.

o Remove all logging machinery refuse (e.g., tires, chains, chokers, cable, and 

miscellaneous discarded parts) and contaminated soil to a proper disposal site.

o Reshape the surface to promote dispersed drainage.

o Install suitable drainage features.

o Mitigate soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions.

o Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is 

inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before the next growing season.

o Use suitable measures to promote rapid revegetation.

o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to cover or revegetate 

disturbed areas in compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 

2070 and FSM 2080 for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of 

invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP □ No Additional BMPs 

Veg -7 Winter Logging

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

FSH 2409.15.

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from 

winter logging activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

604 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Practices □ Consider using snow-roads and winter harvesting in areas with high-water tables, sensitive 

ri- parian conditions, or other potentially significant soil erosion and compaction hazards.

o Use snow roads for single-entry harvests or temporary roads.

□ Mark existing culvert locations before plowing, hauling, or yarding operations begin to 

avoid or minimize damage from plowing or logging machinery.

□ Ensure all culverts and ditches are open and functional during and after logging operations.

□ Plow any snow cover off roadways to facilitate deep-freezing of the road grade before 

hauling.

o Manage hauling to avoid or minimize unacceptable damage to the road surface.

□ Use suitable measures to cross streams (see BMP Road-7 [Stream Crossings]).

o Restore crossings to near preroad conditions to avoid or minimize ice dams when 

use of the snow-road is no longer needed.

□ Conduct winter logging operations when the ground is frozen or snow cover and depth is 

ad- equate to avoid or minimize unacceptable rutting or displacement of soil.

□ Suspend winter operations if ground and snow conditions change such that unacceptable 

soil disturbance, compaction, displacement, or erosion becomes likely.

□ Compact the snow on skid trail locations when adequate snow depths exist before felling 

or skidding trees.

□ Avoid locating skid trails on steep areas where frozen skid trails may be subject to soil 

erosion the next spring.

□ Mark AMZ boundaries and stream courses before the first snow in a manner that will be 

clearly visible in heavy snows.

□ Avoid leaving slash in streams or AMZs to the extent practicable.

□ Install and maintain suitable erosion control on skid trails before spring runoff (see BMP 

Veg-2 [Erosion Prevention and Control]).

o Install erosion control measures during the dry season if needed.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP

□ No Additional BMPs 

Veg-8. Mechanical Site Treatment

Manual or 

Handbook

Reference

None known,

Objective Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by 

controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, chemical, or other pollutants to waterbodies 

during mechanical site treatment

Practices Develop site-specific BMP prescriptions for the following practices, as appropriate or when 

required, using State BMPs, Forest Service regional guidance, land management plan direction, 

BMP monitoring information, and professional judgment.

□ Evaluate multiple site factors, including soil conditions, slope, topography, and weather, to 

prescribe the most suitable mechanical treatment and equipment to avoid or minimize 

unacceptable impacts to soil while achieving treatment objectives.

o Consider the condition of the material and the site resulting from the treatment in 

comparison to desired conditions, goals, and objectives for the site when 

analyzing treatment options (e.g., a mastication treatment will result in a very 

different condition than a grapple pile and burn treatment).

o Use land management plan direction, or other local guidance, to establish residual 

ground cover requirements and soil disturbance limits suitable to the site to 

minimize erosion.

o Consider offsite use options for the biomass material to reduce onsite treatment 

and disposal.

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-3 (Aquatic Management Zones) when conducting 

mechanical treatments in the AMZ.
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 605

□ Use applicable practices of BMP Veg-2 (Erosion Prevention and Control) to minimize and 

control erosion.

o Conduct mechanical activities when soil conditions are such that unacceptable soil 

disturbance, compaction, displacement, and erosion would be avoided or 

minimized.

o Consider using low ground-pressure equipment, booms, or similar equipment to 

minimize soil disturbance.

□ Operate mechanical equipment so that furrows and soil indentations are aligned on the 

contour.

□ Scarify the soil only to the extent necessary to meet reforestation objectives.

o Use site-preparation equipment that produces irregular surfaces.

o Avoid or minimize damage to surface soil horizons to the extent practicable.

□ Conduct machine piling of slash in such a manner to leave topsoil in place and to avoid 

displacing soil into piles.

□ Re-establish vegetation as quickly as possible.

o Evaluate the need for active and natural revegetation of exposed and disturbed 

sites.

o Use suitable species and establishment techniques to revegetate the site in 

compliance with local direction and requirements per FSM 2070 and FSM 2080 

for vegetation ecology and prevention and control of invasive species.

Local / Site 

Specific BMP □ No Additional BMPs 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

606 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Appendix K – Roads Analysis

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

3000100 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.1 

Open Open Open Open

3000105 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.1 

Open Open Open Open

3000150 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

1.8 

Open Open Open Open

3000155 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.0 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

3000174 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

3000175 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

3000180 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

3000225 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Open Closed Closed Open

3000232 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Open Closed Closed Open

3000244 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.5 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

3000246 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.1 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

3000248 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.3 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

3000250 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Open Open

3000254 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Open Closed Closed Open
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 607

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

3000300 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.4 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

3000312 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

3000314 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.8 

Open Closed Closed Open

3000346 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

3000347 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

3000349 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

3000400 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

3000400 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

3000410 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Open Closed Closed Open

3000420 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4600000 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER 

COMFORT

 

5.7 

Open Open Open Open

4600000 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

12.7 

Open Open Open Open

4600020 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.7 

Open Open Open Open

4600021 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600022 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600023 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.5 

Open Open Open Open
Final Environmental Impact Statement

608 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600026 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.8 

Open Open Open Open

4600027 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.7 

Open Open Open Open

4600028 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600030 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600035 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600040 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600040 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Closed Closed

4600041 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Closed Closed

4600044 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600045 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600047 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600050 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

3.9 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600055 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600055 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600055 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.7 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600060 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

5.1 

Open Open Open Open
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 609

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600061 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600062 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600063 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600064 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600067 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600069 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600072 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600074 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Open Open Open Open

4600075 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600079 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600080 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4600092 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4600109 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600120 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600190 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

6.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600190 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.5 

Open Open Open Open
Final Environmental Impact Statement

610 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600190 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600190 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Open Open Decommission Open

4600195 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Open Open Open Open

4600200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.7 

Open Open Open Open

4600200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600202 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4600205 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600210 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600215 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4600220 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.2 

Open Open Open Open

4600222 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600250 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4600250 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600265 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600268 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 611

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600270 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.2 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4600270 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600272 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600273 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4600274 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4600275 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600280 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600286 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600290 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600300 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600300 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.9 

Open Open Open Open

4600300 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600305 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600307 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600310 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Open Open Open Open

4600317 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.3 

Open Open Open Open
Final Environmental Impact Statement

612 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600320 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.8 

Open Open Closed Open

4600325 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600330 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Open Open

4600335 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

2.5 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4600336 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.1 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600338 D - DECOMMISSION 

1.1 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600340 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.8 

Open Open Closed Open

4600343 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Open Open Closed Open

4600347 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

3.2 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4600350 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.4 

Open Open Open Open

4600352 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Closed Closed Closed Open

4600352 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

2.1 

Open Closed Decommission Closed

4600353 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600360 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600361 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600362 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.9 

Open Open Closed Open
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 613

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600363 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600370 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

4.6 

Open Open Open Open

4600371 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600372 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.6 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600373 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600374 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600375 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.6 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4600377 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4600378 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4600379 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600381 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.1 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600382 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600383 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600387 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4600390 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600390 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.2 

Open Open Closed Open
Final Environmental Impact Statement

614 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600392 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.8 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4600394 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.7 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4600405 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

2.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600420 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.8 

Open Open Open Open

4600425 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.3 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600430 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600431 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600437 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600440 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600440 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600445 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.1 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600447 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.4 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600460 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600461 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600472 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600473 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 615

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600474 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600475 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.6 

Open Open Open Open

4600477 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600477 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600478 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600478 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600485 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.7 

Open Open Open Open

4600490 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600495 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.7 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600505 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

3.2 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600505 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

3.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600505 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

2.7 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4600510 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600511 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600520 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600526 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed
Final Environmental Impact Statement

616 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600545 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Closed Decommission Decommission Closed

4600555 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600560 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

4.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600570 D - DECOMMISSION 

1.4 

Open Decommission Decommission Open

4600572 D - DECOMMISSION 

0.4 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600574 D - DECOMMISSION 

0.4 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600575 D - DECOMMISSION 

0.2 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600578 D - DECOMMISSION 

0.3 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4600580 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600583 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600594 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4600595 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600595 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

3.7 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 617

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.8 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600596 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4600597 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600598 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Open Open

4600599 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.5 

Open Open Open Open

4600601 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600602 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600603 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600604 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Closed Closed Closed Closed
Final Environmental Impact Statement

618 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600605 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600607 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600608 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600609 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Open Open

4600613 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600625 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600625 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600635 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4600653 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.0 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600670 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

5.3 

Open Open Open Open

4600673 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600675 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600678 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.8 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4600680 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.8 

Open Open Open Open

4600685 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600685 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Closed Closed Open
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 619

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4600687 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4600996 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4602000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

5.9 

Open Open Open Open

4602040 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.9 

Open Open Open Open

4602040 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Open Open Closed Open

4602040 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

2.4 

Open Open Closed Open

4602050 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4602060 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.2 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

4602080 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.7 

Open Open Open Open

4602085 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Open Closed Closed Open

4602089 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4602090 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

7.4 

Open Open Open Open

4602092 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4602094 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4602096 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.3 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

4602120 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.4 

Open Open Decommission Open
Final Environmental Impact Statement

620 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4605000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.6 

Open Open Open Open

4605081 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4605100 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4605200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.0 

Open Open Open Open

4605210 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Closed Open

4605220 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4605225 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Closed Open

4605230 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Closed Open

4605240 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4605250 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.0 

Open Open Open Open

4615000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

4.3 

Open Open Open Open

4615049 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Closed Open

4615050 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Open Closed Closed Open

4615055 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4615056 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4615057 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 621

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4615058 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4615065 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.8 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4615068 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4615070 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4615075 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4615090 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Open Closed Closed Open

4615095 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Open Closed Closed Open

4615150 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.5 

Open Open Open Open

4615152 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4615154 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4615160 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4615165 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4615200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Decommission Open

4615200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4615200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4615200 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.4 

Open Open Open Open
Final Environmental Impact Statement

622 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4615205 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4615250 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.3 

Open Open Open Open

4615275 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4615280 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4615300 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Open Closed Closed Open

4615305 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Open Closed Closed Open

4615325 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4615326 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4615327 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4630300 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4650000 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

4.3 

Open Open Open Open

4650000 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

0.7 

Open Open Open Open

4650000 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4650000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.7 

Open Open Open Open

4650000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4650000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 623

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4650015 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4650020 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650020 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650020 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650021 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650027 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4650030 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Open Closed Closed Open

4650032 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Open Closed Closed Open

4650040 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4650045 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4650050 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4650050 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Closed Open

4650052 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Closed Open

4650053 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.1 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650055 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.5 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4650057 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed
Final Environmental Impact Statement

624 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4650060 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.7 

Open Open Open Open

4650065 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4650070 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.2 

Open Open Open Open

4650075 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4650080 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.7 

Open Open Open Open

4650081 D - DECOMMISSION 

0.4 

Open Decommission Decommission Decommission

4650081 D - DECOMMISSION 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4650082 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Open Open

4650083 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650120 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

2.4 

Open Closed Closed Open

4650125 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.8 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650130 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Open Closed Closed Open

4650130 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Open Closed Closed Open

4650135 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Open Closed Closed Open

4650140 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650142 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Closed Closed
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 625

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4650144 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650145 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650150 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.9 

Open Closed Closed Open

4650155 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650157 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650160 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4650165 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4650170 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

4.3 

Open Open Open Open

4655000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

3.5 

Open Open Open Open

4655025 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655025 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4655026 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655027 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.2 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

4655045 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.0 

Open Open Open Open

4655045 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open
Final Environmental Impact Statement

626 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4655045 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.8 

Open Open Open Open

4655047 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4655048 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655049 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655050 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

2.7 

Open Closed Closed Open

4655050 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Open Closed Closed Open

4655051 D - DECOMMISSION 

0.4 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4655052 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Open Closed Closed Open

4655054 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655056 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.5 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655060 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.0 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655061 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4655065 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4655065 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.8 

Open Open Open Open

4655070 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655075 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Closed Closed Closed Closed
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 627

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4655080 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655085 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655090 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655095 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Open Open

4655095 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4655095 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.1 

Open Open Open Open

4655098 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4655102 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4655102 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4655103 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Open Open

4655105 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.4 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

4655110 DE - DECOMMISSIONED 

0.1 

Decommission Decommission Decommission Decommission

4655112 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.7 

Open Open Open Open

4655115 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Closed Open

4655117 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Decommission Decommission Open

4655117 D - DECOMMISSION 

1.6 

Open Decommission Decommission Closed
Final Environmental Impact Statement

628 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4655120 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Closed Closed Decommission Closed

4655125 D - DECOMMISSION 

1.3 

Closed Decommission Decommission Decommission

4655140 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4655150 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4655150 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

2.2 

Open Open Open Open

4655150 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4655150 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.4 

Open Open Open Open

4655155 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.6 

Open Closed Closed Open

4655160 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.7 

Open Closed Closed Closed

4655160 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Open Closed Closed Open

4655165 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Open Open Open Open

4655200 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4665015 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.1 

Open Open Open Open

4680000 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER 

CARS

 

2.0 

Open Open Open Open

4680000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

6.8 

Open Open Open Open

4680040 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed
Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 629

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4680050 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680075 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680080 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.8 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680090 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.6 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680110 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.0 

Open Open Open Open

4680120 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680123 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.2 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680126 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680135 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.4 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680140 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.6 

Open Open Open Open

4680145 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.2 

Open Open Open Open

4680150 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.8 

Open Open Open Open

4680200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

3.9 

Open Open Open Open

4680208 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.8 

Open Open Closed Open

4680212 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.1 

Open Open Open Open

4680215 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed
Final Environmental Impact Statement

630 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

ID Objective Status Miles Exisitng Conditon Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

4680219 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

0.5 

Open Open Closed Open

4680220 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 

1.5 

Open Open Closed Open

4680250 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

0.3 

Closed Closed Closed Closed

4680500 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE 

(CLOSED)

 

1.9 

Closed Closed Closed Closed