Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

Magone Project

Grant County, Oregon

January 2016

United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Malheur National Forest

Blue Mountain Ranger 

District
Final Environmental Impact Statement

2 of 632

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: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; 

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Magone Project

3 of 632

Magone Project

Final

Environmental Impact Statement

Grant County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest

Responsible Official: Steven K. Beverlin, Forest Supervisor

431 Patterson Bridge Road

John Day, OR 97845

For Information Contact: Dave Halemeier, District Ranger

Blue Mountain Ranger District

431 Patterson Bridge Road

John Day, OR 97845

(541) 575-3000

Abstract: A final environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for the Magone Project to 

analyze alternatives for implementation of silviculture treatments, prescribed burning, road activities, 

recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake restoration activities. Project activities are 

proposed on National Forest System lands on the Malheur National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger 

District in Grant County, Oregon. Three action alternatives have been developed based on public 

input and collaborative efforts. Alternative 1 is the “no action” alternative. Alternative 2, the 

proposed action, includes silviculture treatments, prescribed burning, recreation opportunity 

improvements, Magone Lake restoration activities, and road activities; alternative 2 is the preferred 

alternative. Alternative 3 is a modification of the proposed action, developed to respond to comments 

generally requesting more activities. This alternative includes more acres of silviculture treatments, 

leaves more road segments open, and includes more miles of hiking/bicycle trails. Alternative 4 is a 

modification of the proposed action, developed to respond to comments generally requesting fewer 

activities. This alternative includes fewer acres of silviculture treatments, less acres of prescribed 

burning in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area, fewer miles of hiking/bicycle trails, fewer fish 

cribs and fish sticks to be placed into Magone Lake, and leaves more road segments open.

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are 

useful to the agency’s preparation of the final EIS and draft record of decision (ROD). Therefore, 

comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate 

the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect 

a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments 

received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will 

be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be 

accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with 

standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews.

Send Comments to: Blue Mountain Ranger District

c/o Sasha Fertig

P.O. Box 909

John Day, OR 97845
Final Environmental Impact Statement

4 of 632

This page intentionally left blank
Magone Project

5 of 632

Table of Contents

Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Purpose and Need for Action....................................................................................................... 15

Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 16

Key Issues .................................................................................................................................. 16

Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................................................................ 16

Summary of Key Effects by Alternative ...................................................................................... 19

Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action.......................................................................................... 28

Changes between the Preliminary and Final Environmental Impact Statement............................. 28

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 28

1.2 Background........................................................................................................................... 29

1.3 Project Planning Area............................................................................................................ 29

1.4 Purpose and Need.................................................................................................................. 31

1.5 Management Direction .......................................................................................................... 47

1.6 Proposed Action.................................................................................................................... 50

1.7 Decision Framework ............................................................................................................. 50

1.8 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................... 50

1.9 Issues.................................................................................................................................... 51

1.10 Project Record Availability ................................................................................................. 53

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ................................................................... 54

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 54

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail..................................................................................... 54

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

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives.............................................................................................. 84

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences............................................. 123

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 123

3.2 Key Issue – Level and Effects of Silviculture Treatments............................................... 130

3.3 Key Issue – Recreation Developments ........................................................................... 178

3.4 Key Issue – Impacts to the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)..................... 196

3.5 Analysis Issue – Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality.................................................................. 222

3.6 Analysis Issue – Soils .................................................................................................... 251

3.7 Analysis Issue – Watershed............................................................................................ 259

3.8 Analysis Issue – Aquatic Species ................................................................................... 295

3.9 Analysis Issue – Wildlife ............................................................................................... 396

3.10 Analysis Issue – Botanical Resources............................................................................. 495

3.11 Analysis Issue – Invasive Plants..................................................................................... 513

3.12 Analysis Issue – Range .................................................................................................. 517

3.13 Analysis Issue – Heritage............................................................................................... 525

3.14 Analysis Issue – Roads .................................................................................................. 532

3.15 Analysis Issue – Visuals................................................................................................. 541

3.16 Analysis Issue – Other Undeveloped Lands.................................................................... 555

3.17 Analysis Issue – Climate Change ................................................................................... 562

3.18 Evaluation of Proposed Forest Plan Amendments........................................................... 564

3.19 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity............................................................... 585

3.20 Unavoidable Adverse Effects......................................................................................... 585

3.21 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources............................................... 585

3.22 Other Required Disclosures............................................................................................ 585

Chapter 4. Preparers and Contributors ........................................................................................... 590
Final Environmental Impact Statement

6 of 632

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members....................................................................................590

4.2 Consultation and Coordination .......................................................................................591

4.3 Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement..............................................592

4.4 Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement..............................................593

Glossary........................................................................................................................................594

References.....................................................................................................................................607

Index.............................................................................................................................................627

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of proposed actions between alternatives ........................................................18

Table 2. Summary of key effects by alternative................................................................................20

Table 3. Plant association groups in the Magone project planning area.............................................30

Table 4. Comparison of existing dedicated old growth (DOGs) and replacement old growth (ROGs) 

with proposed changes for alternatives 2, 3, and 4, in relation to Malheur Forest Plan standards

................................................................................................................................................45

Table 5. Malheur Forest Plan management areas within the Magone project planning area...............49

Table 6. Alternative 2 prescribed burn blocks ..................................................................................59

Table 7. Alternative 2 proposed hike/bike/horse trails......................................................................65

Table 8. Alternative 2 existing trails to un-designate ........................................................................65

Table 9. Comparison of existing dedicated old growth (DOGs) and replacement old growth (ROGs) 

with proposed changes for alternatives 2, 3, and 4, in relation to Malheur Forest Plan standards

................................................................................................................................................68

Table 10. Alternative 3 prescribed burn blocks ................................................................................71

Table 11. Alternative 3 proposed hike/bike/horse trails....................................................................74

Table 12. Alternative 4 prescribed burn blocks ................................................................................77

Table 13. Alternative 4 proposed hike/bike/horse trails....................................................................78

Table 14. Detailed comparison of elements between alternatives......................................................85

Table 15. Comparison of environmental effects by alternative .........................................................91

Table 16. Comparison of proposed forest plan amendments...........................................................122

Table 17. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the Magone project 

planning area .........................................................................................................................125

Table 18. Reasonably foreseeable future activities authorized under the Malheur National Forest 

Aquatic Restoration Decision within the Magone project planning area..................................128

Table 19. Plant association groups within the Magone project planning area ..................................132

Table 20. Structural stages within the Magone project planning area..............................................133

Table 21. Hot Dry plant association group historical range of variability analysis ..........................134

Table 22. Warm Dry plant association group historical range of variability analysis.......................134

Table 23. Cool Moist plant association group historical range of variability analysis......................135

Table 24. Cold Dry plant association group historical range of variability analysis.........................135

Table 25. Warm Moist plant association group historical range of variability analysis....................135

Table 26. Silviculture resource indicators and measures for assessing effects.................................140

Table 27. No action alternative structure change over time.............................................................143

Table 28. Warm Dry plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative ................144

Table 29. Hot Dry plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative....................144

Table 30. Cool Moist plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative ...............145

Table 31. Cold Dry plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative ..................146

Table 32. Warm Moist plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative .............147

Table 33. Warm Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 2..................................150

Table 34. Hot Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 2......................................150
Magone Project

7 of 632

Table 35. Cool Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 2................................. 151

Table 36. Cold Dry plant association group historical range of variability analysis for alternative 2152

Table 37. Warm Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 2 .............................. 153

Table 38. Warm Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3 ................................. 156

Table 39. Hot Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3 ..................................... 157

Table 40. Cool Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3................................. 158

Table 41. Cold Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3.................................... 159

Table 42. Warm Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3 .............................. 160

Table 43. Warm Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4 ................................. 163

Table 44. Hot Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4 ..................................... 164

Table 45. Cool Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4................................. 165

Table 46. Cold Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4.................................... 166

Table 47. Warm Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4 .............................. 167

Table 48. Economics resource indicators and measures for assessing effects.................................. 173

Table 49. Comparison of economic effects between action alternatives.......................................... 176

Table 50. Recreation resource indicators and measures for assessing effects.................................. 182

Table 51. Wilderness and inventoried roadless areas in the Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur 

National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District, and Magone project planning area............... 197

Table 52. Resources indicators and measures for assessing effects to the Nipple Butte IRA ........... 203

Table 53. Summary of proposed activities within the Nipple Butte IRA by alternative................... 204

Table 54. Magone project planning area fire regime summary ....................................................... 227

Table 55. Magone project planning area fuel load summary........................................................... 229

Table 56. Magone project planning area existing crown fire potential by fire type ......................... 230

Table 57. Fire, fuels, and air quality resource indicators for assessing effects................................. 231

Table 58. Fuel load percentage of project planning area; existing condition compared to no action 234

Table 59. Fire type percentage of project planning area; existing condition compared to no action. 234

Table 60. Magone Project burn blocks alternative 2....................................................................... 237

Table 61. Fuel load in percentage of project planning area—alternative 2 compared to no action ... 239

Table 62. Fire type in percentage of project planning area—alternative 2 compared to no action.... 241

Table 63. Magone Project burn blocks alternative 3....................................................................... 245

Table 64. Magone Project burn blocks alternative 4....................................................................... 248

Table 65. Existing condition for all silvicultural treatment units with 6 percent or more existing 

detrimental impacts ............................................................................................................... 253

Table 66. Resource Indicators and measures for assessing effects to soils ...................................... 254

Table 67. Summary of harvest units by proposed yarding system (tractor, skyline, or both) by 

alternative in the Magone project planning area ..................................................................... 284

Table 68. Area yarded by tractor and/or skyline in the East Fork Beech Creek subwatershed by 

alternative.............................................................................................................................. 284

Table 69. Area yarded by tractor, skyline, or both in the Grub Creek subwatershed by alternative.. 285

Table 70. Existing condition from most recent Region 6 stream surveys for six primary habitat 

elements used for comparison of alternatives ......................................................................... 297

Table 71. PACFISH RMOs and Malheur Forest Plan standards fish habitat criteria ....................... 301

Table 72. Miles of habitat for threatened, endangered, and regionally sensitive aquatic species in the 

Magone project planning area ................................................................................................ 312

Table 73. Miles of Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead critical habitat by stream within the 

Magone project planning area ................................................................................................ 312

Table 74. Alternative 2 stream crossings by road surface type, MCR steelhead critical habitat....... 335

Table 75. Alternative 2 haul route road surface, route designation, and stream crossings within RHCA 

category ................................................................................................................................ 335

Table 76. Alternative 2 miles of decommissioned road and closed road segments with riparian habitat 

conservation area (RHCA) categories .................................................................................... 336
Final Environmental Impact Statement

8 of 632

Table 77. Alternative 2 miles of road type and road surface within 100 feet of Category 1, 2, and 4 

riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs)..........................................................................337

Table 78. Alternative 2 miles of road type and surface type for haul within 100 feet of Mid-Columbia 

River steelhead critical habitat (2.93 miles total) ....................................................................338

Table 79. Alternative 2 trails .........................................................................................................338

Table 80. Number of stream crossings in RHCAs and Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead critical 

habitat, and miles of trail within 100 feet of these areas..........................................................339

Table 81. Alternative 3 temporary roads within 100 feet of Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead 

critical habitat (same as alternative 2).....................................................................................354

Table 82. Alternative 3 stream crossings by road surface type and Mid-Columbia River (MCR) 

steelhead critical habitat.........................................................................................................355

Table 83. Alternative 3 road surface, road designation, stream crossings, and number of route 

crossings (bolded text indicates increase from alternative 2)...................................................355

Table 84. Alternative 3 miles of decommissioned road and closed road segments with RHCA 

categories (same as alternative 2)...........................................................................................355

Table 85. Alternative 3 miles of road type and road surface within 100 feet of Category 1, 2 and 4 

RHCAs. Bold numbers indicate difference from alternative 2 (more miles)............................357

Table 86. Alternative 3 miles of road type and surface type for haul within 100 feet of Mid-Columbia 

River steelhead critical habitat. Bold numbers indicate difference from alternative 2 (> indicates 

increase, < indicates decrease) ...............................................................................................357

Table 87. Alternative 3 trails .........................................................................................................358

Table 88. Number of stream crossings in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) and MidColumbia River (MCR) steelhead critical habitat, and miles of trail within those areas...........358

Table 89. Alternative 4 miles temporary and closed to open roads within Mid-Columbia River (MCR) 

steelhead critical habitat.........................................................................................................370

Table 90. Alternative 4 stream crossings by road surface type and Mid-Columbia River (MCR) 

steelhead critical habitat.........................................................................................................371

Table 91. Alternative 4 road surface, road designation, stream crossings........................................371

Table 92. Alternative 4 miles of decommissioned road and closed road segments with riparian habitat 

conservation area (RHCA) categories ....................................................................................372

Table 93. Alternative 4 miles of road type and road surface within 100 feet of Category 1, 2 and 4 

riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). Bold numbers indicate difference from alternative 

2 (fewer miles).......................................................................................................................373

Table 94. Alternative 4 miles of road type and surface type for haul within 100 feet of Mid-Columbia 

River steelhead critical habitat ...............................................................................................373

Table 95. Alternative 4 trails .........................................................................................................374

Table 96. Number of stream crossings in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) and MidColumbia River (MCR) steelhead critical habitat trail, and miles of trail within these areas....374

Table 97. Summary of effects to the primary habitat elements for all past, ongoing, and foreseeable 

aquatic restoration actions, such as Aquatic Restoration Decision...........................................382

Table 98. Alternative 2 summary of project element effects of the Magone Project to the primary 

habitat elements.....................................................................................................................383

Table 99. Alternative 3 summary of project element effects of the Magone Project to the primary 

habitat elements.....................................................................................................................384

Table 100. Alternative 4 summary of project element effects of the Magone Project to the primary 

habitat elements.....................................................................................................................385

Table 101. Aquatic threatened, endangered, and Region 6 sensitive species, and management 

indicator species with effects determinations by alternative ....................................................393

Table 102. Species and habitat occurrence for proposed, endangered, threatened, and Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species (PETS)........................................................................................399

Table 103. Species status abbreviations and species/habitat occurrence..........................................401
Magone Project

9 of 632

Table 104. Warm Dry forest structural stages, displaying old forest single stratum by alternative and 

historical range of variability (HRV), based on modeling for year 2025 and 2055 .................. 413

Table 105. Effects to proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species ............................... 422

Table 106. Management indicator species identified in the Malheur Forest Plan ............................ 423

Table 107. Conservation status of cavity-nesting management indicator species (MIS).................. 425

Table 108. Tolerance levels for woodpeckers occurring in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife 

habitat type............................................................................................................................ 429

Table 109. Tolerance levels for woodpeckers occurring in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat 

type ....................................................................................................................................... 430

Table 110. Existing habitat effectiveness index values, cover percentages, and open road densities for 

East Fork Beech Creek, Grub Creek and Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA) ......... 445

Table 111. Habitat effectiveness index values, cover percentages, and open road densities for East 

Fork Beech Creek, Grub Creek, and Nipple Butte WEA by alternative................................... 452

Table 112. Old growth management indicator species ................................................................... 456

Table 113. Old Growth Management Area 13 – Malheur Forest Plan minimum requirements and 

existing acreages ................................................................................................................... 457

Table 114. Old Growth Management Area 13 – minimum requirements, existing and proposed acres 

after adjusting boundaries for the proposed action.................................................................. 461

Table 115. Tolerance levels for wildlife occurring in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type

.............................................................................................................................................. 470

Table 116. Featured species of the Malheur National Forest – habitat requirements and presence 

within the Magone project planning area................................................................................ 479

Table 117. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern found in the planning 

area. Bird Conservation Region 10 – Northern Rocky Mountains of eastern Oregon and 

Washington ........................................................................................................................... 493

Table 118. Sensitive plant species occurrence in the project planning area and effects calls ........... 510

Table 119. Known non-native invasive plant occurrence and abundance within the Magone project 

planning area ......................................................................................................................... 514

Table 120. Allotments in the Magone project planning area........................................................... 518

Table 121. Allotment livestock grazing numbers, animal unit months (AUMs), and permitted dates of 

use......................................................................................................................................... 518

Table 122. Range resource indicators and measures for assessing effects....................................... 520

Table 123. Transportation system in the Magone project planning area.......................................... 533

Table 124. Roads resource indicators for assessing effects............................................................. 534

Table 125. Summary of proposed road activities and road system changes within the Magone project 

planning area ......................................................................................................................... 536

Table 126. Alternative 2 road system changes ............................................................................... 539

Table 127. Alternative 3 road system changes ............................................................................... 540

Table 128. Alternative 4 road system changes ............................................................................... 541

Table 129. Scenic integrity as described by visual quality objective levels..................................... 545

Table 130. Viewing zones that apply to visual/scenery management.............................................. 546

Table 131. Visual quality objectives for specific management areas present in the Magone project 

planning area ......................................................................................................................... 546

Table 132. Visual quality objectives and perceived alteration ........................................................ 548

Table 133. Magone project planning area inventory for other undeveloped lands........................... 556

Table 134. Size class and acres of other undeveloped lands in the Magone project planning area ... 556

Table 135. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to other undeveloped lands ...... 557

Table 136. Acres of activities and miles of road proposed under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 that occur 

within other undeveloped lands in the Magone project planning area ..................................... 559

Table 137. Changes in other undeveloped lands in the Magone project planning area under 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4 ........................................................................................................... 559
Final Environmental Impact Statement

10 of 632

Table 138. Malheur Forest Plan amendments affected Old Growth (Management Area 13) since 1990

..............................................................................................................................................566

Table 139. Summary of existing old growth habitat and proposed changes within the project planning 

area for pileated woodpecker and pine marten........................................................................568

Table 140. Proposed and reasonably foreseeable Malheur Forest Plan amendments affecting Old 

Growth (Management Area 13)..............................................................................................568

Table 141. Malheur Forest Plan amendments affected big game summer range since 1990 ............574

Table 142. Proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects with forest plan amendments affecting biggame summer range ...............................................................................................................575

Table 143. Malheur Forest Plan amendment affected Big Game Winter Range Maintenance 

(Management Area 4A) from 1990 to 1999............................................................................577

Table 144. Malheur Forest Plan amendment affected Big Game Winter Range Maintenance 

(Management Area 4A) from 2000 to 2016............................................................................578

Table 145. Proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects with forest plan amendments affecting Big 

Game Winter Range Maintenance (Management Area 4A) ....................................................580

Table 146. Current interdisciplinary team members .......................................................................590

Table 147. Past interdisciplinary team members.............................................................................591

Table 148. Index of terms..............................................................................................................627

List of Figures

Figure 1. Stand of virgin ponderosa pine, Malheur National Forest, Grant County, Oregon (color 

transparency; July 1942). .......................................................................................................130

Figure 2. Left photo: Conifer encroachment into an area that was previously an open ponderosa pine. 

Right photo: Douglas-fir with dead top from previous insect infestation and large mistletoe 

brooms. .................................................................................................................................131

Figure 3. Magone stand density index ranges. ................................................................................133

Figure 4. Photos of stands within the Magone project planning area that illustrate high densities....136

Figure 5. Left photo: Young pine and juniper in what was previously an open mountain mahogany 

stand with an occasional legacy pine or juniper. Right photo: Mountain mahogany being shaded 

out by encroaching conifer.....................................................................................................137

Figure 6. Left photo: Scouler’s willow with sprouts. Right photo: Bitterbrush with pine invading. .137

Figure 7. Small aspen patch in the Magone project planning area...................................................138

Figure 8. Example of dry meadow with conifer encroachment from the outer edges.......................138

Figure 9. Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no

action) in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone......................................................143

Figure 10. Hot Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no action) 

in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone. ................................................................144

Figure 11. Cool Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no 

action) in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone......................................................145

Figure 12. Cold Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no action) 

in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone. ................................................................146

Figure 13. Warm Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no 

action) in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone......................................................146

Figure 14. Examples of post-activity landscape..............................................................................149

Figure 15. Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone...............................................................................149

Figure 16. Hot Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone...............................................................................150

Figure 17. Cool Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone...............................................................................151
Magone Project

11 of 632

Figure 18. Cold Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 152

Figure 19. Warm Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 

2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone. .................................................................... 153

Figure 20. Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 156

Figure 21. Hot Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 157

Figure 22. Cool Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 158

Figure 23. Cold Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 159

Figure 24. Warm Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 

2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone. .................................................................... 160

Figure 25. Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 163

Figure 26. Hot Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 164

Figure 27. Cool Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 165

Figure 28. Cold Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone............................................................................... 166

Figure 29. Warm Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 

2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone. .................................................................... 167

Figure 30. Example of a mosaic underburn pattern. ....................................................................... 236

Figure 31. Pool formed on Clear Creek by streambank vegetation (“cottonwood” and large rootwad 

from fallen tree) and outside bed scour................................................................................... 300

Figure 32. Series of pools and side channels formed from downed wood (large and coarse wood) in 

Nipple Creek (within Nipple Butte IRA)................................................................................ 300

Figure 33. Pool formed from rock outcrop (geological feature and outside bend scour). This pool is 

located within an intermediate depositional point caused by wood being pinned in a valley 

“pinch” point on a transport reach. McClellan Creek Reach 4 within Nipple Butte IRA........ 300

Figure 34. Example where primary shade is conifer overstory (narrow valley bottom). Clear Creek 

within Nipple Butte IRA........................................................................................................ 303

Figure 35. Example where primary shade is alder (wide valley bottom). East Fork Beech Creek Reach 

7............................................................................................................................................ 303

Figure 36. Example where primary shade would normally be riparian hardwoods (wide valley 

bottom) with secondary conifer shading; however, conifers are currently primary shade 

providers followed by hawthorn. Clear Creek Reach 2 most sensitive riparian area (absence of 

riparian hardwoods)............................................................................................................... 303

Figure 37. Example of shrub recovery and channel recovery in progress from an over-widened 

channel. McClellan Creek Reach 2 most sensitive riparian area. ............................................ 303

Figure 38. East Fork Beech Creek streambed scoured down to bedrock just above confluence of 

Clear Creek. .......................................................................................................................... 303

Figure 39. Remnant pieces of large woody debris within Tinker Creek Reach 1. Notice deposition in 

front of wood greater than 1.5 feet high and surface water below. .......................................... 305

Figure 40. Example of downed wood (large woody debris) capturing smaller pieces of wood (coarse 

woody debris), creating pools and increasing stream channel complexity. McClellan Creek 

within Nipple Butte IRA........................................................................................................ 305

Figure 41. Example of the absence of downed wood within Tinker Creek Reach 1 adjacent to a Forest 

Service road (stream channel is dry). ..................................................................................... 305
Final Environmental Impact Statement

12 of 632

Figure 42. Characteristics of an over-widened straightened channel and minimal riparian vegetation. 

Clear Creek Reach 1. ............................................................................................................307

Figure 43. Legacy berms along Clear Creek near county road. .......................................................307

Figure 44. Example of near desired condition for channel width based on valley form. Tinker Creek 

Reach 4..................................................................................................................................307

Figure 45. Example of a wide valley bottom with an over-widened stream channel and minimal 

shade. Clear Creek Reach 2....................................................................................................307

Figure 46. Example of near desired condition for channel width based on valley form. Clear Creek 

Reach 6..................................................................................................................................307

Figure 47. Example of near desired condition for channel width based on valley form and welldeveloped sedge community. .................................................................................................307

Figure 48. Number of Mid-Columbia River steelhead redds counted within East Fork Beech Creek 

index reaches 1962 to 2014....................................................................................................313

Figure 49. Number of Mid-Columbia River steelhead redds counted Tinker Creek index reach 1987 

to 2014. .................................................................................................................................314

Figure 50. Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead distribution and critical habitat in the Magone 

Project analysis area...............................................................................................................315

Figure 51. Distribution of redband trout in the Magone Project analysis area..................................318

Figure 52. Westslope cutthroat distributions within the Magone project planning area. ..................319

Figure 53. Westslope cutthroat distribution within the John Day subbasin (John Day Subbasin Plan 

2005). Red circle indicates project planning area....................................................................320

Figure 54. Comparison of the historical range of variability (HRV) to current condition for snag 

density classes in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife habitat type portion of the Beech 

Creek and Grub Creek watersheds; snags >20 inches DBH, 50 percent tolerance levels for 

wildlife species. HRV reference condition derived from DecAID figures PPDF_L.inv-14, 

PPDF_S.inv-14, and PPDF_O.inv-14; wildlife tolerance levels from Tables PPDF_S/L.sp-22 

and PPDF_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). ................................................................429

Figure 55. Comparison of the historical range of variability (HRV) to current condition for snag 

density classes in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife habitat type portion of the Beech 

Creek and Grub Creek watersheds; snags >10 inches DBH, 50 percent tolerance levels for 

wildlife species. HRV reference condition derived from DecAID figures PPDF_L.inv-14, 

PPDF_S.inv-14, and PPDF_O.inv-14; wildlife tolerance levels from Tables PPDF_S/L.sp-22 

and PPDF_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). ................................................................429

Figure 56. Comparison of the historical range of variability (HRV) to current condition for snag 

density classes in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type portion of the Beech Creek 

watershed; snags >20 inches DBH, 50 percent tolerance levels for wildlife species. HRV 

reference condition derived from DecAID figures EMC_ECB_L.inv-14, EMC_ECB _S.inv-14, 

and EMC_ECB _O.inv-14; wildlife tolerance levels from Tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and 

EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).........................................................................430

Figure 57. Comparison of the historical range of variability (HRV) to current condition for snag 

density classes in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type portion of the Beech Creek 

watershed; snags >10 inches DBH, 50 percent tolerance levels for wildlife species. HRV 

reference condition derived from DecAID figures EMC_ECB_L.inv-14, EMC_ECB _S.inv-14, 

and EMC_ECB _O.inv-14; wildlife tolerance levels from Tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and 

EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).........................................................................430

Figure 58. Amount of secondary habitat across the Malheur National Forest by potential vegetation 

type compared to the historical range of variability (HRV). Secondary habitat is considered 

closed canopy stages of mid- and late-seral forested stands (data from Wales et al. 2011).......438

Figure 59. Comparison of reference condition to current condition for down wood in the eastside 

mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type portion of the Malheur National Forest; down wood >5 

inches DBH; 50% tolerance levels for wildlife species. Reference condition derived from 
Magone Project

13 of 632

DecAID unharvested vegetation plots in the Blue Mountains (see analysis file); wildlife 

tolerance levels from tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).

.............................................................................................................................................. 468

Figure 60. Comparison of reference condition to current condition for down wood in the eastside 

mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type portion of the Malheur National Forest; down wood >20 

inches DBH; 50% tolerance levels for wildlife species. Reference condition derived from 

DecAID unharvested vegetation plots in the Blue Mountains (see analysis file); wildlife 

tolerance levels from tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).

.............................................................................................................................................. 468

Figure 61. Comparison of reference condition to current condition for down wood the eastside mixedconifer wildlife habitat type portion of the Magone analysis area; down wood >5 inches DBH; 

50% tolerance levels for wildlife species. Reference condition derived from DecAID 

unharvested vegetation plots in the Blue Mountains (see analysis file); wildlife tolerance levels 

from tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012)...................... 469

Figure 62. Comparison of reference condition to current condition for down wood the eastside mixedconifer wildlife habitat type portion of the Magone analysis area; down wood >20 inches DBH; 

50% tolerance levels for wildlife species. Reference condition derived from DecAID 

unharvested vegetation plots in the Blue Mountains (see analysis file); wildlife tolerance levels 

from tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012)...................... 469

Figure 63. Amount of three-toed woodpecker habitat across the Malheur National Forest by potential 

vegetation type compared to the historical range of variability (HRV). Secondary habitat is 

considered closed canopy stages of mid- and late-seral forested stands (Wales 2011). ............ 474
Final Environmental Impact Statement

14 of 632

Acronyms

ARBO Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion MCR Mid-Columbia River

BMFP Blue Mountain Forest Partners MIS management indicator species

BMP best management practices ML maintenance level

CFR Code of Federal Regulations MOU memorandum of understanding

CWA Clean Water Act MZ management zone

CWD coarse woody debris NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

DBH diameter at breast height NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

DEIS draft environmental impact statement OFMS old forest multi strata

DecAID decayed wood advisor OFSS old forest single stratum

DOG dedicated old growth PAG plant association group

EA environmental assessment PCE primary cavity excavators

EIS environmental impact statement PDC project design criteria

FEIS final environmental impact statement PETS proposed, endangered, threatened 

and sensitive (species)

FM fuel model PFA post-fledging area

FSH Forest Service Handbook PWA potential wilderness area

FSM Forest Service Manual PWFA pileated woodpecker feeding area

FSR Forest Service road RHCA riparian habitat conservation area

GIS geographic information system RMO riparian management objective

HEI habitat effectiveness index ROD record of decision

HRV historical range of variability ROG replacement old growth

IRA inventoried roadless area ROS recreation opportunity spectrum

LOS late and old structure SDI stand density index

LWD large woody debris SECC stem exclusion closed canopy

SEOC stem exclusion open canopy UR understory reinitiation

SI stand initiation USDA United States Department of Agriculture

SOPA Schedule Of Proposed Actions USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

TES threatened, endangered and sensitive 

(species)

VQO visual quality objective

TMDL total maximum daily load WHT wildlife habitat types

UF upland forest WUI wildland urban interface

MA management area YFMS young forest multi strata

Max SDI maximum stand density index
Magone Project

15 of 632

Summary

The Malheur National Forest proposes to implement silviculture treatments, prescribed burning, road 

activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake restoration activities as part of the 

Magone Project. The area affected by the proposal includes approximately 27,000 acres1in the Grub 

Creek and East Fork Beech Creek subwatersheds that drain into the Upper John Day River. The 

Magone Project is located on the Blue Mountain Ranger District within the Malheur National Forest 

and is located in Grant County approximately 7 miles north of the town of John Day, Oregon. The 

legal description for the project planning area is (township, range, and sections):

 Township 11 South, Range 31 East, sections 25–29, 32–36;

 T. 11 S., R. 32 E., sec. 30–32;

 T. 12 S., R. 31 E., sec. 1–5, 8–12, 13–15, 17–24;

 T. 12 S., R. 32 E., sec. 5–11, 15–20, Willamette Meridian.

Four alternatives are analyzed in detail and presented in this final environmental impact statement 

(FEIS). A general summary of the FEIS is presented here, including a brief description of the project 

planning area, purpose and need, major issues, and the alternatives. Additionally, more detailed 

information is presented in chapters 1 through 3 of this FEIS and in specialist reports located in the 

project record located at the Blue Mountain Ranger District Office.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need for the Magone Project was developed by comparing the management 

objectives and desired conditions in the Malheur Forest Plan to the existing conditions in the project

planning area related to forest resiliency and function. Where plan information was not explicit, best 

available science and local research were utilized in a collaborative setting with stakeholders.

The overall purpose of this project is to restore forest resiliency by reestablishing and restoring forest 

structure and pattern, vegetation composition and diversity, and riparian communities to conditions 

that are more resilient to natural disturbance processes, including wildfire. Comparison of the existing

and desired future condition indicates the specific needs to:

 Restore forest structure, composition, and density toward more resistant and resilient 

vegetative conditions, given the historical fire regime.

 Reduce the fuel loadings, including the density and horizontal and vertical connectivity of 

standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels to restore characteristics of ecosystem 

composition and structure to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the project 

planning area, including the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and wildland 

urban interface (WUI). Reduce fuels along County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service 

road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as 

escape corridors from Magone Lake in the Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan.

 Maintain or improve habitat for fish and wildlife species present in the project planning area.

 Provide for a variety of social values and opportunities in the watershed, including 

availability of traditional use plants (including huckleberries), a variety of wood products 

(including merchantable sawtimber and post and poles), grazing, enhanced recreation 

experiences around Magone Lake, and forest management employment opportunities to help 

 

1 Although the Magone project planning area is approximately 27,000 acres, the overall treatment area for underburning is 

28,500 acres to allow for expanding prescribed fire boundaries to natural fuel breaks to increase firefighter safety and limit 

resource damage created by constructing new containment lines.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

16 of 632

maintain and improve community stability and infrastructure, recreational opportunities, and 

a safe road system that moves toward current public access and resource management 

objectives.

 Improve one or more of the nine roadless area characteristics (as defined by the 2001

Roadless Area Conservation Rule) within the Nipple Butte IRA.

See Chapter 1, Purpose and Need section for more details regarding the existing versus desired future 

conditions.

Public Involvement

The proposed action and other action alternatives were developed through a collaborative process 

involving the public, the Blue Mountain Forest Partners (BMFP) collaborative, and the Malheur 

National Forest staff. Beginning in the summer of 2014, fieldtrips and meetings were held with 

collaborators to discuss the existing and desired conditions of the project planning area, and a 

potential suite of activities to achieve those desired conditions. The 30-day scoping period was open 

in February/March 2015, and the 45-day comment period on the draft environmental impact 

statement was open in February/March 2016.

Key Issues

Key issues are those that represent a point of debate or concern that cannot be resolved without 

consideration of the trade-offs involved. These issues spur the design of alternatives to the proposed 

action that provide a different path to achieve project objectives. Trade-offs can be more clearly 

understood by developing alternatives and displaying the relative impacts of these alternatives 

weighed against the proposed action. The key issues identified for the Magone Project are:

 Level and effects of silviculture treatments

 Recreation developments

 Impacts to the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The key issues described above led the agency to develop two action alternatives to the proposed 

action, for a total of four alternatives.

Alternative 1 (no action)

The ‘no action alternative’ is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the 

no action alternative, no management activities proposed in any of the other alternatives would occur. 

Alternative 1 is designed to represent the existing condition and is analyzed for projected future 

conditions if no activities proposed in any of the alternatives are authorized. It serves as the baseline 

to compare and describe the differences and effects between taking no action and implementing one 

of the other alternatives.

Alternative 2 (proposed action)

Alternative 2 is the proposed action and preferred alternative, which responds to the need to restore 

forest resiliency by reestablishing and restoring forest structure and pattern, vegetation composition 

and diversity, and riparian communities to conditions that are more resilient to natural disturbance 

processes. Alternative 2 would authorize activities in five categories: silviculture treatments, 

prescribed burning, road activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake 
Magone Project

17 of 632

restoration activities. This alternative also includes a forest plan amendment to change dedicated old 

growth boundaries and to reduce Summer Range, Winter Range, and Wildlife Emphasis Area Cover 

below Malheur Forest Plan standards. More detailed descriptions are found in Chapter 2; a table 

showing each silviculture unit, haul routes, temporary road construction, and road system changes can 

be found in FEIS Appendix A – Project Activity Tables; and maps of the project activities can be 

found in FEIS Appendix B – Maps.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to the key issues, to address comments generally requesting 

more project activities. Alternative 3 would authorize activities in five categories: silviculture 

treatments, prescribed burning, road activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone 

Lake restoration activities. Compared to alternative 2, alternative 3 would include 1,506 more acres of 

silviculture treatments, and prescribed burning within most of the Nipple Butte IRA would be fall 

only ignition. Additionally, there would be 4.4 more miles of temporary road construction, 20.8 more 

miles of road maintenance, 2.2 fewer miles of road closures, 42.3 more miles of new hiking and 

bicycle trails, and OHV use would be designated on FSR 36 to Four Corners. This alternative also 

includes a forest plan amendment to change dedicated old growth boundaries and to reduce Summer 

Range, Winter Range, and Wildlife Emphasis Area Cover below Malheur Forest Plan standards. More 

detailed descriptions are found in Chapter 2; a table showing silviculture units, haul routes, temporary 

road construction, and road system changes can be found in FEIS Appendix A – Project Activity 

Tables; and maps of the project activities can be found in FEIS Appendix B – Maps.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was developed in response to the key issues, to address comments generally requesting 

fewer project activities. Alternative 4 would authorize activities in five categories: silviculture 

treatments, prescribed burning, road activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone 

Lake restoration activities. Compared to alternative 2, alternative 4 would include 6,367 fewer acres 

of silviculture treatments, 11,300 fewer acres of prescribed burning (primarily within the Nipple Butte 

IRA), 0.4 less miles of temporary road construction, 0.5 less miles of road maintenance, 2.2 less miles 

of road closures, 38.6 less miles of new hiking/bicycle trails, no new trailhead at Four Corners or the 

junction of FSR 3618064 and 3618125 (Prohibition trailhead), no new interpretive signs, and fewer 

fish cribs and sticks placed in Magone Lake. This alternative also includes a forest plan amendment to 

change dedicated old growth boundaries. More detailed descriptions are found in Chapter 2; a table 

showing silviculture units, haul routes, temporary road construction, and road system changes can be 

found in FEIS Appendix A – Project Activity Tables; and maps of the project activities can be found 

in FEIS Appendix B – Maps.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

18 of 632

Table 1. Comparison of proposed actions between alternatives

Silviculture treatments

Project activity Alt. 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Silviculture 

treatments

-- 11,872 acres

281 units

14,147 acres

349 units

5,505 acres

152 units

Commercial harvest

*Included within 

silviculture treatment 

acres

-- 4,658 acres

99 units

7,165 acres

163 units

3,551 acres

91 units

Estimated volume 

(million board feet 

[mmbf])

-- 14 MMBF 16 MMBF 9 MMBF

Prescribed burning

Project activity Alt. 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Prescribed burning 

(planned ignitions in 

spring or fall)

-- 28,500 acres 28,500 acres

*11,300 acres in the 

Nipple Butte IRA would be 

fall only planned ignitions.

17,200 acres

Recreation

Project activity Alt. 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

New trails -- 54.0 miles 96.3 miles 15.4 miles

Existing trails to undesignate -- 3.9 miles 3.9 miles 3.9 miles

Accessible trail 

development

-- Make existing trail from 

campground to north 

end of lake ADA 

accessible 

(approximately 0.2 

miles of trail 

improvement). 

Develop a new day 

use site on north side 

of lake (at the end of 

this trail improvement) 

with picnic table and 

interpretive sign.

Make existing trail from 

campground to north end 

of lake ADA accessible 

(approximately 0.2 miles 

of trail improvement). 

Develop a new day use 

site on north side of lake 

(at the end of this trail 

improvement) with picnic 

table and interpretive sign.

No developments.

Trailhead 

developments

-- Improve existing 

Nipple Butte, Lake 

Butte, and Tinker 

Creek trailheads.

Construct new 

trailheads at Four 

Corners and near the 

junction of FSR 

3618064 and 3618125 

(Prohibition trailhead).

Improve existing Nipple 

Butte, Lake Butte, and 

Tinker Creek trailheads.

Construct new trailheads

at Four Corners and near 

the junction of FSR 

3618064 and 3618125 

(Prohibition trailhead).

Improve existing 

Nipple Butte and 

Lake Butte 

trailheads.

Interpretive signs -- Place interpretive 

signs: along Slide Trail 

about the slide the 

created Magone Lake; 

on east side of 

Magone Lake about 

the slide that created 

Magone Lake; at Four 

Corners about fire, 

heritage, range, and 

vegetation types in the 

Place interpretive signs:

along Slide Trail about the 

slide the created Magone 

Lake; on east side of 

Magone Lake about the

slide that created Magone 

Lake; at Four Corners 

about fire, heritage, range, 

and vegetation types in 

the area; and on north 

No new interpretive 

signs.
Magone Project

19 of 632

Project activity Alt. 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

area; and on north side 

of Magone Lake about 

beaver activity.

side of Magone Lake 

about beaver activity.

Day use boat dock 

(southwest corner of 

lake)

-- Modify existing to be 

more functional and 

have a more rustic 

appearance.

Modify existing to be more 

functional and have a 

more rustic appearance.

Modify existing to be 

more functional and 

have a more rustic 

appearance.

Campground boat 

mooring (northwest 

corner of lake)

-- Replace with handicap 

accessible boat 

mooring.

Replace with handicap 

accessible boat mooring.

Replace with 

handicap accessible 

boat mooring.

Fishing dock (east 

side of lake)

-- Place new fishing dock 

along east side of lake.

Place new fishing dock 

along east side of lake.

--

OHV use -- -- OHV use designated on 

FSR 36 to Four Corners.

--

Magone Lake improvements

Project activity Alt. 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Fish cribs -- Place 15-20 fish cribs 

throughout lake.

Place 15-20 fish cribs 

throughout lake.

Place 5-10 fish cribs 

in 2 clusters.

Fish sticks -- Place 70-100 fish 

sticks in singles and 

clusters of 5-7 sticks of 

trees mostly 8-12 

inches DBH.

Place 70-100 fish sticks in 

singles and clusters of 5-7 

sticks of trees mostly 8-12 

inches DBH.

Place 40-70 fish 

sticks in singles and 

clusters of 5-7 sticks 

of trees mostly 8-12 

inches DBH.

Road activities

Project activity Alt. 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Miles of temporary 

road construction

-- 8.5 miles

29 road segments

12.9 miles

49 road segments

8.1 miles

28 road segments

Road maintenance 

for haul

-- 77.7 miles

78 road segments

98.5 miles

105 road segments

77.2 miles

77 road segments

Miles of new road 

closures

-- 2.5 miles

6 road segments

0.3 miles

2 road segments

0.3 miles

2 road segments

Miles of road 

decommissioning

-- 0.3 miles

1 road segment

0.3 mile

1 road segment

0.3 mile

1 road segment

Miles of past 

administratively 

closed roads to be 

confirmed as closed

-- 8.34 miles

12 road segments

8.34 miles

12 road segments

8.34 miles

12 road segments

Summary of Key Effects by Alternative

Key issues are those that represent a point of debate or concern that cannot be resolved without 

consideration of the trade-offs involved. These issues spur the design of alternatives to the proposed 

action that provide a different path to achieve project objectives. Trade-offs can be more clearly 

understood by developing alternatives and displaying the relative impacts of these alternatives 

weighed against the proposed action. See the table below for a comparison of the key effects between 

the alternatives.
Magone Project

20 of 632

Table 2. Summary of key effects by alternative

Level and effects of silviculture treatments

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Percentage 

change of 

structural stages 

in relation to the 

historical range of 

variability (HRV)

Warm Dry plant association group 

(PAG) – old forest multi strata (OFMS) 

would continue to be above HRV, after 

40 years the PAG would be deficient in 

young forest structure (stand initiation 

[SI]) decreasing to the lower limit of 

young forest multi strata (YFMS) and 

just attaining the lower limit of old forest 

single stratum (OFSS).

Warm Dry PAG – OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, 

OFSS would increase to be well 

within HRV, and after 40 years 

the PAG would be deficient in 

young forest structure (SI and 

YFMS).

Warm Dry PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be above 

HRV, OFSS would increase to 

be well within HRV, and after 

40 years the PAG would be 

deficient in young forest 

structure (SI and YFMS).

Warm Dry PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be above 

HRV, OFSS would increase

to be well within HRV, and 

after 40 years the PAG 

would be deficient in young 

forest structure (SI and 

YFMS).

Hot Dry PAG – Currently, OFSS is 

below HRV. While it is projected to 

increase, the model does not have it 

increasing to within the historic range in 

40 years. Young forest and SI are 

modeled to decrease over time. Stem 

exclusion open canopy (SEOC) stands 

move toward HRV, but are still well 

above HRV.

Hot Dry PAG – OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, 

OFSS would increase to be well 

within HRV, and after 40 years 

the PAG would be deficient in 

young forest structure (SI and 

YFMS).

Hot Dry PAG – OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, 

OFSS would increase to be 

well within HRV, after 40 

years the PAG would be 

deficient in YFMS structure, 

SI structure would increase, 

and SEOC structure would 

decrease to be closer to HRV.

Hot Dry PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be above 

HRV, OFSS would increase 

to be close to HRV, and 

after 40 years the PAG 

would be deficient in young 

forest structure (SI and 

YFMS).

Cool Moist PAG – Currently, OFSS is 

slightly higher than HRV. Over time, the 

model has OFSS moving in and out of 

HRV. OFMS, however exceeds HRV, 

and keeps increasing over time. The 

younger strata decrease over time, with 

YFMS and understory reinitiation (UR) 

moving below HRV.

Cool Moist PAG – OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV 

(although it does decrease 

slightly over 40 years), OFSS 

would increase to be well above 

HRV, and after 40 years the 

PAG would be deficient in young 

forest structure (SI and YFMS).

Cool Moist PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be above 

HRV (although it does 

decrease slightly over 40 

years), OFSS would increase 

to be well above HRV, and 

after 40 years the PAG would 

be deficient in young forest 

structure (SI and YFMS).

Cool Moist PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be above 

HRV, OFSS would increase 

to be well above HRV, after 

40 years the PAG would be 

deficient in YFMS and UR, 

and SI would be within HRV 

(but stay on the lower side 

of the range).

Cold Dry PAG – The structures 

represented in this PAG represent a 

small portion of the planning area. The 

overall trend of Old Forest structure is 

to increase above HRV, at the same 

time most of the other structure classes 

are moving into, or closer to the 

historical levels.

Cold Dry PAG – OFMS would 

continue to be within HRV, 

OFSS would increase to be well 

above HRV, and after 40 years 

the PAG would be deficient in 

young forest structure (SI and 

YFMS).

Cold Dry PAG – OFMS would 

continue to be within HRV, 

OFSS would increase to be 

well above HRV, after 40 

years the PAG be deficient in 

YFMS, and SI would increase 

and stay within HRV.

Cold Dry PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be within 

HRV, OFSS would increase 

to be well above HRV, after 

40 years the PAG would be 

deficient in YFMS, and SI 

would increase slightly over 

time and stay within HRV.

Warm Moist PAG – This PAG makes up 

a small portion of the project planning 

area. While currently the Old Forest 

structure classes are within HRV, 

modeling shows those structure classes 

Warm Moist PAG – OFMS would 

rise to be above HRV, OFSS 

would increase to slightly above 

HRV, after 40 years the PAG 

would be deficient in YFMS, and 

Warm Moist PAG – OFMS 

would stay static, OFSS 

would increase to above HRV, 

after 40 years the PAG would 

be deficient in YFMS, and SI 

Warm Moist PAG – OFMS 

would rise above HRV, 

OFSS would increase 

above HRV, and after 40 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

21 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

increasing to double and triple HRV, 

and younger forest structure classes 

going below HRV.

SI would increase slightly (but 

stay on the lower end of HRV).

would increase slightly (but 

stay on the lower end of 

HRV).

years the PAG would be 

deficient in YFMS and SI.

Percentage 

change of acres 

above the 

management 

zone (MZ), within 

the MZ, and 

below the MZ in 

40 years as 

defined by 

maximum stand 

density index 

(MaxSDI)

Warm Dry PAG – 96% above the MZ, 

3% within the MZ

Hot Dry PAG – 78% above the MZ, 6% 

within the MZ

Cool Moist PAG – 99% above the MZ, 

0% within the MZ

Cold Dry PAG – >99% above the MZ, 

1% within the MZ

Warm Moist PAG – 96% above the MZ, 

3% within the MZ

Warm Dry PAG – 69% above 

the MZ, 17% within the MZ

Hot Dry PAG – 50% above the 

MZ, 18% within the MZ

Cool Moist PAG – 68% above 

the MZ, 9% within the MZ

Cold Dry PAG – 65% above the 

MZ, 15% within the MZ

Warm Moist PAG – 74% above 

the MZ, 11% within the MZ

Warm Dry PAG – 59% above 

the MZ, 20% within the MZ

Hot Dry PAG – 48% above 

the MZ, 19% within the MZ

Cool Moist PAG – 54% above 

the MZ, 7% within the MZ

Cold Dry PAG – 58% above 

the MZ, 23% within the MZ

Warm Moist PAG – 62% 

above the MZ, 12% within the 

MZ

Warm Dry PAG – 81% 

above the MZ, 10% within 

the MZ

Hot Dry PAG – 74% above 

the MZ, 9% within the MZ

Cool Moist PAG – 87% 

above the MZ, 3% within 

the MZ

Cold Dry PAG – 74% above 

the MZ, 8% within the MZ

Warm Moist PAG – 83% 

above the MZ, 7% within 

the MZ

Acres 

mechanically 

treated

0 acres 11,872 acres 14,147 acres 5,505 acres

Viability of 

harvest

N/A Commercial harvest shows 

positive bid rates producing a 

viable harvest, $371,501 is the 

estimated revenue from the sale.

Commercial harvest shows 

positive bid rates producing a 

viable harvest, $455,258 is 

the estimated revenue from 

the sale.

Commercial harvest shows 

positive bid rates producing 

a viable harvest, $251,644 

is the estimated revenue 

from the sale.

Employment and 

income

This alternative would not harvest 

timber and therefore, would not support 

direct, indirect, and induced 

employment, or increased income to 

local economies.

Short-term economic relief by 

providing commercial saw logs 

and biomass. Harvest related 

employment (107 jobs) would 

occur for 2 years.

This alternative would generate 

$2,987,505 in direct, indirect, 

and induced local income.

Short-term economic relief by 

providing commercial saw 

logs and biomass. Harvest 

related employment (164 

jobs) would occur for 2 years.

This alternative would 

generate $4,580,008 in direct, 

indirect, and induced local 

income.

Short-term economic relief 

by providing commercial 

saw logs and biomass. 

Harvest related 

employment (82 jobs) 

would occur for 2 years.

This alternative would 

generate $2,275,992 in 

direct, indirect, and induced 

local income.

Economic 

efficiency

The public would incur no costs, nor 

realize any benefits.

A present net value of $-

292,092, with a net value per 

acre of $-62 would be 

experienced this alternative.

A present net value of $-

189,035, with a net value per 

acre of $-26 would be 

experienced this alternative.

A present net value of $-

153,352, with a net value 

per acre of $-43 would be 

experienced this 

alternative.
Magone Project

22 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Estimated volume 

(million board feet 

[mmbf])

-- 14 MMBF 16 MMBF 9 MMBF

Recreation developments

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Recreation 

opportunity 

spectrum (ROS)

Area surrounding the Magone Lake 

recreation area would continue to be 

classified as Roaded Natural under the 

ROS.

The proposed actions are 

intended to enhance the visitor 

experience by improving and 

creating recreation 

opportunities that are 

compatible with the ROS and 

consistent with the Malheur 

Forest Plan. The area 

surrounding the Magone Lake 

recreation area would continue 

to be classified as Roaded 

Natural under the ROS.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Recreation 

opportunities

The no action alternative would 

perpetuate existing conditions in the 

Magone project planning area. Attractive 

mountain biking opportunities would 

continue to be nonexistent, as the trails 

on roads that currently exist were 

designed for vehicles, not bicycles. The 

fishing and boating opportunities at 

Magone Lake would not be improved.

Silviculture (11,872 acres) and 

prescribed burning treatments 

(up to 28,500 acres) would 

reduce the fire risk to 

developed recreation and the 

surrounding recreational 

setting.

Fish habitat improvements 

would serve to enhance fishing 

opportunities.

Trail developments would 

increase the hiking and 

bicycling opportunities in and 

around the Magone Lake 

recreation area. The 

opportunities would be created 

through 48.8 miles of new trail, 

improvements to the Lake Butte 

and Tinker Creek trailheads

and the Nipple Butte trailhead 

and its access road, and new 

trailheads at Four Corners and 

near the junction of FSR 

Silviculture (14,147 acres) and 

prescribed burning treatments 

(up to 28,500 acres) would 

reduce the fire risk to 

developed recreation and the 

surrounding recreational 

setting.

Fish habitat improvements 

would serve to enhance 

fishing opportunities.

Trail developments would 

significantly increase the 

hiking and bicycling 

opportunities in and around 

the Magone Lake recreation 

area. The opportunities would 

be created through 92.4 miles 

of new trail, improvements to 

the Lake Butte and Tinker 

Creek trailheads and the 

Nipple Butte trailhead and its 

access road, and new 

trailheads at Four Corners and 

near the junction of FSR 

Silviculture (5,505 acres) 

and prescribed burning 

treatments (up to 17,200 

acres) would reduce the 

fire risk to developed 

recreation and the 

surrounding recreational 

setting.

Fish habitat improvements 

would serve to enhance 

fishing opportunities, 

although less than 

experienced under 

alternatives 2 and 3 due to 

a smaller number of fish 

sticks and logs being 

placed.

Trail developments would 

somewhat increase the 

hiking and bicycling 

opportunities in and around 

the Magone Lake 

recreation area. The 

opportunities would be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

23 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

3618064 and 3618125 

(Prohibition trailhead).

3618064 and 3618125 

(Prohibition trailhead).

created through 11.9 miles 

of new trail, and 

improvements to the Lake 

Butte trailhead and the 

Nipple Butte trailhead and 

its access road.

Public access to 

recreation

Recreational use of forest roads would 

not be immediately affected, as there 

would not be any changes to the existing 

road system.

The continued buildup of fuel loads 

along escape corridors from the Magone 

Lake recreation area would have the 

indirect effect of decreasing safety in the 

Magone Lake recreation area by 

increasing the risk of uncharacteristic 

fire along these routes.

Recreational use of forest 

roads would be minimally 

affected with 2.5 miles of road 

being closed and 0.3 miles of 

road being decommissioned.

Recreational driving would 

benefit due to road 

maintenance that would be 

needed for silvicultural 

treatments and commercial 

harvest.

Recreational use of forest 

roads would be minimally 

affected with 0.3 miles of road 

being closed and 0.3 miles of 

road being decommissioned.

Recreational driving would 

benefit due to road 

maintenance that would be 

needed for silvicultural 

treatments and commercial 

harvest.

Same as alternative 3.

Impacts to the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Effects on nine 

characteristics of 

inventoried 

roadless areas 

(IRAs)

There would be no direct or indirect 

effects to the Nipple Butte IRA because 

no activities would occur. The existing 

condition would remain unchanged, 

except by natural processes and 

ongoing management activities. 

Biological and ecosystem functions 

would continue. Growth rates of trees 

would continue to decline, and natural 

processes that affect tree vigor and 

changes in stand structure would 

continue. The landscape would likely 

continue developing complex fuel loads. 

A wildfire may burn more extensively 

and kill more trees within forest stands, 

which would result in larger acreages of 

blackened landscapes compared to 

prescribed fires. Fire is a natural 

occurrence and expected disturbance 

process in this landscape.

Alternative 2 is likely to result in 

the most detrimental effects 

due to approximately 3,660 

acres of commercial and noncommercial thinning, and 

construction of approximately 

19 miles of new trail. Many or 

most of these apply in the short 

term only; treatments are 

expected to have long-term 

positive impacts on high quality 

or undisturbed soil, water, and 

air; diversity of plant and animal 

communities; primitive, semiprimitive non-motorized, and 

semi-primitive motorized 

classes of dispersed recreation; 

natural appearance landscapes 

with high scenic quality; 

referenced landscapes; 

traditional cultures properties 

and sacred sites; or any other 

Same as with alternative 2, 

except with 3,999 acres of 

commercial and noncommercial thinning, and 

construction of approximately 

33 miles of new trail. Shortterm detrimental effects are 

slightly less with silviculture 

treatments, and greater with 

trail construction. Long-term 

positive effects are also 

slightly less with this 

alternative.

High quality or undisturbed 

soil, water, and air – Same 

as alternative 2, except no 

silviculture treatments are 

proposed, 0.4 miles of road 

decommissioning is 

expected to increase soil 

productivity, and trail 

development is expected to 

detrimentally impact 

negligible acres of soil. 

Detrimental impacts to 

water are not expected; 

however, fuel loads would 

remain high and may result 

in high-severity burns that 

would impact water quality. 
Magone Project

24 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

locally identified unique 

characteristics. 

Effects of 

silviculture 

treatments

Without entering the Nipple Butte IRA, 

many acres of overstocked forest would 

be left unmanaged. Previous fire 

suppression and other activities have led 

to encroachment of species that would 

have been regularly thinned naturally 

with fire suppression. Both in and out of 

the IRA, this has led to stocking levels 

and species compositions different to 

what would have occurred historically.

Sixty percent of the old forest structure 

(OFSS and OFMS) within the project 

planning area is within the Nipple Butte 

IRA. In the Hot Dry and Warm Dry 

PAGs, which cover 66 percent of the 

project planning area, if no actions are 

taken, those PAGs would double their 

current range, increasing overstocking in 

old forest types, which might lead to 

these areas having a greater chance of 

uncharacteristic wildfire or insect 

infestation. Younger structural stages 

would decrease over time in the Warm 

Dry and Hot Dry PAGs, decreasing to 

below HRV.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” 

of the IRA would follow the trends 

described above, with OFSS moving in 

and out of HRV, OFMS exceeding HRV 

and increasing over time, and the 

younger strata decreasing over time 

(with YFMS and UR moving below 

HRV).

The majority of the Nipple Butte 

IRA is composed of Warm Dry 

and Hot Dry PAGS, within 

which the old forest structure 

(OFSS & OFMS) would 

increase over time to be within 

(OFSS) or above (OFMS) HRV. 

Young forest in the Warm Dry 

PAG would be below or on the 

low side of HRV, and in the Hot 

Dry PAG SI would be well 

above the historic range.

The pocket of Cool Moist would 

follow the trend of Old Forest 

structure increasing and 

remaining well above HRV, and 

young forest would be 

decreasing to below HRV.

Same as alternative 2, except 

OFSS would increase more, 

and OFMS would increase 

less. Young forest structure in 

the Warm Dry PAG would be 

below or on the lower end of 

HRV in 2055 and in the Hot 

Dry PAG SI would increase to 

be well above HRV in 2055, 

similar to what would be seen 

under alternative 2.

The pocket of Cool Moist in 

the “thumb” of the IRA would 

follow the trends of old forest 

structure increasing and 

remaining well above HRV, 

with more OFSS and less 

OFMS than would be seen 

under alternative 2. Young 

forest structure would 

decrease to be below or on 

the lower end of HRV, similar 

to what would be seen under 

alternative 2.

Same as alternative 2, 

except OFSS would 

increase more, and OFMS 

would increase less, in 

comparison to alternative 2. 

Young forest structure in 

the Hot Dry PAG would also 

be below or on the lower 

end of HRV in 2055, in 

contrast to the increase in 

SI to well above HRV that 

would be seen under 

alternative 2.

The pocket of Cool Moist in 

the “thumb” of the IRA 

would follow the trends of 

old forest structure 

increasing and remaining 

well above HRV, with 

significantly less OFSS and 

OFMS than would be seen 

under alternative 2. Young 

forest structure would 

decrease to be below or on 

the lower end of HRV, 

similar to what would be 

seen under alternative 2.

Effects of 

prescribed 

burning

Fuel loadings are uncharacteristically 

high as a result of suppression efforts 

and insect and disease- caused conifer 

mortality. Fuel loading in 2055 would 

make fire suppression more difficult, 

which directly affects the ability to 

protect life, resources, and property. 

Under alternative 2, stands 

within the IRA with light fuel 

loads remain about the same 

after treatment. The biggest 

effect would be a decrease in 

the number of stands with 

heavy fuel loads. It is 

Same as alternative 2, except 

alternative 3 proposes 

additional mechanical 

treatments within the IRA, and 

combined with the proposed 

prescribed fuels treatments a 

slightly greater reduction in 

Alternative 4 proposes no 

mechanical treatments in 

the Nipple Butte IRA. With 

the exception of the 

northeast corner of the IRA, 

no planned ignitions are 

prescribed either. Direct 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

25 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Moderate to heavy fuel loading is 

expected to comprise the majority of the 

IRA. Lower fuel loading is predicted in 

the center of the IRA; however, the east 

and west boundaries are predicted to 

have moderate to heavy fuel loadings in 

2055.

By 2055 the north half of the IRA, 

particularly the northeast corner, would 

be affected by crown fire should an 

ignition occur under the right conditions.

Roadless area ecosystem 

characteristics within the IRA would 

continue to depart from historical 

composition and structures, leading to 

uncharacteristic effects if a wildfire were 

to occur during high or extreme fire 

danger.

anticipated the majority of acres 

with heavy fuel loads would 

shift to moderate fuel loads 

following treatment.

The potential for sustained 

crown fire within the IRA would 

be minimized.

Treatments proposed under 

alternative 2 align with the 

roadless rule where the cutting, 

sale, or removal of generally 

small diameter timber would 

restore or maintain ecosystem 

composition and structure, 

reducing the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire effects 

within the range of variability 

that would be expected to occur 

under the natural disturbance 

regimes under the current 

climatic period. 36 CFR 

294.13(b)(1).

fuel loading and potential 

crown fire can be seen 

compared to alternative 2.

and indirect effects would 

be similar to those 

described in the no action 

alternative in untreated 

stands within the IRA. If 

timing and weather allowed, 

management of unplanned 

ignitions would potentially 

reduce fuel loading and 

crown fire potential in the 

IRA. With the absence of 

mechanical treatments and 

relying solely on unplanned 

ignitions to manage fuels in 

the IRA, fuel and vegetation 

conditions would likely 

continue their departure 

from historical conditions 

and eventually succumb to 

the effects of wildfire or 

insect and disease.

Effects of 

hiking/bicycle 

trails

The no action alternative would 

perpetuate existing conditions. Seasonal 

usage patterns and levels would remain 

the same.

Attractive mountain biking opportunities 

would continue to be nonexistent.

Trail developments would 

significantly increase the hiking 

and bicycling opportunities. 

There would be a moderate 

distance of new trail (19.4 

miles) built within the Nipple 

Butte IRA.

Trail developments would be 

extensive and would very 

significantly increase the 

hiking and bicycling 

opportunities. This alternative 

would have the greatest 

distance of new trail mileage 

(32.7 miles) within the Nipple 

Butte IRA.

Trail developments would 

somewhat improve the 

hiking and bicycling 

opportunities. There would 

be only a very small 

distance of new trail (7.6 

miles) within the Nipple 

Butte Inventoried Roadless 

Area (IRA).

Impacts to 

forage/wildlife

Upland shrub enhancement (conifer 

removal) treatments would not occur 

under this alternative and 

mahogany/bitterbrush communities 

would continue to be encroached and 

could ultimately be lost in the long-term. 

These communities provide critical 

quality browse and hiding cover for big 

game species. Allowing these upland 

shrub areas to continue to be 

overtopped and diminished could result 

Following the completion of 

implementation of vegetation 

treatments (mid- to long-term), 

it would be expected that 

overall habitat for elk would 

substantially improve from 

current conditions. Mechanical 

treatments combined with 

prescribed fire would open the 

forest canopy, promote 

regeneration, promote vigor 

Same as alternative 2. The vegetation treatments 

proposed in alternative 4 

would have similar 

beneficial effects to elk 

habitat, however not as 

evident compared to 

alternatives 2 and 3. The 

lack of upland shrub 

enhancement (conifer 

removal) treatments in the 

Nipple Butte WEA is 
Magone Project

26 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

in a substantial loss of quality habitat for 

elk and mule deer.

and expansion of grass and 

many browse species. Forage 

would increase under all

alternatives.

Upland shrub enhancement 

would be expected to improve 

big game habitat vastly on 

3,865 acres in the IRA, the 

majority of which would occur in 

the Wildlife Emphasis Area 

(WEA).

noticeable under alternative 

4 as habitat effectiveness 

index values actually 

decrease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

27 of 632

Decision Framework

The Forest Supervisor of the Malheur National Forest is the responsible official who will review the 

proposed action, the alternatives to the proposed action, and the environmental consequences to make a 

decision. The decision should contain activities that best meet the purpose and need, the desired future 

condition, and provide consistency with Malheur Forest Plan standards and guidelines for all related 

resource areas. The decision would include project design criteria necessary to provide resource 

protection. The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to:

 Select one of the action alternatives that has been considered in detail, or

 Modify the selected alternative, and

 Identify what mitigation measures would apply, or

 Select the no action alternative.

If only a portion of activities from one of the action alternatives is selected, or a combination of activities 

from multiple action alternatives is selected, then the Forest Supervisor will decide whether to amend the 

Malheur Forest Plan.
Magone Project

28 of 632

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Changes between the Preliminary and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

The following changes were made to the Magone Project Environmental Impact Statement between the 

preliminary and final versions:

 Minor editorial changes throughout the document.

 Added more information to the rationale for proposed road system changes in FEIS Appendix A –

Project Activity Tables.

 Created a Snag Report for the project.

 Added a no temporary road construction alternative considered, but eliminated from detailed 

study.

 Clarified analysis of impacts to the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area.

 Clarified analysis of proposed forest plan amendments under the 2012 Planning Rule.

 Separated discussion of proposed road system changes and designation of roads as trails because 

they are separate proposals.

 Clarified that some roads that were administratively closed in the past would be confirmed as 

closed by the Magone Project.

1.1 Introduction

The Magone project planning area is one of the planning areas identified for accelerated restoration on the 

Malheur National Forest. An interdisciplinary team gathered information at a watershed scale and used 

that information to develop a suite of activities to improve resource resiliency, processes, and functions 

within the Magone project planning area,

2

and move the planning area towards its desired future 

condition.

The Forest Service has prepared this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in compliance with the 

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

This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the 

proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into the following chapters:

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the background 

and purpose of and need for the project. This section also details how the Forest Service informed 

the public of the proposal and the issues identified through public scoping.

 Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed 

description of the proposed action as well as alternative methods for meeting the need for action. 

These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the public and other agencies. This 

section also provides a summary table of the design components that compares the relative risks 

and benefits of each alternative.

 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes 

the current condition of the resources in the Magone project planning area. It also details the 

environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives.

 Chapter 4: Preparers and Contributors: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies 

and people consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. Chapter 4 

 

2 The term project planning area (or planning area) is used to describe the overall area of consideration that was reviewed for 

the development of treatment needs and opportunities. Project areas are defined as the areas within the broader project planning 

area where activities are being proposed and would occur; project areas are identified in Chapter 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

29 of 632

also includes a glossary of definitions for technical terms used in this document, a list of 

references cited in this document, and an index.

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

environmental impact statement.

Additional documentation, including site-specific reports with more detailed analyses of project area 

resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Malheur National Forest, Blue 

Mountain Ranger District, John Day, Oregon.

1.2 Background

The proposed action and other action alternatives were developed through a collaborative process 

involving the public, the Blue Mountain Forest Partners (BMFP) collaborative, and Malheur National 

Forest staff. Beginning in the summer of 2014, fieldtrips and meetings were held with collaborators to 

discuss the existing and desired conditions of the project planning area, and a potential suite of activities 

to achieve those desired conditions.

On June 18, 2014, BMFP and Malheur National Forest staff visited sites within the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) in the Magone project planning area. Site visits within the IRA included 

discussions on fir and juniper encroachment, wildlife habitat improvement, forest densities, ladder fuels, 

fire starts, potential silviculture treatments, and natural ignition.

On July 16, 2014, Blue Mountain Forest Partners and Malheur National Forest staff visited sites around 

the Magone Lake recreation area. Discussion topics at the sites visited included aesthetics and visuals, fir 

encroachment, safety corridors, trail improvements, fuel breaks, ladder fuels, cool moist pockets, and 

recreation site management versus lake management.

In September 2014, the Forest Service interdisciplinary team for the Magone Project presented resource 

stories on the existing condition of the project planning area to the Blue Mountain Forest Partners 

collaborative at their regular monthly meeting. The resource stories served as a baseline for developing 

proposed treatments. These same resource stories were also presented at a public open house meeting on 

September 24, 2014. Stakeholders of the project planning area were invited to attend and an article was 

published in the Blue Mountain Eagle on August 27, 2014, to announce the meeting to local interested 

public. In addition, flyers were circulated at the Magone Campground in the summer and fall and there 

was a radio spot on the radio station KJDY where the District Ranger shared information about the 

planning process for the Magone Project. The extended and more detailed versions of the Magone Project 

resource stories can be found online: 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ZBnsdnJddrU7TNXorZsK844YMjK6JgL.

On April 15, 2015, BMFP and Malheur National Forest staff visited sites within the Nipple Butte IRA. 

Site visits within the IRA included discussions on prescribed burning and removing conifers and juniper 

that are encroaching upon and shading out mountain mahogany and other upland shrubs. Other fieldtrip 

stops looked at a stand that is proposed to be moved from dedicated old growth to replacement old growth 

designation, with thinning to help create variable density and move the stand toward old growth 

characteristics.

1.3 Project Planning Area

The Magone Project is located on the Blue Mountain Ranger District within the Malheur National Forest. 

The project planning area is located in Grant County approximately 7 miles north of the town of John 
Magone Project

30 of 632

Day, Oregon. The Magone project planning area encompasses approximately 27,000 acres3in the Grub 

Creek and East Fork Beech Creek subwatersheds that drain into the Upper John Day River. The main road 

access to the project planning area is via County Road 18 off US Highway 26 from east of the project 

planning area and County Road 18 off US Highway 395 from the west. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, 

Map 1.

The legal description for the project planning area is (township, range, and sections):

 Township 11 South, Range 31 East, sections 25-29, 32-36;

 T. 11 S., R. 32 E., sec. 30-32;

 T. 12 S., R. 31 E., sec. 1-5, 8-12, 13-15, 17-24;

 T. 12 S., R. 32 E., sec., 5-11, 15-20, Willamette Meridian.

Magone Lake, the most popular developed recreation resource on the Blue Mountain Ranger District, is 

located within the project planning area. Magone Lake was formed by a landslide in about 1840. In 

addition to the lake, the project planning area includes 19 dispersed campsites, 15 miles of 

foot/horse/bicycle/off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails, 1 designated snowmobile trail, and 1 developed 

OHV trail.

The Magone project planning area ranges in elevation from 3,520 feet at the western boundary of the 

project planning area to 6,240 feet at the northern boundary.

There are eight plant association groups (PAGs) that occur within the Magone project planning area as 

displayed in Table 3. The four largest PAGs in the project planning area are Warm Dry Upland Forest 

(UF), Hot Dry UF, Warm Moist UF, and Cool Moist UF.

Table 3. Plant association groups in the Magone project planning area

Plant association group (PAG) Acres*

Warm Dry Upland Forest (UF) 14,170

Hot Dry UF 4,470

Warm Moist UF 2,230

Cool Moist UF 2,070

Hot Moist Upland Woodland (UW) 1,790

Cold Dry UF 990

Cool Dry UF 90

Warm Moist Upland Herbland (UH) 20

*Some areas do not have a PAG identified, so the total acreage is less than the project planning area.

Approximately 10,195 acres of the 11,525-acre Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) is located 

within the Magone project planning area (comprising 38 percent of the total project planning area). The 

area is comprised primarily of steep, mountainous terrain and is dissected by the Clear Creek and 

McClellan Creek drainages. The principle recreation use of the area is big-game hunting. The natural 

appearance of the area has been impacted by grazing, recreation, and fire suppression (USDA Forest 

Service 1990b, pages C-112 to C-117). In addition, there are several roads and past timber harvest units 

within the IRA.

 

3 Although the Magone project planning area is approximately 27,000 acres, the overall treatment area for underburning is 28,500 

acres to allow for expanding prescribed fire boundaries to natural fuel breaks to increase firefighter safety and limit resource 

damage created by constructing new containment lines.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

31 of 632

1.4 Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for the Magone Project was developed by comparing the management objectives 

and desired conditions in the Malheur Forest Plan to the existing conditions in the project planning area 

related to forest resiliency and function. Where plan information was not explicit, best available science 

and local research were utilized in a collaborative setting with stakeholders.

The overall purpose of this project is to restore forest resiliency by reestablishing and restoring forest 

structure and pattern, vegetation composition and diversity, and riparian communities to conditions that 

are more resilient to natural disturbance processes, including wildfire. Comparison of the existing and 

desired future condition indicates the specific needs to:

 Restore forest structure, composition, and density toward more resistant and resilient vegetative 

conditions given the historical fire regime.

 Reduce the fuel loadings, including the density and horizontal and vertical connectivity of 

standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels to restore characteristics of ecosystem 

composition and structure to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the project planning 

area, including the Nipple Butte IRA and wildland urban interface (WUI). Also, reduce fuels 

along County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, 

FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as escape corridors from Magone Lake in the 

Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan.

 Maintain or improve habitat for fish and wildlife species present in the project planning area.

 Provide for a variety of social values and opportunities in the watershed, including availability of 

traditional use plants (including huckleberries), a variety of wood products (including 

merchantable sawtimber and post and poles), grazing, enhanced recreation experiences around 

Magone Lake, and forest management employment opportunities to help maintain and improve 

community stability and infrastructure, recreational opportunities, and a safe road system that 

moves toward current public access and resource management objectives.

 Improve one or more of the nine roadless area characteristics (as defined by the 2001 Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule) within the Nipple Butte IRA.

1.4.1 Existing and Desired Future Condition

1.4.1.1 Forest Structure, Composition, and Density

The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Eastside Screens, 

provides the basis for actively addressing restoration toward the historical range of variability and moving 

the area toward a more resistant and resilient landscape. Currently, values and features associated with 

and adjacent to the project planning area such as the Magone Lake recreation area, dispersed recreation 

sites and trails, the Nipple Butte IRA, old growth management areas, wildlife habitat, riparian corridors, 

and scenic views are susceptible to a wide-scale disturbance. The purpose of silvicultural treatments is to 

shift the forest structure, composition, and density toward historical conditions and to reduce 

susceptibility to insects and disease. There is a need to break up fuel continuity and strategically place 

treatments to account for these values and features. The need for increasing resistance and resilience 

applies to all plant association groups in the project planning area.

In 2014, the Magone project planning area was evaluated by the Blue Mountains Forest Insect and 

Disease Service Center. The results of this field evaluation are:

 Most (86 percent) of the forested areas in the Magone project planning area are significantly 

overstocked.
Magone Project

32 of 632

 Mixed conifer stands no longer resemble their historical assemblages and are currently at a risk of 

high-severity fire, defoliator outbreaks, and bark beetle attacks.

 Mixed conifer stands that are now dominated by grand fir and Douglas-fir show evidence of a 

large departure from their historical stand composition, structure, and density.

 The current low density of large, old ponderosa pine and larch, and a much higher density of 

younger, smaller fir is evidence of historically fire-maintained, open, early-seral dominated 

stands.

 The evidence of prior dominance by seral ponderosa pine and western larch indicates historically 

frequent fires, where pine and larch could establish on mineral soil seedbeds (Spiegel et al. 2014).

Plant associations for the Blue Mountains were grouped into plant association groups (PAGs) by Powell 

et al. (2007) based on a temperature and moisture gradient, and represent similar ecological environments. 

Plant association groups are used in this analysis to differentiate between different forest types. 

Approximately 86 percent of the Magone project planning area is composed of upland forest, with the 

majority of the area in the Warm Dry and Hot Dry PAGs (66 percent). The Cool Moist (8 percent), Warm 

Moist (8 percent), and Cold Dry (4 percent) PAGs are also present, and there are small amounts of other 

PAGs, riparian forest, and juniper forest types scattered across the area. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, 

Map 18.

The desired future condition is to increase the resiliency of the Magone project planning area by:

 Reducing stand density to manage more within the management zone.4

 Shifting towards more historical species composition given the historical fire regime.

 Shifting towards structural stages that are within or moving towards the historical range of 

variability.

Obtaining these conditions would increase tree growth and vigor, decrease risk of large-scale, standreplacement wildfire, and reduce the susceptibility of epidemic insect and disease outbreaks.

Disturbance Processes

The Magone project planning area has historically and is currently being affected by many disturbance 

agents including insects, diseases, fire, and human related disturbances such as timber harvest, fire 

suppression, and grazing. Fire and fire management has played a major role in shaping the structure, 

species composition, and density of this area, and will continue to play this role into the future.

Insects present within the Magone project planning area include bark beetles and defoliators. Currently, 

the insects are at low levels, and play an important role in contributing to structural diversity and 

providing dead wood habitat for wildlife and soil productivity. Scattered individual tree mortality creates 

small openings in stands where pockets of understory can establish.

There are many diseases prevalent within the Magone project planning area including dwarf mistletoes, 

armillaria, annosus, and Indian paint fungus. As with insects, these diseases play a role in creating 

structural diversity, creating a source of snags and down logs, providing important wildlife habitat, and 

recycling nutrients to maintain soil productivity. They also provide unique wildlife habitat, such as 

roosting sites for grouse. At severe levels, these diseases can greatly inhibit tree growth and old forest 

structure. 

 

4 For any given average tree size for each species there is a limit to the number of trees per acre that may coexist in a stand. The 

management zone is where silviculturists tend to prescribe to manage within, because site resources are generally being captured 

into tree growth and there is high stand growth. See the Forest Vegetation section of chapter 3 and the Silviculture Report for 

more information about the management zone.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

33 of 632

The desired condition is for insects and disease to continue to play a role at endemic levels. Meeting the 

desired condition for structural stages, species composition, and density would maintain insects and 

diseases on the landscape at endemic levels, creating individual tree mortality and small patches of snags 

and dead and down wood, which provide valuable wildlife habitat. This would also reduce the risk of 

insects and diseases reaching epidemic levels, which would cause widespread mortality, consequently 

increasing fuel loading and fire hazard.

Aspen Stands

Aspen has been documented at approximately 10 locations within the project planning area. The aspen 

overstory of most stands is single-storied and even-aged with many stands likely close to the end of their 

natural life cycle. Many of the stands are still suckering, but at a reduced rate and most suckers do not 

reach sapling size because of ungulate browsing.

The desired condition is a landscape containing healthy stands that are characteristic of historical 

conditions in representation and distribution. Aspen stands would be well represented by different age 

classes of stems, from suckers to large old trees. Healthy clones would have existing young stems, and 

periodic suckering to replace old stems that die. Healthy clones would also maintain or fully occupy their 

community type. A study by Swanson et al. (2010) states that removal of competing conifers by natural 

disturbance or management action is required to perpetuate aspen in many cases. Herbivory also prevents 

aspen regeneration in many areas, and thus fencing is usually needed (Swanson et al. 2010).

1.4.1.2 Fuel Loading

The Magone project planning area has predominantly a general south to southwest aspect; however, all 

aspects are represented. Slope steepness greater than 60 percent can be found throughout the project 

planning area, but generally, slopes are less than 40 percent. During fire season, days with high fire 

danger often see temperatures rise above 80 degrees Fahrenheit, relative humidity fall into the mid-teens, 

and winds exceeding 10 miles per hour generally out of the west to south. These weather conditions 

combined with dry or mostly-dry lightning storms in the summer months can present difficult challenges 

during suppression activities in the Magone project planning area. In addition to the Magone Lake 

recreation area, there are structures located within or adjacent to the project planning area, and 

approximately 25 miles of shared boundary between national forest lands and private lands.

The Magone project planning area has a high fire risk based on the potential and frequency for wildfire 

ignitions in the area (mostly caused by lightning). There has been an increase in understory vegetation 

and surface fuels, a change in species composition, and an increase in the continuity of vertical and 

horizontal stand structure. The majority of the Magone project planning area has light fuel loads of less 

than 8 tons per acre (tonnage calculations only include down woody material). 

However, many of the forested stands identified as having moderate (8-15 tons per acre) to heavy (15+ 

tons per acre) fuel loads are located adjacent to or within the Magone Lake recreation area and alongside 

designated safety corridors and the wildland-urban interface. Greater fireline intensities, increased 

mortality, and resistance to control efforts can be expected in areas with higher fuel loads.

There is potential for passive crown fire (when single trees or small groups of trees torch) on 

approximately 35 percent of the planning area. Crown conditional fires occur when crown bulk density is 

high enough to sustain a crown fire, even though there is not enough surface and ladder fuels to lift the 

fire into tree crowns. These conditions are present on approximately 7 percent of the planning area.

Active crown fire (when the fire moves through the crowns of adjacent tightly spaced trees) may occur on 

approximately 12 percent of the project planning area. The potential for surface fire is present on 46 

percent of the project planning area. Much of the larger ponderosa pine and western larch in the project 
Magone Project

34 of 632

planning area have smaller grand fir and Douglas-fir growing as ladder fuels underneath. The Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) model indicates some classification of crown fire is likely within and 

adjacent to the Magone Lake recreation site should a fire occur on days with hot, dry, and windy weather 

forecasted. Additionally, FVS indicates Forest Service roads (FSR) 18 and 36 and the western boundary 

of the project planning area could likely experience extreme fire behavior under the previously mentioned

conditions.

Historical stand structure played an important role in maintaining fire-dependent forest types (Graham et 

al. 2004). Most of the forest in the project planning area is overstocked and mixed conifer stands no 

longer resemble their historical assemblages (i.e., there is now a higher proportion of grand fir and 

Douglas-fir rather than ponderosa pine and western larch) (Spiegel et al. 2014).

Part of the desired future condition is to reduce fuels along County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest 

Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as escape 

corridors from Magone Lake in the Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan. In the event of a 

wildfire the roads could serve as the evacuation route for the residents of homes or ranches outside of the 

project planning area, recreationists on the Malheur National Forest, or those utilizing adjacent lands. 

This is particularly important in this project planning area due to the high level of use at the Magone Lake 

Recreation Area.

The Malheur Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a), Malheur National Forest Fire Management Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 2013), and National Fire Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 2001, 2002, and 2006) provide guiding direction for fuels management in the Magone 

project planning area. Overall, the desired condition is to have fire maintain a mosaic of diverse native 

plant communities; stand structures would be varied and reflective of the vegetation structures and fuel 

loadings historically found when fires played a more frequent and natural role in the area. Available fuel 

is the only factor that can be changed through management actions. The desired fuels condition include a 

mixture of stands with moderate densities of understory conifers and ladder fuels intermixed with other 

stands exhibiting low densities of small conifers and other ladder fuels, lower canopy densities (less dead 

standing trees and live individual tree crown overlap), and increased distances from surface fuels to tree 

crowns. Surface fuels (small trees, shrubs, and dead and down vegetation) and overall canopy density 

would be a mosaic of open and closed crowns. Reducing surface fuels is directly correlated to fireline 

intensity. The desire would be to manage fuels such that fire starts in the area would generally exhibit 

ground fire behavior with occasional torching leading to reduced potential for a surface fire to transition 

into an active crown fire.

The desired condition is to have fire function as a natural disturbance within the ecosystem without 

causing loss to ecosystem function or to human safety, lives, and values. Over time, conditions would 

allow managers to use fire to maintain the area as a functioning ecosystem. Fire would continue to play an 

important role in shaping and maintaining the vegetative communities and wildlife habitat across the 

landscape. Maintaining these low and mixed-severity fire regimes over time would minimize the loss of 

old growth and wildlife habitat for the vast majority of species that evolved within the historical fire 

regimes. Fuel loadings would provide for adequate duff and coarse woody debris to minimize soil 

exposure and maintain long-term site productivity.

1.4.1.3 Habitat for Fish and Wildlife Species

Aquatic Habitat

The Beech Creek and Upper John Day Watershed meets the criteria for a PACFISH key watershed. 

Criteria considered to designate key watersheds are:
Final Environmental Impact Statement

35 of 632

1. Watersheds with stocks listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, or stocks identified in the 

1991 American Fisheries Society report as “at risk” or subsequent scientific stock status reviews

2. Watersheds that contain excellent habitat for mixed salmonid assemblages

3. Degraded watersheds with a high restoration potential

The intent of designating key watersheds is to protect and restore habitat for anadromous fish across the 

landscape (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995).

Fish habitat in the analysis area generally does not meet Malheur Forest Plan desired future conditions 

(DFCs) and riparian management objectives (RMOs) for pool frequency, large woody debris (LWD), 

sediment, temperature, and width-to-depth ratio. The condition of important habitat elements including 

low pool frequency, high water temperatures, reduced LWD frequency, high fine sediment levels, and 

moderately high width-to-depth ratios indicate reduced fish habitat quality as a result of past management 

activities. Although bank stability generally does meet the RMOs, specific locations where bank 

instability is occurring are not in the appropriate locations. Areas of bank instability often occur on the 

outside banks of stream meanders. Many of the streams, in particular East Fork Beech Creek, have eroded 

down to the stream armor layer with limited or no stream banks present. Where stream channels have 

been straightened, bank instability is occurring on both sides of the stream channel due to excessive 

stream energy and lack of energy dissipation in the form of LWD, sinuosity, and floodplain roughness. 

Most streams in the analysis area are in a highly altered state, with conditions of important habitat 

elements limiting quality of fish habitat and water storage capabilities.

Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and Malheur Forest 

Plan Management Indicator Species [MIS]), redband trout (Region 6 sensitive species and MIS), and 

westslope cutthroat trout (Region 6 sensitive species), are documented to occur within the project 

planning area. Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat also exists within the project planning area. 

In addition, the Columbia spotted frog (Region 6 sensitive species) is considered present in all 

subwatersheds of the Malheur National Forest and is known to occur within the analysis area.

The desired future condition for the Magone project planning area is to have a properly-functioning 

watershed, including restored natural processes and functions that allow the watershed to maintain 

diversity and complexity. Objectives would be met from multiple sources including: 1973 Endangered 

Species Act, 1976 National Forest Management Act, 1990 Malheur Forest Plan, and 1995 Interim 

Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, 

Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH).

Wildlife Corridors

The Eastside Screens (USDA Forest Service 1995a) gives direction for maintaining connectivity between 

late and old structure habitats to allow the free movement of old growth wildlife species. Late and old 

structure stands need to be connected with each other inside the watershed and to like stands in adjacent 

watersheds in a contiguous network pattern by at least two different directions. Under Amendment #2, 

corridors should commonly have medium diameter or larger trees and canopy closure within the upper 

third of site potential. Corridors should be at least 400 feet wide. If stands with these conditions are not 

available, then the next best stands would be selected and should be managed to improve connectivity.

The desired condition is that stands of different sizes and ages would be dispersed across the landscape to 

provide a mixture of forage and sustainable security cover for big game. Large diameter (greater than 20 

inches) down woody debris and snags would exist in densities to support reproductive populations of 

dependent species. Down woody material would exist at levels providing for the needs of wildlife species 

dependent on this habitat component. Old Forest would be within the historical range of variability and 
Magone Project

36 of 632

well connected via wildlife corridors to facilitate movement of wildlife species between distant Old Forest 

patches. Unique and sensitive habitats would occur in context with surrounding vegetation that allows for 

their use by associated wildlife species. Wildlife nests and den sites would contain the structural and 

security characteristics necessary for successful reproduction and rearing of young to dispersal age.

Roads

Several roads adjacent to streams in the project planning area are causing resource damage. One of the 

objectives of the Malheur Forest Plan for roads is to “Manage the transportation network to reduce the 

cost and impact of roads...[and] to correct chronic sediment sources and prevent fish barriers...” (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a, page IV-23).

The desired future condition is to close or decommission roads in sensitive riparian areas to reduce 

sediment inputs into the affected streams, and restore floodplain and habitat connectivity.

1.4.1.4 Roadless Area Characteristics in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

The Nipple Butte IRA makes up approximately 37 percent of the Magone project planning area 

(approximately 10,000 acres of the 27,000-acre project planning area). IRAs were identified in the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service 

Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, 

which are held at the National headquarters office of the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or 

revision of those maps (36 CFR 294.11). These areas were set aside through administrative rulemaking 

and have provisions, within the context of multiple-use management, for the protection of IRAs. 

Most IRA boundaries are substantially identical to those identified as “roadless areas” referred to in the 

1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17) and identified by the Malheur Forest Plan, FEIS, Appendix C.

The majority of the Nipple Butte IRA is composed of the Warm Dry and Hot Dry PAGs with some Cool 

Moist, Warm Moist, and Cold Dry forest. There is also a component of non-forested areas. Approximately 

45 percent of the Nipple Butte IRA is composed of late and old structure (old forest single stratum5and 

old forest multi strata6). In the Warm Dry and Hot Dry PAGs, old forest single stratum and stand 

initiation7are both below the historical range of variability. There are also a few small aspen stands 

(approximately 0.5 acres in total) within the Nipple Butte IRA, mostly within riparian habitat. These 

stands are being encroached upon by young ponderosa pine, and are currently much reduced from their 

historical extent. 

The northern portion of the Nipple Butte IRA has several areas with heavy fuel loadings. Fuel loadings 

are uncharacteristically high as a result of suppression efforts and insect and disease-caused conifer 

mortality (USDA Forest Service 2010a). Crown fire potential exists along the roadless boundary, with the

exception of the southeast corner. Fire suppression has altered the natural succession of the area. Under 

natural conditions, low-intensity fire would have selectively maintained ponderosa pine in the understory 

and prevented the encroachment of fir (USDA Forest Service 2010a). Fire-intolerant species, such as 

grand fir, growing in the understory exhibit dense crowns and grow in tighter spacing, creating a situation 

where crown fire can be initiated. With difficult topography, limited access, and fuel loads increasing, 

successful suppression efforts would become more difficult to achieve. With this existing condition, the 

Nipple Butte IRA would likely succumb to wildfire or disease and insects in the foreseeable future.

 

5 Old forest single stratum – Broken or continuous canopy of medium and large, old trees. Large trees are frequent and the 

understory is limited to few seedlings and saplings.

6 Old forest multi strata – Large trees are frequent, has multiple canopy strata and multiple age classes.

7 Stand initiation – A single canopy stratum of seedlings and saplings established after a stand-replacing disturbance.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

37 of 632

Several timber sales have occurred in the IRA:

 In 1986, 77 acres were harvested in the SADD SSTS project. Low vigor overstory trees and trees 

with heavy mistletoe infection were removed by tractor logging.

 In 1989, 14 acres were harvested in Keen Salvage using crawler tractors and skidders. Salvage 

included dead and dying trees experiencing mortality from western spruce budworm and bark 

beetle attacks.

 In 1990-1991, 8 acres experiencing pine beetle mortality were treated in the Lake Lodgepole 

project. Live and dead lodgepole ≥4 inches were removed by tractor logging.

Several roads are currently present in the Nipple Butte IRA; approximately 1.5 miles of open Forest 

Service road (maintenance level 2) and approximately 0.14 miles of County Road 32.

Approximately 200 acres of the Nipple Butte IRA were formerly owned by the Oregon Lumber Company 

(located in the “thumb” in the northeast part of the IRA and another piece in the northwest portion of the 

IRA); these lands were acquired by the Malheur National Forest in a land exchange in the 1940s.

The majority of Clear, McClellan, and Thompson creeks that contain MCR Steelhead Critical Habitat and 

Westslope cutthroat trout are within the Nipple Butte IRA. In general, these streams are wide and shallow

or “dished out,” lack quality pools (greater than 2 feet deep), are dominated by large cobble, have too 

much fine sediment, and do not provide quality habitat complexity. Mean maximum water temperatures 

are above the suitable range for salmonid species present. The lowermost 3 miles of Clear Creek and 

McClellan Creek prior to their confluence with East Fork Beech creek have stream gradients of less than 

three percent and wide valley bottoms, with suitable spawning gravels currently being flushed out of the 

system. These areas contain the primary MCR Steelhead spawning areas within the Nipple Butte IRA. 

However, due to their degraded condition, only a fraction of their spawning habitat potential is being 

realized.

Large woody debris (LWD) objectives (from PACFISH and the Malheur Forest Plan) are not being met 

within the lower three miles of the IRA, and this is impacting spawning gravel retention, stream sinuosity, 

floodplain connectivity, and water retention within these areas. However, the streams that are the closest 

to meeting LWD objectives are within the upper reaches of the IRA and are not proposed for aquatic 

restoration activities. Many of these streams have stands of large trees with closed canopies stretching 

along the stream, and are therefore meeting shade objectives.

The 5,795 acre Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA; Management Area 21) is located entirely 

within the Nipple Butte IRA. Although Habitat Effectiveness Index and cover requirements are meeting 

or exceeding Malheur Forest Plan standards, cover requirements are not always compatible with the 

historical range of variability. This conflict is apparent in Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests dominated by 

ponderosa pine. Historical conditions and fire return intervals created large blocks of trees with canopy 

closure too low to be classified as satisfactory or marginal cover as defined in the Malheur Forest Plan. 

Today, cover requirements are being met on many ponderosa pine sites; however, stands are at a density 

level where mortality risk is high from both bark beetle and wildfires. Cover levels may not be 

sustainable. This inherent conflict may be even more relevant in winter range, which is often located in 

low elevation, Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests dominated by ponderosa pine. Unfortunately, tree thinning, 

the treatment that most effectively reduces beetle and fire risk, also reduces the effectiveness of a stand as 

cover.

Currently, the amount of forage and browse is below what would have occurred historically, particularly 

in drier habitat types and along ridgetops. Lack of fire in adjacent habitat types has allowed juniper and 

other conifers to encroach into areas formerly dominated by mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other 

forage and browse species. In the Nipple Butte IRA, and throughout the project planning area, these 
Magone Project

38 of 632

species are being shaded out and lost. These habitats provide critical cover and forage for Rocky 

Mountain elk (Malheur Forest Plan Management Indicator Species) and mule deer, and provide habitat 

for a plethora of small mammals and birds including blue grouse (featured species) and red-naped 

sapsuckers (Malheur Forest Plan Management Indicator Species).

Portions of the Mt. Vernon/John Day, Roundtop, and Beech Creek range allotments are located in the 

Nipple Butte IRA. Grazing effects include cross-fencing, water developments, salt and dusting grounds, 

vegetative trampling, and the physical presence of cattle.

The primary recreational use in the Nipple Butte IRA is hunting. Recreational use impacts include a few 

fire rings and undeveloped hunter camps with soil compaction and primitive game racks. 

There also exists a portion of the general purpose Nipple Butte Trail, which traverses the ridgeline on the 

north border of the Magone project planning area.

The desired future condition is to enhance two of the nine 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). Specifically:

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land –

o Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species), Mid-Columbia River steelhead 

Critical Habitat, and Westslope cutthroat trout (Region 6 Sensitive species) are present in 

the Nipple Butte IRA. The desired future condition is to improve habitat for these species 

from its currently degraded state by lowering water temperatures, reducing fine sediment 

levels, increasing large woody debris levels, and increasing floodplain connectivity.

o Rocky Mountain elk (Malheur Forest Plan Management Indicator species) and mule deer 

are species that are dependent on an adequate mix of cover, forage, and undisturbed 

security areas; the Magone project planning area includes approximately 12,084 acres of 

winter range (including the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area) and 15,002 acres of 

summer range for Rocky Mountain elk. The desired future condition for this area is to 

provide the greater amount of forage and browse that would have been present 

historically, particularly in drier habitat types and along ridgetops (areas were formerly 

dominated by mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other forage and browse species).

 Reference landscapes –

o Currently, many of the structural stages of the primary plant association groups (PAGs) 

present in the Nipple Butte IRA are outside the historical range of variability (HRV). The 

desired future condition is to move these PAGs within or towards HRV. Specifically, 

increasing the amount of old forest single stratum and stand initiation in the Warm Dry 

PAG, and increasing the amount of old forest single stratum, understory reinitiation, and 

stand initiation in the Hot Dry PAG.

o Fire suppression has altered the natural succession of the Nipple Butte IRA. Under 

natural conditions, low-intensity fire would have selectively maintained ponderosa pine 

in the understory and prevented the encroachment of fir (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 

Fire-intolerant species growing in the understory, such as grand fir, exhibit dense crowns 

and grow in tighter spacing, creating a situation where crown fire can be initiated. The 

desired future condition is to reduce the uncharacteristically high fuel loadings in the 

Nipple Butte IRA to the type of reference conditions that would have been seen without 

fire suppression, and which would allow fire to function naturally on the landscape.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

39 of 632

The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule states that (36 CFR 294.13(b)):

(1) The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber is needed for one of the 

following purposes and will maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area 

characteristics as defined in § 294.11.

(i) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; or

(ii) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and 

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 desired future condition is to improve habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species) 

and Westslope cutthroat trout (Region 6 Sensitive species) in the Nipple Butte IRA, as described above.

In addition, the desired future condition is to restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and 

structure 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)). Specifically:

 To move these PAGs in the Nipple Butte IRA within or towards HRV.

 To reduce the uncharacteristically high fuel loadings in the Nipple Butte IRA to the type of 

reference conditions that would have been seen without successful fire suppression, and which 

would allow fire to function naturally on the landscape.

 To reduce encroachment of western juniper and conifers into areas where they did not historically 

occur, in order to improve big game forage, the quality of grassland for wildlife, the diversity and 

productivity of riparian plant communities, and water availability for native vegetation.

 To restore the water flow/storage patterns adjacent to Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Critical 

Habitat from current altered patterns related to encroachment of juniper and conifers in the IRA.

Applying mechanical treatments where possible, combined with prescribed fire, would move the Nipple 

Butte IRA towards desirable future conditions. Where mechanical treatments are not possible, exclusive 

use of prescribed fire would gradually move the IRA toward desired conditions.

The cutting, selling, or removal of timber from the IRA would occur through commercial thinning 

(alternatives 2 and 3), non-commercial thinning (alternatives 2 and 3), and felling of trees within aspen 

stands (alternatives 2, 3 and 4). The extent and amount of cutting, selling, or removal of timber varies 

with each alternative. 

Generally small-diameter timber is defined for the Magone Project as being relative to the size of trees 

within each treatment unit. The commercial and noncommercial thinning prescription would generally be 

from below, removing grand fir encroachment to protect the abundant large, old ponderosa pine and 

western larch within these stands. Commercial and non-commercial thinning would include trees 1 foot 

tall to 18 inches DBH, with an occasional tree up to 21 inches DBH. These trees are generally of small 

diameter because in areas proposed for commercial thinning, old trees range from 25 to 55 inches DBH, 

with a majority of them being between 25 to 40 inches DBH.

Non-commercial thinning would include trees 1 foot tall to 11 inches DBH through manual and 

mechanical methods. Approximately half of the non-commercial thinning would be removal of juniper 

encroachment and the other half would be removal of conifer encroachment to protect mountain 

mahogany, bitterbrush, grasses, and other browse species that provide important habitat to Rocky 

Mountain elk and mule deer. Non-commercial thinning would remove trees of generally small diameter 
Magone Project

40 of 632

and would leave larger trees, including old growth juniper and ponderosa pine that range in size from 12

to 35 inches DBH.

Felling of trees within aspen stands would be completed for the purpose of removing conifer 

encroachment to protect existing aspen trees and stimulate suckering, as well as utilizing those trees for 

large woody debris within Clear, McClellan, and Thompson creeks (this activity is authorized under the 

2014 Aquatic Restoration Decision (USDA Forest Service 2014b)). Aspen provides unique habitat for 

many wildlife species within coniferous forests, and it is currently much reduced from its historical 

extent. The overstory of most aspen stands on the Malheur National Forest is single-storied and evenaged, with many close to the end of their natural life cycle. Conifer trees felled would be predominately 

ponderosa pine that range in size from approximately 14 to 21 inches DBH.

Trees greater than 21 inches DBH that do not exhibit old tree characteristics would occasionally be felled 

for large woody debris to meet Forest Plan standards that specify 20 percent of the large woody debris (80 

to 120 pieces per mile) would be greater than 20 inches in diameter (Amendment 29). Trees that exhibit 

old tree characteristics would not be felled. Adding large woody debris into these streams would directly 

benefit Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species) and Westslope cutthroat trout (Region 6

Sensitive species).

1.4.1.5 Social Values and Opportunities

Wood Products

Wood products play an important role in the local economy by providing employment and revenue. 

Timber harvest has decreased since the 1990s and currently only one operating saw mill remains open in 

Grant County and Harney County.

The desired condition is to provide wood products to help maintain the existing lumber and forest 

products infrastructure and support local employment, providing for community stability. The Malheur 

Forest Plan includes direction to provide a sustainable flow of timber and associated wood products at a 

level that would contribute to economic stability and provide an economic return to the public (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a, page IV–2, Forest Goals 24–26). Implementation of the Magone Project would 

provide a variety of wood products, including sawlogs, biomass, and post and pole.

Employment Opportunities

The rural communities adjacent to the Malheur National Forest have relied on their natural resources of 

timber, agriculture, and ranching since their founding. Declining forest products and housing markets 

have greatly reduced employment and economic vitality in this region’s small communities. Since the 

mid-1990s, Grant County and Harney County are consistently listed among the top three counties for 

unemployment in the State of Oregon. Currently (as of August 2016), Grant County is at 7.9 percent 

unemployment compared to Oregon state average 5.4 percent and the National average of 4.9 percent 

(Oregon Employment Department 2016).

The desired condition is to “Contribute to the social and economic health of communities which are 

significantly affected by National Forest management” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV–3, Forest 

Goal 42). Implementation of the Magone Project would provide local employment opportunities through 

vegetation, fuels, and aquatic restoration activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

41 of 632

Recreational Opportunities

The most popular recreation activities on the Forest are driving for pleasure, hunting, hiking and walking, 

viewing wildlife, relaxing, primitive camping, and viewing natural features (National Visitor Use 

Monitoring, USDA Forest Service 2009b). 

Although these recreation activities occur throughout the Forest, the Magone Lake recreation area 

provides some of the premier summer recreation opportunities, including camping, hiking and walking, 

viewing wildlife and natural features, picnicking, relaxing, swimming, and fishing for rainbow and brook 

trout. Magone Lake is the most significant recreation resource within the project planning area and the 

most popular developed recreation resource on the Blue Mountain Ranger District.

Although the Magone Lake recreation area provides the largest variety of recreation activities within the 

Magone project planning area, it does not provide the only recreation opportunities. The project planning 

area includes 61 dispersed recreation campsites, 7 miles of foot/horse/bicycle/off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

trails, and many miles of primitive roads.

Dispersed camping occurs throughout the project planning area, but is most heavily concentrated in the 

eastern half. This is because the western half of the project planning area is dominated by the Nipple 

Butte IRA. Dispersed camping with motor vehicles is most popular along or near Forest Service roads 

(FSR) 18 and 36.

The Malheur Forest Plan objectives for dispersed recreation include constructing, reconstructing, and 

managing trails to protect the resources and meet the objectives of each recreation opportunity spectrum 

(ROS) class (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-13). The Magone project planning area includes the 

semi-primitive motorized (42 percent of the project planning area), roaded natural (33 percent), and 

roaded modified (25 percent) settings where there is a low-to-moderate concentration of users and varying 

levels of evidence of other users. The desired future condition is to construct and manage trails to protect 

the resources in the area and meet the objectives of each ROS class.

The Malheur Forest Plan objectives for developed recreation (including Magone Lake) state that where 

the need is identified, upgrade, replace, and add facilities and consider the expansion or addition of new 

facilities where recreation demand and environmental concerns warrant (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV-14). The desired future condition is to upgrade, replace, and add facilities at the Magone Lake 

recreation area to enhance the recreational opportunities in the area.

Road System

There are approximately 47 miles of open road in the Magone project planning area.8 During project 

planning, field reconnaissance provided additional information regarding forest road conditions and 

needs. An interdisciplinary team reviewed all of the roads in the project planning area to identify 

management and recreational access needs, sedimentation concerns, and big game security needs.

The Malheur Forest Plan goals for road facilities are to plan, design, operate, and maintain a safe and 

economical transportation system that provides efficient access for the movement of people and materials 

involved in the use and protection of the National Forest System lands at the minimum level necessary to 

meet resource objectives (e.g., timber harvest and removal, big-game habitat security needs, and 

recreation opportunities) (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV–3, Forest Goals 35 and 36).

 

8 Open road miles are low in the Magone project planning area because 10,195 acres (38 percent) of the 27,000-acre Magone 

project planning area is located within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area.
Magone Project

42 of 632

1.4.2 Need for Amending the Malheur Forest Plan

The Malheur Forest Plan was authorized on May 25, 1990. The Malheur Forest Plan provides a longrange strategy for managing the Malheur National Forest. Through standards the plan provides rules that 

govern resource management practices Forest-wide and for each management area. Management areas 

are geographic areas established by the Malheur Forest Plan that have similar management objectives and 

common management prescriptions.

The Malheur Forest Plan Forest-Wide Standard #3 states that “If it is determined during project analysis 

that the best way to meet the management area goals of the Forest Plan conflicts with a Forest Plan 

standard, the Forest Supervisor may approve a nonsignificant amendment to that standard for that project; 

such exceptions and the rationale must be described in the project’s documentation. These changes shall 

be considered an amendment to the Forest Plan and will be implemented only after appropriate public 

notification and satisfactory completion of all National Environmental Policy Act procedures” (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a, page IV-25). Therefore, changes to the original 1990 Malheur Forest Plan were 

anticipated based on site-specific resource conditions.

The Forest Service has enacted new rules to guide changes to forest plans, including amendments.9

Although the Malheur National Forest is currently revising its forest plan using a prior planning rule 

enacted in 1982, the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) requires the Forest Service to use the new 

planning rule for amendments of plans created under a prior rule.10 The regulation at 36 CFR 219 is very 

different than the regulations under which the 1990 Malheur Forest Plan was developed, and reflects the 

complex nature of modern forest planning and management. It is not expected that the 1990 Malheur 

Forest Plan would be consistent with all of the components of 36 CFR 219, although the requirements of 

the new planning rule may be met with thoughtful amendments of the older forest plan.

Based on the guidance described above, site-specific conditions in the Magone project planning area, and 

relevant forest-specific information and data, the Forest Service has determined that there is a need to 

amend the existing Malheur Forest Plan. The Magone Project proposes old growth (MA13) and cover

amendments to the Malheur Forest Plan, as amended under the direction of 36 CFR 219.

The 2012 Planning Rule (Title 36, CFR, Part 219–Planning) states:

36 CFR 219.13(a) Plan amendment. A plan may be amended at any time. Plan amendments may 

be broad or narrow, depending on the need for change, and should be used to keep plans current 

and help units adapt to new information or changing conditions. The responsible official has the 

discretion to determine whether and how to amend the plan. Except as provided by paragraph (c) 

of this section, a plan amendment is required to add, modify, or remove one or more plan 

components, or to change how or where one or more plan components apply to all or part of the 

plan area (including management areas or geographic areas).

The amendment process as described at 36 CFR 219.13(b) is:

(1) Base an amendment on a preliminary identification of the need to change the plan. The 

preliminary identification of the need to change the plan may be based on a new assessment; a 

monitoring report; or other documentation of new information, changed conditions, or changed 

circumstances. When a plan amendment is made together with, and only applies to, a project or 

activity decision, the analysis prepared for the project or activity may serve as the documentation 

for the preliminary identification of the need to change the plan;

(2) Provide opportunities for public participation as required in § 219.4 and public notification as 

required in § 219.16. The responsible official may combine processes and associated public 

 

9 National Forest System Land Management Planning, 77 Fed. Reg. 21,162 (April 9, 2012) (codified at 36 CFR Part 219).

10 36 CFR § 219.17 (2012).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

43 of 632

notifications where appropriate, considering the scope and scale of the need to change the plan; 

and

(3) Amend the plan consistent with Forest Service NEPA procedures. The appropriate NEPA 

documentation for an amendment may be an EIS, EA, or CE, depending upon the scope and scale 

of the amendment and its likely effects. A proposed amendment that may create a significant 

environmental effect and thus require preparation of an EIS is considered a significant change in 

the plan for the purposes of NFMA.

Further, 36 CFR 219.14(a) states a decision document must include:

(1) The rationale for approval;

(2) An explanation of how the plan components meet the sustainability requirements of § 219.8, 

the diversity requirements of § 219.9, the multiple use requirements of § 219.10, and the timber 

requirements of § 219.11;

Also 36 CFR 219.3 states that:

The responsible official shall use the best available scientific information to inform the planning 

process required by this subpart. In doing so, the responsible official shall determine what 

information is the most accurate, reliable, and relevant to the issues being considered...

Within the Magone Project FEIS, the following sections address proposed forest plan amendments:

 Chapter 1 – Need for Amending the Malheur Forest Plan – This section identifies the need to 

amendment the Malheur Forest Plan, what specific amendments are proposed, and the rationale 

for each amendment.

 Chapter 2 – Consistency of Alternatives with the Malheur Forest Plan – This section identifies the 

amendments included in each action alternative, what specific part of the Malheur Forest Plan is 

proposed for amendment and what that plan component is being replaced with (if applicable).

 Chapter 3 – The effects of forest plan amendments are discussed in the following sections:

o Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 – This section provides an explanation of 

how the plan components meet the sustainability requirements of 219.8, the diversity 

requirements of 219.9, the multiple use requirements of 219.10, and the timber 

requirements of 219.11, as applicable.

o Amendment Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects – This section discusses the direct 

and indirect effects of the proposed forest plan amendments, as well as the effects of past, 

ongoing, and foreseeable future forest plan amendments that overlap in time and space.

 FEIS Appendix E – This appendix contains the 36 CFR 219 applicability table for the project. 

The table shows which components of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 directly apply to the 

proposed forest plan amendments.

To address the purpose and need, the Magone Project’s action alternatives would require the following 

amendments to the Malheur Forest Plan, as amended.

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes

The Malheur Forest Plan standards for old growth habitats are identified for Management Area 13 

(Malheur Forest Plan, pages IV-105 and 106; Appendix G; and the Malheur Forest Plan FEIS), directing 

that old growth (MA13) areas be distributed across the Malheur National Forest to provide for wildlife 

species dependent on this forest type.

There are two areas related to old growth forest habitat for which Malheur Forest Plan standards were set. 

These are dedicated old growth habitats (DOGs) and replacement old growth habitats (ROGs). The Forest 

Plan states that DOGs will be 300 acres and ROGs will be 150 acres for every 12,000 acres.
Magone Project

44 of 632

The Malheur Forest Plan describes MA13 as being “composed of mature/overmature sawtimber (150 

years old or older) which provides habitat for wildlife species dependent on mature/overmature forest 

conditions, provides for ecosystem diversity, and provides for the preservation of aesthetic 

qualities...These acres are evenly distributed across the Forest...These acres reflect both designated old 

growth and old growth replacement...” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105).

A forest plan amendment is proposed to address Management Area 13 standards 4 through 8:

4. Inventory and validate all old growth areas. Correct previously dedicated old growth unit 

designations that are not meeting management requirement direction where possible. Utilize the 

interdisciplinary process to develop recommendations for boundary adjustments, or unit 

relocation. Changes will require approval by the Forest Supervisor. Unit relocation must analyze 

location in regards to the total old growth network, which in most cases will be a larger analysis 

are than that used for timber sale planning.

5. To counter possible catastrophic damage or probable deterioration of dedicated old growth, 

provide for replacement old growth in the future by managing at least one-third of this 

management area (25,000 acres) for a sustained yield of old growth. Locate replacement old 

growth areas within 1⁄4 mile of dedicated areas, and designate and map these areas. Provide old 

growth replacement areas that are one-half the size of its corresponding dedicated old growth unit. 

Refer to Appendix G, FEIS for stand type, size and distribution criteria.

6. When locating replacement old growth areas, use interdisciplinary teams that evaluate and 

recommend replacement stands for District Ranger approval. Complete the location of 

replacement stands primarily in conjunction with the timber sale planning process. Record sitespecific information in the TRI data base.

7. A dedicated old growth stands deteriorate beyond suitable old growth conditions, maintain at 

lest two-thrids of this management area in dedicated stands by manipulating replacement and 

dedicated stand boundaries by: (a) changing the status of dedicated old growth to replacement 

habitat and take action to restore the habitat to suitable old growth conditions; and (b) changing 

the status of replacement old growth to dedicated old growth.

8. Utilize interdisciplinary teams to develop prescritptions and long-term management strategies 

for each replacement area with the principal responsibilities to silviculturists and wildlife 

biologists.

This direction provides for an iterative process where dedicated and replacement old growth areas (MA13 

designation) can be changed over time in response to changing conditions on the ground (USDA Forest 

Service 1990a, pages IV-105 to IV-106).

The dedicated old growth areas (DOGs) identified in the Magone project planning area do not all exhibit 

old growth characteristics. MA13 changes are needed to shift some DOG acres to replacement old growth 

(ROGs) areas, allowing treatments that would promote increased growth and resiliency for desired 

species, and move the stand toward late and old structure forest. Dedicated old growth unit changes are 

consistent with Malheur Forest Plan direction to “inventory and validate all old growth areas [and] correct 

previously dedicated old growth unit designations that are not meeting management requirement direction 

where possible” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105).

The Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, includes the programmatic analysis and direction to relocate old 

growth areas. Old growth areas have been inventoried and evaluated at the project planning level for the 

past 26 years following the current Malheur Forest Plan, this allows for site-specific analysis and response 

to changing conditions (e.g., wildfire and stand deterioration) to designate MA13 where it currently 

existing for DOGs and where it is on the path to developing into ROGs (i.e., DOGs and ROGs may be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

45 of 632

shifted multiple times throughout the life of the 1990 Malheur Forest Plan in response to changing 

conditions on the ground).

Based on interdisciplinary review of the MA13 areas in the Magone project planning area the following 

was determined:

 DOG 03115PW – There would be minor changes along the perimeter of the DOG to adjust MA13 

to actual old growth stand boundaries. In addition, this DOG would be relocated to more suitable 

old-growth habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Further, a 470-acre ROG would also be designated 

adjacent to the new DOG boundary. The 327 acres where the DOG is currently designated does 

not exhibit old-growth characteristics and would be treated in alternatives 2 and 3 to promote 

increased growth and resiliency for desired species, and to move the stand towards LOS forest. 

Under alternative 4, location and boundary proposals would be consistent; however, no treatment 

would take place. This stand also contains many mistletoe-infested trees that would be deferred 

from harvest to retain important habitat for blue grouse and other wildlife species. This stand 

would be redesignated as ROG for DOG03114PW.

 DOG 03114PW – There would be minor changes along the perimeter of the DOG to adjust MA13 

to actual old growth stand boundaries. The currently designated DOG03115PW would be 

designated as ROG for this DOG. An additional 61 acres would be added to this ROG for a total 

of a 355-acre ROG.

 DOG03119PW – 336 acres of the existing 403 acres would remain designated as DOG03119PW. 

The remaining 67 acres, combined with an additional adjacent 232 acres would be designated as 

ROG. The splitting of this DOG and adding additional acres to the ROG would be specifically for 

the purpose of expanding the MA13 network and meeting Malheur Forest Plan standards.

 DOG03515MM – There would be minor changes along the perimeter of the DOG to adjust 

MA13 to actual old growth stand boundaries. In addition, the existing DOG would be split to 

include a 230-acre DOG and a 266-acre ROG to meet Malheur Forest Plan standards.

 DOG03259 – There would be minor changes along the perimeter of the DOG to adjust MA13 to 

actual old growth stand boundaries. An additional 88-acre ROG would be designated for this 

stand, including a portion of the DOG as well as acres from other management areas.

Table 4. Comparison of existing dedicated old growth (DOGs) and replacement old growth (ROGs) with 

proposed changes for alternatives 2, 3, and 4, in relation to Malheur Forest Plan standards

Old growth management areas Minimum 

MA13 acre 

requirements

Existing 

acres in the 

project 

planning area

Adjusted (proposed) 

acres for alternatives 

2, 3, and 4

DOG 03259 (259) Pine Marten (MM) 160 293 249

03259 Replacement area (ROG) 80 0 88

DOG 03515 (515) Pine Marten (MM) 160 434 230

03515 Replacement area (ROG) 80 0 266

DOG 03114 (114) Pileated Woodpecker (PW) 300 341 405

03114 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 355

DOG 03115 (115) Pileated Woodpecker (PW) 300 327 315

03115 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 470

DOG 03119 (119) Pileated Woodpecker (PW) 300 403 336

03119 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 299
Magone Project

46 of 632

This amendment would meet MA13 standards and applies to this project only and no standards or 

guidelines would be changed or modified. The proposed changes in old growth designations would 

remain in place until future inventory or validation indicates these dedicated old growth designations are 

no longer meeting management requirements. In the event of catastrophic damage or deterioration these 

designations may be changed using an interdisciplinary process in the future (See Forest Plan MA13 

Standards 4 through 8 on pages IV-105 and IV-106). See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 2 for a map of 

the current location of DOGs and Maps 13 and 14 for the proposed locations of DOGs and ROGs.

The designation/expansion of suitable MA13 old growth areas across the project planning area would 

improve the agency’s ability to manage for pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and other late and old 

successional (LOS) dependent species. It is anticipated that habitat viability for these species would be 

maintained or increased via the proposed MA13 network expansion.

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range, and Wildlife Emphasis Area (Management 

Area 21) Cover below Malheur Forest Plan Standards

Alternatives 2 and 3 would require the following amendments to the Malheur Forest Plan, as amended.

 Change Forest-wide standard 28 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-28) to reduce summer 

range satisfactory cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed11 below the Malheur Forest Plan 

standard of 12 percent.

 Change Management Area 4A, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-70) to reduce 

winter range satisfactory cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed12 below the Malheur Forest Plan 

standard of 10 percent.

 Change Management Area 21, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-131 to IV-132) 

to reduce satisfactory cover in the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area13 below the Malheur 

Forest Plan standard of 20 percent and total cover below the standard of 40 percent.

These amendments are being proposed to allow non-commercial thinning (which would remove juniper 

and other conifer cover) to enhance upland shrubs, while still providing horizontal cover from mahogany 

and increasing forage. Although the habitat effectiveness index (HEI) and cover requirements are 

currently meeting or exceeding Malheur Forest Plan standards according to the model, in the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA) this is primarily provided by 

juniper, which was present at much lower levels historically. This area is within the Nipple Butte IRA, 

where forage is needed more than hiding cover (because there are no roads). The cover that is currently 

being provided is primarily in the form of juniper, which is not quality cover. The Grub Creek 

subwatershed is also impacted by encroaching juniper in addition to higher densities of other tree species 

that would not have been as dense historically. Currently, the amount of forage and browse is below what 

would have occurred historically, particularly in drier habitat types and along ridgetops. Lack of fire in 

adjacent habitat types has allowed juniper and other conifers to encroach into areas formerly dominated 

by mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other forage and browse species.

This is not in balance with what this system would have provided within the historical range of variability. 

This conflict is apparent in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests dominated by ponderosa pine in the 

Magone project planning area. Historical conditions and fire return intervals favored large blocks of trees 

with canopy closure too low to support satisfactory or marginal cover. Today, cover requirements are 

 

11 The Grub Creek subwatershed is approximately 18,500 acres in size, with approximately 4,200 acres in the Magone project 

planning area; the remaining acres are located on privately-owned land. Approximately 2,000 acres are in summer range within 

the Grub Creek subwatershed on the Malheur National Forest.

12 Approximately 2,800 acres are in MA4A within the Grub Creek subwatershed on the Malheur National Forest.

13 The Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area is approximately 4,800 acres in size.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

47 of 632

being met on many ponderosa pine sites; however, stands are stocked at levels that are at a high risk to 

bark beetle attack and severe wildfires. Modeling results from Forest Vegetation Simulator suggest cover 

levels may not be sustainable; it is not within the inherent capability of these Hot Dry and Warm Dry sites 

to maintain high levels of cover. This inherent conflict may be even more relevant in winter range, which 

is often located in low elevation, Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests dominated by ponderosa pine. However, 

thinning, the treatment that most effectively reduces beetle and fire risk, also reduces the effectiveness of 

a stand as cover.

To compensate for these reductions in cover:

 Summer range marginal cover would be retained above the standard of 5 percent and total cover 

in the Grub Creek subwatershed would be retained above the standard of 20 percent under 

alternatives 2 and 3.

 Winter range marginal cover would be retained above the standard of 10 percent (under 

alternatives 3 and 3) and total cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed would be retained above the 

standard of 25 percent (under alternative 2).

 Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area marginal cover would be retained above the standard of 20

percent.

In addition, skips (untreated patches within thinning units) would limit the line of sight visibility, 

retaining hiding cover within units to provide security for elk and facilitate animal movement within 

winter range.

See chapter 2, alternatives 2 and 3 forest plan amendment sections for the specific amount each 

alternative would lower satisfactory and total cover.

1.5 Management Direction

This FEIS tiers to the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur Forest 

Plan) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1990b, 

1990c), and incorporates by reference the accompanying land and resource management plan (Malheur 

Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1990a), as amended. Additional management direction is provided by 

Forest Plan amendments approved since 1990, some of which include:

“Columbia River Anadromous Fish Management Policy and Implementation Guide” (USDA 

Forest Service 1994; herein referred to as Amendment 29). The amendment included changes to 

both Management Area 3A (inland fish habitat) and 3B (anadromous fish habitat).

“Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, 

Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada” (USDA Forest Service 1995c; also known as 

INFISH). This amendment provides riparian goals, management objectives, and standards and 

guidelines that reduce the risk of loss of populations of inland fish and potential negative impacts 

to aquatic habitat.

“Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California” (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1995; also known as PACFISH). This amendment provides riparian goals, 

management objectives, and standards and guidelines that reduce the risk of loss of populations 

of anadromous fish and potential negative impacts to aquatic habitat.

The Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Invasive Plant 

Program, 2005, herby referred to as the R6 2005 Invasive Plant FEIS. The R6 2005 Invasive 
Magone Project

48 of 632

Plant FEIS culminated in a Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2005a; R6 ROD) that 

amended the Malheur Forest Plan by adding management direction relative to invasive plants. It

released all National Forests from direction established by the 1988 ROD and Mediated 

Agreement for invasive plant management. Parts of the 1988 ROD and 1989 Mediated 

Agreement for unwanted native plants were not affected by the R6 2005 ROD.

“Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for 

Timber Sales” (USDA Forest Service 1995a; also known as Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest 

Plan Amendment 2 or Eastside Screens).

The project identified in this FEIS is being proposed to meet appropriate forest-wide goals and standards 

(pages IV-1 to IV-45), and to comply with management area goals and standards (pages IV-46 to IV-139) 

of the Malheur Forest Plan.

This document also incorporates by reference the Decision Notice for Aquatic Restoration (Aquatic 

Restoration Decision) (USDA Forest Service 2014b) and Malheur National Forest Aquatic Restoration 

Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2014a). The Decision Notice for Aquatic Restoration 

was signed September 30, 2014, and proposes aquatic restoration on those private and public lands within 

the boundary of the Malheur National Forest and/or adjacent lands where restoration activities would aid 

in the recovery of aquatic species and impaired water bodies. The Decision Notice provides a consistent 

methodology to design, implement, monitor, and document watershed and aquatic restoration activities on 

the Malheur National Forest. Some or all of the aquatic restoration activities described under the proposed 

action in this document may ultimately be authorized using the Project Implementation Checklist form 

process established by this decision.

This document also incorporates by reference the Record of Decision for the Malheur National Forest 

Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project (USDA Forest Service 2015b) and Malheur National 

Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 

Forest Service 2015a). This decision authorizes a range of treatment and restoration methods for an 

integrated weed management program.

1.5.1 Relationship to the Aquatic Restoration Decision

The Malheur National Forest initiated an Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment (EA) in January 

2014, and the decision notice and finding of no significant impact (DN/FONSI) was signed in September 

2014. This decision allows activities that are consistent with the 17 aquatic restoration categories 

described in that decision to be implemented following review of the activity with a Project 

Implementation Checklist to ensure the activity is consistent with the analysis and is within the criteria of 

the Aquatic Restoration Decision. Some of the activities identified by the Magone interdisciplinary team 

in the Magone project planning area are aquatic restoration actions that are authorized by the Aquatic 

Restoration Decision. Please see the following website for information on future Aquatic Restoration 

Projects on the Malheur National Forest: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=STELPRD3817723&width=full

This webpage is designed to provide information about aquatic restoration activities on the Malheur 

National Forest, and will provide an annual list of projects planned for implementation by each Ranger 

District as well as an accomplishments section where the interested public can learn about completed 

projects. The list and description of projects to be implemented each summer will be posted on this 

website each spring and at least 30 days prior to planned implementation. Projects may also be posted and 

implemented at other times of the year. A Project Implementation Checklist will be used on each project 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

49 of 632

to ensure all activities are consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan and project design criteria associated 

with the Aquatic Restoration Decision.

1.5.2 Forest Plan Management Areas

Management direction is found within the resource prescriptions of the Malheur National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a). The Malheur Forest Plan (chapter IV) 

provides overall direction to meet desired conditions by identifying management goals and objectives to 

reflect conditions on the ground. The Malheur Forest Plan management areas (MA) are used to guide the 

type and intensity of management activities that may occur on the Forest. The Magone project planning 

area falls within 10 MAs as described in Table 5. A map showing these areas can be found in FEIS 

Appendix B – Maps, Map 2. There are some management areas that overlap, so the total acreage is 

greater than the size of the project planning area.

Table 5. Malheur Forest Plan management areas within the Magone project planning area

Management Area Acres* Malheur Forest Plan goals

General Forest (MA1) 8,700 

acres

Manage for timber production and other multiple uses on a 

sustained yield basis.

Rangeland (MA2) Included 

in MA1

Manage for livestock forage production and other multiple uses on a 

sustained yield basis.

Riparian Areas 

(MA3)/riparian habitat 

conservation areas 

(RHCAs)

4,200 

acres

Manage to protect or enhance riparian-dependent resources in 

watersheds supporting anadromous fish. Acres for this MA are 

measured using RHCA buffers.

Big-Game Winter 

Range Maintenance 

(MA4A)

4,000 

acres

Maintain or enhance the quality of the winter range habitat for deer 

and elk through timber harvesting, prescribed burning, and other 

management practices. Manage for elk habitat by balancing cover 

quality, cover spacing, forage, and open road densities.

Special Interest Area –

Magone Geological 

Area (MA8)

200 

acres

Manage and preserve areas of significant historical, geological, 

botanical, zoological, paleontological, or other special 

characteristics. To protect and, where appropriate, foster public 

enjoyment of these areas.

Developed Recreation 

Area (MA12)

300 

acres

Manage for developed recreation opportunities, providing 

interpretation and enhancement of cultural and natural resources.

Old Growth Habitat 

(MA13)

800 

acres

Provide “suitable” habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, 

ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities.

Manage old growth for wildlife and plant habitat, ecosystem 

diversity, and aesthetic quality. Dedicated old growth areas are 

managed to provide old growth characteristics for dependent wildlife 

species. Replacement old growth areas are managed to provide 

future old growth habitat.

Visual Corridors 

(MA14F – Foreground)

Visual Corridors 

(MA14M –

Middleground)

4,500 

acres

100 

acres

Manage corridor viewsheds with primary consideration given to their 

scenic quality and the growth of large diameter trees. Visual quality 

objectives of retention, partial retention, and modification will be 

applied while providing for other uses and resources.

Wildlife Emphasis 

Area (with NonScheduled Timber 

Harvest) (MA21)

4,800 

acres

Manage to provide high quality fish and wildlife habitat and water 

quality. Manage elk habitat to provide at least 70% elk habitat 

effectiveness. Timber harvest will be on a non-scheduled basis and 

used only to meet fish or wildlife habitat objectives. Provide 

opportunities for high quality semi-primitive dispersed recreation.

*Because some management areas overlap, the total acreage is more than the project planning area.
Magone Project

50 of 632

1.5.3 Laws and Regulations

The management of timber and aquatic resources on National Forest System lands is based on several 

federal laws and regulations, including the Multiple-use Sustained Yield Act of 1960; the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, including the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1500 1508, July 1, 1986); the 

Endangered Species Act 1973, as amended; the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act 1976, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267); 

Clean Water Act, as amended, 1977, 1982; Clean Air Act, as amended, 1990; National Historic 

Preservation Act, 1966 as amended, 1976, 1980, 1992; Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 1918; and Executive 

Order 13186.

1.6 Proposed Action

The Forest Service is proposing a suite of activities to meet the purpose and need for action: silviculture 

treatments, prescribed burning, road activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake 

restoration activities. Detailed descriptions of these activities can be found in Chapter 2, FEIS Appendix A 

– Project Activity Tables, and FEIS Appendix B – Maps.

1.7 Decision Framework

The Forest Supervisor of the Malheur National Forest is the responsible official who will review the 

proposed action, the alternatives to the proposed action, and the environmental consequences to make a 

decision. The decision should contain activities that best meet the purpose and need and desired future 

condition, and provide consistency with Malheur Forest Plan standards and guidelines for all related 

resource areas. The decision would include project design criteria necessary to provide resource 

protection. The Forest Supervisor will decide whether to:

 Select one of the action alternatives that has been considered in detail, or

 Modify the selected alternative, and

 Identify what mitigation measures would apply, or

 Select the no action alternative.

If only a portion of activities from one of the action alternatives is selected, or a combination of activities 

from multiple action alternatives is selected, then the Forest Supervisor will decide whether to amend the 

Malheur Forest Plan.

1.8 Public Involvement

The Magone Project was listed in the Malheur National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) 

beginning in October 2014, and has been in subsequent quarterly SOPAs. This document is mailed to 

individuals, and is available on the internet (http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110604) for those 

interested in activities proposed on the Malheur National Forest.

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal 

Register on February 13, 2015. This notice initiated the 30-day scoping period. A legal notice was also 

published in the Blue Mountain Eagle on February 11, 2015, providing notification of the Magone Project 

scoping period. A scoping package was sent to approximately 150 individuals, groups, federal and state 

agencies at the same time the scoping notice was published. Twenty-six (26) comments were received in 

response within the 30-day scoping period. The legal notice, letters, a radio spot on the local KJDY radio 

station, and the Forest’s website included an invitation to a public meeting on February 24, 2015, which 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

51 of 632

approximately 25 people attended. The Forest Service response to the comment letters received during the 

scoping period can be found in DEIS Appendix D – Scoping Report and public meeting notes can be 

found in the project record.

The 45-day comment period for the Magone Project began on February 5, 2016, with publication of a 

Notice of Availability (NOA) of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in the Federal Register 

(see Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 24, Friday, February 5, 2016). Letters were sent to approximately 130 

individuals or organizations summarizing the alternatives, and included directions to the Forest’s website 

for more information. A public open house was held on March 8, 2016, where attendees had the 

opportunity learn more about the project and ask questions of the interdisciplinary team.

Comments received during both the scoping and comment periods were assessed and considered both 

individually and collectively. Along with the individual comments, agency responses to these comments 

are found in the project record. Input from the public assisted the Forest Service in developing the 

proposed action and other action alternatives.

1.9 Issues

Issues are points of discussion, debate, concern, or dispute about environmental or social effects that may 

occur as a result of the proposed action. Issues provide focus and influence alternative development, 

including development of mitigation measures to address potential adverse effects. Issues are also used to 

compare the effects between the proposed action and the alternatives regarding a specific resource 

element. Issues are generally divided into key issues and analysis issues.

1.9.1 Key Issues

Key issues are those that represent a point of debate or concern that cannot be resolved without 

consideration of the trade-offs involved. These issues spur the design of alternatives to the proposed 

action that provide a different path to achieve project objectives. Trade-offs can be more clearly 

understood by developing alternatives and displaying the relative impacts of these alternatives weighed 

against the proposed action.

Level and effects of silviculture treatments – A wide variety of comments were received on the topic of 

silviculture treatments and prescribed burning, some requesting that the Forest Service analyze an 

alternative that includes more commercial harvest and some requesting an alternative with less 

commercial harvest and prescribed burning. Measures: percentage change of structural stages in relation 

to the historical range of variability (HRV); percentage change of acres above the management zone 

(MZ), within the MZ, and below the MZ as defined by maximum stand density index (MaxSDI); acres 

mechanically treated; viability of harvest; employment and income; economic efficiency; and million 

board feet (MMBF) harvested.

Recreation developments – A wide variety of comments were received on the topic of the level, type, 

and location of recreation developments. Some individuals were in favor or opposed to bicycle trail 

developments and changes to the Magone Lake Recreation Area. Measures: impacts to recreation 

opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes, recreation opportunities, and public access to recreation.

Impacts to the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) – Some comments were received 

requesting more active management within the Nipple Butte IRA, while others requested less or no 

silviculture treatments, prescribed burning, or other project activities within the Nipple Butte IRA. 

Measures: impacts to roadless area characteristics, acres and type of silviculture treatments, acres and 

type of prescribed burning, and miles of hiking and bicycle trails within the Nipple Butte IRA.
Magone Project

52 of 632

1.9.2 Analysis Issues

Analysis issues are environmental components that are considered in the Chapter 3 analysis. These issues 

are used as a way to compare the alternatives. These issues: 1) are generally less focused on the elements 

of purpose and need than the key issues; 2) reflect the discussions of the effects of the proposed activities 

to those resources; and 3) are important for providing the responsible official and public with complete 

information about the effects of the project.

Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality – Whether proposed activities would reduce the fuel loading in the project 

planning area by reducing the density of standing vegetation, surface fuels, or ladder fuels. Smoke from 

prescribed burning would contribute to short-term decreased air quality and visibility. Measures: fire 

hazard, fuel loadings, crown fire potential, fire regime, and air quality. Finding: Whether the project meets 

the Clean Air Act and State and Federal air quality standards.

Soils – The amount of soil disturbance caused by project activities that require ground-based equipment. 

Disturbance could include compaction, displacement, and exposure of the mineral surface to erosion due 

to the removal of ground cover. Measure: compliance with Malheur Forest Plan.

Watershed – The proposed activities may impact hillslopes (including ephemeral swales); riparian 

habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) and Management Area 3B (including wet areas, ephemeral draws, 

and valley bottoms); stream channels (and ephemeral draws); water quantity, timing, hydrology response, 

and ground water; water quality; and watershed hazard. Measures: acres of ground disturbing harvest and 

qualitative rating of watershed hazard (very low to very high).

Aquatic Species – The proposed activities may impact pool frequency, water temperature and stream 

shading, large woody debris, bank stability, wetted width-to-depth ratio, embeddedness, shade, and 

canopy closure. Measures: pool frequency, water temperature, shade, large woody debris and coarse 

woody debris per mile, fine sediment and embeddedness, width-to-depth ratio, and bank stability. 

Findings: effects determinations for threatened, endangered, Region 6 sensitive species, and Malheur 

Forest Plan management indicator species.

Wildlife – The proposed activities may impact proposed, endangered, threatened, Region 6 sensitive, 

Malheur Forest Plan management indicator species, Malheur Forest Plan featured species, and landbirds,

including neotropical migratory birds. Measures: effects to above species. Findings: effects 

determinations for the above species.

Botanical Resources – The proposed activities may impact threatened, endangered, Forest Service 

Region 6 sensitive plant species, Malheur Forest Plan management indicator species, and species of 

concern and their habitats. Measures: impacts to proposed, endangered, threatened, and Region 6 

sensitive species, sensitive plant habitat types, other plant species of conservation concern, and culturally 

significant plant species.

Non-native Invasive Plants – Soil exposure from project activities may provide habitat for non-native 

invasive plants. There is the potential for the spread of existing noxious and invasive plant populations by 

harvest equipment. Measure: risk of spread from ground disturbance.

Range – Some project activities may detrimentally impact forage production. Measure: change in forage 

production.

Heritage – Some project activities could affect the quantities of cultural resources which make them 

eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Measure: adverse 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

53 of 632

effects to historic properties and whether project design criteria have protected historic properties from 

adverse effects. Finding: Whether the project meets the National Historic Preservation Act.

Roads – Whether proposed activities would provide for a safe road system that meets current public 

access, recreational opportunities, and resource management objectives. Measures: miles of open and 

closed roads after project completion.

Visuals – Some project activities may impact visual quality objectives (VQOs). Finding: Whether the 

project meets the VQOs.

Other Undeveloped Lands – Commercial timber harvest, road construction, and mechanical fuel 

treatment may impact the undeveloped character of these areas. Measures: Acres of other undeveloped 

lands that meet the identification criteria after implementation of each alternative, such as intrinsic 

physical and biological resources (soil, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.), and intrinsic social 

values (apparent naturalness, solitude, remoteness).

Climate Change – The effects proposed actions may have on climate change, and the effects of climate 

change on the project planning area.

1.10 Project Record Availability

This FEIS hereby incorporates by reference all appendices and the project record. The project record 

contains specialist reports, biological evaluations, and other technical documentation used to support the 

analysis and conclusions in this FEIS. Relying on specialist reports and the project record helps 

implement the CEQ Regulations’ provision that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 

1500.4). The objective is to furnish enough site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned 

consideration of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and how these impacts can be 

mitigated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere.

The project record is available for review at the Blue Mountain Ranger District, John Day, Oregon.

The specialist reports that are part of the project record and incorporated by reference are:

 Aquatic Resources Report

 Botanical Resources Report and Plant Biological Evaluation

 Economic Report

 Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report

 Heritage Resources Report

 Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Undeveloped Lands Report

 Non-native Invasive Plants Report

 Range Report

 Recreation Report

 Roads Report

 Silviculture Report

 Soils Report

 Wildlife Biological Evaluation (BE) for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive 

Species and Terrestrial Wildlife Report

 Snag Report

 Visuals Report

 Watershed Report
Magone Project

54 of 632

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action 

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Magone Project. It 

includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the 

alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and 

providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public. Some of 

the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative, and 

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

implementing each alternative.

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed four alternatives, including the no action and proposed action 

alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public.

2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management 

of the project planning area. No silviculture treatments, prescribed burning, road activities, 

recreation opportunity improvements, or Magone Lake restoration activities would be 

implemented to accomplish project goals.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

2.2.2.1 Modifications to the Proposed Action

The modifications to the proposed action that was scoped to the public are:

 The acreages of the silvicultural treatments changed from what was scoped to the 

alternative described in this document; however the treatment types remain the same.

o The greatest change in acres is under the non-commercial thinning treatment 

type, where acres were added to allow juniper and conifer felling and removal 

both inside and outside the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA).

 Additional information was added regarding the activity fuels treatment type and harvest 

method (i.e., tractor and/or skyline) associated with the silvicultural treatments.

 Addition of 18 acres of conifer reduction in aspen stands.

 Reduction of 7.3 miles of road maintenance for haul and an increase of 0.3 miles of 

temporary road construction.

 The miles of open road (ML 2) to be closed (ML 1) under the project decreased by 1.2

miles.

 The miles of proposed decommissioning was reduced by 0.82 miles (3 road segments) 

because decommissioning of currently closed roads (ML 1) is already authorized by the 

Aquatic Restoration Decision.

 The location of hiking/bicycle trail proposals was altered in response to comments. 

Many of the trails located in the southern part of the Nipple Butte IRA and within the 

Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA) were dropped due to public comments 

expressing concerns about impacts to resources in this area (Clear Creek, Fenceline, 

High Ridge, Porcupine, Prohibition, and Thompson Creek trails). More trails are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

55 of 632

alternately proposed in the eastern part of the Magone project planning area (Four 

Corners, Camp Lick Connector, Low Slope, North Magone Connector, Round Top, and 

Tinker Creek trails). In addition, the location of a portion of the Behind Magone trail 

was altered to avoid impacts to a range water development in the area.

 Instead of relocating the existing Nipple Butte trail, the Jugow trail would be constructed 

and the Nipple Butte trail would remain on the system to maintain off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) and other use on that trail.

 An Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible trail was added along a portion of 

Magone Lake trail.

 Proposals to improve the existing Nipple Butte and Tinker Creek trailheads and 

construct a new trailhead at Four Corners were added to the proposal to complement the 

trail development proposals.

 Additional locations and information about the interpretive signs was added.

The modifications made to alternative 2 between the draft and final environmental impact 

statements are:

 Minor changes in acres of silviculture treatments as a result of refining GIS files.

 Separating the discussion of proposed road system changes and trails.

 Clarification that some roads that were administratively closed in the past would be 

confirmed as closed by the Magone Project.

2.2.2.2 Silviculture Treatments

The following silviculture treatments would be implemented under alternative 2.

Commercial and non-commercial thinning (3,279 acres, 75 units): This prescription is 

recommended when the existing stand is overstocked to the point where tree vigor is declining, 

predisposing the stand to insect attack and uncharacteristic fire events that can occur due to 

buildup of fuels and crown density.

In Warm Dry ponderosa pine stands, variable density thinning is generally to be applied from 

below. Smaller trees would be removed and larger trees retained. Leave patches would comprise 

5 to 15 percent of a unit, and openings would be created that are 1⁄4 to 2 acres in size to mimic 

historical fire patterns. A follow-up non-commercial thinning would occur where sufficient small 

trees remain after commercial thinning.

Past harvest and fire suppression activities have led to a shift in species composition compared to 

historical conditions. Oregon Lumber Company owned and managed a majority of the property 

outside of the Nipple Butte IRA until the 1940s. Fires in the area have been suppressed, keeping 

most of them small. This has led to an abundance of ingrowth of young stands that are denser

than what would have occurred naturally. Thinning activities would remove species that would 

historically have been a smaller percentage of these stands, and allow the pine and larch 

components to start filling their previous niche.

An important aspect of thinning throughout the project planning area is to reduce fuel loading 

along major routes of travel to and around the Magone Lake recreational facility. There are also 

approximately 27 miles of common boundary with private land in the project planning area, so 

thinning stocking levels to a point where crown fires would be less likely could prevent large 

fires from spreading quickly between ownership boundaries.
Magone Project

56 of 632

 Mountain mahogany and bitterbrush: Some commercial and non-commercial thinning 

units have existing populations of mountain mahogany and bitterbrush. Thinning the 

competing conifer encroachment would help release these browse species.

 Aspen: Some commercial and non-commercial thinning units have existing populations 

of aspen. Conifers that have encroached into the aspen stands and are competing with 

the aspen would be thinned to release the aspen.

Commercial and non-commercial thinning, leave stand denser (778 acres, 14 units): Some 

commercial thinning in areas of importance for elk would be thinned to a heavier stocking level 

for cover retention. Openings of 1⁄4 to 2 acres would be created to encourage growth of forage 

species. Treatment would be similar to the commercial and non-commercial thinning, except the 

total basal area remaining would be approximately 90 square feet to the acre, as compared to 40 

to 60 square feet to the acre being left with most other thinning treatments.

Commercial and non-commercial thinning, with re-designation from dedicated old growth 

(DOG) to replacement old growth (ROG) (223 acres, 4 units): These stands currently do not 

have old growth characteristics as described in the Malheur Forest Plan. These stands would be 

re-designated as replacement old growth and would be treated the same as described under the 

commercial and non-commercial thinning silvicultural treatment. Proposed activities would help 

develop old growth characteristics within these stands.

Post and pole removal (378 acres, 6 units): In Warm Dry areas of lodgepole pine, grand fir, and 

ponderosa pine, the prescription will thin from below, removing posts and poles (smaller 

diameter trees) that are currently competing with older ponderosa pine in the stands.

Non-commercial thinning (6,157 acres, 170 units): The objectives of non-commercial thinning 

are to reduce ladder fuels and to increase growth and vigor of remaining trees. The prescriptions 

for non-commercial thinning would favor a mix of early seral and late seral trees to promote the 

desired future species composition of the stands.

Non-commercial thinning consists of treating non-merchantable sized trees (1 foot tall to 11 

inches diameter at breast height [DBH]) that do not meet commercial tree standards through 

manual and mechanical methods. Excess slash not utilized for products such as biomass and pole 

material, or not used in stream enhancement projects, would be hand piled and burned. Noncommercial thinning may occur in areas that are also commercially thinned as described above.

These units include juniper removal treatment units with shallow soils (primarily in the Nipple 

Butte IRA); the following slash treatment description would be followed after thinning activities 

are complete:

1. Piling of thinning slash would take place until 7 to 10 tons per acre of slash remain in the 

treatment unit.

2. Piles would primarily be constructed from material in the 0 to 8 inch size class on the 

large end.

3. Tree boles, tree tops, and remaining limbs making up the 7 to 10 tons per acre of residual 

slash would be distributed across the unit to assist with slope stability.

4. Scattered slash remaining in the treatment unit would be no more than 24 inches above 

ground level.

5. Slash piles will meet normal piling standards (6 feet by 6 feet by 5 feet) with some larger 

piles being constructed for wildlife habitat enhancement; approximately 1 to 2 larger 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

57 of 632

piles will be left in each treatment unit and no larger piles may be left if there are fuel 

loading concerns. These larger piles will not be burned.

6. To the extent practicable, piles would be placed so as to minimize damage to ground 

cover, especially living plants. This would help protect highly erodible soils.

7. To the extent practicable, piles would be burned under conditions that would limit the 

likelihood of the pile being 100 percent consumed. This would help to protect highly 

erodible soils.

Non-commercial thinning, with designation as ROG (1,039 acres, 5 units): Stands designated 

as ROG have some old growth characteristics. Proposed activities would help develop old 

growth characteristics within the stands. Treatments in theses stands would be the same as 

described under non-commercial thinning.

Conifer reduction in aspen stands (18 acres, 7 units): Seven (7) aspen stands of various sizes 

have been identified for restoration treatments comprising approximately 18 acres. Individual 

units are listed in FEIS Appendix A – Project Activity Tables. See also FEIS Appendix B – Maps, 

Map 3. Three actions are proposed to protect aspen stands and improve aspen regeneration and 

vigor: 1) thin conifer trees that have encroached upon aspen stands to reduce competition for 

light and water, 2) construct fences around aspen stands to reduce grazing pressures from 

livestock and wildlife, and 3) underburn in the aspen stands that are in or next to a prescribed 

burning unit.

Conifers would be felled up to within 150 feet of aspen suckers to encourage expansion of the 

stands. Conifers felled within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) would be felled into 

streams where feasible, left within the RHCA, or transported off-site for watershed restoration 

projects. Some trees cut from aspen stands that are outside of RHCAs and within commercial 

thinning units could be harvested as merchantable logs. Some conifers would be girdled and left 

as snags. Smaller diameter trees and slash would be hand piled and burned or left to provide a 

protective barrier from livestock and wildlife grazing. Encroaching lodgepole pine would be 

felled and may be used to construct buck and pole fences around aspen stands. The thinning and 

fencing would be done on a larger area than the existing stands with the objective to expand the 

current stands.

When prescribed burning is implemented in the project planning area, the underburning would 

be allowed to back into some aspen stands. The underburning of an aspen stand would only 

occur if that stand is associated with a proposed prescribed burning unit and after it has been 

fenced to exclude browsing of the new suckers. Aspen stands would be enhanced by prescribed 

burning, which would stimulate new growth of aspen trees.

Biomass removal (up to 8,159 acres): Many units proposed for silvicultural treatments 

described above might have enough small diameter material to be considered for biomass 

utilization. The potential for biomass removal is analyzed for all treatment units (excluding those 

in the Nipple Butte IRA that do not have existing road access). Biomass can be defined as pieces 

not large enough to have commercial sawlog value. Biomass removal from any specific unit 

would follow the guidelines of the designated prescription. This material may be used for pulp 

chips, co-generation of electricity, commercial fuel pellets, post and poles, and other nontraditional uses. This material may be removed during logging operations, by hand, or with small 

equipment such as all-terrain/utility-terrain vehicles, or small excavators or forwarders. For the 

most part, existing woody material on the ground is not suitable for biomass utilization and 

would be left on site for nutrient input to the soil, or would be piled and burned if in excessive 

amounts. Efforts would be made to stimulate local markets by utilizing woody biomass 
Magone Project

58 of 632

generated by this project rather than dispose of it by burning. Utilization is limited by the 

marginal economics of the products to areas accessible by ground-based skidding.

Harvest Systems/Activity Fuels Treatments: Cut trees would be yarded to landing zones via 

tractor or skyline, depending on topography. Skid trails, skyline corridors, and landing locations 

up to 1 to 2 acres in size would be determined before logging, and are subject to approval by the 

sale administrator. In landing zones, the vegetation would be cleared for equipment to prepare, 

deck, and load trees for hauling. No landing zones would be located within RHCAs. The areas 

proposed for commercial thinning (4,686 acres, 101 units) would be yarded via tractor, skyline, 

or a combination as follows:

 Tractor – 3,650 acres, 80 units

 Skyline – 333 acres, 8 units

 Tractor and skyline – 675 acres, 11 units

Harvest systems and associated fuel treatments would occur as follows:

 Whole tree yarding and/or cut to length, grapple piling and/or hand piling, and pile 

burning* – 4,658 acres, 99 units

 Grapple piling and/or hand piling with pile burning – 4,278 acres, 105 units

 Hand piling with pile burning only – 2,936 acres, 77 units

*Units that are commercially treated would have the option to be either whole tree-yarded or cut 

to length, and either grapple-piled or hand-piled. In order to move toward performance-based 

contracting, the contractor, with Forest Service oversight, would be allowed to determine the 

most appropriate logging method and fuels treatment to meet contract specifications (e.g., design 

criteria such as soil compaction or tons per acre of fuel left).

See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 3.

2.2.2.3 Prescribed Burning and Unplanned Ignitions

The primary objective of prescribed burning is to restore and maintain an ecosystem that will 

thrive with the recurring disturbance of wildfire within the planning area. Prescribed burns are 

designed to reduce and maintain fuel loadings, leading to a decreased probability of catastrophic 

wildland fire. Specifically, this means a reduction in surface fuels, duff and litter depth, ladder 

fuels, crown bulk density, and an increase in canopy base heights. Prescribed burning would also 

be used to stimulate the growth of aspen and other fire-adapted vegetation. Both mechanicallytreated and untreated stands would be exposed to prescribed burning as fire is re-introduced into 

the project planning area. Treated stands would see a combination of burning piled material and 

underburning. Those stands not being mechanically treated would be managed primarily with the 

use of prescribed burning. As conditions and stand characteristics allow, unplanned ignitions 

within the planning area would be used to meet the objectives of prescribed burning.

 Underburning up to 28,500 acres. This includes approximately 1,400 acres outside of the 

project planning area boundary (see map). Expanding these prescribed fire boundaries to 

natural fuel breaks increases firefighter safety and limits resource damage created by 

constructing new containment lines.

o Prescribed burning would be conducted primarily in the spring or fall on up to 

28,500 acres. However, the effects of climate change could create environmental 

conditions suitable for prescribed burning during the winter or summer as well 

(Table 6). Unplanned ignitions may be used like prescribed fire during any 

season when fuel loading and weather conditions are appropriate.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

59 of 632

o Up to 9,600 acres of underburning would be within designated wildland-urban 

interface. This includes 300 acres outside the project planning area boundary.

 Pile burning in silviculture treatments units would include up to approximately 12,000 

acres. Acres that are pile burned are also included in, or overlap with, the total 

underburning acres.

Unplanned ignitions could be managed to achieve prescribed burning objectives in the Magone 

project planning area if they meet specific management criteria (e.g., weather outlook, 

management area designation, available containment lines, etc.) and resource objectives.

Table 6 shows the acreages for the burn blocks. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 6 for a map

of the burn block locations in the Magone project planning area.

Table 6. Alternative 2 prescribed burn blocks

Burn block Acres Season of planned ignitions*

Block 1 1,400 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 2 7,400 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 3 2,700 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 4 1,000 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 5 3,600 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 6 6,300 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 7 4,900 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 8 1,200 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Total 28,500 acres *unplanned ignitions can be used any season

2.2.2.4 Road Activities

Roads would be utilized in the project planning area to provide access for treatment activities. 

General road maintenance, temporary road construction, the temporary opening of closed roads 

for log haul, the closing of currently open roads, and the decommissioning of a road are 

proposed. Temporary road construction and temporary opening of closed roads would occur to 

provide adequate access for harvest and fuel reduction treatments. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, 

Maps 3 & 8.

Road Use, Road Maintenance, and Temporary Road Construction

Road maintenance for haul (77.7 miles, 78 road segments) would occur on maintenance level 

1 or 2 roads to provide safe access and adequate drainage. The following work is classified as 

maintenance: blading and shaping the roadbed, reshaping drain dips or grade sags, reshaping 

waterbars and cross ditches, spot rocking in the roadbed, brushing and removing danger trees, 

removing snow, minor realigning of road junctions, cleaning culverts, seeding, removing excess 

material from the roadbed, placing fill material in ruts in the road, and installation of minor 

drainage features. Some county roads would also need to be used for haul.

Closed roads to be temporarily opened for haul (28.7 miles, 45 road segments): These roads 

would be temporarily opened for log haul, and then closed at the completion of the project. The 

closure would remain consistent with the intent of the original closure. Basic custodial 

maintenance would be performed to allow for future access and to prevent damage by inadequate 

drainage. Their mileage is included above, under road maintenance.
Magone Project

60 of 632

Temporary road construction (8.5 miles, 29 road segments) would be necessary to access 

several timber harvest units. Temporary roads would be rehabilitated after use. Rehabilitation 

would eliminate future use of the road with the objective of restoring hydrological function. 

Temporary roads would be restored by some combination of the following, to ensure that the 

road has adequate drainage and ground cover to prevent erosion, soil productivity is restored, the 

road is no longer drivable, and the road is not highly visible after approximately 5 years:

 Waterbarring as needed to restore natural drainage patterns.

 Recontouring slopes (removing cut and fill slopes) and pulling berms from the edge of 

the road back onto the road.

 Subsoiling (loosening) compact soils in a “J” pattern to a depth of approximately 16

inches (unless prevented by bedrock or rock content of soils).

 Planting or seeding disturbed areas with genetically appropriate native species that 

naturally occur in the project planning area, to achieve a minimum of 35 percent ground 

cover.

 Placing slash, boulders, and logs on the roadbed (where available).

 Disguising the visible entrance with pieces of cull logs, tops of cut trees, rocks, or other 

means to prevent vehicle use.

There would be no construction of new or temporary roads outside the project planning area.

Use of private roads to access silviculture units: There are several roads where easements exist 

or may be needed through private land where access would be needed to implement this project.

See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 3.

Road System Changes

Road decommissioning (0.3 miles, 1 road segment): FSR 1800933 is a currently open road 

that is not needed for future management and is proposed for decommissioning. There is no 

evidence of a designed roadway past the dispersed campsite. The segment of this road past the 

dispersed campsite would be permanently removed from the Forest transportation system. This 

road would be allowed to continue to naturally re-vegetate itself, with no on-the-ground work 

proposed.

Close currently open roads (maintenance level [ML] 2 to ML 1) (2.5 miles, 6 road 

segments): Closure of roads desired to be kept on the system would occur, but road use would 

be limited to infrequent management and other permitted activities. Closure may be by a 

physical barrier or gate, and by regulation. Basic custodial maintenance would be performed for 

future resource access, to prevent damage. Closed roads are to be left in a stable hydrologic state 

and are to be periodically maintained.

Several roads are grown in or are not being maintained as open. These roads are proposed for 

closure as the result of non-use.

There are no known RS2477 claims for any roads proposed for access changes in the Magone 

project planning area.

Confirmation of Past Administratively Closed Roads

Within the Magone project planning area, there are road segments identified in the road system 

database as closed by previous administrative actions. These road segments, identified as ML 1, 

are included in this project so they can be documented as closed through a NEPA process. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

61 of 632

existing conditions of these road segments were found to be currently overgrown with natural 

vegetation; physically blocked with a gate or earthen berm; the road prism is no longer visible;

or the road prism has no physical closure barrier present. The Magone interdisciplinary team 

analyzed each road segment to determine its current use and future access need for the public 

and administration. Through this analysis, approximately 8.34 miles of road are proposed for 

official closure and long-term storage for future use in alternative 2 and are listed in FEIS 

Appendix A – Project Activity Tables.

There are no known RS2477 claims for any roads proposed for confirmation of past 

administrative closure in the Magone project planning area.

Rock Pit Material Sources

Some roads may require rock for spot rocking wet areas. Rock pit material sources are located at, 

but not limited to:

 Hog Creek: FSR 3940794 – Township 11 South, Range 31 East, Section 32, NW/NE

 Huckleberry Borrow: FSR 3946085 – Township 11 South, Range 31 East, Section 8, 

NE/NW

 Keeney Meadows: FSR 3940590 – Township 11 South, Range 31 East, Section 17, 

SE/SE

 Forty Day: FSR 3945196 – Township 11 South, Range 31 East, Section 19, SE/NW

2.2.2.5 Recreation Opportunity Improvements

The following recreation opportunity improvements would be implemented under alternative 2.

Trail Developments

Hiking/Bicycle Trails

The objective is to meet the current public needs for a more broad recreation experience while on 

the Malheur National Forest by creating and maintaining a variety of trail systems in the Magone 

project planning area.

The expanded trail system would be centered around the Magone Lake developed area, which 

would be a starting point for campers and day-use visitors. There are several connecting trail 

options to provide for longer hikes, varied returns, and a more broad recreation experience. 

Outside of the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), development would include 

extending existing bicycle trails on currently closed roads and utilizing some open roads. 

Additionally, new trails would be constructed for the purpose of connecting the trails that follow 

roads. The aim here is to create worthy destinations and loop opportunities. This portion of the 

proposal also includes relocating an access point and constructing a portion of trail associated 

with the move. In addition, some obstacles such as trees and boulders may be placed in trails codesignated on maintenance level 1 roads to create more of a single-track experience. Within the 

IRA, single-track bicycle trails would be constructed up to scenic destinations. Trails would 

primarily follow ridge lines. There would be a small number of drainage crossings. These trails 

would also provide loop opportunities, as well as tie the Nipple Butte trail into the Magone trail 

system. The existing Nipple Butte multiple-use trail would be improved as well.

Extensions to the existing hiker trails would be constructed to enhance the recreational 

opportunities for Magone Lake visitors. They would provide for longer hikes with loop 

opportunities, interpretation of Magone’s history and ecology, and access to an overlook area 
Magone Project

62 of 632

with views to Magone Lake, the Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic Area, the Strawberry Mountain 

Range, and the Aldrich Mountains.

New construction of single-track trails within the Nipple Butte IRA would also connect with the 

existing bicycle trails and with the other newly constructed trails. All of the trails would be 

single-track bicycle and hiker trails with measures in place to prevent off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use.

The newly constructed portions of the bicycle trails would meet single-track mountain biking 

trail standards, as specified by the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA). IMBA’s 

fundamental elements of a sustainable trail mean it does not harm the environment, it meets the 

needs of visitors, it has small maintenance costs, and it minimizes conflicts between different 

user groups. IMBA’s trail-building principles, which support the fundamental elements of 

building sustainable trail, would be implemented. These include creating rolling contour trails

(characterized by gentle grade reversals), out-sloped tread, avoiding the fall-line, and avoiding 

flat “seats,” where trails would become puddles. These trail-building principles minimize 

erosion, provide an interesting and unique visitor experience, and require little maintenance. In 

order to meet the fundamental elements and trail-building principles described above, some 

flexibility in layout would be allowed, but the trail would stay within 50 feet to either side of the 

proposed mapped course. Before construction, trail layout would be marked with pin flags. The 

layout would be inspected by Forest Service employees for compliance with this EIS. Trails 

would be built both by hand and by a trail dozer, which is a narrow tilt-blade skid steer. Trails 

would be constructed with a 3 foot wide base. After construction, vegetation would be allowed to 

grow back in along the edges. The trails would be maintained at a width of 18 inches. At fence 

crossings, either gates or bicycle cattle guards would be used. Where gates are used, signage 

would be put up to instruct trail users to close the gate behind them. Signs would be put up for 

trail users at all road crossings to let them know they are about to cross a road. On the primary 

roads, which receive the heaviest vehicle traffic volume, signs would be put up for drivers 

alerting them to look for bikers and hikers crossing the road. At water crossings, log stringer trail 

bridges would be built by laying hewn log stringers over sills. For smaller crossings, single log 

stringers would be used. For larger water crossings, double log stringers with deck planks would 

be used. Trail crossings in Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat would follow the PDCs 

described in FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria.

Bicycle trail construction, maintenance, funding, and organization of such activities would be 

done primarily by a local Grant County bicycle group, or other recreational group through a 

formal agreement. All the proposed trails would be designed as bicycle/hiker or hiker only. As 

such, motorized access would be prohibited. Engineering controls and education would be used 

foremost to prevent OHVs from accessing these trails; different uses (e.g., hiking, biking, OHV 

use) require different trail design and OHV use of a trail designed for hiking and biking would 

cause resource damage. Signage would be placed at trailheads to indicate the allowed modes of 

travel on the trails. Trail design techniques, such as routing trails between large trees or logs, and 

using bicycle-width cattle guards at fence crossings would discourage OHV use of the trails. The 

trails would not be designed for equestrian use, but would not disallow it except for on the hikeronly trails. Multiple-use trail etiquette information would be provided at trailheads. Motorized 

access would continue to be allowed on the existing general purpose Nipple Butte trail.

The Lake Butte trail (#B-5037) would be extended 3.5 miles, and 3.2 miles of trail would be 

un-designated. The un-designated mileage would be the portion of trail that goes over Forest 

Service road (FSR) 1800243 north of FSR 1800362, traverses County Road 18, and goes over 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

63 of 632

FSR 1800279. The route would then start at FSR 3618243, and instead follow up FSR 3618362 

to its end, and follow a newly constructed trail for 1.4 miles up to Lake Butte where it will tie in 

with the eastern end of the Jugow trail. The total length of the Lake Butte trail when finished 

would be 3.5 miles.

Behind Magone trail (closed FSR 3618245). The existing access point on FSR 3618 would be 

decommissioned (along with 0.7 miles of currently designated trail) to utilize the existing 

parking area for the Lake Butte trail (#B-5037) on the north side of FSR 3620 at the existing 

dispersed campsite. In addition, 0.6 miles of new trail construction would connect the Behind 

Magone trail to the Lake Butte trail (FSR 3618 would need to be crossed). This would create 

superior loop opportunities, as well as provide scenic views and destinations, including views of 

Magone Lake from a ridgetop. The Behind Magone trail would also be linked to the Magone 

Lake trail through 0.9 miles of new trail construction. The Magone Lake trail would be extended 

to the southeast from the northeast most point of the trail, as well as two locations on the south 

end, to link to the Behind Magone trail. This would create a loop back to the boat ramp area. The 

total length of the Behind Magone trail would be 3.0 miles. A portion of the Magone Lake trail 

(from the boat ramp to the connection point near the outflow bridge) would be designated as 

bicycle trail (and improved for such use) in order to provide a loop connection opportunity for 

bicyclists using the Behind Magone trail. Signage will be placed just passed the junction to 

inform the public to not ride bicycles on the Magone Lake trail, (the trail around the lake).

The Behind Magone loop would be a new 1.0 mile loop on closed FSR 3618299 and FSR 

3618297, which would be connected with 0.3 miles of new construction, creating a loop 

opportunity off of the Behind Magone trail for families camping at Magone Lake Campground 

and other visitors.

The Magone Slide trail (hiking only) is an existing trail that would extend to the north, looping 

around the top of the slide and back down to the beginning. This trail extension would create a 

longer hiking opportunity for campers and other Magone visitors, would provide for loop 

opportunities, and would traverse the overlook area with views over the slide, as well as views to 

Magone Lake, the Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic Area, the Strawberry Mountain Range, and 

the Aldrich Mountains. This trail extension (1.4 miles) would have an interpretive sign 

describing the history of the slide and a primitive bench placed at the top of the slide overlook, 

vastly improving the destination qualities of this hike.

The Magone Scout trail is a 13.5 mile new trail proposal that starts at the Nipple Butte trailhead 

at the west end of trail #346, and ends at the new proposed Lake Butte trail where it crosses FSR 

1800760. The Magone Scout trail would involve both new construction (9.5 miles in IRA, 0.7 

miles not in IRA) and old roads (1.0 miles in IRA, 2.3 miles not in IRA). The flow of the trail is 

as follows: from the west Nipple Butte trailhead, the trail runs south along the ridges on the east 

side of Nipple Creek, and eventually crosses McClellan Creek just south of its confluence with 

Nipple Creek. It then follows south along the ridgetops on the east side of McClellan Creek and 

connects into FSR 3618083. It follows this road north to FSR 3618295, north along FSR 

3618295 to a stretch of new trail construction up to FSR 3618125. It then follows FSR 3618125 

to its beginning at FSR 3618064, then north to the junction of FSR 3618194. Then it heads east 

and follows the south side of a fence line until it connects with the end of FSR 1800760. It then 

follows along FSR 1800760 and ends where Lake Butte bike trail crosses it. This trail will skirt 

along the east end of the wildlife emphasis area.

The Jugow trail is a 6.0 mile new construction trail that creates an alternate route from the 

Nipple Butte trailhead to the Lake Butte trailhead. Unlike the existing Nipple Butte trail, which 
Magone Project

64 of 632

is more suited for OHVs and much too steep for bikes, the Jugow trail would use natural 

contours as a guide for laying out the trail.

This bike-friendly trail would swing out wider to both the north and south than the Nipple Butte 

trail in order to avoid extended steep inclines. The grades would be short enough in distance to 

enhance the user experience, rather than hinder it; create a safer trail for bicycles; and would 

incorporate single-track characteristics such as short grades, turns and grade reversals. Starting at 

the Nipple Butte (west) trailhead, the Jugow trail would run south of the Nipple Butte trail until 

about the 1.6 mile mark, where it would cross the fence and the Nipple Butte trail. It would then 

continue north and traverse above the Jugow Creek headwaters before turning south again. There 

would be one more swing out to the north before turning south again and working along the 

north side of the Nipple Butte trail to the Jugow trail’s end where it joins the Nipple Butte trail 

just west of the Lake Butte (east) trailhead.

The Wade trail creates loop options by linking the Magone Scout trail, just west of McClellan 

Creek, to the FSR 3618125 portion of the Magone Scout trail. The Wade trail would be 3.4 miles 

in total length (1.2 miles in IRA, 2.2 miles not in IRA).

The Four Corners trail connects to Round Top trail at Four Corners, and goes to the east 

boundary of the Magone project planning area. Its purpose is to connect the Magone trail system 

to the proposed Four Corners trailhead along FSR 1800805, and to trails within the Camp Lick 

project planning area. The Four Corners trail is 0.5 miles within the Magone Project.

The Camp Lick Connector trail connects to Lake Butte trail just south of the Lake Butte 

trailhead, and goes to the northeast boundary of the Magone Project. Its purpose is to connect the 

Magone trail system to trails within the Camp Lick project planning area. It is 0.4 miles within 

the Magone Project.

For the Low Slope trail, 0.4 miles of FSR 3620629 would be designated as a bicycle trail. It 

would provide excellent scenery and, along with the northern part of Round Top trail, create a 

loop opportunity for the Lake Butte route.

The North Magone Connector trail is a 0.1 mile trail that connects the Behind Magone trail to 

the Magone Lake trail at the northeast corner of the lake. It will provide an opportunity for an 

expanded hiking loop.

The Round Top trail is a 19.1 mile (18.4 miles new construction, 0.7 miles of trail on road) trail 

that loops around the east portion of the Magone project planning area. It starts at Lake Butte 

trail and follows FSR 1800311 and FSR 3620646 to FSR 3620, then crosses FSR 3620 and 

Tinker Creek. The trail then winds its way south until it crosses FSR 3600663, works its way 

east until it crosses FSR 36 at Four Corners, then works its way south, crossing FSR 3600237 

and continuing south until it skirts around the end of FSR 3600390 and starts heading back to the 

west. The trail crosses FSR 3600305 just north of its junction with FSR 3600723. From there, 

the trail continues west and winds its way down and across East Fork Beech Creek and FSR 36. 

It heads back up the slope on the east side of the creek and road, then turns north until it joins the 

Magone Scout trail at FSR 3618083.

Tinker Creek Trail is a 1.7 mile trail beginning at the junction of FSR 3618, FSR 3620, and the 

Round Top trail. It travels north on FSR 3620646, then west and south on FSR 1800311 until it 

connects into the Lake Butte trail. The Low Slope trail also connects into this trail approximately 

0.4 miles from its junction with FSR 3620.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

65 of 632

See Table 7 for a list of the trails proposed under alternative 2 and Map 10.

Table 7. Alternative 2 proposed hike/bike/horse trails

Trail Total length 

(miles)

Miles of new 

trail 

construction

Miles of trail 

on existing 

road

Trail designation

Behind Magone Loop 1.0 0.3 0.7 Bicycle, foot, horse

Behind Magone trail 3.0 1.5 1.5 Bicycle, foot

Camp Lick Connector 0.4 0.4 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Four Corners trail 0.5 0.5 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Jugow trail 6.0 6.0 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Lake Butte trail 3.5 1.4 2.1 Bicycle, foot, horse

Low Slope trail 0.4 0 0.4 Bicycle, foot, horse

Magone Scout Trail 13.5 10.2 3.3 Bicycle, foot, horse

Magone Slide trail 1.4 1.4 0 Foot

North Magone Connector trail 0.1 0.1 0 Foot

Round Top trail 19.1 18.4 0.7 Bicycle, foot, horse

Tinker Creek trail 1.7 0.1 1.6 Bicycle, foot, horse

Wade trail 3.4 3.4 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Total 54.0 43.7 10.3

Several trails in the Magone project planning area would be un-designated (Table 8).

Table 8. Alternative 2 existing trails to un-designate

Trail Total length (miles)

Trail on FSR 3618245 0.7

Trail on FSR 1800243, County Road 18, and FSR 1800279 3.2

Total 3.9

The purpose of un-designating the above listed trails on roads is to re-route the trails off of roads 

where the trail shares use with vehicular traffic, to improve safety and enhance recreational 

experiences.

The Behind Magone trail follows FSR 3618245. Currently, there is no developed trailhead for 

the trail. The start of the trail is on a tight turn of FSR 3618 where it junctions with FSR 

3618245. Passing motorists see only a gated road with a “closed” sign. There is parking space 

for one vehicle in front of the gate. Reaching this spot requires traversing FSR 3618, which is the 

paved primary access road to the Magone Lake Recreation Area, and poses a safety risk to 

recreationalist due to vehicular traffic. The solution is to move the start of the trail and build new 

trail that ties in with the road portion about 0.7 miles in. The first 0.7 miles of FSR 3618245 that 

are currently part of the Behind Magone trail would no longer be needed, and would thus be undesignated. The new start location would be directly across FSR 3618 from the Tinker Creek 

trailhead, which is the start of the Lake Butte trail. This would allow ample parking for those 

wanting to use the Behind Magone trail, with only the need to cross FSR 3618, rather than 

traveling on it. For those coming from the campground, the distance of travel needed on FSR 

3618 would be greatly reduced. Moreover, it would eliminate the need to be on the curvy stretch 

of the road where blind corners create a safety issue.
Magone Project

66 of 632

As with the Behind Magone trail, the Lake Butte trail goes over roads (FSR 1800243 and County 

Road 18), presenting the same safety issue of mixing recreational use with vehicular traffic This 

problem can be solved by moving the Lake Butte trail over onto an alternate closed road, and 

constructing a new trail segment that would connect to Lake Butte and the Lake Butte trailhead. 

As a part of that change, some of the road segments that currently comprise the Lake Butte trail 

would not be needed, and would thus be un-designated. These segments include the portion of 

FSR 1800243 north of its junction with FSR 3618362, a segment of County Road 18, and FSR 

1800279.

Accessible Trail Development

The portion of trail from the inlet bridge at Lake Creek to the northeast end would be designed to 

meet accessibility standards. The surface would be changed from dirt to bituminous surface with 

a wider width meeting accessibility standards. A picnic table would be placed adjacent to the trail 

and an interpretive sign would be installed.

Trailhead Developments

Nipple Butte Trailhead: For the Nipple Butte trail (#346) on the west end, road access needs to 

have the ruts removed and the roadbed leveled out and gravel placed. Directional signage to the 

trailhead would be installed on FSR 3947. At the trailhead, the parking area (for several vehicles) 

needs to be more defined with boulders, and the parking lot graveled. A sign would be installed 

at the trailhead.

The Lake Butte trailhead on the east end needs better directional signage on County Road 18

and on FSR 1800279.

Tinker Creek trailhead: The trailhead for B-5037 Lake Butte trail needs better directional 

signage placed on FSR 3618 and at the trailhead. The existing dispersed campsite would be 

converted to parking for several vehicles for the B-5037 Lake Butte trail. The trailhead will be 

rustic in nature with a trailhead sign, some leveling and gravel placement, and boulders to 

delineate the parking area.

Trailhead near junction of FSR 3618064 and 3618125 (Tinker CreekProhibition 

Trailhead): The site is an existing dispersed camping area that will be used as the parking area 

for four vehicles. This site will be rustic in nature with a trailhead sign, some leveling, and gravel 

placement. Boulders if needed will be placed to delineate the parking area.

Four Corners trailhead: The trailhead would be at the beginning of FSR 1800805 (a closed 

road), creating a parking area for 4 vehicles. The road would have boulders placed to keep traffic 

off the closed portion of the road. Trailhead signs would be installed.

Interpretive Signs

This proposal includes placing interpretive signs that convey the natural history of Magone Lake, 

along with information about fire ecology, heritage, grazing, vegetation, and wildlife to integrate 

these many aspects of the project planning area together for forest visitors. The interpretation 

sites would be located at Four Corners and within the Magone Lake recreation area. The site at 

Four Corners would have a sign with interpretive panels, while the Magone Lake Recreation 

Area signs would be located at the new Slide trail overlook, along the Magone Lake trail where 

the slide is visible, and along the trail at the northeast corner of the lake.

 Along Slide Trail: the sign content will be about the landslide that created Magone Lake.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

67 of 632

 East side of Magone Lake (at the location where the landslide is in view): the sign 

content will be about the landslide that created Magone Lake.

 Four Corners: the sign content will be about the role of fire, the area’s cultural heritage, 

the importance of grazing to the area, and the vegetation types in the area.

 North side of Magone Lake: the sign content will be about the beaver activity that occurs 

around the lake.

Docks and Boat Moorings

Day Use Boat Dock

The existing floating boat dock would be improved by adding a boardwalk on the west side of 

the existing floating dock that will be anchored on both ends allowing for high water movement 

for more easily boat launching. The aluminum railing would either be replaced or made more 

rustic in design to fit the natural landscape in color and texture of material.

Campground Boat Mooring

The existing boat mooring would be replaced with a new boat mooring that would accommodate 

2 to 3 boats. The new boat mooring would be located approximately 100 to 200 feet south west 

of the existing boat mooring location. This would get the new mooring into deeper water for 

boats. The purpose of this dock would be to allow campers to dock their boats overnight or while 

not in use and avoid having to pull the boat onto shore causing shoreline damage. It would also 

reduce congestion at boat launch.

Fishing Dock

A new floating fishing dock would be placed on the east side of Magone Lake in conjunction 

with the addition of fish cribs and fish sticks (see description below under Magone Lake 

Restoration Activities). Dock would be assembled at boat launch and towed to location in the 

spring and removed each fall.

2.2.2.6 Magone Lake Restoration Activities

Fish cribs and fish sticks would be placed in Magone Lake to increase near shore habitat 

complexity for fish, provide cover/habitat for bait fish and aquatic insects, provide cover for 

beaver which currently are present on the lake, and provide nesting sites for waterfowl. These 

structures would also increase shoreline fishing opportunities.

 Fish Cribs (15 to 20 placed throughout Magone Lake) – Fish cribs would be built on 

the ice during winter by volunteers, partners, contractors, and Forest Service personnel. 

The cribs would have a minimum of 5 feet of water over the top of them (which would 

avoid creating navigational hazards for boaters); most fish cribs will be sunk to a depth 

of 10 to 15 feet. All material with the exception of rock ballasts and fasteners would be 

biodegradable. The dimensions of the fish cribs would be approximately 8 feet long by 8 

feet wide. Branches and limbs from thinning adjacent to the lake would not be piled 

onsite for burning but would be used to fill the interior of the cribs, with rock ballasts 

piled on top.

 Fish Sticks (70 to 100 in singles and clusters of 5 to 7 trees placed throughout 

Magone Lake) – 5 to 7 trees (mostly 8 to 12 inches DBH) with 50 foot distance 

between groups. Groups would be cabled together with 1⁄4 inch cable. These trees will 

come from units adjacent to Magone Lake.
Magone Project

68 of 632

 Fish Sticks Option 2 Design: to avoid using cable, 3 to 5 trees with rootwads attached 

would be placed on top of the ice using equipment. Trees would be pushed onto the ice, 

not carried whole (equipment would stay off of ice). Rootwads function as anchors 

keeping the group of trees in place. The group would be capped with a larger tree placed 

on top parallel to the shoreline. Limbs would be placed to interlock with each bole.

2.2.2.7 Proposed Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative 2 includes the following forest plan amendments.

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes

The proposed forest plan amendment would change Management Area (MA) 13 boundaries for 

existing areas to ensure the best possible old growth stands are incorporated, and delineate 

boundaries for new areas within the project planning area to bring the total acres up to Malheur 

Forest Plan standards, with a net gain of ROG acres. Alternative 2 would result in adjustments 

and additions to DOGs and ROGs to meet MA13 standards.

This forest plan amendment would expand the MA13 network to better attain the 900-acre home 

ranges recommended by Bull and Holthousen (1993) for pileated woodpeckers in those DOGs 

designated for pileated woodpeckers. Approximately 1,215 acres would officially be added to the 

MA13 network.

It is important to note that management areas (including MA13) overlap, and when a specific 

segment of land falls under the goals of several management areas, the acres are assigned to the 

higher priority management area (i.e., more restrictive standards and guidelines) (USDA Forest 

Service 1990a, page IV-46). In other words, the changes to MA13 either overlay other 

management areas when the MA13 designation is expanded, and “uncover” other management 

areas when the MA13 designation is removed.

DOGs would decrease by approximately 263 acres and ROGs would increase by 1,478 acres. 

The decrease in DOG acres would be from reallocating some DOG acres to ROGs. See Table 9

and FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Maps 13 and 14 for the proposed locations of DOGs and ROGs.

Table 9. Comparison of existing dedicated old growth (DOGs) and replacement old growth (ROGs) 

with proposed changes for alternatives 2, 3, and 4, in relation to Malheur Forest Plan standards

Old growth management areas Minimum 

MA13 acre 

requirements

Existing acres 

in the project 

planning area

Adjusted (proposed) 

acres for alternatives 

2, 3, and 4

DOG 03259 (259) Pine Marten (MM) 160 293 249

03259 Replacement area (ROG) 80 0 88

DOG 03515 (515) Pine Marten (MM) 160 434 230

03515 Replacement area (ROG) 80 0 266

DOG 03114 (114) Pileated Woodpecker 

(PW)

300 341 405

03114 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 355

DOG 03115 (115) Pileated Woodpecker 

(PW)

300 327 315

03115 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 470

DOG 03119 (119) Pileated Woodpecker 

(PW)

300 403 336

03119 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 299
Final Environmental Impact Statement

69 of 632

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range (Management Area 4A), and Wildlife Emphasis 

Area (Management Area 21) Cover below Malheur Forest Plan Standards

An amendment is proposed to Forest-wide standard 28 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV28) to reduce summer range satisfactory cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed below the 

Malheur Forest Plan standard of 12 percent. Alternative 2 would temporarily reduce satisfactory 

cover from the existing 31.8 to 10.1 percent (a 21.7 percent reduction, 1.9 percent below the 

standard).

An amendment is proposed to Management Area 4A, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV-70) to reduce winter range satisfactory cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed below the 

Malheur Forest Plan standard of 10 percent. Alternative 2 would temporarily reduce satisfactory 

cover from the existing 29.5 to 5.9 percent (a 23.6 percent reduction, 4.1 percent below the 

standard).

An amendment is proposed to Management Area 21, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV-131 to IV-132) to reduce satisfactory cover below the Malheur Forest Plan standard of 

20 percent and total cover in the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area below the standard of 40 

percent. Alternative 2 would temporarily reduce satisfactory cover from the existing 46.8 to 16.5 

percent (a 30.3 percent reduction, 3.5 percent below the standard); and total cover from the 

existing 70.6 to 39.5 percent (a 31.1 percent reduction, 0.5 percent below the standard).

The cover amendments would apply only for the duration of, and for those actions proposed in, 

the site-specific Magone Project.

2.2.3 Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed to meet the purpose and need for the Magone Project, while 

addressing the issues identified in Chapter 1 and responding to comments requesting more 

activities. This alternative was developed in response to specific comments received:

 That requested more silviculture treatments, including in the Nipple Butte IRA.

 That expressed concern about spring burning in the Nipple Butte IRA, and how it could 

impact forage production on the range allotment located within the IRA.

 That requested certain road segments be left as Maintenance level 2 (open) for access to

hunting locations and dispersed campsites.

 That requested more and different hiking/bicycle trails.

2.2.3.1 Modifications to Alternative 3

The modifications made to alternative 3 between the draft and final environmental impact 

statements are:

 Minor changes in acres of silviculture treatments as a result of refining GIS files.

 Separating the discussion of proposed road system changes and trails.

 Clarification that some roads that were administratively closed in the past would be 

confirmed as closed by the Magone Project.

2.2.3.2 Silviculture Treatments

This alternative has the following changes from alternative 2, with a total increase of 2,275

acres treated:

 2,620 acres more commercial and non-commercial thinning
Magone Project

70 of 632

 27 acres less commercial and non-commercial thinning, leave stand denser

 86 acres less post and pole removal

 232 acres less non-commercial thinning

The descriptions of silvicultural treatments for commercial and non-commercial thinning, 

commercial and non-commercial thinning (leave stand denser), commercial and non-commercial 

thinning (with re-designation from DOG to ROG), post and pole removal, non-commercial 

thinning, non-commercial thinning (with designation of ROG), conifer reduction in aspen stands, 

and biomass removal under alternative 2 are the same for alternative 3.

The following silviculture treatments would be implemented under alternative 3:

 Commercial and non-commercial thinning (5,899 acres, 141 units)

 Commercial and non-commercial thinning, leave stand denser (751 acres, 14 units)

 Commercial and non-commercial thinning, with re-designation from DOG to ROG (223

acres, 4 units)

 Post and pole removal (292 acres, 4 units)

 Non-commercial thinning (5,925 acres, 174 units)

 Non-commercial thinning, with designation as ROG (1,039 acres, 5 units)

 Conifer reduction in aspen stands (18 acres, 7 units)

 Biomass removal (up to 10,392 acres)

 Harvest Systems/Activity Fuels Treatments: The areas proposed for commercial thinning 

(7,165 acres, 163 units) would be yarded via tractor, skyline, or a combination as 

follows:

o Tractor – 5,631 acres, 131 units

o Skyline – 305 acres, 8 units

o Tractor and skyline – 1,229 acres, 24 units

 Harvest systems and associated fuel treatments would occur as follows:

o Whole tree yarding and/or cut to length, grapple piling and/or hand piling, and 

pile burning – 7,165 acres, 163 units

o Grapple piling, hand piling with pile burning, or both – 3,249 acres, 104 units

o Hand piling and pile burning only – 3,733 acres, 82 units

See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 4.

2.2.3.3 Prescribed Burning and Unplanned Ignitions

This alternative has the following changes from alternative 2:

 Prescribed burning would be conducted primarily in the spring or fall on up to 17,200 

acres.

 Prescribed burning within most of the Nipple Butte IRA was changed to fall only 

ignition. Specifically, burn blocks 6 and 7 have planned ignitions likely to occur only in 

the fall on 11,300 acres.

 Pile burning in silviculture treatment unites would include up to approximately 13,400 

acres. Acres that would be pile burned are also included in, or overlap with, the total 

underburning acres.

The descriptions of fuels treatments, including burning piled material, underburning, and the use 

of unplanned ignitions under alternative 2, are the same for alternative 3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

71 of 632

Table 10 shows the acreages for the burn blocks, see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 6 to view 

location of the various burn blocks in the Magone project planning area.

Table 10. Alternative 3 prescribed burn blocks

Burn block Acres Season of planned ignitions*

Block 1 1,400 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 2 7,400 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 3 2,700 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 4 1,000 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 5 3,600 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 6 6,300 acres Fall only

Block 7 4,900 acres Fall only

Block 8 1,200 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Total 28,500 acres *unplanned ignitions can be used any season

2.2.3.4 Road Activities

This alternative has the following changes from alternative 2:

 Increase of temporary road construction by 4.4 miles.

 Increase of road maintenance for haul by 20.8 miles.

 Reduction of road closures by 2.2 miles.

Road Use, Road Maintenance, and Temporary Road Construction

The descriptions of road activities for road maintenance for haul, closed roads to be temporarily 

opened for haul, and temporary road construction under alternative 2 are the same for alternative 

3. 

 Road maintenance for haul (98.5 miles, 105 road segments)

 Closed roads to be temporarily opened for haul (46.9 miles, 68 road segments) – This 

mileage is included above under road maintenance.

 Temporary road construction (12.9 miles, 49 segments)

See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 4.

Road System Changes

The description of road activities for road decommissioning, closure of currently open roads 

(ML 2 to ML 1), and co-designating an existing road as a trail under alternative 2 are the same 

for alternative 3. No currently open roads would be closed (ML 2 to ML 1) and co-designated as 

a trail and no roads would be converted to a trail (ML 1 to trail).

 Road decommissioning (0.3 miles, 1 road segment)

 Close currently open roads (ML 2 to ML 1) (0.3 miles, 2 road segments)

See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 9.

Confirmation of Past Administratively Closed Roads

The confirmation of past administratively closed roads would be the same as described under 

alternative 2.
Magone Project

72 of 632

2.2.3.5 Recreation Opportunity Improvements

This alternative has the following changes from alternative 2:

 42.3 more miles of new hiking/bicycle trails, including 41 miles of new trail construction 

and 1.3 miles of trail designated on existing roads.

 Addition of OHV use designated on FSR 36 to 4 Corners.

The description of recreation opportunity improvements for proposed hiking and/or bicycle trails 

of Behind Magone Loop, Behind Magone trail, Camp Lick Connector trail, Four Corners trail, 

Jugow trail, Lake Butte trail, Low Slope trail, Magone Scout trail, Magone Slide trail, North 

Magone Connector trail, Round Top trail, and Wade trail; Nipple Butte trail relocation; existing 

trails to un-designate; improvement of existing Nipple Butte, Lake Butte, and Tinker Creek 

trailheads; construction of new trailhead at Four Corners and near the junction of FSRs 3618064 

and 3618125 (Prohibition trailhead); interpretive sign additions; and docks and boat moorings 

under alternative 2 are the same for alternative 3.

The following recreation opportunity improvements would be implemented under alternative 3.

Trail Developments

Hiking/Bicycle Trails

The following trails, in addition to those described under alternative 2, would be constructed 

under alternative 3.

The Central Connector trail is a 1.7 mile new construction trail that connects the northern 

portion of Round Top trail to the East Fork Beech Creek Cut-off trail. This trail provides for a 

smaller loop opportunity for those traversing the Round Top trail. It crosses open FSR 3600663, 

FSR 36, and East Fork Beech Creek.

The East Fork Beech Creek Cut-off trail is a 1.4 mile new construction trail that connects the 

East Fork Beech Creek trail to the Four Corners Connector trail just north of where it junctions 

with the Round Top trail. It junctions with the Central Connector trail at its northern-most point 

and crosses open FSR 3600544.

The East Fork Beech Creek trail is a 1.8 mile new construction trail that connects the Tinker 

Creek trail near its southern-most point to the southern portion of the Round Top trail. It 

junctions with the west end of East Fork Beech Creek Cut-off trail and crosses open FSR 

3600544, East Fork Beech Creek and FSR 36.

The East Project trail is a 7.3 mile new construction trail that begins at the proposed Four 

Corners trailhead and goes to the southeast on the east side of County Road 18 and along the 

eastern project boundary, crossing FSR 1800595 and eventually County Road 18 at the southeast 

corner of the project planning area. It then crosses FSR 1800031 and connects to the 

southeastern-most stretch of the Round Top trail.

The Forest View trail is a 1.6 mile trail that features both new construction and utilization of an 

existing road. It is an off-shoot of the Behind Magone trail, intended to create a loop extension, 

primarily for family recreationists coming over from the campground. It follows FSR 3618263 

for 0.3 miles near where the proposed new construction segment of the Behind Magone trail 

connects to the existing trail location. The Forest View trail traverses the slope on the west side 

of Tinker Creek canyon.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

73 of 632

The Four Corners Connector trail is a 2.3 mile new construction trail that connects the Round 

Top trail at Four Corners to the East Fork Beech Creek Cut-off trail just north of where it 

junctions with the Round Top trail. It runs northeast to southwest.

The High Ridge trail is a 3.5 mile new construction trail in the Nipple Butte IRA that connects 

the Porcupine trail and the Magone Scout trail to create a loop opportunity. It runs east to west.

The Magone Connector trail is a 0.2 mile new construction trail that provides a short-cut 

connection of the Magone Lake trail to the Behind Magone trail. It is intended to provide 

additional loop opportunities primarily for family users coming over from the campground.

The Outer Loop trail is a 1.2 mile new construction trail that would provide another loop 

opportunity by connecting the Behind Magone Loop trail to the new construction segment of the 

Behind Magone trail. The Outer Loop trail would allow trail users to go further south on the 

Behind Magone trail complex without getting too far away from the Magone Lake Recreation 

area.

The Porcupine trail is a 12.5 mile trail that would be both new construction (11.6 miles) and 

trail on road (0.9 miles). It starts at the Lake Butte trail at the north end of FSR 1800760 and 

goes to the northeast corner of FSR 3618064, following the road south for 0.4 miles, then west 

across the northern half of Nipple Butte IRA, following the natural contours and providing 

outstanding views. Eventually it crosses the Magone Scout trail just south of the Nipple Butte 

trailhead, then works its way over to the western roadless area boundary and south down the 

ridgeline. It crosses an eastern tributary to Clear Creek before working its way back to the west 

and tying back in with the Magone Scout trail on the west side of McClellan Creek.

The Prohibition Loop is a 1.3 mile trail co-designated on a road that is a loop off of the 

Porcupine Trail that traverses FSR 3618064. It is intended to provide an additional small loop 

opportunity for hikers and bikers.

The Shortcut trail is a 0.4 mile trail that connects the East Fork Beech Creek Cut-off trail to the 

Tinker Creek Loop and Central Connector trail at a 3-way junction.

The South View trail is a 4.0 mile new construction trail that connects the Round Top trail at 

Four Corners to the East Project trail near its southern-most point. The South View trail runs 

primarily north-south on the west side of County Road 18. It crosses open FSR 3600237, and 

junctions with the east end of the Southeast Connector trail.

The Southeast Connector trail is a 0.1 mile new construction trail that provides a shortcut from 

the South View trail to the East project trail.

The Tinker Creek Loop is a 4.4 mile loop off of the Round Top trail that traverses roads as well 

as new construction. It begins at the Round Top trail about 0.7 miles down the Round Top trail 

south of FSR 3620, where it meets the end of FSR 3620714. The trail follows FSR 3620714 to 

its junction with FSR 3600697, which it traverses to the south end of the road. It then continues 

on in new construction counter-clockwise, looping back to the north and joining FSR 3600697

again just west of its junction with FSR 3600663.

See Table 11 for a list of the trails proposed under alternative 3, and see FEIS Appendix B –

Maps, Map 11 to view location of proposed trails.
Magone Project

74 of 632

Table 11. Alternative 3 proposed hike/bike/horse trails

Trail Total length 

(miles)

Miles of new 

trail 

construction

Miles of trail 

on 

existing road

Trail designation

Behind Magone Loop 1.0 0.3 0.7 Bicycle, foot, horse

Behind Magone trail 1.5 1.5 0 Bicycle, foot, horse 

(except on the 0.7 

miles connecting 

the Magone Lake 

and Outer Loop 

trails)

Camp Lick Connector 0.4 0.4 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Central Connector Trail 1.7 1.7 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

East Fork Beech Creek Cutoff trail1.4 1.4 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

East Fork Beech Creek trail 1.8 1.8 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

East Project trail 7.3 7.3 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Forest View trail 1.6 1.3 0.3 Bicycle, foot, horse

Four Corners trail 0.5 0.5 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Four Corners Connector trail 2.3 2.3 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

High Ridge trail 3.5 3.5 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Jugow trail 6.0 6.0 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Lake Butte trail 3.5 1.4 2.1 Bicycle, foot, horse

Low Slope trail 0.4 0 0.4 Bicycle, foot, horse

Magone Connector trail 0.2 0.2 0 Foot

Magone Scout Trail 13.5 10.2 3.3 Bicycle, foot, horse

Magone Slide trail 1.4 1.4 0 Foot

North Magone Connector 

trail

0.1 0.1 0 Foot

Outer Loop trail 1.2 1.2 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Porcupine trail 12.5 11.6 0.9 Bicycle, foot, horse

Prohibition Loop 1.3 0 1.3 Bicycle, foot, horse

Round Top trail 19.1 19.1 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Shortcut trail 0.4 0.4 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

South View trail 4.0 4.0 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Southeast Connector trail 0.1 0.1 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Tinker Creek trail 2.2 0.6 1.6 Bicycle, foot, horse

Tinker Creek Loop 4.4 3.0 1.0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Wade trail 3.4 3.4 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Total 96.3 84.7 11.6

Accessible Trail Development

The accessible trail development would be the same as described under alternative 2.

Trailhead Developments

The trailhead developments would be the same as described under alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

75 of 632

Interpretive Signs

The interpretive sign additions would be the same as described under alternative 2.

Docks and Boat Moorings

The day use boat dock, campground boat mooring, and fishing dock would be the same as 

described under alternative 2.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use

OHV use would be designated on FSR 36 from Four Corners to where FSR 36 turns into County 

Road 32. This would be a legal change and signs would be placed along the route indicating that 

it is open for OHV use.

2.2.3.6 Magone Lake Restoration Activities

The description of Magone Lake restoration activities including the number of fish cribs and fish 

sticks placed under alternative 2 is the same for alternative 3.

2.2.3.7 Proposed Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative 3 includes the following forest plan amendments.

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes

The description of changes to old growth boundaries described under alternative 2 are the same 

for alternative 3.

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range (Management Area 4A), and Wildlife Emphasis 

Area (Management Area 21) Cover below Malheur Forest Plan Standards

An amendment is proposed to Forest-wide standard 28 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV28) to reduce summer range satisfactory cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed below the 

Malheur Forest Plan standard of 12 percent. Alternative 3 would temporarily reduce satisfactory 

cover from the existing 31.8 to 8.2 percent (a 23.6 percent reduction, 3.8 percent below the 

standard).

An amendment is proposed to Management Area 4A, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV-70) to reduce winter range satisfactory cover below the Malheur Forest Plan standard of 

10 percent and total cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed below the standard of 25 percent. 

Alternative 3 would temporarily reduce satisfactory cover from the existing 29.5 to 3.3 percent 

(a 26.2 percent reduction, 6.7 percent below the standard) and total cover from the existing 87.4

to 17.1 percent (a 70.3 percent reduction, 7.9 percent below the standard) in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed.

An amendment is proposed to Management Area 21, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV-131 to IV-132) to reduce satisfactory cover below the Malheur Forest Plan standard of 

20 percent and total cover in the Nipple Butte WEA below the standard of 40 percent. 

Alternative 3 would temporarily reduce satisfactory cover from the existing 46.8 to 16.6 percent 

(a 30.2 percent reduction, 3.4 percent below the standard) and total cover from the existing 70.6

to 39.3 percent (a 31.3 percent reduction, 0.7 percent below the standard).

The cover amendments would apply only for the duration of, and for those actions proposed in, 

the site-specific Magone Project.
Magone Project

76 of 632

2.2.4 Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was developed to meet the purpose and need for the Magone Project, although to a 

lesser extent than alternative 2, while addressing the issues identified in Chapter 1, and 

responding to comments requesting less activities. This alternative was developed in response to 

specific comments received:

 That requested fewer silviculture treatments, including in the Nipple Butte IRA.

 That expressed concern about prescribed burning occurring in the Nipple Butte IRA.

 That requested certain road segments be left as Maintenance level 2 (open) for access for 

hunting and dispersed campsites.

 That raised with concerns regarding the amount of fish cribs and fish sticks that would 

be placed into Magone Lake.

2.2.4.1 Modifications to Alternative 4

The modifications made to alternative 4 between the draft and final environmental impact 

statements are:

 Minor changes in acres of silviculture treatments as a result of refining GIS files.

 Separating the discussion of proposed road system changes and trails.

 Clarification that some roads that were administratively closed in the past would be 

confirmed as closed by the Magone Project.

2.2.4.2 Silviculture Treatments

This alternative has the following changes from alternative 2, with a total reduction of 6,367

acres treated:

 373 acres less commercial and non-commercial thinning

 384 acres less commercial and non-commercial thinning, leave stand denser

 No commercial and non-commercial thinning, with re-designation from DOG to ROG

 127 acres less post and pole removal

 4,221 acres less non-commercial thinning

 No non-commercial thinning, with designation of ROG

The description of silvicultural treatments for commercial and non-commercial thinning, 

commercial and non-commercial thinning (leave stand denser), post and pole removal, noncommercial thinning, conifer reduction in aspen stands, and biomass removal under alternative 2 

are the same for alternative 4. No commercial and non-commercial thinning (with re-designation 

from DOG to ROG) or non-commercial thinning (with designation of ROG) would occur under 

this alternative.

The following silviculture treatments would be implemented under alternative 4:

 Commercial and non-commercial thinning (2,906 acres, 78 units)

 Commercial and non-commercial thinning, leave stand denser (394 acres, 8 units)

 Post and pole removal (251 acres, 5 units)

 Non-commercial thinning (1,936 acres, 54 units)

 Conifer reduction in aspen stands (18 acres, 7 units)

 Biomass removal (up to 5,505 acres)

 Harvest Systems/Activity Fuels Treatments: The areas proposed for commercial thinning 

(3,551 acres) would be yarded via tractor, skyline, or a combination as follows:

o Tractor – 2,936 acres, 75 units
Final Environmental Impact Statement

77 of 632

o Skyline – 243 acres, 7 units

o Tractor and skyline – 372 acres, 9 units

 Harvest systems and associated fuel treatments would occur as follows:

o Whole tree yarding and/or cut to length, grapple piling and/or hand piling, and 

pile burning – 3,551 acres, 91 units

o Grapple piling and/or hand piling with pile burning – 1,936 acres, 55 units

o Hand piling and pile burning only – 18 acres, 7 units

See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 5.

2.2.4.3 Prescribed Burning and Unplanned Ignitions

This alternative has the following changes from alternative 2:

 Prescribed burning in the Nipple Butte IRA (11,300 acres) using planned ignitions was 

dropped under this alternative.

 Underburning acres reduced from 28,500 acres to 17,200 acres.

 Pile burning in silviculture treatment units would include up to approximately 5,600 

acres. Acres that are piled burned are also included, or overlap with, the table 

underburning acres.

The descriptions of fuels treatments, including burning piled material, underburning, and the use 

of unplanned ignitions under alternative 2, are the same for alternative 3.

Table 12 shows the acreages for the burn blocks. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 7 to view 

location of the various burn blocks in the Magone project planning area.

Table 12. Alternative 4 prescribed burn blocks

Burn block Acres Season of planned ignitions*

Block 1 1,400 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 2 7,400 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 3 2,700 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 4 1,000 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 5 3,600 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Block 8 1,200 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Total 17,300 acres *unplanned ignitions can be used any season

2.2.4.4 Road Activities

This alternative has the following changes from alternative 2:

 Decreases temporary road construction by 0.4 miles.

 Decreases road maintenance for haul by 0.5 miles.

 Reduces road closures by 2.2 miles.

Road Use, Road Maintenance, and Temporary Road Construction

The description of road activities for road maintenance for haul, closed roads to be temporarily 

opened for haul, and temporary road construction under alternative 2 are the same for alternative 

4.

 Road maintenance for haul (77.2 miles, 77 road segments)
Magone Project

78 of 632

 Closed roads to be temporarily opened for haul (28.5 miles, 45 road segments) – This 

mileage is included above under road maintenance.

 Temporary road construction (8.1 miles, 28 road segments)

See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 5.

Confirmation of Past Administratively Closed Roads

The confirmation of past administratively closed roads would be the same as described under 

alternative 2.

Road System Changes

The description of road activities for road decommissioning, closure of currently open roads 

(ML 2 to ML 1), and co-designating an existing road as a trail under alternative 2 are the same 

for alternative 4. No currently open roads would be closed (ML 2 to ML 1) and co-designated as 

a trail, and no roads would be converted to a trail (ML 1 to trail).

 Road decommissioning (0.3 miles, 1 road segment)

 Close currently open roads (ML 2 to ML 1) (0.3 miles, 2 road segments)

See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 9.

2.2.4.5 Recreation Opportunity Improvements

This alternative has the following changes from alternative 2:

 38.6 less miles of new hiking/bicycle trails, including 32.5 miles of new trail 

construction and 6.1 miles of trail designated on existing roads.

 No improvement of the Tinker Creek trailhead and no new construction of a trailhead at 

Four Corners or near the junction of FSR 3618064 and 3618125 (Prohibition trailhead).

 No new interpretive sign additions.

 No new fishing dock on the east side of the lake.

The description of recreation opportunity improvements for proposed hiking and bicycle trails 

(Behind Magone Loop, Behind Magone trail, Camp Lick Connector trail, Jugow trail, Lake 

Butte trail, Magone Slide trail, and North Magone Connector trail); Nipple Butte trail relocation; 

existing trails to un-designate; improvement of existing Nipple Butte and Lake Butte trailheads; 

and day use boat dock and campground boat mooring under alternative 2 are the same for 

alternative 4. The following recreation opportunity improvements would be implemented under 

alternative 4.

Trail Developments

Hiking/Bicycle Trails

See Table 13 for a list of the trails proposed under alternative 4, and see FEIS Appendix B –

Maps, Map 12 to view the location of proposed trails.

Table 13. Alternative 4 proposed hike/bike/horse trails

Trail Total length 

(miles)

Miles of new 

trail 

construction

Miles of trail 

on existing 

road

Trail designation

Behind Magone Loop 1.0 0.3 0.7 Bicycle, foot, horse
Final Environmental Impact Statement

79 of 632

Trail Total length 

(miles)

Miles of new 

trail 

construction

Miles of trail 

on existing 

road

Trail designation

Behind Magone trail 3.0 1.5 1.5 Bicycle, foot

Camp Lick Connector 0.4 0.4 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Jugow trail 6.0 6.0 0 Bicycle, foot, horse

Lake Butte trail 3.5 1.4 2.1 Bicycle, foot, horse

Magone Slide trail 1.4 1.4 0 Foot

North Magone Connector trail 0.1 0.1 0 Foot

Total 15.4 11.1 4.3

Trailhead Developments

The improvement of the existing Nipple Butte and Lake Butte trailheads would be the same as 

described under alternative 2.

Docks and Boat Moorings

The day use boat dock and campground boat mooring would be the same as described under 

alternative 2. A fishing dock on the east side of Magone Lake is not proposed within this 

alternative.

2.2.4.6 Magone Lake Restoration Activities

This alternative reduces the number of fish cribs placed by 10, and the number of fish sticks by 

30.

The description of Magone Lake restoration activities for fish cribs and fish sticks under 

alternative 2 is the same for alternative 4.

 Fish Cribs (5–10 placed throughout Magone Lake)

 Fish Sticks (40–70 in singles and clusters of 5–7 trees placed throughout Magone Lake)

2.2.4.7 Proposed Forest Plan Amendments

Alternative 4 includes the following forest plan amendment.

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes

The description of changes to old growth boundaries described under alternative 2 is the same 

for alternative 4.

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range (Management Area 4A), and Wildlife Emphasis 

Area (Management Area 21) Cover below Malheur Forest Plan Standards

No amendment to Forest-wide standard 28 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-28) is 

proposed under alternative 4.

No amendment to Management Area 4A, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-70) 

is proposed under alternative 4.

No amendment to Management Area 21, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-131

to IV-132) is proposed under alternative 4.

2.2.5 Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives

The Forest Service also developed the project design criteria to be used as part of all of the 

action alternatives (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria).
Magone Project

80 of 632

2.2.6 Monitoring Common to All Action Alternatives

2.2.6.1 Silviculture

Monitoring for forest vegetation should include monitoring for timber harvest, non-commercial 

treatments, regeneration, and prescribed burning. Monitoring for commercial harvest includes 

monitoring the timber marking completed by Forest Service marking crews to ensure proper 

leave tree composition and density are maintained. This will be conducted via silviculture 

personnel measuring variable radius plots for select units and through BMFP monitoring field 

trips to analyze the variable density prescriptions. It also includes monitoring of any Designation 

by Prescription harvesting completed by contractors that may take place for the 10-year 

Stewardship Contract to ensure silvicultural objectives are met and contract specifications are 

followed. Monitoring of non-commercial treatments includes monitoring contract compliance for 

non-commercial thinning, fuels treatments, biomass removal, and/or post and pole removal, as 

well as monitoring Forest Service crews who complete this work to ensure silvicultural 

objectives are met. Prescribed burning would be visually monitored to ensure that widespread 

mortality levels do not exceed mortality limits as described in the silviculture prescription 

directly after burning. Mortality would also be assessed several years after burning to determine 

trends in mortality and the apparent causes of those trends.

2.2.6.2 Botany

Project design criteria should provide sufficient protection to sensitive plant populations and 

potential habitat in the project planning area. However, implementation monitoring is 

recommended for some sensitive plant populations for this project. This would include site visits 

to populations during and after project implementation. This monitoring would help to ensure 

that project design criteria are followed, and that they are effective in preventing negative effects 

to sensitive plant populations and sensitive plant habitat. It would also allow an opportunity to 

confirm that the assumptions used for development of the project design criteria are correct. For 

example, a revisit to areas buffered a certain distance from activities would confirm if the 

distance is sufficient to prevent blow down, or unacceptable changes in hydrology or sunlight.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the purpose and need for 

the Magone 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.

2.3.1 Build horse trails and corrals

During an open house on the Magone Project, attendees brought forward the idea of constructing 

a horse camp by Magone Lake to use the lake for watering horses and horseback recreation. 

However, horses are not permitted within the Magone recreation area. Letting horses into the 

Magone Lake recreation area would change the recreation experience for other users at this site. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

81 of 632

In addition, horse droppings and trampling along the edge of the lake would cause water quality 

issues.

The Magone interdisciplinary team considered alternatives for a horse camp at other locations 

within the project planning area but did not identify an appropriate location.

The hiking and biking trails proposed under the action alternatives for this project would not be 

designed for horse riding; horse trails need to be wider and designed differently than 

hiking/biking trails. However, horse riders would not be restricted from using these trails.

2.3.2 Magone Lake loop trail—make it wheelchair accessible

A comment was received to make the existing loop trail around Magone Lake wheelchair 

accessible. Creating a trail around the lake that meets Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

standards includes the following requirements: surface characteristics (firm and stable), width 

(36 inches minimum), passing spaces (60 by 60 inches every 1,000 feet), slope (no more than 30 

percent of the total length of a trail shall have a slope steeper than 1:12 or 8.33 percent), and 

cross slope (shall not be steeper than 1:48). This would require relocating the existing trail 

around the lake and making a wider path, which would cause detrimental water quality impacts 

to the lake.

Instead, an element was added to alternatives 2 and 3 to increase the length of wheelchair 

accessible trail around the lake to a point that provides a view along the longest portion of the 

lake.

2.3.3 Magone Lake loop trail—allow bikes on the trail

Comments were received requesting that bikes be allowed on the trail around Magone Lake. This 

was considered but eliminated from detailed study due to concerns about water quality impacts 

and safety. In addition, this trail already receives a high level of use from hikers, and adding 

bicycles to this use is a safety concern.

2.3.4 Driving for pleasure—loop opportunities

Several comments were received from members of the public expressing interest in motorized 

loop opportunities. The interdisciplinary team looked at potential motorized loop opportunities 

on roads in the project planning area, but did not identify any beyond what already exists. There 

is not much opportunity for additional driving loops because a large portion of the project 

planning area includes the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area, which dominates the western 

portion of the project planning area. Some existing routes (which include routes on roads 

designed for high-clearance vehicles) include:

 County Road 18, FSR 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3620, returning to County Road 18

 County Road 18, FSR 3600237, FSR 36, FSR 3620, returning to County Road 18

 US-395, County Road 32, FSR 3618, FSR 3620, County Road 18, FSR 1800484, FSR 

3947, FSR 3940, returning to US-395

The team will also forward the idea of developing a map of existing motorized loop 

opportunities to the recreation department. It is outside the scope of the Magone Project to 

develop this type of map.
Magone Project

82 of 632

2.3.5 Driving for pleasure—auto tour

The interdisciplinary team considered adding an auto tour through the area with interpretive 

signs focused on forest management, fire, and restoration. A portal sign could be placed in the 

Four Corners area, when entering the project planning area, to highlight the work going on in 

several accelerated restoration project planning areas (e.g., Magone, Camp Lick, and 18 Road 

projects). This alternative was scaled back to include interpretive signs at Four Corners, Magone 

Lake Trail, and Slide Trail under alternatives 2 and 3.

2.3.6 Create OHV trails at the east end of the planning area

Several commenters requested that OHV trails be created at the east end of the project planning 

area. The interdisciplinary team looked at the existing open and closed road system in the 

Magone project planning area and did not identify any opportunities to create OHV trails 

because many of the loop opportunities are along busy routes where safety is a concern, and 

many of the closed roads are either spur roads or immediately adjacent to streams (where 

sediment inputs are a concern). Closed roads often become revegetated following harvest and 

may not require re-entry for decades. Allowing OHV use on these roads would slow the 

revegetation process resulting in chronic sediment inputs to adjacent streams that would 

otherwise be unlikely to occurr.

2.3.7 Allow OHV use in Magone Lake recreation area

Comments were received asking that OHVs be allowed within the Magone Lake recreation area 

to access FSR 3618 and other roads. FSR 3618 is currently closed to OHV use due to safety 

concerns; this road and many other forest roads lack good sight distances. In addition, OHV use 

within the Magone Lake recreation area would alter the current rustic experience that Magone is 

known for and generate noise disturbance to existing recreational uses.

2.3.8 Designate cross-country ski trails

A comment was received requesting that cross-country ski trails be designated in the Magone 

project planning area. No specific routes or types of routes were identified by this commenter 

and the interdisciplinary team did not identify any potential routes. However, cross-country 

skiing is allowed throughout the Malheur National Forest, not just on designated trails.

2.3.9 Turn lesser-used and closed roads into trails

A commenter recommended eliminating all new trail construction and instead designate trails on 

existing closed and lesser-used roads. The interdisciplinary team did not move this 

recommendation forward under an alternative because roads and trails are designed for different 

purposes and using different design specifications. Many closed and lesser-used roads are short 

spur roads that do not provide viewpoints, destinations, or loop opportunities that hikers and 

bikers look for in a trail. However, several of the trail proposals analyzed under the action 

alternatives include portions of a trail being co-designated along a road with additional trail 

construction.

2.3.10 More trails within the wildlife emphasis area and Nipple 

Butte IRA

Part of the trail developments scoped for the Magone Project were dropped from the proposed 

action in response to public comments expressing concerns at the amount of trail being proposed 

in the Nipple Butte IRA and the wildlife emphasis area (which is located in the southern part of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

83 of 632

the Nipple Butte IRA), although trail construction is allowed within the wildlife emphasis area 

and Nipple Butte IRA under the Malheur Forest Plan and 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule, respectively. The interdisciplinary team reduced the amount of trails in these areas under 

alternatives 2 and 3 (focusing trail construction in the northern portion of the IRA), and analyzed 

even fewer trails within these areas under alternative 4. Under alternatives 2 and 3, more trails 

are proposed in the eastern part of the Magone project planning area, outside of the IRA and 

wildlife emphasis area.

2.3.11 Co-designate bike and OHV trails

A commenter recommended that OHV trails be co-designated with bicycle trails. Bicycle trails 

and OHV trails would be constructed using different trail specifications and locations, and 

mixing bicycle and OHV use on trails designed for bicycles would be unsafe. The District will 

consider OHV trail designation/development in future project planning areas.

2.3.12 Commercial timber harvest in the Nipple Butte IRA

Several commenters requested that the interdisciplinary team identify more areas for commercial 

harvest, including in the Nipple Butte IRA. The team considered this recommendation and 

identified a few additional areas for commercial harvest in the IRA (along existing roads in the 

IRA). However, extensive commercial harvest in the IRA is not feasible. Timber harvest in an 

IRA can only be proposed under certain limited circumstances based around improving or 

maintaining the characteristics of the IRA. In addition, road construction within an IRA is 

limited to certain circumstances that do not exist for this project (see the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule). One commenter recommended that ground-based logging equipment could 

be walked into the IRA without roads; however, ground-based equipment can only operate on 

slopes up to 30 percent and much of the timbered ground in the IRA exceeds 30 percent slope. 

This leaves the option of helicopter logging, which is not financially feasible given the volume 

that would be harvested while meeting the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule requirements 

for timber harvest within an IRA

2.3.13 No temporary road construction

An alternative that would not construct any temporary roads or re-open closed roads was 

considered. However, this alternative would not meet the purpose and needs to:

 Restore forest structure, composition, and density toward more resistant and resilient 

vegetative conditions given the historical fire regime.

 Reduce the fuel loadings, including the density and horizontal and vertical connectivity 

of standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels to restore characteristics of 

ecosystem composition and structure to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire effects...

 Provide for a variety of social values and opportunities in the watershed, including...a 

variety of wood products (including merchantable sawtimber and post and poles), 

grazing...and forest management employment opportunities to help maintain and 

improve community stability and infrastructure...

Access to priority treatment areas needed to achieve the purpose and need would not be 

available. As described above and in the Forest Vegetation section and Silviculture Report, much 

of the Magone project planning area is stocked above the management zone14 and many 

 

14 Stand Density Index is a tool used by silviculturists to assess stand viability and is a common measure of density 

that allows comparisons across units independent of individual tree age or size (Powell 1999). For any given average 

tree size for each species there is a limit to the number of trees per acre that may coexist in a stand, known as the 
Magone Project

84 of 632

structural stages are outside the historical range of variability (HRV). Leaving these stands 

untreated would not shift them toward more historical species composition, structural stages that 

are within or moving toward HRV, or reduce density and fuel loading to effectively improve fire 

risk and safety conditions. It is necessary to provide access for the removal of merchantable 

material, in its different forms, to meet these objectives.

The action alternatives were developed using a landscape and interdisciplinary approach. Upland 

stands were identified for treatment by the silviculturist if there was a silvicultural need to shift 

species composition, reduce density, or change structure to increase resiliency. After stands were 

identified, the Forest Service interdisciplinary team worked together to determine which of those 

stands identified as needing treatment would become a part of the proposed action or other 

action alternative to provide for the greatest benefit for wildlife habitat, fuels reduction that 

would decrease fire behavior, public access and recreation, grazing allotments, community 

stability, and overall landscape resiliency. A significant reduction in the area treated would not 

meet the purpose and need of this project.

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives

2.4.1 Summary Comparison of Alternatives

Table 14 provides a comparison between the alternatives.

 

Maximum SDI (Max SDI). The percent of Max SDI is an index of intra-tree competition for site resources and is an 

indication of overall stand health; tree growth and mortality, susceptibility to mortality from insect and disease, and 

fire hazard. The Management Zone is 40 to 60 percent SDI, which is where site resources are generally being captured 

into tree growth and there is high stand growth (see Silviculture Report for more detail).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

85 of 632

Table 14. Detailed comparison of elements between alternatives

Silviculture

Project activity Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 (proposed 

action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

commercial and non-commercial 

thinning

-- 3,279 acres

75 units

5,899 acres

141 units

2,906 acres

78 units

commercial and non-commercial 

thinning, leave stand denser

-- 778 acres

14 units

751 acres

14 units

394 acres

8 units

commercial and non-commercial 

thinning, with re-designation from 

dedicated old growth (DOG) to 

replacement old growth (ROG)

-- 223 acres

4 units

223 acres

4 units

--

post and pole removal -- 378 acres

6 units

292 acres

4 units

251 acres

5 units

non-commercial thinning -- 6,157 acres

170 units

5,925 acres

174 units

1,936 acres

54 units

non-commercial thinning, with 

designation as ROG

-- 1,039 acres

5 units

1,039 acres

5 units

--

conifer reduction in aspen stands -- 18 acres

7 units

18 acres

7 units

18 acres

7 units

biomass removal

*excludes acres that would be noncommercially thinned within the Nipple 

Butte IRA under alternatives 2 and 3

-- up to 8,159 acres up to 10,392 acres up to 5,505 acres

total acres treated -- 11,872 acres

281 units

14,147 acres

349 units

5,505 acres

152 units

total number of acres

*Does not total commercial silviculture 

treatment unit acres because some 

commercial and non-commercial 

thinning units have very limited amount 

of commercial material and would be 

predominately non-commercially 

thinned.

-- 4,658 acres

99 units

7,165 acres

163 units

3,551 acres

91 units

total number of acres of tractor harvest -- 3,650 acres

80 units

5,631 acres

131 units

2,936 acres

75 units
Magone Project

86 of 632

Project activity Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 (proposed 

action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

total number of acres of skyline harvest -- 333 acres

8 units

305 acres

8 units

243 acres

7 units

total number of acres with a 

combination of tractor and skyline 

harvest

-- 675 acres

11 units

1,229 acres

24 units

372 acres

9 units

estmated volume (million board feet 

[MMBF])

-- 14 MMBF 16 MMBF 9 MMBF

Fuels

Project activity Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

total number of acres whole tree 

yarding and/or cut to length, grapple 

piling and/or hand piling, or pile burning

-- 4,658 acres

99 units

7,165 acres

163 units

3,551 acres

91 units

total number of acres with grapple piling 

and/or hand piling or pile burning

-- 4,278 acres

105 units

3,249 acres

104 units

1,936 acres

55 units

prescribed burning alternative 

description

-- Includes the potential for 

planned ignitions in the entire 

project area and then some. 

Planned ignitions can occur in 

the winter, spring, summer, or 

fall. unplanned ignitions can

occur any season.

Planned ignitions can occur in 

the winter, spring, summer, or 

fall for units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. 

Planned ignitions in unit 6 and 

7 will likely occur in the fall 

only and make up most of the 

IRA. This alternative is in 

response to comments 

received about spring burning. 

Additionally, fall burning may 

provide for some opportunity to 

implement different strategies 

in difficult terrain. Unplanned 

ignitions can occur any 

season.

Planned ignitions can occur in 

the winter, spring, summer, or 

fall for units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. 

Planned ignitions will not be 

allowed in units 6 and 7 which 

make up most of the IRA. 

Unplanned ignitions that will 

meet prescribed burning 

objectives specified in the 

silviculture prescription will be 

managed in units 6 and 7. 

Unplanned ignitions can occur 

any season.

potential for planned ignitions in winter, 

spring, summer, or fall

-- 28,500 acres 28,500 acres

*11,300 acres in the Nipple 

Butte IRA would likely be fall 

only planned ignitions.

17,200 acres
Final Environmental Impact Statement

87 of 632

Recreation

Project activity Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

total length of new trails -- 54.0 miles 96.3 miles 15.4 miles

hiking / bicycle trail new construction -- 42.2 miles 83.2 miles 9.7 miles

hiking / bicycle trails designated on 

existing roads

-- 10.4 miles 11.7 miles 4.3 miles

hiking only trail new construction -- 1.4 miles 1.4 miles 1.4 miles

existing trails to un-designate -- 3.9 miles 3.9 miles 3.9 miles

accessible trail development -- Make existing trail from 

campground to north end of 

lake accessible (approximately 

0.2 miles of trail improvement). 

Develop a new day use site on 

north side of lake (at the end of 

this trail improvement) with 

picnic table and interpretive 

sign.

Make existing trail from 

campground to north end of 

lake accessible (approximately 

0.2 miles of trail improvement). 

Develop a new day use site on 

north side of lake (at the end of 

this trail improvement) with 

picnic table and interpretive 

sign.

No developments.

trailhead developments -- Improve existing Nipple Butte, 

Lake Butte, and Tinker Creek

trailheads.

Construct new trailhead at 

Four Corners and near the 

junction of FSRs 3618064 and 

3618125 (Prohibition 

trailhead).

Improve existing Nipple Butte, 

Lake Butte, and Tinker Creek

trailheads.

Construct new trailhead at 

Four Corners and near the 

junction of FSRs 3618064 and 

3618125 (Prohibition 

trailhead).

Improve existing Nipple Butte 

and Lake Butte trailheads.
Magone Project

88 of 632

Project activity Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

interpretive signs -- Place interpretive signs: along 

Slide Trail about the slide the 

created Magone Lake; on east 

side of Magone Lake about the

slide that created Magone 

Lake; at Four Corners about 

fire, heritage, range, and 

vegetation types in the area; 

and on north side of Magone 

Lake about beaver activity.

Place interpretive signs: along 

Slide Trail about the slide the 

created Magone Lake; on east 

side of Magone Lake about the

slide that created Magone 

Lake; at Four Corners about 

fire, heritage, range, and 

vegetation types in the area; 

and on north side of Magone 

Lake about beaver activity.

No new interpretive signs.

day use boat dock (southwest corner of 

lake)

-- Modify existing to be more 

functional and with a more 

rustic appearance.

Modify existing to be more 

functional and with a more 

rustic appearance.

Modify existing to be more 

functional and with a more 

rustic appearance.

campground boat mooring (northwest 

corner of lake)

-- Replace with handicap 

accessible boat mooring.

Replace with handicap 

accessible boat mooring.

Replace with handicap 

accessible boat mooring.

fishing dock (east side of lake) -- Place new fishing dock along 

east side of lake.

Place new fishing dock along 

east side of lake.

--

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use -- -- OHV use designated on FSR 

36 to 4 Corners.

--

fish cribs -- Place 15-20 fish cribs 

throughout Magone lake.

Place 15-20 fish cribs 

throughout Magone lake.

Place 5-10 fish cribs in 2 

clusters.

fish sticks -- Place 70-100 fish sticks in 

singles and clusters of 5-7 

sticks of trees mostly 8-12 

inches DBH.

Place 70-100 fish sticks in 

singles and clusters of 5-7 

sticks of trees mostly 8-12 

inches DBH.

Place 40-70 fish sticks in 

singles and clusters of 5-7 

sticks of trees mostly 8-12 

inches DBH.

Roads

Project activity Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

miles of temporary road construction -- 8.5 miles

29 road segments

12.9 miles

49 road segments

8.1 miles

28 road segments

road maintenance for haul -- 77.7 miles

78 road segments

98.5 miles

105 road segments

77.2 miles

77 road segments
Final Environmental Impact Statement

89 of 632

Project activity Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

closed roads to be temporarily opened 

for haul

*this number is included in the mileage 

for “road maintenance for haul” and is 

not additive

-- 28.7 miles

45 road segments

46.9 miles

68 road segments

28.5 miles

45 road segments

miles of new road closures -- 2.5 miles

6 road segments

0.3 miles

2 road segments

0.3 miles

2 road segments

miles of road decommissioning -- 0.3 miles

1 road segment

0.3 mile

1 road segment

0.3 mile

1 road segment

miles of past administratively closed 

roads to be confirmed as closed

-- 8.34 miles

12 road segments

8.34 miles

12 road segments

8.34 miles

12 road segments

Other activities

Project activity Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Forest Plan amendment to change old 

growth boundaries

-- Yes Yes Yes

Forest Plan amendment to reduce 

Summer Range, Winter Range, and 

Wildlife Emphasis Area (Management 

Area 21) cover below Malheur Forest 

Plan standards

-- Yes Yes No

retention of snags, except danger trees -- 100% 100% 100%

activities planned within old growth 

areas: dedicated old growth (DOG), 

replacement old growth (ROG), and 

pileated woodpecker feeding area 

(PWFA)

-- 223 acres (4 units) of 

commercial and noncommercial thinning, with redesignate from DOG to ROG

1,039 acres (5 units) noncommercial thinning, with 

designation as ROG

Direct ignition during 

prescribed burning will not 

occur within DOGs, ROGs, or 

PWFAs but these are part of 

larger burn blocks and fire may 

back into them.

223 acres (4 units) of 

commercial and noncommercial thinning, with redesignate from DOG to ROG

1,039 acres (5 units) noncommercial thinning, with 

designation as ROG

Direct ignition during 

prescribed burning will not 

occur within DOGs, ROGs, or 

PWFAs but these are part of 

larger burn blocks and fire may 

back into them.

Direct ignition during 

prescribed burning will not 

occur within DOGs, ROGs, or 

PWFAs but these are part of 

larger burn blocks and fire may 

back into them.
Magone Project

90 of 632

Project activity Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

activities planned within riparian habitat 

conservation areas (RHCAs)

-- 5 temporary road crossings of 

Category 4 streams.

Decommission 0.3 miles of 

road.

Close 0.3 miles of road.

Road maintenance and use on 

14.9 miles of road within 100 

feet of RHCAs.

34 trail crossings of RHCAs 

and 3.2 miles of trail within 100 

feet of RHCAs.

6 temporary road crossings of 

Category 4 streams.

Decommission 0.3 miles of 

road.

Close 0.15 miles of road.

Road maintenance and use on 

17.8 miles of road within 100 

feet of RHCAs.

78 trail crossings of RHCAs 

and 6.6 miles of trail within 100 

feet of RHCAs.

4 temporary road crossings of 

Category 4 streams.

Decommission 0.3 miles of 

road.

Close 0.14 miles of road.

Road maintenance and use on 

14.8 miles of road within 100 

feet of RHCAs.

8 trail crossings of RHCAs and 

1.1 miles of trail within 100 feet 

of RHCAs.

activities planned within Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)

-- 11 acres commercial and noncommercial thinning.

2,908 acres non-commercial 

thinning.

746 acres non-commercial 

thinning with designation as 

Replacement Old Growth.

0.2 acres conifer reduction in 

aspen stands.

Up to 10,112 acres (all spring 

or fall underburning).

Convert 0.6 miles of road to 

trail.

Close 0.9 miles of road and 

co-designate as trail.

Close 0.2 miles of road.

Construct 19 miles of 

hiking/biking trails.

Construct 0.4 miles of hiking 

only trail.

306 acres commercial and 

non-commercial thinning.

2,915 acres non-commercial 

thinning.

10 acres non-commercial 

thinning with designation as 

Replacement Old Growth.

0.6 acres conifer reduction in 

aspen stands.

Up to 10,112 acres (1,405 

acres spring or fall, and 8,707 

acres fall only underburning).

Close 0.2 miles of road.

Construct 32.3 miles of 

hiking/biking trails.

Construct 0.4 miles of hiking 

only trail.

0.6 acres conifer reduction in 

aspen stands.

Up to 1,405 acres (all spring or 

fall underburning).

Close 0.2 miles of road.

Construct 7.2 miles of 

hiking/biking trails.

Construct 0.4 miles of hiking 

only trail.

2.4.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 15 is focused on activities and effects where 

different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

91 of 632

Table 15. Comparison of environmental effects by alternative

Comparison of environmental effects by level and type of silviculture treatment

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Percentage change of 

structural stages in 

relation to the historical 

range of variability 

(HRV)

Warm Dry plant 

association group 

(PAG)

Warm Dry plant association 

group (PAG) – old forest multi 

strata (OFMS) would continue 

to be above HRV, after 40 

years the PAG would be 

deficient in young forest 

structure (stand initiation [SI]) 

decreasing to the lower limit of 

young forest multi strata 

(YFMS) and just attaining the 

lower limit of old forest single 

stratum (OFSS).

Warm Dry PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be above 

HRV, OFSS would increase to 

be well within HRV, and after 

40 years the PAG would be 

deficient in young forest 

structure (SI and YFMS).

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Hot Dry PAG Hot Dry PAG – Currently, 

OFSS is below HRV. While it 

is projected to increase, the 

model does not have it 

increasing to within the historic 

range in 40 years. Young 

forest and SI are modeled to 

decrease over time. Stem 

exclusion open canopy 

(SEOC) stands move toward 

HRV, but are still well above 

HRV.

Hot Dry PAG – OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, 

OFSS would increase to be 

well within HRV, and after 40 

years the PAG would be 

deficient in young forest 

structure (SI and YFMS).

Same as alternative 2, except

SI structure would increase, 

and SEOC structure would 

decrease to be closer to HRV.

Same as alternative 2.

Cool Moist PAG Cool Moist PAG – Currently, 

OFSS is slightly higher than 

HRV. Over time, the model 

has OFSS moving in and out 

of HRV. OFMS, however 

exceeds HRV, and keeps 

increasing over time. The 

younger strata decrease over 

time, with YFMS and 

understory reinitiation (UR) 

moving below HRV.

Cool Moist PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be above 

HRV (although it does 

decrease slightly over 40 

years), OFSS would increase 

to be well above HRV, and 

after 40 years the PAG would 

be deficient in young forest 

structure (SI and YFMS).

Same as alternative 2. Cool Moist PAG – OFMS 

would continue to be above 

HRV, OFSS would increase to 

be well above HRV, after 40 

years the PAG would be 

deficient in YFMS and UR, and 

SI would be within HRV (but 

stay on the lower side of the 

range).
Magone Project

92 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Cold Dry PAG Cold Dry PAG – The 

structures represented in this 

PAG represents a small 

portion of the planning area. 

The overall trend of Old Forest 

stratum is to increase above 

HRV, at the same time most of 

the other strata are moving 

into, or closer to the historical 

levels.

Cold Dry PAG – OFMS would 

continue to be within HRV, 

OFSS would increase to be 

well above HRV, and after 40 

years the PAG would be 

deficient in young forest 

structure (SI and YFMS).

Same as alternative 2, except 

SI would increase and stay 

within HRV.

Same as alternative 2, except

SI would increase slightly over 

time and stay within HRV.

Warm Moist PAG Warm Moist PAG – This PAG 

make up a small portion of the 

project planning area. While 

currently the old forest strata 

are within HRV, modeling 

shows those strata increasing 

to double and triple HRV, and 

younger forest strata going 

below HRV.

Warm Moist PAG – OFMS 

would rise to be above HRV, 

OFSS would increase to 

slightly above HRV, after 40 

years the PAG would be 

deficient in YFMS, and SI 

would increase slightly (but 

stay on the lower end of HRV).

Same as alternative 2, except

OFMS would stay static, and

OFSS would increase to 

above HRV.

OFMS would rise above HRV, 

OFSS would increase above 

HRV, and after 40 years the 

PAG would be deficient in 

YFMS and SI.

Percentage change of 

acres above the 

management zone 

(MZ), within the MZ, 

and below the MZ in 40 

years as defined by 

maximum stand density 

index (MaxSDI)

Warm Dry PAG – 96% above 

the MZ, 3% within the MZ.

Hot Dry PAG – 78% above the 

MZ, 6% within the MZ.

Cool Moist PAG – 99% above 

the MZ, 0% within the MZ.

Cold Dry PAG – >99% above 

the MZ, 1% within the MZ.

Warm Moist PAG – 96% 

above the MZ, 3% within the 

MZ.

Warm Dry PAG – 69% above 

the MZ, 17% within the MZ.

Hot Dry PAG – 50% above the 

MZ, 18% within the MZ.

Cool Moist PAG – 68% above 

the MZ, 9% within the MZ.

Cold Dry PAG – 65% above 

the MZ, 15% within the MZ.

Warm Moist PAG – 74% 

above the MZ, 11% within the 

MZ.

Warm Dry PAG – 59% above 

the MZ, 20% within the MZ.

Hot Dry PAG – 48% above the 

MZ, 19% within the MZ.

Cool Moist PAG – 54% above 

the MZ, 7% within the MZ.

Cold Dry PAG – 58% above 

the MZ, 23% within the MZ.

Warm Moist PAG – 62% 

above the MZ, 12% within the 

MZ.

Warm Dry PAG – 81% above 

the MZ, 10% within the MZ.

Hot Dry PAG – 74% above the 

MZ, 9% within the MZ.

Cool Moist PAG – 87% above 

the MZ, 3% within the MZ.

Cold Dry PAG – 74% above 

the MZ, 8% within the MZ.

Warm Moist PAG – 83% 

above the MZ, 7% within the 

MZ.

Acres mechanically 

treated

0 acres 11,872 acres 14,147 acres 5,505 acres

Viability of harvest N/A Commercial harvest shows 

positive bid rates producing a 

viable harvest, $371,501 is the 

estimated revenue from the 

sale.

Commercial harvest shows 

positive bid rates producing a 

viable harvest, $455,258 is the 

estimated revenue from the 

sale.

Commercial harvest shows 

positive bid rates producing a 

viable harvest, $251,644 is the 

estimated revenue from the 

sale.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

93 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Employment and 

income

This alternative would not 

harvest timber and therefore, 

would not support direct, 

indirect, and induced 

employment, or increased 

income to local economies.

Short-term economic relief by 

providing commercial saw logs 

and biomass. Harvest related 

employment (107 jobs) would 

occur for 2 years.

This alternative would 

generate $2,987,505 in direct, 

indirect, and induced local 

income.

Short-term economic relief by 

providing commercial saw logs 

and biomass. Harvest related 

employment (164 jobs) would 

occur for 2 years.

This alternative would 

generate $4,580,008 in direct, 

indirect, and induced local 

income.

Short-term economic relief by 

providing commercial saw logs 

and biomass. Harvest related 

employment (82 jobs) would 

occur for 2 years.

This alternative would 

generate $2,275,992 in direct, 

indirect, and induced local 

income.

Economic efficiency The public would incur no 

costs, nor realize any benefits.

A present net value of $-

292,092, with a net value per 

acre of $-62 would be 

experienced this alternative.

A present net value of $-

189,035, with a net value per 

acre of $-26 would be 

experienced this alternative.

A present net value of $-

153,352, with a net value per 

acre of $-43 would be 

experienced this alternative.

Estimated volume 

(million board feet 

[MMBF])

-- 14 MMBF 16 MMBF 9 MMBF

Comparison of environmental effects due to recreation activities

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS)

Area surrounding the Magone 

Lake recreation area would 

continue to be classified as 

Roaded Natural under the

ROS.

The proposed actions are 

intended to enhance the visitor 

experience by improving and 

creating recreation 

opportunities that are 

compatible with the ROS and 

consistent with the Malheur 

Forest Plan. The area 

surrounding the Magone Lake 

recreation area would continue 

to be classified as Roaded 

Natural under the ROS.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Recreation 

opportunities

The no action alternative 

would perpetuate existing 

conditions in the Magone 

project planning area. 

Attractive mountain biking 

opportunities would continue 

to be nonexistent, as the trails 

Silviculture (11,872 acres) and 

prescribed burning treatments 

(up to 28,500 acres) would 

reduce the fire risk to 

developed recreation and the 

surrounding recreational 

setting.

Same as alternative 2, except 

with silviculture treatments 

proposed for 14,147 acres,

prescribed burning proposed 

an additional 11,300 acres in 

the Nipple Butte IRA, and trail 

developments of 92.4 miles.

Same as alternative 2, except 

with silviculture treatments in 

only 5,505 acres, and 

prescribed burning treatments

only up to 17,200 acres.

Fish habitat improvements are 

less extensive due to a smaller 
Magone Project

94 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

on roads that currently exist 

were designed for vehicles, 

not bicycles. The fishing and 

boating opportunities at 

Magone Lake would not be 

improved.

Fish habitat improvements 

would serve to enhance fishing 

opportunities.

Trail developments would 

increase the hiking and 

bicycling opportunities in and 

around the Magone Lake 

recreation area. The 

opportunities would be created 

through 48.8 miles of new trail, 

improvements to the Lake 

Butte and Tinker Creek 

trailheads and the Nipple Butte 

trailhead and its access road, 

and new trailheads at Four 

Corners and near the junction 

of FSRs 3618064 and 

3618125 (Prohibition 

trailhead).

number of fish sticks and logs 

being placed.

New trail developments 

include only 11.9 miles of new 

trail, with improvements to the 

Lake Butte trailhead and the 

Nipple Butte trailhead and its 

access road.

Public access to 

recreation

Recreational use of forest 

roads would not be 

immediately affected, as there 

would not be any changes to 

the existing road system.

The continued buildup of fuel 

loads along escape corridors 

from the Magone Lake 

recreation area would have the 

indirect effect of decreasing 

safety in the Magone Lake 

recreation area by increasing 

the risk of uncharacteristic fire 

along these routes.

Recreational use of forest 

roads would be minimally 

affected with 2.5 miles of road 

being closed and 0.3 miles of 

road being decommissioned.

Recreational driving would 

benefit due to road 

maintenance that would be 

needed for silvicultural 

treatments and commercial 

harvest.

Same as alternative 2, except 

with 0.3 miles of road being 

closed and 0.3 miles of road 

being decommissioned.

Same as alternative 3.

Comparison of environmental effects for activities within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Effects on nine 

characteristics of 

There would be no direct or 

indirect effects to the Nipple 

Alternative 2 is likely to result in 

the second most detrimentally 

Alternative 3 is likely to result 

in the most detrimentally 

Effects on soils under 

alternative 4 are expected to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

95 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

inventoried roadless 

areas (IRAs)

High quality or 

undisturbed soil, water, 

and air

Butte IRA because no 

activities would occur. The 

existing condition would 

remain unchanged, except by 

natural processes and 

ongoing management 

activities. Biological and 

ecosystem functions would 

continue. Growth rates of 

trees would continue to 

decline, and natural 

processes that affect tree 

vigor and changes in stand 

structure would continue. The 

landscape would likely 

continue developing complex 

fuel loads. A wildfire may 

burn more extensively and kill 

more trees within forest 

stands, which would result in 

larger acreages of blackened 

landscapes compared to 

prescribed fires. Fire is a 

natural occurrence and 

expected disturbance process 

in this landscape.

affected soils and effects to site 

productivity from disturbance 

related to approximately 3,660

acres of commercial and noncommercial thinning, and 

construction of approximately 

19 miles of new trail. 

Detrimental impacts to water 

are not expected. Any smoke 

from prescribed fire treatments 

would comply with the State of 

Oregon Smoke Management 

Implementation Plan and would 

be implemented following the 

guidelines in this plan.

affected soils and effects to 

site productivity from 

disturbance related to 

approximately 3,999 acres of 

commercial and noncommercial thinning, and 

construction of approximately 

33 miles of new trail. 

Detrimental impacts to water 

are not expected. Any smoke 

from prescribed fire treatments 

would comply with the State of 

Oregon Smoke Management 

Implementation Plan and 

would be implemented 

following the guidelines in this 

plan.

be negligible; no silviculture 

treatments are proposed, 0.4 

miles of road decommissioning 

is expected to increase soil 

productivity; and trail 

development is expected to 

detrimentally impact negligible 

acres of soil. Detrimental 

impacts to water are not 

expected; however, fuel loads 

would remain high and may 

result in high-severity burns 

that would impact water 

quality. Any smoke from 

prescribed fire treatments 

would comply with the State of 

Oregon Smoke Management 

Implementation Plan and 

would be implemented 

following the guidelines in this 

plan.

Sources of public 

drinking water –

There are no public drinking 

water sources identified in the 

Magone project planning 

area.

-- -- --

Diversity of plant, 

terrestrial wildlife, and 

aquatic communities;

See Comparison of 

environmental effects to 

aquatic species, wildlife, and 

botanical tables below.

See Comparison of 

environmental effects to aquatic 

species, wildlife, and botanical 

tables below.

See Comparison of 

environmental effects to 

aquatic species, wildlife, and 

botanical tables below.

See Comparison of 

environmental effects to 

aquatic species, wildlife, and 

botanical tables below.

Primitive, SemiPrimitive NonMotorized, and SemiPrimitive Motorized 

There would be no direct or 

indirect effects to the Nipple 

Butte IRA because no 

activities would occur.

Short-term increase of human 

presence and activity during the 

time of proposed treatments 

See alternative 2, except that 

effects increase with greater 

treatment acreage.

See alternative 2, except that 

effects decrease with lesser 

treatment acreage.
Magone Project

96 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

classes of dispersed 

recreation

(i.e., mechanical treatments, 

prescribed burning).

Long-term enhancement of 

recreational experiences; new 

trail for hiking/biking (19.4 

miles) built.

Long-term significant 

enhancement of recreational 

experiences; 32.7 miles of new 

hiking/biking trails built.

Trail developments would 

somewhat improve recreation 

opportunities; 7.6 miles of new 

hiking/biking trails.

Natural appearing 

landscapes with high 

scenic quality;

There would be no direct or 

indirect effects to the Nipple 

Butte IRA because no 

activities would occur.

Stumps visible in all treated 

units within the IRA. New trail 

construction would generate 

short-term effects for long-term 

enhancement to the visual 

landscape.

Same as alternative 2. No mechanical impacts within 

the IRA. Limited direct visual 

effects to the landscape from 

trail construction. The 

objectives and guidelines 

associated with the visual 

quality objectives for each 

management strategy would 

be met.

Traditional cultural 

properties and sacred 

sites

There would be no direct or 

indirect effects to the Nipple 

Butte IRA because no 

activities would occur.

All traditional cultural properties 

and sacred sites would be 

avoided under alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4. Therefore, there would 

be no direct or indirect effects 

to traditional cultural properties 

and/or sacred sites.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Other locally identified 

unique characteristics –

There are no other locally 

identified unique 

characteristics in the Magone 

project planning area.

-- -- --

Effects of silviculture 

treatments within the 

IRA

Overstocked forest with 

encroachment by species 

different from Historical range 

of variability (HRV).

If no actions are taken, Hot 

Dry and Warm Dry PAGs 

would double current range, 

increasing overstocking, and 

risking uncharacteristic 

wildfire or insect infestation. 

Younger structural stages 

The majority of the Nipple Butte 

IRA is composed of Warm Dry 

and Hot Dry PAGS, within 

which the old forest structure 

(OFSS & OFMS) would 

increase overtime to be within 

(OFSS) or above (OFMS) HRV. 

Young forest in the Warm Dry 

PAG would be below or on the 

low side of HRV, and in the Hot

Dry PAG SI would be well

above the historic range.

Hot Dry/Warm Dry old forest 

structure (OFSS and OFMS) 

increased to be within or 

above HRV. OFSS would 

increase more under 

alternative 3 and OFMS would 

increase less, in comparison to 

alternative 2.

Young forest structure in the 

Warm Dry PAG would be 

below or on the lower end of 

HRV in 2055 and in the Hot 

Hot Dry/Warm Dry old forest 

structure would increase over 

time to be within or above 

HRV. OFSS would increase 

more under alternative 4 and 

OFMS would increase less, in 

comparison to alternative 2.

Young forest structure in the 

Warm Dry PAG would be 

below or on the lower end of 

HRV in 2055, similar to what 

would be seen under 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

97 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

would decrease to below 

HRV.

The pocket of Cool Moist in 

the “thumb” of the IRA would 

follow the trends described 

above, with OFSS moving in 

and out of HRV, OFMS 

exceeding HRV and 

increasing over time, and the 

younger strata decreasing 

over time (with YFMS and UR 

moving below HRV).

The pocket of Cool Moist would 

follow the trend of Old Forest 

structure increasing and 

remaining well above HRV, and 

young forest would be 

decreasing to below HRV.

Dry PAG SI would increase to 

be well above HRV in 2055, 

similar to what would be seen 

under alternative 2.

Cool Moist pocket in the 

“thumb” of the IRA would have 

old forest structure increase

and remain well above HRV, 

with more OFSS and less 

OFMS than would be seen 

under alternative 2. Young 

forest structure would 

decrease to be below or on the 

lower end of HRV, similar to 

what would be seen under 

alternative 2.

alternative 2. Young forest 

structure in the Hot Dry PAG 

would also be below or on the 

lower end of HRV in 2055, in 

contrast to the increase in SI 

to well above HRV that would 

be seen under alternative 2.

Cool Moist pocket in the 

“thumb” of the IRA would have 

old forest structure increase 

and remain well above HRV, 

with more OFSS and less 

OFMS than would be seen 

under alternative 2. Young 

forest structure would 

decrease to be below or on the 

lower end of HRV, similar to 

what would be seen under 

alternative 2.

Effects of prescribed 

burning

Fuel loadings are 

uncharacteristically high as a 

result of suppression efforts 

and insect and diseasecaused conifer mortality. Fuel 

loading in 2055 would make 

fire suppression more difficult, 

which directly affects the 

ability to protect life, 

resources, and property. 

Moderate to heavy fuel 

loading is expected to 

comprise the majority of the 

IRA. Lower fuel loading is 

predicted in the center of the 

IRA; however, the east and 

west boundaries are 

predicted to have moderate to 

heavy fuel loadings in 2055.

Under alternative 2, stands 

within the IRA with light fuel 

loads remain about the same 

after treatment. The biggest 

effect would be a decrease in 

the number of stands with 

heavy fuel loads. It is 

anticipated the majority of acres 

with heavy fuel loads would 

shift to moderate fuel loads 

following treatment.

The potential for sustained 

crown fire within the IRA would 

be minimized.

Treatments proposed under 

alternative 2 align with the 

roadless rule where the cutting, 

sale, or removal of generally 

small diameter timber would 

restore or maintain ecosystem 

The beneficial effects within 

the IRA are similar to the 

effects described under 

alternative 2. Alternative 3 

proposes additional 

mechanical treatments within 

the IRA, and combined with 

the proposed prescribed fuels 

treatments a slightly greater 

reduction in fuel loading and 

potential crown fire can be 

seen compared to alternative 

2.

Treatments proposed under 

alternative 3 align with the 

Roadless Rule where the 

cutting, sale, or removal of 

generally small diameter 

timber would restore or 

maintain ecosystem 

Alternative 4 proposes no 

mechanical treatments in the 

IRA. With the exception of the 

northeast corner of the IRA, no 

planned ignitions are 

prescribed either. Direct and 

indirect effects would be 

similar to those described in 

the no action alternative in 

untreated stands within the 

IRA. If timing and weather 

allowed, management of 

unplanned ignitions would 

potentially reduce fuel loading 

and crown fire potential in the 

IRA. With the absence of 

mechanical treatments and 

relying solely on unplanned 

ignitions to manage fuels in 

the IRA, fuel and vegetation 
Magone Project

98 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

By 2055 the north half of the 

IRA, particularly the northeast 

corner, would be affected by 

crown fire should an ignition 

occur under the right 

conditions.

Roadless area ecosystem 

characteristics within the IRA 

would continue to depart from 

historical composition and 

structures, leading to 

uncharacteristic effects if a 

wildfire were to occur during 

high or extreme fire danger.

composition and structure, 

reducing the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire effects 

within the range of variability 

that would be expected to occur 

under the natural disturbance 

regimes under the current 

climatic period. 36 CFR 

294.13(b)(1).

composition and structure, 

reducing the risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire effects 

within the range of variability 

that would be expected to 

occur under the natural 

disturbance regimes under the 

current climatic period. 36 

CFR 294.13(b)(1).

conditions would likely 

continue their departure from 

historical conditions and 

eventually succumb to the 

effects of wildfire, insects and 

disease.

Effects of hiking/bicycle 

trails

The no action alternative 

would perpetuate existing 

conditions. Seasonal usage 

patterns and levels would 

remain the same.

Attractive mountain biking 

opportunities would continue 

to be nonexistent.

Trail developments would 

significantly increase the hiking 

and bicycling opportunities.

There would be a moderate 

distance of new trail (19.4 

miles) built within the Nipple 

Butte IRA.

Trail developments would be

extensive and would very 

significantly increase the 

hiking and bicycling 

opportunities. This alternative 

would have the greatest

distance of new trail mileage 

(32.7 miles) within the Nipple 

Butte IRA.

Trail developments would 

somewhat improve the hiking 

and bicycling opportunities. 

There would be only a very 

small distance of new trail (7.6 

miles) within the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area 

(IRA).

Impacts to 

forage/wildlife

Upland shrub enhancement 

(conifer removal) treatments 

would not occur under this 

alternative and 

mahogany/bitterbrush 

communities would continue 

to be encroached and could 

ultimately be lost in the longterm. These communities 

provide critical quality browse 

and hiding cover for big game 

species. Allowing these 

upland shrub areas to 

continue to be overtopped 

and diminished could result in 

Following the completion of 

implementation of vegetation 

treatments (mid- to long-term), 

it would be expected that 

overall habitat for elk would 

substantially improve from 

current conditions. Mechanical 

treatments combined with 

prescribed fire would open the 

forest canopy, promote 

regeneration, promote vigor 

and expansion of grass and 

many browse species. Forage 

would increase under all 

alternatives.

Following the completion of 

implementation of vegetation 

treatments (mid- to long-term), 

it would be expected that 

overall habitat for elk would 

substantially improve from 

current conditions. Mechanical 

treatments combined with 

prescribed fire would open the 

forest canopy, promote 

regeneration, promote vigor 

and expansion of grass and 

many browse species. Forage 

would increase under all 

alternatives.

The vegetation treatments 

proposed in alternative 4 

would have similar beneficial 

effects to elk habitat, however 

not as evident compared to 

alternatives 2 and 3. The lack 

of upland shrub enhancement 

(conifer removal) treatments in 

the Nipple Butte WEA is 

noticeable under alternative 4 

as habitat effectiveness index

values actually decrease. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

99 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

a substantial loss of quality 

habitat for elk and mule deer.

Upland shrub enhancement

would be expected to improve 

big game habitat vastly on 

3,865 acres in the IRA, the 

majority of which would occur in 

the Wildlife Emphasis Area 

(WEA).

Upland shrub enhancement

would be expected to improve 

big game habitat vastly on 

3,865 acres in the IRA, the 

majority of which would occur 

in the WEA.

Comparison of environmental effects for activities within the wilderness emphasis area (WEA)

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Fire hazard An increased potential for 

uncharacteristic crown fire 

behavior with greater 

resistance to control.

Canopy, ladder, and surface fuels

would be reduced, which would 

contribute to successful fire 

suppression and protection of life 

and property under most fire 

scenarios. The continuity of the 

fuels within the project planning 

area would be broken up.

Alternative 3 would have a

greater reduction of canopy 

fuels, ladder fuels, and 

surface fuels, than alternative 

2, which would contribute to 

successful fire suppression 

and protection of life and 

property under most fire 

scenarios. The continuity of 

the fuels within the project 

planning area would be even 

more discontinuous than 

alternative 2.

Alternative 4 would have less 

reduction of canopy fuels, 

ladder fuels, and surface 

fuels, than alternative 2, 

which would contribute to 

more difficult fire suppression 

and protection of life and 

property under most fire 

scenarios. The continuity of 

fuels within the project 

planning area would be more 

continuous than alternative 2 

increasing the potential for a 

fire to resist control.

Fuel loadings An increase in the potential 

for stand replacing fires 

rather than the lowintensity/low-severity fires 

that would have occurred 

historically. Surface fuels 

including downed-woody 

material, needle litter, and 

duff accumulation would 

increase from current levels, 

contributing to the potential 

for stand-replacing fire and 

increased mortality.

There would be a short-term 

increase in fire hazard following 

treatment and prior to slash 

disposal when fuels remain in the 

units and on the ground. Existing 

surface fuels and created slash 

would be treated by one or a 

combination of methods.

In 40 years following the proposed 

treatments, approximately 60% of 

the project planning area would be 

classified as having a light fuel 

load.

The additional acres of 

mechanical treatment 

proposed in alternative 3 

would result in an even 

greater reduction in fuel 

loadings than alternative 2.

In 40 years following the 

proposed treatments, 

approximately 68% of the 

project planning area would 

be classified as having a light 

fuel load.

The reduction in acres of 

mechanical treatment 

proposed in alternative 4 

would result in less reduction 

of fuel loading than 

alternative 2.

In 40 years following the 

proposed treatments, 

approximately 40% of the 

project planning area would 

be classified as having a light 

fuel load.
Magone Project

100 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

In 40 years, approximately 

24% of the project planning 

area would be classified as 

having a light fuel load.

Crown fire potential In 40 years, approximately 

26% of the project planning 

area would have the 

potential for 

active/conditional crown fire.

In 40 years, approximately 12% of 

the project planning area would 

have the potential for 

active/conditional crown fire.

The additional acres of 

mechanical treatment 

proposed in alternative 3 

would result in a slightly 

greater reduction in crown fire 

potential compared to 

alternative 2.

In 40 years, approximately 

10% of the project planning 

area would have the potential 

for active/conditional crown 

fire.

The result of treating fewer 

acres in alternative 4 would 

be an increase in potential 

active/conditional crown fire 

in the planning area 

compared to alternative 2.

In 40 years, approximately 

21% of the project planning 

area would have the potential 

for active/conditional crown 

fire.

Fire regime Fires would be mixed 

severity to stand replacing 

with detrimental effects to 

other resources, which did 

not historically occur.

After completion of all mechanical 

treatment and prescribed burning 

these stands would begin to 

resemble a more historical forest 

structure and pattern.

Treatments would result in 

conditions that are more resilient to 

natural disturbance processes, 

including wildfire.

Alternative 3 treatments 

would change vegetation 

characteristics including 

stand density, species 

composition, and structural 

stage. With the additional 

acres being treated the 

beneficial effects in 

vegetation characteristics and 

fuel loadings would be 

greater than alternative 2.

Treatments identified in 

alternative 3 would result in 

more acres moving towards 

conditions that are more 

resilient to natural 

disturbance processes, 

including wildfire, than 

alternative 2.

Alternative 4 treatments 

would have less effect on 

vegetation characteristics 

including stand density, 

species composition, and 

structural stage. With the 

reduction in acres being 

treated the beneficial effects 

on vegetation characteristics 

and fuel loadings would be 

less than alternative 2.

Treatments identified in 

alternative 4 would result in 

less acres moving towards 

conditions that are more 

resilient to natural 

disturbance processes, 

including wildfire, than 

alternative 2.

Air quality standards Wildfires tend to occur at the 

driest time of the year; 

therefore, fuels are more 

Burning would follow the guidance 

provided by the Oregon Smoke 

Management Plan. There would be 

The additional mechanical 

treatments proposed in 

alternative 3 would result in 

Treating fewer acres in 

alternative 4 would have the 

least amount of immediate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

101 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

completely consumed and 

typically produce 3 to 5

times more emissions than 

early- or late-season 

prescribed fires

There is potential during a 

wildfire for approximately 

440 pounds per acre of 

PM2.5 emissions. These 

smoke concentrations can 

have high particulate levels 

that may cause health 

problems or violate 

summertime Class I air 

quality visibility standards for 

wilderness areas.

short-term effects to communities 

and residences downwind and in 

drainages adjacent to prescribed 

fire. There would also be short-term 

effects along Highway 395 north, 

County roads 18 and 32, and local 

Forest roads in the project planning 

area. All prescribed burning would 

comply with applicable federal, 

state, and local air quality 

regulations.

more machine and handpiles 

than alternative 2. This would 

have the potential to produce 

more smoke emissions from 

pile burning activities than 

alternative 2. All smoke 

management practices would 

be followed as described in 

alternative 2.

effect on air quality from 

prescribed burning. There 

would be fewer emissions 

from planned ignitions and 

pile burning. All smoke 

management practices would 

be followed as described in 

alternative 2.

Detrimental soil 

conditions (number of 

units that violate 

Malheur Forest Plan 

standards)

No direct or indirect 

detrimental soil impacts. 

Root action, animals that 

burrow in the soil, and 

freezing water would 

gradually continue to loosen 

compacted and puddled soil 

over the course of decades.

Increases in detrimental conditions 

from heavy equipment use would 

range from 4 to 11% in the various 

units, resulting in cumulative 

detrimental conditions of 17 

percent or less. Eleven units would 

require special design criteria to 

meet the Malheur Forest Plan 

standards. The Forest Plan 

standards would be met under all 

alternatives.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Organic matter and 

nutrients (difference 

from levels before EuroAmerican settlement)

Forest floor organic matter 

and nutrients would continue 

to accumulate.

Logging would remove nutrients 

and organic matter in logs, and fuel 

reduction treatments would remove 

nutrients and forest floor organic 

matter during burning and biomass 

utilization. Removal may decrease 

site productivity a few percent on 

some sites. However, on many or 

most sites, productivity is likely 

limited by water, not by nutrients or 

forest floor organic matter. In 

addition, removal of nutrients would 

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.
Magone Project

102 of 632

Comparison element Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

be limited because most nutrients 

on the site would remain in the soil, 

in the remaining forest floor, and in 

remaining trees.

Watershed: Acres of 

ground disturbing 

harvest

0 acres 4,545 acres of harvest units (3,331 

acres in the East Fork Beech Creek 

subwatershed and 1,214 acres in 

the Grub Creek subwatershed).

7,187 acres of harvest units 

(5,477 acres in the East Fork 

Beech Creek subwatershed 

and 1,910 acres in the Grub 

Creek subwatershed).

3,590 acres of harvest units 

(2,425 acres of harvest in the 

East Fork Beech Creek 

subwatershed and 1,165 

acres in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed).

Qualitative rating of 

watershed hazard (very 

low to very high)

No additional disturbance 

would occur. The watershed 

hazard would remain the 

same as the existing 

condition for the short-term. 

The condition of riparian 

roads would continue to limit 

stream channel recovery. 

Over the long-term 

watershed hazard would 

generally decrease as 

recovery from past activities 

continues, although 

localized areas of active 

erosion would continue as 

chronic, localized hazards.

Although the proposed activities 

are consistent with the Clean Water 

Act requirements, the additional 

disturbance and exposure of 

mineral soil associated with 

yarding, temporary roads, and 

construction and maintenance of 

new trails provides additional 

opportunities for runoff to be 

collected, concentrated and rerouted under rare events. Trails 

would intersect with yarding trails 

and temporary roads, increasing 

potential for connections. However, 

road maintenance, especially of 

eroding roads or roads that are 

acting as collectors of overland flow 

would reduce the potential for 

connections. Watershed hazard is 

expected to increase to Medium 

High at year 1 and gradually, 

over several decades, decline to 

Medium plus, because the trails 

would still be present on nonforested soils.

Same as alternative 2, except 

that watershed hazard is 

expected to increase to 

Medium High (plus) at year 

1, because of the increase in 

yarding and new trail 

construction compared to 

alternative 2 and gradually, 

over several decades, 

decline to Medium plusplus, because the additional 

trails, some of which are on 

non-forested soils would 

remain.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that watershed hazard 

is expected to increase to 

Medium High (minus) at 

year 1, because of the 

increase in yarding and new 

trail construction compared to 

alternative 2 and gradually, 

over several decades, 

decline to Medium (minus), 

because fewer additional 

trails, some of which are on 

non-forested soils would 

remain.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

103 of 632

Comparison of environmental effects on aquatic habitat and species

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Effects on pool 

frequencies

Current pool frequency levels

below limit for important habitat 

for salmonids, especially for 

rearing juveniles and adults 

migrating prior to spawning.

May cause short-term negative effects, but longterm positive effects are expected with watershed 

improvements.

More trails mean 

increased potential 

for short-term 

negative effects, but 

long-term positive 

effects are expected 

with watershed 

improvements.

Fewer trails mean 

decreased potential 

for short-term 

negative effects. 

Long-term positive 

effects are expected 

with watershed 

improvements.

Water temperature 

and stream shading

Would maintain the current levels 

of stream shading, with perhaps 

a slow increase as trees in 

previously logged riparian areas 

continue to grow at a retarded 

rate due to overstocked stands.

Current water temperatures in 

nearly all streams in the analysis 

area exceed or are at maximum 

threshold objectives for water 

temperature. Mean maximum 

water temperatures are at the 

maximum threshold range for 

westslope cutthroat trout, 

redband trout, and juvenile 

steelhead that are all present in 

the aquatic analysis area during 

the summer months.

Treatments will initially thin encroaching conifers 

around streams, decreasing shade and thus 

having a short-term effect on water temperature. 

However, efforts to increase riparian hardwood 

species would have a positive effect on stream 

shading in the long-term.

More acres treated 

means the potential 

for short-term 

negative effects is 

higher. However, 

opening more of the 

riparian area for 

hardwood species 

recruitment and 

growth would result in 

a greater positive 

effect on stream 

shading in the longterm.

Fewer acres treated 

means less potential 

for short term 

negative effects on 

riparian shading. 

However, fewer longterm benefits are 

possible.

Large woody debris Would maintain current levels of 

large woody debris (LWD). 

Current levels of LWD are below 

objectives for all streams in the 

project planning area and is 

resulting in degraded stream 

conditions including low pool 

frequencies. Replacement LWD 

would be recruited into properly 

functioning stream channels as 

conifers die and fall into streams, 

stream scour undermines root 

Treatment units may see a short-term negative

impact as trees are removed from the natural 

snag recruitment process. However with project 

design criteria and best management practices, 

some downed woody debris would be left, or 

tipped into streams to mitigate these short-term 

effects. Effects in the long-term expected to be 

positive with quality hardwood LWD recruitment.

Installation and improvements for boats and 

fishing docks would not require the removal of any 

Same as alternative 

2, except that more 

treatment units mean 

the potential for shortterm negative effects 

is greater. However, 

the long-term 

potential for quality 

LWD recruitment from 

riparian hardwood 

Same as alternative 

2, except that less 

treatment units mean 

less potential shortterm negative effects. 

However long-term 

positive effects are 

also reduced.
Magone Project

104 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

systems, and from windfall or 

slide events.

large trees that could potentially be large woody 

debris within Magone Lake.

communities is also 

greater.

Embeddedness and 

fine sediment

Would maintain the current levels 

of fine sediment and 

embeddedness over much of the 

analysis area. Existing fine 

sediment levels are likely having 

adverse impacts to aquatic 

habitat. These adverse effects 

include reduced spawning 

success for salmonids and 

reduced quality of rearing habitat 

for juvenile salmonids. Fine 

sediment levels in the streams 

discussed above would slowly 

decrease as channels stabilize 

from past grazing and road 

building. However, native surface 

roads that are contributing fine 

sediment would stay in their 

current condition.

Sediment may be generated from compaction and 

equipment-related activities throughout treatment 

areas, or for improvements of boat and fishing 

docks on Magone Lake. Utilization of BMPs and 

erosion fabric would minimize these effects.

Shoreline vegetation disturbance by recreationists 

pulling boats up onto the shoreline would be 

reduced by boat mooring.

Same as alternative 

2, except that 

additional sediment 

may be generated 

with increase of 

treatment areas.

Same as alternative 

2, except that less 

sediment may be 

generated with fewer 

treatment areas.

Stream width-todepth ratioWould maintain the current 

width-to-depth ratios over much 

of the analysis area. Width-todepth ratios are higher than 

objectives for 26 reaches of the 

28 surveyed stream reaches in 

the analysis area and are likely 

having adverse effects to aquatic 

habitat, primarily through altered 

sediment routing and elevated 

water temperatures. Adjacent 

roads are influencing the channel 

morphology of several of these 

streams by conveying water off 

adjoining hillslopes at elevated 

rates and altering sediment

Activities proposed are expected to have neutral 

effects on stream width-to-depth ratio.

Activities proposed 

are expected to have 

neutral effects on 

stream width-to-depth 

ratio, or positive 

effects with regards to 

road closures.

Activities proposed 

are expected to have 

neutral effects on 

stream width-todepth ratio, or 

positive effects with 

regards to road 

closures.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

105 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

transport through modification of 

tributary alluvial fans.

Streambank stability Would maintain the current levels 

of bank stability. Bank stability is 

generally high in the analysis 

area with the exception of 

specific locations where bank 

instability is occurring due to 

altered hydrological processes.

In treatment areas, effects are expected to be 

negative in the short term, especially where haul 

routes cross streams. However, positive long-term 

effects are expected. 

Shoreline stability immediately adjacent to the 

boat and fishing dock improvements of Magon 

Lake may result in short-term bank instability 

within the immediate vicinity of the connection of 

the docks with land. However, hardening of the 

connection point and adherence to BMPs would 

not result in a meaningfully measurable.

The reduction in boats being pulled up onto the 

shoreline and reduction in shoreline foot traffic 

would result in a positive but not meaningfully 

measurable effect to shoreline bank stability.

Same as alternative 

2, except more units 

would be treated, 

causing additional 

potential for negative 

short-term effects. 

However, riparian 

treatments would 

increase hardwood 

communities, thus 

stabilizing 

streambanks in the 

long-term (and 

providing an array of 

other positive benefits 

to aquatic 

communities).

Same as alternative 

2, except fewer units 

would be treated, 

causing less potential 

for negative shortterm effects, and 

fewer long-term 

positive effect. No 

haul routes are 

expected to cross 

streams in this 

alternative.

Mid-Columbia River 

steelhead effects 

determinations 

(federally 

threatened, 

Sensitive species 

from Regional 

Forester’s list, and 

Malheur Forest Plan 

management 

indicator species)

No Effect May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect shortterm; Beneficial Effect long-term.

May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not 

Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal 

Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species short-term; Beneficial 

Impact long-term.

Rationale: adverse effects related to sediment 

contribution for recreational trail crossing 

construction and road improvement work is 

expected for all alternatives.

These effects will be mitigated with best 

management practices and project design criteria, 

and are expected to be short-term.

Foreseeable aquatic restoration actions would 

result in long-term benefits/improvement for the 

indicators of large woody debris, pool frequency, 

width to depth ratio, and fine sediment.

Same as alternative 

2, except that 

temporary road 

construction will occur 

within Mid-Columbia 

River Steelhead 

Critical Habitat and 

may adversely affect 

Mid-Columbia River

steelhead due to its 

direct connection with 

the stream corridor 

and location <100 

feet from the stream 

for sediment.

However, with 

implementation of 

PDCs within the 

Malheur National 

Same as alternative 

2, except there are 

fewer trail crossings 

and road 

improvements 

proposed, thereby 

decreasing potential 

impacts.
Magone Project

106 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Forest Aquatic 

Restoration Decision, 

ARBO II for livestock 

crossings, and 

implementation of 

Malheur National 

Forest stream 

crossing PDCs these 

effects are expected 

to be short-term.

Mid-Columbia River 

steelhead 

designated critical 

habitat

No Effect May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect shortterm; Beneficial Effect long-term (see rationale 

above).

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Interior redband 

trout effects 

determinations 

(Sensitive species 

from Regional 

Forester’s list and

Malheur Forest Plan 

management

indicator species)

No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not 

Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal 

Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species short-term; Beneficial 

Impact long-term

Rationale: Because Interior redband trout 

distribution overlaps Mid-Columbia River

Steelhead Critical Habitat, the effects from the 

proposed actions described for Mid-Columbia 

River Steelhead would be similar to Interior 

Redband trout and therefore are not expected to 

contribute to trend towards federal listing or cause 

a loss of viability to the population or species. A 

long-term beneficial impact related to restoration 

of those processes that create quality habitat and 

provide for perennial flow is expected.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Westslope cutthroat 

trout effects 

determinations 

(Sensitive species 

from Regional 

Forester’s list and

Malheur Forest Plan 

No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not 

Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal 

Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species short-term; Beneficial 

Impact long-term

Rationale: Westslope cutthroat trout distribution 

overlaps Mid-Columbia River Steelhead Critical 

Habitat the effects from the proposed actions 

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

107 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

management 

indicator species)

described for Mid-Columbia River Steelhead 

would be similar to Westslope cutthroat trout and 

not expected to contribute to trend towards federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to the population 

or species. A long-term beneficial impact related 

to restoration of those processes that create 

quality habitat and provide for perennial flow is 

expected.

Columbia spotted 

frog effects 

determinations 

(Sensitive species 

from Regional 

Forester’s list)

No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not 

Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal 

Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the 

Population or Species short-term; Beneficial 

Impact long-term

Rationale: Because of temporary road 

construction and new recreation trail 

construction/crossings individuals associated with 

wetland features and perennial waters may be 

displaced in the short-term and localized habitat 

impacted. However, these localized effects are 

not expected to contribute to trend towards federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to the population 

or species. Foreseeable aquatic restoration action 

and those actions within Magone Lake are 

expected to improve habitat for Columbia spotted 

frog within the project planning area.

Same as alternative 

2, except there is 

more recreation trail 

construction/crossing

s proposed, thus the 

potential for impacts 

is higher.

Same as alternative 

2, except there are 

fewer recreation trail 

construction/crossing

s proposed, thus the 

potential for impacts 

is lower.

Comparison of environmental effects on wildlife (proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species)

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Gray wolf (East of 

Hwy 395)

No Impact No Impact (as recommended by Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife.) Additionally, gray wolves are highly 

adaptable; therefore, management activities would be 

expected to have little effect on habitat use.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.
Magone Project

108 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Pallid bat, 

Townsend’s bigeared bat, and 

fringed myotis

No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely 

Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or 

Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

because: there could be a degree of displacement or 

disturbance for bat species during project implementation;

some live and dead trees providing habitat may be 

removed; enhancing foraging areas could benefit these 

species; and treatment could potentially change how 

affected habitat would be used by bat species.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that the degree of 

displacement or disturbance 

during project 

implementation is higher.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that the degree of 

displacement or 

disturbance during project 

implementation is lower.

Bufflehead No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely 

Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or 

Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

due to displacement from post-breeding habitat and 

potential loss of suitable nesting cavities.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that the degree of 

displacement from postbreeding habitat and 

potential loss of suitable 

nesting cavities is slightly

higher.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that the 

displacement from postbreeding habitat and 

potential loss of suitable 

nesting cavities is lower.

American peregrine 

falcon

No Impact No Impact because no activities are proposed in or 

adjacent to suitable nesting habitat under any alternative. 

Further, although potential nesting habitat exists in the 

project planning area, no nests or incidental observations 

have been documented.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Bald eagle No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely 

Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or 

Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

because implementation could result in the loss of snags.

In the long-term, treatments would help retain and 

promote growth and longevity of large trees and would 

have a Beneficial Impact on bald eagles.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that potential loss of 

snags during implementation 

is higher. Treatments to 

retain and promote growth 

and longevity of large trees 

would also be higher, 

contributing toward more 

long-term Beneficial Impact

to bald eagles.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that potential loss 

of snags during 

implementation is lower. 

Less treatment area 

results in decreased longterm Beneficial Impact to 

bald eagles.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

109 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Lewis’s woodpecker No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely 

Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or 

Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

because implementation could result in the loss of snags. 

In addition, during project operations, a degree of 

disturbance and displacement of Lewis’s woodpeckers 

would be possible.

In the long-term, treatments would help retain and 

promote growth and longevity of large trees and would 

have a Beneficial Impact on Lewis’s woodpecker.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that loss of 

snags/potential for 

disturbance during 

implementation is higher. 

Treatments to retain and 

promote growth and 

longevity of large trees 

would also be higher, 

contributing toward more 

long-term Beneficial Impact

to Lewis’s woodpecker.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that loss of 

snags/potential for 

disturbance during 

implementation is lower. 

Less treatment area 

results in less long-term 

Beneficial Impact to 

Lewis’s woodpecker.

White-headed 

woodpecker

No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely 

Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or 

Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

because implementation could result in the loss of snags.

In the long-term, treatments would help retain and 

promote growth and longevity of large trees and increase 

in old forest single stratum, which would have a 

Beneficial Impact on white-headed woodpecker.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that the potential for 

loss of snags during 

implementation is higher. 

Treatments to retain and 

promote growth and 

longevity of large trees 

would also be higher, 

contributing toward more 

long-term Beneficial Impact

to the white-headed 

woodpecker.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that the potential 

for loss of snags during 

implementation is lower. 

Less treatment area 

decreases long-term 

Beneficial Impact to the 

white-headed 

woodpecker.

Johnson’s hairstreak No Impact May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely 

Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or 

Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

in the short-term because the harvest of mistletoe-infected 

trees would occur and heat and smoke from underburning 

could affect larvae and adult individuals. In the long-term, 

alternatives 2 and 3 and, to a lesser extent, alternative 4 

would maintain healthy levels of large ponderosa pine and 

mistletoe and therefore have a Beneficial Impact on the 

Johnson’s hairstreak.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that more mistletoeinfected trees would be 

removed, and more 

prescribed burning would 

occur in the Nipple Butte 

IRA. Increased potential for 

healthy levels of large 

ponderosa pine and 

mistletoe in the long-term 

would increase Beneficial 

Impact to the Johnson’s 

hairstreak.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that less mistletoeinfected trees would be 

removed, and there is 

significantly less 

prescribed burning 

proposed throughout the 

project area. Decreased 

potential for healthy levels 

of large ponderosa pine 

and mistletoe would 

decrease long-term 

Beneficial Impact to the 

Johnson’s hairstreak.
Magone Project

110 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Silver-bordered 

fritillary

No Impact No Impact because the silver-bordered fritillary is not 

known to occur within the project planning area although 

habitat is present. Action alternatives would have 

negligible effects to moist and wet meadow habitat 

because of project design criteria.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Comparison of environmental effects to wildlife (management indicator species)

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Lewis’s woodpecker, 

red-naped 

sapsucker, 

Williamson’s 

sapsucker, downy 

woodpecker, hairy 

woodpecker, blackbacked woodpecker, 

pileated 

woodpecker, threetoed woodpecker, 

white-headed 

woodpecker, and 

northern flicker 

(representing dead 

and defective wood 

habitat for cavity 

excavation birds)

The no action 

alternative would not 

affect dead and 

defective wood 

habitat and therefore 

would not contribute 

to a negative trend in 

viability for MIS dead 

and defective wood

habitat dependent 

species, such as 

primary cavity 

excavators, on the 

Malheur National

Forest.

Under all action alternatives, a slight decrease in 

forest-wide dead, down, and defective habitat or 

population trends for primary cavity excavators 

would be expected as a result of implementation 

in the short-term. In the mid- to long-term, habitat 

would be expected to recover and improve and 

conditions would better mimic the historical range of 

variability. 

All alternatives would provide more resilient stands

leading to larger, older age class trees eventually 

becoming decadent and producing higher quality 

dead and defective habitat. Therefore, no forestwide threats to any primary cavity excavator’s 

population viability are expected from 

implementation of the action alternatives in this 

project planning area.

Due to the more extensive 

trail system, less area 

designated as 

connectivity, and 

substantially more acres 

and units treated, 

alternative 3 would have a 

greater effect on dead and 

defective habitat, giving it 

a temporary departure 

from historical snag levels. 

Long-term effects remain 

the same as with 

alternative 2.

Same as alternative 2.

Black-backed 

woodpecker

In the short-term, 

alternative 1 may 

benefit black-backed 

woodpecker as a 

result of higher 

likelihood of bug kill 

and fire mortality. In 

the long-term, largescale events within 

the project planning 

area may render the 

area unsuitable until 

All of the action alternatives would impact suitable 

black-backed woodpecker habitat in the project 

planning area. However, the highest level of 

activities proposed under alternative 3 would impact 

less than 2% of suitable habitat at the Forest-level, 

and current conditions greatly exceed the historical 

range of variability for black-backed woodpeckers. 

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

would result in a small negative trend of habitat. The 

loss of habitat would be insignificant at the scale of 

the Forest. Further, wildfire events are possible, or 

likely, at the Forest-level, which could create more 

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

111 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

future snags develop. 

Alternative 1 would 

not contribute to a 

negative trend in 

viability on the 

Malheur National 

Forest for blackbacked woodpeckers.

suitable habitat and partially mitigate any negative 

effects of the project. The Magone Project is 

consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan, and thus 

continued viability of the black-backed woodpecker 

is expected on the Malheur National Forest.

Rocky Mountain elk 

(representing 

species commonly 

hunted)

Elk habitat would 

remain the same in 

the short-term. In the 

mid- to long-term, 

forage would likely 

decrease as a result 

of increasing cover, 

and critical habitats 

such as upland shrub 

areas and aspen 

could be degraded 

and eventually lost. 

However, because of 

their high mobility, 

extensive distribution, 

and the ability of elk 

and other big game 

species to find and 

use a variety of 

suitable habitats, 

there would be no 

negative trend in 

viability on the 

Malheur National 

Forest for Rocky 

Mountain elk.

Each action alternative is expected to enhance elk 

habitat. Trails proposed under alternative 2 could 

have notable effects on elk distribution, but would 

still provide areas of quality security.

The Northside Game Management Unit, which 

contains all of Magone project planning area, is 

approximately 700 elk over the management 

objective of 2,000 elk. Adjacent Desolation and 

Murderer’s Creek Game Management units are also 

above management objectives, there would not be 

a viability concern for the species on the Blue 

Mountain Ranger District or Malheur National Forest 

under any action alternative.

See alternative 2.

This alternative would 

have the most detrimental 

effects to elk because of 

the smaller proportion of 

landscape proposed for 

connectivity and the 

extensive recreation trails 

and their associated 

effects. However, this 

alternative also proposes 

the most potential 

increase in forage.

See alternative 2.

This alternative would 

have the least amount of

detrimental effects to elk 

caused by 

implementation, but would 

also continue to inhibit the 

amount of long-term 

sustainable forage, similar 

to the no-action 

alternative.

Old growth network Under alternative 1, 

there would be no 

changes to the MA13 

network. No 

replacement old 

All action alternatives propose to alter the location 

and/or stand boundaries of dedicated old growth 

(DOG) areas in order to expand the current MA13 

network to include replacement old growth (ROG) 

and pileated woodpecker feeding areas (PWFAs) to 

See alternative 2.

Designated connectivity 

corridor: 6,740 acres 

(25%), including proposed 

See alternative 2.

Designated connectivity 

corridor: 9,066 acres 

(34%), including proposed 
Magone Project

112 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

growth areas (ROGs) 

would be designated, 

no late and old 

structure (LOS) 

stands would be 

treated, and no 

connectivity corridors 

would be designated. 

Malheur Forest Plan 

standards regarding 

the MA13 network 

would not be met. No 

change from the 

existing condition 

would be expected.

meet Malheur Forest Plan standards. Ultimately, 

there would be net loss of approximately 312 acres 

of dedicated old growth, but an overall expansion of 

approximately 1,067 acres of the MA13 network 

including DOGs and ROGs/PWFAs.

The designated connectivity corridor for alternative 

2 is approximately 9,066 acres (34%), including 

proposed acreages from DOGs, ROGs, pileated 

woodpecker feeding areas (PWFAs) and areas that 

will be treated but left denser specifically for 

connectivity and big game security.

Not including the MA13 areas, the proposed 

connectivity would be approximately 6,218 acres.

acreages from DOGs, 

ROGs, pileated 

woodpecker feeding areas 

(PWFAs) and areas that 

will be treated but left 

denser specifically for 

connectivity and big game 

security.

Not including the MA13 

areas, the proposed 

connectivity would be 

approximately 3,892 

acres.

acreages from DOGs, 

ROGs, pileated 

woodpecker feeding 

areas (PWFAs) and areas 

that will be treated but left 

denser specifically for 

connectivity and big game 

security.

Not including the MA13 

areas, the proposed 

connectivity would be 

approximately 6,218 

acres.

Pileated 

woodpecker, 

American (pine) 

marten, and threetoed woodpecker, 

(representing oldgrowth dependent 

species)

Alternative 1 would 

not affect pileated 

woodpecker, 

American (pine) 

marten, or three-toed 

woodpecker habitat 

and therefore would 

not contribute to a 

negative trend in 

viability on the

Malheur National 

Forest for these

species.

Due to the expected shifts in forest structure, 

expansion of MA13 network, extensive connectivity, 

and treatment of a fraction of forest-wide habitat, 

the overall direct and indirect effects could result in 

a small negative trend of habitat in the short- to midterm. Any loss or shift of habitat would be negligible 

at the scale of the Forest. However, old forest multistrata habitat would remain within or above the 

historical range of variability in the short- and longterm under each action alternative. Therefore, 

population viability for pileated woodpecker is 

expected on the Malheur National Forest under 

each action alternative.

Because of the small amount of secondary habitat, 

small amounts of Cool Moist habitat and Cold Dry 

lodgepole habitat, the location of suitable secondary 

habitat, and the expansion of the MA13 network and 

designation of extensive connectivity corridors 

under all action alternatives, it is not expected the 

Magone Project would result in any viability 

concerns to three-toed woodpeckers.

See alternative 2.

Proposed trail systems, 

potential prescribed fall 

burning, and silvicultural 

treatments in secondary 

habitat could increase 

negative effects to pine 

marten individuals and 

habitat over what is 

expected under 

alternatives 2 and 4, but 

viability of the pine marten 

is expected to continue on 

the Malheur National 

Forest.

See alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

113 of 632

Comparison of environmental effects to wildlife (featured species)

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Northern goshawk Alternative 1 would 

maintain the suitability 

of all existing habitat. 

Additionally, this 

alternative would not 

result in displacement 

of goshawks.

Although treatments are proposed within 

reproductive habitat and post-fledging areas 

(PFAs), no treatment would occur within known nest 

stands. For all action alternatives, habitat would 

remain above the historical range of variability 

(HRV) for old forest multi strata and approach HRV 

for old forest single stratum. Over time, stand 

complexity is expected to improve and may in the 

long-term result in habitat that is higher in quality 

than what may develop in some untreated stands.

Because of disturbance potential along proposed 

bike trails, there could be increased nest 

abandonment and failure, which could lead to 

decreased recruitment in the short-term. However, 

no loss of individuals would be expected from 

project activities under any action alternatives. In 

the mid- to long-term, goshawks would acclimate to 

the increased presence of humans or move to other 

suitable nesting habitat within or outside the project 

planning area. Therefore, no effects to goshawk 

viability would be expected from the implementation 

of any of the action alternatives.

See alternative 2.

Potential for disturbances 

along proposed bike trails 

may be higher, due to 

longer lengths of trails.

See alternative 2.

Potential for disturbances 

along proposed bike trails 

may be lower, due to 

shorter lengths of trails.

Blue (dusky) grouse Under alternative 1, 

no management 

activities proposed for 

the Magone Project 

would occur. Habitat 

conditions would 

remain unchanged in 

the short- and midterm. Over the longterm, increased stand 

densities and related 

stress would result in 

a greater incidence of 

insects and disease in 

the project planning 

area.

All action alternatives contain project design criteria 

that follow Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan 

Amendment 2 standards for retaining grouse winter 

roost habitat. Action alternatives may affect grouse 

habitat, however, habitat would remain above the 

historical range of variability and no adverse effects 

would be expected to blue grouse habitat or 

populations from implementation of any of the 

action alternatives.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.
Magone Project

114 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Osprey Due to the highly 

migratory nature of 

osprey and limited 

foraging opportunities 

in the project planning 

area, direct and 

indirect adverse 

effects to osprey or 

their existing habitat 

are not anticipated 

from alternative 1.

Nesting and foraging habitat within the project 

planning area is limited, and therefore there are no 

impacts expected to osprey that would result in a 

change in the number of individuals, populations or 

prey species as a result of any of the action 

alternatives.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Comparison of environmental effects of wildlife (other landbirds, including neotropical migratory birds)

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Flammulated owl Continued decline of 

open forest and early 

seral species.

Although suitable habitat remains below historical 

range of variability, there would be an increase 

under all action alternatives.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Calliope 

hummingbird

Continued decline of 

habitat as result of 

increased stand 

densities.

Forest gaps would increase open shrub sapling 

stages on 20% of treated areas and across 5,500 

acres of upland shrub enhancement treatments.

Forest gaps would 

increase open shrub 

sapling stages on 20% of 

treated areas and across

5,500 acres of upland 

shrub enhancement 

treatments.

Forest gaps would 

increase open shrub 

sapling stages on 5% of 

treated areas and across 

1,685 acres of upland 

shrub enhancement 

treatments.

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Suitable habitat 

condition would 

continue to be limited

until suppression 

mortality created gaps 

and edge habitat.

Thinning would create more open stand conditions 

and accelerate growth of larger trees that may 

become snags. Forest gaps would increase 

understory growth, contributing to increased insect 

production over the next 20 years. Increased forest 

edge habitat would also enhance foraging 

opportunities. Gaps created by thinning may allow 

foraging until the canopy eventually closes again 

and these opportunities are lost. Upland shrub 

enhancement treatments would create optimum 

foraging areas.

See alternative 2.

Additional treatment 

acreage increases stated 

benefits.

See alternative 2.

Reduced treatment 

acreage reduces stated 

benefits.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

115 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Willow flycatcher Continued decline of 

riparian habitats. 

Stream channels will 

remain gullied. 

Riparian vegetation 

will be further 

departed from historic 

conditions.

Hardwood treatments are designed to enhance 

hardwood species such as aspen, willow, alder, and 

cottonwood.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Cassin’s finch Continued risk of loss 

of habitat due to 

uncharacteristic 

wildfire.

Warm Dry late and old structure would be moved 

from old forest multi strata to old forest single 

stratum post-treatment. Increased habitat suitability 

from aspen stand enhancement and thinning of 

young trees and upland shrub enhancement 

treatments.

See alternative 2.

Additional treatment 

acreage increases stated 

benefits.

See alternative 2.

Reduced treatment 

acreage reduces stated 

benefits.

Comparison of environmental effects of botanical resources

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Federally listed, 

proposed, and 

candidate plant 

species

No Impact There are no known populations, or potential 

habitat, for any federally listed or proposed plant 

species in the project planning area, including. 

White bark pine (Pinus albicaulis), a candidate for 

federal listing. Therefore, implementation of the 

action alternatives would have no effect to whitebark 

pine, or to any federally listed, proposed, or 

candidate plant species.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Known sensitive 

plant populations

No Impact All known populations of sensitive plants would be 

buffered from all ground disturbing activities. Project 

design criteria prescribe that a botanist be consulted 

before prescribed burning occurs in areas with 

known sensitive plant populations. Protections 

should adequately ensure that there are no direct or 

indirect effects from project activities to known 

populations of sensitive plants. Therefore, there 

would be No Impact to known populations of 

sensitive plants from project activities associated 

with the action alternatives.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.
Magone Project

116 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Sensitive plant 

habitat types: 

coniferous forest 

communities

No Impact None of the sensitive plant species that occur in 

coniferous forest habitats on the Malheur National 

Forest is extremely rare on a global scale. 

Therefore, even if project activities negatively affect 

individual plants or habitat during implementation, 

this should not result in Federal listing of any 

sensitive species. For alternatives 2 and 3, the 

determination of effects for forested communities 

and any sensitive plants that may occur there is: 

May impact individuals or habitat, but will not 

likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing 

or cause a loss of viability to populations of 

sensitive plant species.

See alternative 2. The 

potential for negative 

effects to coniferous forest 

communities may be 

slightly greater for 

alternative 3 than for 

alternative 2. This is 

mostly because more 

acres are proposed for 

vegetative treatment.

The potential for negative 

effects to coniferous forest 

communities may be 

slightly less for alternative 

4 than for alternative 2. 

This is mostly because 

fewer acres are proposed 

for vegetative treatment.

Sensitive plant 

habitat types: aspen 

communities

No Impact Although there may be detrimental potential effects 

to the habitat for the short-term due to ground 

disturbance, the long-term effects to these areas 

may actually be beneficial. This is due to the fact 

that the aspen would be stimulated to grow new 

stems, the competing conifers would be removed, 

and the stands may be protected from ungulate 

grazing. Because the aspen stands would be

rejuvenated in the long-term, the action alternatives

should have Beneficial Impact to sensitive plant 

species that occur within aspen stands.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that potential for 

beneficial impact is 

greater.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that potential for 

beneficial impact is less.

Sensitive plant 

habitat types: 

lithosols, sagebrush 

shrublands, and 

grasslands

No Impact Because the project design criteria would protect 

lithosol, sagebrush shrubland, and grassland 

habitats in the project planning area, implementation 

of the action alternatives should have No Impact to 

lithosols, sagebrush shrublands, and grassland 

habitats, or to any sensitive species that may occur.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Sensitive plant 

habitat types: cliffs, 

rock outcrops, and 

talus

No Impact Because the project design criteria would protect 

cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus in the project planning 

area, the implementation of the action alternatives 

should have No Impact to cliffs, rock outcrops, and 

talus habitats, or to any sensitive species that may 

occur there.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

117 of 632

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Sensitive plant 

habitat types: 

riparian dependent 

communities

No Impact None of the sensitive plant species that may occur 

in riparian dependent habitats is considered 

extremely rare on a global scale. Even if project 

activities may impact individual plants or habitat, 

implementation of this alternative should not 

increase the need for Federal listing of any sensitive 

species. Therefore, alternatives 2 and 3 May impact 

individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing or 

cause a loss of viability to populations of 

sensitive plant species potentially found in riparian 

and wetland habitats.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that potential for 

negative effects to riparian 

dependent communities 

may be slightly greater 

because more acres are 

proposed for vegetative 

treatment.

Same as alternative 2, he 

potential for negative 

effects to riparian 

dependent communities 

may be slightly less 

because fewer acres are 

proposed for vegetative 

treatment.

Culturally significant 

plant species

No Impact Since culturally significant plants are not tracked or 

mapped, it is difficult to assess the effects to these 

species from proposed activities. Many of these 

plants occur in unique habitats such as lithosols, wet 

meadows, or ephemerally wet areas. See the 

discussions above for a general description of 

potential impacts to the various habitat types. The 

project design criteria that protect these unique 

habitats would help to protect the long-term viability 

of these species. Treatments that would reduce the 

chances of high-intensity fire should help to prevent 

the death of plants from excess heat. Conversely, 

some species may actually be helped by the 

removal of competition and the nutrient flush that is 

associated with fire in the environment.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Risk of spread of 

non-native invasive 

plants from ground 

disturbance

There would be no 

change to the existing 

rate of spread, nor a 

change in the

introduction of new 

species from the 

current rate.

The action alternatives have the potential to 

increase the spread and introduction of non-native

invasive plants during treatment. However, with the 

proper mitigation measures in place; continued 

diligence towards minimizing bare ground, 

eradicating new weed sites, minimizing potential 

weed sources such as unclean machinery, and 

reseeding when bare ground is created, the amount 

and extent of cumulative effects can remain minimal. 

With the proper mitigation the adverse effects would 

remain unmeasurable.

Same as alternative 2, 

except that potential for 

negative effects to riparian 

dependent communities 

may be slightly greater 

because more acres are 

proposed for vegetative 

treatment.

Same as alternative 2, he 

potential for negative 

effects to riparian 

dependent communities 

may be slightly less 

because fewer acres are 

proposed for vegetative 

treatment.
Magone Project

118 of 632

Comparison of environmental effects on rangeland resources

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Forage production Decrease in forage 

production and quality 

from increased 

canopy closure.

Increase in available forage due to silviculture 

treatments and prescribed burning.

Greatest increase in 

available forage due to 

greatest amount of 

silviculture treatment and 

prescribed burning.

Least increase in available 

forage due to least 

amount of silviculture 

treatment and prescribed 

burning.

Impacts from 

recreation 

developments

N/A Recreation increases the chance of cattle being 

harassed and moved to areas were resources are 

more limited. Typically this occurs by gates being 

left open as access to recreational sites is 

increased. Additionally, it is anticipated that as trails 

are created, more types of transportation would use 

the trails, further increasing the likelihood for the 

harassment of livestock, gates being left open, and 

fences being cut for access.

Alternative 3 would have 

the greatest impact (with 

the most miles of new trail 

construction and 

designation proposed).

Alternative 4 would have 

the least impact (with the 

fewest miles of new trail 

construction and 

designation proposed).

Comparison of environmental effects on heritage resources

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Impacts to heritage 

sites

Fuels loads across 

the landscape would 

not be reduced. As 

such, the threat of 

severe or moderately 

severe wildfire would 

not contribute to the 

long-term stability of 

heritage sites.

The majority of the proposed activities are expected 

to have no, or extremely minor, direct effects on all 

known heritage sites within the project planning 

area as long as the project design criteria (PDCs) in 

the Magone FEIS Appendix C – Project Design 

Criteria are followed. In most cases, eligible or 

unevaluated sites would be avoided or properly 

mitigated throughout the lifetime of any of the 

proposed activities. Following the PDCs, there is no 

difference in the potential for effects between the 

three action alternatives. This is because all sites 

would be avoided or mitigations put in place.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

119 of 632

Comparison of environmental effects on roads

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Road density Existing open road density is 

1.1 miles/square mile.

Open road density would be 1.1 

miles/square mile.

Open road density would be 1.1 

miles/square mile.

Open road density would be 1.1 

miles/square mile.

Miles of open road 47 miles 43.1 miles 46.4 miles 46.4 miles

Miles of closed 

roads

63 miles 65.4 miles 63.3 miles 63.3 miles

Miles of road to be 

decommissioned

N/A 0.3 miles 0.3 miles 0.3 miles

Comparison of environmental effects on visuals

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Scenic integrity Scenic vegetation diversity is 

impaired, too dense, lacks 

extent of historical large 

trees.

No positive wildfire influences 

on vegetation 

structure/species.

Treatments would improve the long-term scenic integrity, by 

opening the stands up for increased visibility and visual 

diversity. Prescribed fire would improve conditions for fire 

resistant species, which would indirectly improve landscape 

character attributes of large tree character and open stands 

that can withstand low intensity fires.

Scenic integrity

benefits would be 

slightly greater

than alternative 2.

Scenic integrity

benefits would be 

slightly less than 

alternative 2.

Scenic stability Scenic stability project-wide 

most vegetation scenery 

attributes are impaired, some 

absent or not likely to be 

sustained due to ecosystem 

stress (wildfire imbalance; 

excess grand fir).

Scenic stability project-wide vegetation would shift towards 

historical conditions of fire adapted scenery attributes: 

meadows, aspen, diverse conifer canopy with more large, 

fire-adapted species.

Would reduce risk of scenery impairment from ecosystem 

disturbance events.

Scenic stability 

project-wide 

slightly more 

benefit and

stability than

alternative 2.

Scenic stability 

project-wide 

slightly less

benefit than 

alternative 2.

Visual quality 

objectives (VQOs)

Existing disturbance is minor 

and widespread. Meets 

Malheur Forest Plan 

thresholds for all sensitive 

views (Magone and County 

Road 18). No new impacts, 

growing risk for ecosystem 

disturbances.

Widespread new minor disturbances within sensitive 

viewsheds (Magone and County Road 18). Would meet 

Forest Plan’s VQO thresholds for all sensitive views. 

Reduced risk of ecosystem disturbance events.

Slightly more 

adverse scenery 

disturbance than 

alternative 2.

Slightly less 

adverse scenery 

disturbance than 

alternative 2.
Magone Project

120 of 632

Comparison of environmental effects of other undeveloped lands

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Acres of other 

undeveloped lands 

in the project 

planning area

3,900 acres 2,100 acres 1,750 acres 2,740 acres

Intrinsic physical 

and biological 

resources (soil, 

water, wildlife, 

recreation, fisheries, 

etc.)

There would be no direct or 

indirect effects to undeveloped 

lands because no activities 

would occur in these areas. 

The existing condition would 

remain unchanged, except by 

natural processes and 

ongoing management 

activities.

For other undeveloped lands within the Magone project 

planning area where activities proposed under alternatives 2, 

3, and 4 would occur, the impacts to soil, water quality, air 

quality, forage; plant and animal communities; habitat for 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation; 

invasive plants; and cultural resources are essentially the 

same as disclosed for areas of proposed project activity in 

described in other resource sections in Chapter 3.

See alternative 2. See alternative 

2.

Intrinsic social 

values (apparent 

naturalness, 

solitude 

remoteness)

There would be no direct or 

indirect effects to undeveloped 

lands because no activities 

would occur in these areas. 

The existing condition would 

remain unchanged, except by 

natural processes and 

ongoing management 

activities.

The following effects to other undeveloped lands are common 

to alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Silviculture treatments would 

increase the number of stumps and the open nature of the 

forest stand would likely be the most apparent visual change 

resulting from implementation. Prescribed burning would 

change composition and structure of vegetation. The sounds, 

smells, and possible sighting of mechanical activities and fuel 

treatment activities occurring in areas adjacent to the other 

undeveloped areas would reduce the sense of solitude and 

remoteness in the short-term, during project activities. 

Proposed road activities in other undeveloped lands would 

reduce the size of the other undeveloped lands polygons. 

These lands would appear managed and developed.

In the long-term the project would result in the development 

of historic open conditions characterized by larger diameter 

trees, though more stumps would be present.

Same as 

alternative 2, 

except that 

increased 

treatment acreage 

increases 

potential impacts.

Same as 

alternative 2, 

except that 

decreased 

treatment 

acreage 

decreases 

potential 

impacts.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

121 of 632

Comparison of environmental effects of climate change

Comparison 

element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Impacts to and 

effects of climate 

change on the 

Magone Project

There would be an increased 

indirect risk of wildfire, which 

could contribute carbon 

dioxide emissions through the 

burning of accumulated fuels.

Species composition and 

stand density would remain 

the same or trend toward late 

seral species and increased 

stand density, which would 

intensify effects from 

increased summer 

temperatures and drought, 

leading to increased stress to 

trees and reduced ability to 

resist insects and disease. 

Increased fuel loadings and

warmer, drier weather would 

increase the risk of large 

stand replacement wildfires.

Snowpack within the Blue 

Mountains is expected to be 

near 0 by the year 2080. The 

Transition from a snowpack 

driven system (gradual 

release) to a rain driven 

system would further degrade 

existing aquatic conditions 

due to the lack of instream 

and floodplain roughness for 

the majority of streams within 

the Magone project planning 

area.

Sections of stream which 

become intermittent (dry) 

during low flow periods would 

increase in extent.

28,500 acres are proposed for underburning. Underburning 

would release carbon dioxide into the air from the debris on 

the forest floor, but repeated underburns would produce 

substantially less emissions per acre than a wildfire, which 

consumes material from both the forest floor and the standing 

trees. Restoration of the forest by moving toward the 

historical range of variability, through thinning, would result in 

a low risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. This reduced 

risk has a direct beneficial effect of decreased carbon 

emissions from these acres because the risk of acres being 

burned by uncharacteristically severe wildfires would be 

reduced. The action alternatives are not expected to have a 

measurable change in the ability of the forest to sequester 

carbon. Thinning would reduce the number of trees, but the 

number of remaining trees left would still utilize most of the 

growing potential of the site with net growth remaining about 

the same. Harvesting wood and turning it into durable 

products such as lumber would sequester a portion of the 

carbon while retaining the capacity of the forest to absorb 

carbon from the atmosphere. Additionally, biomass utilization 

is itself a carbon neutral source of energy, but if it is replacing 

fossil fuel use there is a net reduction in atmospheric carbon. 

Overall, the combined effects of any of the action alternatives 

are expected to be a net reduction in atmospheric carbon.

Under the action alternatives there are varying levels of 

silvicultural treatments including commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning, post and pole removal, conifer reduction 

in aspen stands, and biomass removal. Thinning would 

reduce forest density and improve the health and vigor of 

remaining trees, especially during periods of summer 

drought. A forest that is better adapted to handle 

disturbances, such as wildfire or disease, would be more 

resilient in the face of potential climate change in the future.

Additionally, complete quantifiable information about project 

effects on global climate change is not currently possible and 

is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

Same as 

alternative 2, 

except with 

28,500 acres of 

underburning, plus 

an additional 

11,300 acres

within the IRA.

Same as 

alternative 2, 

except with only 

17,200 acres of 

underburning.
Magone Project

122 of 632

2.4.3 Summary of Forest Plan Amendments

This section provides a summary of forest plans needed to implement each alternative. 

Table 16. Comparison of proposed forest plan amendments

Comparison element

Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2

(proposed action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Changes to old growth 

boundaries

Old Growth (Management 

Area 13) boundaries would 

not be redrawn to bring the 

number of acres set aside 

for these habitats up to

thresholds set in the Forest 

Plan.

Old Growth (Management Area 13) boundaries would 

be redrawn for 3 existing dedicated old growth areas 

(DOGs), create 2 pine marten replacement old 

growth areas (ROGs), and create 3 pileated 

woodpecker ROGs within the project planning area to 

bring total acres up to Malheur Forest Plan habitat, 

size, and distribution requirements for alternatives 2, 

3, and 4. The proposed DOG and ROGs would be 

located within suitable late and old structure stands. 

There would be a net loss of approximately 312 acres 

of dedicated old growth, but an overall expansion of 

approximately 1,067 acres of the MA13 network 

including DOGs and ROGs.

See alternative 2. See alternative 2.

Reduce summer range cover 

below Malheur Forest Plan 

standards (12% for 

satisfactory cover in the Grub 

Creek subwatershed)

With no activities proposed, 

satisfactory, marginal, and 

total cover would continue 

to exceed standards in the 

short-term.

Satisfactory cover would be reduced from the existing 

31.8 to 10.1%.

Satisfactory cover

would be reduced

from the existing 

31.8 to 8.2%.

No amendment 

to this standard 

is proposed.

Reduce winter range 

(Management Area 4A) cover 

below Malheur Forest Plan 

standards (10% for 

satisfactory cover and 25% for 

total cover in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed)

With no activities proposed, 

satisfactory, marginal, and 

total cover would continue 

to exceed standards in the 

short-term.

Satisfactory cover would be reduced from the existing 

29.5 to 5.9%.

Satisfactory cover 

would be reduced 

from the existing 

29.5 to 3.3% and 

total cover from 

the existing 87.4 

to 17.1%.

No amendment 

to this standard 

is proposed.

Reduce Nipple Butte Wildlife 

Emphasis Area (Management 

Area 21) cover below Malheur 

Forest Plan standard (20% for 

satisfactory cover and 40% for 

total cover)

With no activities proposed, 

satisfactory, marginal, and 

total cover would continue 

to exceed standards in the 

short-term.

Satisfactory cover would be reduced from the existing 

46.8 to 16.5% and total cover from the existing 70.6 

to 39.5%.

Satisfactory cover 

would be reduced 

from the existing 

46.8 to 16.6% and 

total cover from 

the existing 70.6 

to 39.3%.

No amendment 

to this standard 

is proposed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

123 of 632

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

Chapter 3 summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

Magone project planning area, the effects of implementing each alternative on these 

environments, and the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of effects by alternative. 

Chapter 3 complies with the implementing regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) for analytic and concise environmental documents (40 CFR 1500-1508).

In the development of the environmental analyses that follow, best available science was 

considered and is documented in the project record for each resource area. Consistency with the 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Malheur Forest 

Plan) was built into the project design and the analyses. The environmental analyses incorporate 

issues identified through the scoping process. An environmental effect, impact, or consequence is 

defined as a modification of or change in the existing environment brought about by the action 

taken. The NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) refer to effects that are direct, indirect, or 

cumulative as short-term or long-term. For this project, short-term is defined as around 1 to 10 

years, and long-term is defined as around 10 to 20 years, unless otherwise defined in the resource 

sections of this chapter. Effects can vary in degree, ranging from only a slight discernible 

change, to a measurable alteration in the environment.

The Silviculture; Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality; Soils; Watershed; Aquatic Resources; Wildlife; 

Botanical Resources; Range; Non-native Invasive Plants; Heritage; Recreation; Visuals; 

Economics; Roads; and Inventoried Roadless Areas and Other Undeveloped Lands reports are 

incorporated by reference into this final environmental impact statement (FEIS). These reports 

are available upon request and are available on the Forest’s website at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/malheur/landmanagement/projects.

3.1.1 Consideration of Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably 

Foreseeable Actions in Effects Analysis

3.1.1.1 Cumulative Effects

A cumulative effect is the impact to the environment resulting from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Other actions are considered regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions 

and regardless of land ownership on which the other actions occur (40 CFR 1508.7). An 

individual action when considered alone may not have a significant effect, but when its effects 

are considered in sum with the effects of other actions, the effects may be significant.

Cumulative effects were assessed for this project in terms of how the alternatives would add to 

the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities (Table 17 and Table 18). Existing 

conditions described under each resource section reflect the cumulative effects of past and 

present activities that have occurred in this area. Each resource section identifies specific past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in Table 17 and Table 18 with a 

discernible effect on a particular resource as reflected in the existing condition.
Magone Project

124 of 632

Past and Present Actions – The environmental analysis required under NEPA is forwardlooking in that it focuses on the potential impacts of the proposed action that an agency is 

considering. Thus, review of past and present (i.e., ongoing) actions is required to the extent that 

this review informs agency decision-making regarding the proposed action (Council on 

Environmental Quality Memorandum, Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in 

Cumulative Effects Analysis, Forest Service National Environmental Policy Regulations [36 

CFR 220.4(f)] (July 24, 2008). Specific past and present actions considered in the affected 

environment and cumulative effects analysis are summarized below. The past and present actions 

summary is not necessarily exhaustive, as records may not exist for all past activities by project. 

This is particularly true for those actions that predate the passage of the National Environmental 

Policy Act in 1970. Nonetheless, the effects of such past actions are accounted for in the 

assessment of the existing condition, as the current condition assessment necessarily reflects any 

relevant impacts of such actions.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities – Each resource section describes any cumulative 

effects from the reasonably foreseeable future actions listed in this section. The reasonably 

foreseeable future activities overlap in time and location and may have environmental effects. 

The incremental effect of the action when added to the proposed activities was analyzed. 

Detailed descriptions of reasonably foreseeable future actions are listed here and are referenced 

in each resource section. The foreseeable actions for which the Magone Project proposed 

activities may have a cumulative effect are those listed on the Malheur National Forest’s 

Schedule of Proposed Actions or have been identified as potential projects authorized under the 

Aquatic Restoration Decision.

The Malheur National Forest initiated an Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment (EA) 

in January 2014, and the decision notice and finding of no significant impact (DN/FONSI) was 

signed in September 2014. This decision authorized activities that are consistent with the 17 

aquatic restoration categories described in that decision to be implemented following review of 

the activity with a Project Implementation Checklist to ensure the activity is consistent with the 

analysis and is within the criteria of the Aquatic Restoration Decision. The Magone Project 

interdisciplinary team has identified some potential future projects that may occur under the 

Aquatic Restoration Decision within the Magone project planning area (see Table 18).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

125 of 632

Table 17. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within the Magone project planning area

Timber Harvest

Activity name Timeframe Location Activity description

Past timber 

harvest

1860s to 

1990s

Throughout 

project planning 

area

Substantial timber harvesting that facilitated the removal of the large ponderosa pine, western white 

pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir in the Magone project planning area began in the 1930s with 

the Oregon Lumber Company.

Approximately 8,700 acres (32 percent) of the Magone project planning area were formerly owned 

and managed by the Oregon Lumber Company. These lands were acquired in a land exchange by 

the Malheur National Forest in the 1940s. It can be assumed that these lands were actively 

managed with timber harvest both before and after this exchange. Oregon Lumber Company moved 

west and north into cat skidding and truck hauling in the early 1940s.

After the acquisition of this property in the 1940s and 1950s, harvest was primarily done by the use 

of the Keen’s Vigor Classes (O’Hara et al. 2010). Overstory removal and regeneration harvests in 

this area started in the 1970s and continued through the 1990s.

Timber sales in the 1980s and 1990s included the Beech, COGO, EBC, Ennis, Goon Salvage, Grub 

Salvage, Grub Overwood, Hay, Hog, Jugow, Keen Salvage, Lake Lodgepole, POC, Pond SSTS, 

Quick Salvage, SADD SSTS, Sulphur Creek, Thin Bear, and Yah timber sales.

County Road18 

Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act 

Project

2010 to 

ongoing

Adjacent to and 

overlapping the 

eastern project 

boundary

Ongoing treatment of designated fuel breaks created adjacent to County Road 18. Approximately 

1,200 acres were commercially thinned and 1,600 acres were non-commercially thinned. Prescribed 

burning along this corridor is ongoing.

Wildfire/timber salvage

Activity name Timeframe Location Activity description

Fire suppression 1910 to 

present

Project planning 

area

In the recent past, wildfires were actively suppressed leading to a buildup of ground fuels and 

overstocked stands. Because of current uncharacteristic fire behavior, all fires are being actively 

suppressed to reduce the chance of other major stand replacement fires.

The project planning area has averaged 3.4 fires per year over the last 30 years. This equates to an 

average of 1.26 fires per 1000 acres per decade. There have been no recorded fires larger than 25 

acres within the project planning area. Two of the fires in 1910 burned within 2.5 miles of the project 

planning area. In addition, the Grouse Creek Complex burned within 0.2 miles in 2014.

OR-MAF 042 2010 Southwest corner 

of the project 

planning area

Approximately 24 acre wildfire that burned within the Nipple Butte inventoried roadless area.

Cornett Fire 2013 West of 36/18 

road junction

Approximately 20 acre wildfire that burned within the project planning area.

OR-MAF-16099 2016 Near Thompson 

Creek

Approximately 2 acre wildfire that burned within the Nipple Butte inventoried roadless area.

Prescribed fire 1998 to 1999 Round Top area According to GIS data, 4300 acres of underburning was completed between 1998 and 1999.
Magone Project

126 of 632

Miscellaneous

Activity name Timeframe Location Activity description

Non-native 

invasive plant 

treatments

Ongoing Project planning 

area

Invasive plant treatments on National Forest System lands have been done primarily by hand 

pulling, mechanical cutting (weed whacking), and grubbing; however, some biological controls were 

introduced in the 1990s.

Malheur National 

Forest SiteSpecific Invasive 

Plants Treatment 

Record of 

Decision 

implementation

Ongoing Project planning 

area

Treatment of known and newly discovered non-native invasive plants potentially using herbicide, 

manual, mechanical, biological and/or cultural treatments.

Historical grazing 1880 to 1940 Project planning 

area

Much of the Magone project planning area was historically agricultural private land and/or used 

extensively by Civilian Conservation Corps crews during the 1930s to 1940s for the conservation 

and development of natural resources.

The area was intensively grazed during these years, including sheep in the 1800s and early 1900s. 

After the 1930s, the U.S. Forest Service established grazing regulations.

Past grazing 1940s to 

1990s

Project planning 

area

Grazing area (allotments) were created by dividing the land with fences, stocking rates, seasons of 

use, and standards for allowable utilization of the resource.

Present grazing 1990s to 

present

Project planning 

area

The John Day Allotment has 177 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 11,992 acres (64% of the 

allotment) within the project planning area.

The Beech Creek Allotment has 35 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 1,011 acres (26% of the 

allotment) within the project planning area.

The Roundtop Allotment has 200 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 12,398 acres (90% of the 

allotment) within the project planning area.

The Keeney Meadows Allotment has 57 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 63 acres (14% of the 

allotment) within the project planning area.

The Dixie Allotment has 173 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 64 acres (0.24% of the 

allotment) within the project planning area.

The Fox Allotment has 293 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 49 acres (0.19% of the allotment) 

within the project planning area.

The Long Creek Allotment has 967 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 68 acres (0.14% of the 

allotment) within the project planning area.

The Herberger Allotment has 8 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 155 acres (28% of the 

allotment) within the project planning area (currently not authorized to graze).

The McCullough Allotment has 33 cow/calf pairs grazed per season, with 478 acres (76% of the 

allotment) within the project planning area (currently not authorized to graze).

Timber harvest in 

riparian habitat 

conservation 

areas (RHCAs)

1960s to 

1990s

Beech Creek Harvests of 226 acres in the 1960s, 0 acres in the 1970s, 981 acres in the 1980s, and 415 acres in 

the 1990s.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

127 of 632

Activity name Timeframe Location Activity description

Riparian planting/

log weir and 

boulder 

placement

1984 to 

present

East Fork Beech 

Creek

Placement of 220 boulders, 59 weirs, and 20 log deflectors, and planting of 500 shrubs.

Developed 

recreation

Ongoing 

maintenance

Magone Lake 

recreation area

The Magone Lake Campground includes a developed fee campground with campsites, picnic tables, 

a boat launch area, multi-use dock, vault toilets, and a day-use beach area.

Dispersed 

camping

Ongoing 

maintenance

Throughout 

project planning 

area

There are 19 known dispersed campsites in the project planning area.

Hiker/horse/

bicycle/OHV trails

Ongoing 

maintenance

Project planning 

area

Approximately 7 miles of trails, including several short trails around Magone Lake and several 

bicycle trails near Magone Lake and along the northern portion of the project planning area.

Cross-country offhighway vehicle 

(OHV) use

Ongoing Throughout 

project planning 

area

Cross-country OHV use occurs throughout the project planning area outside of the Nipple Butte 

inventoried roadless area.

Transportation 

activities 

(maintenance, 

construction, 

decommissioning)

1991 to 2006 Project planning 

area

Forest Service road (FSR) maintenance: blading FSR 36 (annually) and FSRs 3618, 3620, 3940, 

and 3947 (every other year). FSRs 3620 and 3618 were repaved in 2009 under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Travel 

Management 

Plan

Reasonably 

foreseeable 

future activity

Project planning 

area

The Malheur National Forest is required to develop a new vehicle use plan that would restrict crosscountry travel by motorized vehicles to only specifically designated roads and trails.

Firewood cutting Ongoing Across the 

project planning 

area

Use is generally late spring through late fall.

1 special use 

permit

Ongoing Township 12 

South, Range 31 

East, section 18

Use is a linear right-of-way for an electrical power line.

Other uses Ongoing Adjacent to 

private inholdings

Irrigation ditches.

Historical mining Project planning

area

There is no evidence of historic mining taking place in the Magone project planning area. It is 

possible some low level prospecting took place but there are no sites recorded documenting any 

prospecting.

Mining claims

(varies from year 

to year)

Ongoing Across the 

project planning 

area where lands 

are open to 

mineral entry

No mill sites, lode, or placer claims filed as of April 6, 2015.

Recent past claim activity within the project boundary included a lode claim file between 2006 

through 2008. Activity was limited to minor assay and claim work.

Lode claims are usually parallelogram shaped with the longer side lines parallel to the vein or lode. 

They are limited by stature to a maximum of 1,500 feet in length along the vein or lode and 300 feet 

on either side. Present activity is mostly limited to assay work and minor claim work. No large 

commercial operations are active at this time.
Magone Project

128 of 632

As stated above, the Magone Project interdisciplinary team has identified some potential future projects that may occur under the Aquatic 

Restoration Decision within the Magone project planning area. A project implementation checklist will be used to ensure each activity is consistent 

with the analysis and project design criteria in the Aquatic Restoration EA and Decision. Pre-project notification will be posted at least 30 days 

prior to implementation of the activity on the Malheur National Forest’s web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/land/malheur/landmanagement. Postproject notification will also be posted on this website. This webpage is designed to provide information about aquatic restoration activities on the 

Malheur National Forest and provides baseline information for planning documentation (NEPA) and associated consultation. The webpage will 

also provide an annual list of projects to be implemented by each Ranger District.

Pre-project notification is the time for individuals and organizations interested in specific aquatic restoration projects to contact the project lead 

with questions or suggestions related to implementation of that project. Table 18 is a summary of potential projects authorized under the Aquatic 

Restoration Decision that may occur in the Magone project planning area to allow the interdisciplinary team to analyze the cumulative effects from 

these reasonably foreseeable future activities.

Table 18. Reasonably foreseeable future activities authorized under the Malheur National Forest Aquatic Restoration Decision15 within the Magone 

project planning area

Activity name Location Activity description

Fish passage 

restoration

Project planning area Replacement or removal of approximately 10 culverts in the Grub Creek and East Fork Beech Creek 

subwatersheds.

Riparian 

enhancement

Clear, East Fork Beech, 

Thompson, and Tinker creeks

Large woody debris (LWD)/coarse woody debris (CWD) augmentation along approximately 9 miles 

of stream. A majority of these trees would come from upland tipping units.

Riparian 

enhancement

Clear, McClellan, and Thompson 

creeks

Coarse woody debris placement into approximately 5 miles of stream through chainsaw felling and 

helicopter placement. Headcut repair within Thompson Creek and Tributary to facilitate aggradation 

of stream channel and restore floodplain connectivity.

Riparian 

enhancement

Clear, East Fork Beech, 

Thompson, and Tinker creeks

Tree tipping and LWD/CWD addition to approximately 13 miles of stream, as well as approximately 

1 mile of cable winching from the adjacent hillslope at the bottom of East Fork Beech Creek. 

Excavation of pools would occur where suitable to allow den building by beaver. LWD/CWD would

be placed in conjunction with beaver support structures to provide anchor points for beaver dams.

Riparian 

enhancement

Tinker Creek Remove and reduce lodgepole pine encroachment along approximately 3 miles of stream. 

Lodgepole pine would be placed in stream and floodplain to create LWD and CWD. Pools would be 

excavated in association with lodgepole placement and beaver support structures, to provide cover 

for beaver andstreambank accessibility for dens.

 

15 The Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment includes a number of individual actions that, when grouped together, represent an overall watershed and fish habitat 

restoration program. Projects may occur at many individual sites across the Malheur National Forest, including those National Forest system lands on the Ochoco National Forest 

administered by the Malheur National Forest. Site-specific action areas are located in fish and non-fish-bearing streams, riparian areas, and uplands that have a direct link to 

restoration of aquatic habitat and watershed function.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

129 of 632

Activity name Location Activity description

Juniper, hawthorn, 

and aspen 

treatment

Clear, East Fork Beech, 

McClellan, Thompson, and 

Tinker creeks

Juniper and hawthorn would be chainsaw felled or removed with rootwad attached and placed within 

the stream channel and adjacent floodplain along approximately 12 miles of stream. Patches of 

hawthorn would be treated with fire to facilitate expansion of desirable riparian shrubs when 

applicable. Aspen treatment includes the removal of conifers currently shading aspen stands. 

Conifers >21 inches may be girdled to create wildlife snags, used for stream treatments, or both.

Juniper thinning Project planning area Juniper would be thinned on approximately 3,000 acres to assist in returning ground water to 

previous levels.

Log weir and 

boulder modification

Clear and East Fork Beech

creeks

Existing log weirs (approx. 58) would be modified and placed at appropriate angles to facilitate pool 

formation, lateral channel migration, and gravel deposition. Boulders placed as rip-rap would be 

used within the active stream channel to anchor large and coarse woody debris and create inchannel roughness.

Legacy structure 

removal

Clear, Lake, Thompson, and 

Tinker creeks

Alluvial fan restoration at 4 sites; legacy floodplain structure removal (e.g., rock berms, rip–rap, rock 

barbs and other related rock piles) along approximately 700 feet of stream.

Reduction of 

recreation impacts 

and road erosion 

control

Project planning area Stormproof Forest Service road (FSR) 3600102 and improve the dispersed campsites along this 

road. Harden first couple hundred feet of FSR 3618083. Remove pioneered road extension crossing 

Clear Creek within the inventoried roadless area on FSR 3940071 and relocate dispersed campsite 

currently at end of pioneered road to end of road.

Off-channel 

livestock watering 

facilities

Project planning area Maintain existing water troughs (18 known). Maintain existing ponds (28 known). Develop at least 10 

spring sites into water troughs.

Riparian vegetation 

(hardwood) planting

Clear, East Fork Beech, 

McClellan, Thompson, and 

Tinker creeks

Plant riparian hardwoods (willow, dogwood, cottonwood) along approximately 15 miles of stream. 

Riparian hardwood 

restoration 

monitoring fencing

Clear, McClellan, and Tinker 

creeks

Temporary fencing in the most sensitive riparian areas along approximately 2.5 miles of stream 

(totaling about 40 acres of area fenced).

Beaver habitat 

restoration

Clear, East Fork Beech, 

McClellan, and Tinker creeks

Beaver habitat restoration along approximately 7 miles of stream. Beaver support structures and 

bioengineering techniques would provide potential sites for future beaver dam construction.

Large and coarse 

wood placement

East Fork Beech Creek Fell and place medium and large trees, tops, and variety of coarse large wood typical of noncommercial thinning across gullies and areas with sheetflow resulting from culvert drainage (County 

Road 18) at densities similar to wood placement for fisheries; place CWD to dissipate energy at 

outlet of culverts.

Accelerate recovery 

of roads previously 

decommissioned.

Project planning area Decompact (backhoe with bucket) approximately 5 miles of former roadbed in East Fork Beech 

Creek valley, including segments of FSRs 3600043, 3600058, and 3600080.
Magone Project

130 of 632

3.2 Key Issue – Level and Effects of Silviculture Treatments

3.2.1 Forest Vegetation

3.2.1.1 Historical Condition

Settlement in the John Day area by European immigrants began in the mid-1800s, initially by 

those involved in mining and grazing. The formation of the National Forests began in the early 

1900s, along with timber harvesting, intensive grazing, and eventually fire suppression. Local 

timber harvests occurred in the early 1900s throughout the Magone area. Substantial timber 

harvesting that facilitated the removal of the large ponderosa pine, western white pine, western 

larch, and Douglas-fir in the Magone area began in the 1930s with Oregon Lumber Company. 

Oregon Lumber Company moved west and north into cat skidding and truck hauling in the early 

1940s (Figure 1). Approximately one third of the project planning area was in private land 

holdings after the formation of the National Forests, most of which was owned by Oregon 

Lumber Company. Acquisition of the private holdings into the National Forest system in the 

Magone area began in the late 1920s and ended in the 1980s. After the acquisition of this 

property, harvest was primarily done by the use of the Keen’s Vigor Classes (O’Hara et al. 2010). 

Overstory removal and regeneration harvests in this area started in the 1970s and continued 

through the 1990s.

The Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) makes up 10,018 acres of the 27,000+ acre 

Magone project planning area. A few acres within the IRA have open roads and have had some 

harvest and planting activities in the past.

Figure 1. Stand of virgin ponderosa pine, Malheur National Forest, Grant County, Oregon (color 

transparency; July 1942).

Due to fire suppression over the last century, the fuel loading in the East Fork Beech Creek and 

Grub Creek subwatersheds has changed. Historically, fire was the dominant disturbance on the 

landscape due to Native American burning and lightning strikes during thunder storms. The Warm 

Dry forests within the project planning area are classified as fire regime 1 (Schmidt et al. 2002). 

This fire regime included frequent (0 to 35 year return interval), low severity fires. The extent of 

these frequent ground fires likely varied from small areas (less than 10 acres in size) to entire 

slopes covering thousands of acres depending upon the season, topography, and climatic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

131 of 632

conditions. These fires were agents of stability, favoring fire resistant species (ponderosa pine, 

western larch, and to a lesser extent Douglas-fir) and development of more open, park-like stands 

with little vertical structure. They also maintained ground vegetation dominated by fire-adapted 

grasses such as pine grass and elk sedge. Shade tolerant species (grand fir and Douglas-fir) were 

generally susceptible to these fires due to their thinner bark when young, and persistent, low 

hanging crown characteristics.

Fire intensity also varied in response to vegetative conditions. Small areas of denser forest 

patches occurred in areas missed by fire or more resistant to fire (draws, spring seep areas, and 

northerly aspects). Areas missed by frequent fires developed conditions where subsequent fires 

could potentially be of moderate to high intensity, resulting in stand replacement patches.

The ingrowth of late seral species and increased stand densities have also helped to create 

conditions promoting insect outbreaks. A spruce budworm outbreak in the mid-1980s and early 

1990s has created dead and down grand fir and Douglas-fir, and live grand fir and Douglas-fir 

with poor crowns, reduced growth, and dead or forked tops (Scott and Schmitt 2012, Spiegel 

2014).

 

Figure 2. Left photo: Conifer encroachment into an area that was previously an open ponderosa 

pine. Right photo: Douglas-fir with dead top from previous insect infestation and large mistletoe 

brooms.

3.2.1.2 Existing Condition

The Magone project planning area is approximately 27,000 acres. It is made up of roughly 23,300 

acres of forested ground, and 3,880 non-forested acres. Six upland forest (UF) plant association 

groups (PAGs) occur within the Magone area. The project planning area is greater than 15,000 

acres; therefore, it is of the appropriate size to conduct an historical range of variability (HRV) 

analysis (Powell 2012). According to Powell (2012), it is not appropriate to conduct an HRV 

analysis for a PAG within a planning area if it is less than 1,000 acres because a full complement 

of cover types, structural stages, or tree density classes would not be expected for such a small 

amount of acreage. Therefore, five PAGs—Cool Moist Upland Forest, Cold Dry Upland Forest, 
Magone Project

132 of 632

Hot Dry Upland Forest, Warm Dry Upland Forest, and Warm Moist Upland Forest—exceed 

1,000 acres and will be analyzed for HRV based on structure stages.

Table 19. Plant association groups within the Magone project planning area

Plant association group Acres within project planning area* Percentage of total project 

planning area

Hot Dry Upland Forest 3,600 14%

Warm Dry Upland Forest 14,200 52%

Cool Moist Upland Forest 2,100 8%

Cold Dry Upland Forest 1,000 4%

Warm Moist Upland Forest 2,200 8%

Other Upland Forest types, 

each less than 1,000 acres

3,900 14%

FVS Upland Forest acres 23,300

Total project planning area acres 27,000

100%

* Acres from Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) are not exact to project acres as FVS uses whole stand 

acres. The project planning area boundary may split some stands. However, percentage of PAGs would be 

consistent for the project planning area.

Juniper woodlands make up approximately 2,500 acres of the total project planning area, or about 

9 percent of the total area. About 5 percent of the total area is herblands and shrublands. Much of 

this unforested area has had vegetation changes over time due to fire suppression and other 

management actions. Juniper has been encroaching into other vegetation types, including 

herblands, shrublands and some neighboring forested areas.

Approximately 1/3 of the upland forested acres found in the Magone project planning area are 

located within the Nipple Butte IRA. Almost half of the Cool Moist PAG is located within the 

IRA.

Management Zones

Stand density index (SDI) is a common measure of density that allows comparisons across units 

independent of individual tree age or size (Powell 1999). For any given average tree size for each 

species there is a limit to the number of trees per acre that may coexist in a stand. This limit is 

known as the maximum SDI (Max SDI). The percentage of Max SDI (SDI/Max SDI) is an index 

of intra-tree competition for site resources and is an indication of overall stand health, tree growth 

and mortality, susceptibility to mortality from insect and disease, and fire hazard. Percentage Max 

SDI is generally divided into categories that define tree growth, stand growth, and mortality. 

Below the management zone (MZ), which is stand densities of zero to 40 percent Max SDI, there 

may be natural regeneration and there is generally high individual tree growth within the stand. 

The MZ (40 to 60 percent Max SDI) is where silviculturists tend to prescribe to manage within, 

because site resources are generally being captured into tree growth and there is high stand 

growth. Above the MZ consistent competition may induce increased mortality. As stands grow 

above the MZ, susceptibility to insect infestation and high severity, stand replacement wildfire 

may increase. Figure 3 below shows that over 80 percent of the Magone project planning area is 

above the MZ, with high stand densities that are susceptible to competition-induced mortality, 

insect and disease infestation, and high severity fires.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

133 of 632

Figure 3. Magone stand density index ranges.

All structural stages are represented (Table 20). Late and old structure includes old forest single 

stratum and old forest multi strata. There is approximately 27 percent late and old structure within 

the Magone project planning area (Table 20). Over 50 percent of late and old structure in the 

Magone project planning area is located either in the Nipple Butte IRA or previously designated 

old growth areas.

Table 20. Structural stages within the Magone project planning area

Structure Acres within 

upland forest*

Percentage of 

upland forest

Acres of upland forest 

within Nipple Butte IRA

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 856 4% 525

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 6,654 28% 3,948

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 3,956 17% 1,101

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 4,963 21% 1,385

Stem exclusion closed canopy

(SECC)

5,344 23% 686

Understory reinitiation (UR) 1,314 6% 104

Stand initiation (SI) 212 <1% 36

Total 23,299

* The total acres is the sum of only upland forest PAGs in Table 19 above.

Hot Dry Plant Association Group

Hot Dry upland forests occupy approximately 66 percent of the project planning area (Table 19).

The project planning area has drainages oriented mostly in a north to south direction, which lends 

itself to mostly southeast, south, and southwest facing slopes. The Hot Dry PAG (Table 21)

includes many of the ponderosa pine plant associations. Currently stand initiation (SI), understory 

reinitiation (UR), and old forest single stratum (OFSS) are below the historical range of 

variability. Old forest multi strata (OFMS) and stem exclusion with open canopy (SEOC) are 

above the historical range in the Hot Dry plant association group.
Magone Project

134 of 632

Table 21. Hot Dry plant association group historical range of variability analysis

Structure Historical range of variability Existing condition

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 20-70% 1%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 5-15% 22%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 5-20% 21%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 5-20% 51%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 0-5% 0%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-20% 2%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% 2%

Warm Dry Plant Association Group

The Warm Dry PAG includes some of the ponderosa pine plant associations, some of the 

Douglas-fir plant associations, and a few of the drier grand fir plant associations (up to and 

including the grand fir/birchleaf spirea association). Ground vegetation generally consists of pine 

grass, elk sedge, Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, mountain big sagebrush, mountain 

mahogany, common snowberry, bitterbrush and birchleaf spirea. The Warm Dry plant 

associations are above the historic range in OFMS and SECC, but below in OFSS and SI (Table 

22).

Table 22. Warm Dry plant association group historical range of variability analysis

Structure Historical range of variability Existing condition

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 15-55% 3%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 5-20% 30%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 5-25% 21%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 5-20% 12%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 1-10% 26%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 1-10% 7%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% <1%

Cool Moist Plant Association Group

The Cool Moist PAG is represented by an array of plant associations (Powell et al. 2007), 

indicating the wide range of environments they occupy. There are approximately 2,100 acres of 

the Cool Moist PAG in the Magone project planning area. The Cool Moist PAG includes many of 

the grand fir, lodgepole pine (grand fir), lodgepole pine (subalpine fir), and subalpine fir plant 

associations. The Cool Wet PAG includes the grand fir/Pacific yew plant associations. Ground 

vegetation generally consists of big huckleberry, queencup beadlily, grouse huckleberry, 

twinflower, false bugbane, Pacific yew, and a wide variety of herbs and shrubs.

Most stands within the Cool Moist PAG are mixed conifer. Species composition includes 

ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, and grand fir. These stands are 

generally uneven-aged, with trees ranging from seedlings and saplings to large, old trees (300+ 

years). The large, old trees tend to be early seral, ponderosa pine, and western larch. However, 

large, old grand fir and Douglas-fir also exist in moist pockets and protected areas. Younger trees 

are predominantly grand fir, however, due to the productivity of these sites, small openings in the 

canopy provide the conditions for natural regeneration of early seral species also.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

135 of 632

These stands tend to be very dense, have a high degree of structural diversity, and have many 

large diameter trees and snags. Currently, stem exclusion open canopy, old forest multi strata, and 

old forest single stratum are all above historic range, while understory reinitiation and young 

forest multi strata are well below the historical range of variability (Table 23).

Table 23. Cool Moist plant association group historical range of variability analysis

Structure Historical range of variability Existing condition

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 10%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 48%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 40-60% 3%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 13%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-25% 24%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% <1%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-10% 1%

Cold Dry Plant Association Group

Cold Dry forest occupies approximately 1,000 acres of the project planning area. These stands are 

scattered throughout the planning area and are generally found in drainages. Currently, the Cold 

Dry PAG has three stand structures within the historical range of variability. Both of the stem 

exclusion structures are well above the historical range, while stand initiation, young forest multi 

strata and old forest multi strata structures are below the historical range (Table 24).

Table 24. Cold Dry plant association group historical range of variability analysis

Structure Historical range of variability Existing condition

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 10-40% 13%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 0-5% 1%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 10-40% 3%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 34%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 36%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% 13%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-20% <1%

Warm Moist Plant Association Group

Warm Moist forests occupy approximately 2,240 acres of the project planning area. These stands 

are scattered throughout the project planning area and occur predominantly in lower elevations 

near many of the streams, as well as some upper elevation knobs. Both old forest stand structures 

are within historical range of variability, while both stem exclusion stand structures are above the 

historical range. Understory reinitiation, young forest multi strata and stand initiation are all 

below the historical range of variability (Table 25).

Table 25. Warm Moist plant association group historical range of variability analysis

Structure Historical range of variability Existing condition

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 2%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 25%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 20-50% 4%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 36%
Magone Project

136 of 632

Structure Historical range of variability Existing condition

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 31%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-20% 2%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-15% <1%

Snags exist in the Magone project planning area. The existing levels of snags are the result of 

high stand densities that increase competition-induced mortality (Figure 4), previous insect 

outbreaks, and diseases.

 

 

Figure 4. Photos of stands within the Magone project planning area that illustrate high densities.

Non-forest

Plant association groups outside upland forest makes up about 3,880 acres (about 14 percent of 

the total project planning area). This includes some of the following:

Juniper woodlands make up approximately 2,500 acres of the Magone project planning area. 

These are Hot Dry and Hot Moist upland woodlands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

137 of 632

Sagebrush and grassy scabby areas make up approximately 1,250 acres. While juniper is a 

native tree species, fire suppression has allowed encroachment into areas previously occupied 

predominantly by grasses and other herbaceous and shrub plant types. Scabby areas that 

previously had open grass and mountain mahogany have been overtaken by pine and juniper. 

Both species compete for an already scarce supply of water. Juniper is the most efficient at 

getting the water and creating an environment where other plants cannot compete as well. Some 

of these mountain mahogany areas are also being shaded out by competing conifers. Mountain 

mahogany is intolerant to the shade created by the encroaching conifers.

 

Figure 5. Left photo: Young pine and juniper in what was previously an open mountain mahogany 

stand with an occasional legacy pine or juniper. Right photo: Mountain mahogany being shaded out 

by encroaching conifer.

Other areas within the Magone project planning area have populations of bitterbrush and 

Scouler’s willow in declining amounts. Pine, juniper, grand fir, and Douglas-fir have slowly 

invaded openings over time, reducing the vigor of bitterbrush and Scouler’s willow. Fire 

suppression has reduced the openings of mineral seed bed necessary for bitterbrush to seed in. 

Scouler’s willow communities have subterranean root crowns that resprout following fire (OSU 

2005).

 

Figure 6. Left photo: Scouler’s willow with sprouts. Right photo: Bitterbrush with pine invading.
Magone Project

138 of 632

Aspen Stands: Aspen is found in approximately 10 locations within the Magone project planning 

area. Aspen provides unique habitat for many wildlife species within coniferous forests, and it is 

currently much reduced from its historical extent. It appears that the combination of fire 

suppression, heavy browsing by both domestic and wild ungulates, conifer encroachment, and 

lowering of the water table has reduced the survival of aspen within Magone project planning 

area.

Aspen is considered a shade-intolerant species, and conifers have become established and are 

overtopping the aspen in many stands. The aspen overstory of most stands is single-storied and 

even-aged with many likely close to the end of their natural life cycle. Aspen is relatively shortlived and relies on regeneration to maintain healthy stands. Fire suppression has removed the 

disturbance agent that stimulated suckering and limited conifer establishment. Many of the stands 

are still suckering, but at a reduced rate and most suckers do not reach sapling size because of big 

game and cattle browsing.

Figure 7. Small aspen patch in the Magone project planning area.

Dry meadows and grasslands are found in several locations within the planning area and are 

characterized by generally shallow and rocky soils. They were historically maintained by frequent 

wildfires in an open savannah condition with a few widely spaced ponderosa pine trees and 

juniper woodlands. With fire suppression and historic grazing, there has been varying degrees of 

ingrowth of juniper and ponderosa pine trees.

Figure 8. Example of dry meadow with conifer encroachment from the outer edges.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

139 of 632

Disturbance Processes

The Magone project planning area has historically and is currently being affected by many 

disturbance agents. These include insects, diseases, fire, and human related disturbances such as 

timber harvest, fire suppression, and grazing. Fire has played a major role in shaping the 

structure, species composition and density of this area, and would continue to play this role into 

the future. The role of fire on the landscape and the relatively recent fire events were discussed in 

the historical condition section, as were previous timber harvest, fire suppression, and grazing.

Insects

There are many insects present within the Magone project planning area, which include bark 

beetles and defoliators. Currently, all of the insects present are at low levels. At these levels, they 

play an important role in contributing to structural diversity and providing dead wood habitat for 

wildlife and soil productivity. Scattered individual tree mortality creates small openings in stands 

where pockets of understory can establish.

Bark beetles are the most common insects present in the dry forests. The western pine beetle and 

mountain pine beetles have been killing at a low level for the past 4 years (Spiegel 2014).

The main defoliating insect present within the Magone project planning area is the spruce 

budworm. The 1982-1991 western spruce budworm outbreaks in the Blue Mountains were 

evident in some areas in the Magone project planning area. Older grand fir with dead tops are 

present in some stands. Fir engraver galleries were visible on older dead grand fir (Spiegel 2014).

Diseases

There are many diseases prevalent within the Magone project planning area. The major diseases 

include dwarf mistletoes, armillaria, annosus, and Indian paint fungus. As with insects, these 

diseases play an important role in creating structural diversity, creating a source of snags and 

down logs, providing important wildlife habitat and recycling nutrients to maintain soil 

productivity. They also provide unique wildlife habitat, such as roosting sites for grouse. At 

severe levels however, these diseases can greatly inhibit tree growth and old forest structure.
Magone Project

140 of 632

The primary species infected by dwarf mistletoe are ponderosa pine, western larch, lodgepole 

pine, and Douglas-fir. Historically dwarf mistletoe was present in low levels. It predisposed the 

occasional tree to bark beetle attack or torching by fire. Frequent fires likely kept overall levels of 

mistletoe low due to “fire pruning” of infected branches and through potential negative impacts of 

the heat and smoke on developing mistletoe plants. Mistletoe is abundant in the Magone project 

planning area. In a few locations a portion of the pole sized to mature western larch is infected 

with mistletoe, which is the primary reason for western larch mortality. Ponderosa pine mistletoe, 

Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine mistletoe are also found in isolated pockets within many of the 

stands.

The primary root diseases in the Magone project planning area are annosus and armillaria that 

result in small “centers” of mortality and associated gaps in the forest canopy. They are generally 

found in conjunction with bark beetles. Historically, root disease infection levels were generally 

low because of the higher proportion of early seral species and lower stand densities. Frequent 

fires also helped keep root diseases at low levels due to the promotion of soil fungi that compete 

with pathogenic fungi, and through beneficial effects of fire on soil nutrients and nutrient cycling.

There are scattered centers of annosus throughout the project planning area that are generally 

associated with previous logging. Annosus (Heterobasidion annosum) is mostly present in grand 

fir stands and is spread by spores in the air entering cut stumps and moving down through the 

roots. Its main hosts are grand fir, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. It causes 

severe root and butt decay, growth loss, and tree mortality (Goheen and Willhite 2006).

Conks of Indian paint fungus have been found within the project planning area, mostly associated 

with Cool Moist stands and late seral tree species.

3.2.1.3 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The analysis indicators for assessing effects of each alternative and for comparing alternatives 

include the historical range of variability (HRV) as defined by structural stages across the 

landscape, stand density, species composition, and the extent to which the area is treated to 

achieve these objectives and provide for the accelerated restoration strategy of treating more acres 

and providing forest restoration jobs. These indicators and how they are measured are described 

in the existing condition section above.

Table 26. Silviculture resource indicators and measures for assessing effects

Objective Indicator Justification

Change structural stages to be 

within, or moving towards historical 

range of variability (HRV)

Percentage change of 

structural stages in relation to 

HRV

Regional Forester’s Forest Plan 

Amendment #2 (USDA Forest 

Service 1995a)

Reduce stand density across the 

project planning area

Percentage change of acres 

above the management zone 

(MZ), within the MZ, and below 

the MZ as defined by maximum 

stand density index (Max SDI)

Suggested stocking levels for 

forest stands in northeastern 

Oregon and southeastern 

Washington: an implementation 

guide for the Umatilla National 

Forest (Powell 1999)

Provide wood products and forest 

restoration jobs

Acres mechanically treated Malheur Forest Plan (USDA 

Forest Service 1990)

3.2.1.4 Methodology

Information concerning stands has been gathered through a combination of photo interpretation, 

formal timber stand exams in 2000-2001, 2010, 2012, and 2014, and walk-throughs in 2014.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

141 of 632

Modeling was used to project stand development through 40 years for future structural stages, 

stand density, and species composition. The FSVeg Data Analyzer program was used to run the 

nearest neighbor analysis and Forest Vegetation Simulator on all of the forested stands within the 

Magone project planning area. The nearest neighbor analysis populates stands without current 

stand exam data using similar stands with exam data. The Forest Vegetation Simulator model, 

with the Blue Mountains variant, was used to grow stands to 2015, and then apply prescriptions to 

the stands proposed and project stand growth and development for 40 years. Due to the 

delineation of stands, and for the purposes of efficiency, the stands were modeled in their entirety, 

including riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) portions where applicable. All mechanical 

treatments, including the riparian enhancement treatments that are proposed within the Magone 

Project, as well as the first application of prescribed burning were simulated in this analysis. FVS 

projections were then used to compare stand structure, stand density, and species composition 

between the no action alternative (alternative 1) and action alternatives (alternatives 2, 3, and 4) 

to determine if they met project goals. Long-term projections are estimates at best; however, 

results do show trends and are useful for comparing different alternatives.

Assumptions for estimating effects include:

 HRV approximates the desired future condition.

 The future climate will be within the current range of variation.

 Current insects and diseases will continue to inhabit the forest and populations will 

fluctuate depending on stand conditions.

 The current trends in forest stand composition, structure, and density will continue, 

assuming that no further mechanical vegetation management would occur.

 Regeneration resulting from opening up stands in the Warm Dry PAG would be kept at 

low levels by periodic underburning, assuming future treatment.

Assumptions for the FSVeg Data Analyzer model include:

 Benchmarks for the future structural stage analysis are set at 10 and 40 years in the 

future.

 The mechanical treatments in the action alternatives are only applied once, at the start of 

the modeling time period. They are not repeated again within the 40 year modeling cycle.

 The prescribed burning in the action alternatives are only applied once in the first cycle 

of FVS. Prescribed burning was not repeated again within the 40 year modeling cycle.

 The stands without mechanical treatment or prescribed fire are grown using the 

assumptions for the no action alternative.

 No other disturbances occur that result in stand replacement (wildfire, insects, wind, etc.).

The above modeling constraints are used to simplify the analysis and are only for comparative 

purposes between the no action alternative and the action alternatives. They are not intended to 

accurately predict actual future conditions. Based on science and professional knowledge, it is 

reasonable to believe that climate change and future disturbances will occur that affect the 

vegetation in the Magone project planning area. However, due to the uncertainty and 

unpredictability of these events, and how forest vegetation will respond to them, they were not 

incorporated in this analysis, which is for comparison purposes only. These assumptions were 

made because it is impossible to predict when, where, what, and the extent of future disturbances 

and because there is still great uncertainty to the effects of future climate change. Scientists agree 

that the future climate in the Blue Mountains will be hotter, but there is great uncertainty as to 

whether it will be drier or wetter. Changes in the amount, form, and timing of precipitation could 

have drastic effects on forest extent, composition, and diversity.
Magone Project

142 of 632

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The boundary used for the direct and indirect effects analysis was the Magone project planning 

area, which included the East Fork of Beech Creek and the Grub Creek subwatershed boundaries. 

The boundary used for the cumulative effects analysis include the Magone project planning area. 

The Camp Lick project planning area to the east, and the private lands to the south and 

interspersed within the Magone project boundary were considered while analyzing connectivity 

issues. This area is approximately 70,000 acres.

The timeframe for the direct and indirect effects of vegetation management is relatively shortterm for forest development. Direct and indirect effects are assessed 10 and 40 years after 

treatment. The timeframe for cumulative effects is relatively long-term for forest development 

and includes cumulative effects of current restoration treatments, and the Magone Project on 

species composition, stand density, and stand structure.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

The past activities that have cumulative effects to forest vegetation within the Magone project 

planning area include historic timber harvest, more recent timber harvesting in the 1970s through 

the 1990s, fire suppression, wildfire, timber salvage, planting following regeneration harvest, and 

grazing. Most of these activities are discussed in the historical condition section of this report. 

Until recently timber salvage was a common practice on the Malheur National Forest. Salvage 

helped prepare sites and pay for extensive planting following disturbances, such as large scale 

insect infestation. 

Planting within regeneration harvests was generally dense, up to 680 trees per acre, and included 

planting predominantly ponderosa pine, but also western larch, Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, 

and even lodgepole pine in some areas. Dense planting, along with abundant natural regeneration 

in some areas, provided for young, dense stands of predominantly early seral species.

Historical grazing practices started with primarily high numbers of sheep in the area in the late 

1800s and early 1900s. In the early to mid-1900s, grazing transitioned into primarily cattle 

grazing and is currently 100 percent cattle grazing. Cattle numbers have dramatically decreased 

over time and grazing is currently a vigorously monitored and managed activity within and 

adjacent to the project planning area. Due to historical grazing practices, fire suppression, and the 

climate in the early 1900s natural regeneration of tree species was stimulated, beginning the 

density increases of the 20th century. Current grazing practices generally do not impact the 

competing vegetation enough to influence natural regeneration success.

The recent past and present activities that have cumulative effects to the forest vegetation include 

plantation maintenance; activities authorized by the Aquatic Restoration Decision; portions of the 

County Road 18 Project; portions of the Beech Timber Sale, Hay Timber Sale, and other small 

salvage sales; grazing; and continued fire suppression. The County Road 18 Project is the most 

recent, and covers about 1,234 acres in the Magone project planning area. Within the Magone 

project planning area, the County Road 18 Project has portions of 20 units equaling 1,015 acres of 

thinning and piling, 10 acres no treatment for wildlife corridor, and an additional 210 acres of 

underburning. The County Road 18 Project was designed to reduce fuels along the main County 

Road 18 corridor.

Reasonably foreseeable activities that would cumulatively effect the vegetation in the Magone 

project planning area include proposed actions being anaylized for the the Camp Lick Project. 

This project is a 40,000-acre restoration project that is within the Camp and Lick subwatersheds, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

143 of 632

and is adjacent to Grub (to the east) and East Fork Beach Creek (to the northeast) subwatersheds. 

This project would reduce stand density, shift species composition by reducing the abundance of 

late seral species, and move forest structure closer to HRV through commercial and noncommercial mechanical methods and through prescribed burning. Cutting trees within the RHCA 

under the aquatics restoration decision would not alter the results of the FVS analysis described 

above.

3.2.1.5 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Given no action, the Magone project planning area would continue growing on its current 

trajectory. Forested stands would continue to be overstocked with high proportions of late seral 

species. Stand structure would shift from predominantly young forest structure to predominantly 

old forest structure, and almost triple the amount of late and old seral stage forest (old forest 

single stratum and old forest multi strata) from approximately 28 percent to 64 percent of OFMS, 

and from 4 percent to 15 percent of OFSS in 40 years. SI does not change over time (Table 27).

Table 27. No action alternative structure change over time

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 4% 5% 15%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 28% 40% 64%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 40-60% 17% 22% 4%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 21% 13% 8%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-25% 23% 15% 8%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% 6% 4% 1%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-10% <1% <1% <1%

Warm Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Given no action the species composition in pure ponderosa pine stands 

would continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine over time, with an increase in abundance of 

western juniper in the hotter, drier stands. Late seral species in the mixed conifer stands would 

continue to increase in abundance. The proportion of area below or within the management zone 

would decrease and in 40 years would only be approximately 4 percent of the area within the 

Warm Dry PAG (description of how management zones are calculated is described above in the 

Existing Condition section) (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no 

action) in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.
Magone Project

144 of 632

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 28 displays 

how the no action alternative within the Warm Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over 

time, old forest multi strata would continue to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to 

approximately two thirds of the area within the Warm Dry PAG. There is a trend that after 40 

years the Warm Dry PAG would be on the lower end of HRV in most young forest structure 

(YFMS and SEOC) and deficient in SI, decreasing to the lower limit of YFMS and just attaining 

the lower limit of OFSS. The Warm Dry PAG encompasses approximately 14,200 acres of the 

project planning area.

Table 28. Warm Dry plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 15-55% 3% 3% 15%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 5-20% 30% 43% 66%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 5-25% 21% 26% 5%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 2-20% 12% 7% 3%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 1-10% 26% 16% 10%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 1-10% 7% 5% 1%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% 8% 0% 0%

Hot Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – The Hot Dry PAG makes up approximately 3,600 acres in the Magone 

project planning area. The proportion of area below or within the management zone would 

decrease and in 40 years would only be approximately 22 percent of the area within the Hot Dry 

PAG (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Hot Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no action) 

in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Currently, OFSS is 

below HRV. While it is projected to increase, the model does not show old forest single stratum 

increasing to within HRV in 40 years. The model shows young forest and stand initiation would

decrease over time. Stem exclusion open canopy stands move toward HRV, but are still well 

above the historical level (Table 29).

Table 29. Hot Dry plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 20-70% 2% 8% 6%
Final Environmental Impact Statement

145 of 632

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 2-15% 22% 27% 59%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 2-20% 21% 20% 1%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 5-20% 51% 42% 34%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 0-5% 0% 0% 0%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 0-5% 2% 1% <1%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% 2% 2% 0%

Cool Moist Plant Association Group

Management Zone – The Cool Moist PAG makes up about 2,100 acres of the Magone planning 

area. The proportion of Cool Moist PAG that is within or below the management zone decreases 

from 6 to 1 percent of the PAG by 2025 (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Cool Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no 

action) in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Currently, old forest 

single stratum is double the upper range of HRV. Over time, the model has old forest single 

stratum moving in and out of HRV. Old forest multi strata, however exceeds the historical level, 

and keeps increasing over time. The younger strata decrease over time, with young forest multi 

strata and understory reinitiation moving below HRV (Table 30).

Table 30. Cool Moist plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 10% 1% 7%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 48% 61% 84%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 40-60% 3% 18% 0%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 12% 5% 3%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-25% 24% 13% 5%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% 1% 1% 0

Stand initiation (SI) 1-10% 1% 1% 1%

Cold Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – The Cold Dry PAG makes up about 1,000 acres of the project planning 

area and currently is 98 percent above the management zone. That percentage increases over the 

next 40 years, with a small amount remaining within the management zone (Figure 12).
Magone Project

146 of 632

Figure 12. Cold Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no 

action) in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – The structures 

represented in the Cold Dry PAG represents only approximately 4 percent of the total Magone 

planning area, at around 1,000 acres. The overall trend of old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) 

is to increase above HRV, while at the same time, most of the other strata are moving into, or are

closer to the historical levels (Table 31).

Table 31. Cold Dry plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 10-40% 13% 22 55

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 0-5% 1% 9 18

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 10-40% 3% 3 10

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 34% 17 1

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 36% 23 6

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% 13% 21 4

Stand initiation (SI) 1-20% 0.1% 0 6

Warm Moist Plant Association Group

Management Zone – The Warm Moist PAG makes up about 2,200 acres of the Magone project 

planning area. The Warm Moist PAG starts with 10 percent of the 2,200 acres within or below the 

management zone. This area decreases over time until there is only approximately 4 percent 

within or below the management zone (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Warm Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 1 (no 

action) in 2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

147 of 632

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – The Warm Moist 

plant association groups make up about 2,200 acres of the project planning area, or about 8 

percent. While currently the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) are within HRV, the FVS 

modeling shows those strata increasing to double and triple HRV, and younger forest strata going 

below the historical levels (Table 32).

Table 32. Warm Moist plant association group HRV analysis for the no action alternative

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 2% 5% 17%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 25% 45% 64%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 20-50% 4% 7% 1%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 36% 15% 3%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 31% 26% 14%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-20% 2% 2% 1%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-15% 0.5% 0 0%

Effects within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

Without entering the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), many acres of overstocked 

forest would be left unmanaged. Previous fire suppression and other activities have led to 

encroachment of species that would have been regularly thinned naturally with fire suppression. 

Both in and out of the IRA, this has led to stocking levels and species different to what would 

have occurred historically.

Sixty (60) percent of the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) within the project planning area 

is within the Nipple Butte IRA. In the Hot Dry and Warm Dry plant association groups (PAGs), 

which cover 66 percent of the project planning area, if no actions are taken, those PAGs would 

double their current range, increasing overstocking in old forest types, which might lead to these 

areas having a greater chance of uncharacteristic wildfire or insect infestation. Younger structural 

stages would decrease over time in the Warm Dry and Hot Dry PAGs, decreasing to below HRV.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” of the IRA would follow the trends described above, 

with OFSS moving in and out of HRV, OFMS exceeding HRV and increasing over time, and the 

younger strata decreasing over time (with YFMS and UR moving below HRV).

Summary of Effects

The existing condition in 2015 has 88 percent of the area above the preferred management zone. 

With no action, stocking levels will increase to the point that in 2055, 99 percent of the forested 

areas in the project planning area would be above the preferred management zone.

Currently, the project planning area is within or above HRV for old forest structure (OFSS and 

OFMS) for all of the PAGs analyzed above except for Warm Dry OFSS and Hot Dry OFSS. The 

Magone project planning area is below HRV in the younger forest structures, and that range is 

predicted to depart further from HRV over time.

The species composition would continue to diverge from historically early seral species such as 

ponderosa pine, and late seral species such as grand fir would continue to compete with those 

early seral species. There would be no activities to increase existing aspen stand vigor. The aspen 
Magone Project

148 of 632

would continue to have conifers encroaching and large herbivore browsing, inhibiting the ability 

of aspen to expand.

In the no action alternative, there would be no wood products or forest restoration activities to 

provide jobs in the local communities.

Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects from taking no action, the only cumulative effects 

would occur as part of the 18 Road Project, and possibly part of the Camp Lick Project, and will 

be analyzed as part of the NEPA process for those projects. The effects from past practices, which 

include timber harvesting, fire suppression, grazing, wildfire, and planting, have created 

predominantly young, overstocked stands of late seral species that currently persist across the 

project planning area. Taking no action to reduce density or shift species composition through 

either mechanical methods or prescribed burning in this project keeps the area on its current 

trajectory and increases the risk or large-scale, stand-replacement fire and epidemic insect 

outbreaks.

3.2.1.6 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures

The vegetation and prescribed fire design criteria will be included in the silviculture prescription. 

This prescription will include a discussion of the general tree selection guidelines, a detailed 

discussion of each mechanical treatment method, and their respective selection guidelines, and a 

detailed discussion of the prescribed burning with mortality guidelines. There would be some 

thinning around the Magone Lake recreation area that would require borax treatments on both 

pine and fir stumps to mitigate the infestation risk of Annosus spores (Schmitt 2001). Outside of 

the Magone Lake recreation area, there would be approximately 410 acres of borax treatment. 

Areas of plantations would be thinned and piled, and piles burned, before any additional 

prescribed fire is introduced into those stands. Treatments in the old forest multi strata would 

move it toward old forest single stratum.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 proposes to mechanically treat approximately 11,872 acres of upland forest, as well 

as prescribed burn up to 28,500 acres. Mechanical treatments include commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning, post and pole removal, conifer reduction in aspen stands, and biomass 

removal.

Approximately 54 miles of new trails are proposed for this alternative. The proposed trails would 

not affect the forest vegetation in the area. The trails would go around existing trees, and would 

affect a negligible number of acres out of the whole Magone project planning area. The activities 

in and around the lake would have little impact on the existing conditions, as they would replace 

or improve existing features. Trailhead development and interpretive signs would be put in place 

after any harvest, thinning or burning activities, so would have little or no impact on proposed 

activities.

Impacts from Magone Lake restoration activities (fish sticks and cribs) would have little impact 

on proposed harvest activities. Some of the material removed from locations near Magone Lake 

would be used for the fish sticks and cribs, removing some of the downed fuel left from the 

harvest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

149 of 632

Impacts from road activities would be minimal in the harvest areas. Mostly existing road beds 

would be used as haul routes to avoid major impacts to the vegetation and soils in the area.

Given these treatments, stand structure would shift with the proportion of young forest structure 

decreasing and the proportion of old forest structure increasing over 40 years. Comparing old 

forest structure after 40 years to the no action alternative achieves something closer to the 

historical range of variability (HRV).

 

Figure 14. Examples of post-activity landscape

Warm Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 2 proposes to mechanically treat 22 percent of the Warm Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. Given these actions, the species composition in all 

stands treated would continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine with a component of western 

larch and Douglas-fir. Grand fir in the mixed conifer would predominantly be removed during 

mechanical treatments, and most natural grand fir regeneration would be killed with prescribed 

fire. Collectively, these treatments would reduce the proportion of the Warm Dry PAG that is 

above the management zone, bringing it down to approximately 60 percent in 2025 (Figure 15), 

compared to over 90 percent in 2025 in alternative 1 (no action). The proportion of area within 

the management zone would increase from 11 percent up to about 16 percent (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 33 shows how 

alternative 2 within the Warm Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to just over one third of the area, and OFSS 

would increase to be well within HRV. There is a trend that after 40 years, the Warm Dry PAG 
Magone Project

150 of 632

would be deficient in young forest structure (SI and YFMS). However, alternative 2 increases the 

proportion of OFSS over time.

Table 33. Warm Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 2

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 15-55% 3% 13% 31%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 5-20% 30% 28% 43%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 5-25% 21% 3% 1%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 2-20% 12% 22% 14%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 1-10% 26% 26% 8%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 1-10% 7% 5% 1%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% 1% 3% 2%

Hot Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 2 proposes to mechanically treat 49 percent of the Hot Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. Given these actions, the species composition in all 

stands treated would continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine with a component of western 

larch and Douglas-fir. Collectively, these treatments would reduce the proportion of the Hot Dry 

PAG that is above the management zone, bringing it down to less than 50 percent in 2025 (Figure 

16), compared to over 80 percent in 2025 in alternative 1 (no action).

Figure 16. Hot Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 34 shows how 

alternative 2 within the Hot Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to just over one third of the area, and OFSS 

would increase to be well within HRV. There is a trend that after 40 years, the Hot Dry PAG 

would be deficient in young forest structure (YFMS); in contrast SI would increase to be above 

HRV. However, alternative 2 increases the proportion of OFSS over time, and moves it into HRV 

in 40 years.

Table 34. Hot Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 2

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 20-70% 2% 14% 23%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 2-15% 22% 17% 32%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 2-20% 21% 2% <1%
Final Environmental Impact Statement

151 of 632

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 5-20% 51% 41% 22%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 0-5% 0% 0% 0%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 0-5% 2% 1% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% 2% 25% 23%

Cool Moist Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 2 proposes to mechanically treat 31 percent of the Cool Moist 

PAG in the Magone project planning area, which is less than 10 percent of the total Magone 

project planning area, and prescribe burn approximately 70 percent of the Cool Moist PAG. 

Given these actions, the species composition in all stands treated would continue to be 

predominantly early seral over time. Since only a small portion of the Cool Moist PAG area 

would be mechanically treated, the untreated areas would remain predominantly late seral 

species. The treatments would change the area from being over 95 percent above the management 

zone in the no action alternative in 2025, to only 57 percent above the management zone under 

alternative 2 in 2025 (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Cool Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 35 shows how 

alternative 2 within the Cool Moist PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS 

would continue to be above HRV, although it does decrease to a small degree over 40 years. 

OFSS would increase to be well above the HRV. There is a trend that after 40 years, the Cool 

Moist PAG would be deficient in young forest structure (SI and YFMS).

Table 35. Cool Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 2

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 10% 19% 45%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 48% 43% 47%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 40-60% 3% 1% 1%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 13% 20% 5%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-25% 24% 13% 0%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% 0.5% 0% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-10% 1% 4% 2%
Magone Project

152 of 632

Cold Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 2 proposes to mechanically treat 53 percent of the Cold Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. The Cold Dry PAG makes up only about 1,000 acres of 

the total Magone project planning area, so only about 1 percent of the Magone project planning 

area is included in the Cold Dry PAG. Currently, more than 60 percent of the Cold Dry PAG is 

stocked higher than the management zone. With the proposed treatments, the species composition 

in these stands would continue to be predominantly lodgepole pine due to the prolific nature of 

the species. However, other species that exist in these stands, including western larch and 

ponderosa pine, would be left to grow and provide for natural regeneration. In the mixed conifer 

stands late seral species would predominantly be removed during mechanical treatments and 

some natural regeneration would be killed with prescribed burning. The activities proposed would 

decrease the proportion of the Cold Dry PAG that is above the management zone to 

approximately 46 percent in 2025 (Figure 18), compared to over 90 percent above the 

management zone in 2025 under alternative 1 (no action).

Figure 18. Cold Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 36 shows how 

alternative 2 within the Cold Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be within HRV, increasing in abundance, and OFSS would increase to be well above 

HRV. There is a tendency that after 40 years, the Cold Dry PAG would be deficient in young 

forest structure (SI and YFMS). However, alternative 2 increases the proportion of OFSS over 

time.

Table 36. Cold Dry plant association group historical range of variability analysis for alternative 2

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 10-40% 13% 22% 64%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 0-5% 1% 1% 5%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 10-40% 3% 0% 3%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 34% 59% 4%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 36% 10% 1%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% 13% 0% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-20% <1% 8% 12%

Warm Moist Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 2 proposes to mechanically treat 35 percent of the Warm Moist 

PAG in the Magone project planning area, and prescribe burn approximately 85 percent of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

153 of 632

Warm Moist PAG. Given these actions, the species composition in all stands treated would 

continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine over time. Prescribed burning would likely 

stimulate shrub recruitment in this PAG as well. Under the no action alternative, over 90 percent 

of the stands would be above the management zone in 2025. Alternative 2 decreases the 

percentage of acres above the management zone to about 64 percent in 2025 (Figure 19).

Figure 19. Warm Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 2 in 

2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 37 shows how 

alternative 2 within the Warm Moist PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS 

would rise to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to just over one third of the area, and OFSS 

would increase to slightly above HRV. There is a tendency that after 40 years, the Warm Moist 

PAG would be deficient in YFMS, and SI would increase slightly, but stay on the lower end of 

HRV.

Table 37. Warm Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 2

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 2% 17% 35%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 25% 29% 36%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 20-50% 4% 3% 0%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 36% 27% 21%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 31% 21% 3%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-20% 2% 0% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-15% <1% 3% 5%

Effects within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

As described above, the majority of the Nipple Butte IRA is composed of the Warm Dry and Hot 

Dry PAGs, within which the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) would increase over time to 

be within (in the case of OFSS) or above HRV (in the case of OFMS). Young forest structure in 

the Warm Dry PAG would be below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055 and in the Hot Dry PAG 

SI would increase to be well above HRV in 2055.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” of the IRA would follow the trends described above, 

with old forest structure increasing and remaining well above HRV, and young forest structure 

decreasing to be below or on the lower end of HRV.
Magone Project

154 of 632

Summary of Effects

The activities planned under alternative 2 would bring a portion of the project planning area to 

within or below the management zone. When compared to the no action alternative of 99 percent 

being above the management zone in 2055, alternative 2 would bring more of the acreage within 

or below the management zone, leaving only 63 percent above the management zone.

Currently, overall, the project planning area is within HRV for old forest structure (OFSS and 

OFMS) for all of the PAGs analyzed above. OFSS and OFMS would increase to be within or 

above HRV in 2055 in all PAGs. Young forest structure would mostly be below or on the lower 

end of HRV in 2055, except for in the Hot Dry and Cold Dry PAGs where SI would increase to be 

well within or above HRV in 2055.

Alternative 2 would begin restoration of historical early seral species composition in the areas 

that are treated. Conifer removal in aspen stands would decrease competition and increase vigor 

within those areas. Thinning of conifers, including juniper where it has encroached, would restore 

those areas to a more historical composition of vegetation. 

Alternative 2 would provide 14 MMBF to the local community in forest products, and would 

provide jobs associated with the harvest and manufacture of those forest products, as well as jobs 

accomplishing the restoration activities planned.

Cumulative Effects

The effects from past practices, which include timber harvesting, fire suppression, grazing, 

wildfire, and planting, have created predominantly young, overstocked stands of late seral species 

that currently persist across the project planning area. 

Implementing the mechanical methods and prescribed burning of alternative 2 would reduce 

density and shift species composition of the treated stands in predominantly the mid and old 

forest stands in all of the PAGs. Stands that are not treated would continue on the current 

trajectory as defined in the no action alternative.

The Plantation Maintenance and County Road 18 projects are current actions that would reduce 

stand density and shift species composition of the young, stand initiation stands on approximately 

100 acres within the Magone project planning area. Aquatic Restoration Decision activities would 

shift species composition in some areas, and provide material for streambed improvements in 

other areas. Cumulatively, alternative 2 activities, plantation maintenance, Aquatic Restoration 

Decision activities, and the County Road 18 Project would be widespread enough to reduce the 

risk of large-scale, stand replacement fire and epidemic insect outbreak in all forest structural 

stages in all PAGs across the project planning area, but would need further treatments in the 

future to keep progressing toward HRV.

The actions within the Magone project planning area, recent County Road 18 Project activities 

that are in various stages of completion and within adjacent subwatersheds, Aquatic Restoration 

Decision activities, and the potential actions in the Camp Lick Project would cumulatively have 

an effect on portions of the Grub Creek and East Fork Beech Creek drainages. These actions 

combined would decrease stand density, shift species composition to a larger proportion of early 

seral species, and move stand structure towards HRV to decrease stocking and fuels levels, which 

would help reduce the risk of large-scale, stand replacement fire, and epidemic insect outbreaks in 

the Grub Creek and East Fork Beech Creek subwatersheds. Alternative 2 includes mechanically 

treating approximately 11,872 acres. The Camp Lick project planning area is approximately 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

155 of 632

40,000 acres. Recent projects on the Blue Mountain Ranger District have mechanically thinned 

approximately 25 percent of the project planning area, which would be approximately 10,000 

acres for the Camp Lick project. Some riparian improvement activities will be completed under 

the Aquatic Restoration Decision. Together, these projects would mechanically thin 

approximately 35 percent of the cumulative effects analysis area over an approximately 15 year 

time period.

3.2.1.7 Alternative 3

Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures

The vegetation and prescribed fire design criteria will be included in the silviculture prescription. 

This prescription will include a discussion of the general tree selection guidelines, a detailed 

discussion of each mechanical treatment method, and their respective selection guidelines, and a 

detailed discussion of the prescribed burning with mortality guidelines. There would be some 

thinning around the Magone Lake recreation area that would require borax treatments on both 

pine and fir stumps to mitigate the risk of infestation by Annosus spores (Schmitt 2001). Outside 

the Magone Lake recreation area, there would be approximately 1,070 acres of borax treatment. 

Areas of plantations would be thinned and piled, and piles burned, before any additional 

prescribed fire is introduced into those stands. Treatments in the OFMS would move it toward 

OFSS.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 proposes to mechanically treat approximately 14,147 acres of upland forest, as well 

as prescribe burn up to 28,500 acres. Mechanical treatments include commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning, post and pole removal, conifer reduction in aspen stands, and biomass 

removal. 

Approximately 96.3 miles of new trails are proposed under this alternative. The proposed trails 

would not affect the forest vegetation in the area. The trails would go around existing trees and 

would affect a negligible number of acres out of the whole Magone project planning area. The 

activities in and around the lake would have little impact on the existing conditions, as they 

would replace or improve existing features. Trailhead development and interpretive signs would 

be put in place after any harvest, thinning or burning activities, so would have little or no impact 

on proposed activities.

Impacts from Magone Lake restoration activities (fish sticks and cribs) would have little impact 

on proposed harvest activities. Some of the material removed from locations near Magone Lake 

would be used for the fish sticks and cribs, removing some of the downed fuel left from the 

harvest.

Impacts from road activities would be minimal in the harvest areas. Mostly existing road beds 

would be used as haul routes to avoid major impacts to the vegetation and soils in the area.

Given these treatments, stand structure would shift with the proportion of young forest structure 

decreasing and the proportion of old forest structure increasing over 40 years. When comparing 

old forest structure after 40 years to the no action alternative, alternative 3 creates less than the no 

action alternative, but achieves something closer to the historical range of variability, including a 

5 percent increase in stand initiation. There is a decrease over time of young forest with a 

multistory component.
Magone Project

156 of 632

Warm Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 3 proposes to mechanically treat 45 percent of the Warm Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. Given these actions, the species composition in all 

stands treated would continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine with a component of western 

larch and Douglas-fir. Grand fir in the mixed conifer would predominantly be removed during 

mechanical treatments, and most natural grand fir regeneration would be killed with prescribed 

fire. Collectively, these treatments would reduce the proportion of the Warm Dry PAG that is 

above the management zone, bringing it down to approximately 50 percent in 2025 (Figure 20), 

compared to over 90 percent in 2025 under alternative 1 (no action). The level within the 

management zone increases from about 14 percent to 18 percent in 2025 (Figure 20).

Figure 20. Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 38 shows how 

alternative 3 within the Warm Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to just over one third of the area, and OFSS 

would increase to be well within HRV. There is a trend that shows after 40 years, the Warm Dry 

PAG would be deficient in young forest structure (SI and YFMS). However, alternative 3 

increases the proportion of OFSS over time.

Table 38. Warm Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 15-55% 3% 26% 37%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 5-20% 30% 25% 34%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 5-25% 21% 2% 1%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 2-20% 12% 29% 17%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 1-10% 26% 21% 8%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 1-10% 7% 3% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% <1% 4% 3%

Hot Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 3 proposes to mechanically treat 53 percent of the Hot Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. Given these actions, the species composition in all 

stands treated would continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine with a component of western 

larch and Douglas-fir. Grand fir in the mixed conifer would predominantly be removed during 

mechanical treatments, and most natural grand fir regeneration would be killed with prescribed 

fire. Collectively, these treatments would reduce the proportion of the Hot Dry PAG that is above 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

157 of 632

the management zone, bringing it down to less than 40 percent in 2025 (Figure 21), compared to 

over 70 percent in 2025 under alternative 1 (no action).

Figure 21. Hot Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 39 shows how 

alternative 3 within the Hot Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to almost one third of the area, and OFSS 

would increase to be well within HRV. There is a trend that after 40 years, the Hot Dry PAG 

would be deficient in YFMS structure. However, alternative 3 increases the proportion of OFSS 

over time and moves it into HRV in 40 years, increases SI structure, and decreases SEOC to be 

closer to HRV.

Table 39. Hot Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 20-70% 2% 15% 27%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 2-15% 22% 15% 28%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 2-20% 21% 1% 0%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 5-20% 51% 43% 23%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 0-5% 0% 0% 0%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 0-5% 2% 1% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% 2% 25% 22%

Cool Moist Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 3 proposes to mechanically treat 36 percent of the Cool Moist 

PAG in the Magone project planning area (the Cool Moist PAG represents less than 10 percent of 

the total Magone project planning area) and prescribe burn approximately 70 percent of the Cool 

Moist PAG. Given these actions, the species composition in all stands treated would continue to 

be predominantly early seral over time. Since only a small portion of the Cool Moist PAG is 

being mechanically treated, the untreated areas would remain predominantly late seral species. 

The treatments would change the area from being over 95 percent above the management zone 

under the no action alternative in 2025, to only 43 percent above management zone under 

alternative 3 in 2025 (Figure 22).
Magone Project

158 of 632

Figure 22. Cool Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 40 shows how 

alternative 3 within the Cool Moist PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS 

would continue to be above HRV, although it does decrease to a small degree over 40 years. 

OFSS would increase to be well above HRV. There is a trend that after 40 years, the Cool Moist 

PAG would be deficient in young forest structure (SI and YFMS).

Table 40. Cool Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 10% 29% 56%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 48% 32% 34%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 40-60% 3% 1% 0%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 13% 4% 8%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-25% 24% 10% 0%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% <1% 0% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-10% 1% 7% 2%

Cold Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 3 proposes to mechanically treat 69 percent of the Cold Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. The Cold Dry PAG makes up only about 1,000 acres of 

the total Magone project planning area, so only about 1 percent of the Magone project planning 

area is included in the Cold Dry PAG. Currently, the Cold Dry PAG is about 60 percent 

overstocked. Given these actions, the species composition in these stands would continue to be 

predominantly lodgepole pine due to the prolific nature of the species. However, other species 

that exist in these stands, including western larch and ponderosa pine, would be left to grow and 

provide for natural regeneration. In the mixed conifer stands, late seral species would 

predominantly be removed during mechanical treatments and some natural regeneration would be 

killed with prescribed burning. The activities proposed would decrease the proportion of the Cold 

Dry PAG that is above the management zone to approximately 39 percent in 2025 (Figure 23), 

compared to over 90 percent above the management zone in 2025 under alternative 1 (no action).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

159 of 632

Figure 23. Cold Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 41 shows how 

alternative 3 within the Cold Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be within HRV, increasing in abundance, and OFSS would increase to be well above 

HRV. There is a tendency that after 40 years, the Cold Dry PAG would be deficient in YFMS. SI 

would increase and stay within HRV. Alternative 3 shows an increase in the proportion of OFSS 

over time.

Table 41. Cold Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 10-40% 13% 22% 57%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 0-5% 1% 2% 5%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 10-40% 3% 0% 4%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 34% 58% 14%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 3% 10% 1%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% 13% 0% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-20% <1% 8% 19%

Warm Moist Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 3 proposes to mechanically treat 45 percent of the Warm Moist 

PAG in the Magone project planning area, and prescribe burn approximately 85 percent of the 

Warm Moist PAG. Given these actions, the species composition in all stands treated would 

continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine over time. Prescribed burning would likely 

stimulate shrub recruitment in these PAGs as well. Under the no action alternative, over 90 

percent of the stands would be above the management zone in 2025; alternative 3 lowers that to 

about 55 percent in 2025 (Figure 24).
Magone Project

160 of 632

Figure 24. Warm Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 3 in 

2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 42 shows how 

alternative 3within the Warm Moist PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS stays 

static, and OFSS would increase to above HRV. There is a tendency that after 40 years, the Warm 

Moist PAG would be deficient in YFMS, and SI would increase slightly, but stay on the lower 

end of HRV. Alternative 3 increases the proportion of OFSS over time.

Table 42. Warm Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 3

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 2% 21% 40%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 25% 25% 24%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 20-50% 3% 3% 0%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 36% 32% 27%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 31% 15% 4%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-20% 2% 0% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-15% <1% 4% 5%

Effects within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

As described above, the majority of the Nipple Butte IRA is composed of the Warm Dry and Hot 

Dry PAGs, within which the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) would increase over time to 

be within (in the case of OFSS) or above HRV (in the case of OFMS). OFSS would increase more 

under alternative 3 and OFMS would increase less, in comparison to alternative 2. Young forest 

structure in the Warm Dry PAG would be below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055 and in the 

Hot Dry PAG SI would increase to be well above HRV in 2055, similar to what would be seen 

under alternative 2.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” of the IRA would follow the trends described above, 

with old forest structure increasing and remaining well above HRV, with more OFSS and less 

OFMS than would be seen under alternative 2. Young forest structure would decrease to be below 

or on the lower end of HRV, similar to what would be seen under alternative 2.

Summary of Effects

The activities planned under alternative 3 would bring a portion of the project planning area to 

within or below the management zone. When compared to the no action alternative of 99 percent 

being above the management zone in 2055, alternative 3 would bring more of the acreage to 

within or below that management zone, with only 54 percent above the management zone.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

161 of 632

Currently, overall, the project planning area is within HRV for old forest structure (OFSS and 

OFMS) for all of the PAGs analyzed above. Within the Warm Dry, Hot Dry, Cool Moist, and 

Warm Moist PAGs, old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) would increase to be within or above 

HRV in 2055, increasing more in OFSS and less in OFMS than under alternative 2. In the Cold 

Dry PAG, old forest structure would increase to be within or above HRV in 2055, increasing less 

in OFSS and the same amount in OFMS compared to alternative 2. Young forest structure would 

mostly be below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055, except for in the Hot Dry and Cold Dry 

PAGs where SI would increase to be well within or above HRV in 2055 (similar to what would be 

seen under alternative 2.

Alternative 3 would begin restoration of historical early seral species composition in the areas 

that are treated. Conifer removal in aspen stands would decrease competition and increase vigor 

within those areas. Thinning of conifers, including juniper where it has encroached, would restore 

those areas to a more historical composition of vegetation.

Alternative 3 would provide 16 MMBF to the local community in forest products and would 

provide jobs associated with harvest and manufacture of those forest products, as well as jobs 

accomplishing the restoration activities planned.

Cumulative Effects

The effects from past practices, which include timber harvesting, fire suppression, grazing, 

wildfire, and planting, have created predominantly young, overstocked stands of late seral species 

that persist across the project planning area. Implementing the mechanical methods and 

prescribed burning of alternative 3 would reduce density and shift species composition of the 

treated stands in predominantly the mid and old forest stands in all of the PAGs. Stands that are 

not treated would continue on the current trajectory as defined in the no action alternative.

The Plantation Maintenance and County Road 18 projects are current actions that would reduce 

stand density and shift species composition of the young, stand initiation stands on approximately 

100 acres within the Magone project planning area. Aquatic Restoration Decision activities would 

shift species composition in some areas, and provide material for streambed improvements in 

other areas. Cumulatively, alternative 3 activities, plantation maintenance, Aquatic Restoration 

Decision activities, and the County Road 18 Project would be widespread enough to reduce the 

risk of large-scale, stand replacement fire and epidemic insect outbreak in all forest structural 

stages in all PAGs across the project planning area, but would need further treatments in the 

future to keep progressing toward HRV.

The actions within the Magone project planning area, recent County Road 18 project activities 

that are in various stages of completion and within adjacent subwatersheds, and the potential 

actions in the Camp Lick Project would cumulatively have an effect on portions of the Grub 

Creek and East Fork Beech Creek subwatersheds. These actions combined would decrease stand 

density, shift species composition to a larger proportion of early seral species, and move stand 

structure towards HRV to decrease the risk of large-scale, stand-replacement fire and epidemic 

insect outbreaks in the Grub Creek and East Fork Beech Creek. Alternative 3 includes 

mechanically treating approximately 14,147 acres. The Camp Lick project planning area is 

approximately 40,000 acres. Recent projects on the Blue Mountain Ranger District have 

mechanically thinned approximately 25 percent of the project planning area, which would be 

approximately 10,000 acres for Camp Lick. Some riparian improvement activities will be 

completed under the Aquatic Restoration Decision. Together, these projects will mechanically 
Magone Project

162 of 632

thin approximately 38 percent of the cumulative effects analysis area over an approximate 15-

year time period.

3.2.1.8 Alternative 4

Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures

The vegetation and prescribed fire design criteria will be included in the silviculture prescription. 

This prescription will include a discussion of the general tree selection guidelines, a detailed 

discussion of each mechanical treatment method, and their respective selection guidelines, and a 

detailed discussion of the prescribed burning with mortality guidelines. There would be some 

thinning around the Magone Lake recreation area that would require borax treatments on both 

pine and fir stumps to mitigate the infestation of Annosus spores (Schmitt 2001). As there would 

be some areas retaining fir as a component of the diverse species outside the Magone Lake 

recreation area, there would be approximately 110 acres of borax treatment. 

Areas of plantations would be thinned and piled, and piles burned, before any additional 

prescribed fire is introduced into those stands. Treatments in the OFMS would move it toward 

OFSS.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 proposes to mechanically treat approximately 5,505 acres of upland forest, as well 

as prescribed burn up to 17,200 acres. Mechanical treatments include commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning, post and pole removal, conifer reduction in aspen stands, and biomass 

removal.

Approximately 15.4 miles of new trails are proposed under this alternative. The proposed trails do 

not affect the forest vegetation in the area. The trails would go around existing trees and would 

affect a negligible number of acres out of the whole Magone project planning area. The activities 

in and around the lake would have little impact on the existing conditions, as they would replace 

or improve existing features. Trailhead development would be put in place after any harvest, 

thinning or burning activities, and would have little or no impact on proposed activities.

Impacts from Magone Lake restoration activities (fish sticks and cribs) would have little impact 

on proposed harvest activities. Some of the material removed from locations near Magone Lake 

would be used for the fish sticks and cribs, removing some of the downed fuel left from the 

harvest.

Impacts from road activities would be minimal in the harvest areas. Mostly existing road beds 

would be used as haul routes to avoid major impacts to the vegetation and soils in the area.

Given these treatments, stand structure would shift; with the proportion of young forest structure 

decreasing and the proportion of old forest structure increasing over 40 years. When comparing 

old forest structure after 40 years to the no action alternative, alternative 4 creates less old forest 

structure than the no action alternative, but does move closer to the historical range of variability. 

Both alternatives have little stand reinitiation after 40 years.

Warm Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 4 proposes to mechanically treat 22 percent of the Warm Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. Given these actions, the species composition in all 

stands treated would continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine with a component of western 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

163 of 632

larch and Douglas-fir. Grand fir in the mixed conifer would predominantly be removed during 

mechanical treatments and most natural grand fir regeneration would be killed with prescribed 

fire. Collectively, these treatments would reduce the proportion of the Warm Dry PAG that is 

above the management zone, bringing it down to approximately 75 percent in 2025 (Figure 25), 

compared to over 90 percent in 2025 under alternative 1 (no action). The area within the 

management zone increases from 11 percent to 12 percent (Figure 25). The model shows 

Alternative 4 having the area within or below the management zone decrease by 2055, leaving 81

percent of the total area above the preferred management zone. This is approximately 15 percent 

less than the 96 percent forecast at 2055 under the no action alternative in the Warm Dry PAG.

Figure 25. Warm Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 43 shows how 

alternative 4 within the Warm Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to a little over one third of the area, and 

OFSS would increase to be well within HRV. There is a trend that after 40 years, the Warm Dry 

PAG would be deficient in young forest structure (SI and YFMS). Alternative 4 increases the 

proportion of OFSS over time.

Table 43. Warm Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 15-55% 3% 9% 23%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 5-20% 30% 35% 55%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 5-25% 21% 16% 3%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 2-20% 12% 17% 8%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 1-10% 26% 18% 9%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 1-10% 7% 4% 1%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% 1% 1% 1%

Hot Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 4 proposes to mechanically treat 15 percent of the Hot Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. Given these actions, the species composition in all 

stands treated would continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine with a component of western 

larch and Douglas-fir. Grand fir in the mixed conifer would predominantly be removed during 

mechanical treatments and most natural grand fir regeneration would be killed with prescribed 

fire. These activites would increase the proportion of the Hot Dry PAG that is above the preferred 

management zone to approximately 74 percent by 2055 (Figure 26). This total would be 
Magone Project

164 of 632

approximately 4 percent lower than the no action alternative of 78 percent above the management 

zone in 2055.

Figure 26. Hot Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 44 shows how 

alternative 4 within the Hot Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to a little over half of the area, and OFSS 

would increase to be closer to HRV. There is a trend that after 40 years, the Hot Dry PAG would 

be deficient in young forest structure (SI and YFMS). Alternative 4 increases the proportion of 

old forest over time, and moves OFSS toward HRV in 40 years.

Table 44. Hot Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 20-70% 2% 11% 14%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 2-15% 22% 23% 52%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 2-20% 21% 16% 1%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 5-20% 51% 44% 31%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 0-5% 0% 0% 0%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 0-5% 2% 1% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 5-15% 2% 5% 2%

Cool Moist Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 4 proposes to mechanically treat 31 percent of the Cool Moist 

PAG in the Magone project planning area (which is less than 10 percent of the total Magone 

project planning area) and prescribe burn approximately 70 percent of the Cool Moist PAG. 

Given these actions, the species composition in all stands treated would continue to be 

predominantly early seral over time. Since only a small portion of the Cool Moist PAG is being 

mechanically treated, the untreated areas would remain predominantly late seral species. The 

treatments of alternative 4 would change the area that is above the preferred management zone 

from 99 percent in 2055 under the no action alternative, to only 87 percent above the perfered 

management zone in 2055 (Figure 27).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

165 of 632

Figure 27. Cool Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 45 shows how 

alternative 4 within the Cool Moist PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS 

would continue to be above HRV. OFSS would increase to be well above HRV. There is a trend 

that after 40 years, the Cool Moist PAG would be deficient in YFMS and UR. SI would be within 

HRV, but stay on the lower side of the range.

Table 45. Cool Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 10% 6% 15%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 48% 56% 75%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 40-60% 3% 14% 0%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 13% 10% 4%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-25% 24% 11% 4%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% <1% 1% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-10% 1% 2% 2%

Cold Dry Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 4 proposes to mechanically treat 41 percent of the Cold Dry 

PAG in the Magone project planning area. The Cold Dry PAG makes up only about 1,000 acres of 

the total Magone project planning area, so only about 1 percent of the Magone project planning 

area is included in the Cold Dry PAG. Currently, the Cold Dry PAG has over 66 percent in a 

stocking level above the preferred management zone. Given these actions, the species 

composition in these stands would continue to be predominantly lodgepole pine due to the 

prolific nature of the species. Other species that exist in these stands, including western larch and 

ponderosa pine, would be left to grow and provide for natural regeneration. In the mixed conifer 

stands, late seral species would predominantly be removed during mechanical treatments and 

some natural regeneration would be killed with prescribed burning. The activities proposed would 

decrease the proportion of the Cold Dry PAG that is above the management zone to 

approximately 68 percent in 2025 (Figure 28). This compares to over 95 percent above the 

management zone in 2025 under the no action alternative. The area within the management zone 

would increase from 7 to 12 percent in 2025; however, with no additional activities, the area 

begins to revert and by 2055 the portion that is above preferred management zone increases to 74 

percent and the portion within the management zone is at 8 percent (Figure 28).
Magone Project

166 of 632

Figure 28. Cold Dry plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 2015, 

2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 46 shows how 

alternative 4 within the Cold Dry PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS would 

continue to be within HRV, increasing in abundance, and OFSS would increase to be well above 

HRV. There is a tendency that after 40 years, the Cold Dry PAG would be deficient in YFMS. SI 

would increase slightly over time, staying within HRV. Alternative 4 increases the proportion of 

old forest over time.

Table 46. Cold Dry plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 10-40% 13% 2% 62%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 0-5% 1% 1% 5%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 10-40% 3% 5% 4%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 33% 41% 14%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 36% 12% 3%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-25% 13% 12% 5%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-20% <1% 7% 7%

Warm Moist Plant Association Group

Management Zone – Alternative 4 proposes to mechanically treat 21 percent of the Warm Moist 

PAG in the Magone project planning area, and prescribe burn approximately 85 percent of the 

Warm Moist PAG. Given these actions, the species composition in all stands treated would 

continue to be predominantly ponderosa pine over time. Prescribed burning would likely 

stimulate shrub recruitment in these PAGs as well. Under the no action alternative, over 90 

percent of the stands would be above the management zone in 2025; alternative 4 lowers that to 

about 80 percent above the management zone in 2025, and increases the area within the 

management zone from 3 percent in 2055 under the no action alternative, to 7 percent in 2055 

(Figure 29).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

167 of 632

Figure 29. Warm Moist plant association group (PAG) stand density index under alternative 4 in 

2015, 2025, and 2055. MZ = management zone.

Plant Association Group Structure and Historical Range of Variability – Table 47 shows how 

alternative 4 within the Warm Moist PAG compares to HRV through time. Over time, OFMS 

would rise to be above HRV, increasing in abundance to just over half of the area, and OFSS 

would increase above HRV to around 25 percent. There is a tendency that after 40 years, the 

Warm Moist PAG would be deficient in YFMS and SI. However, alternative 4 increases the 

proportion of old forest structure over time.

Table 47. Warm Moist plant association group HRV analysis for alternative 4

Structure Historical range 

of variability

Existing 

condition

2025 2055

Old forest single stratum (OFSS) 0-5% 2% 9% 25%

Old forest multi strata (OFMS) 10-30% 25% 38% 52%

Young forest multi strata (YFMS) 20-50% 3.5% 6% 0%

Stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) 0-5% 36% 23% 12%

Stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) 5-20% 31% 22% 11%

Understory reinitiation (UR) 5-20% 2% 0% 0%

Stand initiation (SI) 1-15% 0.5% 2% 0%

Effects within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

As described above, the majority of the Nipple Butte IRA is composed of the Warm Dry and Hot 

Dry PAGs, within which the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) would increase over time to 

be within (in the case of OFSS) or above HRV (in the case of OFMS). OFSS would increase more 

under alternative 4 and OFMS would increase less, in comparison to alternative 2. Young forest 

structure in the Warm Dry PAG would be below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055, similar to 

what would be seen under alternative 2; young forest structure in the Hot Dry PAG would also be 

below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055, in contrast to the increase in SI to well above HRV 

that would be seen under alternative 2.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” of the IRA would follow the trends described above, 

with old forest structure increasing and remaining well above HRV, with significantly less OFSS 

and OFMS than would be seen under alternative 2. Young forest structure would decrease to be 

below or on the lower end of HRV, similar to what would be seen under alternative 2.

Summary of Effects

The activities planned under alternative 4 would bring a portion of the project planning area to 

within or below the management zone. When compared to the no action alternative of 86 percent 
Magone Project

168 of 632

being above the management zone in 2015, alternative 4 would bring more of the acreage within 

or below the management zone (with only 69 percent above the management zone). In 2055, 

alternative 4 would be about 78 percent, while the no action alternative would increase the 

acreage that is over the management zone to 90 percent. While alternative 4 does bring more of 

the forested lands to within the management zone, it still leaves over two thirds of the forest in an 

overstocked condition, and greater than three quarters of the forested land would be overstocked 

in 2055. With predicted climate changes, this may lead to uncharacteristic forest conditions.

Alternative 4 brings the structure in 2055 somewhat closer to the historical range of variability 

(HRV). Stand initiation and understory reinitiation remain below HRV. SEOC is 1 percent closer 

to HRV than the no action alternative. YFMS remains well under HRV, while OFMS is closer to 

HRV (54 percent in alternative 4 when compared to 64 percent in the no action alternative) at the 

end of 40 years. HRV for OFMS over the entire project planning area is between 10 to 30 percent. 

Old forest single stratum diverges further from HRV at 23 percent than does the no action 

alternative at 15 percent (HRV for OFSS is zero to 5 percent)

Alternative 4 would begin restoration of historical early seral species composition in the areas 

that are treated. Conifer removal in aspen stands would decrease competition and increase vigor 

within those areas. Thinning of conifers, including juniper where it has encroached, would restore 

those areas to a more historical composition of vegetation. 

Alternative 4 would provide 9 MMBF to the local community in forest products and provide jobs 

associated with harvest and manufacture of those forest products, as well as jobs in the restoration 

activities planned. 

Cumulative Effects

The effects from past practices, which include timber harvesting, fire suppression, grazing, 

wildfire, and tree planting have created predominantly young, overstocked stands of late seral 

species that currently persist across the project planning area. Implementing the mechanical 

methods and prescribed burning of alternative 4 would reduce density and shift species 

composition of the treated stands in predominantly the mid and old forest stands in all of the 

PAGs. Stands that are not treated would continue on the current trajectory as defined under the no 

action alternative.

The Plantation Maintenance and County Road 18 projects are current actions that would reduce 

stand density and shift species composition of the young, stand initiation stands on approximately 

100 acres within the Magone project planning area. Aquatic Restoration Decision activities would 

shift species composition in some areas, and provide material for streambed improvements in 

other areas. Cumulatively, alternative 4 activities, plantation maintenance, Aquatic Restoration 

Decision activities, and the County Road 18 Project would be widespread enough to reduce the 

risk of large-scale, stand replacement fire and epidemic insect outbreak in all forest structural 

stages in all PAGs across the project planning area, but would need further treatments in the 

future to keep progressing toward HRV.

The actions within the Magone project planning area, recent County Road 18 project activities 

that are in various stages of completion and within directly adjacent subwatersheds, and the 

potential actions in the Camp Lick Project would cumulatively have an effect on portions of the 

Grub Creek and East Fork Beech Creek subwatersheds. These actions combined would decrease 

stand density, shift species composition to a larger proportion of early seral species, and move 

stand structure towards HRV to decrease the risk of large-scale, stand replacement fire and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

169 of 632

epidemic insect outbreaks in the Grub Creek and East Fork Beech Creek. Alternative 4 for the 

Magone Project includes mechanically treating approximately 5,505 acres. The Camp Lick 

project planning area is approximately 40,000 acres. Recent projects on the Blue Mountain 

Ranger District have mechanically thinned approximately 25 percent of the project planning area, 

which include approximately 10,000 acres for Camp Lick. Some riparian improvement activities 

will be completed under the Aquatics Restoration Decision. Together, these projects will 

mechanically thin approximately 12 percent of the cumulative effects analysis area over an 

approximate 15-year time period.

3.2.1.9 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

Malheur Forest Plan

Alternative 1 does not propose any management actions, but allows the project planning area to 

continue growing at its current trajectory. This alternative does not meet Forest Goals 24-26 to 

provide a sustained flow of timber, provide and utilize wood fiber in a cost-effective manner, and 

provide an economic return to the public. Malheur Forest Plan standards for timber harvest, 

reforestation, and stand improvement (89-115) and the Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan 

Amendment 2 do not apply to this alternative because no management actions would be 

proposed.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, post and pole 

removal, conifer reduction in aspen stands, and biomass removal. These alternatives meet Forest 

Goals 24-26 within current management direction. These alternatives also meet Forest Plan 

standards 89, 94, 96, 98, and 101-115. Forest Plan standards 90-93 do not apply because they are 

for even-aged harvest cutting and standards 95 and 99-100 do not apply because they are for 

traditional uneven-aged harvest cutting. Traditional even-aged and uneven-aged harvesting is not 

proposed in alternatives 2, 3, or 4. Forest Plan standard 97, which establishes the utilization 

standards for all species at 7.0 inches DBH, would not be met because utilization standards for 

ponderosa pine has been increased to 8.0 inches DBH to better reflect market conditions.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 also meet Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 

(Eastside Screens). Old forest structural stages would not be decreased, since no live trees that 

exhibit old tree characteristics would be harvested (except for incidental trees cut for road and 

landing construction and for safety). There would be no net loss of late and old structure (LOS) 

with the action alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 meet the objective to protect existing old 

forest structure and to shorten the time to grow additional old forest structural stages, since 

thinning overstocked stands would increase growth rates and sustainability against loss to insects, 

disease, and fire.

National Forest Management Act

No harvest is proposed in Malheur Forest Plan management areas that are classified as 

“unsuitable.”

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

There are no anticipated long-term significance factors from alternatives 2, 3, or 4 since forest 

vegetation is renewable as long as the soil productivity is maintained. There may be short-term 

losses of growth related to soil compaction from new landings, temporary roads, and skid trails. 

Compaction is to be kept below 20 percent of the forested area and growth reduction on 
Magone Project

170 of 632

compacted ground is about 15 percent. This would result in a total maximum growth loss of 

approximately 3 percent per year of the growth potential until the compaction gradually 

diminished (in about 50 years). These areas are to be rehabilitated after use, but there would be a 

lag in reforestation and growth since the sites are impacted more heavily than the surrounding 

forestland.

3.2.2 Economics

Although individuals and communities over a wide geographic area use national forest resources, 

the residents and businesses of counties near the forest depend most heavily on the availability of 

the resources. Consequently, the effects of forest management on social and economic factors are 

strongest within these areas. For this reason, the Malheur National Forest primary zone of 

influence for economic impact is defined as Grant and Harney counties in Oregon.

The Malheur Forest Plan includes forest-wide management goals to:

 Provide a sustained flow of timber for lumber, fiber, and/or associated wood products at a 

level that will contribute to economic stability, while providing for regional and national 

forest management.

 Contribute to the social and economic health of communities, which are significantly 

affected by national forest management.

 Provide an economic return to the public.

 Provide and utilize wood fiber in the form of sawtimber, fiber, and/or associated wood 

products, while minimizing losses and maximizing outputs in a cost-effective manner, 

consistent with the various resource objectives and environmental standards.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the Federal 

Government. Minimum specific management requirements to accomplish goals and objectives 

for the National Forest System are identified in 36 CFR 219.27.

 Section B Vegetative Manipulation: (1) Multiple-use; (3) Not chosen for greatest dollar 

return; (7) Practical transportation, harvest requirements, and preparation and 

administration.

 Forest Service policy sets a minimum level of financial analysis for project planning 

(FSH 1909.17).

 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires integrated use of the natural and 

social sciences in all planning and decision-making that affects the human environment. 

The human environment includes the natural and physical environment, and the 

relationship of people to the environment (40 CFR 1508.14).

 Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1502.23) addresses noncommodity values, stating “For the purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of 

the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary 

cost-benefit analysis, and should not be, when there are qualitative considerations.”

 36 CFR 219.3 – National Forest System Land and Management Planning.

 Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) on Environmental Justice directs federal 

agencies to identify and address agency programs that may have a disproportionately 

high and adverse environmental effect on minority populations, low-income populations, 

or Indian tribes. The order directs federal agencies to focus attention on the human health 

and environment effects to ethnic minorities (American Indians, Hispanics, African 

Americans, and Asian and Pacific-Islander Americans), disabled people, and low-income 

groups.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

171 of 632

3.2.2.1 Existing Condition

Viability of Harvest

The viability of harvest is dependent upon market prices for raw wood fiber and the costs of 

harvest that are identified in the methodology section below. Market prices are determined by the 

supply and demand relationships that exist for wood fiber on a global scale. The local sawmill 

that could bid on sawtimber from this project is located in John Day. In addition to the local 

sawmill, three to four large logging contractors usually bid on local timber sales, and if 

successful, could sell the sawtimber to the local sawmill. Mills outside Grant and Harney counties 

that may benefit from the timber on this project include La Grande and Pilot Rock. This could 

have an impact on the economies of these communities as well.

Currently, the Malheur National Forest is in the fourth year of the 10-year stewardship contract. 

The stewardship contract was designed to help keep jobs and forest products in our local 

economy. Approximately 80 percent of the Malheur National Forest’s fiscal year harvest volume 

target is to be included in the stewardship contract, and the remaining 20 percent is to be included 

in regular timber sale contracts. This ensures that forest products and the associated jobs will not 

only be available to local economy, but will also be available to potential outside bidders or mills 

that may be interested. The Magone Project could be included in a stewardship contract or regular 

timber sale contract.

Employment and Income

Job estimates are based on the assumption of a direct relationship between changes in harvest 

volumes and manufactured output. In other words, a percentage change in harvest volume would 

result in a corresponding change in manufactured output and employment. Job estimates included 

temporary, permanent full time, and part-time employment. Employment effects from recreation 

and domestic-livestock grazing activities were not analyzed because only minor or no changes 

were expected in the level of use for these activities. The estimates provided by this analysis also 

did not include unpaid family workers or sole proprietors. Estimates apply to communities and 

counties in the regional economic impact zone and not necessarily to any one county.

Levels of harvest volume by alternative would affect employment and income in several ways:

 Directly – employment associated with harvesting, logging, mills, and processing plants 

for sawtimber, pulp, chips, veneer and plywood

 Indirectly – industries that supply materials, equipment, and services to these businesses

 Induced – personal spending by the business owners, employees, and related industries

Several factors would influence the ability of any one county or community to experience the 

largest extent of the harvest-related employment and income effects. The financial viability of the 

timber sale proposals would influence whether potential purchasers closest to the project planning 

area could compete with other purchasers to acquire the majority of the supply. Changes to bid 

rates would likely occur during appraisal, depending on actual market conditions at that time. 

Employment projections would depend on other factors such as market conditions, quality and 

quantity of the volume offered for sale, timing of the offerings, and financial conditions of local 

firms.

Agriculture, manufacturing (particularly wood products), and food processing are important 

sources of employment and income in this region. Reliance on timber and forage from federal 

lands is moderate to high in several counties in the zone of influence (Haynes and Horne 1997). 
Magone Project

172 of 632

Many communities in the economic impact zone are closely tied to the forest in both work 

activities and recreation. Cattle production and forest products provide the core employment for 

Grant and Harney counties. The forest products industry includes two major lumber mills and 

several logging companies. Forest products employment totaled approximately 347 direct jobs 

(i.e., mill workers and loggers) and 62 indirect jobs, approximately 8 percent of the total nonfarm employment in Grant and Harney counties (average annual in 2013). Local government, 

retail trade, and services employ the most people in Grant and Harney counties (Oregon 

Employment Department 2015).

The area surrounding the project planning area is rural and has a disproportionately high 

unemployment rate compared with the Oregon state average and the National average. Currently 

(as of August 2016), Grant County is at 7.9 percent unemployment compared to the Oregon state 

average of 5.4 percent and the National average of 4.9 percent (Oregon Employment Department 

2016).

Environmental Justice

The population Grant County is predominately white (95.5 percent), followed by American 

Indian and Alaska Native (0.6 percent). The region is sparsely populated and contains low 

populations of other minority groups (3.9 percent of Grant County, 3.3 percent of Baker County, 

and 4.0 percent of Harney County) (United States Census Bureau 2014). The primary American 

Indian tribes represented are the Burns Paiute Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. With the exception of the Burns 

Paiute Tribe, other minority groups are scattered throughout the three counties.

Data regarding minorities or people with disabilities employed in the region’s timber, mining, 

ranching, road construction, forestry services, and recreation sectors is unavailable. Some federal 

contracts are reserved for award to minority businesses under the USDA Office of Small and 

Disadvantaged Business Utilization and the Small Business Administration.

Economic Efficiency

Economic efficiency is a term used to describe how inputs are used to achieve outputs when all 

inputs (activities) and all outputs (including market and non-market) are identified and valued. All 

costs and all benefits to society are included; amounts of each output are not pre-established but 

are produced in amounts that maximize net public benefits (FSH 1909.17, § 11.1).

Due to unavailable information, the non-wood outputs from this project could not be valued. 

Therefore, the economic efficiency of this project was measured by cost effectiveness, as 

recommended by FSH 1909.17. 

Cost effectiveness analyses attempt to determine the least costly alternative to produce the desired 

result. The objective of the cost effectiveness analysis was to show a relative measure of 

difference between alternatives. Where harvest viability was analyzed for only the commercial 

units, cost effectiveness was analyzed for all units together. The analysis focused on identifiable 

and quantifiable ecosystem benefits and costs for each alternative in terms of the present net 

value, to assess which alternative came nearest to achieving the purpose and need over the largest 

land area at the least cost. All dollar values were discounted in terms of the present net value 

(2015 dollars). The real (exclusive of inflation) discount rate used was 4 percent.

The measurement of economic efficiency differs from the measurement of harvest viability in that 

economic efficiency attempts to put values on the full range of inputs and outputs (both market 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

173 of 632

and non-market) associated with the project, while harvest viability is more like an accounting 

procedure that only considers the costs and revenues of the project as expressed in timber 

markets.

Volumes, costs, and revenues from the commercial units were analyzed for cost effectiveness. 

The derivation of the commercial unit data is described in the harvest viability section.

3.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences

Indicators for Assessing Effects

The measurement indicators detailed in Table 48, and described above, are used for assessing the 

economic effects of the Magone Project.

Table 48. Economics resource indicators and measures for assessing effects

Indicator Measure

Viability of harvest Commercial harvest acreage and volume estimates; and assumed costs of 

commercial sale

Employment and income Direct and indirect employment; and direct, indirect, and induced income

Economic efficiency Present net value

Methodology

The social and economic effects of the proposed management alternative were assessed in terms 

of viability of harvestable timber, employment supported, and income provided. The following 

sections describe each of these criteria in detail.

Although the Magone Project has both a commercial and non-commercial component, harvest 

viability is only relevant to the commercial component. Therefore, viability of harvest was only 

analyzed for those units that have a commercial component.

The computer program, TEA_ECON, was used to estimate the sale revenues based upon the 

estimated tentative advertised bid rates per hundred cubic feet ($/ccf) for the commercial acres of 

the action alternatives (alternatives 2, 3, and 4). These bid rates indicated the economic viability 

of harvesting timber. The estimates of these bid rates were based on the most current estimates of 

the following:

 Estimated volume per acre — estimated from local knowledge of stands. All volume is in 

hundreds of cubic feet (ccf). An average commercial unit volume was estimated at 6.0 ccf 

per acre.

 Species Composition — estimated at 70 percent ponderosa pine and 30 percent Douglasfir and other species for the sale as a whole.

 Estimated volumes of sawtimber are shown in Table 49.

TEA_ECON is an economic analysis tool that allows the user to perform timber sale accounting 

at the planning or sale layout level. The program uses price and cost data and the quarterly 

updated regional record of timber sale transactions to generate gross timber values, estimated 

advertised rates, and cash flow estimates.

In this project, cost effectiveness was measured in terms of present net value (PNV) per acre or: 

PNV/acre = present net costs/acre – present net revenues/acre.
Magone Project

174 of 632

Measurable costs and benefits on commercial units were based on costs and revenue from timber 

volume proposed for harvest and described under the assumptions for harvest viability.

Preliminary Value of Timber Removed: Based on a weighted average for all sales actually sold 

within Appraisal Zone 3 (primarily Blue Mountain forests) within the last 12 months.

Costs: Logging systems, log haul, road maintenance, contractual, brush disposal, erosion control, 

and other development. These costs are shown in Table 49 and are discounted to present net 

values at a rate of 4 percent.

An initial tentative advertised sawtimber bid rate ($/ccf) was determined by subtracting the costs 

associated with logging from the base period prices adjusted for the quality of the material and 

current market conditions. This rate was reduced by 10 percent per current appraisal methods.

The transaction evidence appraisal method accounts for competition between bidders. It is 

important to note that advertised bid rates have fluctuated over the last few years reflecting the 

volatility of the timber market. Prices would likely change in the future (e.g., when the actual sale 

appraisal occurs), depending on market conditions at that time. Therefore, these estimates should 

only be considered rough approximations of future conditions. As a result, calculated bid rates 

were rounded to the nearest dollar. Timber sale revenues were also discounted to present values at 

a rate of 4 percent.

Base Period Price: The volume-weighted average bid price of competitively sold timber sales in 

the previous 4 quarters. This value is updated quarterly.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Viability of Harvest – The no action alternative would not harvest timber, and therefore would 

not affect harvest viability.

Employment and Income – This alternative would not harvest timber and therefore, would not 

support direct, indirect, and induced employment, or increased income to local economies. Lack 

of timber supply available for the local mills to purchase would adversely affect employment in 

local communities in Grant and Harney counties (e.g., Burns, Long Creek, Canyon City, John 

Day, Mt Vernon, and Prairie City). Lack of timber supply available for purchase by regional mills 

from outside the economic impact area would potentially affect employment in surrounding 

counties (e.g., Baker, Ochoco, Union, and Umatilla).

Recent trends of increasing timber harvest from National Forest lands in the area would likely 

continue in the future and contribute to increases in wood products industry employment. 

Changes in the economic base and wood products infrastructure for the economic impact zone 

would continue to be influenced by fluctuations in market prices, international market conditions, 

changes in technology, and industry restructuring.

Economic Efficiency – With the no action alternative, the public would incur no costs, nor 

realize any benefits of timber harvest in this area. No action would yield a present net value of 

zero due to the data limitations (described in the Methodology section) for quantifying economic 

benefits and costs beyond those identified at the project level. This value ignores the increased 

risks to forest health, vigor, and fire resistance that would result without implementation of this 

project, and the resulting losses in timber values and non-market benefits. Data limitations do not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

175 of 632

allow for the quantification of this risk, however, this risk would negatively affect present net 

value. Ongoing costs associated with management of the area, including the continuation of 

economic losses in forest stand values from recurring forest health problems, would continue.

Cumulative Effects

Because of the competitiveness of the market, and its global nature, the no action alternative 

would not cumulatively affect prices, costs, or harvest viability of other present or future timber 

sales in the economic impact zone, unless there was no other timber offered on the Malheur 

National Forest

The selection of the no action alternative would not contribute to the recent increase in timberrelated employment in the rural communities of Grant and Harney counties, but may reduce 

employment in the short-term.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Viability of Harvest – The TEA_ECON program was run for harvest viability. The results of each 

program run, and the effects of all action alternatives on harvest viability, are shown in Table 49.

As shown in Table 49, alternative 2 would produce revenue, estimated at $473,188, alternative 3 

would produce revenue, estimated at $984,057, and alternative 4 would produce revenue, 

estimated at $429,601. The costs would be $765,188 for alternative 2, -$1,173,092 for alternative 

3 and -$582,954 for alternative 4. This would produce an estimated present net value of -

$292,092 for alternative 2, -$189,035 for alternative 3, and -$153,352 for alternative 4 for the 

commercial component. This indicates that alternative 2, 3, and 4 would produce a viable harvest 

with alternative 3 producing the most viable harvest and alternative 4 providing the least viable 

harvest. Alternative 3 would be most viable because it would treat the most acres, and alternative 

4 would be the least viable because it would treat the fewest acres.

Employment and Income – In general, the primary effect on timber harvest-related employment 

would occur from commercial harvesting associated with the action alternatives over the next two 

years. Financially viable sales would be necessary to provide opportunities for timber harvestrelated employment.

Non-commercial activities would also provide jobs through contracting; this is not estimated in 

the employment estimates in Table 49.

The distribution of economic impacts would depend on the location of the timber purchaser who 

was awarded the contracts at the time of the sale, the availability of equipment and skills in the 

economic impact zone, and the location and availability of wood processing facilities and related 

infrastructure. Processors outside of northeastern Oregon could potentially bid on the sales and 

distribute the jobs and income beyond the region.

As Table 49 shows, alternative 2 would generate $2,987,505, alternative 3 would generate 

$4,580,008, and alternative 4 would generate $2,275,992 in direct, indirect, and induced local 

income.

Based upon the commercial volume harvested, alternative 2 would support approximately 107 

jobs, alternative 3 would support approximately 164 jobs, and alternative 4 would support 

approximately 82 jobs (both direct and indirect) over the 2-year period and contribute 
Magone Project

176 of 632

approximately 26 percent for alternative 2, approximately 40 percent for alternative 3, and 

approximately 20 percent for alternative 4 toward the 2014 annual average of 410 jobs of timberrelated employment. Alternative 3 would contribute the most jobs and alternative 4 would 

contribute the least jobs. Alternative 3 would contribute the most jobs because more acres would 

be treated and Alternative 4 would contribute the least amount of jobs because fewer acres would 

be treated.

Economic Efficiency – Market benefits that could occur as a result of the proposed activities 

include increases in forest productivity and value for the remaining trees by eliminating 

competitive stress and reducing the risk of growth-limiting insect attack.

Externalized costs such as those resulting from damage to soils, losses in wildlife habitat, and 

mobilized sediment in local streams are not well defined or measurable at the project level in 

terms that provide comparison of assigned dollar values. Refer to discussion of environmental 

consequences in this environmental impact statement (EIS) for more detailed analysis of whether 

these external effects would occur. Other sections of this EIS also discuss the non-economic 

benefits to human and environmental resources for a relative comparison between alternatives.

Table 49 shows action alternative 2 would have a present net value of -$292,092, alternative 3 

would have a net value -$189,035, and alternative 4 would have a net value of -$153,352. 

Alternative 2 would have a net value per acre -$62, alternative 3 would have a net value per acre -

$26, and alternative 4 would have a net value per acre -$43. While the overall cost of 

implementing alternative 3 would be highest, the scale of treatment area of alternative 3 reduces 

the cost per acre, making alternative 3 the most efficient in terms of cost versus benefits.

This economic analysis assessed the action alternatives in terms of harvest viability, local 

employment and income, and economic efficiency as measured by cost effectiveness. Table 49

summarizes the results of the analysis.

Table 49. Comparison of economic effects between action alternatives

Measure Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Timber volume (ccf) 28,116 43,104 21,420

Ground based harvest 4,083 6,387 3,178

Skyline harvest 603 797 392

Total acres harvested 4,686 7,184 3,570

Average bid price ($/ccf) 18.20 24.69 21.69

Discounted revenues ($) 473,188 984,057 429,601

Discounted cost ($) 765,188 1,173,092 582,954

Present net value ($) -292,092 -189,035 -153,352

Present net value/acre ($) -62 -26 -43

FS prep and administration cost ($/ccf) 281,160 431,040 214,200

Stump to truck cost ($) 94.78 89.52 91.29

Log haul cost ($) 26.87 26.87 26.87

Brush disposal cost ($3/ccf) 84,348 129,312 64260

Road maintenance/Erosion control costs ($1/ccf) 28,116 43,104 21,420

Temporary roads cost (miles) 9.3 13.3 8.9

Direct jobs 67 103 51

Indirect jobs 40 62 31
Final Environmental Impact Statement

177 of 632

Measure Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Total jobs 107 164 82

Direct income ($) $1,866,746 $2,861,823 $1,422,156

Indirect and induced income ($) $1,120,759 $,1,718,185 $853,836

Total income ($) $2,987,505 $4,580,008 $2,275,992

*It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the total volume is green convertible biomass (ponderosa pine 7 to 10.9 

inches diameter at breast height).

Cumulative Effects

Viability of Harvest – Estimates for tentative advertised sawtimber bid rates for the action 

alternatives (alternatives 2, 3, and 4) are within the range of rates experienced by the three Blue 

Mountain forests (Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman) within the last 3 years. There are 

also residual effects from past timber sales within the subwatershed which would not have a 

detrimental effect on the viability of harvest of the action alternatives. These past actions are 

described in detail in Chapter 3 of this FEIS.

Employment and Income – The action alternatives would provide some potential short-term 

economic relief by utilizing commercially thinned sawlogs. This material would potentially be 

used to support the sawmill operating in John Day. The amount of local economic activity would 

be determined by whether the purchaser is local or distant; which mill(s), local or distant, get the 

lumber; and the price for the lumber. These cumulative economic effects could cause beneficial 

“quality of life” social effects, especially when combined with other ongoing Forest Service 

timber sales within Grant and Harney counties that are providing employment and income.

There are foreseeable projects in the two counties in various stages of planning that potentially 

may add to the Forest’s annual timber offerings for 2015 and beyond. For example, the Big 

Mosquito and Camp Lick projects on the Blue Mountain Ranger District, the Elk 16 and Summit 

projects on the Prairie City Ranger District, and the Wolf and Dove projects on the Emigrant 

Creek Ranger District. These ongoing and foreseeable projects are expected to add cumulatively 

to the employment and income of Grant and Harney counties during the life of the Magone 

Project.

Economic Efficiency – The economic efficiency of past, ongoing, or foreseeable future activities 

would not affect, or be affected by any effects that have not already been described.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

The action alternatives are consistent with the following Malheur Forest Plan objectives and 

standards:

 Provide a sustained flow of timber for lumber, fiber, and/or associated wood products at a 

level that will contribute to economic stability, while providing for regional and national 

needs (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Forest Goal 24, page IV-2).

 Provide and utilize wood fiber in the form of sawtimber, fiber, and/or associated wood 

products in a manner that will minimize losses and maximize outputs in a cost-effective 

manner, consistent with the various resource objectives and environmental standards 

(USDA Forest Service 1990a, Forest Goal 25, page IV-2).

 Provide an economic return to the public (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Forest Goal 26, 

page IV-2).

 Forest-wide Standard 103 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-38): Timber harvest is 

prohibited on lands classified as unsuitable for timber management except when 
Magone Project

178 of 632

necessary to accomplish multiple-use objectives other than timber production. All lands 

proposed for commercial timber harvest in the action alternatives are suitable for timber 

management.

The no action alternative would not meet the Malheur Forest Plan goals and standards described 

above because this alternative would not produce any timber or associated wood products or 

provide an economic return to the public.

3.3 Key Issue – Recreation Developments

3.3.1 Existing Condition

3.3.1.1 Recreational Opportunity Spectrum

The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) is a description of various attributes that contribute to 

a particular recreational setting. The ROS describes recreational settings in terms of the 

“combination of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place” 

(Clark and Stankey 1979). ROS categories are used as guidance for the management and future 

development of recreational facilities. Map 16 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum in FEIS 

Appendix B – Maps shows the ROS settings that apply to the Magone project planning area. 

They are described as:

 Roaded Natural: This is the setting for approximately 33 percent of the project planning 

area (8,956 acres). The “area is characterized by predominately natural-appearing 

environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. 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” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page VI-28). 

 Roaded Modified: This is the setting for approximately 25 percent of the project 

planning area (6,873 acres). This “area is characterized by a natural environment that has 

been substantially modified by development of structures and vegetative manipulation. 

Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is 

often moderate to high. Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate user 

densities are present away from developed sites. Facilities for intensified motorized use 

and parking are available” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page VI-28).

 Semi-Primitive Motorized: This is the largest ROS setting, making up approximately 42 

percent of the project planning area (11,187 acres). This “area is characterized by a 

predominately 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 onsite controls and restrictions may be present but 

would be subtle. Motorized recreation use of local primitive or collector roads with 

predominantly natural surfaces and trails suitable for motor bikes is permitted” (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a, page VI-28).

3.3.1.2 Special Features

The 11,354-acre Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) dominates the western half of the 

Magone project planning area; 10,017 acres (88 percent) of the IRA lies within the boundary of 

the project planning area. This IRA is a popular hunting destination. The southern portion of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

179 of 632

IRA is a designated wildlife emphasis area (WEA) that comprises nearly half of the IRA that lies 

within the project planning area.

The Magone project planning area also includes the 328-acre Magone Lake recreation area, of 

which Magone Lake is the centerpiece. The Magone Lake recreation area is the most significant 

recreation resource within the project planning area and the most popular developed recreation 

resource on the Blue Mountain Ranger District.

Magone Lake, which lies near the center of the project planning area at 5,000 feet elevation, was 

formed by a landslide in about 1840. Nestled at the base of the landslide, the lake has important 

historical and geological significance. The lake is named after Major Magone, who first stocked 

the lake with fish carried up in buckets. Magone Lake is now stocked with fish annually by the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The 185-acre Magone Geological Area lies at the southwest end of Magone Lake. The center 

point of this special interest area is the landslide that formed Magone Lake. This is an important 

recreational resource, as there is a trail that leads to a viewpoint of the slide.

For hunting, the Magone Project area lies within Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 

Northside Wildlife Management Unit.

3.3.1.3 Recreational Seasons of Use

Peak use periods are late May to early September and for hunting from August through 

November. Camping, fishing, driving for pleasure, and other dispersed activities such as 

woodcutting, will often continue beyond the typical seasons unless snow makes motorized access 

to the area impractical. During deer and elk hunting seasons, hunting and related camping 

becomes the dominant recreational activity in the project planning area. During the winter, ice 

fishing occurs on Magone Lake.

The Magone Lake recreation area is staffed by campground hosts from Memorial Day to Labor 

Day and most of the recreation area use occurs during this time period. Magone Lake 

Campground fees are collected throughout this same period, and are the largest source of 

recreation revenue to the Forest Service from recreation within the Magone project planning area. 

Fees are also collected for use of the group camping area and picnic shelter during peak periods.

3.3.1.4 Recreation Facilities and Activities

Recreation on the Malheur National Forest is focused where there is water or access to trails or 

dispersed recreation. The most popular recreation activities on the Forest are driving for pleasure, 

hunting, hiking and walking, viewing wildlife, relaxing, primitive camping, and viewing natural 

features (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Although these recreation activities occur throughout the 

Forest, the Magone Lake recreation area provides some of the premier summer recreation 

opportunities, including camping, hiking and walking, viewing wildlife and natural features, 

picnicking, relaxing, swimming, and fishing for rainbow and brook trout. The Magone Lake 

recreation area and surrounding land is classified as “Roaded Natural” on the recreation 

opportunity spectrum (see descriptions above). The Magone Lake recreation area consists of:

 Magone Lake Campground, a developed fee campground with 29 campsites, including 

one host site and a group camping area. 

 One sheltered picnic area with picnic tables, barbecue grills, and one oversized fire ring.

 A developed day-use beach area with picnic tables, barbecue grills, fire rings and 

changing rooms. 
Magone Project

180 of 632

 A boat launch area with an interpretative sign, large parking area, boat launching dock, 

and picnic tables. The boat launching dock angle is a problem for many boaters, as it rests 

at an angle from the concrete boat launching pad.

 One accessible fishing dock.

 One small boat mooring dock on the north end of the lake, across from the campground 

host site. This dock is in poor condition. Its location is inadequate, as users must paddle 

boats through thick lake vegetation before arriving in deeper waters.

 Seven CXT vault toilet buildings.

 A solar well-water system that provides potable water to the campground, group 

campground, picnic shelter, and beach.

Magone Lake recreation area capacity is measured in “people at one time” (PAOT). The 

campground has a capacity of 145 PAOT (average of five people per campsite), while the greater 

recreation area has a capacity of 346 PAOT (includes the campground plus a designated average 

of 3.5 people per day-use vehicle space). The Magone Lake recreation area is rarely filled to 

capacity. The campground occasionally fills up on weekends during July and August. Day use 

hits its peak on hot summer weekends. Only then does the total use approach the PAOT capacity 

of the recreation area.

Magone Lake recreation area receives 11,932 annual site visits (USDA Forest Service 2010b). 

The agency’s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) information does not include temporal 

distribution data. However, considering the fact that the bulk of use is between Memorial Day and 

Labor Day, we used professional judgement to determine that 90 percent of use (10,739 visits) 

occurs during an annual period of 100 days. That usage level would average to 107 visits per day.

PAOTs tend to be lower than daily visits since the daily visitors to an area may not necessarily all 

be there at the same time. 

With average PAOTs currently less than 107, and maximum capacity at 346 PAOTs, we can 

conclude that Magone Lake recreation area is well under capacity.

Magone Lake Campground receives 3,950 annual site visits (USDA Forest Service 2010b). As 

with the recreation area, the NVUM information did not include any temporal distribution data on 

the campground. However, using the same process as we did with the recreation area, we used 

professional judgement to determine that usage level would average to 36 visits per day. With a 

maximum capacity of 145 PAOTs, we can also see that Magone Lake Campground is normally 

well under capacity.

Although the Magone Lake recreation area provides the largest variety of recreation activities 

within the Magone project planning area, it does not provide the only recreation opportunities. 

The project planning area includes 61 dispersed recreation campsites, 7 miles of 

foot/horse/bicycle/off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails and many miles of primitive roads. The 

portion of the Nipple Butte trail that is not on a road is a general purpose trail that is open to all of 

the aforementioned modes of travel. It traverses the ridgeline on the north border of the Magone 

project planning area and lies partially within the project boundary. Dispersed camping occurs 

throughout the project planning area, but is most heavily concentrated in the eastern half. This is 

because the western half of the project planning area is dominated by the Nipple Butte 

inventoried roadless area. Dispersed camping with motor vehicles is most popular along or near 

Forest Service road (FSR) 18 and 36. One of the largest and most used dispersed camping areas is 

at “Four Corners,” located at the junction of FSR 18 and 36. Heavy use over the span of many 

years is evidenced by denuded vegetation and multiple rock fire rings in many dispersed camping 

areas. Motorized use for both highway legal and non-highway legal vehicles (OHVs) is allowed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

181 of 632

on all open roads within the project planning area except for the main roads 36, 3618 and 3620. 

The other main road through the project planning area, road 18, is a county administered road. 

Those who meet county requirements may legally ride their OHVs on this road.

Developed Trails

There are currently 7 miles of developed trail within the Magone project planning area. The 

following trails are within the Magone Lake recreation area:

 One class 5 (Fully Developed) Magone Lake barrier-free trail (0.3 miles) that lines the 

northwest side of the lake.

 One class 4 (Highly Developed) Magone Lake foot trail (1.1 miles) that completes the 

loop by circling around all but the northwest side of the lake.

 One class 3 (Developed) Magone Slide foot trail (0.5 miles), which leads to a viewpoint 

of the landslide that formed Magone Lake.

The Magone Lake trail is popular among Magone Lake campers and day users. It affords 

opportunities for leisurely walking, hiking, fishing, and getting away from the development. The 

Magone Slide trail offers a short activity for visitors to Magone Lake recreation area, but is not 

itself a destination hike. In fact, many visitors to Magone Lake are unaware the trail exists. While 

the Magone Lake trail is easily discovered upon the approach to the lake, the beginning of the 

Magone Slide trail is less obvious, due to its location.

Existing trails outside of the Magone Lake recreation area include:

 Behind Magone bicycle trail (2.2 miles) on a closed road.

 Lake Butte bicycle trail (3.9 miles total; 1.7 miles within the Magone project planning 

area) on closed and open roads.

 Nipple Butte general purpose/bicycle trail (11.4 miles total; 1.1 miles within the Magone 

project planning area) on open roads and general purpose trail.

The Behind Magone and Lake Butte trails are closed roads that were re-classified as trails. A 

portion of the Lake Butte trail is over open roads, including the arterial Forest Service road (FSR) 

18. A large portion of the Nipple Butte trail is also on open roads designated as trail. The portion 

of the Nipple Butte trail that is not on a road follows the Lake Butte and Nipple Butte ridge line 

and was cut straight up the slopes with no regard to contour. It follows a fence line, and in some 

cases, the trail is so close to the fence it is dangerous for bicycle riders. Most of the Nipple Butte 

trail within the Magone project planning area (1 mile) is trail not on a road, and is spread across 

six trail segments. A small portion of the Nipple Butte trail within the project planning area (0.1

miles) is on a road.

The Magone project planning area trail mileage that resulted from closed roads re-classified as 

bicycle trails were never designed for, nor improved, for bicycle use. The trails are blocked by 

gates that are used for closing roads. There is no indication on site that the trails exist, and for 

those who manage to find them, the trails appear uninviting and uninteresting. Recreating visitors 

to the Magone project planning area are faced with a lack of interesting bicycle trail options or 

destinations, inadequate distances, unsafe design, lack of challenge or loop opportunities, poor 

surface conditions and a complete absence of the obstacles, tight turns and frequent grade 

reversals that are normally associated with bicycle trails.
Magone Project

182 of 632

Access

The primary roads through the project planning area for accessing recreation opportunities are 

Forest Service road (FSR) 18, 36, 3618, and 3620. FSR 18 provides paved passenger car access to 

the Magone Lake recreation area from the southeast, and is the easiest route to the lake. FSR 18 

continues past the junction with FSR 3620 and provides a route to the town of Long Creek. FSR 

3620 is paved from its junction with FSR18 until it connects to 3618, which is paved all the way 

through to the southwest end of the Magone Lake recreation area. FSR 3618 continues south and 

intersects with FSR 36, which provides east-west access through the southern portion of the 

Magone project planning area. All of the developed facilities and trailheads within the project 

planning area are accessed via these four roads.

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

3.3.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The measurement indicators detailed in Table 50 and described above are used for assessing the 

recreation effects of the Magone Project.

Table 50. Recreation resource indicators and measures for assessing effects

Indicator Measure

Recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS)

Impacts to ROS classes

Recreation opportunities Changes to recreation opportunities in the Magone project planning area

Public access to recreation Safety along identified escape corridors from Magone Lake

Changes in miles of open road

3.3.2.2 Methodology

The Malheur National Forest uses recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes to develop 

management direction for recreation on the Forest. This analysis would use the ROS classes 

defined by the Malheur Forest Plan as the basis of this assessment.

Geographic information system (GIS) information was used to query and analyze data and create 

maps displaying location of dispersed campsites, trails, big game management units, fuelwood 

gathering, and analysis of Forest Plan ROS mapping and proposed treatments. In addition, field 

work and observed visitor activities from the recreation specialist are incorporated to confirm GIS 

analysis, and to provide perspective on local forest activities.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The spatial context for this analysis is the Magone project planning area. The effects to the 

recreation resources can be short-term and long-term. Short-term is usually less than 5 years, and 

long-term is 5 years to 50 years.

3.3.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects to Recreation Opportunities

The no action alternative would perpetuate existing conditions in the Magone project planning 

area. The Magone Lake recreation area would remain the centerpiece for recreation in the project 

planning area. Seasonal usage patterns and developed recreation would remain the same. Visitor 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

183 of 632

use would be expected to remain fairly level. The Magone Lake campground would remain 

below “people at one time” (PAOT) capacity during all but the busiest weekends in July and 

August. The Magone Lake day use areas would only approach PAOT capacity during hot summer 

weekends. Existing dispersed camping opportunities and hunting experiences would continue as 

they are today. Vegetation would continue to move away from historical conditions, and 

increasing understory vegetation and ground fuels would increasingly obstruct cross-country 

travel for recreationists. Activities related to silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning would 

not affect recreationists in the Magone project planning area.

Attractive mountain biking opportunities would continue to be nonexistent, as the trails on roads 

that currently exist were designed for vehicles, not bicycles. Bicyclists using the Nipple Butte or 

Lake Butte route would continue to encounter vehicle traffic as they follow the section along 

County Road 18. The Nipple Butte trail, which traverses straight up steep slopes along a fence 

line is more suitable for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) than bicycles, and would remain the only 

option for mountain bikers who want to experience more than a short trail ride on a closed road. 

OHV users, bicyclists and hikers on the Nipple Butte trail would continue to have their 

experiences affected by the presence or evidence of other user groups, as the trail would remain 

as a general purpose trail. The Nipple Butte trail would remain the only trail option for OHV 

users. Area hiking opportunities would remain limited to the trail around Magone Lake, the 

Magone Slide trail, the Behind Magone trail, and the Lake Butte trail. Hikers and mountain bikers 

using the Behind Magone trail would continue to encounter an uninviting start of the trail, with a 

gate designed for vehicle traffic and a complete absence of informational signage. Impacts such 

as soil compaction from user-created trails, sanitation issues, and vegetation removal would 

continue at current rates.

The fishing and boating opportunities at Magone Lake would not be improved. The boat 

launching dock would remain at an inconvenient angle from the boat launching ramp. The boat 

mooring dock on the north end of the lake would remain as-is, and boaters would continue to 

have to paddle through weeds to approach or leave the dock. Fish habitat and fishing 

opportunities would not be improved.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Public Access

The no action alternative would not directly affect the access roads to the Magone Lake recreation 

area. County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, 

FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as escape corridors from Magone Lake in the 

Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan, would not receive fuel reduction treatments. The 

continued buildup of fuel loads would have the indirect effect of decreasing safety in the Magone 

Lake recreation area by increasing the risk of uncharacteristic fire along these routes.

Recreational use of forest roads would not be immediately affected, as there would not be any 

changes to the existing road system. The area surrounding the Magone Lake recreation area 

would continue to be classified as Roaded Natural under the recreation opportunity spectrum.

Cumulative Effects

In choosing the no action alternative, the effects of decades of fire suppression would compound 

with the present day decision to not take restorative action on the landscape. Over the next 

decade, vegetation would continue to move away from historical conditions. The increasing 

understory vegetation and ground fuels would diminish the viewshed, obstruct cross-country 

travel for recreationists, and diminish ecological resilience. Because healthy forests are the 
Magone Project

184 of 632

backdrop to a multitude of outdoor recreation activities, ecological resilience of the forests is 

crucial in providing the desired array of recreation opportunities (Krieger 2001). Due to past 

forest management practices, there is now an urgent need to collaboratively engage in 

ecologically and environmentally responsible, socially acceptable, and economically feasible and 

sustainable forest restoration projects. The effects to recreational values because of the insect 

infestations are similar to that of fire. Study results indicate that less intense fires may have 

beneficial economic effects, whereas intense fires may have detrimental effects on recreation 

values (Vaux et al. 1984). By not taking action, legacy effects would be compounded, and the 

opportunity to mitigate the effects of severe fire could possibly be missed.

3.3.2.4 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects to Recreation Opportunities

Silviculture Treatments – Under alternative 2, 11,872 acres would be treated across 283 units. 

The direct effects to vegetation from the silvicultural treatments in the Magone project planning 

area are detailed in the Forest Vegetation section of this FEIS. Each prescription would open up 

the understory through biomass removal, which would facilitate cross-country hiking through the 

forest as well as enhance the viewing opportunities during such treks (see Visuals Report). 

Alterations to the forest structure would also effect the movement of wildlife. Recreationists 

would find increased opportunities for wildlife viewing due to a more open forest structure. 

Ground fuel and fuel ladder reductions would improve the safety of recreationists at developed 

and dispersed recreation sites during the summer season. Alternative 2 would have a direct effect 

on scenery and noise levels from activities such as cutting, skidding, and decking logs; piling and 

burning non-commercial woody material and logging slash; and operating heavy machinery 

within the vicinity of the Magone Lake recreation area, trails, and dispersed campsites. The 

silvicultural treatments under alternative 2 would effect users of the existing recreational facilities 

during and after the time that the activities take place. Visitors to the area, and specifically those 

hiking the trails, may be inconvenienced by the treatment activities when they occur. The Behind 

Magone trail, the southern portion of the Lake Butte trail, and the beginning segment of the 

Magone Slide trail could have a temporary reduction in recreational opportunities due to a 

significant amount of commercial and non-commercial thinning which could require temporary 

trail closures. The direct effects of the silvicultural treatment activities and associated noise, 

recreation area closures due to the activities, and the immediate evidence of ground disturbances, 

could detract from the recreation experience. The silvicultural treatments occuring adjacent to the 

lake could detract from the recreation experience of snowmobiling and ice fishing if the activity 

occurs over snow. However, the long term effects of a cleaner and more open forest floor and 

enhanced grass growth is expected to benefit the recreation experience. By two to three years 

after the primary mechanical activities occur, it is unlikely that the change in vegetation would be 

noticed by many forest visitors. Ground disturbance from the activities, including skid trails, 

would be much less evident after two to five years. Thus, the effects to vegetation and forest 

structure from the silvicultural treatments is expected to have a minimal impact on the number of 

visitors to the area.

Prescribed Burning – Through fuel reduction treatments, alternative 2 would reduce the fire risk 

to developed and dispersed recreation and the surrounding recreational setting. Although biomass 

removal and prescribed burning may have short-term negative impacts on the recreational 

experience, severe fire could devastate the viewshed and recreational opportunities, which would 

have a long-term impact on the corresponding recreational experiences. The activities under this 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

185 of 632

alternative would help to restore historical forest structure, composition, and density, and create 

more resistant and resilient vegetative conditions. Instead of deferring treatments, which would 

increase the risk of insect and disease infestations and high severity fire, alternative 2 would 

begin to address the need for restoration and enhance the recreational setting. Under alternative 2, 

planned ignitions would take place on up to 28,500 acres, which includes all of the burn units in 

the project planning area. Planned ignitions could occur during any season. The direct effect of 

these actions would be primarily on visuals (see Analysis Issue – Visuals); however, there would 

be indirect effects through vegetation enhancement, increased wildlife habitat and safety through 

fuels reduction. 

Prescribed burning may impact recreationists by creating smoke and restricting access to 

treatment areas. Prescribed burning has the potential to affect hunters who want to access the area 

where the prescribed burning is taking place. Hunting and camping opportunities and experiences 

could be negatively impacted by the presence of smoke. The smoke and activity in the area could 

also have an effect on the presence or absence of big game. The Magone Lake campground, day 

use areas, and the area immediately surrounding them are not included in the ignition units. 

However, smoke from the burning would have a short-term impact on recreationists in the 

Magone Lake recreation area when prescribed fire operations take place nearby (units 4 and 5). 

Recreationists may be impacted by the increased activity in the area, including an increase in 

traffic associated with the project, corresponding noise, and possible temporary road closures. 

Outside of the times when silvicultural and burning activities occur, alternative 2 would not 

directly affect access roads to Magone Lake recreation area. In the Grant County Community Fire 

Protection Plan, County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, 

FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620 are designated escape corridors from Magone Lake and 

would receive fuel reduction treatments and thus remain safer for use as emergency ingress/egress 

routes.

Road Activities – Recreational use of forest roads would be minimally affected by changes in 

road closure status, as the affected roads are no longer contributing to integrated land 

management objectives. Approximately 1.1 miles of road would be closed across 4 road segments 

and 0.3 miles of road would be decommissioned across 1 road segment. About 4 miles of road 

would be co-designated as trail; co-designating road as trail would not change the existing open 

road system. Recreational driving would benefit due to road maintenance that would be needed 

for silvicultural treatments and commercial harvest. Road maintenance for hauling would occur 

on 77.7 miles of road across 78 road segments. Additional road activities for silvicultural and 

harvest activities would be 9.3 miles of temporary road construction and 28.7 miles of closed 

road that would be temporarily opened for hauling. Those temporary actions would have minimal 

impact on recreation.

Magone Lake Restoration Activities – Under alternative 2, fish habitat improvements would 

serve to enhance fishing opportunities. Fish habitat would be improved through the placement of 

15–20 fish cribs, as well as the placement of 70–100 “fish sticks” (logs that lay into the lake with 

one end on land) in singles and clusters of 5–7 trees mostly 8 to12 inches diameter at breast 

height (DBH) throughout the lake. This could have the effect of distributing recreationists along 

the lake shore for fishing opportunities either between logs, or “fish sticks” to avoid the potential

of snagging their fishing line, or on the logs as they locate their favorite “log dock” to go out on 

to cast their line. Although these fish habitat developments are intended to enhance fishing 

opportunities, they could have the effect of slightly increasing fishing pressure. Under alternative 

2, visitor use of the Magone Lake recreation area as a whole would be expected to slightly 

increase due to the new developments described above. The campground and day use areas at 
Magone Project

186 of 632

Magone Lake would remain below “people at one time” (PAOT) capacity during all but the 

busiest of summer weekends. During hot summer weekends, the PAOTs for day use at the 

recreation area may approach capacity, as swimming and other water related activities increase; 

however, that is driven by high temperatures and would not be an effect of the developments. 

Seasonal usage patterns might increase due to the improvements in water related recreation 

developments.

Recreation Opportunity Improvements – Trail developments under alternative 2 would 

increase the hiking and bicycling opportunities in and around the Magone Lake recreation area. 

New family-oriented recreation opportunities would benefit nearby campers. Hikers and 

mountain bikers from the local communities as well as from outside of the area would also 

benefit from new recreation opportunities. The opportunities would be created through 48.8 miles 

of new trail, improvements to the Tinker Creek trailhead and the Nipple Butte trailhead and its 

access road, and a new trailhead at Four Corners. There would be 40.7 miles of new trail 

construction with all but 1.5 miles of it being hiking/bicycle trail. The remaining 1.5 miles, the 

North Magone Connector trail (0.1 miles) and the extension of the Magone Slide trail (1.4 miles), 

would be hiker only trail. A substantial portion (6.7 miles) of the resulting trail system would be 

trail co-designated on existing road. The new trail developments are compatible with the rustic 

character of the Magone Lake recreation area (see consistency with Malheur Forest Plan, below). 

Of the 40.7 miles of new trail construction proposed under alternative 2, only 0.2 miles would be 

built within the Magone Lake recreation area. The new trail construction within the recreation 

area would be located outside of sight and sound distance of the most heavily used areas. It would 

fall well below the roaded natural characteristics of moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of 

humans, and prevalent evidence of, and moderate to high interaction between, users. Disturbances 

to recreation experiences could occur during the construction period due to activity-generated 

noises. Outside of the Magone Lake recreation area, dispersed recreationists could encounter trail 

users in areas, where under existing conditions, none would occur. This could potentially detract 

from the recreationist’s experience of seclusion.

The new construction portions of the bicycle trails would be constructed to meet single-track 

mountain biking trail standards, as specified by the International Mountain Biking Association 

(IMBA). Bicycle trail construction, maintenance, funding, and organization of such activities

would be done primarily by a local Grant County bicycle group, through a formal agreement. The 

agreement would pertain to existing trails, as well as new ones. All the proposed trails would be 

designed as bicycle/hiker or hiker only. As such, motorized access would be prohibited. 

Engineering controls and education would be used foremost to prevent OHVs from accessing the 

trails. Signage would be placed at trailheads to indicate the allowed modes of travel on the trails. 

Trail design techniques such as routing trails between large trees, and using bicycle-width cattle 

guards at fence crossings would be used to discourage OHV use of the trails. Motorized access 

would continue to be allowed on the existing general purpose Nipple Butte trail. The trails would 

not be designed for equestrian use, but would not disallow it except for on the hiker only trails. 

Multiple use trail etiquette information would be provided at trailheads.

There would be new trail within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). Most of the 

IRA trail mileage would be along the McClellan trail (6.5 miles of new construction in the IRA), 

which would go from the Nipple Butte trailhead to the southeast portion of the IRA. The 

McClellan trail would create a loop opportunity for hikers/bikers on the Jugow trail, offering 

scenic hiking and biking opportunities, and offer a loop opportunity on the Round Top trail by 

providing southern access. Approximately 2.0 of the 6.5 miles would be located along the eastern 

edge of the wildlife emphasis area. The Wade trail, which connects to the McClellan trail and
Final Environmental Impact Statement

187 of 632

creates a smaller loop, is the other trail with substantial IRA mileage (2.5 miles in IRA). 

Additionally, 0.3 miles of the Magone Slide trail extension and 0.6 miles of the Jugow trail would 

be within the IRA would be (just inside the northern border), and 1.2 miles of the new 

construction portion of the Lake Butte trail would be in the “thumb” of the IRA.

The Low Slope trail and Behind Magone Loop trails would enhance recreational opportunities by 

creating shorter loop options for hikers and bikers. Due to the improvement and re-routes, 

bicyclists using the Nipple Butte or Lake Butte trails would no longer need to follow along 

County Road 18. This would eliminate the safety issue involved with bicycles encountering 

vehicle traffic. Connecting into the northern portion of the Lake Butte trail would be the Camp 

Lick Connector trail, which is a proposed short segment of trail with the purpose of tying the 

Magone trail system into the Eagle Rock trail, which is being proposed and would primarily be 

located in the Camp Lick project planning area. Accessibility to the Behind Magone trail would 

be enhanced by moving the start of the trail across from the Tinker Creek trailhead. Hikers and 

mountain bikers using the Behind Magone trail would be able to access it from the south end of 

the lake (near the outlet bridge) via the newly constructed trail segment, as well as from the 

Tinker Creek trailhead. The Magone Lake trail would be opened to bicycles (for a small segment 

of the trail), and hardened from the boat dock parking area to the new junction with the Behind 

Magone trail, to prevent an increase in sedimentation. Access to the Behind Magone trail from the 

Tinker Creek trailhead would involve only needing to cross FSR 3618, rather than traveling along 

it. Hikers would also gain access to the Behind Magone trail via the small North Magone 

Connector trail that connects to the Magone Lake trail at the north end of the lake. The Round 

Top trail (19.7 miles) starts at the southern-most point of the McClellan trail and goes to the 

southeast across East Fork Beech Creek. It then works its way east along the southern end of the 

Magone project planning area, crosses the northern flank of Round Top, then goes northeast to 

Four Corners. From Four Corners, it works its way back to the west, crossing FSR 3620 at Tinker 

Creek, then follows FSR 3620646 north and FSR 1800311 west to the Lake Butte trail where it 

ends. The Round Top trail would provide scenic hiking and biking routes with varied terrain 

between Four Corners and the Magone Lake recreation area.

The new trail developments under alternative 2 would provide increased recreational 

opportunities for campground visitors, and could potentially be extensive enough to attract single 

track mountain bikers from nearby metropolitan areas such as Bend or Boise that would like to 

experience mountain biking with more solitude (MBOSC 2007). The new construction of the 

single-track Jugow trail, the McClellan trail, the Wade trail, the Round Top trail, the new 

connecting portion of the Lake Butte trail, and the improvement and expansion of the Behind 

Magone trail would be the primary attractors of mountain bikers.

Access to trails would be more inviting, safe, and convenient due to trailhead improvements, 

better access roads, informational signage, and graveled parking areas. The Nipple Butte and 

Tinker Creek trailheads would be improved with graveled parking areas and informational 

signage. The improvement of the Tinker Creek trailhead would utilize the space of an existing 

dispersed campsite. The dispersed site, which would cease to exist, is the closest dispersed site to 

the Magone Lake recreation area. The newly-constructed Four Corners trailhead would be 

established at the start of the closed FSR 1800805. It would include a graveled parking area for 

four vehicles and informational signage. The Four Corners trailhead would provide access to the 

Magone trail system via the Round Top trail. It could also potentially be the start of the Four 

Corners trail, which is being proposed and would be primarily in the Camp Lick project planning 

area. Trail accessibility would be more convenient due to the relatively short distance to Four 
Magone Project

188 of 632

Corners from the local towns. This would provide increased opportunities for recreation when 

time is limited.

Under alternative 2, the Magone Lake recreation area would remain the centerpiece for recreation 

in the project planning area. The Magone Slide trail would be extended 1.4 miles around and over 

the top of the landslide, creating a scenic loop hiking opportunity. An interpretive sign on the east 

side of the lake would be placed where the landslide that formed the lake is in view and would 

interpret the geology and history of the slide. A sign with the same information about the 

landslide would be placed at the top of the slide alongside the extended Magone Slide trail.

About 0.2 miles of the existing Magone Lake trail would be fully developed to a class 5 (on the 

trail development scale) accessible trail from the campground to the north end of the lake. At the 

end of the trail improvement, a small area would be leveled and a picnic table would be placed. 

An interpretive sign describing the nearby beaver activity would also be located there. The trail 

improvement would not only improve accessibility to the north end of the lake, but would serve 

to fortify that segment of trail against any increased use that would occur. Since the stretch of 

Magone Lake trail that runs from the beach area to the campground is already fully developed, 

this improvement would be an extension of the accessible trail that currently exists. Thus, it 

would not affect the rustic character of the Magone Lake recreation area.

Recreation developments within the campground itself would remain as they currently exist. The 

boat launch dock would be modified and the boat mooring dock would be replaced, improving 

visitor boating opportunities. The boat launching dock would be modified for improved function, 

eliminating the inconvenient angle of the dock to the boat ramp. The boat mooring dock on the 

north end of the lake would be replaced and moved south so boaters would no longer need to 

paddle through weeds to approach or leave the dock.

The proposed actions are intended to enhance the visitor experience by improving and creating 

recreation opportunities that are compatible with the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) and 

consistent with the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur 

Forest Plan). Under alternative 2, the area surrounding the Magone Lake recreation area would 

continue to be classified as Roaded Natural under the ROS, as defined above under Existing 

Condition above. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Public Access

Alternative 2 would not directly affect the access roads to the Magone Lake recreation area. 

County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 

3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as escape corridors from Magone Lake in the Grant 

County Community Fire Protection Plan, would receive fuel reduction treatments under this 

alternative. The reduction in fuels along these routes would have the indirect effect of increasing 

safety in the Magone Lake recreation area by decreasing the risk of uncharacteristic fire along 

these routes.

Recreational use of forest roads would be minimally affected with 1.1 miles of road being closed 

and 0.3 miles of road being decommissioned. Recreational driving would indirectly benefit due to 

road maintenance that would be needed for silvicultural treatments and commercial harvest.

Cumulative Effects

Sights and sounds created by future silviculture, commercial harvest, and prescribed burning 

activities, combined with the sights and sounds created by the Magone Project implementation, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

189 of 632

would not have a cumulative effect on recreation. However, the resulting open forest structure 

resulting from those activities would. The resulting open forest structure from similar treatments, 

harvests and burns in future adjacent projects, combined with the Magone project would provide 

increased opportunities for viewing wildlife and other natural features, and create safer recreation 

opportunities by creating larger sections of open forest, which could enhance hiking, driving for 

pleasure, and other recreation opportunities. The road maintenance that would occur under 

alternative 2, combined with future adjacent projects could also enhance driving for pleasure 

opportunities by contributing to a larger and more attractive road network. The effects are 

cumulative because more extensive recreation attractions are more conducive to recreation 

opportunities than those that are smaller and more isolated (Stensland 2013).

The Magone Lake restoration activities proposed under alternative 2 could have a cumulative 

effect on recreational fishing. An improvement of fishing habitat could increase resiliency of fish 

populations, while simultaneously improving fishing opportunities. Improved fishing 

opportunities could in turn, result in increased visits to the Magone Lake recreation area.

Consistency with the Malheur Forest Plan

The trail development proposals under alternative 2 meet the objectives of the Malheur Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a). As described below, the trail development proposals fall 

below the ROS threshold defined in the Recreation Resource Element Standard for each of the 

management areas that the proposed developments would cross. Most of the proposed trails are 

within General Forest (Management Area 1 (MA1)) or Visual Corridors (MA14).

 MA1 Standard 1 is to “Manage dispersed recreation for roaded modified conditions.”

 MA14 Standard 1 is to “Manage for roaded natural recreation.”

The other management areas that have proposed trail developments in them are Wildlife 

Emphasis Area (with Non-Scheduled Timber Harvest) (MA21), Big-Game Winter Range 

Maintenance (MA4A), and Old Growth (MA13).

 MA21 Standard 1 is to “Manage for semiprimitive motorized recreation on designated 

roads and trails. Manage for semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation on the remainder of 

the area.”

 MA4A Standard 1 is to “Manage for recreation ranging from semiprimitive to roaded 

modified, depending on ROS objective for adjacent land.”

 MA4A Standard 2 is “Access by motorized recreational vehicles will be prohibited 

December 1 to April 1, except for designated routes through winter range which are 

compatible with the management area emphasis.”

 MA13 Standard 1 is to “Provide dispersed recreation setting consistent with adjacent 

lands.”

Under alternative 2, 2.0 miles of the new construction portion of the McClellan trail would be 

located along the eastern edge of the Wildlife Emphasis Area. Round Top is the only new trail 

construction that would cross through Big-Game Winter Range (5.5 miles total). It would cross 

five segments, with most of the distance in the southeastern most portion of the trail. Two 

segments of the Jugow trail (1.1 miles total) would cross Old Growth.
Magone Project

190 of 632

3.3.2.5 Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects to Recreation

Silviculture Treatments – Under alternative 3, 14,147 acres would be treated across 348 units. 

The effects of proposed silvicultural treatment within the Magone project planning area under 

alternative 3 are similar to those described with alternative 2, under impacts to recreation. The 

effects vary only slightly in the degree that developed or dispersed recreation would be directly 

affected. With 13 percent more acres being treated under alternative 3, the short-term effects on 

scenery and noise levels produced by the activities would be slightly greater. However, the longterm beneficial effects of a cleaner, more open forest floor, and enhanced grass growth, are 

slightly greater than with alternative 2.

Prescribed Burning – Through fuel reduction treatments, alternative 3 would provide for the 

greatest reduction in fire risks to developed and dispersed recreation and the surrounding 

recreational setting. Planned ignitions under alternative 3 would take place on up to 28,500 acres, 

which includes all of the burn units in the project planning area. However, unlike alternative 2, 

the ignitions in burn units 6 and 7, which comprise most of the Nipple Butte IRA, have been 

confined to the fall only. Prescribed burning in the remaining units, 1 – 5 and 8, which cover the 

remainder of the proposed burning areas in the project planning area, may occur in any season. 

The direct effect of these actions would be the same as those described for alternative 2.

Road Activities – Recreational use of forest roads would be minimally affected by changes in 

road closure status, as the affected roads are no longer contributing to integrated land 

management objectives. There would be fewer changes to road closure status than in alternative 

2. Under alternative 3, only 0.3 miles of road would be closed across 2 road segments, 0.3 miles 

of road would be decommissioned across 1 road segment, and 9.5 miles of road would be codesignated as trail, which is over twice as much as what is proposed under alternative 2. 

However, as in alternative 2, co-designating road as trail would not change the existing open road 

system. Alternative 3 would have the greatest benefit to recreational driving due to the largest 

distance of road maintenance that would occur as part of the silvicultural treatments and 

commercial harvesting activities. Road maintenance for hauling would occur on 98.5 miles of 

road across 105 road segments, a 27 percent increase over alternative 2. Temporary road activities 

for silvicultural treatments and harvesting under alternative 3 would be greater than under 

alternative 2. Under alternative 3, 13.3 miles of temporary road construction would occur and 

46.9 miles of closed road would be temporarily opened for hauling. However, those temporary 

actions would have a minimal impact on recreation.

Magone Lake Restoration Activities – Under alternative 3, improvements and expected effects 

are the same as described under alternative 2.

Recreation Opportunity Improvements – Trail developments under alternative 3 would 

substantially increase the hiking and bicycling opportunities in and around the Magone Lake 

recreation area. Under alternative 3, the Magone Lake recreation area could become a destination 

mountain biking area, created through 92.4 miles of new trail, improvements to the Tinker Creek 

trailhead, the Nipple Butte trailhead and its access road, new trailheads near the junction of FSRs 

3618064 and 3618025, and a new trailhead at Four Corners. There would be 80.8 miles of new 

trail construction with all but 1.5 miles of it being hiking/bicycle trail. The remaining 1.5 miles, 

the North Magone Connector trail (0.1 miles) and the extension of the Magone Slide trail (1.4 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

191 of 632

miles), would be hiker-only trails. A substantial portion (10.2 miles) of the resulting trail system 

would be trail co-designated on existing road. The new trail developments are compatible with 

the rustic character of the Magone Lake recreation area (see consistency with Malheur Forest 

Plan, below). Of the 80.8 miles of new trail construction under alternative 3, only 0.4 miles would 

be built within the Magone Lake recreation area. Effects associated with short-term noise and 

activity disturbances, and the long-term increased presence of humans recreating in the area, are 

similar to, but slightly increased from what was described under alternative 2.

Standards for new trail construction, as well as maintence, funding, signage, and usage control 

measures would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Under alternative 3, there would be more new trail mileage within the Nipple Butte Inventoried 

Roadless Area (IRA). The Porcupine trail (13.6 miles of new construction in the IRA) would 

connect to the McClellan trail in the center of the IRA and loop around to the west near Clear 

Creek, before going north and crossing the McClellan trail near the Nipple Butte trailhead. From 

there it would continue east all the way to the Lake Butte trail. The first 12.8 miles of the 13.6 in 

the IRA would be in the northwest portion of the IRA, and the remaining 0.8 miles would be in 

the IRA’s “thumb.” The Porcupine trail would traverse through 1.1 miles of the northern edge of 

the Wildlife Emphasis Area. The trail would cross valleys and traverse ridges, providing a scenic 

recreation experience.

Improvement and re-routes to trail systems described in alternative 2 remain the same as in 

alternative 3, affording bicyclist and hikers better access to trails, and safer, more enjoyable 

experiences. Additionally, the Prohibition Loop, Porcupine Spur, Low Slope, Forest View, Outer 

Loop, Magone Connector, and Behind Magone Loop trails would enhance recreational 

opportunities near the Magone Lake recreation area by creating shorter loop options for hikers 

and bikers.

In particular, the Round Top trail under alternative 3 would provide additional options for shorter 

and longer loops. New trails that would connect to the Round Top trail include the Tinker Creek, 

Central Connector, East Fork Beech Creek, East Fork Beech Creek Cut-off, Four Corners 

Connector, South View, and East Project trails.

The complete new trail network under alternative 3 would likely cause the Magone Lake 

recreation area and the campground to become more popular and receive more visits. The new 

trail developments under alternative 3 would provide greatly increased recreational opportunities 

for campground visitors, and would be extensive enough to attract single track mountain bikers 

from nearby metropolitan areas such as Bend or Boise. Many active mountain bikers are willing 

to travel long distances in order to get a unique wild experience. They also tend to spend more 

money than less-active tourists. The network of new trails within the Magone project planning 

area, under alternative 3, would serve as an attractor of destination mountain bikers (MBOSC 

2007).

The new trailhead at the junction of FSR 3618064 and FSR 3618125 would provide parking and 

close access to the IRA trails, as well as an alternative starting point near Magone Lake 

campground for access to the Lake Butte trail and all of its connecting trails. The trailhead would 

be located at the existing dispersed campsite, which would cease to exist, along FSR 3618064. 

The gate across FSR 3618064 would be moved back to a location just beyond the trailhead. This 

trailhead would serve to alleviate parking at day use areas within the Magone Lake recreation 

area. Signage to the trailhead would be placed at the junction of FSR 3618 and FSR 3618064, 

which would increase usage of the road, including vehicle traffic, to the trailhead that does not 
Magone Project

192 of 632

currently exist. Vehicle traffic on FSR 3618064 would diminish the opportunity for relative 

seclusion along the road that is likely to be experienced under the other alternatives.

Under alternative 3, the Magone Lake recreation area would remain the centerpiece for recreation 

in the project planning area. Just as in alternative 2, the Magone Slide trail would be extended 1.4 

miles to the top of the landslide, and an interpretive sign would be added. The accessable trail 

proposed in alternative 2 will also be developed as described. Dock mooring will be also 

improved as described, and all other recreation improvements proposed in alternative 2 will be 

carried out with alternative 3.

Under alternative 3, the area surrounding the Magone Lake recreation area would continue to be 

classified as Roaded Natural under the ROS, as defined under Existing Conditions above.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Public Access

Alternative 3 would not directly affect the access roads to the Magone Lake recreation area. 

County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 

3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as escape corridors from Magone Lake in the Grant 

County Community Fire Protection Plan, would receive fuel reduction treatments under this 

alternative. The reduction in fuels along these routes would have the indirect effect of increasing 

safety in the Magone Lake recreation area by decreasing the risk of uncharacteristic fire along 

these routes.

Recreational use of forest roads would be minimally affected with 0.3 miles of road being closed 

and 0.3 miles of road being decommissioned. Recreational driving would indirectly benefit due to 

road maintenance that would be needed for silvicultural treatments and commercial harvest.

Cumulative Effects

Sights and sounds created by future silviculture, commercial harvest, and prescribed burning 

activities, combined with the sights and sounds created by the Magone project implementation, 

would not have a cumulative effect on recreation. However, the resulting open forest structure 

resulting from those activities would. The resulting open forest structure from similar treatments, 

harvests and burns in future adjacent projects, combined with the Magone project would provide 

increased opportunities for viewing wildlife and other natural features, and create safer recreation 

opportunities by creating larger sections of open forest, which could enhance hiking, driving for 

pleasure, and other recreation opportunities. The road maintenance that would occur under 

alternative 3, combined with future adjacent projects could also enhance driving for pleasure 

opportunities by contributing to a larger and more attractive road network. The effects are 

cumulative because more extensive recreation attractions are more conducive to recreation 

opportunities than those that are smaller and more isolated (Stensland 2013).

The Magone Lake restoration activities proposed under alternative 3 could have a cumulative 

effect on recreational fishing. An improvement of fishing habitat could increase resiliency of fish 

populations, while simultaneously improving fishing opportunities. Improved fishing 

opportunities could in turn, result in increased visits to Magone Lake recreation area.

If the proposed trail developments under alternative 3 are constructed, the effect could be a more 

extensive network of trails, which would have the potential effect of attracting more visitors to 

the area. Attracting more visitors to the area could have impacts to the local recreational facilities 

as well as have an environmental impact due to the effects of increased forest visits and facility 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

193 of 632

usage. It is expected that attracting more forest visitors to the local area would have a beneficial 

economic effect on the local communities (Barthlow and Moore 1998).

Consistency with the Malheur Forest Plan

The trail development proposals under alternative 3 meet the objectives of the Malheur Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a). As described below, the trail development proposals fall 

below the ROS threshold defined in the recreation resource element standard for each of the 

management areas that the proposed developments would cross. Most of the proposed trails are 

within General Forest (Management Area 1 (MA1)) or Visual Corridors (MA14).

 MA1 Standard 1 is to “Manage dispersed recreation for roaded modified conditions.”

 MA14 Standard 1 is to “Manage for roaded natural recreation.”

The other management areas that have proposed trail developments in them are Wildlife 

Emphasis Area (with Non-Scheduled Timber Harvest (MA21), Big-Game Winter Range 

Maintenance (MA4A), and Old Growth (MA13).

 MA21 Standard 1 is to “Manage for semiprimitive motorized recreation on designated 

roads and trails. Manage for semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation on the remainder of 

the area.”

 MA4A Standard 1 is to “Manage for recreation ranging from semiprimitive to roaded 

modified, depending on ROS objective for adjacent land.”

 MA4A Standard 2 is “Access by motorized recreational vehicles will be prohibited 

December 1 to April 1, except for designated routes through winter range which are 

compatible with the management area emphasis.”

 MA13 Standard 1 is to “Provide dispersed recreation setting consistent with adjacent 

lands.”

Under alternative 3, 2.0 miles of the new construction portion of the McClellan trail would be 

located along the eastern edge of the Wildlife Emphasis Area. In addition, the Porcupine trail 

would traverse through 1.1 miles of the northern edge of the Wildlife Emphasis Area. The Round 

Top trail would cross through Big-Game Winter Range (5.5 miles total). It would cross five 

segments, with most of the distance in the southeastern most portion of the trail. East Fork Beech 

Creek (0.2 miles), East Fork Beech Creek Cut-off (0.2 miles), Four Corners Connector (0.7 

miles), South View (1.5 miles) and East Project (3.1 miles) trails would also cross Big-Game 

Winter Range. One small section of the East Fork Beech Creek trail (0.2 miles) would skirt across 

the northern edge of an Old Growth area. Two segments of the Jugow trail (1.1 miles total) would 

cross Old Growth.

3.3.2.6 Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects to Recreation

Silviculture Treatments – Under alternative 4, 5,505 acres would be treated across 152 units. 

The effects of proposed silvicultural treatments within the Magone project planning area under 

alternative 4 are very similar to alternative 2; however, with 53 percent fewer acres being treated 

in alternative 4, the short-term effects on scenery and noise levels produced by the activities 

would be much less. However, the long term beneficial effects of a cleaner, more open forest 

floor, and enhanced grass growth, is significantly less than with alternative 2.
Magone Project

194 of 632

Prescribed Burning – Through fuels reduction treatments, alternative 4 would reduce the fire 

risks to developed and dispersed recreation and the surrounding recreational setting, but to a 

lesser extent than alternative 2. Under alternative 4, planned ignitions would take place on up to 

17,200 acres. Burn units 6 and 7, which cover most of the IRA, are not a part of this alternative. 

Prescribed burning in the remaining units, 1 – 5 and 8, which cover the remainder of the proposed 

burning areas in the project planning area may occur in any season. Most of the Nipple Butte IRA 

would not be directly affected by the burning. However, the effects of smoke from the other burn 

units may still have an impact on the hunting experience in the IRA. All other effects associated 

with prescribed burning are the same as described for alternative 2.

Road Activities – Recreational use of forest roads would be minimally affected by changes in 

road closure status, as the affected roads are no longer contributing to integrated land 

management objectives. There would be fewer changes to road closure status than in alternative 

2. Under alternative 4, only 0.3 miles of road would be closed across two road segments and 0.3

miles of road would be decommissioned across one road segment. 

Approximately 1.3 miles of road (in 3 road segments) would be co-designated as trail. As in 

alternative 2, co-designating road as trail would not change the existing open road system. 

Recreational driving would benefit due to the road maintenance that would be needed for the 

silvicultural treatments and commercial harvest. Road activities under alternative 4 would only be 

slightly less than under alternative 2. Road maintenance for hauling would occur on 77.2 miles of 

road across 77 road segments, the least amount under any of the action alternatives. Additional 

road activities for silvicultural and harvest activities would be 8.9 miles of temporary road 

construction and 28.5 miles of closed road that would be temporarily opened for hauling. Those 

temporary actions would have a very minimal impact on recreation.

Magone Lake Restoration Activities – Under alternative 4, fish habitat improvements would 

serve to enhance fishing opportunities. However, under alternative 4, there would be less fish 

habitat developments. Fish habitat would be improved through the placement of 5–10 fish cribs in 

two clusters, as well as the placement of 40–70 “fish sticks” (logs that lay into the lake with one 

end on land) in singles and clusters of 5–7 trees mostly 8 to12 inches diameter at breast height 

(DBH). With a smaller number of “fish sticks” planned under alternative 4, the distribution effect 

would be less than experienced under alternatives 2 and 3 due to a smaller number being placed. 

Under alternative 4, visitor use of the Magone Lake recreation area as a whole would be expected 

to remain level or very slightly increase due to the new developments described above.

Recreation Opportunity Improvements – With substantially fewer trail developments under 

alternative 4, the area is less likely to attract non-local hikers and mountain bikers than 

alternatives 2 or 3 would. New recreation opportunities would be created through 11.9 miles of 

new trail, and improvements to the Tinker Creek trailhead and the Nipple Butte trailhead and its 

access road. There would be 9.4 miles of new trail construction with all but 1.5 miles of it being 

hiking/bicycle trail. The remaining 1.5 miles, the North Magone Connector trail (0.1 miles) and 

the extension of the Magone Slide trail (1.4 miles), would be hiker only trail. 1.1 miles of the new 

trail system would be trail co-designated on existing road. The new trail developments are 

compatible with the rustic character of the Magone Lake recreation area (see consistency with 

Malheur Forest Plan, below). Of the 9.4 miles of new trail construction proposed under 

alternative 4, only 0.2 miles would be built within the Magone Lake recreation area.

Under alternative 4, the new construction single track Jugow trail, the new connecting portion of 

the Lake Butte trail, and the improvement and expansion of the Behind Magone trail would be the 

primary recreational improvements for mountain bikers. There would not be any recreation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

195 of 632

developments in the eastern half of the Magone project planning area, as the Round Top trail 

would not be constructed. The Behind Magone Loop trail would provide a small additional loop 

option for hikers and bikers near the Magone Lake recreation area. Due to the improvement and 

re-routes, bicyclists using the Nipple Butte or Lake Butte trails would no longer need to follow 

along County Road 18. This would eliminate the safety issue involved with bicycles encountering 

vehicle traffic. Accessibility to the Behind Magone trail would be enhanced by moving the start 

of the trail across from the Tinker Creek trailhead. Hikers and mountain bikers using the Behind 

Magone trail would be able to access it from the southern end of the lake (near the outlet bridge) 

via the newly constructed trail segment, as well as from the Tinker Creek trailhead. The Magone 

Lake trail would be opened to bicycles (for a small segment of the trail) and hardened from the 

boat dock parking area to the new junction with the Behind Magone trail to prevent an increase in 

sedimentation. Access to the Behind Magone trail from the Tinker Creek trailhead would involve 

only needing to cross FSR 3618, rather than traveling along it. Hikers would also have access to 

the Behind Magone trail via the small North Magone Connector trail that connects to the Magone 

Lake trail at the north end of the lake.

Other than the Jugow trail, the trail developments under this alternative are limited to improving 

existing trails around and within the Magone Lake recreation area. The trail improvements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities for campground visitors, but would not be extensive 

enough to attract visitors from outside of the local communities (MBOSC 2007).

The Nipple Butte and Tinker Creek trailheads would be improved as described in alternative 2, 

but there would not be any trails built in the eastern portion of the Magone project planning area. 

The Four Corners trailhead would not be developed.

Under alternative 4, the Magone Lake recreation area would remain the centerpiece for recreation 

in the project planning area. The Magone Slide trail would be extended 1.4 miles up to the 

landslide, and the boat dock improvements would be the same as they are in alternatives 2 and 3; 

however, the accessible trail along the north side of the lake described under alternatives 2 and 3 

would not be developed under alternative 4. The picnic table would not be placed at the north end 

of the lake, and thus no ground leveling would occur. No interpretive signs would be placed.

Under alternative 4, the area surrounding the Magone Lake recreation area would continue to be 

classified as Roaded Natural under the ROS, as defined under Existing Conditions above.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Public Access

Alternative 4 would not directly affect the access roads to the Magone Lake recreation area. 

County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 

3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as escape corridors from Magone Lake in the Grant 

County Community Fire Protection Plan, would receive fuel reduction treatments under this 

alternative. The reduction in fuels along these routes would have the indirect effect of increasing 

safety in the Magone Lake recreation area by decreasing the risk of uncharacteristic fire along 

these routes.

Recreational use of forest roads would be minimally affected with 0.3 miles of road being closed 

and 0.3 miles of road being decommissioned. Recreational driving would indirectly benefit due to 

road maintenance that would be needed for silvicultural treatments and commercial harvest.
Magone Project

196 of 632

Cumulative Effects

Sights and sounds created by future silviculture, commercial harvest, and prescribed burning 

activities combined with the sights and sounds created by the Magone project implementation, 

would not have a cumulative effect on recreation. However, the resulting open forest structure 

resulting from those activities would. The resulting open forest structure from similar treatments, 

harvests and burns in future adjacent projects, combined with the Magone project would provide 

increased opportunities for viewing wildlife and other natural features, and create safer recreation 

opportunities by creating larger sections of open forest, which could enhance hiking, driving for 

pleasure, and other recreation opportunities. The road maintenance that would occur under 

alternative 4, combined with future adjacent projects could also enhance driving for pleasure 

opportunities by contributing to a larger and more attractive road network. The effects are 

cumulative because more extensive recreation attractions are more conducive to recreation 

opportunities than those that are smaller and more isolated (Stensland 2013).

The Magone Lake restoration activities proposed under alternative 4 could have a cumulative 

effect on recreational fishing. An improvement of fishing habitat could increase resiliency of fish 

populations, while simultaneously improving fishing opportunities. Improved fishing 

opportunities could in turn result in increased visits to Magone Lake recreation area.

Future trail developments are being proposed to the east of the Magone project planning area in 

the Camp Lick project planning area. If the recreation developments under alternative 4 are 

constructed, the effect would be a slightly larger network of trails. However, the Magone project 

trail system would not interconnect with foreseeable trail developments in the future project 

planning areas. Therefore, environmental impacts due to the synergistic effects of future trail 

developments would be very minimal.

Consistency with the Malheur Forest Plan

The trail development proposals under alternative 4 meet the objectives of the Malheur Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a). As described below, the trail development proposals fall 

below the ROS threshold defined in the recreation resource element standard for each of the 

management areas that the proposed developments would cross. The proposed trails are within 

General Forest (Management Area 1 (MA1)), Visual Corridors (MA14), or Old Growth (MA13).

 MA1 Standard 1 is to “Manage dispersed recreation for roaded modified conditions.”

 MA14 Standard 1 is to “Manage for roaded natural recreation.”

 MA13 Standard 1 is to “Provide dispersed recreation setting consistent with adjacent 

lands.”

Two segments of the Jugow trail (1.1 miles total) would cross Old Growth. The rest of the 

proposed trails under alternative 4 are within General Forest or Visual Corridors. Unlike 

alternative 2, there are no proposed recreation developments or improvements in Wildlife 

Emphasis Area (with Non-Scheduled Timber Harvest) (MA21) or Big-Game Winter Range 

Maintenance (MA4A) in alternative 4.

3.4 Key Issue – Impacts to the Nipple Butte Inventoried 

Roadless Area (IRA)

The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) covers approximately 27.2 

million acres within the states of Oregon and Washington. This represents approximately 27

percent of the total acreage of both states combined. These 27.2 million acres are allocated and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

197 of 632

managed based on the land allocations designated within the respective National Forest System 

lands and resource management plans. However, two types of land designations are overriding 

and common among all units within the region (indeed the nation): the management of wilderness 

areas and inventoried roadless areas. In Region 6, there are approximately 4 million acres of 

inventoried roadless areas (15 percent) and approximately 5 million acres of wilderness (18

percent).

The Malheur National Forest is one of 16 administrative units that manage National Forest 

System lands within the Pacific Northwest Region. The Malheur National Forest covers 

approximately 1.7 million acres in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. The Malheur National 

Forest contains approximately 83,000 acres of wilderness (5 percent of the Forest) and 

approximately 189,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas (11 percent of the Forest). The Forest 

consists of three ranger districts, one of which is the Blue Mountain Ranger District.

The Blue Mountain Ranger District is approximately 707,000 acres in size and contains 

approximately 37,000 acres of wilderness (5 percent) and 95,000 acres of inventoried roadless 

areas (13 percent). The Magone project planning area is located in the northern portion of the 

Blue Mountain Ranger District. The Magone project planning area includes no wilderness areas, 

approximately 10,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) (37 percent of the project 

planning area), and 3,900 acres of other undeveloped lands (14 percent of the project planning 

area).

Table 51. Wilderness and inventoried roadless areas in the Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur 

National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District, and Magone project planning area

Unit Acres Percentage

Pacific Northwest Region 27.2 million 27%*

Wilderness 5 million 18%

Inventoried Roadless Areas 4 million 15%

Malheur National Forest 1.7 million 6%**

Wilderness 83,000 5%

Inventoried Roadless Areas 189,000 11%

Blue Mountain Ranger District 707,000 42%***

Wilderness 37,000 5%

Inventoried Roadless Areas 95,000 13%

Magone project planning area 17,500 2.5% 

Wilderness 0 0%

Inventoried Roadless Areas 10,000 37%

Other undeveloped lands 3,900 14%** ***

* Portion (acres) of both Oregon and Washington that are National Forest System lands.

** Portion (acres) of USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region that is managed by the Malheur National Forest.

*** Portion (acres) of the Malheur National Forest that is managed by the Blue Mountain Ranger District.

  Portion (acres) of the Blue Mountain Ranger District within the boundary of the Magone project planning area.

** *** This number reflects the inventory of other undeveloped lands.

3.4.1 Existing Condition

3.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework

During public involvement for this project, and in past similar projects, a wide range of terms 

have been used by respondents, the courts, and the Forest Service when referring to topics such as 
Magone Project

198 of 632

roadless, inventoried roadless area, unroaded, un-inventoried roadless, areas with wilderness 

characteristics, undeveloped lands, and roadless expanse. The terms and definitions stated below 

will be used in this site-specific analysis. The resource topics are based on current law, regulation, 

agency policy, and the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur Forest Plan), as 

amended (USDA Forest Service 1990a).

From the mid-1970s through 2001, the Forest Service maintained a roadless area inventory of 

undeveloped lands that was used and updated for RARE, RARE II, and in support of land and 

resource management planning completed in 1990 for the Malheur National Forest. During that 

period these polygons were called “roadless areas” or “inventoried roadless areas” (IRAs). With 

completion of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) in 2001, these lands ceased being 

just an inventory, and IRA became more of a designation, with fixed boundaries and prohibitions 

set by Forest Service regulation (36 CFR 294). Confusion ensued because two Forest Service 

maps used the same name: IRA. One map had fixed boundaries set by the RACR and another 

map had changeable boundaries based on inventory criteria.

To address this situation, a 2006 amendment to the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 

chapter 70, section 71 created a new term for the inventory of undeveloped lands called “potential 

wilderness areas” to make a clear distinction between the IRA term used by the 2001 RACR. 

However, a 2015 amendment to the FSH 1909.12 chapter 70, section 71 abandoned the potential 

wilderness area term. 

The 2015 amendment to section 71 created new criteria to guide the identification of lands that 

may have wilderness characteristics. However, the inventory process for areas with wilderness 

characteristics is identified as a forest planning level analysis and is not intended to be conducted 

on a project-level basis.

The term “other undeveloped lands” is presented and used in this document to provide a 

consideration for the balance of those remaining lands that are not designated wilderness, were 

not designated as an IRA under the RACR, have not been identified at the forest planning level as 

areas with wilderness characteristics, and do not contain roads and evidence of timber harvest or 

roads. See the Other Undeveloped Lands section later in this chapter.

In the early 2000s, some local interest groups began creating their own inventories, including 

lands on the Malheur National Forest, using inventory criteria they developed for their purposes. 

Polygons on their maps are referred to as “inventoried roadless areas,” “roadless areas,” 

“unroaded,” or “un-inventoried roadless areas.” Confusion ensued again on this issue because 

there are conflicts between the Forest Service maps and maps presented by these interest groups. 

Each map appears to be based on different definitions and inventory criteria.

To address this issue, IRAs were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set 

of inventoried roadless area maps contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000 (or any subsequent update or 

revision of those maps) which are held at the National headquarters office of the Forest Service 

(36 CFR 294.11). These areas were set aside through administrative rulemaking and have 

provisions, within the context of multiple use management, for the protection of inventoried 

roadless areas. Most inventoried roadless area boundaries are substantially identical to those 

identified as “Roadless Areas,” referred to in the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17) and 

identified by the Malheur Forest Plan, FEIS, Appendix C; however some localized, minor 

differences in boundaries may exist.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

199 of 632

All roadless area acres were allocated to various management area strategies as disclosed in the 

Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix C and described in the Record of Decision (pages 14 to 17) for the 

FEIS. Some management area strategies were intended to retain the undeveloped roadless 

character of the roadless area and some management area strategies were intended to develop the 

lands with timber harvest and road building activities, thus foregoing roadless character.

3.4.1.2 Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

The Nipple Butte IRA encompasses approximately 11,525 acres, with approximately 10,000 acres 

located within the Magone project planning area (approximately 37 percent of the project 

planning area). See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 17. This IRA is characterized by steep, 

mountainous terrain, with elevations ranging from 6,000 feet near Lake Butte 3,000 feet at the 

mouth of Clear Creek.

Lands with values and features that often characterize inventoried roadless areas are increasingly 

important within developed landscapes in order to provide clean drinking water and function as 

biological strongholds for populations of threatened and endangered species. They provide 

important areas for biological diversity, dispersed outdoor recreation, and study and research (36 

CFR 294, page 3245). They also serve as bulwarks against the spread of non-native invasive 

species.

Within the Nipple Butte IRA, human influences have had less impact on the natural appearance 

or long-term ecological process compared to managed lands. The current condition of soil, water 

quality, air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species; invasive plants, recreation; and cultural resources are described elsewhere in 

Chapter 3 of this FEIS. Disturbance by insects and fire has been and most likely will continue to 

be the factors with the most potential to impact the naturalness and undeveloped nature of the 

area. Opportunities for primitive recreation are limited to hiking, mostly cross-country, and 

hunting.

Livestock grazing, fire suppression, and dispersed recreation (i.e., hunting and camping) has 

occurred within the project planning area and surrounding vicinity for at least the past 100 years. 

Past timber harvest has also occurred within portions of the Nipple Butte IRA:

 In 1986, 77 acres was harvested in SADD SSTS Project, low vigor overstory and trees 

with heavy mistletoe infection were removed by tractor logging. 

 In 1989, 14 acres harvested in Keen Salvage using crawler tractors and skidders, salvage 

of dead and dying trees experiencing mortality from western spruce budworm and bark 

beetle attacks.

 In 1990–1991, 8 acres experiencing pine beetle mortality was treated in Lake Lodgepole 

Project, live and dead lodgepole ≥4 inches were removed by tractor logging.

Additionally, approximately 200 acres of the Nipple Butte IRA were formerly owned by the 

Oregon Lumber Company (located in the “thumb” in the northeast part of the IRA and another 

piece in the northwest portion of the IRA); these lands were acquired by the Malheur National 

Forest in a land exchange in the 1940s. Ongoing firewood gathering and removal of danger trees 

along forest roads that border the IRA changes the vegetation, leaves stumps, and presents a 

managed appearance within a developed transportation corridor. Over the past several decades, 

fire exclusion has altered natural ecological processes. Suppression of fire in these areas helped 

create the stand composition and structure now present. In the dry upland forest, stands once 

dominated by open park-like stands of ponderosa pine have grown dense with the encroachment 
Magone Project

200 of 632

of shade-tolerant species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir. The scale of this situation across this 

landscape is uncharacteristic (un-natural) and unwanted.

Motorized off-highway vehicle use on designated trails and motorized use on existing Forest 

Service roads surrounding the IRA is apparent. Opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of 

adventure and awareness, serenity, and self-reliance are limited by the size and shape of the IRA. 

Nearby, non-conforming sights and sounds of roads and timber harvest may be heard and seen 

from within the IRA.

The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Appendices – Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix C describes the Nipple Butte IRA as providing 

Roaded Modified (129 acres), Roaded Natural (691 acres), and Semiprimitive Motorized 

Recreation (10,705 acres) opportunities. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 16.

 Roaded Modified – Area is characterized by a natural environment that has been

substantially modified by development of structures and vegetative manipulation. Sights 

and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often 

moderate to high. Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate user 

densities are present away from developed sites. Facilities for intensified motorized use 

and parking are available.

 Roaded Natural – Area is characterized by predominately natural-appearing 

environment with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of humans. 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.

 Semi-Primitive Motorized – Area is characterized by a predominately natural or naturalappearing 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 onsite 

controls and restrictions may be present but would be subtle. Motorized recreation use of 

local primitive or collector roads with predominantly natural surfaces and trails suitable 

for motor bikes is permitted. (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page VI-28)

3.4.1.3 Condition of Forest Vegetation in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless 

Area

Approximately 1/3 of the upland forested acres found in the Magone project planning area and 

almost half of the approximately 2,100 acres of Cool Moist PAG in the project planning area are 

located within the Nipple Butte IRA.Most stands within the Cool Moist PAG are mixed conifer. 

Species composition includes ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, and 

grand fir. These stands are generally uneven-aged, with trees ranging from seedlings and saplings 

to large, old trees (300+ years). The large, old trees tend to be early seral, ponderosa pine, and 

western larch. However, large, old grand fir and Douglas-fir also exist in moist pockets and 

protected areas. Younger trees are predominantly grand fir, however, due to the productivity of 

these sites small openings in the canopy provide the conditions for natural regeneration of early 

seral species also. These stands tend to be very dense, have a high degree of structural diversity, 

and have many large diameter trees and snags. Currently, stem exclusion open canopy, old forest 

multi strata, and old forest single stratum are all above historic range, while understory 

reinitiation and young forest multi strata are well below the historical range of variability (Table 

20). Late and old structure includes old forest single stratum and old forest multi strata. There is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

201 of 632

approximately 27 percent late and old structure within the Magone project planning area (Table 

20). Over 50 percent of late and old structure in the Magone project planning area is located

either in the Nipple Butte IRA or previously designated old growth areas.

Young pine stands are expanding from their historical extent within the Nipple Butte IRA. There 

are a few small aspen stands (approximately 0.5 acres in total) within the IRA, mostly within 

riparian habitat. These stands are being encroached upon by young ponderosa pine, and are 

currently much reduced from their historical extent. Young pine stands are also encroaching on 

ridges that have historically had mountain mahogany, and there is evidence of the pines shading 

out existing mahogany patches.

See Forest Vegetation section for additional information on the existing condition of forest 

vegetation in the Nipple Butte IRA and overall project planning area.

3.4.1.4 Fuel Loading and Crown Fire Potential in the Nipple Butte Inventoried 

Roadless Area

The northern portion of the Nipple Butte IRA has several stands with heavy fuel loadings16 (see 

FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 25). Even with steep terrain and difficult access, fire suppression 

has been successful in the Nipple Butte IRA using aerial resources. Successful fire suppression 

has altered the natural succession of the area. Fuel loadings are uncharacteristically high as a 

result of suppression efforts and insect and disease-caused conifer mortality (USDA Forest 

Service 2010a).

Crown fire17 potential exists along the roadless boundary, with the exception of the southeast 

corner (see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 20). Fire suppression has altered the natural 

succession of the area. Under natural conditions, low-intensity fire would have selectively 

maintained ponderosa pine in the understory and prevented the encroachment of fir (USDA 

Forest Service 2010a). Fire-intolerant species, such as grand fir, growing in the understory exhibit 

dense crowns and grow in tighter spacing, creating a situation where crown fire can be initiated.

With difficult topography, limited access, and fuel loads increasing, successful suppression efforts 

would become more difficult to achieve. In the absence of treatment, the Nipple Butte IRA would 

likely succumb to wildfire or disease and insects in the foreseeable future. With treatment, 

resiliency could be built or maintained within the IRA and fire could one day be allowed to 

naturally function on the landscape.

3.4.1.5 Condition of Aquatic Habitat in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless 

Area

The majority of Clear, McClellan, and Thompson creeks that contain MCR Steelhead Critical 

Habitat and Westslope cutthroat trout are within the Nipple Butte IRA. In general, these streams 

are wide and shallow “dished out”, lack quality pools (greater than 2 feet deep), are dominated by 

 

16 Fuel models are used to help describe and quantify surface fuel situations and estimate fire behavior. fuel models 

burn with differing intensities and rates of spread. Greater fireline intensities, increased mortality, and resistance to 

control efforts can all be expected in areas with higher fuel loads. Refer to the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality section for 

more information.

17 Crown fires are generally considered the primary threat to life, property, ecological, and human values. Crown fire 

occurs when surface fire creates enough energy to preheat and combust fuels well above the surface (Agee and Skinner 

2005). Crown fires are typically faster moving than surface fires, more difficult to suppress, and pose the greatest threat 

to firefighter safety from increased fireline intensities and long distance spotting.
Magone Project

202 of 632

large cobble, have too much fine sediment, and do not provide quality habitat complexity. Mean 

maximum water temperatures are above the suitable range for salmonid species present. 

The lower most 3 miles of Clear Creek and McClellan Creek prior to their confluence with East 

Fork Beech Creek have stream gradients of less than 3 percent, wide valley bottoms, along with 

suitable spawning gravels that are currently being flushed out of the system. These areas contain 

the primary MCR Steelhead spawning areas within the Nipple Butte IRA. However due to their 

degraded condition only a fraction of their spawning habitat potential is being realized.

Large woody debris (LWD) objectives are not being met within the lower most 3 miles of the IRA 

and this is impacting spawning gravel retention, stream sinuosity, floodplain connectivity, and 

water retention within these areas. However, the streams that are the closest to meeting LWD 

objectives are within the upper reaches of the IRA and are not proposed for aquatic restoration 

activities. Many of these streams have stands of large trees with closed canopies stretching along 

the stream, and are therefore meeting shade objectives.

3.4.1.6 Condition of Wildlife Habitat in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless 

Area

The 5,795 acre Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA; Management Area 21) is located 

entirely within the Nipple Butte IRA. Although Habitat Effectiveness Index and cover 

requirements are meeting or exceeding Malheur Forest Plan standards, cover requirements are not 

always compatible with the historical range of variability. This conflict is apparent in Hot Dry and 

Warm Dry forests dominated by ponderosa pine. Historical conditions and fire return intervals 

created large blocks of trees with canopy closure too low to be classified as satisfactory or 

marginal cover as defined in the Malheur Forest Plan. Today, cover requirements are being met 

on many ponderosa pine sites; however, stands are at a density level where mortality risk is high 

from both bark beetle and wildfires. Cover levels may not be sustainable. This inherent conflict 

may be even more relevant in winter range, which is often located in low elevation, Hot Dry and 

Warm Dry forests dominated by ponderosa pine. Unfortunately, tree thinning, the treatment that 

most effectively reduces beetle and fire risk, also reduces the effectiveness of a stand as cover. 

Currently, the amount of forage and browse is below what it would have been historically, 

particularly in drier habitat types and along ridgetops. Lack of fire in adjacent habitat types has 

allowed juniper and other conifers to encroach into areas formerly dominated by mountain 

mahogany, bitterbrush, and other forage and browse species. In the Nipple Butte IRA, and 

throughout the project planning area, these species are being shaded out and lost. These habitats 

provide critical cover and forage for Rocky Mountain elk (Malheur Forest Plan Management 

Indicator Species) and mule deer, and provide habitat for a plethora of small mammals and birds 

including blue grouse (featured species) and red-naped sapsuckers (Malheur Forest Plan 

Management Indicator Species).

3.4.1.7 Recreation Opportunities in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

The Nipple Butte IRA is a popular hunting destination. The southern portion of the IRA is a 

designated wildlife emphasis area (WEA) that comprises nearly half of the IRA that lies within 

the project planning area.

A portion of the Nipple Butte trail in the Nipple Butte IRA follows the Lake Butte/Nipple Butte 

ridge line and was cut straight up the slopes with no regard to contour. It follows a fence line, and 

in some cases, the trail is so close to the fence it is dangerous for bicycle riders. This portion of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

203 of 632

the Nipple Butte trail appears to have been placed primarily for fence maintenance. See FEIS 

Appendix B – Maps, Map 15.

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

3.4.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The measurement indicators detailed in Table 52 are used for assessing the effects of the Magone 

Project to the Nipple Butte IRA.

Table 52. Resources indicators and measures for assessing effects to the Nipple Butte IRA

Indicator Measure

Impacts to roadless area 

characteristics (36 CFR 

294.11)

 High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air

 Sources of public drinking water

 Diversity of plant and animal communities, habitat for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land

 Primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized 

classes of dispersed recreation

 Reference landscapes

 Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality natural integrity 

and apparent naturalness, solitude and remoteness

 Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

Other locally identified unique characteristics or special features

Meeting the criteria that 

apply to management 

within IRAs

 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 to improve threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat (36 CFR 

294.13(b)(1)(i)).

 The cutting, sale, or removal of timber is to maintain or restore the 

characteristics of ecosystem composition and 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 cutting and sale of timber is expected to be infrequent (36 CFR 

294.13(b)).

Impacts from silviculture 

treatments

Acres and type of silviculture treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA

Impacts from prescribed 

burning

Acres and type of prescribed burning in the Nipple Butte IRA

Impacts from 

hiking/bicycle trails

Miles of hiking/bicycle trails in the Nipple Butte IRA

3.4.2.2 Methodology

Information regarding the effects of prior harvest, including prior harvest lands acquired by the 

Forest Service, were discussed and reviewed with the project silviculturist. Based on field review 

and professional judgement, these lands still show evidence of past harvest, including stumps and 

vegetation conditions outside those expected and reflective of historical, pre-harvest conditions. 

Therefore, formerly private lands acquired by the Forest Service from lumber companies were 

excluded from analysis as other undeveloped lands.

3.4.2.3 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The scale of analysis is the Magone project planning area and the Nipple Butte IRA.
Magone Project

204 of 632

The spatial contexts for this analysis are unit boundaries and the areas with associated road 

activities. The temporal context for the effects analysis is long-term, 5 to 50 years. Road 

decommissioning, new road construction, and silviculture treatments would have a long-term 

effect and may result in more or less other undeveloped lands.

3.4.2.4 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects 

Analysis

Past actions in or near the project planning area include timber management, fish habitat 

improvement, wildland fuels management, fire suppression, mining, dispersed camping, firewood 

cutting, and road and facilities construction and maintenance. All activities have affected current 

sream function and forest composition, structure, and overall management infrastructure within 

developed lands of the area. Therefore, these activities are still reflected (with individual 

variances) in the current condition of the area’s natural resource and human environment values.

Foreseeable activities within the Nipple Butte IRA include aquatic restoration activities identified 

through Magone project planning that will be covered under the Aquatics Restoration Decision 

(USDA Forest Service 2014b). These activities include tree felling, large woody and coarse 

woody debris placement, and beaver dam analogs along approximately 4 miles of Clear and 

McClellan creeks.

3.4.2.5 Impacts to Roadless Area Characteristics in the Nipple Butte IRA

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the Nipple Butte IRA under the no action 

alternative because no activities would occur in the project planning area. The existing condition 

would remain unchanged, except by natural processes and ongoing management activities. 

Biological and ecosystem functions would continue. Growth rates of trees would continue to 

decline, and natural processes that affect tree vigor and changes in stand structure would 

continue. The landscape would likely continue developing complex fuel loads. A wildfire may 

burn more extensively and kill more trees within 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 3 to 5 years. Fire is a natural occurrence 

and expected disturbance process in this landscape. Because there would be no direct or indirect 

effects under alternative 1 due to taking no action, there would be no cumulative effects to IRAs.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Table 53 summarizes the activities proposed within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area 

(IRA) by alternative.

Table 53. Summary of proposed activities within the Nipple Butte IRA by alternative

Project activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Commercial and non-commercial 

thinning

11 acres 306 acres None

Non-commercial thinning 2,908 acres 2,915 acres None

Non-commercial thinning with 

designation as Replacement Old 

Growth (ROG)

746 acres 10 acres None

Conifer reduction in aspen stands 0.2 acres 0.6 acres 0.6 acres
Final Environmental Impact Statement

205 of 632

Project activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Prescribed burning up to 10,112 acres (all 

spring or fall 

underburning)

up to 10,112 acres 

(1,405 acres spring 

or fall, and 8,707 

acres fall only 

underburning)

up to 1,405 (all 

spring or fall 

underburning)

Road system changes Convert 0.6 miles of 

road to trail

Close 0.9 miles of road 

and co-designate as 

trail

Close 0.2 miles of road

Close 0.2 miles of 

road

Close 0.2 miles of 

road

Trails 19 miles hiking/biking 

trails

0.4 miles hiking only 

trail

32.3 miles 

hiking/biking trails

0.4 miles hiking only 

trail

7.2 miles 

hiking/biking trails

0.4 miles hiking 

only trail

Effects on Nine Characteristics of Inventoried Roadless Areas

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air

Soil – The effects on soils by alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to be indistinguishable in all 

respects, save the amount of acres treated or impacted. The actions in each alternative are 

essentially the same, differing only in their amount and location, and thus the amount and 

location of expected ground disturbance from harvest systems, trail construction, and fuels 

treatments. Since all of these actions under alternatives 2 and 3 would maintain a component of 

the original forest system, no measurable direct or indirect effects to soil productivity as it relates 

to nutrient cycling are expected. Effects comparisons, therefore, are based on acres of potential 

detrimental soil disturbance (and thus effects to site productivity) from treatments and the 

expected impact per acre associated with each. Alternative 2 is likely to result in the most 

detrimentally affected soils and effects to site productivity from disturbance related to 

approximately 3,660 acres of commercial and non-commercial thinning, and construction of 

approximately 19 miles of new trail, followed by alternative 3, with approximately 3,230 acres of 

commercial and non-commercial thinning, and construction of approximately 33 miles of new 

trail. All activities under alternatives 2 and 3 would be mitigated to result in compliance with 

standard and guidelines.

The effects on soils under alternative 4 are expected to be negligible. No measurable direct or 

indirect effects to soil productivity as it relates to nutrient cycling are expected. Effects 

comparisons, therefore, are based on acres of potential detrimental soil disturbance (and thus 

effects to site productivity) from planned activities. Compared with alternatives 2 and 3, 

alternative 4 would result in the least detrimentally affected soils and effects to site productivity. 

No silviculture treatments are proposed within the IRA under alternative 4. Decommissioning of 

0.4 miles of closed road is expected to increase soil productivity. Trail development within the 

IRA is expected to detrimentally impact negligible acres of soil. All activities under alternative 4

would be mitigated to result in compliance with standard and guidelines.

Water – Analysis of hydrologic function and condition effects due to changes in road density and 

miles of road in RHCAs are most appropriately done at the subwatershed scale and are disclosed 

in the Watershed Report and section of this FEIS.
Magone Project

206 of 632

Several activities including juniper and other conifer encroachment felling, scattering of woody 

material, prescribed burning, and trail construction would occur in the Nipple Butte IRA. 

Scattering coarse woody material associated with the juniper and conifer felling and the trail 

construction would promote infiltration and slow overland flow. Hardened or bridged trail 

crossings and waterbars would control sediment and overland flow along trails. A layer of duff 

that would allow infiltration would remain after burning.

Prescribed burning in RHCAs is not expected to expose mineral soil because it would be 

expected to burn with low intensity. Low intensity fire is not expected to fully consume organic 

matter on the soil surface. Low intensity fire is not expected to burn wetter riparian vegetation; it 

would be likely to die out in the inner RHCAs. Consequently prescribed burning is not expected 

to contribute to watershed hazard or to detrimentally affect stream or riparian conditions under 

alternatives 2 and 3. Fuel loads in RHCAs where prescribed fire would not be used, such as a 

majority of the IRA under alternative 4, would remain high and would be similar to those 

described for alternative 1 and may result in high-severity burns locally under wildfire conditions.

Air Quality – Any smoke from prescribed fire treatments under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would 

comply with the Oregon Smoke Management Implementation Plan and would be implemented 

following the guidelines in this plan.

Sources of public drinking water

There are no public drinking water sources identified in the Magone project planning area.

Diversity of plant and animal communities; Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of 

land

Plants

Since known and potential locations for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and 

sensitive plant species, and uncommon/important plant communities would be excluded from the 

proposed silvicultural or fuels treatment units, and would be avoided during construction of 

recreation trails and road decommissioning, there would be no direct or indirect effects under 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The potential spread of invasive plants would be minimized under 

alternatives 2, 3, and 4 with the implementation of project design criteria and mitigation measures 

described in FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria.

Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species: Gray wolves east 

of U.S. Highway 395, which includes the project planning area, were delisted as an endangered 

species in 2011 and fall under management by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have no impact on potential gray wolf populations. Additionally, 

gray wolves are highly adaptable; therefore, management activities would be expected to have 

little effect on habitat use.

For all action alternatives, the project “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely 

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

Species” for Pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, fringed myotis, bufflehead, bald eagle, Lewis’s 

woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, and Johnson’s hairstreak; and would have “No Impact” 

for American peregrine falcon and silver-bordered fritillary. In the long-term, alternatives 2 and 3 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

207 of 632

would have a “Beneficial Impact” on bald eagles, Lewis’s woodpeckers, white-headed 

woodpeckers, and Johnson’s hairstreaks.

Management Indicator Species: All action alternatives would meet the applicable standards and 

guidelines from the Malheur Forest Plan, as amended. All action alternatives would maintain 

persistent populations of primary cavity nesters, black-backed woodpeckers, Rocky Mountain 

elk, and old-growth dependent species. Implementation of any alternative would not result in 

significant, incremental adverse effects on MIS species or their habitat within the project planning 

area.

Featured Species: For Northern goshawk, habitat would remain above the historical range of 

variability (HRV) for old forest multi strata and approach HRV for old forest single stratum under 

all action alternatives. No loss of individuals would be expected from project activities under any 

action alternatives. In the mid- to long-term, goshawks would acclimate to the increased presence 

of humans or move to other suitable nesting habitat within or outside the project planning area. 

Therefore, no effects to goshawk viability would be expected from the implementation of any of 

the action alternatives.

For blue (dusky) grouse, all action alternatives contain project design criteria that follow Regional 

Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 standards for retaining grouse winter roost habitat. 

Action alternatives may affect grouse habitat, however, habitat would remain above the historical 

range of variability and no adverse effects would be expected to blue grouse habitat or 

populations from implementation of any of the action alternatives.

Nesting and foraging habitat for osprey within the project planning area is limited, and therefore 

there are no impacts expected to osprey that would result in a change in the number of 

individuals, populations or prey species as a result of any of the action alternatives.

Neo-Tropical Migratory Birds/Landbirds: Effects to neo-tropical migratory birds are variable 

depending on the habitat associations of the individual species and effects to habitats described 

above. Impacts to habitat for some species may occur from vegetation management of forests; 

however, due to the limited amount of area affected by the action alternatives, effects to neotropical migratory birds are expected to be minimal. It is expected that vegetation management 

activities may remove some snags and thus have a potential adverse effect on cavity nesting birds 

in certain areas. However, analysis has shown that all activities should leave amounts of dead 

wood sufficient for the needs of cavity-dependent species, and where needed, snags and down 

wood would be created. Disturbance from operations and smoke during the nesting period is also 

a concern for neo-tropical migratory birds. However, efforts would be made to reduce the impacts 

to nesting birds that may be present in the project planning area that may be directly impacted by 

broadcast burning operations by restricting operations to outside the spring breeding/nesting 

season to the extent possible. Overall, potential population numbers for grass and shrub nesting 

birds are expected to increase. Another benefit is the creation of some snag trees caused by 

scorching from burning activities; thus creating some foraging and nesting habitat for 

woodpeckers and secondary cavity nesters (see Wildlife Report and section).

Aquatic Species

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Aquatic Species: For all action alternatives, the 

project, “May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect short-term; Beneficial Effect long-term” and 

“May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal 

Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species” short-term; “Beneficial Impact” 
Magone Project

208 of 632

long-term” for Middle Columbia River steelhead; “May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect” shortterm; “Beneficial Effect” long-term for Middle Columbia River steelhead designated critical 

habitat.

Management Indicator Species: For all action alternatives, the project “May Impact Individuals 

or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of 

Viability to the Population or Species” short-term; “Beneficial Impact” long-term for Interior 

redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and Columbia spotted frog.

Effects to aquatic species and habitat are similar under all action alternatives. This is due to the 

same site specific project design criteria and mitigation measures being included in all of these 

alternatives. The differences in activities between action alternatives are not large enough to 

create any measurable difference downstream on aquatic species.

Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation

The Nipple Butte IRA is primarily designated for providing semi-primitive motorized recreation 

in the project planning area. The primary recreational use in the Nipple Butte IRA is likely big 

game hunting and other dispersed recreation activities (e.g., camping, hiking).

Effects to semi-primitive classes of recreation, including isolation from the sights and sounds of 

man, would be affected by the increase of human presence and activity during the time of 

proposed treatments (i.e., mechanical treatments, prescribed burning) under alternatives 2 and 3. 

Silviculture and fuels treatments would have a short-term effect on scenic values and use of 

dispersed hunting campsites. Smoke may reduce the quality of the experience for recreationists 

that may be in the area, but it would have a short-term effect. Sights and sounds of human activity 

would increase as mechanical timber harvest treatments and prescribed burns are implemented 

under alternatives 2 and 3. This increase of activity would be short-term, however, and at the 

conclusion of treatments the sights and sounds of human activity would revert back to pre-project 

levels. The short-term effects to semi-primitive classes of recreation would be increased human 

presence, sights and sounds of timber harvest machinery, and road improvements.

Effects under alternative 4 from silviculture and prescribed burning treatments would be greatly 

reduced since no silvicultural treatments are proposed under this alternative and prescribed 

burning would be implemented on only 1,405 acres within the IRA. Impacts from treatment 

outside of, but adjacent to the IRA would have short-term, negative impacts on recreational users 

within the IRA due to the sights and sounds of human activity (i.e., mechanical harvest 

treatments).

The opportunity to enjoy semi-primitive, non-motorized recreational experiences would increase 

within the Nipple Butte IRA in the long-term under the action alternatives. Under alternative 2, 

trail developments would greatly increase hiking and bicycling opportunities. There would be a 

moderate distance of new trail (19.4 miles) built within the Nipple Butte IRA. Under alternative 

3, trail developments would be extensive and would substantially increase the hiking and 

bicycling opportunities with 32.7 miles of new trails within the Nipple Butte IRA. Trail 

developments, under alternative 4, would somewhat increase the hiking and bicycling 

opportunities with a small distance of new trail (7.6 miles) built within the Nipple Butte IRA. The 

addition of new, developed single-track trail for hiking and biking would result in a long-term 

decrease in the primitive recreation experience by introducing additional developed, semiprimitive recreation to the IRA.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

209 of 632

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; Reference landscapes

Alternatives 2 and 3

Under alternatives 2 and 3 there would be some visual effects to the landscape. Stumps would be 

visible in all treated units within the IRA. Various lengths of new recreation trails would be 

constructed in both alternatives. However, the objectives and guidelines associated with the visual 

quality objectives for each management strategy intersecting a treatment area would be met. 

Short-term acceptable effects from treatments are recognized and long-term enhancement to the 

visual landscape is expected (see Chapter 3, Visual Resources section).

Under alternative 2, stands within the IRA with light fuel loads would remain about the same 

following treatment. The biggest effect would be a decrease in the number of stands with heavy 

fuel loads. It is anticipated the majority of acres with heavy fuel loads would shift to moderate 

fuel loads following treatment. The potential for sustained crown fire within the IRA would be 

minimized. Treatments proposed under alternative 2 (see Table 53) align with the Roadless Rule 

where the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber would restore or maintain 

ecosystem composition and structure, reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within 

the range of variability that would be expected to occur under the natural disturbance regimes of 

the current climatic period. 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1).

The beneficial effects within the Nipple Butte IRA under alternative 3 are similar to the effects 

described under alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes additional mechanical treatments within the 

IRA (Table 53); combined with the proposed prescribed fuels treatments a slightly greater 

reduction in fuel loading and potential crown fire can be seen compared to alternative 2. 

Treatments proposed under alternative 3 align with the Roadless Rule where the cutting, sale, or 

removal of generally small diameter timber would restore or maintain ecosystem composition and 

structure, reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that 

would be expected to occur under the natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period. 

36 CFR 294.13(b)(1).

Prescribed burning within these areas would change composition and structure of vegetation (see 

Chapter 3). For a few years burned areas would display a blackened color until grasses, brush, 

and herbaceous species recover. Dead trees, particularly small trees (saplings to poles) would be 

evident over a 5 to 10-year period. Few overstory trees are expected to be killed. Outside the 

burned areas, the conditions described in the existing condition for the Nipple Butte IRA would 

remain unchanged except by natural processes and ongoing management activities such as 

grazing and hunting.

Landscape prescribed burning would require the construction of handline which would include 

the cutting of some small diameter trees, snags that pose a hazard to workers, and the limbing-up 

(pruning) of other trees incidental to prescribed burning activities. The sight of some random tree 

stumps left after handline construction incidental to prescribed burning activities could affect the 

natural appearing landscape and sense of solitude for some. This activity would not affect natural 

integrity because fire is a natural condition on the landscape and influenced the development of 

the forest community. Effects on apparent naturalness would be minimal and of short duration 

during implementation of the prescribed fire.
Magone Project

210 of 632

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 proposes no mechanical treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA. With the exception of 

the northeast corner of the IRA, no planned ignitions are prescribed either. Direct and indirect 

effects would be similar to those described in the no action alternative in untreated stands within 

the IRA. If timing and weather allow, management of unplanned ignitions would potentially 

reduce fuel loading and crown fire potential in the IRA. With the absence of mechanical 

treatments and relying solely on unplanned ignitions to manage fuels in the IRA, fuel and 

vegetation conditions would likely continue their departure from historical conditions and 

eventually succumb to the effects of wildfire or insects and diseases.

Under alternative 4, there would be limited direct visual effects to the landscape. New recreation 

trail construction would be visible in the northeast portion of the IRA. However, the objectives 

and guidelines associated with the visual quality objectives for each management strategy would 

be met. Short-term acceptable effects from treatments are recognized and long-term enhancement 

to the visual landscape is expected (see Chapter 3).

There would be no direct effect to the apparent naturalness, scenery, and sense of solitude and 

remoteness within the Nipple Butte IRA from timber harvest, mechanical fuel activities, and road 

construction because those actions are not proposed within the IRA under alternative 4. The 

sights and sounds of timber harvest and fuels treatment adjacent to the IRA would reduce a sense 

of naturalness several miles into the IRA during project operations but would not persist in the 

long-term. The conditions described in the affected environment for the IRA would remain 

unchanged except by natural processes and ongoing management activities such as grazing and 

hunting.

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

All traditional cultural properties and sacred sites would be avoided under alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to traditional cultural properties and/or 

sacred sites.

Other locally identified unique characteristics

There are no other locally identified unique characteristics in the Magone project planning area.

Generally Small Diameter

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule 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).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

211 of 632

The extent and amount of cutting, selling, or removal of timber varies with each alternative. 

Commercial thinning would generally be from below removing grand fir encroachment to protect 

the abundant large, old ponderosa pine and western larch within these stands. Commercial 

thinning will include trees 7 to 18 inches DBH, with an occasional tree up to 21 inches DBH. 

These trees are generally of small diameter because in areas proposed for thinning, old trees range 

from 25 to 55 inches DBH, with a majority of them being between 25 to 40 inches DBH.

Non-commercial thinning would include trees 1 foot tall to 11 inches DBH through manual and 

mechanical methods. Approximately half of the non-commercial thinning would be removal of 

juniper encroachment and the other half would be removal of conifer encroachment to protect 

mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, grasses, and other browse species that provide important habitat 

to Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer. Non-commercial thinning would remove trees of generally

small diameter and would leave larger trees as well as old growth juniper and ponderosa pine that 

range in size from 12 to 35 inches DBH.

Felling of trees within aspen stands would be completed for the purpose of removing conifer 

encroachment to protect existing aspen trees and stimulate suckering, as well as utilizing those 

trees for placement of large woody debris within Clear, McClellan, and Thompson creeks. Aspen 

provides unique habitat for many wildlife species within coniferous forests, and it is currently 

much reduced from its historical extent. The overstory of most aspen stands on the Malheur 

National Forest is single-storied and even-aged with many close to the end of their natural life 

cycle. Conifer trees felled would be predominately ponderosa pine that range in size from 

approximately 14 to 21 inches DBH. Trees greater than 21 inches DBH that do not exhibit old 

tree characteristics would occasionally be felled for large woody debris to meet Malheur Forest 

Plan standards that specify 20 percent of the large woody debris (80 to 120 pieces per mile) 

would be greater than 20 inches in diameter (Forest Plan Amendment 29). Trees that exhibit old 

tree characteristics would not be felled. Adding large woody debris into these streams would 

directly benefit Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species) and Westslope cutthroat trout 

(Region 6 Sensitive species).

Maintaining or Improving Roadless Area Characteristics

Cutting, sale, and removal of this material would maintain or improve these roadless area 

characteristics (§ 294.11):

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and 

for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land – Project activities 

would improve habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species), MidColumbia River steelhead Critical Habitat, and Westslope cutthroat trout (Region 6 

Sensitive species) by lowering water temperatures, reducing fine sediment levels, 

increasing large woody debris levels, and increasing floodplain connectivity. In addition, 

project activities would provide a greater amount of forage and browse for Rocky 

Mountain elk and mule deer.

 Reference landscapes – Project activities would move the plant association groups 

(PAGs) present within the Nipple Butte IRA within or towards the historical range of 

variability (HRV). In addition, the uncharacteristically high fuel loadings would be 

reduced to the type of reference conditions that would have been seen without successful 

fire suppression, and which would allow fire to function naturally on the landscape.
Magone Project

212 of 632

It is important to also note that the majority of the material cut within the Nipple Butte IRA would 

not be sold or removed; most would be either cut and left in place, scattered, or pile burned to 

reduce fuel loading, used for woody debris placement in nearby streams, or placed on highly 

erodible soils to reduce the potential for erosion.

Improving Threatened and Sensitive Species Habitat

The cutting of timber in the Nipple Butte IRA would: “...improve threatened, endangered, 

proposed, or sensitive species habitat.” (36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(i)). As described elsewhere in this 

document, project activities (under alternatives 2 and 3) would improve threatened and sensitive 

species habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species) and Westslope cutthroat 

trout (Region 6 Sensitive species).

Maintaining or Restoring the Characteristics of Ecosystem Structure

The purpose for treatment in the Nipple Butte IRA 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).

Successful fire suppression efforts have led to an increase in fuel loads in the Nipple Butte IRA. 

The Malheur Forest Plan allows for planned ignitions to achieve resource management 

objectives. It also allows for prescribed fire from lightning ignitions to be used to allow fire to 

play its natural ecological role (USDA Forest Service 1990, chapter IV, page 133, Standard 19). 

Applying mechanical treatments where possible, combined with prescribed fire, would help 

reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the Nipple Butte IRA. Where 

mechanical treatments are not possible, exclusive use of prescribed fire would gradually move the 

IRA toward desired conditons.

 Alternative 1 (No Action) – Fuel loadings are uncharacteristically high as a result of 

suppression efforts and insect and disease- caused conifer mortality. Fuel loading in 2055 

would make fire suppression more difficult, which directly affects the ability to protect 

life, resources, and property. Moderate to heavy fuel loading is expected to comprise the 

majority of the IRA. Lower fuel loading is predicted in the center of the IRA; however, 

the east and west boundaries look to have moderate to heavy fuel loadings in 2055. By 

2055 the north half of the IRA, particularly the northeast corner, would be affected by 

crown fire should an ignition occur under the right conditions. Roadless area ecosystem 

characteristics within the IRA would continue to depart from historical composition and 

structures, leading to uncharacteristic effects if a wildfire were to occur during high or 

extreme fire danger. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Maps 22 and 27.

 Alternative 2 – Stands within the IRA with light fuel loads would remain about the same 

after treatment. The biggest effect would be a decrease in the number of stands with 

heavy fuel loads. It is anticipated the majority of acres with heavy fuel loads would shift 

to moderate fuel loads following treatment. The potential for sustained crown fire within 

the IRA would be minimized. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Maps 23 and 28.

 Alternative 3 – The beneficial effects within the Nipple Butte IRA are similar to the 

effects described under alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes additional mechanical 

treatments within the IRA, and combined with the proposed prescribed fuels treatments a 

slightly greater reduction in fuel loading and potential crown fire can be seen compared 

to alternative 2. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Maps 24 and 29.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

213 of 632

 Alternative 4 – Alternative 4 proposes no mechanical treatments in the Nipple Butte 

IRA. With the exception of the northeast corner of the IRA, no planned ignitions are 

prescribed either. Direct and indirect effects would be similar to those described in the no 

action alternative in untreated stands within the IRA. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, 

Maps 25 and 30.

Cutting and Sale of Timber is Infrequent

The purpose of proposing silviculture treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA is to re-establish natural 

process and function, setting up the area to function as it did historically with frequent, lowintensity fire. Over 100 years of fire suppression has altered the natural succession in the area. 

Under natural conditions, low intensity fire would have selectively maintained ponderosa pine in 

the understory.

The project would include commercial and non-commercial thinning (11 acres under alternative 2 

and 306 acres under alternative 3), non-commercial thinning (2,908 acres under alternative 2 and 

2,915 acres under alternative 3), non-commercial thinning with designation as Replacement Old 

Growth (746 acres under alternatives 2 and 3), and conifer reduction in aspen stands (0.6 acres 

under alternatives 2, 3, and 4). The vast majority of trees cut within the IRA would be felled and 

left in place or hand piled and pile burned, a few units along existing roads have the potential for 

timber to be cut and removed (see FEIS Appendix A – Project Activity Tables, Tables A-1, A-2, 

and A-3).

Approximately 100 acres was harvested in the Nipple Butte IRA about 25 years ago (between 

1986 and 1991), removing trees infected by insects and diseases. There are no foreseeable 

projects that would cut or remove timber in the Nipple Butte IRA; this action would be infrequent 

on this landscape.

Cumulative Effects

For IRAs in which project activities would occur when combined with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, where project activities would occur, cumulative effects to 

soils; water quality; air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species; recreation; invasive plants; and cultural resources are disclosed in Chapter 

3 and specialist reports and are not reiterated here.

Under alternatives 2 and 3, silvicultural treatments would increase the numbers of stumps and the 

open nature of the forest stand would likely be the most apparent visual change resulting from 

implementation. In the long-term (about 50+ years), alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the 

development of historical open conditions characterized by larger diameter trees, though more 

stumps would be present than currently exist. Fuels treatments and future wildfires would 

cumulatively change the composition and structure of vegetation, which could affect some forest 

visitor’s sense of naturalness and remoteness. For a few years burned areas would display a 

blackened color. 

Outside of the burned areas, the conditions described in the affected environment would remain 

unchanged except by natural processes and ongoing management activities such as grazing and 

hunting.

Under alternative 4, there would be no silviculture treatments, and fuels treatments would only be 

implemented on approximately 1,400 acres of the IRA within the project planning area. While the 

visual change under alternative 4 would be noticeably less than under alternatives 2 and 3 due to 
Magone Project

214 of 632

the lack of silviculture and fuels treatments across the entire IRA, this would lead to continued 

development of complex fuel loads in the long-term (about 50+ years). By 2055 the north half of 

the IRA, particularly the northeast corner, would be affected by crown fire should an ignition 

occur under the right conditions. Roadless area ecosystem characteristics within the IRA would 

continue to depart from historical composition and structures, leading to uncharacteristic effects if 

a wildfire were to occur during high or extreme fire danger.

The reasonably foreseeable future activities authorized by the Aquatic Restoration Decision 

would be visually evident in the first year(s) following treatment; however, these would soon 

blend in with the landscape and contribute towards the improved function of the treated 

watersheds. These activities would shift species composition and enhance riparian conditions 

along Clear and McCellan creeks within the IRA. Cumulatively, activities described under 

alternatives 2 and 3 and aquatic restoration activities would be widespread enough to reduce the 

risk of large-scale, stand replacement fire and epidemic insect outbreak across the IRA, enhancing 

the overall condition of the IRA. The treatments for conifer/ juniper and fuels would not only 

benefit wildlife but would also benefit MCR steelhead and regionally-sensitive Westslope 

cutthroat trout in conjunction with foreseeable aquatic restoration actions within the IRA.

3.4.2.6 Impacts from Silviculture Treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Without entering the Nipple Butte IRA, many acres of overstocked forest would be left 

unmanaged. Previous fire suppression and other activities have led to encroachment of species 

that would have been regularly thinned naturally. This has led to stocking levels and species 

different to what would have occurred historically.

Sixty (60) percent of the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) within the project planning area 

is within the Nipple Butte IRA. In the Hot Dry and Warm Dry plant association groups (PAGs), 

which cover 66 percent of the project planning area, if no actions are taken, those PAGs would 

double their current range, increasing overstocking in old forest types, which might lead to these 

areas having a greater chance of uncharacteristic wildfire or insect infestation. Younger structural 

stages would decrease over time in the Warm Dry and Hot Dry PAGs, decreasing to below HRV.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” of the IRA would follow the trends described above, 

with OFSS moving in and out of HRV, OFMS exceeding HRV and increasing over time, and the 

younger strata decreasing over time (with YFMS and UR moving below HRV).

Cumulative Effects

Taking no action to reduce density or shift species composition through either mechanical 

methods or prescribed burning in this project keeps the area on its current trajectory and increases 

the risk of large-scale stand replacement fire and epidemic insect outbreaks.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The majority of the Nipple Butte IRA is composed of the Warm Dry and Hot Dry PAGs, within 

which the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) would increase over time to be within (in the 

case of OFSS) or above HRV (in the case of OFMS). Young forest structure in the Warm Dry 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

215 of 632

PAG would be below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055 and in the Hot Dry PAG SI would 

increase to be well above HRV in 2055.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” of the IRA would follow the trends described above, 

with old forest structure increasing and remaining well above HRV and young forest structure 

decreasing to be below or on the lower end of HRV.

Cumulative Effects

Aquatic Restoration Decision activities would shift species composition in some areas within the 

Nipple Butte IRA. Cumulatively, alternative 2 activities and Aquatic Restoration Decision 

activities would contribute to reducing the risk of large-scale, stand replacement fire and 

epidemic insect outbreak in the IRA.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The majority of the Nipple Butte IRA is composed of the Warm Dry and Hot Dry PAGs, within 

which the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) would increase over time to be within (in the 

case of OFSS) or above HRV (in the case of OFMS). OFSS would increase more under 

alternative 4 and OFMS would increase less, in comparison to alternative 2. Young forest 

structure in the Warm Dry PAG would be below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055 and in the 

Hot Dry PAG SI would increase to be well above HRV in 2055, similar to what would be seen 

under alternative 2.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” of the IRA would follow the trends described above, 

with old forest structure increasing and remaining well above HRV, with more OFSS and less 

OFMS than would be seen under alternative 2. Young forest structure would decrease to be below 

or on the lower end of HRV, similar to what would be seen under alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Aquatic Restoration Decision activities would shift species composition in some areas within the 

Nipple Butte IRA. Cumulatively, alternative 3 activities and Aquatic Restoration Decision 

activities would contribute to reducing the risk of large-scale, stand replacement fire and 

epidemic insect outbreak in the IRA.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The majority of the Nipple Butte IRA is composed of the Warm Dry and Hot Dry PAGs, within 

which the old forest structure (OFSS and OFMS) would increase over time to be within (in the 

case of OFSS) or above HRV (in the case of OFMS). OFSS would increase more under 

alternative 4 and OFMS would increase less, in comparison to alternative 2. Young forest 

structure in the Warm Dry PAG would be below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055, similar to 

what would be seen under alternative 2; young forest structure in the Hot Dry PAG would also be 

below or on the lower end of HRV in 2055, in contrast to the increase in SI to well above HRV 

that would be seen under alternative 2.

The pocket of Cool Moist in the “thumb” of the IRA would follow the trends described above, 

with old forest structure increasing and remaining well above HRV, with substantually less OFSS 
Magone Project

216 of 632

and OFMS than would be seen under alternative 2. Young forest structure would decrease to be 

below or on the lower end of HRV, similar to what would be seen under alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Since no silviculture treatments would be authorized in the Nipple Butte IRA under this 

alternative, similar to the no action alternative, the area would stay on its current trajectory with 

an increasing risk of large-scale stand replacement fire and epidemic insect outbreaks.

3.4.2.7 Impacts from Prescribed Burning in the Nipple Butte IRA

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of no action in the Nipple Butte IRA would mirror the effects discussed in the Fire, 

Fuels, and Air Quality section under alternative 1. Successful fire suppression has altered the 

natural succession of the area. Fuel loadings are uncharacteristically high as a result of 

suppression efforts and insect and disease-caused conifer mortality. Under natural conditions, 

low-intensity fire would have selectively maintained ponderosa pine in the understory and 

prevented the encroachment of fire-intolerant species such as grand fir (USDA Forest Service 

2010a).

By 2055 the north half of the IRA, particularly the northeast corner, would be affected by crown 

fire should an ignition occur under the right conditions (see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 21). 

A crown fire in the northeast corner of the IRA could potentially spread south and directly affect 

the Magone Lake recreation area. A crown fire in this area would also affect several roads 

identified as safety corridors/escape routes in this planning area and adjacent planning areas.

Fuel loading in the Nipple Butte IRA in 2055 would also make fire suppression more difficult, 

which directly affects the ability to protect life, resources, and property. Moderate to heavy fuel 

loading is expected to comprise the majority of the Nipple Butte IRA (see FEIS Appendix B –

Maps, Map 26). Lower fuel loading is predicted in the center of the IRA; however, the east and 

west boundaries are predicted to have moderate to heavy fuel loadings in 2055 with no action. 

One square mile of private land projects into the southwest corner of the IRA. This private land 

would eventually be surrounded by moderate to heavy fuel loads if no action is taken. 

Smaller tracts of private land along the south and west borders of the IRA would be subject to 

increased fuel loading. Identified safety corridors/escape routes adjacent to the IRA would be 

affected by the increase in fuel loading as well.

Under the no action alternative, roadless area ecosystem characteristics within the IRA would 

continue to depart from historical composition and structures, leading to uncharacteristic effects if 

a wildfire were to occur during high or extreme fire danger.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including fire suppression and grazing have contributed to the current conditions of 

fuels and departure from the natural disturbance regime. These past actions have resulted in 

increases in understory vegetation and surface fuels and changes in species composition and 

vegetative continuity. Canopy and ladder fuels have increased and the stands have grown to the 

point that crowns are becoming denser. Fire suppression would continue as an ongoing activity 

but would get increasingly more difficult as fuels increase.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

217 of 632

In choosing the no action alternative, the effects of decades of fire suppression would compound 

with the present day decision to not take restorative action on the landscape. Over the next 

decade, vegetation would continue to move away from historical conditions. The increasing 

understory vegetation and ground fuels would diminish the viewshed, obstruct cross-country 

travel for recreationists, and diminish ecological resilience.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The beneficial effects of the proposed treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA mirror those described 

in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality section under alternative 2. Under alternative 2, stands within 

the IRA with light fuel loads remain about the same after treatment. The biggest effect would be a 

decrease in the number of stands with heavy fuel loads. It is anticipated the majority of acres with 

heavy fuel loads would shift to moderate fuel loads following treatment. Areas with moderate fuel 

loads are primarily located in the northern half of the IRA (see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 

27). Moderate fuel loads within the IRA are somewhat fragmented, and under treatments 

identified in alternative 2 would remain fragmented with the exception of the northeast corner. If 

a fire were to occur in the northeast corner of the IRA, there could be adverse effects to both the 

Magone Lake recreation area and portions of Forest Service road 18. At a minimum, adverse 

effects could include loss of visual quality and damage to infrastructure associated with the 

Magone Lake Campground with the potential for loss of life should escape routes like Forest 

Service road 18 be compromised.

Under alternative 2, the potential for sustained crown fire within the IRA would be minimized 

(see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 22). Two stands are expected to have potential for active 

crown fire. The majority of the potential for sustained crown fire is modeled as conditional crown 

fire fuel type. This is important because conditional crown fire is unlikely to occur unless an 

adjacent stand is modeled with active crown fire potential. Under alternative 2, stands with the 

potential for active or conditional crown fire are scattered about in the IRA. This would aid in 

minimizing the adverse effects of crown fire within the boundary of the IRA. Adverse effects of 

crown fire could be loss of life, resources, and property.

Treatments proposed under alternative 2 align with the roadless rule where the cutting, sale, or 

removal of generally small diameter timber would restore or maintain ecosystem composition and 

structure, reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that 

would be expected to occur under the natural disturbance regimes under the current climatic 

period. 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1).

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including fire suppression and grazing have contributed to the current conditions of 

fuels and the departure from the natural disturbance regime. These actions have resulted in 

increases in understory vegetation and surface fuels and changes in species composition and 

vegetative continuity. Cumulatively, this project would reduce the potential for severe wildfire 

across the landscape. Fire suppression would continue as an ongoing activity and the probability 

of successful suppression would improve.
Magone Project

218 of 632

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The beneficial effects within the Nipple Butte IRA are similar to the effects described under 

alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes additional mechanical treatments within the IRA, and 

combined with the proposed prescribed fuels treatments a slightly greater reduction in fuel 

loading and potential crown fire can be seen compared to alternative 2 (see FEIS Appendix B –

Maps, Maps 23 and 28). Stands not treated would have similar effects to those described in the no 

action alternative. 

Treatments proposed under alternative 3 align with the Roadless Rule where the cutting, sale, or 

removal of generally small diameter timber would restore or maintain ecosystem composition and 

structure, reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the range of variability that 

would be expected to occur under the natural disturbance regimes under the current climatic 

period. 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, alternative 3 would further reduce the potential for severe wildfire across the 

landscape compared to alternative 2. Fire suppression would continue as an ongoing activity and 

the probability of successful suppression would improve slightly more with the treatments 

proposed in alternative 3.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 proposes no mechanical treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA. With the exception of 

the northeast corner of the IRA, no planned ignitions are prescribed either. Direct and indirect 

effects would be similar to those described in the no action alternative in untreated stands within 

the IRA. If timing and weather allowed, management of unplanned ignitions would potentially 

reduce fuel loading and crown fire potential in the IRA. A prescribed fire was modeled in the IRA 

under similar conditions that would be used to manage a wildfire. Comparing fuel load (see FEIS 

Appendix B – Maps, Map 26 and 29) there is little change in fuel loads between alternative 4 and 

the no action alternative within the boundary of the IRA. Similar results can be seen comparing 

fire type in FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 21 and 24. 

With the absence of mechanical treatments and relying solely on unplanned ignitions to manage 

fuels in the IRA, fuel and vegetation conditions would likely continue their departure from 

historical conditions and eventually succumb to the effects of wildfire or insects and diseases.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, alternative 4 would do less to reduce the potential for severe wildfire across the 

landscape compared to alternative 2. Fire suppression would continue as an ongoing activity; 

however probability of successful suppression would diminish in areas with fewer mechanical 

treatments as fuels continued to accumulate.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

219 of 632

3.4.2.8 Impacts from Hiking/Bicycle Trails in the Nipple Butte IRA

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Attractive mountain biking opportunities would continue to be nonexistent. The Nipple Butte 

trail, which traverses straight up steep slopes along a fence line is more suitable for off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs) than bicycles, and would remain the only option for mountain bikers who want 

to experience more than a short trail ride on a closed road. OHV users, bicyclists and hikers on 

the Nipple Butte trail would continue to have their experiences affected by the presence or 

evidence of other user groups, as the trail would remain as a general purpose trail. The Nipple 

Butte trail would remain the only trail option for OHV users.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Trail developments under alternative 2 would substantially increase the hiking and bicycling 

opportunities. There would be a moderate distance of new trail built within the Nipple Butte IRA. 

Most of the IRA trail mileage would be along the McClellan trail (6.5 miles of new construction 

in the IRA), which would go from the Nipple Butte trailhead to the southeast portion of the IRA. 

The McClellan trail would create a loop opportunity for hikers/bikers on the Jugow trail, offering 

scenic hiking and biking opportunities, and offer a loop opportunity on the Round Top trail by 

providing southern access to it. Two (2.0) of the 6.5 miles would be located along the eastern 

edge of the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area. The Wade trail, which connects the McClellan 

trail to itself by cutting off the southern portion of the McClellan trail and creating a smaller loop, 

is the other trail with significant IRA mileage (2.5 miles in IRA). Also within the IRA would be 

0.3 miles of the Magone Slide trail extension and 0.6 miles of the Jugow trail (just inside the 

northern border). Approximately 1.2 miles of the new construction portion of the Lake Butte trail 

would be in the “thumb” of the IRA. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 10.

Cumulative Effects

If the proposed trail developments under alternative 2 are constructed, the effect would be a more 

extensive network of trails, which would have the potential effect of attracting more visitors to 

the area. Attracting more visitors to the area could have impacts to the local recreational facilities 

as well as have an environmental impact due to the effects of increased forest visits and facility 

usage.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Trail developments under alternative 3 would be extensive and would substantially increase the 

hiking and bicycling opportunities. There would be a substantial distance of new trail mileage 

within the Nipple Butte IRA. The new IRA trail mileage includes the McClellan trail (6.5 miles of 

new construction in the IRA), also in alternative 2, which would go from the Nipple Butte 

trailhead to the southeast portion of the IRA. The McClellan trail would create a loop opportunity 

for hikers/bikers on the Jugow trail, offering outstanding scenic hiking and biking opportunities, 

and also allowing a loop opportunity on the Round Top trail by providing southern access to it. 

Two (2.0) of the 6.5 miles would be located along the eastern edge of the Wildlife Emphasis Area. 

The Wade trail, which connects the McClellan trail to itself by cutting off the southern portion of 
Magone Project

220 of 632

the McClellan trail and creating a smaller loop, is the other trail with significant IRA mileage (2.5 

miles in IRA) that is also in alternative 2. Under alternative 3, the Porcupine trail (13.6 miles of 

new construction in the IRA) would connect to the McClellan trail in the center of the IRA, loop 

around to the west near Clear Creek before going north and crossing the McClellan trail near the 

Nipple Butte trailhead and continue on to the east all the way to the Lake Butte trail. The 

Porcupine trail would cross valleys and traverse ridges, providing a scenic recreation experience. 

Approximately 12.8 miles of the 13.6 in the IRA would be in the northwest portion of the IRA 

and the remaining 0.8 miles would be in the IRA’s “thumb”. The trail would be instrumental in 

creating a full array of loop hiking and biking opportunities within the IRA portion of the Magone 

project planning area. The Porcupine trail would traverse through 1.1 miles of the northern edge 

of the Wildlife Emphasis Area. Also within the IRA would be 0.3 miles of the Magone Slide trail 

extension and 0.6 miles of the Jugow trail (just inside the northern border). Approximately 1.2 

miles of the new construction portion of the Lake Butte trail would also be in the “thumb” of the 

IRA. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 11.

Cumulative Effects

If the proposed trail developments under alternative 3 are constructed, the effect would be a more 

extensive network of trails, which would have the potential effect of attracting more visitors to 

the area. Attracting more visitors to the area could have impacts to the local recreational facilities 

as well as have an environmental impact due to the effects of increased forest visits and facility 

usage.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Trail developments under alternative 4 would somewhat improve the hiking and bicycling 

opportunities. There would be a small distance of new trail within the Nipple Butte IRA; 1.2 

miles of the new construction portion of the Lake Butte trail would be in the “thumb” of the IRA. 

Also within the IRA, 0.3 miles of the Magone Slide trail extension and 0.6 miles of the Jugow 

trail (just inside the northern border) would be constructed. Under alternative 4 there would be 

substantially less trail mileage within the IRA, and thus a return bicycle trail loop would not be 

available for the Jugow trail. See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 12.

Cumulative Effects

If the recreation developments under alternative 4 are constructed, the effect would be a slightly 

larger network of trails. However, the Magone Project trail system would not interconnect with 

foreseeable trail developments in the future project planning areas. Therefore, environmental 

impacts due to the synergistic effects of future trail developments would be very minimal.

3.4.2.9 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

The 2001 Roadless Rule states that the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter 

timber is allowed if it is needed to maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area 

characteristics as defined in § 294.11. “To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species habitat” 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(i), or “to maintain or restore the characteristics of 

ecosystem 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).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

221 of 632

The cutting, selling, or removal of timber from the IRA would occur through commercial thinning 

(alternatives 2 and 3), non-commercial thinning (alternatives 2 and 3), and felling of trees within 

aspen stands (alternatives 2, 3, and 4). The extent and amount of cutting, selling, or removal of 

timber varies with each alternative. 

Generally small diameter timber is defined for the Magone Project as being relative to the size of 

trees within each treatment unit. The commercial and noncommercial thinning prescription will 

generally be from below, removing grand fir encroachment to protect the abundant large, old 

ponderosa pine and western larch within these stands. Commercial and non-commercial thinning 

would include trees 1 foot tall to 18 inches DBH, with an occasional tree up to 21 inches DBH. 

These trees are generally of small diameter because in areas proposed for commercial thinning, 

old trees range from 25 to 55 inches DBH, with a majority of them being between 25 to 40 inches 

DBH. 

Non-commercial thinning would include trees 1 foot tall to 11 inches DBH through manual and 

mechanical methods. Approximately half of the non-commercial thinning would be removal of 

juniper encroachment and the other half would be removal of conifer encroachment to protect 

mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, grasses, and other browse species that provide important habitat 

to Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer. Non-commercial thinning would remove trees of generally 

small diameter and would leave larger trees as well as old growth juniper and ponderosa pine that 

range in size from 12 to 35 inches DBH. 

Felling of trees within aspen stands would be completed for the purpose of removing conifer 

encroachment to protect existing aspen trees and stimulate suckering, as well as utilizing those 

trees for large woody debris within Clear, McClellan, and Thompson creeks (this activity is 

authorized under the 2014 Aquatic Restoration Decision (USDA Forest Service 2014b)). Aspen 

provides unique habitat for many wildlife species within coniferous forests, and it is currently 

much reduced from its historical extent. The overstory of most aspen stands on the Malheur 

National Forest are single-storied and even-aged with many close to the end of their natural life 

cycle. Conifer trees felled would be predominately ponderosa pine that range in size from 

approximately 14 to 21 inches DBH. Trees greater than 21 inches DBH that do not exhibit old 

tree characteristics would occasionally be felled for large woody debris to meet Forest Plan 

standards that specify 20 percent of the large woody debris (80-120 pieces per mile) would be 

greater than 20 inches in diameter (LRMP Amendment 29). 

Trees that exhibit old tree characteristics would not be felled. Adding large woody debris into 

these streams would directly benefit Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species) and 

Westslope cutthroat trout (Region 6 Sensitive species). 

Conditions within the Nipple Butte IRA are similar to general forest land. Successful fire 

suppression efforts have led to an increase in fuel loads. The Malheur Forest Plan allows for 

planned ignitions to achieve resource management objectives. It also allows for prescribed fire 

from lightning ignitions to be used to allow fire to play its natural ecological role (USDA Forest 

Service 1990a, Standard 19, page IV-133). Applying mechanical treatments where possible, 

combined with prescribed fire, would help reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects 

within the Nipple Butte IRA. Where mechanical treatments are not possible, exclusive use of 

prescribed fire would gradually move the IRA toward desired conditions.
Magone Project

222 of 632

3.5 Analysis Issue – Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality

3.5.1 Existing Condition

3.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework

Malheur Forest Plan

The Malheur Forest Plan includes forest-wide fire management direction consistent with other 

resource goals. The goals for fire management are to: 1) initiate initial management action that 

provides for the most reasonable probability of minimizing fire suppression costs and resource 

damage, consistent with probable fire behavior, resource impacts, safety, and smoke management, 

and 2) identify, develop, and maintain fuel profiles that contribute to the most cost-efficient fire 

protection program consistent with management direction (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV–

4).

Malheur National Forest Fire Management Plan

The Malheur National Forest Fire Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2013) is an 

operational guide that defines how the fire management program will be implemented on the 

Forest. The following general forest-wide standards apply to National Forest System land 

administered by the Malheur National Forest. In some cases standards represent a minimum or 

maximum permissible level of an output or activity, and under some circumstances standards that 

are more restrictive may be applied, provided changes in outputs or effects on other resources do 

not occur. Forest-wide standards are intended to supplement, but in some cases may take the 

place of, national and regional policies, standards, and guidelines found in Forest Service manuals 

and handbooks and the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide. The Malheur Forest Plan includes the 

following standards related to fire and fuels:

 Utilize prescribed fire to meet land management objectives. Normally, plan human 

ignition sources for prescribed fire; when appropriate, utilize lightning ignition sources 

for prescribed fire (USDA Forest Service 1990a, chapter IV– pg. 45, Standard 180).

 Manage residue profiles at a level that will minimize the potential of high intensity 

wildfires and provide for other resource objectives in individual management areas 

(USDA Forest Service 1990a, chapter IV– pg. 45, Standard 181).

 Use all methods of fuel treatment as prescribed by site-specific analysis to achieve 

resource management objectives. Encourage utilization of wood residue as a priority 

treatment, consistent with long-term site productivity and wildlife habitat needs (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a, chapter IV - pg. 45, Standard 183).

 Integrate residue treatment with pest management practices (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

chapter IV – pg. 45, Standard 184).

The fuels management portion states that the appropriate type and amount of fuel treatment is 

tiered to the Malheur Forest Plan management area specific standards and goals. Levels and 

methods of fuel treatment will be guided by the protection and resource objectives of each 

management area. Emphasis will be on ecological restoration treatments. Where appropriate, 

fuels treatments will allow for the utilization of wood residues.

National Fire Plan

The National Fire Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001, 

2002, 2006) provides national direction for hazardous fuel reduction, restoration, rehabilitation, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

223 of 632

monitoring, applied research, and technology transfer. The agencies are developing a common 

strategy for reducing fuels and restoring land health in fire-prone areas. The Forest Service 

prepared a document outlining strategies for protecting people and the environment by restoring 

and sustaining land health: Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-adapted 

Ecosystems—A Cohesive Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2000). The 10-Year Comprehensive 

Strategy reflects the views of a broad cross-section of governmental and non-government 

stakeholders. It outlines a comprehensive approach to the management of wildland fire, 

hazardous fuels, and ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation on Federal, adjacent State, tribal, 

private forest and range lands. The Magone project planning area and the prescriptions being 

considered are part of this comprehensive management plan.

Grant County Community Wildfire Protection Plan

The Grant County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) provides for the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other federal agencies to consider 

the priorities of local communities for forest and rangeland management as well as hazardous fuel 

reduction projects. In the event of a wildland fire in the project planning area, the Grant County 

CWPP has identified two county roads and the Malheur National Forest has identified four 

additional Forest Service roads as potential escape route and safety corridors.

The objective along these safety corridors is to manipulate the existing vegetation in a way that 

moderates fire behavior, allowing safe travel for the public and suppression forces should the 

need arise to escape from an emerging wildland fire.

Regulatory Framework for Air Quality

Air quality standards require that impacts be minimized, especially in class 1 airsheds and smoke 

sensitive areas. Mitigation measures should be used when appropriate and burning should be 

conducted in accordance with the state Smoke Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

Chapter IV, page 40).

The framework for controlling air pollutants is mandated by the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), as 

amended. The CAA was designed to “protect and enhance” the quality of air resources, and 

encourage reasonable actions for pollution prevention. State implementation plans are developed 

to implement provisions of the CAA, specifically the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Section 160 of the CAA requires measures “to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in 

national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seasshores, and other 

areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value.” Stringent 

requirements are established for areas designated as class 1 airsheds, which include wilderness 

areas over 5,000 acres in existence before August 1977. Designation as a class 1 area allows only 

very small increments of new pollution above existing levels.

The Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308-309) requires states to establish goals for improving 

visibility in class 1 airsheds and to develop long-term strategies for reducing emissions of air 

pollutants that cause visibility impairment. The Regional Haze Rule requires smoke management 

programs to address visibility impairment in mandatory class 1 airsheds due to emissions from 

prescribed fire activities. The State has designated all class 1 airsheds sensitive to smoke during 

the visibility protection period, which is defined as July 1 to September 15, during which 

restrictions on burning apply for purposes of visibility protection.
Magone Project

224 of 632

Prescribed burning in Oregon is managed by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) under the 

Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OSMP). The OSMP is intended to minimize smoke impacts 

by conducting forest burning under weather conditions that disperse smoke and direct smoke 

away from populated areas. Burning on National Forest System lands only occurs with prior 

approval granted by ODF.

3.5.1.2 Existing Condition

Weather and Topography

The Blue Mountains experience hot, dry east winds several times a month during the summer and 

fall. These winds have low relative humidity, can quickly dry the fine fuels that carry fire, and can 

be strong. Valleys that run east-west and have low saddles at their crest are likely to be affected 

by these winds more than north-south valleys or areas with more topographic definition. Local 

winds associated with differential heating of the landscape are important throughout the Blue 

Mountains: diurnal up-valley winds during the day and down-valley winds at night. Topographic 

influences interact with weather, but have direct effects on fire as well. Steep slopes are more 

likely to burn than flat ones, southerly aspects more than northerly, and ridgelines more than 

valley bottoms.

The Magone project planning area occupies two subwatersheds, East Fork Beech Creek and Grub 

Creek. The Grub Creek subwatershed is located in the southeast corner of the project planning 

area and drainages generally flow south into the Upper Fork John Day River. The remainder of 

the project planning area lies in the East Fork Beech Creek subwatershed with drainages 

generally flowing south then west into the main stem of Beech Creek before entering the upper 

John Day River. A maximum elevation of 6,240 feet at the northern boundary of the project 

planning area and a minimum elevation of 3,520 in the southwest corner of the project planning 

area creates the feel of a general south to southwest aspect. However, all aspects are represented 

in the project planning area. Slope steepness greater than 60 percent can be found throughout the 

project planning area, but generally, slopes are less than 40 percent. During fire season, days with 

high fire danger often see temperatures rise above 80 degrees Fahrenheit, relative humidity fall 

into the mid-teens, and winds exceed 10 mile per hour (mph) generally out of the west to south. 

These weather conditions combined with dry or mostly dry lightning storms that occur in the 

summer months can present difficult challenges during suppression activities in the Magone 

project planning area.

Suppression and Protection

Magone Lake, the most popular developed recreation resource on the Blue Mountain Ranger 

District, is located in the project planning area. Should a wildfire occur, the main travel routes 

accessing this popular recreation destination have been identified in the Grant County 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan or by the Malheur National Forest as potential escape route 

and safety corridors. All or parts of County Road 18 and County Road 32, and Forest Service 

road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3620, FSR 3640, and FSR 3947 make up these travel routes. The 

objective along these routes is to manipulate the existing vegetation in a way that moderates fire 

behavior allowing safe travel for the public and suppression forces should the need arise to escape 

from an emerging wildland fire. In addition to the Magone Lake recreation area, there are 

structures located within or adjacent to the project planning area, and approximately 25 miles of 

shared boundary between national forest lands and private lands.

Reducing the fuel loadings, fuel continuity, and the availability of ladder fuels keeps fire confined 

to the ground, reduces fire intensity, and reduces firebrands; all of which increase the ability to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

225 of 632

control fires. Reducing the threat of ignition from firebrands requires reducing fuels both near and 

at some distance from potential control lines or values to be protected. Ignitions may result from 

firebrands originating as far away as 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) or more (Cohen 2000). Threat from 

firebrands becomes greater the closer the fire moves to an area of concern, whether it is a control 

line or value at risk.

Existing Condition – Fire Risk

Fire risk is the potential and frequency for wildfire ignitions, and is often defined as the number 

of fires per 1,000 acres per decade. Areas that have a fire start every 1 to 10 years are considered 

to have a high fire risk. The Magone project planning area has a high fire risk based on past starts 

of 1.26 fires per 1,000 acres per decade (mostly caused by lightning).

Existing Condition – Fire Hazard

Fire hazard for any particular forest stand or landscape is the potential magnitude of fire behavior 

and effects as a function of fuel conditions (Peterson et al. 2005). Fire hazard most commonly 

refers to the difficulty of controlling potential wildfire. Fire behavior characteristics such as rateof-spread, intensity, torching, crowning, spotting, fire persistence, or resistance to control are 

generally used to determine and describe fire hazard. As Brown et al. (2003) indicated; fire 

severity can be considered an element of fire hazard. Fire hazard must be reduced in order to 

protect life and property.

Large wildfire events burn quickly across the landscape and can consume hundreds to thousands 

of acres in a single day. During extreme weather events, downhill fire running of up to 5 miles 

during one burning period are not uncommon on the Malheur National Forest. Suppression 

resources contain over 95 percent of fires to less than 10 acres. Those fires that escape initial 

containment usually are ignitions that occur when fuel moistures and atmospheric conditions 

allow for extreme fire behavior. This includes fires in areas of high contiguous fuel loads, fires 

not quickly or easily accessible, fires in areas that do not allow suppression resources to safely 

work in close proximity to the fire (no escape route and/or safety zone), or a combination of the 

above.

Escape routes and safety zones are critical for firefighter safety, allowing for suppression efforts 

that protect life and property. An escape route is an easily negotiated path to a safe area or safety 

zone where the fire would not post a threat to firefighters. In frequent fire regimes where fuels are 

light, fire burns quickly leaving behind a blackened area. Without the presence of other hazards, 

this area can provide an accessible safety zone for firefighters working directly on the fire’s edge.

Fire behavior and severity depend on the properties of the various fuel strata and the continuity of 

those fuel strata. The fire hazard can be characterized by the potential for fuels to cause specific 

types of behavior and effects. Fuelbeds are classified into six strata: 1) tree canopy, 2) shrubs and 

small trees, 3) low vegetation, 4) woody fuels, 5) moss, lichens, and litter, and 6) ground fuels 

(duff) (Graham et al. 2004).

Fine fuels such as litter, duff, grasses, and small woody fuels (less than 3 inches diameter) have 

the most influence on the spread rate and intensity of fires. These fuels are used in fire behavior 

models developed for predicting the fire behavior of the initiating fire (Rothermel 1983). Coarse 

woody debris (more than 3 inches diameter) has little influence on spread and intensity of the 

initiating fire; however, they can contribute to development of large fires and high fire severity. 

Fire persistence, resistance-to-control, and burnout time (affects to firefighter and public safety, 

soil heating, and tree mortality) are influenced by loading, size, and decay state of large woody 
Magone Project

226 of 632

fuel. Torching, crowning, and spotting contribute to large fire growth and are greater where large 

woody fuels have accumulated under a forest canopy. Large woody fuel, especially containing 

large decayed pieces, are a suitable fuelbed for firebrands and can hold smoldering fire for 

extended periods of time (Brown et al. 2003). Spot fires can also be started in rot pockets of 

standing snags. The distance firebrands travel is dependent on size of the firebrand, wind speed, 

and height above ground of the firebrand source.

Crown fires are generally considered the primary threat to life, property, and ecological and 

human values. Crown fires occur when surface fires create enough energy to preheat and combust 

fuels well above the surface (Agee and Skinner 2005). Crown fires pose the greatest threat to 

firefighter safety from increased fireline intensities and long distance spotting. These risks force 

firefighters into an indirect suppression strategy, which increases acres burned and thus increases 

fire severity on the landscape.

Existing fuel conditions in the project planning area are a result of effective fire suppression for 

the past 75 to 100 years, timber harvest, and livestock grazing. There has been an increase in 

understory vegetation and surface fuels, a change in species composition, and an increase in the 

continuity of vertical and horizontal stand structure. As a result, the potential for crown fire has 

increased. Historical stand structure played an important role in maintaining fire-dependent forest 

types, such as ponderosa pine (Graham et al. 2004). Throughout much of the lower elevation 

grassland, woodland, and forest, grasses are one of the primary fine fuels that allow fire to spread. 

Livestock grazing has reduced the availability of these fuels since European settlement began 

(around 1850).

During a recent Insect and Disease Review (Speigel et al. 2014) conducted in the Magone project 

planning area, Entomologist Lia H. Speigel noted the following key findings:

 Most of the forest in the project planning area is overstocked.

 Many mixed conifer stands no longer resemble their historical assemblages and current 

vegetation is at risk of:

o high severity fire,

o defoliator outbreaks, and

o bark beetle attacks.

 Many mixed conifer stands that are now dominated by grand fir and Douglas-fir show 

evidence of a large departure from their historical stand composition, structure, and 

density.

 The low density of large, old ponderosa pines and larches, and a much higher density of 

younger, smaller firs is evidence of historically fire-maintained, open, early-seral 

dominated stands.

 The evidence of prior dominance by early-seral ponderosa pine and western larch 

indicates historically frequent fires, where pine and larch could establish on mineral soil 

seedbeds.

Existing Condition – Fire Regimes

A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in 

the absence of modern human intervention, but includes the influence of pre-settlement burning 

(Agee 1993). Coarse-scale definitions for natural fire regimes have been developed and 

interpreted for fire and fuels management. The five natural fire regimes are classified based on 

average number of years between fires, combined with the severity of the fire on the dominant 

overstory vegetation (Hann et al. 2003). The five regimes include:
Final Environmental Impact Statement

227 of 632

 I – 0 to 35 year frequency and low to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced)

 II – 0 to 35 year frequency and high severity (greater than 75 percent of the dominant

overstory vegetation replaced)

 III – 35 to 100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant 

overstory vegetation replaced)

 IV – 35 to 100+ year frequency and high severity (greater than 75 percent of the 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced)

 V – 200+ year frequency and high severity

The fire regimes for non-forested vegetation are dependent upon the moisture regime and whether 

it is upland or riparian. The fire regime for these areas can be I, II, III, or IV (Table 54).

A study completed by Emily Heyerdahl in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon found the 

historical fire-return interval to be approximately 12 years in similar dry forest types as the ones 

found in the Magone Project. Frequent lightning and pre-settlement burning contributed to these 

frequent fires. The frequency of wildfires changed drastically in the late 1800s. The change to low 

frequency fire-return intervals may be due to a dramatic increase in sheep and cattle grazing 

during the 1870s and 1880s, which reduced the fine fuels (Heyerdahl and Agee 1996). Other 

factors that reduced the overall frequency of wildfire on the landscape are fire suppression 

improvements and increased access as more roads were constructed.

A separate study was completed by Diana Olson in 2000 to assess fire history and return intervals 

within riparian habitats. Using the same fire history data from Heyerdahl’s study, along with 

sample plots within riparian areas, Olson found similar fire-return intervals within the riparian 

areas as that found in the upland forested areas (Olson 2000). 

These frequent fires burned with low severity. Olson concluded that keeping fire out of the 

riparian ecosystem would continue to alter structure and vegetation composition.

Fire regimes have been identified for all plant associations occurring across the Blue Mountains. 

In addition, fire frequency with the percent of any fire that may be mixed severity or stand 

replacing has been identified for all plant associations in the Blue Mountains. Within the project 

planning area, approximately 52 percent of the plant associations are within the Warm Dry plant 

association group and in fire regime I, with an average fire-return interval of 22 years and up to 

24 percent of any potential fire being stand replacing. Approximately 14 percent of the plant 

associations in the project planning area are within the Hot Dry plant association group and in fire 

regime I, with an average fire-return interval of 15 years and 10 percent of any potential fire 

being stand replacing. This information is displayed in Table 54. See the vegetation management 

section for more information on the plant association groups.

Table 54. Magone project planning area fire regime summary

Fire regime 

group

Plant association group Mean fire interval and 

replacement fire percentage

Percentage within 

project planning area

I Hot Dry Upland Forest 15 years and 10% 14%

I Warm Dry Upland Forest 22 years and 24% 52%

III Cool Moist Upland Forest 59 years and 30% 8%

III Warm Moist Upland forest 59 years and 30% 8%

IV Cold Dry Upland Forest 111 years and 67% 4%
Magone Project

228 of 632

Forested stands in the Magone project planning area have missed two or more fire cycles based 

on the mean fire intervals shown in Table 54, and many of these stands would not burn as a lowseverity surface fire. Fires would be mixed severity to stand replacing with detrimental effects to 

other resources that did not historically occur. Another ecological component that has changed 

and is contributing to the departure from the natural fire regime includes the vegetation condition. 

Tree densities are much higher and species composition has shifted to have a higher proportion of 

shade tolerant, fire susceptible fir. Insect and disease are contributing to tree mortality in the area,

which then contributes to surface fuel loading as trees fall to the ground.

Condition – Fuel Loadings

Fuel models (FMs) are used to help describe and quantify surface fuel situations and estimate fire 

behavior. Criteria for choosing a fuel model involve assessing the fuel strata that will support the 

fire as it spreads and generates heat intensity. Where fuelbeds are fairly continuous with similar 

fuel characteristics, one model can provide a realistic representation of expected fire behavior. A 

brief description of the FM characteristics that exist in the project planning area and their 

representation follows:

 FM 2 includes open shrub lands and ponderosa pine stands. Grasslands being encroached 

by conifers, as well as light understory development is typical. These stands may include 

clumps of fuels or small concentrations of dead down material that could generate higher 

intensity fire and may produce firebrands. Fire spread is primarily through the fine curing 

grass, dead herbaceous fuels, and litter. Grazing can reduce grasses, decreasing the 

potential fire spread where grass is the primary carrier.

 FM 5 is made up of young brush. Fire is generally carried in the surface fuels that are 

made up of litter cast by the shrubs and the grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires 

are generally not very intense because surface fuel loads are light, the shrubs are young 

with little dead material, and the foliage contains little volatile material. Usually shrubs 

are short and almost totally cover the area.

 FM 8 represents a closed canopy of short-needle conifers with a compact surface-fuel 

litter layer. Representative vegetation types are mixed conifers of lodgepole, Douglas-fir, 

subalpine fir, grand fir, and larch. The surface-fuel layer is mainly needles and occasional 

twigs with very little undergrowth. Fires are typically slow burning with low flame 

lengths. An occasional heavy fuel concentration may cause a flare up, but the chance of 

any erratic fire behavior is small. Only under severe weather conditions with high 

temperatures, extremely low relative humidity, and high wind speeds does this fuelbed 

pose a high fire hazard.

 FM 9 areas have mature, closed canopy stands with small amounts of understory 

development. Fires spread through surface litter that has accumulated under more dense 

stands of ponderosa pine. Concentrations of dead-down woody material contribute to 

possible torching of overstory trees.

 FM 10 represents an area in which there is a moderate loading of larger size fuel at the 

surface layer. In this model, fires burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater fire 

intensity than the other fuel models. The fuelbed contains a moderate loading of large 

size fuels from insect/disease, wind damage, or natural mortality. High heat intensity, 

torching, spotting, and crowning may be expected during wildfire events, and resistance 

to control is high.

 FM 11 is similar to FM 10 in that the primary fire carrier is larger woody debris but it has 

heavier loadings than FM 10. High heat intensity, torching, spotting, and crowning may 

be expected during wildfire events and resistance to control is high.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

229 of 632

 FM 12 is dominated by slash, much of it less than 3 inches in diameter. Rapidly 

spreading fires with high intensities capable of generating firebrands can occur. When fire 

starts it is generally sustained until a fuel break or change in fuels is encountered.

 FM 13 is represented by a continuous layer of slash with much of the material greater 

than 3 inches in diameter. Fires spread quickly through the fine fuels and intensity builds 

up more slowly as the large fuels start burning. Active flaming is sustained for long 

periods and firebrands of various sizes may be generated. These contribute to spotting 

problems as the weather conditions become more severe.

The majority of the project planning area falls within a FM 2, 8, 9, or 10 depending on whether 

grass or woody debris is the carrier of fire. These fuel models burn with differing intensities and 

rates of spread. Please refer to the fuel model descriptions above.

Surface fuels vary widely across the project planning area. An inventory of surface fuels was 

completed with silvicultural stand exams (see Magone Silviculture Report).

The majority of the Magone project planning area has light fuel loads of less than 8 tons per acre 

(Table 55). However, many of the forested stands identified as having moderate to heavy fuel 

loads are located adjacent to or within the Magone Lake recreation area and alongside designated 

safety corridors and the wildland-urban interface. Greater fireline intensities, increased mortality, 

and resistance to control efforts can all be expected in areas with higher fuel loads.

Table 55. Magone project planning area fuel load summary

Total fuel loading Percentage of project planning area

0–8 tons/acre 61%

8–15 tons/acre 17%

15+ tons/acre 22%

Existing Condition – Crown Fire Potential

Crown fires are generally considered the primary threat to life, property, ecological, and human 

values. Crown fire occurs when surface fire creates enough energy to preheat and combust fuels 

well above the surface (Agee and Skinner 2005). Crown fires are typically faster moving than 

surface fires, more difficult to suppress, and pose the greatest threat to firefighter safety from 

increased fireline intensities and long distance spotting. These risks force an indirect suppression 

strategy, which increases acres burned and thus increases fire severity on the landscape resulting 

in more tree mortality and smoke production.

Crown fires are generally classified two ways:

 Passive crown fire occurs when single trees or small groups of trees torch. After the trees 

torch the fire returns to the surface.

 Active crown fire occurs when the fire moves through the crowns of adjacent tightly 

spaced trees until it reaches a more open stand or there are changes in topography or 

winds.

Both types of crown fire are dependent on the surface and ladder fuels for their initiation. The 

continuity and density of tree canopies in combination with wind and physical setting provide 

conditions required for rapidly-moving crown fire. Canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and 

canopy continuity are key characteristics of forest structure that affect the initiation and 

propagation of crown fire. Reducing canopy bulk density by thinning is a means to minimize 

crown fire hazard. As surface fire intensity increases, or canopy base height decreases, it takes 
Magone Project

230 of 632

less wind to cause a surface fire to become a crown fire. As a stand becomes dense, active 

crowning occurs at lower wind speeds and the stand is more vulnerable to crown fire (Reinhardt 

et al. 2003).

Through past harvest activities and the effects of fire exclusion, stand structure in portions of the 

project planning area has moved from primarily single storied stands with large trees to 

overstocked stands with multiple stories of mid-size and small trees. Higher proportions of less

fire-dependent tree species are occurring, such as grand fir and Douglas-fir. These species exhibit 

very dense crowns and grow in tighter spacing than the more fire-dependent ponderosa pine and 

western larch. Canopy base height is low enough and canopy bulk density is high enough in many 

forested stands that with current surface fuel conditions, there is potential for sustained crown fire 

on approximately 19 percent of the area (Table 56). Much of the larger ponderosa pine and 

western larch in the project planning area have smaller grand fir and Douglas-fir growing as 

ladder fuels underneath.

Models indicate some classification of crown fire is likely within and adjacent to the Magone 

Lake recreation area should a fire occur on days with hot, dry, and windy weather. Additionally, 

models indicate County Road 18, FSR 36, and the western boundary of the project planning area 

could likely experience extreme fire behavior under the conditions mentioned previously.

Table 56. Magone project planning area existing crown fire potential by fire type

Fire type Percentage of project planning area

Active crown fire 12%

Crown conditional fire 7%

Passive crown fire 35%

Surface fire 46%

Existing Condition – Air Quality

Activities that would create smoke emissions must follow the Oregon Smoke Management Plan 

(OSMP).

The Strawberry Mountain Wilderness is a class 1 airshed located approximately 6 miles to the 

south of the project planning area. State of Oregon monitoring has not shown degraded visibility 

and protection periods from burning have not been set for class 1 airsheds in eastern Oregon. The 

towns of John Day (6 miles south), Baker City (50miles east northeast), and Burns (60 miles 

south) are listed in the OSMP as smoke sensitive receptor areas, and thus protected by the highest 

standard in the plan. Other small communities that could be affected by prescribed burning are 

Mt. Vernon to the south, Dayville to the west, Long Creek to the north, and Prairie City to the 

east.

Prevailing winds during times of prescribed fire activity typically range from northwest to 

southwest. During the day, diurnal heating forces air up-valley and up-slope, out of the area. 

During the night, air tends to sink down drainages and could potentially direct smoke into valley 

bottoms and temporarily affect air quality. Inversions affecting air quality occur mostly during 

winter months, but can develop other times of the year in the morning hours and dissipate by 

noon.

Currently, air quality conditions in surrounding smoke sensitive areas is limited to short-term 

effects resulting from wood burning, prescribed burning, and field burning. The greatest affect to 

the wilderness area is from field burning in the Willamette Valley and Central Oregon, as well as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

231 of 632

summer wildfires that occur to the south and west. These sources contribute to haze and can last 

for several days in spring and summer.

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

3.5.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The proposed action would reduce the fuel loadings by reducing the density and horizontal and 

vertical connectivity of standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels to restore 

characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, which would reduce uncharacteristic 

wildfire effects within the project planning area, including the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless 

Area and wildland urban interface. Reduce fuels along County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest 

Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as 

escape corridors from Magone Lake in the Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan.

The measurement indicators detailed in Table 57, are used for assessing the effects to the 

transportation system in the Magone project planning area.

Table 57. Fire, fuels, and air quality resource indicators for assessing effects

Objective Indicator

Assess the potential for crown fire Crown bulk density and canopy base height

Assess how fuel loading affects crown fire 

potential

Fuel loadings, crown bulk density, and canopy base height

Assess departure from natural fire regime Missed fire return intervals

Assess air quality Meeting the Clean Air Act and State and Federal air 

quality standards

3.5.2.2 Methodology

See Silviculture section for a description of stand exams and FSVeg Data Analyzer program 

modeling methodology used in this section.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities have been considered for their 

cumulative effects on fire and fuels. The areas considered for cumulative effects are the East Fork 

Beech Creek and Grub Creek subwatersheds. The time period considered for cumulative effects 

begins approximately 100 years prior to the initial operations and continues for 40 years. This 

time period includes potentially four fire cycles prior to and two fire cycles after if the area were 

in its natural fire regime. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing, and 

foreseeable activities that may contribute effects to fire or fuels.

Past actions including fire suppression, timber harvest, and grazing have contributed to the 

current conditions of fuels and the departure from the natural disturbance regime. These actions 

have resulted in increases in understory vegetation and surface fuels, and changes in species 

composition and vegetative continuity. Past grazing reduced fine fuels at varying levels 

depending on the intensity of grazing which reduced potential fire spread. Past road construction 

enabled fire suppression personnel to more easily access fire starts and contributed to successful 

fire suppression. Past mechanical treatments dating back to the early 1900s helped the project 

planning area retain its historical fire regime 1.
Magone Project

232 of 632

Cumulatively, project activities would have a positive effect on protection of life and property and 

would reduce the potential for severe wildfire across the landscape. Fire suppression would 

continue as an ongoing activity and the probability of successful suppression would improve 

following the proposed treatments. Treatments adjacent to identified safety corridors would 

establish known anchor points and control lines allowing suppression forces to get ahead of 

advancing wildfires and complete indirect attacks.

Future grazing would continue to affect fine fuels. This can affect the implementation of 

prescribed fire and meeting objectives if the fuels (grasses) needed to carry fire are removed. 

Grazing management and fuels management need to coordinate to best meet their objectives. 

Some people have suggested that continued grazing would also shift the plant communities 

toward shrubs and trees. Local experience shows increases in tree stocking are not due to grazing 

but can be attributed to the past combination of timber harvest and fire suppression.

Future prescribed burning and management of natural ignition fires would be necessary to 

maintain fuels at desirable levels and limit ingrowth. The modeling for this project applied 

prescribed burning once in the first decade. Regeneration would remain at sustainable levels, 

preventing increases in ladder and surface fuels.

Implementation of the travel management plan, a reasonably foreseeable future action, would not 

likely reduce the risk for man-caused fires in the project planning area. Past human-caused fires 

are 22 percent of all cause-documented ignitions. Most of the documented ignitions within the 

Magone project planning area have been lightning caused. Prior to 2002, cause was not recorded 

for fire starts within the project planning area. The travel management plan would not impede fire 

suppression personnel; they could still get to fires utilizing their suppression equipment (engines, 

crew vehicles, or aviation).

Emissions produced from prescribed burning under the proposed action would not exceed air 

quality standards. There is potential for prescribed burning to occur at the same time in nearby 

planning areas. Currently four project areas are located near the Magone project planning area. 

The Galena, Balance, 18 Road, and Big Mosquito projects all have signed decisions. Within the 

next three years, NEPA could be completed for the Camp Lick planning area. Total emissions 

produced from concurrent projects from National Forest System lands would meet air quality 

standards. It is likely that only a few projects, in isolated areas, would undergo burning at the 

same time. The dilution of smoke over time and space from concurrent burning would limit the 

cumulative effects. All burning would be coordinated to reduce cumulative effects and meet all 

applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, the cumulative effects of multiple prescribed burning 

projects would not cause air quality to exceed standards.

Future activities authorized under the Malheur National Forest Aquatic Restoration Decision 

(USDA Forest Service 2014b) include several riparian enhancement projects. The main emphasis 

on these riparian enhancement projects would be placing large and coarse woody debris in 

streams. Until conifer slash loads are reduced, there would be a short-term (5 to 10 years) adverse 

effect on fuel loading in the riparian areas where woody debris is placed in the stream. However, 

over time the riparian area would begin to function more effectively. A healthy riparian area acts 

as a natural fuel break to slow and help stop a wildfire. Underburning in the riparian areas would 

reduce conifer encroachment and stimulate growth of hardwoods.

Juniper, hawthorn, and aspen treatments are also authorized under the Aquatic Restoration 

Decision. Juniper and hawthorn will be felled, or pushed over with the root ball intact and placed 

into the stream. Similar to the addition of large and coarse woody debris, there would be short-
Final Environmental Impact Statement

233 of 632

term adverse effects on fuel loading in the riparian area. Aspen treatments would include the 

removal of conifers up to 21 inches that are shading aspen stands. These conifers could be girdled 

to create wildlife snags or placed in the stream. Aspen are highly fire-adapted, but aspendominated communities do not burn readily (Jones and Debyle 1985). Aspen foliage is not highly 

flammable, and the moist herbaceous vegetation that typically forms the understory often would 

support only light ground fires or no fire at all. Severe fires in aspen are much more likely when 

there is a dense understory of shrubs or conifers (Jones and Debyle 1985). Like any healthy 

riparian area, healthy aspen stands can be used as natural barriers to stop the spread of wildfires.

Hardwood planting is another activity authorized under the Aquatics Restoration Decision and 

could increase live fuel loads by adding to the shrub layer in riparian areas. Once established and 

after some growth, these additional hardwoods would assist in keeping fuel moistures higher, 

provide more shade, and keep temperatures cooler in the riparian area, thus leading to lowintensity ground fires.

The remaining future activities to be completed under the Aquatics Restoration Decision, such as 

log weir removal or modification, legacy structure removal, storm proofing roads, spring 

development, riparian fencing, and beaver habitat restoration will not adversely affect fuel loads 

in the short-term. As these activities occur and stream function is restored, these healthy riparian 

areas would become useful fuel breaks to slow down or stop the spread of wildfire.

3.5.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative would not reduce or increase fuels by commercial harvest, non-commercial 

thinning, mechanical surface fuels treatment, or prescribed fire. The effect of no action would be 

more difficult and less successful protection of life and property. Increased fuel loads would 

increase the potential for uncharacteristic crown fire behavior and fires would become more 

resistant to control efforts. Fire severity with detrimental effects to vegetation and soils would be 

high.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fire Hazard

The effect of no action would be an increased potential for uncharacteristic crown fire behavior 

with greater resistance to control. The expected fire severity would increase for much of the 

project planning area because of increases in ladder fuels resulting from high stocking levels in 

the understory, low canopy-base height, and high canopy-bulk density.

Large ponderosa pine trees would continue to be vulnerable to mortality from wildfires due to 

deep accumulations of duff continuing to build around tree bases and an increase in ladder fuels. 

These trees are also threatened by overstocking, which would only increase under this alternative. 

Forested areas on Douglas-fir and grand fir sites that were historically dominated by ponderosa 

pine would continue toward their climax vegetation. Native shrubs and other native ground 

vegetation in the project planning area are adapted to low-severity fire. The absence of lowseverity fire has had adverse effects on these plants, which have also been adversely affected by 

shading and competition from conifers. When wildfires occur, the severity would be greater with 

this alternative, possibly killing plants that would otherwise have the ability to sprout after a lowseverity fire.
Magone Project

234 of 632

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fuel Loadings

If no action were taken, the project planning area would see an increase in the potential for stand 

replacing fires rather than the low-intensity/low-severity fires that would have occurred 

historically. Surface fuels including downed-woody material, needle litter, and duff accumulation 

would increase from current levels, contributing to the potential for stand-replacing fire and 

increased mortality.

By the year 2055, the total area having a moderate fuel load would increase by 42 percent, while 

areas with a heavy fuel load would decrease by 5 percent. Areas with light fuel loads would 

decrease by 37 percent (Table 58). These departures from the existing condition and from the 

desired condition to models with heavier fuel loadings indicate fires would burn with high 

intensity and severity. As an example, fuel model 10 currently comprises 24 percent of the 

planning area and is expected to increase to 40 percent in 2055 under this alternative. Fuel model 

13 does not exist in the project planning area at this time; however, models indicate that 2 percent 

of the area would be classified as fuel model 13 in 2055 under this alternative (see fuel model 

descriptions above). High heat intensity, torching, spotting, and crowning may be expected during 

wildfire events and resistance to control would be high. This makes protection of life and 

property more difficult and decreases chances of successful suppression efforts.

Table 58. Fuel load percentage of project planning area; existing condition compared to no action

Fuel load Existing condition No action – 2055 Percentage change

0-8 tons/acre 61% 24% -37%

8-15 tons/acre 17% 59% 42%

15+ tons/acre 22% 17% -5%

Ladder and Crown Fuels

The continuity and density of tree canopies would provide conditions that enable rapidly-moving 

crown fire. Overstocked stands would continue to slow in growth. Stand density would increase 

and tree vigor would decrease. The overall resiliency to withstand natural disturbances would 

continue to decrease. Late seral species would continue to increase in mixed species stands. 

Additionally, crown base heights would decrease, and canopy bulk density would increase, 

leading to greater potential for crown fire.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Crown Fire Potential

Historically, this area had short fire-free periods that prevented high fuel loads from accumulating 

and limited the fuel strata within the stand. There would be a 3 percent increase in active crown 

fire potential and a 4 percent increase of crown conditional fire potential (Table 59).

Table 59. Fire type percentage of project planning area; existing condition compared to no action

Fire type Existing condition No action - 2055 Percentage change

Active Crown 12% 15% 3%

Conditional Crown 7% 11% 4%

Passive Crown 35% 20% -15%

Surface 46% 54% 8%

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fire Regime

As stated earlier, fire regime 1 represents dry upland forest such as ponderosa pine and Douglasfir plant associations or the Warm Dry plant association group (PAG), and comprises 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

235 of 632

approximately 66 percent of the project planning area. A fire under current conditions would not 

burn as a low-severity surface fire. Fires would be mixed-severity to stand replacing with 

detrimental effects to other resources, which did not historically occur.

Vegetation condition is another ecological component that would contribute to the departure from 

the natural fire regime. Tree densities would continue to increase and species would continue the 

shift to higher proportions of shade tolerant, fire susceptible fir. Stand conditions would increase 

susceptibility to insect and disease effects, reaching levels that are highly departed from the 

natural fire regime. Forested stands in the project planning area would continue to depart from the 

natural fire regime.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Air Quality

The no action alternative would have the least immediate effect on air quality, as no prescribed 

burning or pile burning would occur. Biomass would continue to accumulate and remain available 

for consumption by wildfires, increasing the potential for large amounts of smoke during the 

summer months when diurnal inversions can concentrate smoke at low elevations. Wildfires tend 

to occur at the driest time of the year; therefore, fuels are more completely consumed and 

typically produce three to five times more emissions than early- or late-season prescribed fires. 

There is potential during a wildfire for approximately 440 pounds per acre of PM2.5 emissions. 

These smoke concentrations can have high particulate levels that may cause health problems or 

violate summertime Class I air quality visibility standards for wilderness areas. The communities 

of Long Creek, Fox, Prairie City, Mt. Vernon, Austin, Bates, Unity, Kimberly, Monument, 

Sumpter, Hamilton, Dayville, and John Day could be affected by smoke from a wildfire in this 

area.

Cumulative Effects

The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable activities 

that may contribute effects to fire or fuels. The area considered for cumulative effects are the East 

Fork Beech Creek and Grub Creek subwatersheds. The period considered for cumulative effects 

begins approximately 100 years in the past and continues 40 years into the future following 

implementation of the initial operations planned with this project.

Past actions including fire suppression, timber harvest, and grazing have contributed to the 

current conditions of fuels and departure from the natural disturbance regime. These past actions 

have resulted in increases in understory vegetation and surface fuels and changes in species 

composition and vegetative continuity. Past road construction enabled fire suppression personnel 

to more easily access fire starts and contributed to successful fire suppression. Commercial 

harvest since the early 1900s, followed by dense planting, has converted stands to more fire 

resistant tree species that are in the late seral stage, currently overstocked, and at risk to high 

mortality from fire. The lack of non-commercial thinning has increased canopy and ladder fuels 

and the stands have grown to the point that crowns are becoming denser and many acres are still 

overstocked and needing additional fuel reduction treatments. Fire suppression would continue as 

an ongoing activity but would get increasingly more difficult as fuels increase.

Fuel treatments on other land ownerships reduce the chance of a severe wildfire on those 

ownerships. Not treating this area does not contribute to landscape fuel reduction with those 

adjacent and nearby lands. No action in the project planning area affects other present and 

ongoing actions. If a wildfire were to burn at high intensity and severity all current and future 

actions would be affected.
Magone Project

236 of 632

3.5.2.4 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 proposes about 11,900 acres of mechanical treatment. Commercial activities are 

planned for about 4,700 acres, and the remaining 7,200 acres would have non-commercial 

treatments applied. Prescribed fire would be applied to about 28,500 acres and planned ignitions

could occur during any burn season, spring or fall (Table 60). Unplanned ignitions may be used 

like prescribed fire when fuel loading and weather conditions are appropriate.

Proposed treatments would help return the forest to a more resilient and sustainable condition. 

The overall effect would be a reduction of canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, which would 

contribute to the success of suppression and protection under most fire scenarios. Stands not 

receiving treatment would have effects similar to those discussed under the no action alternative. 

Crown or canopy fuels and ladder fuels would be treated by commercial harvest and noncommercial thinning. Surface fuels would be treated by hand or mechanical piling followed by 

burning of the piles, removal of slash for utilization (biomass), and/or underburning. Cram et al. 

(2006) observed that mechanical treatment followed by prescribed fire (including pile burning) 

had the greatest influence toward mitigating fire severity.

Prescribed fire burn blocks vary in size from 1,000 to 7,400 acres with boundaries identified 

along natural fuel breaks, such as existing roads and ridgetops (Table 60). The size, in acres, of a 

particular burn block does not represent how much of the landscape would be burned or 

blackened. Within each identified burn block there would be a number of unburned acres. 

Examples include open scabby areas, wet riparian areas, and north facing slopes in general. 

Additionally, much of the area where prescribed fire would carry is expected to burn in a mosaic 

pattern for a number of reasons. Fuel moisture, shading, grazing, and lack of continuous fuelbeds 

can lead to the mosaic burn pattern often created during prescribed fire operations (see Figure 30

below). Another factor limiting actual burned acres is design criteria limiting where active 

ignitions can occur within a particular burn block. Depending on weather conditions, fuel 

characteristics, and design criteria (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria), the number 

of acres burned could vary from 50 to 80 percent of the proposed burn block size.

Figure 30. Example of a mosaic underburn pattern.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

237 of 632

Table 60. Magone Project burn blocks alternative 2

Burn block Acres Planned ignitions

1 1,400 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

2 7,400 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

3 2,700 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

4 1,000 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

5 3,500 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

6 6,400 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

7 4,900 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

8 1,200 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Total 28,500 *unplanned ignitions can be used any season

Non-commercial thinning of small diameter trees would also reduce ladder fuels and the 

continuity of the tree crowns. This is proposed within areas treated commercially and in areas 

where there is little commercial material but there is a need to remove the smaller trees.

Of the 27,000-acre project planning area, almost 45 percent of the area would be mechanically 

treated. The entire planning area would be treated with prescribed burning, which would burn in a 

mosaic pattern as described above. These treatments would break up the continuity of fuels across 

the project planning area.

Alternative 2 also addresses the need for treatment along safety corridors identified in the Grant 

County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2005). The objective along these safety corridors is 

to manipulate the existing vegetation in a way that moderates fire behavior. The treatments 

proposed would allow safe travel for the public and suppression forces should the need arise to 

escape from an emerging wildland fire. Treatments along these corridors would also provide 

suppression forces with anchor points and better opportunities for stopping the spread of wildland 

fires.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fire Hazard

An overall effect of the proposed action would be a reduction of canopy fuels, ladder fuels, and

surface fuels, which would contribute to successful fire suppression and protection of life and 

property under most fire scenarios. Mechanical fuel treatments that reduce ladder and canopy 

fuels would have a direct effect on canopy base height and crown bulk density. The continuity of 

the fuels within the project planning area would be broken up.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fire Regime

Fire regime 1, a low severity but high frequency regime, comprises approximately 66 percent of 

the project planning area (Table 54). Treatments would change vegetation characteristics 

including stand density, species composition, and structural stage. Treatments would also change 

fuel composition and potential fire severity, components relating to change from reference 

conditions. 

After completion of all mechanical treatment (approximately 11,900 acres proposed) and 

prescribed burning (approximately 28,500 acres proposed), these stands would begin to resemble 

a more historical forest structure and pattern. Conducting maintenance burning throughout the 

project planning area would be important to continue moving stands toward a more historical 

condition and to maintain resiliency in those stands over time.
Magone Project

238 of 632

As untreated stands continue to miss fire return intervals they would continue to depart from 

historical conditions.

Treatments identified in alternative 2 would result in conditions that are more resilient to natural 

disturbance processes, including wildfire. The increased tree growth from thinning would cause 

the development of old forest structural stages to accelerate, allowing the thinned stands to grow 

into the large size classes sooner. As structure approaches the historical range of variability, and 

with continued maintenance burning to sustain low fuel levels, forest structure, composition, and 

density would move toward more resistant and resilient vegetative conditions given the historical 

fire regime.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fuel Loading

There would be a short-term increase in fire hazard following treatment and prior to slash 

disposal when fuels remain in the units and on the ground. Existing surface fuels and created 

slash would be treated by one or a combination of methods. Whole tree yarding or yarding with 

tops attached would remove the slash to a landing for utilization or to be piled and burned. Other 

slash treatments would include handpiling or grapple piling followed by burning of the piles 

and/or applying understory prescribed burning. Any combination of slash treatments would 

facilitate a reduction in surface fuel loading. All units include treatments to reduce the surface 

fuels to mitigate the possible increase in surface winds and drier fuels. A prescribed burning 

program continuing into the future would be needed to maintain the desired fuel levels and limit 

regeneration from becoming a ladder fuel concern as well as a stand density concern.

Van Wagtendonk (1996) found in fire simulations that a reduction in fuel loads decreased 

subsequent fire behavior, increased fireline control possibilities, and decreased fire suppression 

costs. Efficient fireline construction rates are also enhanced where fuel reduction has occurred, 

which decreases resistance to control (Agee et al. 2000). Increased fireline control leads to 

enhanced firefighter safety.

The beneficial effects of prescribed fire on altering fuel structure and wildfire behavior and 

effects have long been observed and reported. Prescribed fire is a useful tool to alter potential fire 

behavior by influencing multiple fuelbed characteristics, including:

 Reducing loading of fine fuels, duff, large woody fuels, rotten material, shrubs, and other 

live surface fuels, which together with compactness and continuity change the fuel energy 

stored on the site and potential spread rate and intensity.

 Reducing the horizontal fuel continuity (shrub, low vegetation, and woody fuel strata), 

which disrupts growth of surface fires, limits the buildup of intensity, and reduces spot 

fire ignition probability.

 Increasing compactness of surface fuel components, which retards combustion rates 

(Graham et al. 2004).

Prescribed burning often consumes some of the lowest ladder fuels and scorches the lowest tree 

branches, killing them, which raises the live crown above the ground surface. Prescribed burning 

can reduce fire intensity and severity from wildfires (Omi and Martinson 2002, Pollet and Omi 

1999). The primary stand attributes that control fire behavior are surface fuel condition, crown 

bulk density, and crown base height (Graham et al. 1999). The objectives of utilizing prescribed 

fire are to reduce surface fuels, reduce litter and duff depth, and increase canopy base height by 

scorch of the lower limbs. Prescribed fire is not being utilized to change the structural stage of the 

stands. Some tree mortality is expected and acceptable in forested stands. In a study of the effects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

239 of 632

of low-intensity fires on ponderosa pine forests in Zion National Park, needle and litter fuel load 

layer was reduced by 54 percent, duff loading was reduced by 35 percent, and pole-sized trees 

were reduced by 18 percent (Bastian 2001). With the reduction in ladder fuels, there would be a 

reduced probability of a surface fire moving into the tree crowns.

Underburning is proposed in the entire project planning area. Warm Dry and Hot Dry biophysical 

environments (fire regime I) account for approximately 66 percent of the project planning area, 

Cool Moist/Warm Moist (fire regime III) accounts for 16 percent, and Cool Dry (fire regime IV) 

accounts for 4 percent of the project planning area (Table 54). The remaining area that would be 

underburned is comprised of non-forest environments.

There are approximately 28,500 acres proposed for underburning. The stands being underburned 

outside of the mechanical treatment are in a condition that underburning is used to maintain and 

improve current conditions. The objective for the surface fuels is to reduce fuel loadings to 

desirable levels. Mortality in the smaller diameter trees is acceptable. Mortality of larger diameter 

trees would be minimized. Burning to reduce surface fuels within riparian habitat conservation 

areas (RHCAs) would be coordinated with a district biologist. When lighting within RHCAs, 

lighting patterns can be utilized that would best meet the surface fuel reduction with limited tree 

mortality and soil exposure. Soil effects from prescribed burning would be minor. Burning would 

take place so as to avoid decreasing ground cover below Malheur Forest Plan standards.

In 40 years following the proposed treatments, approximately 36 percent more area would be 

classified as having a light fuel load compared to no action (Table 61). Surface fuel conditions 

would further improve if follow-up maintenance burning were implemented at least one more 

time in the next 20 years. The fuel load percentages in Table 61 do not take into account 

maintenance burning. Surface fuels would become dominated with grasses (fuel model 2) in 

treated stands. The rate at which a fire moves through these stands would be higher than stands 

with a greater component of larger woody fuels and denser tree stocking. Wind would be less 

restricted and fine fuels, such as cured grasses, would burn more readily. While increased surfacefire intensity (flame length) under extreme fire-weather conditions is not desirable, the 

combination of modified surface, ladder, and canopy fuels still suggests improved firefighting 

capability even under difficult weather circumstances, and reduced fire severity (resource affects). 

These expected outcomes are the result of decreased crown-fire potential, lower overall fire 

intensity, and less damage to soils.

Grazing would continue to affect fine fuels. This can affect the implementation of prescribed fire 

and meeting objectives if it removes the fuel (grasses) needed to carry fire. Ongoing grazing in 

the project planning area can also effect fire intensity and rate of spread as flame lengths would 

be decreased in areas where grazing has reduced the grass loading. Grazing management and 

fuels management would be coordinated to best meet the objectives of both.

Table 61. Fuel load in percentage of project planning area—alternative 2 compared to no action

Fuel load No action – 2055 Alternative 2 - 2055 Percentage change

0-8 tons/acre 24% 60% 36%

8-15 tons/acre 59% 36% -23%

15+ tons/acre 17% 4% -13%
Magone Project

240 of 632

Ladder and Crown Fuels

Mechanical thinning can be effective in reducing vertical fuel continuity that contributes to the 

initiation of crown fires, especially when thinning reduces the number of smaller trees. The net 

effect of removing ladder fuels is that surface fires burning through treated stands are less likely 

to ignite the overstory canopy fuels (Graham et al. 2004). Thinning is potentially effective at 

reducing the probability of crown-fire spread, and is precise in that specific trees are targeted and 

removed from the fuelbed.

Commercial and non-commercial cutting would be accomplished by thinning from below; 

smaller diameter trees would be cut, and larger trees retained. This would reduce canopy fuels, 

ladder fuels, and continuity of the tree crowns.

There is a concern that removal of canopy level trees can increase fire risk. As Peterson (2004) 

points out, in some cases, removal of trees from the canopy and understory could increase surface 

wind movement and facilitate the drying of live and dead fuel, although effective removal should 

mitigate these factors by reducing the fuel load and potential for fire spread. Agee and Skinner 

(2005) also state that sufficient surface fuel treatments after thinning provides an overall 

reduction in expected fire behavior and fire severity that usually outweighs the changes in wind 

speed and fuel moisture. The overall reduction in surface, ladder, and crown fuels, in addition to 

reducing fuel continuity, reduces crown fire potential and improves firefighter ability to control a 

wildfire. Commercial and non-commercial treatments in overstocked stands reduces the ladder 

fuels, increases the average distance between the ground and the crown of the trees, increases the 

distance between the crowns of the trees, and decreases the continuity of the overstory.

Other benefits of these treatments include increased growth and improved vigor on residual trees, 

decreased stand density, and increased proportion of fire tolerant species—restoring conditions 

more resilient to wildfire. Cram et al. (2006) observed that mechanical treatment followed by 

prescribed fire (including pile burning) had the greatest influence toward mitigating fire severity. 

Specifically, as density and basal area decreased and mean tree diameter increased, fire severity 

decreased. See the Level of and Effects of Silviculture Treatments section for additional effects 

on composition and density and structural stages.

Canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and canopy continuity are key characteristics of forest 

structure that affect the initiation and propagation of crown fire. The average crown-base height 

across the project planning area in 2055 increases from 14 feet with the no action alternative, to 

26 feet with the treatments proposed in alternative 2. This higher canopy base height reduces the 

potential for tree torching. The average canopy-bulk density of the project planning area would be 

0.06 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3), a 0.03 kg/m3 decrease from the no action alternative. 

Stands with this canopy-bulk density would be less likely to burn with an active crown fire.

Reducing the fuel loadings, fuel continuity, and the availability of ladder fuels keeps fire confined 

as a surface fire and reduces the occurrence of firebrands, which increases the ability to control 

fires. In the wildland urban interface (WUI), reducing the threat of ignition from firebrands 

requires reducing fuels both near and at some distance from the structures. Proposed treatments 

reduce the likelihood of firebrands being lofted onto private land and structures. This improves 

our ability to protect life and property.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Crown Fire Potential

Following treatments outlined in alternative 2, approximately 12 percent of the project planning 

area would have potential for active/conditional crown fire (Table 62). The proposed action 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

241 of 632

decreased the amount of area with a high to extreme potential for active/conditional crown fire by 

14 percent compared to no action. Within the 12 percent of area with active/conditional crown 

fire potential only 1 percent is modeled as active crown fire. The other 11 percent has been 

modeled as conditional crown fire. Conditional crown fire is a somewhat hypothetical situation. 

In conditional crown fire stands, the crown bulk density is such that fire could be carried through 

the crowns; however, these stands lack the surface and ladder fuels required to lift a surface fire 

into the tree canopy. In theory, an active crown fire could run into a conditional crown stand and 

continue to burn through the canopy. After proposed treatments, only 1 percent of the project 

planning area is at risk for active crown fire. Essentially, after the proposed treatments, models 

indicate very little risk of any type of sustained crown fire being initiated. These factors would 

contribute to successful fire suppression, protection of life, and protection of property under most 

fire scenarios.

Maintenance burning, whether prescribed or natural ignition, is needed in the future to limit 

regeneration and maintain light surface fuel loads. Without maintenance burning, future 

conditions would begin moving back toward the existing condition. Modeling for this project 

applied prescribed burning once and does not include future maintenance burning over the next 

40 years.

By implementing a maintenance burning program, the active/conditional crown fire potential 

would remain similar to that of alternative 2. Surface fuels would not accumulate and natural 

regeneration would be controlled to some degree.

Table 62. Fire type in percentage of project planning area—alternative 2 compared to no action

Fire type No action - 2055 Alternative 2 - 2055 Percentage change

Active Crown 15% 1% -14%

Conditional Crown 11% 11% 0%

Passive Crown 20% 5% -15%

Surface 54% 83% 29%

The stands proposed for treatment, the stands currently with a low crown fire potential, and the 

stands that are non-forested and non-vegetated all contribute to breaking up fuel continuity on the 

landscape. When all of these stands are considered, the pattern on the landscape would modify 

fire behavior and reduce fire growth, allowing for protection of life and property.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Other Project Activities

Road Activities

Planned road activities would have little effect on fire suppression efforts or fuel loading. The 

majority of the roads in the project planning area would remain open; however, a few roads 

would be closed with a gate to continue to allow access for fire suppression activities. The roads 

planned for decommissioning would not have a major affect for fire suppression access. Roads 

proposed for decommissioning were evaluated and determined to be not needed for suppression 

activities.

Recreation Opportunity Improvements

New trail construction, trailhead development, interpretive signs, and dock improvements around 

Magone Lake would not affect fuel loading. However, increased opportunities for recreation in 
Magone Project

242 of 632

the project planning area may have an indirect effect as additional recreationalist could lead to 

more human-caused fires.

Magone Lake Restoration Activities

Using existing downed material and material created from non-commercial and commercial 

treatments to complete Magone Lake restoration activities would have beneficial effects on fuel 

loading in the Magone planning area. Placing this material in the lake rather than piling and 

burning it would also create a slight reduction in smoke emissions related to prescribed fire 

activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Air Quality

Burning would follow the guidance provided by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Emissions 

from a wildfire are generally 3 to 5 times more than from prescribed burning. Emissions from pile 

burning would occur at a different time of year than the underburning. There would be short-term 

effects to communities and residences downwind and in drainages adjacent to prescribed fire. 

There would also be short-term effects along highway 395 north, county roads 18 and 32, and 

local forest roads in the project planning area. All prescribed burning would comply with 

applicable federal, state, and local air quality regulations.

Communities located in the John Day Valley could be affected by smoke from prescribed 

burning. At a distance of 25 miles to the west, the community of Dayville is the furthest from the 

project planning area within the John Day Valley. Other communities in the John Day Valley that 

could be affected are John Day, Canyon City, Prairie City, and Mt. Vernon, all within 10 miles or 

less of the project planning area. The communities of Fox, Long Creek, Austin, and Bates, at 

distances of 8, 10, 15, and 15 miles respectively are located in higher elevation basins and could 

be affected by prescribed fire smoke, as it tends to settle in these areas during the overnight 

period. The communities of Unity, Kimberly, Monument, Sumpter, and Hamilton are 

approximately 30 miles from the planning area and could be affected by prescribed fire smoke 

because of transport winds, but the effect should be minimal as smoke becomes diluted over time 

and space.

Past experiences of prescribed burning in this area have shown that diurnal winds, down slope 

and down valley during the night, settle smoke in low areas and valley bottoms. With daytime 

heating air is forced back up slope and up valley allowing smoke to lift out of an area.

Prescribed burning would likely affect highway visibility and potentially affect driver safety. 

Signing would occur on highways, county roads, and forest roads as needed to mitigate the 

hazards associated with operating a motor vehicle during times of poor visibility. If driving 

conditions warrant, Oregon Department of Transportation and/or Grant County Road Department 

would be contacted to flag traffic or use pilot cars.

Smoke sensitive areas, including John Day (approximately 6 air miles south of the project 

planning area), Baker City (approximately 50 air miles to the northeast of the project planning 

area), and Burns (approximately 60 air miles south of the project planning area), may be affected 

by prescribed burning because of transport winds. However, affects are expected to be minimal 

because of smoke dilution over time and space. Weather forecasts would be obtained prior to 

burning to ensure these smoke sensitive areas would not be affected by prescribed fire smoke. 

Additionally, the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness should not be directly affected with prescribed 

fire smoke during the visibility protection periods of July 1 to September 1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

243 of 632

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities have been considered for their 

cumulative effects on fire and fuels. The areas considered for cumulative effects are the East Fork 

Beech Creek and Grub Creek subwatersheds. The period considered for cumulative effects begins 

approximately 100 years prior to the initial operations and continues for 40 years. This period 

includes potentially 5 fire cycles prior to and after initial operations if the area were in its natural 

fire regime. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing, and foreseeable activities 

that may contribute effects to fire or fuels.

Past actions including fire suppression, timber harvest, and grazing have contributed to the 

current conditions of fuels and the departure from the natural disturbance regime. These actions 

have resulted in increases in understory vegetation and surface fuels and changes in species 

composition and vegetative continuity. Past grazing reduced fine fuels at varying levels 

depending on the intensity of grazing which reduced potential fire spread. Past road construction 

enabled fire suppression personnel to more easily access fire starts and contributed to successful 

fire suppression. Past mechanical treatments dating back to the early 1900s helped the project 

planning area retain its historical fire regime 1.

Approximately 4,300 acres of underburning occurred between 1998 and 1999 as part of the 

Round Top project. Stands where prescribed fire objectives were being met may still be seeing 

the benefit of reduced fuel loadings. Coincidently, these stands are nearing the fire-return interval 

for Hot Dry forest and Warm Dry forest fire regimes.

Cumulatively, this project would have a positive effect on protection of life and property and 

reduce the potential for severe wildfire across the landscape. Fire suppression would continue as 

an ongoing activity and the probability of successful suppression would improve with the 

aforementioned projects. Treatments adjacent to identified safety corridors would establish 

known anchor points and control lines allowing suppression forces to get ahead of advancing 

wildfires and complete indirect attack.

Future grazing would continue to affect fine fuels. This can affect the implementation of 

prescribed fire and meet objectives if the fuels (grasses) needed to carry fire are removed. 

Grazing management and fuels management need to coordinate to best meet their objectives. 

Some people have suggested that continued grazing would also shift the plant communities 

toward shrubs and trees. Local experience shows increases in tree stocking are not due to grazing 

but can be attributed to the past combination of timber harvest and fire suppression.

Future prescribed burning and management of natural ignition fires would be necessary to 

maintain fuels at desirable levels and limit ingrowth. The modeling for this project applied 

prescribed burning once in the first decade. By implementing a maintenance burning program 

(applying prescribed fire at regular intervals either planned or unplanned), crown fire potential 

would remain similar to that described in this alternative. Regeneration would remain at 

sustainable levels, preventing increases in ladder and surface fuels.

Implementation of the travel management plan, a reasonably foreseeable future action, would not 

likely reduce the risk for human-caused fires in the project planning area. Past human-caused 

fires are 22 percent of all cause-documented ignitions. Most of the documented ignitions within 

the Magone project planning area have been lightning caused. Prior to 2002, cause was not 

recorded for fire starts within the project planning area. The travel management plan would not 

impede fire suppression personnel; they could still get to fires utilizing their suppression 

equipment (engines, crew vehicles, or aviation).
Magone Project

244 of 632

Emissions produced from prescribed burning under alternative 2 would not exceed air quality 

standards. There is potential for prescribed burning to occur at the same time in nearby project 

areas. Currently, four planning areas are located near the Magone project planning area. The 

Galena, Balance, 18 Road, and Big Mosquito projects all have completed the NEPA process. 

Within the next three years, NEPA could be completed for the Camp Lick planning area. Total 

emissions produced from concurrent projects from National Forest System lands would meet air 

quality standards. It is likely that only a few projects in isolated areas would undergo burning at 

the same time. The dilution of smoke over time and space from concurrent burning would limit 

the cumulative effects. All burning would be coordinated to reduce cumulative effects and meet 

all applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, the cumulative effects of multiple prescribed 

burning projects would not cause air quality to exceed standards.

Future activities authorized under the Malheur National Forest Aquatics Restoration Decision 

(USDA Forest Service 2014b) include several riparian enhancement projects. The main emphasis 

on these riparian enhancement projects would be placing large and coarse woody debris in 

streams. There would be a short-term, 5 to 10 years, adverse effect on fuel loading in the riparian 

areas where woody debris is placed in the stream and until conifer slash loads are reduced. 

However, over time the riparian area would begin to function more effectively. A healthy riparian 

area acts as a natural fuel break to slow and help stop a wildfire. Underburning in the riparian 

areas would reduce conifer encroachment and stimulate growth of hardwoods.

Juniper, hawthorn, and aspen treatments are also authorized under the Aquatics Restoration 

Decision. Juniper and hawthorn will be felled and/or pushed over with the root ball intact and 

placed into the stream. Similar to the addition of large and course woody debris, there would be 

short-term adverse effects on fuel loading in the riparian area. Aspen treatments would include 

the removal of conifers up to 21 inches that are shading aspen stands. These conifers could be 

girdled to create wildlife snags or placed in the stream. Aspen are highly fire-adapted, but aspendominated communities do not burn readily (Jones and Debyle 1985).

Aspen foliage is not highly flammable, and the moist herbaceous vegetation that typically forms 

the understory often would support only light ground fires or no fire at all. Severe fires in aspen 

are much more likely when there is a dense understory of shrubs or conifers (Jones and Debyle 

1985). Like any healthy riparian area, healthy aspen stands can be used as natural barriers to stop 

the spread of wild fires.

Hardwood planting is another activity authorized under the Aquatics Restoration Decision and 

could increase live fuel loads by adding to the shrub layer in riparian areas. Once established and 

after some growth, these additional hardwoods will assist in keeping fuel moistures higher, 

provide more shade, and keep temperatures cooler in the riparian area, thus leading to lowintensity ground fires.

The remaining future activities to be completed under the Aquatics Restoration Decision, such as 

log weir removal or modification, legacy structure removal, storm proofing roads, spring 

development, riparian fencing, and beaver habitat restoration will not adversely affect fuel load in 

the short term. As these activities occur and stream function is restored these healthy riparian 

areas would become useful fuel breaks to slow down or stop the spread of wildfire.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

245 of 632

3.5.2.5 Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 proposes about 2,300 more acres of mechanical treatment than alternative 2. In 

commercial units with additional non-commercial thinning there would be an additional 2,600 

acres treated; however, there would be 27 acres less commercial and non-commercial thinning, 

leave stand denser, 86 acres less post and pole removal, and 232 acres less non-commercial 

thinning, for a total increase in acres treated equal to 2,300 acres. Prescribed fire would be 

applied to about 28,500 acres; however, planned ignitions in burn blocks 6 and 7 would be 

limited to fall burning (Table 63). Unplanned ignitions may be used like prescribed fire when fuel 

loading and weather conditions are appropriate.

Proposed treatments would help return the forest to a more resilient and sustainable condition. 

The overall effect would be a reduction of canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, which would 

contribute to the success of suppression and protection under most fire scenarios. Stands not 

receiving treatment would have effects similar to those discussed under the no action alternative. 

Crown or canopy fuels and ladder fuels would be treated by commercial harvest and noncommercial thinning. Surface fuels would be treated by hand or mechanical piling followed by 

burning of the piles, removal of slash for utilization (biomass) and/or underburning. Cram et al. 

(2006) observed that mechanical treatment followed by prescribed fire (including pile burning) 

had the greatest influence toward mitigating fire severity.

Prescribed fire burn blocks vary in size from 1,000 to 7,400 acres with boundaries identified 

along natural fuel breaks, such as existing roads and ridgetops. The size, in acres, of a particular 

burn block does not represent how much of the landscape would be burned or blackened. Within 

each identified burn block there would be a number of unburned acres. Examples include open 

scabby areas, wet riparian areas, and north facing slopes in general. Additionally, much of the 

area where prescribed fire would carry is expected to burn in a mosaic pattern for a multitude of 

reasons. Fuel moisture, shading, grazing, and lack of continuous fuelbeds can lead to the mosaic 

burn pattern often created during prescribed fire operations (see Figure 30). Another factor 

limiting actual burned acres is design criteria limiting where active ignitions can occur within a 

particular burn block. 

Depending on weather, fuel characteristics, and design criteria (see FEIS Appendix C – Project 

Design Criteria), the number of acres actually burned could vary from 50 to 80 percent of the 

proposed burn block size.

Table 63. Magone Project burn blocks alternative 3

Burn block Acres Planned ignitions

1 1,400 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

2 7,400 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

3 2,700 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

4 1,000 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

5 3,500 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

6 6,400 Fall only

7 4,900 Fall only

8 1,200 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Total 28,500 *unplanned ignitions can be used any season
Magone Project

246 of 632

The beneficial effects of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment would be similar to those 

discussed under alternative 2. There would be a net increase of 2,300 acres of mechanical 

treatment in alternative 3 compared to alternative 2. Prescribed burning acres remain the same as 

alternative 2 at 28,500 acres. The 2,300 acres of additional mechanical treatments combined with 

prescribed burning would equate to an increase in beneficial effects that will be discussed below. 

Stands that are not treated would have effects similar to the effects discussed in the no action 

alternative. Untreated stands would have higher stress induced mortality rates and likely be more 

affected by wildfire should one occur.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fire Hazard

An overall effect of alternative 3 would be a greater reduction of canopy fuels, ladder fuels, and 

surface fuels, than alternative 2, which would contribute to successful fire suppression and 

protection of life and property under most fire scenarios. Mechanical fuel treatments that reduce 

ladder and canopy fuels would have a direct effect on canopy base height and crown bulk density. 

The continuity of the fuels within the project planning area would be even more discontinuous 

than alternative 2.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fire Regime

Alternative 3 treatments would change vegetation characteristics, including stand density, species 

composition, and structural stage. Treatments would also change fuel composition and potential 

fire severity, components relating to change from reference conditions. With the additional acres 

being treated, the beneficial effects in vegetation characteristics and fuel loadings would be 

greater than alternative 2.

Treatments identified in alternative 3 would result in more acres than alternative 2 moving 

towards conditions that are more resilient to natural disturbance processes, including wildfire. 

The increased tree growth from thinning would cause the development of old forest structural 

stages to accelerate, allowing the thinned stands to grow into the large size classes sooner. As 

structure approaches the historical range of variability, and with continued maintenance burning 

to sustain low fuel levels, forest structure, composition, and density would move toward more 

resistant and resilient vegetative conditions given the historical fire regime.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fuel Loading

The additional acres of mechanical treatment proposed in alternative 3 would result in an even 

greater reduction in fuel loadings than alternative 2. Percentage of the planning area with light 

fuel loads increases by 8 percent, while areas with moderate and heavy fuel loads decrease 

compared to alternative 2 (Table 61).

Direct and Indirect Effects – Crown Fire Potential

The additional acres of mechanical treatment proposed in alternative 3 would result in a slightly 

greater reduction in crown fire potential compared to alternative 2. Under both alternatives active 

crown fire potential is 1 percent, but under alternative 3, conditional crown fire areas decrease by 

2 percent compared to alternative 2 (Table 62).

Direct and Indirect Effects – Other Project Activities

Effects from road activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake restoration 

activities would be the same as those described under alternative 2 above.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

247 of 632

Direct and Indirect Effects – Air Quality

The additional mechanical treatments proposed in alternative 3 would result in more machine and 

handpiles than alternative 2. This would have the potential to produce more smoke emissions 

from pile burning activities than alternative 2. All smoke management practices would be 

followed as described in alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, alternative 3 would have a slightly more beneficial effect on protection of life and 

property and even further reduce the potential for severe wildfire across the landscape compared 

to alternative 2. Fire suppression would continue as an ongoing activity and the probability of 

successful suppression would improve slightly more with the treatments proposed in alternative 

3. Treatments adjacent to identified safety corridors would establish known anchor points and 

control lines allowing suppression forces to get ahead of advancing wildfires and complete 

indirect attack.

Emissions produced from prescribed burning under alternative 3 would not exceed air quality 

standards. There is potential for prescribed burning to occur at the same time in nearby project 

areas. With an additional 2,300 acres of mechanical treatment proposed in alternative 3 there is 

potential for an increase in emissions during machine and handpiling activities compared to 

alternative 2. Currently four planning areas are located near the Magone project planning area. 

The Galena, Balance, 18 Road, and Big Mosquito projects all have completed the NEPA process. 

Within the next 3 years, NEPA could be completed for the Camp Lick planning area. Total 

emissions produced from concurrent projects from National Forest System lands would meet air 

quality standards. It is likely that only a few projects, in isolated areas, would undergo burning at 

the same time. The dilution of smoke over time and space from concurrent burning would limit 

the cumulative effects. All burning would be coordinated to reduce cumulative effects and meet 

all applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, the cumulative effects of multiple prescribed 

burning projects would not cause air quality to exceed standards.

3.5.2.6 Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 proposes about 6,300 acres fewer of mechanical treatment than alternative 2. In 

commercial units with additional non-commercial thinning there would be about 980 fewer acres 

treated. Non-commercial thinning decreases by 4,200 acres in the planning area. The net total 

mechanical acres treated are approximately 5,500 acres. Planned ignitions would occur on about 

17,200 acres (Table 64). Stands in burn blocks 6 and 7, about 11,300 acres, would be managed 

with unplanned ignitions as timing, fuel loading, and weather allow. Burn blocks 6 and 7 make up 

the majority of the Nipple Butte IRA except for a portion of the northeast corner. While modeling 

this alternative, prescribed fire was used once in the first 10 years in all burn blocks including 6 

and 7, with the idea being that unplanned ignitions would be used when conditions mimic those 

used in prescribed fire. In all burn blocks unplanned ignitions may be used like prescribed fire 

when timing, fuel loading, and weather conditions are appropriate.

Proposed treatments would help return the forest to a more resilient and sustainable condition. 

The overall effect would be a reduction of canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, which would 

contribute to the success of suppression and protection under most fire scenarios. Stands not 

receiving treatment would have effects similar to those discussed under the no action alternative. 

Crown or canopy fuels and ladder fuels would be treated by commercial harvest and non-
Magone Project

248 of 632

commercial thinning. Surface fuels would be treated by hand or mechanical piling followed by 

burning of the piles, removal of slash for utilization (biomass) and/or underburning. Cram et al. 

(2006) observed that mechanical treatment followed by prescribed fire (including pile burning) 

had the greatest influence toward mitigating fire severity.

Prescribed fire burn blocks vary in size from 1,000 to 7,400 acres with boundaries identified 

along natural fuel breaks, such as existing roads and ridgetops. The size, in acres, of a particular 

burn block does not represent how much of the landscape would be burned or blackened. Within 

each identified burn block there would be a number of unburned acres. Examples include open 

scabby areas, wet riparian areas, and north facing slopes in general. Additionally, much of the 

area where prescribed fire would carry is expected to burn in a mosaic pattern for a multitude of 

reasons. Fuel moisture, shading, grazing, and lack of continuous fuelbeds can lead to the mosaic 

burn pattern often created during prescribed fire operations (see Figure 30). Another factor 

limiting actual burned acres is design criteria limiting where active ignitions can occur within a 

particular burn block. Depending on weather, fuel characteristics, and design criteria (see FEIS 

Appendix C – Project Design Criteria), the number of acres actually burned could vary from 50 to 

80 percent of the proposed burn block size.

Table 64. Magone Project burn blocks alternative 4

Burn block Acres Planned ignitions

1 1,400 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

2 7,400 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

3 2,700 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

4 1,000 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

5 3,500 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

8 1,200 Winter, spring, summer, or fall

Total 17,300 *unplanned ignitions can be used any season

The beneficial effects of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment would be similar to those 

discussed under alternative 2 in units being treated in this alternative. There is a net decrease of 

6,300 acres of mechanical treatment in alternative 4 compared to alternative 2. Prescribed burning 

acres treated with planned ignitions decrease by 11,300 acres compared to alternative 2. Much of 

the decrease in mechanical and prescribed burning treatments occurs in the Nipple Butte IRA. 

The 6,300 acres fewer mechanical treatments combined with 11,300 acres fewer of planned 

prescribed burning would equate to a decrease in beneficial effects that will be discussed below 

compared to alternative 2. Stands that are not treated would have effects similar to the effects 

discussed in the no action alternative. Untreated stands would have higher stress induced 

mortality rates and likely be more affected by wildfire should one occur.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fire Hazard

An overall effect of alternative 4 would be less reduction of canopy fuels, ladder fuels, and 

surface fuels, than alternative 2, which would contribute to more difficult fire suppression and 

protection of life and property under most fire scenarios. The decrease in mechanical treatments 

that reduce ladder and canopy fuels would have a direct effect on canopy base height and crown 

bulk density. There would be less beneficial change in canopy base height and crown bulk 

density, which equates to less reduction in fire hazard and severity than alternative 2. The 

continuity of fuels within the project planning area would be more continuous than alternative 2

increasing the potential for a fire to resist control.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

249 of 632

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fire Regime

Alternative 4 treatments would have less effect on vegetation characteristics including stand 

density, species composition, and structural stage. Treatments would also have less effect on fuel 

composition and potential fire severity, components relating to change from reference conditions. 

With the reduction in acres being treated, the beneficial effects on vegetation characteristics and 

fuel loadings would be less than alternative 2.

Treatments identified in alternative 4 would result in less acres moving towards conditions that 

are more resilient to natural disturbance processes, including wildfire, than alternative 2. The 

reduction in treated stands equates to more acres remaining overstocked and susceptible to the 

effects of uncharacteristic wildfire that would not have occurred historically in fire regime 1 plant 

association groups.

Within the additional untreated acres in alternative 4, tree densities would continue to increase 

and species would continue the shift to higher proportions of shade tolerant, fire susceptible fir. 

Stand conditions would increase susceptibility to insect and disease effects, reaching levels that 

are highly departed from the natural fire regime. Forested stands not being treated under 

alternative 4 in the project planning area would continue to depart further from the natural fire 

regime compared with alternative 2.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Fuel Loading

The reduction in acres of mechanical treatment proposed in alternative 4 would result in less 

reduction of fuel loading than alternative 2 (Table 61). The portion of the planning area with light 

fuel loads would be 40 percent. Moderate fuel loads at 48 percent and heavy fuel loads at 12 

percent comprise the remaining acres of the planning area. The decrease in planned ignitions 

would limit the ability to perform maintenance burning, an essential tool for decreasing and/or 

maintaining surface fuel loading.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Crown Fire Potential

The result of treating fewer acres in alternative 4 would be an increase in potential 

active/conditional crown fire in the planning area compared to alternative 2 (Table 62). Active

and conditional crown fire would comprise 21 percent of the planning area. That is a 9 percent 

increase compared to alternative 2. These predictions are similar to the no action alternative, 

which estimates active/conditional crown fire at 26 percent. Even with fewer acres treated, 64 

percent of the planning area is still expected to experience surface fire should an ignition occur. 

These predictions also assume that burn blocks 6 and 7 would have an unplanned ignition 

managed under conditions similar to prescribed fire conditions in the next 10 to 15 years. If 

timing, weather, and fuel loading do not allow for managing an unplanned ignition in burn blocks 

6 and 7, then it could be expected that crown potential would be slightly higher than what has 

been modeled.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Other Project Activities

Effects from road activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake restoration 

activities would be the same as those described under alternative 2 above.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Air Quality

Treating fewer acres in alternative 4 would have the least amount of immediate effect on air 

quality from prescribed burning. There would be fewer emissions from planned ignitions and pile 

burning. In untreated stands, biomass would continue to accumulate and remain available for 
Magone Project

250 of 632

consumption by wildfires, increasing the potential for large amounts of smoke during the summer 

months when diurnal inversions can concentrate smoke at low elevations. Wildfires tend to occur 

at the driest time of the year; therefore, fuels are more completely consumed and typically 

produce three to five times more emissions than early- or late-season prescribed fires. These 

smoke concentrations can have high particulate levels that may cause health problems or violate 

summertime Class I air quality visibility standards for wilderness areas. The communities of 

Long Creek, Fox, Prairie City, Mt. Vernon, Austin, Bates, Unity, Kimberly, Monument, Sumpter, 

Hamilton, Dayville, and John Day could be affected by smoke from a wildfire in this area. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, alternative 4 would have fewer beneficial effects on protection of life and property 

and would do less to reduce the potential for severe wildfire across the landscape compared to 

alternative 2. Fire suppression would continue as an ongoing activity; however probability of 

successful suppression would diminish in areas with fewer mechanical treatments as fuels 

continued to accumulate. Fuel loadings and crown fire potential would also remain higher 

adjacent to identified safety corridors, thus limiting potential escape routes in the planning area 

and reducing established control lines.

Emissions produced from prescribed burning under alternative 4 would not exceed air quality 

standards. There is potential for prescribed burning to occur at the same time in nearby project 

areas. With a reduction of 6,300 acres of mechanical treatment proposed in alternative 4 there 

would be less immediate effect on air quality from prescribed burning of pile material. The long 

term effect of fewer mechanical treatments would be potential for increased emissions from 

wildfire. Currently four planning areas are located near the Magone project planning area. The 

Galena, Balance, 18 Road, and Big Mosquito projects all have completed the NEPA process. 

Within the next 3 years, NEPA could be completed for the Camp Lick planning area. 

Total emissions produced from concurrent projects from National Forest System lands would 

meet air quality standards. It is likely that only a few projects, in isolated areas, would undergo 

burning at the same time. The dilution of smoke over time and space from concurrent burning 

would limit the cumulative effects. All burning would be coordinated to reduce cumulative effects 

and meet all applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, the cumulative effects of multiple 

prescribed burning projects would not cause air quality to exceed standards.

With no mechanical treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA and the limited options for prescribed 

fire, suppression would become more difficult as fuel and vegetation characteristics departed 

further from historical ranges. This would make protecting life, resources, and property within 

and adjacent to the Nipple Butte IRA more difficult over time.

Cumulative effects for grazing, travel management, and activities authorized under the Malheur 

National Forest Aquatics Restoration Decision (USDA Forest Service 2014b) would be similar to 

those discussed in alternative 2.

3.5.2.7 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans 

The no action alternative would not meet the Malheur Forest Plan direction to:

 Initiate initial suppression action that provides for the most reasonable probability of 

minimizing fire suppression costs and resource damage, consistent with probable fire 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

251 of 632

behavior, resource impacts, safety, and smoke management considerations (Forest Goal 

48, chapter IV–pg. 4).

 Identify, develop and maintain fuel profiles that contribute to the most cost-efficient fire 

protection program consistent with management direction (Forest Goal 49, chapter IV–

pg. 4).

The no action alternative would also fail to meet the objectives of the Grant County Community 

Fire Protection Plan (2005).

All action alternatives (alternatives 2, 3, and 4) are, at some scale, consistent with the objectives 

of the Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan because project activities would reduce 

hazardous fuel to protect lives and property. All action alternatives would meet the following 

Malheur Forest Plan direction:

 Forest Goal 49: Identify, develop and maintain fuel profiles that contribute to the most 

cost-efficient fire protection program consistent with management direction (Malheur 

Forest Plan, chapter IV–pg. 4).

 Forest Objective: Ground fuels are to be reduced significantly. Total smoke production on 

an annual basis will be reduced substantially as a result of fewer and lower intensity 

wildfires (Malheur Forest Plan, chapter IV–pg. 10).

 Forest-wide Standard 180: Utilize prescribed fire to meet land management objectives 

(Malheur Forest Plan, chapter IV–pg. 45).

 Forest-wide Standard 181: Mange residue profiles at a level that will minimize the 

potential of high intensity catastrophic wildfires (Malheur Forest Plan, chapter IV–pg. 

45).

The Magone Project was designed under the rules of the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program (CFLRP) because it is within the expanded CFLRP boundary on the 

Malheur National Forest.

3.6 Analysis Issue – Soils

3.6.1 Existing Condition

3.6.1.1 Soil Types

Soil types vary in their response to logging, based on things such as the presence of a volcanic 

ash cap, geology, soil depth, and rockiness. The best source of information about the location of 

soil types is the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI). The TEUI is available as a digital 

map layer and associated database. Maps of ash cap, “scab soil,” slope, and landslides can be 

found in the project record.

The presence of a volcanic ash cap causes important differences in soils. Most soils in the Blue 

Mountains are influenced by ash. However, soils with a distinct cap of ash differ from soils where 

ash has been partially eroded away or mixed with the residual soil (hereafter called “mixed ash”) 

because usually ash cap soils have more total ash than mixed ash soils and are more uniform. Ash 

cap soils typically supply more water to plants because 1) ash holds relatively large amount of 

water, 2) ash cap soils are typically deeper, and 3) ash caps have fewer coarse fragments in the 

top soil than mixed ash soils. Thus ash cap soils are often more productive than mixed ash. Ash 

cap soils normally support mixed conifers, including true fir. Mixed ash soil typically supports 

ponderosa pine and often Douglas-fir. In addition, ash cap soil has a high porosity and little clay, 
Magone Project

252 of 632

so it has a high infiltration rate. The high infiltration rate of ash cap soils tends to reduce runoff, 

and thus reduce erosion. However, if runoff occurs on ash cap soils, the soil particles are easily 

detached and eroded. An ash cap soil is more easily displaced than mixed ash soil. Ash cap soils 

often tend to occur on north and east facing slopes, although several north facing slopes in Nipple 

Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), and also some within a mile east of the IRA, have little 

ash cap.

Forested soils have abundant ground cover, so the potential for erosion exists only where ground 

cover has been removed. The erosion hazard of forest soils is low on slopes less than 30 percent 

and moderate on slopes more than 30 percent.

Rock types in this planning area cause some variation in soils. About 70 percent of the project 

planning area is underlain by breccia and basalt of the Clarno Formation, and about 25 percent is 

underlain by Columbia River Basalts. Columbia River Basalts lie along the western and southern 

edges of the project planning area.

The Clarno formation includes lava flows of andesite and basalt, tuff, and volcanic mudflow 

breccias and conglomerates. Breccias and tuffs weather to clays. When wet, clay cannot support 

much weight, so slumps and landslides are common in Clarno terrain. In addition, clayey soils 

have low infiltration rates. Basalt and andesite tend to weather to loam and clay loam, so they are 

not particularly prone to landslides or low infiltration rates.

Unconsolidated landslide deposits can be a source of sediment; however, abundant vegetation on 

landslides and overlying volcanic ash help control soil erosion. Landslides shown on the map in 

the project record comprise 3 percent of the project planning area, with the majority located 

toward the western edge of the project planning area. Many of the landslides probably started 

during the ice ages, when there was abundant water and less vegetation. The landslides continue 

to move downhill slowly with shallow creep and slumps, often only several yards across. If roads 

are built on landslides, care is needed to avoid causing more movement.

Sensitive soil types include soils that are un-forested (including juniper woodlands), shallow, and 

rocky, that support low amounts of ground cover. These are commonly known as “scab soils.” 

Scab soils cannot absorb much water, and they produce overland flow. These soils tend to be 

erodible and generally are not found in timber harvest units, but can be adjacent to units. 

Although scab soils are generally more concentrated within the IRA, they are scattered 

throughout most of the project planning area.

Slopes steeper than 35 percent occur in the north half of the IRA and adjacent areas, along Tinker 

Creek and East Fork Beech Creek below Tinker Creek, and scattered elsewhere.

Elevations range from about 3,600 feet near the mouth of East Fork Beech Creek, to 6,200 feet on 

the ridge from Lake Butte west. Precipitation ranges from about 16 to 24 inches per year, 

depending on elevation.

3.6.1.2 Existing Detrimental Impacts

Existing detrimental soil conditions were estimated in two phases. First, the project soil scientist 

judged the likelihood of heavy detrimental impacts by inspecting soil types from the Terrestrial 

Ecological Unit Inventory and by inspecting satellite photos for signs of past impacts (for stands 

larger than 23 acres). In total, 62 percent of the proposed ground-based harvest acres were 

inspected in the first phase. Second, “soil assessments” of existing detrimental conditions were 

conducted. For soil assessments, technicians visited the stands that appeared likely to be most 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

253 of 632

heavily impacted and collected semi-quantitative information about impacts from past and 

ongoing activities, which they inspected to see if special project design criteria were needed to 

protect soil. Assessments were done in Summer 2014. The assessments revealed all impacts from 

past and ongoing activities including logging, roads, fuel treatments, livestock grazing, firewood 

cutting, mining, and off-road vehicles (see Table 17).

Existing detrimental conditions range from zero to 13 percent. Table 65 shows existing

detrimental conditions on all units in which existing detrimental conditions exceed 5 percent; 

unlisted units have less than 6 percent detrimental conditions.

Table 65. Existing condition for all silvicultural treatment units with 6 percent or more existing 

detrimental impacts

Unit Existing detrimental impacts 

(percentage of unit)

Detrimental conditions after 

logging, percentage of unit

Special project 

design criteria*

167 8% 17% -

179 12% 16% s

181 6% 15% -

183 6% 15% -

219 7% 16% -

225 6% 15% -

227 7% 16% -

230 11% 17% s

239 8% 17% s

241 13% 17% s

253 6% 15% -

255 6% 15% -

303 7% 17% -

601 6% 17% -

603 11% 17% s

615 10% 17% s

617 8% 17% s

631 7% 15% -

633 7% 17% -

643 9% 16% -

649 7% 15% -

653 9% 17% s

655 9% 17% -

* s = Special project design criteria required (for complete descriptions see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria, 

Table C-1); - = None.

3.6.1.3 Organic Matter and Nutrients

Decades of fire suppression have resulted in heavier forest floors (litter and duff) on most soils 

than would occur under the natural frequent fire regime. Fire usually decreases the amount of 

nutrients on the land (though easily available nutrients often increase for 1 to 5 years). 

Underburning has not occurred in the area for many decades, so loss of nutrients during fires has 

not occurred. Nutrients have accumulated from the atmosphere and from mineral weathering. 
Magone Project

254 of 632

Thus, more nutrients occur in the forest floor and in plants now than in the 1800s. This increase in 

nutrients has been partially offset by nutrient removals during past logging and fuel treatments.

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences

3.6.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The measurement indicators detailed in Table 66, and described above, are used for assessing the 

effects to soils in the Magone project planning area.

Table 66. Resource Indicators and measures for assessing effects to soils

Resource indicator Measures

Detrimental soil conditions Number of units that violate Malheur Forest Plan standards

Organic matter and nutrients Difference from levels of organic matter and nutrientsprior to EuroAmerican settlement

3.6.2.2 Methodology

Methodology for assessing the existing detrimental soil conditions is described in the Existing 

Condition section above.

The project soils specialist has formed professional judgments on probable effects. Professional 

judgments are based on monitoring, personal observation (including observation in similar areas, 

and in this area), scientific literature, and professional contacts. These professional judgments are 

summarized in the “Quantitative logging effects on detrimental soil conditions” report contained 

in the project record. 

Briefly, effects are calculated for each unit based on site specific existing detrimental condition, 

volume to be removed, biomass removal, the amount of draws, the amount of slopes steeper than 

35 percent, the presence of a volcanic ash cap and coarse fragments, the amount of uphill 

skidding, and the presence of short skidtrails. To find total cumulative effects, the individual 

impacts of skidder, landings, biomass harvest, and grapple piling are added together to find the 

direct and indirect effects, which are added to effects from past and ongoing activities to find the 

cumulative effects. However, quantitative effects cannot be precisely predicted. Soil science is not 

advanced enough to make precise predictions. In addition, effects of management depend on 

unknowns, such as weather, variation in soil, details of implementation, and whether a wildfire 

would occur.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Spatial boundaries for soil effects are proposed unit boundaries. Unless otherwise stated, effects 

are described for the time period immediately after the proposed actions occur.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Of the activities listed in Table 17, logging, roads, fuel treatments, livestock grazing, firewood

cutting, mining, and OHVs are the activities relevant to cumulative effects analysis for soil. Their 

effects are described in the Existing Condition section above.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

255 of 632

3.6.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Taking no action would cause no direct or indirect detrimental soil impacts. Root action, animals 

that burrow in the soil, and freezing water would gradually continue to loosen compacted and 

puddled soil over the course of decades. Forest floor organic matter and nutrients would continue 

to accumulate, as described in the Existing Condition section.

Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects, no cumulative effects would occur. However, a 

consequence of alternative 1 is that the hazard of severe wildfire would continue to increase (see 

Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality section), resulting in increased erosion and loss of nutrients.

3.6.2.4 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Silviculture Treatments

Tractor Logging – Skidding on steep slopes often causes displacement. Water bar construction 

also often causes displacement. Skidding can bare soil, decrease infiltration, and channel overland 

flow, accelerating erosion. This acceleration occurs especially on steep slopes. Thus, logging on 

steeper slopes is expected to cause more impact than on sites with flatter slopes. Uphill skidding 

is expected to have more impacts than downhill due to the additional power and slipping of 

wheels with uphill skidding.

However, evidence from past projects indicates damage by logging using the design criteria is 

acceptable because only moderate amounts of displacement occur, and because of the small size 

of the area affected. Displacement and erosion from steep slope skidding would be limited 

because slopes steeper than 35 percent occupy a relatively small proportion of most units and 

because the extensive ground cover in forests absorbs sediment. Design criteria, such as 

directional felling and winching, would also help limit displacement and erosion. Usually erosion 

of skid trails decreases after one to three years, although productivity due to severe displacement 

and erosion can last hundreds of years. Design criteria that effectively control displacement and 

erosion include a prohibition on skidding on highly erodible soil, a prohibition on skidding on 

steep slopes (>45 percent downhill, >35 percent uphill), limitations on skidding in draws, and 

water bar requirements.

Skidding would cause negligible sediment export from the units, despite sediment movement 

within units as described in the preceding paragraphs. Sediment normally is deposited less than 

15 feet down slope from skid trails as the water is slowed by ground cover and percolates into the 

soil. This is true even on slopes up to 45 percent.

Much of the skid trail area would be compacted and some of the soil tracked only once or twice 

would be compacted. Skid trail compaction would range from 4 to 7 percent of the acreage in the 

units, depending on factors described in the “Methodology” section. Compaction usually lasts 

more than 20 years, but some compaction may last more than 50 years. Table 65 presents 

expected detrimental conditions for the units with more than 4 percent existing detrimental 

conditions. If the unit happens to be harvested over deep snow or on deeply frozen soil, there 

would be a 30 percent increase in compaction amount because these conditions spread out the 

weight of the equipment over a larger footprint. Design criteria effective at limiting compaction 
Magone Project

256 of 632

include designating skidtrail locations, requiring skidtrails to be widely spaced, reusing existing 

skidtrails where appropriate, prohibiting skidding under wet conditions, and allowing only low 

ground-pressure machinery off skidtrails. The design measures would keep compaction to a 

practical minimum and Malheur Forest Plan standard of 17 percent (20 percent minus 3 percent 

in roads) likely would be met in all units. In order to reduce impacts to 17 percent, “special design 

criteria” have been prescribed for units that would have more than 17 percent impacts with only 

the standard design criteria (Table 65).

Landings are severely impacted by heavy machinery and by pile burning. The design criterion 

that encourages re-use of appropriately located landings would keep these conditions to a 

minimum. After logging, about 3 percent of the acreage of the units would be detrimentally 

impacted in landings.

Some harvest would occur in areas with moister soil, such as aspen stands and other moist upland 

areas. Moister soils are more susceptible to compaction and puddling. However, the design 

criteria that 1) bans ruts deeper than 6 inches, and 2) prohibits skidding or forwarding in moist 

meadows, would limit operations on wet soil.

Forwarder Logging and Biomass Harvest – Forwarder logging causes less impact than skidder 

logging because forwarders have lower ground pressure, tend to travel over slash, and do not 

require landings. Forwarder and harvester logging systems increase detrimental conditions about 

5 percent over the existing condition.

Effects of biomass harvest after normal logging (logging of trees larger than biomass trees) 

depend on whether the logging systems for the normal logging and for the biomass harvest are the 

same. If they are the same (and biomass harvest is done soon enough after the normal logging that 

skid trails can still be seen), biomass harvest would add about 1 percent more detrimental 

conditions. If logging systems for the normal logging and for the biomass harvest were not the 

same, biomass harvest would add about 3 percent more detrimental conditions. The difference 

between 3 percent and 1 percent is due to the fact that with different logging systems the biomass 

harvest would make new forwarder/skid trails, whereas with the same logging systems the 

biomass harvest would use the same forwarder/skid trails.

Subsoiling or Winter Logging – Subsoiling or winter logging may be used on units 179, 230, 

241, and 603 (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria, Table C-1). Subsoiling would 

decrease detrimental conditions by about 50 percent for the skid trails subsoiled.

Subsoiling bares soil, forms channels, makes soil particles more easily detachable, and disrupts 

roots, thus raising the risk of erosion for a few years. However, subsoiling also increases 

infiltration, which decreases the risk of erosion. This increased infiltration and the subsoiling 

design criteria would control sediment production so it would be negligible.

On any unit where winter logging is used, the increase in detrimental impacts would be 30

percent of the increase expected under early summer conditions. When harvesting over deep 

snow or on deeply frozen soil the weight of the equipment is spread out over a larger “footprint”. 

Grapple Piling and Pile Burning, and Mastication – A design criterion requires grapple piling 

and mastication machinery to have a low ground pressure to operate on dry soil, and to operate on 

skid trails where possible. With this design criterion, the project soils specialist expects grapple 

piling or mastication would compact about 1 percent of each unit where it is used. Feller bunchers 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

257 of 632

of similar ground pressure operating off skid trails compacted about 1.5 percent of a unit (McNeil 

1996). This would be in addition to impacts caused by harvest.

Soil beneath grapple piles would be detrimentally burned, taking many years to recover. 

However, this would be unlikely to affect more than 2 percent of a unit.

Summary of Detrimental Conditions – As shown by the difference between the “existing 

condition” and “after logging” columns in Table 65, increases in detrimental conditions would 

range from 4 to 11 percent, and average 8 percent in commercial thinning units.

The total acreage of detrimental impacts would be highest in alternative 3, which has the most 

acreage thinned and lowest in alternative 4, which has the least.

Skyline Logging – Skyline logging causes much less displacement, erosion, and compaction than 

tractor logging—detrimentally affecting about 1 to 2 percent of the area. Logs that drag during 

skyline logging can displace soil and concentrate erosive runoff in furrows. Required cross drains 

would divert runoff from the furrows, so the amount of erosion would be negligible and soil 

would be unlikely to leave the unit.

Non-commercial Thinning – The effect of biomass harvest in non-commercial thinning without 

commercial thinning is about a 4 percent increase in detrimental conditions because it is usually 

done with forwarders, and the forwarders are not as heavily loaded as they are with logs. This 

amount of impact is not expected to raise cumulative detrimental conditions above 17 percent.

Juniper removal is proposed for some highly erodible “scab soils.” Erosion on these soils would 

be controlled by the design of the treatments (see Chapter 2 – Alternative 2, Silviculture 

Treatments, Non-Commercial Thinning section and FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria, 

Soil PDCs). These design criteria include leaving 7 to 10 tons per acre of slash distributed in the 

units, banning heavy equipment except under winter conditions, placing piles so as to minimize 

damage, and burning piles so that some material would not be consumed.

Organic Matter and Nutrients – Logging would remove nutrients and organic matter in logs. 

For further discussion, see the Prescribed Burning section immediately below.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Prescribed Burning and Unplanned Ignitions

Detrimental Conditions – Pile burning would cause some detrimental soil burning. The extent 

would be limited by the design criterion that limits piles to no more than 5 percent of any unit. 

Less than 5 percent of any unit would be detrimentally burned, because well under 100 percent of 

the area under piles is detrimentally burned. Sometimes it is zero percent.

Soil effects from underburning would be minor. Ground cover would decrease, especially during 

fall burns. However, burning would be controlled so as to avoid decreasing ground cover below 

Malheur Forest Plan standards (Forest-wide standard 127), so erosion would not be significant. 

Ground cover recovery would take 1 to 5 years.

Soil effects from fireline construction would be minor. Erosion would be controlled by a design 

criterion that requires waterbars, and bans firelines that go down draw bottoms. Firelines impact a 

negligible area of soil.

Organic Matter and Nutrients – Logging would remove nutrients and organic matter in logs, 

and fuel reduction treatments would remove nutrients and forest floor organic matter during 
Magone Project

258 of 632

burning and biomass utilization. The removal, especially removal of nitrogen, may decrease site 

productivity a few percent on some sites. However, on many or most sites, productivity is likely 

limited by water, not by nutrients or forest floor organic matter. In addition, removal of nutrients 

would be limited because most nutrients on the site would remain in the soil, in the remaining 

forest floor, and in remaining trees.

Removing organic matter and nutrients by logging and fuel control would move many sites back 

toward their fertility status prior to Euro-Americans settlement because nutrient and organic 

matter loss in fires was common then. Under the action alternatives, more organic matter and 

nutrients would be cycled through the mineral soil and less through the forest floor. Before fires 

were suppressed, little dead wood existed because low severity fires burned it up. Fires possibly 

left more nutrients on site than piling and burning of slash does. However, these high firefrequency ecosystems have persisted for thousands of years with low levels of forest floor and 

dead wood, and these ecosystems are adapted to low levels of surface organic matter, so removal 

of the unnatural organic matter would have a small adverse effect.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Road Activities

Road maintenance and opening and closing roads would have no effect on detrimental soil 

conditions.

Temporary road construction would heavily impact soil in the small area of soil in road prisms. 

During temporary road construction and use, soil may be eroded from the road surface. The 

sediment would be deposited within 20 feet of the edge of the road. Productivity would be lost 

from displacement and compaction. 

If subsoiling is used during restoration, subsoiling would partially recover past detrimental 

impacts. On subsoiled temporary road segments, most productivity lost to compaction would be 

restored; perhaps half the area of the roads would be in a restored condition. Productivity lost to 

displacement and untreated compaction would recover over the course of several decades. On unsubsoiled temporary road segments, productivity would remain low for a few decades, until 

natural processes restore productivity.

Road decommissioning would slowly increase productivity on the former road, as processes such 

as root growth, soil freezing, and soil animal burrowing loosens the soil.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Recreation Opportunity Improvements and Magone Lake 

Restoration Activities

Trail and trailhead development would detrimentally impact a negligible acreage of soil. Standard 

practices would control erosion.

Cumulative Effects

The geographic scale for cumulative effects analysis is each proposed unit. The temporal scale is 

after operations cease, before natural recovery starts.

Detrimental impacts from the proposed operations (logging, subsoiling, and fuels control) add to 

impacts of past and ongoing actions. Table 65 “after logging” column shows what the expected 

condition would be for units in the table. Maximum cumulative detrimental conditions would be 

17 percent. Thus, the Malheur Forest Plan standard of 17 percent (20 percent minus 3 percent in 

roads) would be met in all units.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

259 of 632

Livestock grazing, firewood cutting, and mining would continue to impact a negligible amount of 

soil in harvest units, as recovery from past use balances impacts from future use. The negligible 

detrimental impacts from cross country travel (OHV use) would decrease even more with 

implementation of the 2005 Final Rule for Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for 

Motor Vehicle Use (Travel Management Rule). It is unlikely that site-specific invasive plant 

treatment would detrimentally impact soil because it would not use heavy equipment and 

herbicides would become inactivated as described in the Malheur National Forest Site-Specific 

Invasive Plants Treatment EIS. Activities authorized under the Aquatic Restoration Decision are 

unlikely to cause soil cumulative effects with the Magone Project because they will mostly be in 

riparian areas or juniper stands, outside thinning units. If there is overlap, the checklist for the 

Aquatic Restoration Decision would insure compliance with the Malheur Forest Plan.

Removing organic matter and nutrients by logging and fuel control would move many sites back 

toward their fertility status prior to Euro-Americans settlement. Site-specific invasive plant 

treatments may impact organic matter and nutrients on negligibly small areas.

3.6.2.5 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur Forest Plan) meets 

all legal and regulatory requirements for soil conservation. Forest Service Manual R6 Supplement 

No. 2500.98-1, section 2520.2 says objectives of soil management are “To meet direction in the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 and other legal mandates. To manage National Forest 

System lands ... without permanent impairment of land productivity and to maintain ... soil ... 

quality.....”

Soil quality is maintained when soil compaction, displacement, puddling, burning, erosion, loss 

of organic matter and altered soil moisture regimes are maintained within defined standards and 

guidelines.” Therefore, if an action maintains detrimental conditions within the standards of the 

Malheur Forest Plan, legal requirements for soil conservation would be met.

All alternatives would be consistent with Malheur Forest Plan soil protection standards (ForestWide Standards 101, page IV-37 and 125-129, page IV-40) because design criteria would keep 

impacts small enough that cumulative effects from proposed activities comply with the standards. 

Reasons are explained in the preceding sections of this report.

3.7 Analysis Issue – Watershed

3.7.1 Existing Condition

The analysis area for the Magone Project is those portions of the Grub Creek and East Fork 

Beech Creek subwatersheds that lie within the administrative boundary of the Malheur National 

Forest. The location of the Forest boundary relative to the topography results in the portions of 

the two subwatersheds that lie within the project planning area that appear to have distinctly 

different drainage patterns. Hillslopes, draws, and streams in the East Fork Beech Creek 

subwatershed drain to a single, common point of discharge—the confluence of East Fork Beech 

Creek with Beech Creek. The Grub Creek subwatershed appears to have multiple drainage points 

due to the location of the Forest boundary. However, the area within the subwatershed eventually 

drains to a single, common point of discharge—the confluence of Grub Creek with the Middle 

Fork John Day River. The drainage patterns are described in more detail under the Hydrography 

sections below.
Magone Project

260 of 632

Although remnant conditions suggest more wetlands were present, only a few wetlands are 

mapped in the project planning area based on the National Wetlands Inventory wetland 

classification codes produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al. 1979).

3.7.1.1 Climate and Hydrology

The climate in the project planning area resembles a continental climate with moderate summer 

temperatures and cold winter temperatures but it differs from a true continental climate by 

influences related to proximity of the Pacific Ocean and Cascade mountain range. Diurnal 

variation is wide throughout the year with below freezing temperatures possible in any month. 

Nighttime longwave radiation, typical of continental climates with infrequent cloud cover, 

commonly results in summer night temperatures below 45 degrees Fahrenheit. In fall, winter, and 

spring, night temperatures may fall well below freezing and frequently below zero in winter. 

Southerly exposures result in summer daytime temperatures that are among the highest in the 

Blue Mountains. Daytime solar radiation in winter may warm slopes, especially south-facing 

slopes typical of the project planning area, offsetting nighttime cold temperatures and leading to 

frequent snowmelt. Some areas are topographically shaded in winter due to rolling mountains to 

the south and the low sun angle typical of the latitude, resulting in less frequent snowmelt.

Precipitation falls mainly as snow, although measurable amounts of precipitation may fall as 

extended spring/fall or winter rains or with summer wet convection storms. Annual patterns of 

accumulation and timing of snowfall and other precipitation are highly variable and result in 

variable patterns of runoff (including seasonal infiltration and overland flow production). The 

annual variation is influenced substantially by storm systems and other climate characteristics 

related to large regional factors such as jet stream behavior. 

Snowmelt is also controlled by complex interactions between the cold nighttime temperatures, 

topographic shading or exposure to solar radiation and/or wind, and daytime temperatures. 

Because normal annual patterns of runoff appear variable and substantially influenced by natural 

landscape characteristics, variation in jet-stream behavior due to global warming probably results 

in runoff events that are within the natural range of variability in size and timing. Trends in

precipitation and temperature associated with global warming in the next few decades would be 

likely to reinforce the range of existing patterns, possibly shifting a greater percentage of 

precipitation to rain instead of snow.

Overland flow is associated with extended spring and fall rains; with winter rains that may or may 

not cause rain-on-snow events, with summer wet convection storms, and with snowmelt. Rainon-snow events are typically limited in geographic extent due to the wide range of elevations 

present. Snowmelt is moderated by the wide diurnal temperature variation, the elevational range, 

and the variety of aspects in the project area. For instance, much of the snow cover on southfacing slopes may melt, runoff, and re-accumulate several times in a typical winter whereas snow 

on north-facing slopes tends to accumulate except for loss to sublimation. Microbursts of rain or 

partially frozen precipitation may occur within wet convection storms.

3.7.1.2 Topography

Topography is steeply to gently hilly except in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area which 

is steep and steeply dissected by draws and stream valleys. Elevations range from about 3,600 to 

6,200 feet. The wide range of elevation partially controls the snowmelt regime. Stream valleys 

are generally narrow although they may widen locally. Generally, steep and narrow ephemeral 

draws connect hillslopes with stream valleys.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

261 of 632

3.7.1.3 Geology

About 70 percent of the project planning area is underlain by breccia and basalt of the Clarno 

Formation. About 25 percent of the area is underlain by Columbia River Basalts; these are found 

mostly along the western edge of East Fork Beech Creek subwatershed and in the southern 

portions of both subwatersheds. The remainder of the area is underlain by small amounts of 

miscellaneous formations such as alluvium. A volcanic ash cap overlies about 30 percent of the 

project planning area, primarily in the upper portion.

3.7.1.4 Soils and Subsoils

Hydrologic response in the project planning area is controlled to a large extent by the variability 

in surface and subsurface soils derived from the Clarno and Columbia River Basalt formations, 

by the shallow depths of the soils and their stony texture, and by characteristics of the underlying 

geology. In addition, the hydrologic responses of the residual soils (derived from parent 

materials) are moderated by the presence of a volcanic ash cap on about 30 percent of the project 

planning area, chiefly in the upper portion, and to a lesser extent the presence of some ash mixed 

in with the residual material, as described in the Soils Report.

Basalt and andesite (volcanic rocks) occur in the southern portion of the project planning area. 

They tend to form clay loam soil to clayey loam soils. These soils exhibit very slow permeability 

and transmissivity, according to the Malheur National Forest Soil Resource Inventory. They also 

tend to limit detention storage and transmission of soil water (shallow ground water) and support 

a high rate of runoff. Relatively little water is contributed to late season base flows. These 

characteristics are ameliorated where the ash cap is present because infiltration rates on ash soils 

are usually higher, resulting in less overland flow.

The clayier soils are generally derived from the lava flows of andesite, basalt, tuff, and the 

volcanic mudflow breccias and conglomerates of the Clarno formation (about 70 percent of the 

project planning area). The andesite, basalt, interlayered tuff of the Columbia River basalts 

generally weathers to loamy to clay-loamy soils (about 25 percent of the project planning area). 

About 20 percent of the area is mapped as complexes of these two types of soils; a soil complex 

is an association in which two or more soil mapping units are so intricately mixed that it is not 

practical to show them at the mapping scale used (Carlson 1974).

Alluvial deposits are found along the lower reaches of perennial and intermittent streams in East 

Fork Beech Creek Subwatershed. Slight evidence of alluvial deposition is found along Grub 

Creek and its tributaries.

The ash cap primarily moderates the flashy hydrologic response of the underlying clay to clayey 

parent materials, when present, by allowing greater infiltration and generating less runoff. 

However, once the surface ash cap is saturated, characteristics of the underlying subsoils control 

the hydrologic response (for instance, during snowmelt or extended spring/fall rains).

The hydrologic response of the soils derived from parent bedrock is generally flashy because of 

the presence of clay in both the surface and subsurface soils and because the soils are relatively 

shallow. Although loamy ash surface soils tend to infiltrate high proportions of run off, their 

relatively shallow depth (6 to 18 inches, rarely 24 inches) combined with the presence of clayey 

subsurface soils, results in a potentially flashy hydrologic response when rates of precipitation or 

snowmelt exceed the infiltration rate or the storage capacity of the ash layer. The hydrologic 

response also depends on soil characteristics such as exposure of the tuff layers, clay content, soil 
Magone Project

262 of 632

depth, ground cover, proximity of non-forest soils, and subsoil characteristics as described in the 

general soil section above.

The subsoil also often has a stronger influence on runoff than is typical of deeper or loamier soils 

because of the generally shallow surface soils, regardless of plant cover. This tendency is often 

intensified on areas of shallower soils, such as those typical of “scab” openings where soils are 

often less than one foot deep and in areas where the subsoil is clayier and poorly drained.

Ash-capped soils typically support mixed conifer forest stands. The deeper residual soils (soils 

without the ash cap) typically support ponderosa pine and some Douglas-fir. Undisturbed, 

forested soils tend to have abundant live or dead ground cover and low to moderate erosion 

potential, depending on slope. Shallow, non-forested, rocky soils typically support grass and 

shrub vegetative cover with low amounts of ground cover. Erosion potential on shallow soils is 

moderate to high or very high; they also tend to produce overland flow. These soils may be found 

as inclusions in or adjacent to forest stands; their proximity to forest stands may allow overland 

flow to drain onto forested where infiltration occurs.

Water is considered the limiting soil nutrient in the project planning area due to the climate and 

natural soil conditions. It is suspected that soil water becomes unavailable to trees about August 

15 when past monitoring on the Malheur National Forest indicated that photosynthesis in some 

tree species declined substantially, which is consistent with data from an enhanced SNOTEL on 

the Malheur National Forest.

Ancient landslides, that appear to pre-date the Mazama ash are located along lower East Fork 

Beech Creek and in the northwestern portion of the project planning area. More recent landslides 

occur west of Magone Lake, which formed the lake, and in the northeast portion of the Clear 

Creek subdrainage. These areas tend to be wetter than the rest of the project planning area 

because the soil is not clearly sorted into layers and stream networks have not developed.

3.7.1.5 Hydrography, Hydrology, and Ground Water

Hydrography

The project planning area is characterized by small perennial streams and by numerous 

intermittent channels and ephemeral draws. The area is drained by East Fork Beech Creek and its 

tributaries and by Grub Creek and some of its tributaries.

The drainage network in the East Fork Beech Creek Subwatershed is composed of several named 

streams (e.g., Tinker, Lake, McClellan, Thompson, and Clear creeks), unnamed perennial and 

intermittent tributaries, and numerous ephemeral draws. The drainage network on the Malheur 

National Forest portion of the Grub Creek subwatershed is composed of upper Grub Creek and 

numerous, mostly intermittent streams and ephemeral draws. The drainage pattern in both 

subwatersheds is dendritic. Some of the streams are fish-bearing (see Aquatic Resources Report).

Only a few wetlands appear on the National Wetlands Inventory, although evidence of more 

extensive wetlands, especially in the headwaters of East Fork of Beech Creek is present. Only a 

few aspen clones are inventoried (see Silviculture Report).

East Fork Beech Creek subwatershed is considered a “true” subwatershed with one drainage 

outlet where East Fork Beech Creek drains into Beech Creek. Much of the southern portion of 

this drainage lies on private land that is elevationally higher than the southern portion of the 

Forest. Tributaries that originate on this area of private land drain down onto the Forest and into 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

263 of 632

East Fork Beech Creek. This subwatershed is also characterized by a number of private inholdings in the central and western portions, many of which are located along the East Fork 

Beech Creek channel or in close proximity to its valley. Consequently, although tributaries from 

the southern private lands flow across the Forest, their confluences with East Fork Beech Creek 

are often located on other parcels of private land. In addition, other tributaries drain the 

inholdings and additional confluences are located on the inholdings. Inholdings totaling about 2 

square miles are located mid-slope and usually drain into named tributaries to East Fork Beech 

Creek. Two 40-acre parcels of Bureau of Land Management Land lie on streams or draws that are 

tributaries to East Fork Beech Creek.

Grub Creek subwatershed is also considered a “true” subwatershed with one drainage outlet on 

private land where it drains into the John Day River, about 10 miles upstream of the Beech Creek 

confluence. However, the drainage pattern of the Grub Creek subwatershed on the Forest differs 

from that of a “true” subwatershed because about six tributaries in the southern portion drain onto 

private land with their confluences located south of the Forest boundary on private land. These 

sub-sub-drainages function independently on the Forest but eventually flow into Grub Creek on 

private land. The upper portion of Grub Creek and its associated tributaries drain Forest land until 

it flows onto private land at the southern boundary.

Hydrology and Natural Physical Disturbance Processes

The principal physical disturbance processes are generally controlled by the diurnal freeze/thaw 

cycles typical of the continental climate or by the pattern of precipitation runoff in response to 

local soil characteristics and climate.

Soil creep (the detachment of soil particles during freeze/thaw cycles and subsequent movement 

downslope) is typical of exposed residual soils in this climate. It is widespread and considered the 

most common erosion process in the project planning area. It is subtle, generally small in 

magnitude, and pervasive (nearly omnipresent). It becomes more apparent following either large, 

rare natural disturbances or when exacerbated by human activities (see Legacy Effects section 

below). Mass movement, such as slumps or landslides, are typical of the Clarno Formation (e.g., 

the landslide that dammed Lake Creek to form Magone Lake), but are not frequent (see Soils 

Report for more detail).

Runoff patterns in the project planning area are complex because of the range of conditions 

associated with controlling factors, including elevation, topography, climate (especially 

precipitation and temperature patterns), soils, and geology.

Relatively “flashy” runoff regimes result from the generally shallow residual soils and subsoils, 

particularly in the southern portion where residual, clayey soils predominate. Flashy runoff 

regimes result in greater proportions of runoff discharged as overland flow and smaller 

proportions infiltrating. Residual soil texture and soil depth also limit the amount of soil water 

storage available and the ease with which it moves within the soil and into the rock formations. 

Increased overland flow combined with the finely textured soil types and presence of shallow 

soils contributes to increased natural surface erosion potential on the volcanic soils, some 

alluvium, and areas of shallow soils regardless of texture and parent material. Soil creep and the 

tendency to produce overland flow, individually and synergistically, positively reinforce the 

vulnerability or potential hazard associated with rare, larger runoff events.

High intensity wet storms, including microbursts, with rainfall rates greater than 1 inch per hour, 

may result in accelerated surface runoff during summers. These storms are usually of short 
Magone Project

264 of 632

duration (fewer than 30 minutes) and of limited extent (less than 10 square miles). These storms 

may result in local erosion, which is usually limited to areas where ground cover is naturally 

present in low amounts, resulting in sediment delivery to nearby streams and road systems. These 

storms may also include short periods of higher intensity rainfall, similar to that recorded outside 

Boise, Idaho in September 1997 (in which approximately 0.4 inches of precipitation was recorded 

in nine minutes), which can accelerate erosion. Gentle rains occur in spring and fall and may 

produce overland flow, which may concentrate or cause erosion when the soils become saturated. 

Saturation most commonly occurs when the duration of these storms is greater than a few days. 

Snowmelt, which is regulated by diurnal variation, elevation, and aspect may also concentrate or 

cause erosion once soils become saturated.

The complexity of runoff regime, although not technically considered a disturbance process, 

contributes to the natural erosion hazard and is vulnerable to alteration by human actions. These 

human-caused disturbances tend to exacerbate the role of overland flow as a disturbance agent 

and increase the erosion hazard beyond that associated with natural landscape characteristics.

Ground Water

Although the ground water resource underlying the project planning area has not been 

characterized in detail, it appears the primary opportunities for recharge occur in draws and 

valleys. Recharge in some valleys may be altered based on legacy effects described in the Human 

Disturbance, Legacy Effects, and Alterations to Natural Watershed Characteristics and Processes 

section below. Transmission rates of shallow ground water are described subjectively and in 

relative terms due to the lack of available information. They vary from very low in the clayey to 

clay subsoils to moderate or high in the more coarsely textured gravelly and cobbly loams that 

may be present in valleys. Parent material with cavities, cracks/faults, and interflow zones tend to 

store ground water, as transmission rates are low. Ground water movement in Clarno soils is not 

well understood due to the characteristics of breccias and is likely to be highly controlled by 

unknowable (due to limits of current technology) characteristics of the geology.

3.7.1.6 Natural Watershed Hazard

The natural watershed hazard18, which is based on the inherent characteristics of the topography, 

climate, geology, and soils, is considered low to moderate in the East Fork Beech Creek 

subwatershed because of the presence of past landslides in the Clarno Formation and the 

extensive presence of that formation on moderate to steep slopes, and because of the amount and 

distribution of shallow soils, particularly in the inventoried roadless area which shed water 

rapidly. The natural watershed hazard is considered low in the Grub Creek subwatershed within 

the Forest boundary, although there are localized, generally steeper areas where it may approach a 

moderate rating, and other, flatter areas where the hazard may be considered very low.

3.7.1.7 Human Disturbance, Legacy Effects, and Alterations to Natural 

Watershed Characteristics and Processes

Conditions created by past management activities implemented before the application of 

watershed best management practices, continue to alter the hydrologic system and its function. 

The main result of these alterations to natural soil conditions and drainage networks is to continue 

to accelerate and concentrate overland flow across most of the project planning area. They 

contribute to ongoing, generally localized erosion (for instance, pedestaling, rilling, shallow 

 

18 Natural watershed hazard: The intensity and magnitude of watershed vulnerability and potential response to 

environmental disturbance based on the physical and biological characteristics of a given drainage before the 

development of a new state of equilibrium.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

265 of 632

headcutting, and base leveling) in ephemeral draws. As overland flow concentrated in ephemeral 

draws entered intermittent and perennial streams, channel and valley erosion, including 

headcutting, occurred along drainages throughout the project planning area. Both named and 

unnamed streams (or segments of streams), and their tributaries and valleys eroded. Riparian 

function, such as floodplain storage and connectivity to stream channels, flood dissipation, and 

the availability of some types of habitats in the wider valley bottoms and flatter gradient streams, 

was highly and extensively diminished.

These conditions may be continuously self-reinforcing, leading to continued alteration of 

hydrologic processes. Alternatively, they may be interrupted in turn by other natural processes 

operating at decades- or centuries-long scales, such as the death of trees and the natural 

accumulation of large downed wood. Alteration of natural conditions by past activities occurs 

throughout the project planning area including in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area and 

on the acquired lands. Legacy effects remain from past logging practices, associated road 

building, the reduction in beaver due to trapping and later alteration of potential habitat, and 

season-long grazing of large herds of domestic livestock.

3.7.1.8 Composite Watershed Hazard

The existing composite watershed hazard19 (qualitatively evaluated) in the Magone project 

planning area is considered low (plus) in the Grub Creek subwatershed and moderate (minus) to 

moderate in East Fork Beech Creek subwatershed, depending on location. Characteristics of the 

soils and hydrography have been altered by past human disturbance, described in the legacy 

effects above, implemented without the application of watershed best management practices.

 These alterations continue to influence hydrologic processes and function in assorted 

ways and slightly increase the vulnerability of the watershed to runoff events.

 These alterations are generally small to moderate in magnitude and occur frequently. For 

example, they have connected along Forest Service road 3600663, and many ephemeral 

draws show evidence (e.g., exposure of fine roots) that erosion traced to disturbance 

upslope is continuing. The likelihood that additional connections may occur under a 

variety of runoff events continues. Consequently, the composite watershed hazard rating 

is higher than the natural watershed hazard rating.

 Composite watershed hazard is also affected by the condition of some channels that have 

been eroded and “dished-out” to a cobble channel, where the cobble acts essentially as 

bedrock limiting further downcutting. The result is the channels continue to erode 

horizontally across the valley floor and accelerate the rate at which they transport water 

downstream.

Watershed processes often rely on the quantity and quality of connections between hydrologic 

features, such as connections between streams, stream channels, and floodplains. Increased 

connectivity or the potential for increased connectivity (i.e., the production of increased overland 

flow) is used as the primary basis for evaluating composite watershed hazard, except where 

increased connectivity, such as between stream channels and floodplains, would tend to dissipate 

the energy associated with high runoff events. In these locations the parameters are inversely 

related, with increased connectivity decreasing hazard, and decreased connectivity increasing 

 

19 Composite watershed hazard: The intensity and magnitude of watershed vulnerability and potential response to 

environmental disturbance based on the physical and biological characteristics of a given drainage—and human-caused 

alterations to those characteristics—before the development of a new state of equilibrium.
Magone Project

266 of 632

hazard. Watershed hazard (natural and composite) was developed for use as a comparative tool 

between the existing condition and various alternatives; it is not an absolute measure.

3.7.1.9 Watershed Characteristics – Existing Condition for Proposed Activities

Hillslopes (including ephemeral swales)

Many of the units proposed for commercial harvest (about 165 units, 7,187 acres, estimated) in 

both subwatersheds are located on clayey to loamy soils derived from the parent bedrock, or on 

ash soils that overlie the parent bedrock (additional description is included in the Overview 

section of the Watershed Report and the Soils Report), or on complexes of these soils.

Most forested areas also have abundant ground cover, as described in the Soils Report, where 

infiltration is at or near potential, and overland flow is produced only during intense or high 

volume precipitation events. Consequently, erosion hazard is low to moderate on most forested 

soils depending on slope. Forested soils where overland flow is more prone to develop under 

smaller precipitation events include the areas of breccias and tuff (Clarno) and volcanic (non-ash) 

surface soils. 

Although loamy ash surface soils tend to infiltrate high proportions of run off, their relatively 

shallow depth (6 to 18 inches, rarely 24 inches) combined with the presence of clayey subsurface 

soils, results in a potentially flashy hydrologic response when rates of precipitation or snowmelt 

exceed the infiltration rate or the storage capacity of the ash layer.

Naturally-occurring, non-forested, shallow, rocky soils – “scab soils” which support low amounts 

of ground cover and which produce overland flows are intermingled with forested areas. These 

areas tend to direct concentrated flows downslope and are susceptible to erosion if concentrated 

flows from above are directed across them. If downslope soils have abundant cover, overland 

flows usually infiltrate without eroding. Where down slope soils typically are low in ground 

cover (e.g., on shallow soils), or are vulnerable to detachment and transport (e.g., ash soils), 

natural gullies or channels are likely to develop.

The clayey and ash soils in the project planning area are considered sensitive to different kinds of 

disturbance because of inherent characteristics. These sensitive parameters contribute to the 

naturally flashy hydrologic regime by influencing run off patterns, distribution, and erosion 

hazard, or are vulnerable to these concentrated flows.

Legacy practices have altered run off patterns up- and down-slope of areas proposed for harvest, 

resulting in greater amounts of overland flow. These changes are exacerbated in the project 

planning area because of the inherently flashy runoff response; the relatively shallow depth of the 

soils and the ash cap; the presence of the clayey subsurface soils; and the proximity and 

intermingling of shallow, non-forest soils to forested areas.

Some of these flows infiltrate in downslope forested stands, including those proposed for harvest, 

because ground cover is abundant and slopes are gentle. Some of the overland flows enter the 

drainage network more efficiently, or extend or maintain existing areas of erosion. Soil 

assessments indicate that most proposed harvest units display detrimental impacts from past 

management activities on less than 8 percent of the area. In most areas of legacy impacts, 

recovery has been at a natural rate with no active restoration. But in some areas, such as upper 

East Fork Beech Creek or upper Clear Creek, recovery has been offset by continuing disturbance, 

for instance, when dead ground cover (for example, conifer needles) continue to be washed 

downslope by previously concentrated overland flow, maintaining mineral soil exposure, which 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

267 of 632

in turn is reinforcing the overland flow concentration. Legacy activities in the vicinity of the unit 

pool, such as roading, skidding, and erosion initiated during season-long grazing (implemented 

before the development and application of Watershed Best Management Practices), continue to 

have the greatest impact on hillslope function.

Hillslope Roads

Roads are the most common disturbance located on hillslopes and swales. About 70 percent of the 

roads in the project planning area are estimated to lie on hillslopes. For the purposes of this 

analysis, because of GIS sideboards, hillslope roads are defined as roads located outside of 

riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). This probably underestimates hillslope roads 

because RHCAs on all categories of streams commonly extend out of the narrow valleys onto the 

lower hillslopes. However, because some of the ways road segments located in the outer portion 

of the RHCAs affect watershed function are similar to the how hillslope roads affect watershed 

function, the following discussions also apply to these segments. Additional influences of these 

segments on streams and valleys are described in the section below that addresses riparian area 

condition.

Roads on hillslopes interrupt normal hydrologic function by re-routing run off in minor and in 

major ways. Generally, two mechanisms are responsible for most hydrologic disturbance related 

to roads in the project planning area: 1) interception of and re-routing of subsurface flow, 

common in many forested areas, and 2) the other concentration and routing of overland flow, 

common in this climate and geology but uncommon in other areas. Most roads in the project 

planning area capture and concentrate overland flow to varying extents, depending on landscape 

context and proximity of legacy disturbance. Often the only evidence is a diffuse to moderate 

distribution of ravel on the lightly defined narrow wheel tracks on the road surface.

These mechanisms are of particular concern in the project planning area where a smaller 

proportion of run off infiltrates with a greater proportion contributed to overland flow, especially 

when affected road segments are located in close proximity to shallow soils with limited ground 

cover, and the re-routed flow continues to be concentrated by downslope conditions.

Most commonly hillslope roads re-direct overland flow away from natural drainage patterns to 

alternative ones:

 If flow concentration is accelerated (for instance by drainage structures), or if the 

alternative flow path lies on areas of reduced ground cover or shallow soils, the overland 

flow may continue to accelerate, cause erosion, or both.

 If flow concentration is accelerated, sediment may be eroded from the surface creating 

self-re-enforcing conditions like ruts, such as those along Forest Service road 3600544.

 Roads also intercept, concentrate, and re-direct soil water to the surface, causing any or 

all of the above conditions.

 The continuing impact is usually directly influenced by the road slope and surfacing.

A Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package (GRAIP) study (Day et al. 2010), 

conducted on geologies that are similar or slightly more prone to road-related erosion on the 

adjacent Umatilla National Forest than the project planning area is, showed that about 90 percent 

of the overland flow and sediment generated from or transported by road surfaces appear to be 

caused by conditions on or adjacent to about ten per cent of the roads. The GRAIP study 

incorporated an evaluation of drain points and associated road segments. These results are 

consistent with the observations and other professional experience of the project hydrologist and 

informal evaluations conducted by other Malheur National Forest specialists. Concentration of 
Magone Project

268 of 632

overland flows probably follows a similar pattern based on observations and professional 

experience. Construction of road berms and the associated excavation (commonly located in close 

proximity), and subgrade compaction and ditching, contribute to the interception of shallow 

ground water and its direction to the surface. On user-created roads now identified as system 

roads, compaction results in similar interception. Shallow (generally <1.0 inch in depth) raveling 

and partially plugged culverts were observed on several road segments indicating that sediment 

detachment, mobilization and trapping is occurring at generally slow rates since road 

maintenance probably has not occurred for decades.

Erosion of the road surface (due to multiple factors affecting the road surface) is a third common 

mechanism associated with forest roads, but is relatively uncommon in the project planning area.

Road surveys conducted in summer 2014 evaluated the occurrence of these three mechanisms on 

closed and open roads in the project planning area, although the presence of light ravel alone was 

not used as a criterion for noting overland flow. About 10 closed roads or road segments in East 

Fork Beech Creek Subwatershed are routing overland flow down the road surfaces. 

Overland flow is caused by roads concentrating runoff, capturing overland flow from adjacent 

“scabs,” or capturing seep discharge, generally from the cutslope, due to inadequate drainage. 

Four open roads or segments in East Fork Beech Creek Subwatershed are also routing overland 

flow similarly. The road surveys did not indicate the presence of road drainage problems in Grub 

Creek Subwatershed.

Other ways hillslope roads may influence watershed function include the following, generally 

more minor influences. Since much of the project planning area is located on subsoils that are 

clayey, the tendency for ruts to develop from use under wet conditions is common. Clayey 

subsoils also may result in rutting on relatively flat road segments or in local depressions where 

the water collects but is not directed into the drainage network. Road crossings of ephemeral 

swales may also collect and concentrate runoff that would otherwise infiltrate. Concentrated 

flows are less likely to develop on roads surfaced with gravel or other aggregate, although, 

occasionally, rills develop in the aggregate. Steeper, native surface roads commonly show more 

channeling and erosion than flatter roads in both subwatersheds.

Roads defined as hillslope roads for this analysis, especially those located just above RHCAs, 

within 100–250 feet of smaller streams, may impact stream channels and valleys by influencing 

delivery of overland flow and sediment, especially where runoff from roads is channelized below 

ditch relief culverts, where outsloping road surfaces inadvertently concentrate flows, or where 

road location limits the amount of canopy shade provided to streams.

Roads on lands acquired from the Oregon Lumber company were commonly developed to meet 

the immediate needs for log haul. These roads are commonly located in draws or beside streams 

and, because road beds and subgrades were not constructed, drainage was not designed to current 

standards. These conditions continue to modify hydrologic function and interrupt natural drainage 

patterns.

An access and travel management plan, the standard way to manage roads on the former Long 

Creek Ranger District in the 1990s, was implemented in the early to mid-1990s. Numerous roads 

were closed and decommissioned using then common practices of blocking access and allowing 

closure or decommissioning to occur at a natural rate. Most of the decommissioned roads were 

located in or near valleys and remain obviously evident since most road grades have not 

degraded. These roadbeds still affect riparian function, as described above for existing roads, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

269 of 632

much as they did 20 years ago. Most of the closed roads are located on hillslopes and continue to 

affect watershed function as previously described.

Roads located on the hillslope portions of RHCAs, commonly more than 50 feet from streams, 

affect hydrologic function, although, like roads higher on hillslopes, they generally do not 

constrain streams. They intercept subsurface flow and collect and route overland flow downslope. 

Because of their proximity to streams, these processes may influence stream function in ways 

similar to valley bottom roads, especially for processes that are controlled by distance from 

streams. These roads are more likely to deliver concentrated overland flow and sediment to 

streams because filter strips are narrower than for roads located further upslope. Also, their 

location may prevent the growth and recruitment of large wood to streams. Depending on their 

proximity to and location relative to streams, they may reduce shading and contribute to increase 

in stream temperature.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Management Area 3B (MA3B) 

(including wet areas, ephemeral draws and valley bottoms, and Magone Lake area): 

PACFISH standard-width RHCAs are identified for the project planning area. The RHCAs of 

fish-bearing, perennial, and intermittent streams and those associated with other hydrologic 

features commonly include hill- and toe-slopes and outer portions of valleys along with 

landforms such as terraces, floodplains, and valley depressions associated with streams.

 The soil and vegetation conditions located on the hill- and toe-slope portions of RHCAs 

are usually similar in soil and vegetation to those just upslope.

 Most stream valleys tend to be narrow with local areas of widening. The widened areas 

often contain stream segments that function as though they were constrained in narrow 

valleys due to entrenchment caused by past logging and other legacy management 

practices.

 Many stream channels are disconnected from floodplains as a result of legacy 

management practices or activities that pre-date the formation of the Malheur National 

Forest. Disconnection has resulted in reduced floodplain storage and shifts in riparian 

vegetation, both of which are contributing to a reduced ability to dissipate energy 

associated with high flows. The reduction in hydrologic function reduces the resilience of 

riparian areas, including their ability to withstand flood events.

 Changes in vegetation include encroachment of conifers, reduction in aspen (abundance 

and vigor), and colonization by non-native herbs and shrubs.

 Large wood within the active channel and flood-prone area is generally scarce. Stream 

segments frequently do not meet Malheur Forest Plan standards for large wood or 

riparian management objectives for other parameters (see Aquatic Resources Report). 

The potential for future large wood recruitment is variable because streamside stands 

vary from seedling to old forest in structure and age.

 Valley floors appear to have eroded up to 19 inches based on recent terrace formation and 

the distribution of stumps.

 Few stringer and bead meadows are present along streams with the exception of some 

segments of Tinker, Clear, and McClellan creeks. Other streams segments appear to have 

supported more extensive riparian meadows based on recent terrace formation, the 

distribution of stumps, and the exposure of tree roots. Relic riparian vegetation important 

to bank stabilization is scattered in these areas. These conditions reduce the amount of 

shade provided to streams by vegetation.

 Riparian vegetation appears to be reduced in distribution, extent, size of patches and 

vigor except for segments along Clear, McClellan, Tinker, and East Fork Beech creeks.
Magone Project

270 of 632

 While high flow events and wildfires are unlikely to occur in any given year, they could 

occur at any time.

 Riparian areas are oversimplified and lack the structure, either woody or channel 

morphology to dissipate energy from high flows by allowing them to access floodplains 

and to infiltrate.

 Shifts in riparian vegetation may support low intensity burning due to low abundance but 

other shifts, such as encroachment of drier species, may support uncharacteristically 

intense burning and result in mortality of plants that provide shade since these drier 

species are not usually capable of re-sprouting.

Most Management Area 3B is incorporated within RHCAs. Two exceptions are aspen and 

ephemeral draws. Ephemeral draws form the link between the hillslopes and the drainage network 

and are discussed in more detail in the Stream Channel section.

Aspen: The Forest Plan identifies aspen as Management Area 3B. A few stands have been 

mapped in the northwest project area in upper Clear Creek drainage. Aspen stand condition is 

described in the Silviculture Report.

Other RHCA/Riparian Vegetation: Native vegetation in RHCAs ranges from freshwater 

emergent species like sedges, which are typical of wetlands, to wetland or drier riparian shrub 

plant associations. They can even host drier meadows and forested stands that are typical of the 

vegetation on adjacent hillslopes. Valleys become narrower and often shrubby or forested at mid 

to upper elevations, depending on ground water regimes.

The abundance, variety, and distribution of riparian vegetation, including hardwood shrubs, are 

reduced in much of the project planning area, generally at lower elevations, where historic 

season-long or other overgrazing practices were followed; where channels or valley bottoms are 

eroded to cobble; where the water table has dropped, or where other disturbance has altered soil, 

channel, water, or shade characteristics. Riparian vegetation along many segments of East Fork 

Beech Creek and its upper tributaries (particularly those areas formerly owned by Oregon 

Lumber company), along the upper segment of Clear Creek and its tributaries (above the Nipple 

Butte Inventoried Roadless Area), and along segments of Grub Creek and its tributaries is 

substantially altered. Isolated stringer and bead (primarily sedge) meadows are not uncommon in 

these valleys but their condition is generally substantially altered. Overall, vegetation 

composition has shifted toward non-native forbs and/or species preferring drier soil conditions.

Riparian hardwoods along other drainages or stream segments, particularly those located in very 

narrow valleys at mid- to upper elevations along Tinker and Lake creeks, at mid-elevations along 

Clear and McClellan creeks and their tributaries in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area, 

and along some segments of Grub Creek, appear abundant and vigorous. Upland conifer 

encroachment onto the valley floor and riparian vegetation is present.

Several places in degraded valleys were observed where wood (some less than six inches in 

diameter) has fallen across a valley, it has trapped sediment and slowed runoff, allowing riparian 

vegetation to become established.

Riparian resiliency to flooding and other disturbance is reduced along some streams based on the 

conditions of riparian vegetation. For instance, much of the riparian vegetation and valley soil 

have been eroded along the segment of an unnamed tributary to East Fork Beech Creek and along 

the mid and upper segments of East Fork Beech Creek itself. Vegetation in meadow flats along 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

271 of 632

tributaries to Grub Creek has been altered with non-native and forbs and grass-like plants typical 

of drier environments becoming more abundant.

Riparian Roads: Riparian roads are defined as roads located within RHCAs for the purposes of 

this analysis. See discussion under Hillslope Roads for roads within RHCAs that lie on hillslopes. 

Since road influence on streams varies with distance from the stream and with the topographic 

location, roads within 100 feet and 200 feet of streams were also considered for this analysis. 

About 30 percent of the roads within the project planning area are considered riparian. See 

Aquatic Resources Report for descriptions of stream crossings and road densities.

Forest Service roads of various maintenance and access levels parallel and cross perennial and 

intermittent streams (Categories 1, 2, and 4), and ephemeral draws. County roads 18 and 32 

parallel perennial and intermittent segments of Grub Creek and perennial segments of East Fork 

Beech Creek. 

Roads are often within tens of feet of stream channels, narrowing the available filter strip to 

widths that meet the smallest recommended size or less, based on local field evaluations and 

literature (McNeil 1999).

Filter strips 200 feet wide or filter strips less than 200 feet wide on smaller streams with lesser 

flows and where woody debris is present, are generally adequate to trap non-channelized, 

mobilized sediment. Dust produced at crossings by incidental traffic is not measurable. As a result 

of historical logging practices, streams are generally considered to be below standard in large 

wood, especially smaller streams at lower elevations. The trapping and filtering capacity of these 

streams for sediment or dust is considered to be reduced.

Roads alter hydrologic function in several ways, depending on the topographic location within 

RHCAs. Roads are usually located in valleys and draws that provided easiest access with the least 

need to move soil at the time of construction, commonly prior to 1970. Additional roads were 

built in the northwest corner of the project planning area between approximately 1970 and 1990; 

these roads were generally built to standards that are similar to those in use today. These various 

roads provide a substantial amount of access to the project area, in proportion to their length. 

Roads may be located on lower hillslopes or toe slopes immediately adjacent to and encroaching 

on stream channels, or within defined channels or on draw bottoms. Some riparian roads cross 

unmapped, seasonal moist to wet meadows where they appear to be affecting local subsurface 

water movement.

As with hillslope roads, two other mechanisms, erosion (due to multiple factors, at the road 

surface) and interception of subsurface flow, are probably responsible for a substantial portion of 

the watershed disturbance and hazard associated with riparian roads. Road-related disturbance 

appears to affect riparian condition and hydrologic function in a variety of ways, depending on 

the local setting.

Although the GRAIP study (Day et al., undated) did not differentiate between sediment 

contributions from hillslope and riparian locations, it is likely that a higher percentage of drain 

points delivering sediment are located in RHCAs, although the sediment itself may originate on 

hillslopes. Road hydrology surveys conducted in late summer 2014 identified several road 

segments affecting riparian function.

Management Area 12 (Developed Recreation Area) and Management Area 8 (Special 

Interest Area) – Magone Lake Geological Area at Magone Lake: For the purposes of the 
Magone Project

272 of 632

Watershed Report analysis, these two management areas and areas upslope in near proximity are 

addressed together. Numerous recreation improvements have been constructed in the vicinity of 

the lake (see Recreation Report). Although many of these improvements have reduced the 

potential for infiltration by installing impervious surfaces, the application of Watershed Best 

Management Practices since about 1990 has controlled overland flow and erosion. Two small 

riparian areas near the two boat docks are receiving heavy use, but are maintaining their 

vegetative resilience. Roading for access to the recreational developments does not appear to be 

constraining riparian areas associated with the lake.

Magone Lake: Magone Lake was created naturally in about 1840 when a large slump from the 

west blocked Lake Creek and its valley to a depth of greater than 90 feet, and allowed it to fill. It 

is a high mountain lake in a climate similar to that for the sub-alpine lakes in the Strawberry 

Mountain Range; it is frozen for about 6 months of the year. The lake contains a large number of 

snags that fell over the last 170 years and appears to have developed an ecosystem in balance 

with the current wood loading. 

The previous applications and maintenance of Watershed Best Management Practices in the 

recreation area are controlling sediment and the concentration of overland flow. A thermocline 

has formed at about 30 feet in depth. The lake contains a large number of down logs around its 

margins that fell over the last 170 years. The like, based on diving by Forest Service personnel in 

May 2016, contains a “standing forest” below the thermocline (see Aquatics Report) where trees 

exhibit little rotting. The lake appears to have developed an ecosystem in balance with the current 

wood loading. Cattle are excluded from the lake since the developed recreation area is fenced.

Stream Channels (and Ephemeral Draws)

Stream channels are disconnected from floodplains in much of the project planning area. Stream 

channels have downcut into valley bottoms, resulting in altered physical characteristics and 

function. Generally the alteration occurs as one of two types, depending on the depth of valley 

materials. Where valley soils are deep, channels have downcut and are defined by either vertical 

or outsloping banks (stream channel entrenchment). Where valley soils are either naturally 

shallow (usually because of the presence of bedrock or large particles near the surface) or where 

much of the valley surface itself has eroded, stream channels have eroded down to a resistant 

layer resulting in rounded, often over-widened, “dished out” stream beds (valley entrenchment). 

Stream banks associated with “dished out” streams display poorly defined banks, lack 

morphological integrity, or are often accompanied by oversteepening of side slopes. Often the 

underlying bedrock or rocky, angular colluvium is exposed, and former bankfull elevations may 

be identified above the current bankfull indicators. Some streams may exhibit a combination of 

both types of alteration, depending on local soil and geology characteristics. These alterations to 

channel profile, pattern, and dimensions reduce channel resiliency and the ability of channels to 

pass high flow events without uncharacteristic alteration. Streams generally do not meet Malheur 

Forest Plan standards for large woody debris (see Aquatic Resources Report). These conditions 

are also commonly observed in smaller Category 2 and 4 streams and in ephemeral draws. Wood 

is one of the major channel-forming factors and energy dissipater in streams of all sizes. In 

smaller streams it commonly acts to slow flows, allowing transported sediment to be deposited 

before it reaches larger streams.

Where disturbance was most intense, primarily in streams on land formerly owned by the Oregon 

Lumber Company and in the lower portion of East Fork Beech Creek, streambeds are now 

composed of cobbles, are deeply entrenched, and are generally resistant to further impacts. These 

stream beds primarily function as conduits to pass water downstream and provide few other 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

273 of 632

stream or riparian functions such as water storage, riparian ecosystems, or flood water storage. 

Other segments of tributaries to both East Fork Beech Creek and Grub Creek are entrenched and 

straightened, generally in valleys of finer materials. Entrenchment has reduced floodplain storage 

and caused shifts in riparian vegetation. This has reduced the ability to dissipate energy associated 

with high flows, and reduced the ability to maintain channels, including stream banks. 

Precipitation and snowmelt that are not captured and stored higher in the subwatersheds are 

concentrated and leave the landscape rapidly.

In some cases legacy management practices or erosion resulting from those practices have 

resulted in “dished out” streams, where the distinction between bed and banks is not clear, for 

instance, along segments of East Fork Beech Creek and several of its Category 4 tributaries and 

tributaries to Grub Creek. The upper segment of Grub Creek is eroding; as it widens it may 

become dished out. 

Stream channels appear vulnerable to erosion as demonstrated by responses to multiple events 

across the Malheur National Forest. The resiliency of the streams is reduced, increasing the 

watershed hazard.

Ephemeral draws are considered the connection between hillslopes and stream channels. 

Generally, ephemeral draws are low in down wood, reducing their filtering capacity as described 

for the smaller stream channels.

Approximately 100 miles of ephemeral draws are estimated to produce small amounts of active 

erosion in the project planning area. These are located in both subwatersheds and are most 

frequently located in the lower third of the hillslopes. Some are tributaries directly to Grub Creek 

or East Fork Beech Creek. Most erosion was initiated by legacy activities that either channeled 

overland flow down the draws or reduced ground cover or both. In some cases past grazing 

practices (such as salting in draw bottoms), poorly designed or located culverts, or poor road 

location, concentrated overland flow that resulted in erosion. Evidence of erosion ranges from 

pedestaling of live ground cover, to mineral soil exposure along overland flow paths to rills (< 4 

inches deep), to shallow gullies (>4 inches deep). Active erosion continues partly due to the lack 

of downed wood in draw bottoms and, in some places, the lack of ground cover recovery.

Both the reduced amounts of downed woody material and the on-going erosion tend to increase 

the watershed hazard.

Water Quantity, Timing, Hydrologic Response, and Ground Water

The common stream flow regime is snowmelt dominated and controlled by elevation. 

Observation and comparison with similar drainage basins downstream indicate that peak flows 

occur from mid-March to early June, depending on annual weather patterns and drainage size. 

Factors that contribute to peak flow are variable. The size of drainage areas of tributaries to either 

East Fork Beech Creek or Grub Creek ranges from a few acres to about 10,000 acres. Peak flow 

patterns are also influenced by the wide range of elevations in the project planning area, annual 

snow accumulation and characteristics, warming trends, and precipitation characteristics. For 

instance, snowpack in the Upper John Day Sub-basin is variable, providing as little as 22 percent 

and as much as 82 percent of the annual precipitation, according to a nearby SNOTEL site 

(USDA Forest Service 1999). Following meltoff, stream flows decline gradually until late 

September or early October when low flows occur.

Rain events at low elevations within the normal snow accumulation period are not uncommon. 

They usually result in short term decreases in snowpack or melt off and brief periods without 
Magone Project

274 of 632

snow that are often followed by re-accumulation of snow. Rapid snowmelt at higher elevations 

may occur during late spring rains after similar, earlier melt-out events at lower elevations. 

Consequently, the patterns of snowmelt and rapidly increasing stream flow are often more 

variable than in other locales.

The effect of convection storms (thunderstorms) on stream flow may range from negligible to 

substantial, depending on a number of factors related to the storm. Similarly, the effect of storms 

on stream flow in the project planning area is variable because storms often track either 

downstream (to the north) or across the watershed (to the east), resulting in either more 

pronounced or moderate effects on stream flow.

Past activities that altered upland and ephemeral draw soils as described in the Hillslope section; 

roading and skidding along streams influence snowpack accumulation, melt-out, and runoff from 

convection and other storms. The quantity and timing of runoff has been modified by disturbance; 

smaller amounts of runoff infiltrate and greater amounts of overland flow run off the landscape 

faster and earlier. Runoff is not captured, stored and safely released at the appropriate time.

Studies from areas with different climates and soils indicate that harvest may influence runoff. 

Helvey and Fowler (1995) found that peak flows resulting from snowmelt do not increase 

following the creation of 60 percent of an area in hydrologic openings from timber harvest on a 

nearby forest. Results for the creation of openings (in which more than 90 percent of trees have 

been removed) are mixed, depending on the method of analysis. They also found that peak flows 

from snowmelt occur earlier when openings are created. A cursory review of past harvest 

activities indicates that created openings are below these thresholds.

Ephemeral draw condition is a primary influence on changes in seasonal runoff volume and rates.

Ground water: The existing condition is discussed in more detail in the Overview section of the 

Watershed Report.

Water Quality

The John Day River Basin total maximum daily load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management 

Plan (WQMP) was completed by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality as lead agency in 

December 2010 (ODEQ 2010). The TMDL primarily addresses temperature in the basin, 

including streams in the project planning area. A TMDL effectively de-lists streams formerly on 

the State Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Impaired Waterbodies, and shifts 

legal requirements for water quality management to state-identified Designated Monitoring 

Agencies under state-approved Water Quality Management Plans. The Forest Service, as a 

Designated Monitoring Agency, with the Umatilla National Forest as the lead, completed Water 

Quality Restoration Plan as required in the TMDL and WQMP. Consequently, while none of the 

streams in the project planning area are included on the most recent 2010 list for temperature, the 

conditions (e.g. not meeting stream temperature standards for various beneficial uses) which 

caused them to be listed remain. Water temperatures in other perennial streams are considered to 

be elevated; these streams are automatically included in the Total Maximum Daily Load and 

Water Quality Management Plan by the Department of Environmental Quality and, as such, are 

included in the Forest Service Water Quality Restoration Plan.

In addition, East Fork Beech Creek was added to the 2010 CWA Section 303(d) list for the 

parameter of biocriteria in December 2012 during the EPA review of the 2010 list. Although the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality included the parameter of the biocriteria in the 

John Day Basin TMDL and WQMP because of its often close correlation with temperature, EPA’s 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

275 of 632

method of listing indicates that because the stressors affecting biocriteria are not known, the 

additional stream segment cannot be included in the existing TMDL and WQMP for the John Day 

River Basin. Therefore, East Fork Beech Creek remains on the CWA Section 303(d) list. The 

listing for biocriteria indicates that the populations of macroinvertebrates sampled in East Fork 

Beech Creek are not as diverse as Oregon Department of Environmental Quality would expect to 

find.

Composite Watershed Hazard

Since the natural watershed hazard is based on the project planning area climate, geology, and the 

soil’s ability to produce overland flow, the composite watershed hazard is increased by 

disturbance that either produces additional flow, reduces infiltration, or captures natural overland 

flow and concentrates it.

The factors of greatest influence on watershed hazard, resulting from past and ongoing 

management activities, appear to be the presence of riparian roads, the hydrologic and vegetative 

condition of riparian areas, the condition of non-forested hillslopes, the extension of stream 

channels, and modification of both channels and hillslopes by past activities. Hillslope conditions 

resulting from past logging are generally recovering. The impacts of hillslope roads are limited in 

extent and intensity. Rare, large run off events are expected to increase erosion in eroding 

ephemeral draws and Category 4 steams, and may initiate additional erosion paths on sensitive 

soils. Run off from some hillslope roads, riparian roads, and exposed mineral soil is expected to 

increase the volume of flow and sediment. Considering only the types, distribution, magnitude, 

and intensity of legacy and ongoing disturbance, overall watershed hazard is slightly higher than 

under undisturbed conditions. This slight increase is also influenced by the typical response 

resulting from interactions between the types of human-caused disturbance present and the 

natural hydrological characteristics.

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

3.7.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The following measurement indicators (also described above) are used for assessing the effects to 

watershed resources in the Magone project planning area:

 Effects to hillslopes (including ephemeral swales)

 Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Management Area 3B (MA3B) 

(including wet areas, ephemeral draws, and valley bottoms)

 Stream channels (and ephemeral draws)

 Water quantity, timing, hydrologic response, and ground water

 Water quality

 Impacts to the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area

 Watershed hazard

3.7.2.2 Methodology

Streams and ephemeral draws in the project planning area were mapped using a combination of 

U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, information in the Malheur National Forest 

geographic information system (GIS), and recent field reconnaissance of streams and draws by 

the project hydrologist, other aquatic specialists, and the watershed field crew. Malheur National 

Forest GIS is updated as appropriate, often with intermittent streams reclassified as ephemeral 
Magone Project

276 of 632

draws (which are eroding) or with draws being reclassified as intermittent streams, based on field 

characteristics. 

Effects of fuel reduction on water quality, large wood, and other parameters affecting watershed 

function were based on the experience of the project hydrologist, knowledge of local watershed 

processes and history, and a brief review of primarily local literature. The effects of proposed 

activities are analyzed and described in the portion of the watershed where they occur or which 

are affected. Watershed processes and function from the watershed divide to stream flow were 

considered. 

Considering watershed function on this scale allows evaluation of watershed hazard, which is a 

composite of conditions, including connections between different types of disturbances, 

throughout the watershed. The time scales considered for analysis range from one year to several 

decades. The time scale is defined for many parameters analyzed; 1 to 10 years is the default time 

scale if it is not defined or referenced in the analysis discussion.

Cumulative effects on water quality, watershed hazard, and other watershed processes were 

assessed, using professional judgment, by considering the watershed processes and characteristics 

of the analysis area, the proposed treatment, and past and on-going activities and events. 

Additional assumptions are found in Appendix WS-E of the Watershed Report and for watershed 

hazard, in Appendix WS-K.

Assumptions

1. PACFISH stream category designations in the Malheur National Forest GIS were used 

for this analysis except where field observations did not validate the GIS; corrections 

based on field observations were incorporated into the analysis. For instance, some 

mapped Category 4 streams are more appropriately considered to be Category 3 or 4 

wetlands that lie in ephemeral draws or swales because they do not have defined or active 

channels or because different local guidelines for interpreting INFISH for field mapping 

were in use at the time the data were entered into the Forest GIS. In addition, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory has been incorporated into the 

Forest GIS since the area was mapped.

2. Understanding of the hydrologic system and its function is based on field observations, 

application of professional principles, professional experience, and judgment, because 

few scientific studies applicable to the project planning area have been conducted.

3. Use of rubber tired skidders for removing commercial material, including biomass, and 

grapple piling is assumed because this combination of equipment tend to have the 

greatest effect on soils and hydrologic condition compared to the other available harvest 

systems. Use of cut-to-length systems and feller bunchers tends to disturb less ground as 

discussed in the soils report; use of these alternative logging systems is assumed to cause 

fewer impacts to hydrologic functioning than that analyzed.

4. The proposed action incorporates the design elements included in the appendices of the 

Watershed Report and in Chapter 2 of this FEIS.

5. The proposed action incorporates the Watershed Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

listed in the appendices of the Watershed Report and the appendices of this FEIS. The 

BMPs would be implemented as prescribed.

6. Prescribed burning will be implemented as prescribed, to a lesser extent or intensity, or 

extinguished.

7. Fire behavior, whether classified as characteristic or uncharacteristic, would be consistent 

with that described in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

277 of 632

8. The existing condition for this analysis is considered preliminary preparation for an 

“Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale” for the portions of the two subwatersheds 

(located in two separate watersheds) included in the project planning area.

9. Other assumptions may be stated within the analysis.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Watershed conditions within some of the various inholdings within the project planning area are 

generally unavailable. Conditions on other locations are known from a variety of sources 

including published information (including maps), various levels of partnership (formal or 

informal), or visual observations from public roads or lands. Some routine stream data are 

unavailable because the nearest stream gaging station of reasonable record is located more than 

20 miles downstream and encompasses a much larger area; collection of other hydrologic data 

has been limited within or near the project planning area.

Because watershed science is not exact and few data are available, the common practice for 

watershed specialists, like other earth scientists, is to integrate available information with 

knowledge of basic principles of watershed science and with the physical and biological 

characteristics of the landscape. Integrating these factors results in a reasoned understanding of 

watershed condition functions, and processes. This understanding can be used to evaluate effects 

of proposed activities. For the Magone Project, this understanding is laid out in the Existing 

Condition that forms the basis for the comparison of alternatives. This process of integration of 

available information with basic principles is consistent with 40 CFR 1502. 22 (Unknown and 

Unavailable Information). See the Information Sources Section for how gaps are addressed and 

how the missing information was addresses in analyzing and discussing effects of the proposed 

activities and associated conclusions.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Setting the direct and indirect effects boundaries for the watershed resource in this project 

planning area is not routine due to its location in two subwatersheds that are in separate 

watersheds and whose drainage outlets are located miles apart or have “arbitrary” delineated land 

ownership boundaries. The spatial boundaries are defined by the Forest ownership in the East 

Fork Beech Creek and Grub Creek subwatersheds. Watershed hazard is used to integrate the 

effects on watershed condition, process, and function.

The temporal boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects vary from immediately after 

the proposed activity is implemented to one year later to several years, decades, or centuries later. 

The reason for the wide range of temporal considerations is that watershed processes, especially 

those in an altered landscape like the project planning area, operate at variety of temporal scales. 

These time periods are defined in the effects discussion; generally the temporal scale would be 1

to 10 years if not defined.

Setting the cumulative effects spatial boundaries is challenging for the reasons described above. 

Cumulative effects from other activities on Forest Service lands, with the potential to interact 

with the direct and indirect effects, would occur above the Forest administrative boundary, which 

is the boundary for direct and indirect effects. Cumulative effects from other activities, not on 

Forest Service lands, were considered after the direct and indirect effects from the proposed 

activities were analyzed. Because these effects are expected to allow recovery of previously 

impacted stream channels, riparian areas, and hillslopes to occur at a near natural or greater rate, 

and because resource conditions and activities on private lands are difficult to determine, the 
Magone Project

278 of 632

cumulative effects boundary is limited to the Forest boundary for discussions of specific 

parameters. 

Using the principles of the watershed discipline, as described elsewhere, effects that would result 

from recovering hydrological systems higher on the hillslopes (e.g., on National Forest lands) 

would be expected to reinforce recovery occurring on land below, or to positively counter 

ongoing hydrological disturbances, if any are present. To analyze the expected effects with any 

further specificity, such as magnitude or duration, would be hypothetical in this geographic 

setting. Watershed hazard is used to integrate the effects on watershed condition, process, and 

function. Timeframes considered are similar to those described for direct and indirect effects.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

The activities listed in Table 17 and Table 18 of this FEIS prepared for the Magone Project were 

reviewed. Ground disturbance or moderate exposures of mineral soil caused by previously 

implemented activities was considered in evaluating and describing the existing condition. The 

effects of fires were not considered because none are of sufficient size or recent enough to affect 

watershed function, including the 2016 fire in the Nipple Butte IRA. Additional activities such as 

past and present grazing, past stream projects, developed recreation including trails, dispersed 

recreation and firewood gathering, activities under special use permits, mining, and roads 

management were considered in developing the existing condition. Most of these activities were 

implemented before the development and application of Watershed Best Management Practices 

and resulted in greater ground disturbance than activities implemented in the more recent past, or 

would be expected in the future. Foreseeable activities considered include activities authorized 

under the Aquatic Restoration Decision and any others associated with ground disturbance.

3.7.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The conditions and processes described for the existing condition would continue.

No activities are proposed under alternative 1. Since no activities are proposed, no direct or 

indirect effects from newly implemented management activities are expected. In the absence of 

uncharacteristic wildfire, on-going watershed processes would continue to function in response to 

the existing conditions. Upland and ephemeral swale conditions are expected to remain similar to 

those described in the existing condition in the near term (about 3 to 10 years).

Where erosion has stabilized and areas or volume of overland flow concentration is diminishing 

in response to ongoing changes in the landscape, ephemeral draw and upland conditions would 

gradually recover from past impacts over decades. Small amounts of coarse woody debris, such 

as branches, would accumulate in the draws, slowing runoff and enhancing infiltration. 

Compaction and other soil impacts caused by skid trails and roads, landings, and other past 

logging impacts would gradually recover as described in the Soils Report. Ground cover, either 

dead (needles) or alive, would accumulate on most areas where mineral soil is exposed. These 

conditions would tend to moderate the current watershed hazard and allow greater amounts of run 

off to infiltrate in these areas in small to large (rare) runoff events.

Where erosion is not stabilized, where mineral soil is exposed, or where rilling, gullying, or 

raveling, occur, conditions are likely to continue, or gradually expand downslope, deepen, or 

widen more extensively over the decades. In these areas, proportionately less runoff would 

infiltrate and more overland flow would be concentrated and routed downslope.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

279 of 632

Under some conditions, such as described in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report, wildfire 

would be expected to burn characteristically, with mineral soil exposed on less than 10 to 30 

percent of the burn area, depending on the vegetation type and fire regime. After the first year, 

these areas would be likely to infiltrate runoff and produce very little additional overland flow 

resulting in little change to watershed hazard. Under other conditions, wildfire would burn with 

uncharacteristic intensity, resulting in moderate and high severity impacts to the soils. Extensive 

areas of mineral soil, which would be vulnerable to accelerated erosion or would concentrate 

overland flow in the case of rare runoff events, would be exposed until ground cover recovered. 

Greater amounts of hydrophobic soil and over-drying would be expected to occur and would be 

distributed more contiguously in the areas of higher severity burns. These conditions would tend 

to contribute to increased watershed hazard.

Foreseeable activities such as scattering woody material on about 300 acres of shallow, non-forest 

soil would slow overland flow and promote greater rates of infiltration, allowing faster rates of 

recovery from past impacts. Scattered wood would also provide some buffering of increased 

overland flows resulting from rare, large runoff events.

Hillslope Roads: No change in location, number, or condition of hillslope roads (including those 

in the “pool” of roads considered for this project) from that described in the existing condition 

would occur. The influence of hillslope road condition on watershed hazard would be likely to 

remain similar to the existing condition in the absence of rare, large runoff events. Roads 

currently channeling runoff would continue to concentrate runoff in the absence of maintenance.

Accelerated erosion may result downslope of areas where flows are concentrated, especially 

where downslope ground cover is not abundant, either naturally or as a result of past disturbance. 

Watershed hazard would be similar to that described for the existing condition.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Management Area 3B (MA3B) 

(including wet areas, ephemeral draws and valley bottoms): No activities in RHCAs or MA3B 

are proposed under alternative 1. Since no activities are proposed, no direct or indirect effects 

from management activities would occur.

The most likely effect under alternative 1 is little to no change in RHCA condition since neither 

rare (large) runoff events nor uncharacteristically intense fire are likely to occur in a given year.

Conditions in RHCAs or MA3B are expected to remain similar to those described for the Existing 

Condition for up to three to ten years. Riparian vegetation condition would be maintained or 

improved under normal runoff events. Fuels would continue to accumulate in RHCAs as wildfires 

are suppressed. Intensity of wildfire in RHCAs and MA3B would be influenced by fuel 

conditions within these areas and on the adjacent hillslopes.

Uncharacteristic wildfires would likely burn with high intensity resulting in uncharacteristic 

amounts of medium and high severity impacts to the soils. Wildfire impacts such as hydrophobic 

soil and over-drying, would increase watershed hazard (see Watershed Hazard discussion below). 

Riparian vegetation may be pre-dried, under some conditions, by fire on the hillslopes, resulting 

in increased burn severity.

Riparian ground cover would be maintained or slowly accumulate because riparian burning of 

either hand piles or broadcast prescribed fire in the outer portions of RHCAs would not occur.
Magone Project

280 of 632

Most RHCA and MA3B conditions would gradually recover from past impacts. Coarse wood 

would continue to accumulate in these areas, enhancing infiltration. Compaction and other 

impacts to valley bottom and toeslope soils caused by past logging impacts would gradually 

recover as described in the Soils Report. Trampling and browsing attributed to wildlife would 

continue, allowing local areas of mineral soil exposure with the potential of erosion and the 

growth of hardwood shrubs generally in isolated patches to be arrested. Cattle grazing would be 

expected to meet Malheur Forest Plan standards and would not expose sufficient mineral soil or 

impact hardwood or other riparian plant growth to measurably affect riparian function. Overall 

riparian vegetation would be expected to continue to expand gradually in distribution, abundance, 

species composition, and vigor. Roads currently channeling runoff are likely to continue to 

concentrate runoff in the absence of maintenance. The use of open roads would continue to 

produce dust during extended dry periods, which occur most commonly during the summer and 

fall.

Fuel loads would slowly accumulate as described in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report. 

Insect and disease would become more common, likely resulting in mortality, as discussed in the 

Silviculture Report, and making additional wood available for recruitment into streams. 

Alternative 1 would be consistent with PACFISH standards FM 1 and 4 since conditions would 

generally be maintained or improved. In the event of a rare runoff event, channel and valley 

bottom erosion would affect riparian conditions and processes in the inner RHCAs of some subdrainages. Numerous small dead trees and other vegetation conditions would contribute to heavy 

fuel loads as described in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report. In the event of uncharacteristic 

fire, the outer portions of some perennial RHCAs and the inner and outer portions and stream 

banks of some intermittent RHCAs are likely to burn severely, exposing mineral soil and possibly 

forming hydrophobic soils (see Soils section). Exposed mineral soils and hydrophobic soils 

increase watershed hazard and would result in delivery of sediment and increased runoff into 

streams or onto the outer portion of valleys. Locally severe fire would be expected in some 

RHCAs. Locally severe fire may also occur in other RHCAs depending on the pattern of burning. 

Most trees in some RHCAs would be killed, providing relatively small coarse woody debris 

within 10 years, and delaying the growth and recruitment of large woody debris for decades. 

Cover in many of the RHCAs would be reduced until forest stands are re-established (see Forest 

Vegetation section). Some larger trees may be killed and would provide large woody debris for 

future recruitment earlier than in the absence of fire.

Uncharacteristic fire that enters the downstream portions of RHCAs would likely burn intensely 

up drainages due to the topographic “chimney” effect. This pattern of burning is likely to result in 

localized severe burns in RHCAs where down or standing fuel loads are heavy. Some or all of the 

riparian vegetation in the inner RHCAs would be burned to the root collar or crown, temporarily 

removing shade along perennial streams and killing the drier vegetation found along intermittent 

streams. Re-sprouting of riparian vegetation would occur during the next growing season with 

shade recovery occurring in 1 to 10 years, depending on riparian species present (sedges or 

shrubs). The effect on vegetation along drier intermittent stream banks would be similar to that 

described for upland vegetation. Sediment-filtering and trapping potential would be reduced until 

live and dead ground cover re-established.

Placement of coarse wood and large wood, as well as removal of impedements such as levees, 

earthen berms, and undersized culverts in valleys under foreseeable activities implemented under 

the Aquatic Restoration Decision, would slow overland flows, trap sediment, dissipate energy, 

and promote riparian recovery over the following 2 to 3 decades.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

281 of 632

Aspen: No aspen treatments are proposed under alternative 1. Since no activities are proposed, no 

direct or indirect effects on aspen or from proposed activities are expected. Aspen stands would 

continue to grow as described in the Wildlife/Silviculture section; mortality may increase as a 

result of continuing conifer competition. Small amounts of coarse woody debris, such as branches 

(and, eventually, stems), would accumulate around aspen, slowing runoff and enhancing 

infiltration.

Riparian Roads: Existing conditions described for riparian roads would continue, and associated 

impacts on riparian functioning would persist. Segments of East Fork Beech Creek, Grub Creek 

and other streams and their tributaries would continue to be constrained by various roads. The 

pool of large woody material for future recruitment into streams and riparian areas would 

continue to be reduced due to the location of roads. Stream channel recovery from the impacts of 

legacy management practices would be prolonged.

Stream Channels (and Ephemeral Draws): No activities within stream channels or along 

stream banks are proposed under alternative 1. Since no activities are proposed, no direct or 

indirect effects from management activities are expected. Stream bank and channel stability and 

coarse woody debris recruitment would be expected to remain about the same as that described 

for the existing condition for up to 3 to 10 years. Ongoing watershed processes would continue to 

function in response to the existing conditions. Stabilized head cuts and cut banks are expected to 

remain stable under common runoff events but would remain vulnerable to unexpected high 

flows, regardless of cause. Stability is expected to improve gradually as riparian vegetation 

communities continue to expand in distribution, abundance, species composition, and vigor as 

described in the RHCA section. Entrenched channels may aggrade gradually as coarse woody 

material accumulates or beaver become more active.

In the event of uncharacteristic wildfire, large woody debris recruitment would be increased, 

accelerated or, alternatively, delayed and reduced in the near term, depending on the stand 

characteristics adjacent to particular stream segments. In the case of rare runoff events, individual 

tributaries may downcut in proportion to the intensity and distribution of the runoff. Stream 

functions may be altered similarly. Sub-drainages at most risk include those where stream 

channels or riparian vegetation are currently disturbed or where upland conditions are currently 

concentrating runoff.

Placement of coarse wood and large wood, as well as removal of impediments such as levees, 

earthen berms, and undersized culverts in valleys under foreseeable activities implemented under 

the Aquatic Restoration Decision, would slow overland flows, trap sediment, dissipate energy, 

and promote riparian recovery over the following 2 to 3 decades resulting in narrower stream 

channels and less “cobble” dominated streambeds.

Water Quantity, Timing, Hydrologic Response, and Ground Water: No activities are 

proposed under alternative 1. Since no activities are proposed, no direct or indirect effects to 

snowpack, annual water yield, peak flows, or minimum flows are expected. 

Ongoing watershed processes would continue to function in response to the existing conditions 

and the inherent feedback loops that are part of those processes. The gradual recovery of most 

upland, RHCA (and MA3B), and stream channel conditions as previously described is expected 

to result in water quantity parameters shifting toward the patterns which existed prior to 

European-American settlement, although this shift is considered to be unmeasurable due to the 

complexity associated with sampling. Where watershed conditions do not improve or continue to 
Magone Project

282 of 632

degrade (e.g., in areas of raveling or where road segments that concentrate and channel runoff), 

water yield would continue to be accelerated and contribute to lower summer flows.

Ground Water: Recharge of ground water would continue as described for the existing 

condition.

Water Quality: No activities are proposed under alternative 1. Since no activities are proposed, 

no direct or indirect effects to water quality are expected. Ongoing watershed processes would 

continue to function in response to the existing conditions and the inherent feedback loops that 

are part of those processes. The gradual recovery of most upland, RHCA (and MA3B), and 

stream channel conditions as previously described is expected to result in improvement of 

characteristics, such as narrow, deep streams and shade from riparian vegetation that contribute to 

lower summer water temperatures. These conditions are expected to develop over much of the 

area but isolated areas of disturbance due to wildlife travel and impacts from ongoing activities or 

conditions such as rilling or roading would continue. Similarly, small amounts of disturbance to 

riparian conditions, which are not expected to cause measurable changes in conditions, are 

permitted under grazing permits and would be expected to continue. Improvement in conditions 

which influence water quality are not expected to be measurable for at least 10 years because of

lag time associated with the establishment and growth of riparian species, particularly hardwood 

shrubs and trees. Improvement in riparian vegetation would also enhance the filtering and 

sediment trapping capacity of riparian areas. Rare events that result in alternations to channels 

may result in temporary, probably unmeasurable, increases in temperature. These conditions 

would last until riparian vegetation reestablished itself. Changes in stream temperature would also 

be dampened by the presence of conifer shade. Uncharacteristic wildfire would be likely to result 

in the loss of conifer and hardwood shade, resulting in increased temperatures for about 10 to 30 

years or until streamside vegetation either matured (riparian hardwoods) or conifers became reestablished. Biocriteria conditions are expected to track with temperature conditions since 

temperature is a primary influence on biocriteria conditions. In addition, the changes in amount 

and diversity of biomass described above would be expected to contribute to conditions that 

would support more abundant and diverse macroinvertebrate populations and improve biocriteria 

conditions.

Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area: The conditions described in various sections of the 

existing conditions would continue indefinitely in the roadless area. The effects of wildfire, as 

described in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report, on watershed function would be variable, as 

described for the entire project planning area, depending on a number of factors.

Composite Watershed Hazard

No additional disturbance would occur. The watershed hazard would remain the same as the 

existing condition for the short-term. The condition of riparian roads would continue to limit 

stream channel recovery. Over the long-term, watershed hazard would generally decrease as 

natural recovery from past activities continues, although localized areas of active erosion would 

continue as chronic, localized hazards.

Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects, no cumulative effects, according to the CEQ 

definition, would occur. Foreseeable activities, such as ones related to aquatic restoration, 

included in Table 18 for alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would be expected to occur. Restoration similar 

to that described cumulatively for the action alternatives would be expected to occur, resulting in 

a reduced watershed hazard rating, as a result of reducing disturbances that catch, concentrate, 

channel, and redirect overland and stream flow.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

283 of 632

Foreseeable Activities: The foreseeable activities that are authorized under the Aquatic 

Restoration Decision (ranging from culvert replacements, to large and coarse woody debris 

placement in streams, draws, and scabs, and installation of beaver support structures) are 

expected to improve riparian vegetation, floodplain function, stream channel function, rates and 

timing of runoff, and water quality in complement to the activities included in this analysis. 

Improving watershed condition, function, and processes or “capturing, storing and safely 

releasing runoff” would reduce watershed hazard to Medium Low at the first year and toward 

Low over one to three decades as the aquatic treatments became fully effective and legacy 

disturbance continued to recover. Grazing to Malheur Forest Plan standards, as amended, is 

expected to result in improving riparian conditions that would complement the reduction in 

watershed hazard.

3.7.2.4 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Hillslopes (including ephemeral swales)

Effects are discussed at year 1, year 5, and year 10 and for several decades. Year 1 was chosen 

because exposure of mineral soil and other ground disturbance is likely to be greatest at that 

point. The assumption is made for this analysis that most harvest and temporary road activities 

would occur in year 1. Year 5 was chosen because of the likelihood that effective ground cover 

would have become reestablished on disturbed areas, as described in the Soils Report. Year 10 

was chosen because decompaction of affected areas would have been initiated by natural 

processes. Decompaction and other impacts may take several decades to recover. Table 67, Table 

68, and Table 69 display the proposed activities by yarding system and subwatershed.

The most likely effect on overall watershed functioning from yarding and landing on hillslopes 

and ephemeral swales under alternative 2 is little or no change when individual units are 

considered, compared to alternative 1, because Best Management Practices (BMPs; see 

Watershed report Appendix WS-G) and Project Design Criteria (PDCs; see FEIS Appendix C –

Project Design Criteria) associated with the proposed activities are expected to control runoff and 

sediment transport under common runoff events. BMPs and project design criteria were 

designated for more sensitive soils such as the shallower Clarno soils, or shallow, forested Clarno 

soils that are in association with non-forested soils (see Soil Report). When the sum of the 

proposed units and their distribution across the landscape is considered, the additional disturbance 

raises the watershed hazard proportionately (discussed below) compared to alternative 1.

The Soil Report indicated that detrimental impacts in most tractor yarding units are expected to 

increase from current condition (commonly 0 to 8 percent of the unit area) to 6 to 14 percent of 

the unit area, depending on the specific unit. Minor amounts of erosion (see soils) and overland 

flow maybe generated within units during runoff events. 

Overland flow is expected to infiltrate within unit boundaries since ground cover will be 

maintained over most of the area. Although sediment may be detached where mineral soil is 

exposed within harvest units, it is likely to be trapped by ground cover and would be unlikely to 

be transported beyond unit boundaries.

Initially Watershed Best Management Practices, including site-specific project design criteria 

would be expected to control erosion and concentration of overland flow on 32 segments of 

temporary road (9.2 miles) for one to several years. However, they would not be restored to 
Magone Project

284 of 632

productivity for up to three decades after use. Re-establishment of ground cover would control 

sediment and runoff until productivity was restored.

Because the proposed activities would be implemented in sub-drainages which have been 

previously disturbed by management activities (including extensive roading outside the Nipple 

Butte Inventoried Roadless Area), a slight probability exists that previous disturbance would 

become connected to ground disturbance associated with the proposed actions and, possibly, 

extend the drainage network headward or create concentrations of runoff or sediment that could 

be transported beyond unit boundaries. However, overland flow is not expected to be 

concentrated enough to cause accelerated erosion or deliver increased sediment to live streams in 

most locations under common rainfall events. Maintenance of ground cover over much of the 

area is likely to slow and absorb runoff and trap sediment. Filter strips along streams are narrow 

and in some cases previously disturbed; infiltration of overland flows and sediment trapping 

capacity of RHCAs are limited. This vulnerability is greatest on the portions of 10 units (about 

300 acres) and 9 units (about 400 acres) where tractor yarding is proposed on residual soils 

derived from breccias and tuff in East Fork Beech Creek and Grub Creek subwatersheds, 

respectively, and to a lesser extent, vulnerability exists on the 40 units (about 650 acres) and 20 

units (about 400 acres) where tractor yarding is proposed on ash-covered (or partially ashcovered) Clarno soils. The remaining units are located on soils derived from volcanic andesite 

and basalt. BMPs associated with the proposed activities are expected to control runoff and 

sediment transport in the units where biomass harvesting is proposed, which may be in addition to 

those summarized in the tables.

These conditions would contribute to elevation of watershed hazard as discussed below. The 

extended drainage network would also increase watershed hazard associated with future rare 

runoff events; these effects are discussed in the Watershed Hazard section below.

Table 67. Summary of harvest units by proposed yarding system (tractor, skyline, or both) by 

alternative in the Magone project planning area

Yarding system Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Area yarded by tractor (acres) 0 3,677 5,650 2,955

Area yarded by skyline (acres) 0 333 305 243

Area yarded by combination of 

tractor and skyline (acres)

0 676 1,229 372

Total area yarded (acres) 0 4,686 7,184 3,570

Table 68. Area yarded by tractor and/or skyline in the East Fork Beech Creek subwatershed by 

alternative

Yarding system Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Area yarded by tractor (acres) 0 2,466 3,957 1,854

Area yarded by skyline (acres) 0 247 219 178

Area yarded by combination of 

tractor and skyline (acres)

0 676 1,053 371

Total area yarded (acres) 0 3,389 5,229 2,403
Final Environmental Impact Statement

285 of 632

Table 69. Area yarded by tractor, skyline, or both in the Grub Creek subwatershed by alternative

Yarding system Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 

(proposed action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Area yarded by tractor (acres) 0 1,209 1,683 1,103

Area yarded by skyline (acres) 0 86 86 66

Area yarded by combination of 

tractor and skyline (acres)

0 0 177 0

Total area yarded (acres) 0 1,295 1,946 1,169

About 48 miles (12 segments) of biking and hiking trails would be constructed or designated as 

described in the proposed action. Adhering to project design criteria during construction is 

expected to control sediment and overland flow. Application of project design criteria would 

control sediment and overland flow at newly developed trailheads.

Retaining limbs and boles from juniper thinning and thinning of other conifers encroaching on 

shallow soils or filling in open woodlands would promote recovery of watershed function in these 

areas by slowing overland flow and enhancing infiltration. Live ground cover would be expected 

to increase after about 5 years.

Hillslope Roads: Few changes in hillslope roads are proposed under alternative 2. No new 

authorized (“system”) road construction is proposed. About 2.5 miles (6 segments) of road would 

be closed, but effects on watershed would remain the same since the roadbed would be present. 

Haul would occur on 78 miles of temporary roads which would be maintained pre- and post-haul; 

maintenance is expected to alleviate drainage and gullying concerns on the roads previously 

described. About 4 miles of road (8 segments) would remain at the existing maintenance level but 

would have bike trails co-designated, but bike use is not expected to change the effects of the 

roads. One road (1.2 miles) would be decommissioned and re-designated as a bike trail; the road 

surface would be narrowed and drainage installed, proportionately reducing its impact on 

watershed function. Undesignating bike trails from extending roads would have no effect on 

watershed function.

Roads would continue to intercept subsurface flow, concentrate overland flow, and route sediment 

as described in the existing condition.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Management Area 3B (MA3B) 

(including wet areas, ephemeral draws and valley bottoms): Activities proposed within 

RHCAs and MA3B include aspen treatment, prescribed burning, road maintenance, recreation 

improvements at the developed campground, and construction and placement of fish sticks and 

cribs within Magone Lake. Effects of aspen and riparian road treatments and recreation 

improvements are discussed in subsections below.

Prescribed burning in RHCAs is not expected to expose mineral soil because it would be 

expected to burn with low intensity as described in the design elements listed in chapters 1 and 2. 

Low intensity fire is not expected to fully consume organic matter on the soil surface. Low 

intensity fire is not expected to burn wetter riparian vegetation; it would be likely to die out in the 

inner RHCAs. Prescribed burning is not expected to contribute to watershed hazard or to 

detrimentally affect stream or riparian conditions. Fuel loads in RHCAs where prescribed fire 

would not be used would remain high and would be similar to those described for alternative 1, 

and may result in high-severity burns locally under wildfire conditions.
Magone Project

286 of 632

The proposed activities discussed above, combined with the fuel treatments proposed for the 

hillslopes, would develop landscape context for restoring resilient riparian communities and 

promote the initial stages of riparian recovery.

The addition of fish sticks and cribs, and their gradual decay over time, is not expected to 

adversely affect levels of dissolved oxygen in Magone Lake because the proposed activities 

would be implemented gradually with initial phases and stocking evaluated, in coordination with 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, before proceeding to add additional wood. Wood would 

be added only in the area above the thermocline. Also, the top layers of that portion of the lake 

tend to be frozen for up to 6 months of the year.

Constructing new biking and hiking trail approaches to and crossings of streams using the project 

design criteria (including placement of slash below trails, and waterbarring, hardening, or 

bridging crossings) is expected to control sediment and overland flow. Similarly, applying erosion 

control design criteria such as slash placement and waterbarring on all trails and limiting traffic to 

hiking on the Magone Slide and the North Connector trails within or immediately adjacent to the 

Magone Lake recreation area is expected to control sediment and overland flow.

Aspen: Project design criteria would control sediment generated during tree removal. See 

Silviculture Report.

Riparian Roads: Dust generated during haul would be controlled with applications of water, or 

rocking of fish-bearing and perennial stream crossings. Pre- and post-haul maintenance would 

alleviate erosion, gullying, or concentrating of flows on road segments in RHCAs described in the 

existing condition. The designated location of and application of erosion control watershed best 

management practices and the project design criteria to the temporary road across a class 5 

ephemeral draw in the headwaters of Grub Creek and its rehabilitation are expected to control 

sediment and overland flow.

Management Area 12 (Developed Recreation Area) and Management Area 8 (Special 

Interest Area) – Magone Geological Area at Magone Lake: Implementation of project design 

criteria, including erosion control, is expected to control sediment and overland flow during 

construction and over the lifetime of improvments to boat moorings, the east-side fishing dock, 

and the proposed handicapped accessible trail.

Magone Lake: The addition of fish sticks and cribs, and their gradual decay over time, is not 

expected to adversely affect levels of dissolved oxygen in Magone Lake because it is a deep, cold 

water lake that is frozen about half the year, conditions under which dissolved oxygen is not 

expected to be a limiting factor. Controlling fish stocking would also limit effects on dissolved 

oxygen.

Stream Channels (and Ephemeral Draws): Project design criteria would control sediment and 

overland flow at trail crossings. Infiltration in ephemeral draws would remain as described in the 

existing condition since they would be protected from yarding.

Water Quantity, Timing, Hydrologic Response, and Ground Water: The application of 

Watershed Best Management Practices and the associated site-specific project design criteria are 

expected to control sediment and overland flow. Consequently, changes in timing and quantity of 

runoff are not expected.

Ground Water: Recharge of ground water would continue as described for the existing condition 

because ephemeral draws would be protected from yarding.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

287 of 632

Water Quality: The application of Watershed Best Management Practices and the associated 

site-specific project design criteria are expected to control sediment and overland flow. The 

construction and maintenance of trail crossings and recreation improvements at Magone Lake are 

not expected to increase solar radiation to streams or the lake by a measurable amount. Trees for 

fish sticks and cribs would not be removed from the primary shade zone along Magone Lake. 

Other proposed activities occur outside RHCAs and would not affect shade or other parameters 

that control temperature, biocriteria in streams, or other water quality indicators. The proposed 

activities are consistent with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s John Day River 

Basin Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan and the Forest Service’s

Water Quality Restoration Plan for these reasons.

Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area: Several of the activities (juniper and other conifer 

encroachment felling and scattering of woody material, prescribed burning, and trail construction) 

previously discussed would also occur in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area. Scattering 

coarse woody material associated with the juniper and conifer felling and the trail construction 

would promote infiltration and slow overland flow. Hardened or bridged trail crossings and 

waterbarring would control sediment and overland flow along trails. A layer of duff that would 

allow infiltration would remain after burning.

Watershed Hazard: Although the proposed activities are consistent with the Clean Water Act 

requirements, the additional disturbance and exposure of mineral soil associated with yarding, 

temporary roads, and construction and maintenance of new trails provides additional 

opportunities for runoff to be collected, concentrated, and re-routed under rare events (which is 

the mechanism of concern on the soils and under the climate of the project planning area). As 

described in the Hillslope section, trails will intersect with yarding trails and temporary roads, 

increasing potential for connections. However, road maintenance, especially of eroding roads or 

roads that are acting as collectors of overland flow would reduce the potential for connections. 

Watershed hazard is expected to increase to Medium High at year one, and over several decades 

decline to Medium (plus) because the trails would still be present on non-forest soils.

Cumulative Effects

The temporal and spatial boundaries were defined in the cumulative effects section near the 

beginning of environmental consequences. The foreseeable activities that are authorized under the 

Aquatic Restoration Decision—ranging from culvert replacements, large and coarse woody 

debris placement in streams and draws and on scabs, and installation of beaver support 

structures—are expected to improve riparian vegetation, floodplain function, stream channel 

function, rates and timing of runoff, and water quality in complement to the activities included in 

this analysis. Improving watershed condition, function, and processes, or “capturing, storing and 

safely releasing runoff,” would reduce watershed hazard to Medium at year one and move toward 

Medium Low over the next one to three decades as the aquatic treatments became fully effective 

and legacy disturbance and disturbance associated with the proposed harvest and selected 

activities recovered. Grazing to Forest Plan standards, as amended, is expected to result in 

improved riparian conditions that would complement the reduction in watershed hazard.

3.7.2.5 Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Hillslopes (including ephemeral swales): Effects are discussed at year 1, year 5, and year 10 

and for several decades. Year 1 was chosen because exposure of mineral soil and other ground 

disturbance is likely to be greatest at that point. The assumption is made for this analysis that 
Magone Project

288 of 632

most harvest and temporary road activities would occur in year 1. Year 5 was chosen because of 

the likelihood that effective ground cover would have become reestablished on disturbed areas, as 

described in the Soils Report. Year 10 was chosen because decompaction of affected areas would 

have been initiated by natural processes. Decompaction and other impacts may take several 

decades to recover. Table 67, Table 68, and Table 69 display the proposed activities by yarding 

system and subwatershed.

The most likely effect on overall watershed function from yarding and landing on hillslopes and 

ephemeral swales under alternative 3 is little or no change when individual units are considered, 

compared to alternative 1, because BMPs (seeWatershed report Appendix WS-G) and PDCs (see 

FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria) associated with the proposed activities are expected 

to control runoff and sediment transport under common runoff events. BMPs and project design 

criteria were designated for more sensitive soils such as the shallower Clarno soils, or shallow, 

forested Clarno soils that are in association with non-forested soils (see Soil Report). BMPs 

associated with the proposed activities are expected to control runoff and sediment transport in 

the units where biomass harvesting is proposed, which may be in addition to those summarized in 

the tables. When the sum of the proposed units and their distribution across the landscape is 

considered, the additional disturbance raises the watershed hazard proportionately (discussed 

below) compared to alternative 1.

Effects related sediment and overland flow in each unit are expected to be similar to those 

described for alternative 2, based on the Soil Report.

Initially Watershed Best Management Practices, including site-specific project design criteria 

would be expected to control erosion and concentration of overland flow on 49 segments of 

temporary road (13.3 miles) for one to several years. They would not be restored to productivity 

for up to three decades after use. Re-establishment of ground cover would control sediment and 

runoff until productivity was restored.

As described for alternative 2, because the proposed activities would be implemented in subdrainages which have been previously disturbed by management activities (including extensive 

roading outside the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area), a slight probability exists that 

previous disturbance would become connected to ground disturbance associated with the 

proposed actions, extending the drainage network headward or creating concentrations of runoff 

or sediment that could be transported beyond unit boundaries. This vulnerability is greater on the 

portions of units where tractor yarding is proposed on residual soils derived from breccias and 

tuffs in both subwatersheds as described for alternative 2.

These conditions would contribute to elevation of watershed hazard as discussed below. The 

extended drainage network would also increase watershed hazard associated with future rare 

runoff events; these effects are discussed in the Watershed Hazard section below.

Retaining limbs and boles from juniper thinning and thinning of other conifers encroaching on 

shallow soils or filling in open woodlands, would promote recovery of watershed function in 

these areas by slowing overland flow and enhancing infiltration. Live ground cover would be 

expected to increase after about five years.

About 92 miles (25 segments) of biking and hiking trails would be constructed or designated as 

described for alternative 3. Adhering to project design criteria during construction is expected to 

control sediment and overland flow. Application of project design criteria would control sediment 

and overland flow at newly developed trailheads.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

289 of 632

Hillslope Roads: Few changes in hillslope roads are proposed under alternative 2. No new 

authorized (“system”) road construction is proposed. About 2.5 miles (6 segments) of road would 

be closed; effects on watershed would remain the same since the roadbed would be present. Haul 

would occur on 98 miles which would be maintained pre- and post-haul; maintenance is expected 

to alleviate drainage and gullying concerns on the roads previously described. About 10 miles of 

road (9 segments) would remain at the existing maintenance level but would have bike trails codesignated; bike use is not expected to change the effects of the roads. One road (1.2 miles) 

would be decommissioned and re-designated as a bike trail; the road surface would be narrowed 

and drainage installed, proportionately reducing its impact on watershed function. Undesignating 

bike trails from extending roads would have no effect on watershed function.

Roads would continue to intercept subsurface flow, concentrate overland flow, and route sediment 

as described in the existing condition.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Management Area 3B (MA3B) 

(including wet areas, ephemeral draws and valley bottoms): Activities proposed within 

RHCAs and MA3B include aspen treatment, prescribed burning, road maintenance, recreation 

improvements at the developed campground, and construction and placement of fish sticks and 

cribs within Magone Lake. Effects of aspen and riparian road treatments and recreation 

improvements are discussed in subsections below.

Prescribed burning in RHCAs is not expected to expose mineral soil because it would be 

expected to burn with low intensity as described in the design elements listed in chapters 1 and 2. 

Low intensity fire is not expected to fully consume organic matter on the soil surface. Low 

intensity fire is not expected to burn wetter riparian vegetation; it would be likely to die out in the 

inner RHCAs. Consequently, prescribed burning is not expected to contribute to watershed hazard 

or to detrimentally affect stream or riparian conditions. 

Fuel loads in RHCAs where prescribed fire would not be used would remain high and would be 

similar to those described for Alternative 1, and may result in high-severity burns locally under 

wildfire conditions.

As described for alternative 2, the proposed activities would develop landscape context for 

restoring resilient riparian communities and would promote the initial stages of riparian recovery.

Trees used for fish sticks and fish cribs would be felled and moved over snow; ground 

disturbance is not expected. Placement would occur while Magone Lake was iced over with the 

structures sinking as the ice melted.

Constructing new biking and hiking trail approaches to and crossings of streams using the project 

design criteria (including placement of slash below trails, and waterbarring, hardening, or 

bridging crossings) is expected to control sediment and overland flow. Similarly, applying erosion 

control design criteria (such as slash placement and waterbarring on all trails and limiting traffic 

to hiking on the Magone Slide and the North Connector trails within or immediately adjacent to 

the Magone Lake recreation area), is expected to control sediment and overland flow.

Aspen: Project design criteria would control sediment generated during tree removal. See 

Silviculture Report.

Riparian Roads: Dust generated during haul would be controlled with applications of water, or 

rocking of fish-bearing or perennial stream crossings. Pre- and post-haul maintenance would 

alleviate erosion, gullying, or concentrating of flows on road segments in RHCAs described in the 

existing condition.
Magone Project

290 of 632

Management Area 12 (Developed Recreation Area) and Management Area 8 (Special 

Interest Area) – Magone Geological Area at Magone Lake: Implementation of project design 

criteria, including erosion control, is expected to control sediment and overland flow during 

construction and over the life of improvements to boat moorings, the east-side fishing dock, and 

the proposed handicapped accessible trail.

Magone Lake: The addition of fish sticks and cribs, and their gradual decay over time, is not 

expected to adversely affect levels of dissolved oxygen in Magone Lake because it is a deep, cold 

water lake that is frozen about half the year, conditions under which dissolved oxygen is not 

expected to be a limiting factor. Controlling fish stocking would also limit effects on dissolved 

oxygen.

Stream Channels (and Ephemeral Draws): Project design criteria would control sediment and 

overland flow at trail crossings. Infiltration in ephemeral draws would remain as described in the 

existing condition since they would be protected from yarding.

Water Quantity, Timing, Hydrologic Response, and Ground Water: The application of 

Watershed Best Management Practices and the associated site-specific project design criteria are 

expected to control sediment and overland flow. Consequently, changes in timing and quantity of 

runoff are not expected.

Ground Water: Recharge of ground water would continue as described for the existing 

condition because ephemeral draws would be protected from yarding.

Water Quality: The application of Watershed Best Management Practices and the associated 

site-specific project design criteria are expected to control sediment and overland flow. The 

construction and maintenance of trail crossings and recreation improvements at Magone Lake are 

not expected to increase solar radiation to streams or the lake by a measurable amount. Trees for 

fish sticks and cribs would not be removed from the primary shade zone along Magone Lake. 

Other proposed activities occur outside RHCAs and would not affect shade or other parameters 

that control temperature, biocriteria in streams, or other water quality indicators. The proposed 

activities are consistent with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s John Day River 

Basin Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan and the Forest Service’s 

Water Quality Restoration Plan for these reasons.

Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area: The effects of the proposed activities on watershed 

function would be the same as those described for alternative 2.

Watershed Hazard: Although the proposed activities are consistent with the Clean Water Act 

requirements, the additional disturbance and exposure of mineral soil associated with yarding, 

temporary roads, and construction and maintenance of new trails provides additional 

opportunities for runoff to be collected, concentrated, and re-routed under rare events, which is 

the mechanism of concern on the soils and under the climate of the project planning area. As 

described in the Hillslope section, trails will intersect with yarding trails and temporary roads, 

increasing potential for connections. However, road maintenance, especially of eroding roads or 

roads that are acting as collectors of overland flow would reduce the potential for connections. 

Watershed hazard is expected to increase to Medium High (plus) at year one (because of the 

increase in yarding and new trail construction compared to alternative 2), and gradually over 

several decades decline to Medium (plus-plus) (because of the additional trails, some of which 

are on non-forest soils).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

291 of 632

Cumulative Effects

The temporal and spatial boundaries were defined in the cumulative effects section near the 

beginning of environmental consequences. The foreseeable activities that are authorized under the 

Aquatic Restoration Decision (ranging from culvert replacements to large and coarse woody 

debris placement in streams, draws, and scabs, and installation of beaver support structures) are 

expected to improve riparian vegetation, floodplain function, stream channel function, rates and 

timing of runoff, and water quality in complement to the activities included in this analysis. 

Improving watershed condition, function, and processes or “capturing, storing and safely 

releasing runoff” would reduce watershed hazard to Medium (plus) at year one and move toward 

Medium Low (plus) over the next one to three decades as the aquatic treatments became fully 

effective and legacy disturbance and disturbance associated with the proposed harvest and 

selected activities recovered. Grazing to Forest Plan standards, as amended, is expected to result 

in improved riparian conditions that would complement the reduction in watershed hazard. The 

hazard would be elevated slightly because of the increased bike trails on sensitive soils.

3.7.2.6 Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Hillslopes (including ephemeral swales): Effects are discussed at year 1, year 5, and year 10 

and for several decades. Year 1 was chosen because exposure of mineral soil and other ground 

disturbance is likely to be greatest at that point. The assumption is made for this analysis that 

most harvest and temporary road activities would occur in year 1. Year 5 was chosen because of 

the likelihood that effective ground cover would have become reestablished on disturbed areas, as 

described in the Soils Report. Year 10 was chosen because decompaction of affected areas would 

have been initiated by natural processes. Decompaction and other impacts may take several 

decades to recover. Table 67, Table 68, and Table 69 display the proposed activities by yarding 

system and subwatershed.

The most likely effect on overall watershed function from yarding and landing on hillslopes and 

ephemeral swales under alternative 4 is little or no change when individual units are considered, 

compared with alternative 1, because BMPs (see Watershed report Appendix WS-G) and PDCs 

(see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria) associated with the proposed activities are 

expected to control runoff and sediment transport under common runoff events. BMPs and 

project design criteria were designated for more sensitive soils such as the shallower Clarno soils 

or shallow, forested Clarno soils that are in association with non-forested soils (see Soil Report). 

Similarly BMPs associated with the proposed activities are expected to control runoff and 

sediment transport in the units where biomass harvesting is proposed, which may be in addition to 

those summarized in the tables. When the sum of the proposed units and their distribution across 

the landscape is considered, the additional disturbance raises the watershed hazard 

proportionately (discussed below) compared to alternative 1.

Effects related sediment and overland flow in each unit are expected to be similar to those 

described for alternative 2, based on the Soil Report.

Initially Watershed Best Management Practices, including site-specific project design criteria, 

would be expected to control erosion and concentration of overland flow on 31 segments of 

temporary road (11.9 miles) for one to several years. They would not be restored to productivity 

for up to three decades after use. Re-establishment of ground cover would control sediment and 

runoff until productivity was restored.
Magone Project

292 of 632

As described for alternative 2, because the proposed activities would be implemented in subdrainages which have been previously disturbed by management activities (including extensive 

roading outside the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area), a slight probability exists that 

previous disturbance would become connected to ground disturbance associated with the 

proposed actions and, possibly, extend the drainage network headward or create concentrations of 

runoff or sediment that could be transported beyond unit boundaries. This vulnerability is greater 

on the portions of units where tractor yarding is proposed on residual soils derived from breccias 

and tuffs in both subwatersheds, as described for alternative 2.

These conditions would contribute to elevation of watershed hazard as discussed below. The 

extended drainage network would also increase watershed hazard associated with future rare 

runoff events; these effects are discussed in the Watershed Hazard section below.

About 11.9 miles (7 segments) of biking and hiking trails would be constructed or designated as 

described for alternative 4. Adhering to project design criteria during construction is expected to 

control sediment and overland flow. Application of project design criteria would control sediment 

and overland flow at newly developed trailheads.

Hillslope Roads: Few changes in hillslope roads are proposed under alternative 4. No new 

authorized (“system”) road construction is proposed. About 2.5 miles (6 segments) of road would 

be closed; effects on watershed would remain the same since the roadbed would be present. Haul 

would occur on about 77 miles which would be maintained pre- and post-haul; maintenance is 

expected to alleviate drainage and gullying concerns on the roads previously described. About 1 

mile of road (2 segments) would remain at the existing maintenance level but would have bike 

trails co-designated; bike use is not expected to change the effects of the roads. One road (1.2 

miles) would be decommissioned and re-designated as a bike trail; the road surface would be 

narrowed and drainage installed, proportionately reducing its impact on watershed function. 

Undesignating bike trails from extending roads would have no effect on watershed function.

Roads would continue to intercept subsurface flow, concentrate overland flow, and route sediment 

as described in the existing condition.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and Management Area 3B (MA3B) (including 

wet areas, ephemeral draws, and valley bottoms)

Activities proposed within RHCAs and MA3B include aspen treatment, prescribed burning, road 

maintenance, recreation improvements at the developed campground, and construction and 

placement of fish sticks and cribs using material up to 20 inches in diameter removed from the 

RHCA on the east side of Magone Lake. Effects of aspen and riparian road treatments and 

recreation improvements are discussed in subsections below.

Prescribed burning in RHCAs is not expected to expose mineral soil because it would be 

expected to burn with low intensity as described in the design elements listed in chapters 1 and 2.

Low intensity fire is not expected to fully consume organic matter on the soil surface. Low 

intensity fire is not expected to burn wetter riparian vegetation; it would likely to die out in the 

inner RHCAs. Consequently, prescribed burning is not expected to contribute to watershed hazard 

or to detrimentally affect stream or riparian conditions. Fuel loads in RHCAs where prescribed 

fire would not be used would remain high and would be similar to those described for alternative 

1, and may result in high-severity burns locally under wildfire conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

293 of 632

As described for alternative 2, the proposed activities would develop landscape context for 

restoring resilient riparian communities, and would promote the initial stages of riparian recovery.

Trees used for fish sticks and fish cribs would be felled and moved over snow; ground 

disturbance is not expected. Placement would occur while Magone Lake was iced over, with the 

structures sinking as the ice melted.

Constructing new biking and hiking trail approaches to and crossings of streams using the project 

design criteria, including placement of slash below trails, waterbarring and hardening or bridging 

crossings is expected to control sediment and overland flow. Similarly, applying erosion control 

design criteria (such as slash placement and waterbarring on all trails and limiting traffic to hiking 

on the Magone Slide and the North Connector trails within or immediately adjacent to the 

Magone Lake recreation area) is expected to control sediment and overland flow. However, 

because the number of trails and crossings are reduced in this alternative, the amount of 

watershed hazard associated with trail construction is reduced proportionately.

Aspen: Project design criteria would control sediment generated during tree removal. See 

Silviculture Report.

Riparian Roads: Dust generated during haul would be controlled with applications of water or 

rocking of fish-bearing stream crossing or nearby perennial stream crossings. Pre- and post-haul 

maintenance would alleviate erosion, gullying or concentrating of flows on road segments in 

RHCAs described in the existing condition.

Management Area 12 Developed Recreation Area and Management Area 8 Special Interest 

Area – Magone Geological Area at Magone Lake: Implementation of project design criteria, 

including erosion control, is expected to control sediment and overland flow during construction 

and over the life of improvements to the boat moorings.

Magone Lake: The addition of fish sticks and cribs, and their gradual decay over time, is not 

expected to adversely affect levels of dissolved oxygen in Magone Lake because it is a deep, cold 

water lake that is frozen about half the year, conditions under which dissolved oxygen is not 

expected to be a limiting factor. Controlling fish stocking would also limit effects on dissolved 

oxygen.

Stream Channels (and Ephemeral Draws): Project design criteria would control sediment and 

overland flow at trail crossings. Ephemeral draws would continue to function as described for 

alternative 2. Infiltration in ephemeral draws would remain as described in the existing condition 

since they would be protected from yarding.

Water Quantity, Timing, Hydrologic Response, and Ground Water

The application of Watershed Best Management Practices and the associated site-specific project 

design criteria are expected to control sediment and overland flow. Consequently, changes in 

timing and quantity of runoff are not expected.

Ground Water: Recharge of ground water would continue as described for the existing condition 

because ephemeral draws would be protected from yarding.

Water Quality: The application of Watershed Best Management Practices and the associated 

site-specific project design criteria are expected to control sediment and overland flow. The 

construction and maintenance of trail crossings and recreation improvements at Magone Lake are 

not expected to increase solar radiation to streams or the lake by a measurable amount. Trees for 
Magone Project

294 of 632

fish sticks and cribs would not be removed from the primary shade zone along Magone Lake. 

Other proposed activities occur outside RHCAs and would not affect shade or other parameters 

that control temperature, biocriteria in streams, or other water quality indicators. 

The proposed activities are consistent with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 

John Day River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan, and the 

Forest Service’s Water Quality Restoration Plan for these reasons.

Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area: The effects of the proposed activities on watershed 

function would be the same as those described for alternative 2.

Watershed Hazard: Although the proposed activities are consistent with the Clean Water Act 

requirements, the additional disturbance and exposure of mineral soil associated with yarding, 

temporary roads, and construction and maintenance of new trails provides additional 

opportunities for runoff to be collected, concentrated, and re-routed under rare events (which is 

the mechanism of concern on the soils and under the climate of the project planning area). As 

described in the Hillslope section, trails will intersect with yarding trails and temporary roads, 

increasing potential for connections. However, road maintenance, especially of eroding roads or 

roads that are acting as collectors of overland flow would reduce the potential for connections. 

Watershed hazard is expected to increase to Medium High (minus) at year one (because of the 

increase in yarding and new trail construction compared to alternative 2), and over several 

decades decline to Medium (minus) (because of fewer additional trails, some of which are on 

non-forest soils).

Cumulative Effects

The temporal and spatial boundaries were defined in the cumulative effects section near the 

beginning of environmental consequences. The foreseeable activities that are authorized under the 

Aquatic Restoration Decision (ranging from culvert replacements, large and coarse woody debris 

placement in streams, draws, and scabs, and installation of beaver support structures) are 

expected to improve riparian vegetation, floodplain function, stream channel function, rates and 

timing of runoff, and water quality in complement to the activities included in this analysis. 

Improving watershed condition, function, and processes or “capturing, storing and safely 

releasing runoff” would increase watershed hazard just slightly above Medium at year one due to 

the increase in aquatic rehabilitation activities compared to fewer ground disturbing activities 

than under other action alternatives. Watershed hazard would move toward Medium Low over the 

next one to three decades as the aquatic treatments became fully effective and legacy disturbance 

and disturbance associated with the proposed harvest and selected activities recovered. Grazing to 

Forest Plan standards, as amended, is expected to result in improved riparian conditions that 

would complement the reduction in watershed hazard. The hazard would be decreased slightly 

because of the reduction in bike trails on sensitive soils.

3.7.2.7 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

Malheur Forest Plan

The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to protect or enhance riparian-dependent resources in 

watersheds supporting anadromous fish, and to protect habitat and populations of anadromous 

fish (USDA Forest Service 1990a, MA3B, pages IV-62 to IV-68; Amendment 29; Environmental 

Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish Producing Waters in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH)). PACFISH 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

295 of 632

identifies riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs), riparian management objectives, and 

standards and guidelines for activities in RHCAs. Standards contained in Amendment 29, 

considered to be more restrictive than those in PACFISH, supersede comparable standards in 

PACFISH. A more detailed description of regulations related to this Watershed Report is included 

in the appendices to the report. The Magone Project is consistent with the Clean Water Act (see 

discussion below) and the Malheur Forest Plan because it would not measurably increase 

watershed impacts as described in the environmental consequences section. Alternatives 2, 3, and 

4 are in compliance with the Malheur Forest Plan because the project design criteria and the 

project (site)-specific water quality analysis, that are an integral part of these alternatives and 

analysis, are consistent with the provisions of PACFISH, and with the applicable Malheur Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines (standards 120 and 121). Also, see Clean Water Act discussion 

below. The composite watershed hazard analysis is a surrogate for a watershed cumulative effects 

analysis (standard 121). Alternative 1 is consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and PACFISH since no activities are proposed that would degrade riparian-dependent 

resources and fish.

Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500, also known as the Clean 

Water Act) and ensuing regulations form the foundation for environmental analysis for the 

watershed and hydrology resource. The main objective of the Clean Water Act is to “restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters” (CWA section 

101(a)). The Forest Service is directed to “Comply with State requirements in accordance with 

the Clean Water Act for protection of waters in the State of Oregon (see Oregon Administrative 

Rules, Chapter 34041) through planning, application and monitoring of best management 

practices (BMPs) in conformance with Clean Water Act, regulations, and Federal guidance issued 

thereto” (Malheur Forest Plan, standards 117-119, page IV-39).

The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to protect and manage water resources through 

compliance with State requirements that are in accordance of the Clean Water Act. These are 

described in a 2014 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the Forest Service, Northwest Region; which is an updated 

version of the 1979/1982 MOU referenced in the Malheur Forest Plan standard 119 (ODEQ-FS 

2014). The MOU states that the Forest Service, through management activities, cannot further 

degrade water quality impaired streams. The MOU recognizes that BMPs are the primary means 

to control non-point source pollution on national forest lands Adherence to BMPs provides 

adequate protection and avoids significant effects to listed impaired streams within the planning

area or its influence. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are in compliance with the Clean Water Act because 

watershed best management practices that are consistent with the Forest Service’s MOU with 

ODEQ and with the National Best Management Practice Program and intended to control nonpoint source pollution are integral parts of these action alternatives in accord with the MOU (see 

Magone FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria and Watershed Report Best Management 

Practices appendices). Alternative 1 is consistent with the Clean Water Act since no activities are 

proposed that would degrade water quality.

3.8 Analysis Issue – Aquatic Species

This section contains an analysis of existing and desired aquatic habitat conditions in the Magone 

Project analysis area and contains an analysis of effects from proposed activities on aquatic 

threatened, endangered, and Region 6 sensitive (TES) species, Malheur Forest Plan aquatic 

management indicator species, and aquatic habitat.
Magone Project

296 of 632

3.8.1 Existing Condition

For over 100 years, lands within the project planning area have been subjected to a variety of 

land-use activities. Practices included past silvicultural treatments, homesteading, beaver 

trapping, fire suppression, prescribed fire, road construction, livestock and sheep grazing on 

public and private land, and wildfire suppression throughout the landscape. These activities have 

reduced aquatic species habitat quality and complexity and have altered stream processes within 

the project planning area. Past logging, livestock grazing, and road construction in the riparian 

areas have reduced canopy cover in some areas, resulting in less shade over streams in the form 

of riparian hardwoods, especially within wide valley bottoms.

Roads in the project planning area that occur within 100 feet of a stream floodplain, intercept 

upland water conveyance, or cross a stream commonly impact fish and fish habitat more than 

roads located in uplands. A high percentage of roads in riparian habitat conservation areas in the 

project planning area are native surface roads that adversely affect aquatic habitat by contributing 

fine sediment to streams, altering hydrology and sediment transport, and reducing wood loadings 

(Meredith et al. 2014). Total open and closed road densities are approximately 2.6 miles per 

square mile. There are approximately 23 miles of roads in the project planning area that impact 

streams due to proximity (100 feet or less); these conditions reduce availability of subsurface cool 

water storage and cause streams to become disconnected from floodplains.

Road-stream crossings have impacted local stream channels and water quality. Some crossings 

were poorly designed with improperly sized culverts and misalignment relative to the natural 

stream channel. Within the project planning area, poorly designed crossings are primarily located 

on alluvial fans, including Clear Creek, Thompson Creek, Lake Creek, and Tinker Creek and their 

confluence with East Fork Beech Creek, as well as two locations on East Fork Beech Creek. 

These road crossings are adversely impacting width-to-depth ratio, sediment storage and 

conveyance, and pool formation for the primary habitat elements (see description below). Fine 

sediment is also a concern from roads that are hydrologically connected to disturbed areas. In the 

case of East Fork Beech Creek, and the lowermost sections of Clear Creek, Thompson Creek, and 

Tinker Creek, much of the wood that was historically present was systematically removed over 

the years for flood protection of the road and its infrastructure, as well as protection of 

outbuildings or homesteads that may have been located in the floodplain.

Past grazing management practices (prior to the 1990 Malheur Forest Plan) impacted existing 

aquatic habitat and water quality due to reductions in shade, bank-stabilizing wetland vegetation, 

and riparian hardwood communities; stream bank alterations; and increases in width-to-depth 

ratios and fine sediment levels. These impacts were exacerbated within areas that had been 

disturbed by logging. Improved management practices, on both private and Forest Service land, 

have resulted in improved aquatic conditions to an extent; however, riparian hardwood 

vegetation, stream channel morphology, and large woody debris are still in a degraded condition 

within the majority of the project planning area.

Recreation has also impacted streams due to road development providing increased access to the 

project planning area for hunting, fishing, hiking, firewood cutting, and dispersed camping. In the 

fall, deer and elk hunting are popular recreation activities within much of the project planning 

area. Dispersed campsites have impacts to aquatic habitat and use of these sites varies throughout 

the year, with the majority of sites showing heaviest use during the fall hunting season.

Homesteading began in the area during the 1880s and often occurred in areas with wide valley 

bottoms for pasture creation and hay production for livestock. Surrounding timber was often 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

297 of 632

cleared and used for building materials on the homesteads. Trees within the flat bottom valleys 

were the most readily available material and often the first to be harvested.

There are no active mine claims in the project planning area nor have any historical records 

regarding mining been identified. Geology within the project planning area is not conducive to 

gold mining or dredging.

3.8.1.1 Primary Habitat Elements

Important aquatic habitat elements as defined by PACFISH and Forest Plan Amendment 29 

include: 1) pool frequency, 2) water temperature and stream shading, 3) large woody debris, 4) 

embeddedness and fine sediment, 5) width-to-depth ratio, and 6) bank stability. These habitat 

elements are important in maintaining aquatic habitat function and health and are linked to 

physical and biological processes within the watershed.

Pool Frequency

Pool frequency and depth is a gauge of stream physical processes, stream energy dynamics, 

streambed form, aquatic habitat diversity, and stream channel complexity. Pool frequency and 

depth is also an indicator of the degree to which streams are capable of supporting a varied and 

complex community of fish species and dissipating stream energy. Pools are important rearing 

habitat for juvenile fish during high flow events and provide cool-water refuge areas for adult fish 

during periods of low flow and elevated temperatures. Deep pools provide important habitat for 

adult and juvenile steelhead, westslope cutthroat trout, and redband trout amongst other native 

fish species. Stream surveys indicate that pool frequency objectives are not being met within all 

the stream reaches in the project planning area (Table 70).

Table 70. Existing condition from most recent Region 6 stream surveys for six primary habitat 

elements used for comparison of alternatives

Stream 

name

Survey 

year

Pool 

frequency

Water temp.

7-day mean 

maximum

Water 

temp.

Shade

Large 

woody 

debris

Fine 

sediment/

embedded

- ness

Width

-todepth 

ratio

Bank 

stability

Clear 

Creek 

Reach 1

2014 32.5 67.57 °F 

(6/11-7/8) 72.85 7.8 25.5% < 2mm 23.5 99

Clear 

Creek 

Reach 2

2014 27 85 46.7 35% < 

2mm 18.6 97

Clear 

Creek 

Reach 4

2014 21.7 87.5 64.7 31% < 

2mm 24.0 99

Clear 

Creek 

Reach 5

2014 19.3 73.5 20 30.5% < 

2mm 27.9 97

Clear 

Creek 

Reach 7

2014 13.6 96 23.4 27.5% < 

2mm 64.2 100

Clear 

Creek 

Reach 8

2014 11.7 66 18.6 40.5% < 

2mm 14.1 99

Clear 

Creek 

Reach 9

2014 0 - 16 31% < 

2mm 13.1 97
Magone Project

298 of 632

Stream 

name

Survey 

year

Pool 

frequency

Water temp.

7-day mean 

maximum

Water 

temp.

Shade

Large 

woody 

debris

Fine 

sediment/

embedded

- ness

Width

-todepth 

ratio

Bank 

stability

EF Beech 

Creek 

Reach 1

2014 55.6 66.27 °F 

(6/11-10/5) 71.0 10.4 22% < 2mm 26.1 97

EF Beech 

Creek 

Reach 3

2014 42.5 65.0 5.1 13% < 

2mm 27.5 95

EF Beech 

Creek 

Reach 5

2014 42.0 63.5 4.1 39% < 

2mm 24.3 97

EF Beech 

Creek 

Reach 7

2014 31.6 85.0 3.7 49.5% < 

2mm 18.8 99

EF Beech 

Creek 

Reach 8

2014 14.3 67.5 0.0 23% < 

2mm 19.1 99

EF Beech 

Creek 

Reach 9

2014 3.3 67.5 23 - 38.5 100

EF Beech 

Creek 

Reach 10

2014 1.5 64 12 - 22.6 100

EF Beech 

Creek 

Reach 11

2014 12 50.5 9 - 36.6 100

McClellan 

Creek 

Reach 2

2014 34.9 67.23 °F 

(6/11-10/5) 69.3 12.5 19% < 

2mm 15.9 98

McClellan 

Creek 

Reach 3

2014 51.1 50.8 5.3 40.5% < 

2mm 17.6 95

McClellan 

Creek 

Reach 4

2014 44.9 81.1 52.8 29.5% < 

2mm 24.1 98

McClellan 

Creek 

Reach 5

2014 17.8 80.8 17.3 39.5% < 

2mm 22.7 96

Nipple 

Creek 

Reach 1

2014 1.9 - 29.25 28.4 19% < 

2mm 9.33 99

Tinker 

Creek 

Reach 1

2014 44 62.35 °F 

(6/11-10/5) 57 25 46.5% < 

2mm 15 98

Tinker 

Creek 

Reach 2

2014 55 71 28 73% < 

2mm 14 99

Tinker 

Creek 

Reach 3

2014 27 65.5 63 60.5% <

2mm 13 99

Tinker 

Creek 

Reach 4

2014 15 84 33 49.5% < 

2mm 13 99

Tinker 

Creek 

Reach 5

2014 4 55 29 22.5% < 

2mm 13 99
Final Environmental Impact Statement

299 of 632

Stream 

name

Survey 

year

Pool 

frequency

Water temp.

7-day mean 

maximum

Water 

temp.

Shade

Large 

woody 

debris

Fine 

sediment/

embedded

- ness

Width

-todepth 

ratio

Bank 

stability

Thompson 

Creek 

Reach 1

2014 1.34 74.61 °F

(6/11-10/8) 43.5 2

19% 

<2mm 19.5 99.85

Grub Creek 

Reach 1 2014 22 35.5 12 60.5%<2mm

13.7 98

Grub Creek 

Reach 2 2014 1.7 65.12 °F(6/11-10/5) 45 9 54.5<2mm 8.3 99

Note: Values in bold font are meeting fish habitat objectives.

Pool spacing is higher for reaches compared to potential channel types in the project planning 

area and there is an absence of quality pools (greater than 2 feet deep). This indicates a loss of 

pool habitat and general hydrological function as a result of past management activities related to 

livestock grazing, riparian logging, and channel modification during road building. In general, 

pool formation is controlled by geology, slope, substrate, channel type and condition, sediment 

transport, riparian vegetation, and instream and floodplain roughness (woody debris). Examples 

of some pool types in the project planning area are shown below (Figure 31, Figure 32, and 

Figure 33).

Pool frequency data for streams within the project planning area are summarized within Table 70

and the Aquatic Resources Report – Appendix A.
Magone Project

300 of 632

Figure 31. Pool formed on Clear Creek by 

streambank vegetation (“cottonwood” and 

large rootwad from fallen tree) and outside 

bed scour.

Figure 32. Series of pools and side channels 

formed from downed wood (large and coarse 

wood) in Nipple Creek (within Nipple Butte 

IRA).

Figure 33. Pool formed from rock outcrop 

(geological feature and outside bend scour). 

This pool is located within an intermediate 

depositional point caused by wood being

pinned in a valley “pinch” point on a transport 

reach. McClellan Creek Reach 4 within Nipple 

Butte IRA.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

301 of 632

Water Temperature and Stream Shading

Water temperature influences the metabolism, behavior, and health of fish and other aquatic 

organisms. Fish can survive at temperatures near extremes of suitable temperature ranges; 

however, growth is reduced at low temperatures because all metabolic processes are slowed. At 

the opposite extreme, growth is reduced at high temperatures because most or all energy from food 

must be used for maintenance needs. Juvenile fishes have a narrower thermal niche and lower 

tolerance for temperature fluctuations than do adults (Baroudy and Elliot 1994).

Mean maximum water temperatures are above the suitable range for salmonid species present 

during summer months in the project planning area in the following streams: Thompson Creek, 

Clear Creek, East Fork Beech Creek, McClellan Creek, and Grub Creek. This data may also be 

used to extrapolate water temperatures both downstream and upstream of temperature sites. The 

Malheur Forest Plan standard for water temperature is for no measurable increase in maximum 

water temperature, and the PACFISH riparian management objective (RMO) is for maximum 

water temperatures below 64 °F within migration and rearing habitat and below 60 °F within 

spawning habitats. The existing water temperature data is compared to these values within Table 

70; see Table 71 for PACFISH RMOs and Malheur Forest Plan standards for fish habitat criteria. 

The average 7-day maximum stream temperature across the project planning area ranges from 62 

to 68 °F (Table 70). Temperatures were taken from the lower stream reaches that typically have 

migration and spawning habitat. The temperature metrics by stream are summarized in Table 70

and the Watershed Report and section. Available water temperature data indicates that temperature 

objectives are being met in Tinker Creek but lower elevation reaches downstream are not meeting 

water temperature criteria.

Table 71. PACFISH RMOs and Malheur Forest Plan standards fish habitat criteria

Habitat feature RMOs Forest Plan Amendment 29

Pool frequency

Wetted width in feet

Number of pools per mile

10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 

200

96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12 9

<10 >10-20 >20-25 >25-50

75-132 38-66 30-53 15-26

Water temperature (all 

systems)

Compliance with state water 

quality standards, or maximum 

<68 oF / 20 oC

--

Large woody debris (pieces 

per mile in forested 

systems)

East of Cascade Crest in 

Oregon, Washington, and 

Idaho, >20 pieces >12 inch 

diameter, >35 foot length

Ponderosa pine ecosystem – 20-70 pieces 

≥12 inch diameter and 20% >20 inches in 

diameter and ≥35 feet long or 1.5 times 

bankfull width.

Mixed conifer ecosystem – 80-120 pieces 

≥12 inch diameter and 20% >20 inches in 

diameter and ≥35 feet long or 1.5 times 

bankfull width.

Lodgepole pine ecosystem – 100-350 pieces 

≥6 inch diameter and 10% >12 inches in 

diameter and ≥18 feet long or 1.5 times 

bankfull width.

Bank stability >80% stable >90% stable

Lower bank angle (undercut 

banks) non-forested system >75% of banks with <90o angle 50-75% undercut (with less than 2% gradient)

Wetted width/depth ratio <10 (mean wetted width divided 

by depth)

<10

Embeddedness -- ≤20

Percent shade/canopy 

closure

-- Ponderosa Pine ecosystem – 40-55%

Mixed Conifer ecosystem – 50-65%

Lodgepole Pine ecosystem – 60-75%

Hardwood/meadow complexes – 80%
Magone Project

302 of 632

Riparian stream shading is critical in regulating water temperature extremes and providing instream cover against predation. Riparian vegetation can decrease water temperature, as much as 3 

to 4 °C (37.4 to 39.2 °F) within 492 feet by reducing incoming solar radiation, as well as decrease 

air temperature (Johnson 2004). Additionally, streambed substrates play a role in diurnal water 

temperature fluctuations. Daily maximum temperatures were higher and minimum temperatures 

were lower in streambeds composed of bedrock (Johnson 2004). An example of a streambed 

scoured down to bedrock within the project planning area is provided below. Complex flow paths 

within alluvial streams (cobble/gravel) results in slow median water velocities, and therefore 

longer hydraulic retention times. These slow velocities led to mixing of daytime and nighttime 

water between and within the channel and hyporheic zone (Johnson 2004). Accumulations of large 

organic matter inputs (coarse wood/large wood) with fine material have an effect of increasing

hydraulic retention times, which also mediates water temperature (Johnson 2004).

Vegetation along streams in the project planning area is highly variable and often contingent upon 

valley width and slope. Many of the streams within the inventoried roadless area (IRA) have 

stands of large trees with closed canopies stretching along the stream (Figure 34). Most streams 

have a patchy distribution of forest and non-forest, open vegetation types associated with 

widening of the valley floor (Figure 35 and Figure 36). The open valley types are characterized by 

flattening of stream channel slope and deposition of alluvium substrates or fine organic material. 

The presence of fine organic material on the floodplain is an indicator of some feature that creates 

a hydraulic dam within the stream that inundates the floodplain. The presence of stringer meadows 

in the project planning area (instead of forest vegetation) contributes to high stream temperatures 

only when riparian hardwood vegetation (Figure 36 and Figure 37) is inadequate or degraded and 

channel morphology is out of balance (over-widened) or floodplain connectivity is lost (incised 

channel), increasing solar radiation and decreasing groundwater exchange and recharge. Examples 

of vegetative primary shade elements and streambed substrate within the Magone project planning 

area based on valley type (wide or narrow). An example of some recovery are depicted in Figure 

34, Figure 35, Figure 36, Figure 37, and Figure 38.

Stream surveys indicate that shade objectives are not being met within the following stream 

reaches: Nipple Creek Reach 1, Thompson Creek Reach 1, and Grub Creek Reaches 1 and 2.

Stream surveys indicate that shade objectives are being met within the following stream reaches in 

the project planning area: Clear Creek Reaches 1–9, East Fork Beech Creek Reaches 1–11, 

McClellan Creek Reaches 2–5, Tinker Creek Reaches 1–3. The shade metrics by stream reach are 

summarized in Table 70.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

303 of 632

Figure 34. Example where primary shade is 

conifer overstory (narrow valley bottom). 

Clear Creek within Nipple Butte IRA.

Figure 35. Example where primary shade is 

alder (wide valley bottom). East Fork Beech 

Creek Reach 7.

Figure 36. Example where primary shade 

would normally be riparian hardwoods (wide 

valley bottom) with secondary conifer 

shading; however, conifers are currently 

primary shade providers followed by 

hawthorn. Clear Creek Reach 2 most sensitive 

riparian area (absence of riparian hardwoods).

Figure 37. Example of shrub recovery and 

channel recovery in progress from an overwidened channel. McClellan Creek Reach 2 

most sensitive riparian area.

Figure 38. East Fork Beech Creek streambed 

scoured down to bedrock just above confluence 

of Clear Creek.
Magone Project

304 of 632

Large Woody Debris

Large woody debris (LWD) and coarse woody debris (CWD) play an important role in forested 

stream reaches and maintaining beaver-created meadows (Burchsted 2010) by dissipating stream 

energy, trapping sediment (Figure 39), trapping riparian hardwood and hydric plant seeds, and 

providing suitable microclimates for seed germination (Osei et al. 2015). Woody debris provides 

stream grade stabilization (Figure 39 and Figure 40), initiates streambed aggradation and channel 

braiding, and forms pools (Polvi and Wohl 2013, Cluer and Thorne 2014), all of which increase 

habitat complexity. Riparian forests, especially individual trees that are within half to three 

quarters-tree length of the stream channel, produce LWD and CWD that is recruited into a stream 

where it creates critical habitat features for aquatic species. These large pieces of wood are called 

“key” pieces that function by capturing smaller CWD and filling interstitial spaces within wood 

jams (Figure 40). Forest Plan Amendment 29 specifies a range in the number of pieces of LWD to 

be maintained for each mile of stream in certain ecotypes. Standards for LWD are located in Table 

71 and the Aquatic Resources Report – Appendix A.

Timber adjacent to streams in the project planning area has been harvested for commercial value 

and during homesteading for local use as building material and firewood. In extreme cases, 

removal of floodplain timber coupled with livestock grazing and large increases in peak flows 

resulted in large increases in channel width, which quickly destabilized in-stream pieces of wood 

resulting in a decrease in LWD, the filling of pools, and the loss of floodplain connectivity. Stream 

surveys indicate that LWD objectives are not being met on all stream reaches within the project 

planning area (Figure 41). Those streams that are closest to meeting LWD objectives are within 

the upper reaches in the Nipple Butte IRA and do not have roads adjacent to them (Figure 40).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

305 of 632

Figure 39. Remnant pieces of large woody 

debris within Tinker Creek Reach 1. Notice 

deposition in front of wood greater than 1.5 

feet high and surface water below.

Figure 40. Example of downed wood (large 

woody debris) capturing smaller pieces of 

wood (coarse woody debris), creating pools 

and increasing stream channel complexity. 

McClellan Creek within Nipple Butte IRA.

Figure 41. Example of the absence of downed 

wood within Tinker Creek Reach 1 adjacent to 

a Forest Service road (stream channel is dry).
Magone Project

306 of 632

Embeddedness and Fine Sediment

Composition of the stream substrate is an important feature of aquatic habitat. Cobble and gravel 

substrates provide habitat for macroinvertebrates as well as egg incubation and cover for the 

early life stages of numerous fish species. Macroinvertebrates (both terrestrial and aquatic) 

represent a substantial portion of the diet available to fish. Filling of interstitial spaces (i.e., the 

gaps between rocks on the stream bottom) with fine sediment (particles less than 2 millimeters in 

size) eliminates habitat for many macroinvertebrates. Fish eggs, early life stages, and winter 

habitat for juvenile salmonids can also be buried and smothered when interstitial spaces are 

embedded with fine sediment.

Stream surveys indicate that substrate embeddedness and fine sediment objectives are not being 

met in Clear Creek Reaches 1–9; East Fork Beech Creek Reaches 1, 2, and 4–11; McClellan 

Creek Reaches 3, 4, and 5; Tinker Creek Reaches 1–5; and Grub Creek Reaches 1–2. Reaches 

that are meeting standards include East Fork Beech Creek Reach 3, Nipple Creek Reach 1, 

Thompson Creek Reach 1, and McClellan Creek Reach 2. East Fork Beech Creek Reach 3 is 

immediately below a series of beaver dams, Nipple Creek Reach 1 has a steep gradient, 

Thompson Creek Reach 1 is also steep, and McClellan Creek Reach 2 is a depositional reach. 

Fine sediment is expected to be higher in depositional areas and is often an indicator of features 

that have created dams within the stream channel and inundated floodplains. The likely sources 

for fine sediment are activities in riparian areas, extant beaver meadows which are currently 

incised, channel erosion, livestock grazing (especially past grazing), loss of streambank 

stabilizing riparian hardwoods and hydric sedge communities, and roads. Several roads in the 

project planning area are potential sources of fine sediment and are within the active floodplain 

or immediately upslope of the floodplain. These roads can capture and intercept upland water 

and modify the hydrological and sediment transport regime adjacent to these floodplains. Roads 

that are potential sources of fine sediment include Forest Service road (FSR) 3600 and 3620 and 

County Road 32 along East Fork Beech Creek and Tinker Creek.

Width-to-Depth Ratio

Malheur Forest Plan standards for width-to-depth ratios are based on wetted width and depth. A 

large wetted width-to-depth ratio indicates a wide and shallow stream channel (Figure 42 and

Figure 45). Wide and shallow streams are prone to increases in stream temperatures due to high 

surface area to volume ratio, and provide little habitat for fish, due to the lack of water depth. 

This stage within the stream channel evolution model is associated with poor biological and 

physical habitat complexity (Cluer and Thorn 2014).

Stream surveys indicate that objectives for wetted width-to-depth ratios are met in Nipple Creek 

Reach 1 and Grub Creek Reach 2. Examples of areas where width-to-depth ratios were met or 

closely meeting standards in the Magone project planning area are provided in Figure 44, Figure 

46, and Figure 47.

Clear Creek Reaches 1–9, East Fork Beech Creek Reaches 1–11, McClellan Creek Reaches 2–5, 

Tinker Creek Reaches 1–5, Thompson Creek Reach 1, and Grub Creek Reach 1 are not meeting 

objectives for wetted width-to-depth ratios. FSR 3600 and County Road 32 are immediately 

adjacent to East Fork Beech Creek along its entire length and the roads cross the alluvial fans of 

each tributary that enters from the north side of East Fork Beech Creek. (Figure 44). Tinker

Creek has FSR 3620 immediately adjacent to it for 2 miles at its confluence with East Fork

Beech Creek. This has resulted in focused flows within the stream channel of the tributaries 

entering East Fork Beech Creek, and over-widening and incision of the stream channel.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

307 of 632

The presence of these roads immediately upslope of East Fork Beech Creek and Tinker Creek 

has altered the hydrology resulting in interception of over-land flows from uplands and 

concentrates this water; concentration of this water in ditches and smaller streams results in 

degraded channel structure when the appropriate vegetation is not present.

Figure 42. Characteristics of an over-widened 

straightened channel and minimal riparian 

vegetation. Clear Creek Reach 1.

Figure 43. Legacy berms along Clear Creek 

near county road.

Figure 44. Example of near desired condition 

for channel width based on valley form. 

Tinker Creek Reach 4.

Figure 45. Example of a wide valley bottom 

with an over-widened stream channel and 

minimal shade. Clear Creek Reach 2

Figure 46. Example of near desired condition 

for channel width based on valley form. Clear 

Creek Reach 6.

Figure 47. Example of near desired condition 

for channel width based on valley form and 

well-developed sedge community.
Magone Project

308 of 632

Bank Stability

Channel types differ in their sensitivity to management activities due to differences in bank 

erosion potential and the influence of streamside vegetation on bank stability. Stream surveys 

indicate that bank stability objectives are being met on all stream reaches in the project planning 

area. However, the lack of well-defined streambanks within East Fork Beech Creek and lower 

sections of Clear Creek, Thompson Creek, and Tinker Creek, along with a stream bed dominated 

by cobble, indicates additional factors are inhibiting stream bank formation related to altered 

hydrology.

Existing Condition Compared to Desired Condition

Fish habitat in the analysis area generally does not meet Malheur Forest Plan desired future 

conditions (DFCs) and riparian management objectives (RMOs) for pool frequency, large woody 

debris (LWD), sediment, temperature, and width-to-depth ratio (Table 71). The condition of 

important habitat elements including low pool frequency, high water temperatures, reduced LWD 

frequency, high fine sediment levels, and moderately high width-to-depth ratios indicate reduced 

fish habitat quality as a result of past management activities. Although bank stability does meet 

the RMOs in general, specific locations where bank instability is occurring are not in the 

appropriate locations. Areas of bank instability often occur on the outside banks of stream 

meanders. Many of the streams, in particular East Fork Beech Creek, have eroded down to the 

stream armor layer with limited or no stream banks present. Where stream channels have been 

straightened, bank instability is occurring on both sides of the stream channel (mostly related to 

roads and removal of LWD) due to excessive stream energy and lack of energy dissipation in the 

form of LWD, sinuosity, and floodplain roughness. Most streams in the analysis area are in a 

highly altered state, with conditions of important habitat elements strongly limiting quality of 

fish habitat.

Additional metrics based on Amendment 29 DFCs, PACFISH RMOs, and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Matrix of Pathways and Indicators are included 

within the Aquatic Resources Report – Appendix A.

3.8.1.2 Aquatic Species

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

An endangered species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A 

threatened species is an animal or plant species listed under the ESA as likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

A sensitive species is an animal or plant species identified by the Regional Forester for which 

species viability is a concern either 1) because of current or predicted downward trend in 

population numbers or density, or 2) because of current or predicted downward trends in habitat 

capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (R6 sensitive).

Management Indicator Species

Management indicator species (MIS) are species of vertebrates and invertebrates whose 

population changes are believed to best indicate effects of land management activities. Through 

the MIS concept, the total number of species found within a project planning area is reduced to a 

subset of species that collectively represent habitats, species, and associated management 

concerns. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

309 of 632

MIS are used to assess the maintenance of populations (the ability of a population to sustain 

itself naturally) and biological diversity (which includes genetic diversity, species diversity, and 

habitat diversity), and to assess effects on species that are in public demand.

The Malheur Forest Plan identifies the following aquatic species as MIS for healthy 

stream/riparian habitats: westslope cutthroat trout, redband/rainbow trout, steelhead, and bull 

trout (USDA Forest Service 1990a). These aquatic MIS were selected to indicate healthy stream 

and riparian ecosystems across the landscape. Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of 

standing and flowing water, including intermittent stream channels, ephemeral ponds, and 

wetlands. Attributes of a healthy aquatic ecosystem include: cold and clean water; channel 

substrates; stable stream banks; healthy streamside vegetation; complex channel habitat created 

by large wood, cobbles, boulders, streamside vegetation, and undercut banks; deep pools; and 

waterways free of barriers. Healthy riparian areas maintain adequate temperature regulation, 

nutrient cycles, natural erosion rates, and provide for in stream wood recruitment.

In general, the aquatic MIS have similar stream and riparian ecosystem requirements. However, 

they do represent a range of minor differences in habitat conditions found and utilized across the 

Malheur National Forest. As an example, bull trout require slightly colder water when compared 

to redband trout. Because the habitat requirements for each species are generally similar and 

often overlap, they were collectively chosen to represent healthy stream and riparian ecosystems. 

All aquatic MIS on the Blue Mountain Ranger District of the Malheur National Forest are 

currently listed as threatened or sensitive.

Determining Presence of Species or Habitats

The following sources of information have been reviewed to determine if threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, or management indicator species and their associated habitats may or may 

not occur within the project planning area:

1. Malheur National Forest geographic information system (GIS) database

2. Regional Forester’s (R6) sensitive species list (07/21/2015)

3. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife stream/fish survey reports

4. Forest Service stream survey reports, Blue Mountain Ranger District, John Day, OR

5. Oregon Natural Heritage Program database

6. NatureServe database (www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/)

Aquatic Species with Special Management Status Relative to Analysis Area

Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened, MIS), Interior redband trout (Region 6 sensitive, 

MIS) (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri), and westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) are 

documented to occur within the project planning area in the miles of stream listed in Table 72. 

Table 73 displays designated critical habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead within the project 

planning area. The Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) (R6 sensitive) is considered present 

in all subwatersheds of the Malheur National Forest and is known to occur within the analysis 

area.

The following species have not been found within the project planning area nor do they have 

suitable habitat. The section below provides the rationale for why these species will not be 

discussed further.

 The shortface lanx (Fisherola nuttalli) (Region 6 sensitive) is a large freshwater limpet 

that inhabits cold, unpolluted, medium-sized streams to large rivers approximately 30 to 

100 meters wide with fast flowing, well-oxygenated water and cobble-boulder substrate 
Magone Project

310 of 632

at low elevations. This species is not found in areas with a high abundance of 

macrophytes or epiphytic algae, or in areas that have been dredged or mined. Streams 

within the project planning area are small in size relative to known species sites. East 

Fork Beech Creek has warm temperatures, is not considered well-oxygenated, 

periodically goes dry with stagnant pools remaining, and may have extensive 

macrophytic algae growth. It is unlikely that the shortface lanx or its habitat is present 

within the project planning area; therefore, this species will not be discussed further.

 The Columbia clubtail (Gomphus lynnae) (Region 6 sensitive) is a dragonfly that can 

be found in a variety of river habitats that can range from sandy or muddy to rocky, 

shallow rivers with occasional gravelly rapids. Water flow tends to be slow-moving. 

Larval habitat (river) is the most crucial. Columbia clubtail are found within Oregon 

over a somewhat short stretch (about 72 miles) of the John Day River in Wheeler and 

Grant counties, from Twickenham to Monument; and at a single locality on the Owyhee 

River near Rome in Malheur County. According to Valley (2010), G. lynnae is found 

over a much longer stretch of the John Day River from Monument to J.S. Burres State 

Park. Because of the differing stream conditions between the species’ type locality and 

streams within the project planning area, it is unlikely that habitat is found within the 

project planning area; therefore, this species will not be discussed further.

 The Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) (Region 6 sensitive) larvae spend 4 to 6 

years in freshwater filtering microscopic plants and animals from bottom sediments. The 

primary habitat for larvae is muddy bottom, backwater areas, and during its juvenile life 

stage low gradient areas provide habitat. The Pacific lamprey is susceptible to loss of 

wetlands, side channels, back eddies, and beaver ponds resulting from agricultural, 

forestry, urban development practices, or channelization for flood control. High stream 

temperatures and lack of stream cover can also reduce the lampreys’ food supply. 

Shortly after hatching in freshwater streams, lamprey larvae or amnocoetes drift 

downstream into areas of low velocity and fine substrates where they burrow and live as 

filter feeders for up to 7 years. This species may have been historically present within 

East Fork Beech Creek and its tributaries due to its connection with Beech Creek and the 

mainstem John Day River. However, the current condition of East Fork Beech Creek 

likely does not support the larval life stage. Stream substrate is primarily cobble with 

very limited fine material, side channels are largely absent, beaver activity is minimal, 

and portions of East Fork Beech Creek and its tributaries often go dry during summer 

months. It is unlikely that the species or its habitat is present within the project planning 

area; therefore, this species will not be discussed further.

 California floater (Anodonta californiensis) (Region 6 sensitive) is a freshwater mussel. 

The California floater’s historical range encompassed the west coast, from Baja 

California in Mexico to southern British Columbia, and east beyond the Continental 

Divide. Within the United States, historical distribution of this species includes Arizona, 

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. This species has 

been found historically in shell middens in western New Mexico. It has been extirpated 

from much of its historical range in California and Arizona (Schonberg 2010). Habitat 

for this species is shallow, muddy or sandy freshwater in large rivers, reservoirs and 

lakes (Schonberg 2010); suitable habitat also includes low-gradient creeks and streams 

with steady water levels (Nedeau et al. 2005). 

Stream substrate within the Magone project planning area is dominated by large cobble 

and gravel, and many of the streams do not have steady water levels. Streams within the 

project planning area have a tendency to fluctuate considerably (flashy) because of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

311 of 632

snow-pack run-off being the primary driver of flow. No large rivers are present within 

the project planning area.

 Western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata) (Region 6 sensitive). Freshwater mussels, 

including G. angulata, are filter feeders that consume phytoplankton and zooplankton 

suspended in the water. G. angulata is a relatively slow growing and long lived species –

perhaps living 20 to 30 years (COSEWIC 2003, Vannote and Minshall 1982). Western 

ridged mussels have been found within the Middle Fork John Day, North Fork John Day, 

and John Day River in Wasco County (Xerces Freshwater Mussel database 2009).

Western ridged mussels are associated with low shear stress (shear stress is caused by 

fast flowing water over substrate) and substrate stability; flow refuges are important 

determinants of freshwater mussel survival (Vannote and Minshall 1982). This species is 

generally associated with constant flow, shallow water (<3 feet in depth), and well 

oxygenated substrates (COSEWIC 2003), and is often present in areas with seasonally 

turbid streams. G. angulata generally occurs at low to mid elevations (Nedeau et al. 

2009). Many sites where this species has been found lack dense macrophyte beds. 

Typically, individuals of this species are found buried to at least half their length in fine 

substrate, with the posterior end facing upstream (COSEWIC 2003). Since this species 

prefers stable habitats, it may be particularly threatened by dewatering and other 

activities that cause shifting substrates, water level fluctuations, and seasonal hypoxia or 

anoxia (COSEWIC 2003).

Many of the streams within the Magone project planning area are partially dry during the 

summer months. East Fork Beech Creek, the only mid-size stream in the project 

planning area, is characterized by large cobble with limited flow refuge. It is unlikely 

that the western ridged mussel or its habitat is present within the project planning area; 

therefore, this species will not be discussed further.

 Pristine springsnail (Pristinicola hemphilli) (Region 6 sensitive). Duncan (2008) states 

this species of snail is semelparous (reproduces a single time before dying), and males 

and females live one to two years. P. hemphilli is aquatic and breathes using gills. Snails 

feed upon algae, yeast, bacteria, and diatoms from rocks and woody surfaces, although 

they have been known to feed upon other plant surfaces. Plant matter transported by 

birds and mammals, as well as sediment passively moving downstream, may aid in this 

species dispersal. This species occurs at sites dominated by small, cold streams that are 

undisturbed (Duncan 2008). Populations at many of the sites contain hundreds of 

individuals, although numbers vary considerably from year to year due to environmental 

factors. P. hemphilli can also be found in interior Oregon in the Deschutes, Umatilla, and 

John Day River basins.

Habitats supporting this species tend to be small, cold springs or seeps in a pristine 

condition and contain coarse gravel and cobble substrate (Frest and Johannes 1999). 

Sometimes snails are found in larger springs or areas of small streams that are affected 

by springs. Plants commonly found in association with the species include watercress 

(Rorippa), monkey flower (Mimulus), and bryophytes (mosses). Sites tend to occur at 

low-medium elevation and are in semiarid sage scrub. Also, fairly dense Douglas-fir 

forests at low-medium elevation in the Cascades and Southern Oregon contain this 

species of snail.

Small, cold springs in pristine condition within lower elevations are absent within the 

Magone project planning area. Many of the lower elevation streams are currently 
Magone Project

312 of 632

intermittent and lack spring input. Water temperatures are relatively warm within 

streams in the Magone project planning area. It is unlikely that the species or its habitat 

is present within the project planning area; therefore, this species will not be discussed 

further.

Table 72. Miles of habitat for threatened, endangered, and regionally sensitive aquatic species in 

the Magone project planning area

Threatened and endangered aquatic species Miles of habitat in the project planning area

Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat 19.1

Westslope cutthroat trout 9.8

Redband trout 34.7

Table 73. Miles of Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead critical habitat by stream within the Magone 

project planning area

Stream name Miles of MCR steelhead critical habitat

East Fork Beech Creek 8

Clear Creek 3.4

McClellan Creek 4

Tinker Creek 2

Grub Creek 2.3

Total 19.1

Aquatic species without special management status documented downstream of the aquatic 

analysis area include northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), mountain whitefish 

(Prosopium williamsoni), sucker species (Catostomus macrocheilus or C. columbianus), 

speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), redside shiner 

(Richardsonius balteatus), and sculpin (Cottus spp.) Due to similarities in information 

considered for threatened, endangered, Region 6 sensitive species, and management indicator 

species analyses, this information is consolidated within individual species narratives below.

Steelhead – Affected Environment

Mid-Columbia River steelhead (Mid-Columbia distinct population segment, MCR steelhead) 

were listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service as threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 15417). MCR steelhead is also a Malheur National Forest MIS 

species. Critical habitat for MCR steelhead was re-designated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 

52630). Critical habitat is present in the aquatic analysis area.

Steelhead trout are the anadromous form of Oncorynchus mykiss. Adult summer steelhead return 

to freshwater June through September. Adults overwinter in large rivers while sexually maturing 

and resume migration to spawning streams in early spring. Spawning takes place March through 

May. Eggs incubate during the spring and emergence occurs April through July depending on 

water temperatures. Juveniles typically spend two to three years in freshwater. Juvenile steelhead 

generally utilize habitats with higher water velocities than juvenile Chinook salmon. In winter, 

juvenile steelhead utilize deep pools with abundant cover. 

Juveniles may reside in their natal stream for their entire freshwater rearing phase or may 

migrate to other streams within a watershed. Smoltification20 occurs during late winter, and 

 

20 Smoltification is the series of physiological changes that occur in juvenile salmonid fish (salmon or trout) to adapt 

from living in freshwater streams to living in saltwater.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

313 of 632

migration to the ocean occurs during spring. Summer steelhead adults normally rear for one to 

two years in the ocean.

Population Status – Mid-Columbia River steelhead runs in the John Day River Basin are 

composed of entirely native stocks. However, hatchery fish do stray into the John Day Basin 

from the Columbia River (CBMRC&D 2005). The Upper John Day River Subbasin contributes 

approximately 15 percent of the total run for the basin. Spawner abundance in recent years has 

been moderately variable, the most recent 10-year geomean number of natural-origin spawners 

was 524 (572 total spawners). The number of steelhead redds counted on index sites within the 

project planning area are displayed in Figure 48 and Figure 49. Steelhead occupy approximately 

410 miles of habitat on the Malheur National Forest. The Magone project planning area 

encompasses about 4.6 percent of the total miles of habitat on the Malheur National Forest. 

Juvenile survival for out migration within the Upper John Day is estimated to be 54 percent 

(NMFS 2008). Mid-Columbia River steelhead are widely distributed in the Upper John Day 

River Subbasin. Spawning and rearing takes place in all major tributaries of the Upper John Day 

River and within the Magone project planning area.

Figure 48. Number of Mid-Columbia River steelhead redds counted within East Fork

Beech Creek index reaches 1962 to 2014.
Magone Project

314 of 632

Figure 49. Number of Mid-Columbia River steelhead redds counted Tinker Creek 

index reach 1987 to 2014.

Mid-Columbia River steelhead distribution, spawning habitat, and juvenile rearing habitat is 

present in East Fork Beech Creek, Clear Creek, Thompson Creek, McClellan Creek, Lake Creek, 

Tinker Creek, and Grub Creek (Figure 50). Steelhead occupy approximately 19.1 miles of 

habitat within the project planning area, which represents approximately 4.7 percent of available 

habitat on the Malheur National Forest. The Magone project planning area is situated centrally in 

the area of available habitat on the Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

315 of 632

Figure 50. Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead distribution and critical habitat in the Magone 

Project analysis area.

Critical Habitat – Critical habitat was designated for MCR steelhead on February 16, 2000 (65 

FR 7764). Critical habitat for MCR steelhead under the 2000 rule encompassed the major 

Columbia River tributaries known to support the distinct population segment, including the 

Deschutes, John Day, Klickitat, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Yakima Rivers, as well as the 

Columbia River and estuary. Critical habitat consisted of all waterways below long-standing 

(100 years or more), naturally impassable barriers, including the Upper John Day River. The 

adjacent riparian zone was also considered critical habitat. This riparian zone was defined as the 

area that provides the following functions: shade, sediment, nutrient and chemical regulation, 

stream bank stability, and input of large woody debris and organic matter. Protective regulations 

for MCR steelhead were issued under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on July 

10, 2000 (65 FR 42423).

In late 2000, a lawsuit was filed challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

February 2000 final designation of critical habitat for evolutionarily significant units and distinct 

population segments of Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA. A federal court ruled 

the agency did not adequately consider the economic impacts of the critical habitat designations. 

In April 2002, NMFS withdrew its 2000 critical habitat designations.

Critical habitat for MCR steelhead was redesignated on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630). 

Streams listed in Table 73 were designated as critical habitat under the 2005 rule. Designated 

critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and includes a 

lateral extent as defined by the ordinary high-water line (33 CFR 319.11). In areas where the 

ordinary high-water line has not been defined, the lateral extent will be defined by the bankfull 

elevation. 
Magone Project

316 of 632

Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and move into the 

floodplain and is reached at a discharge which generally has a recurrence interval of one to two

years on the annual flood series.

The primary constituent elements that are essential for the conservation of listed distinct 

population segments on the Malheur National Forest are those sites and habitat components that 

support one or more life stages, including:

(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate 

supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development;

(2) Freshwater rearing sites with:

(i) Water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat 

conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility;

(ii) Water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and

(iii) Natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and 

beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut 

banks.

(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation with water 

quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large 

wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks 

supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.

Redband Trout – Affected Environment

Redband trout exhibit two major life histories, anadromous (steelhead) and potadromous. 

Potadromous redband trout exhibit a wide variety life history strategies in freshwater systems, 

including migratory (i.e., fluvial and adfluvial) and resident forms. Interior redband trout are a 

Region 6 sensitive species and a Malheur National Forest management indicator species. 

Redband trout are the resident form of Oncorhynchus mykiss. Redband trout may or may not be 

reproductively isolated from steelhead. Redband and steelhead trout from the same geographic 

area share a common gene pool.

Redband trout are sensitive to changes in water quality and habitat. This species prefer a water 

temperature range from 10 to 16 °C (50 to 60.8 °F). A range-wide analysis by Muhlfeld et al. 

2015 found that redband trout are generally found within streams where pool habitat comprises 

35 to 60 percent of the total stream habitat. Poor habitat for redband trout is associated with 

water temperatures that exceed 16 °C (60.8 °F), fine sediment greater than 25 percent, and a lack 

of stream shading. In montane streams, the distribution and abundance of redband trout has been 

positively related to abundance of deep pools with complex cover and negatively related to 

stream gradient (Meyer et al. 2010, Muhlfeld et al. 2001a, 2001b, Muhlfeld 2002).

Adult redband trout are generally associated with pool habitats, although various life stages 

require a wide array of habitats for rearing, hiding, feeding, and resting. Pool habitat functions as 

important refugia during low water periods. An increase in sediment beyond the capacity of the 

stream to transport can lower spawning success; sediment reduces the quantity and quality of 

pool and interstitial habitat. Other important habitat features include healthy riparian vegetation, 

undercut banks, and large woody debris that function in sediment transport and deposition.

Redband trout may reside in their natal stream or may migrate to other streams within a 

watershed to rear. Habitat requirements are similar for redband trout and juvenile steelhead.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

317 of 632

Spawning occurs during the spring, generally from March to June. Redds tend to be located 

where velocity, depth, and bottom configuration induce water flow through the stream substrate, 

generally in gravels at the tailout area of pools. Water temperatures influence emergence of fry, 

which is typically from May through June.

Population Status – Redband trout currently occupy 42 percent of their historical range within 

the western United States, of which 47 percent of the streams occupied by redband trout occur 

on private lands, 45 percent on government lands, and 8 percent in protected areas (Muhlfeld et 

al. 2015). Primary threats to redband trout include invasive species, habitat degradation and 

fragmentation, and climate change (Muhlfeld et al. 2015).

Neither the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife nor the Forest Service routinely monitors 

abundance and distribution of redband trout in the John Day Basin. Juvenile Oncorhynchus 

mykiss with resident (redband trout) and anadromous (steelhead) life history types are difficult to 

differentiate where the two populations coexist, making independent monitoring difficult. 

Redband trout occupy approximately 1,089 miles of habitat on the Malheur National Forest.

Distribution and Habitat – Currently in the John Day Basin, redband trout are present in the 

North Fork, Middle Fork, Mainstem, and South Fork John Day Rivers and their tributaries. 

Redband trout are present in all fish-bearing streams in the Upper John Day River Subbasin. 

Summer distribution of redband trout is generally limited to headwater areas.

Redband trout are present in all fish-bearing streams in the aquatic analysis area (Figure 51);

however, their population abundance is unknown. Spawning and rearing habitat is present in all 

fish-bearing streams in the analysis area, with the Upper John Day River also serving as a 

migratory corridor. Their distribution within the analysis area and habitat needs are similar to 

those of steelhead. However, redband spawning may occur in areas with insufficient flow or too

small of substrate for steelhead spawning. Redband trout occupy approximately 34.7 miles of 

habitat within the project planning area, which represents approximately 3.17 percent of 

available habitat on the Malheur National Forest. The project planning area is situated centrally 

within available habitat on the Forest.
Magone Project

318 of 632

Figure 51. Distribution of redband trout in the Magone Project analysis area.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout – Affected Environment

Westslope cutthroat trout currently occupy about 33,500 miles (59 percent) of the nearly 56,500 

miles of historically occupied habitats. However, the genetic status of westslope cutthroat trout 

across this area has not been determined by genetic testing. Westslope cutthroat trout currently 

occupy over 18,000 miles in Idaho (95 percent of historical), almost 13,000 miles in Montana 

(39 percent of historical), about 250 miles in Oregon (21 percent of historical), and almost 2,000

miles in Washington (66 percent of historical).

Population Status – Westslope cutthroat trout is a Region 6 sensitive species. Oregon 

populations of westslope cutthroat trout are disjunct21 from their greater contiguous distribution 

in the Upper Missouri and Columbia basins of Montana and Idaho (Behnke 1992). Westslope 

cutthroat trout currently occupy 59 percent of their historical range (Shepard et al. 2005). East 

Fork Beech Creek and its tributaries are part of the Beech Creek population within the Magone 

project planning area (Figure 52). Most populations express resident life history strategy, but 

migratory forms do exist within the Upper John Day Complex (Shepard et al. 2003).

There are 17 westslope cutthroat trout populations found within the Upper Mainstem John Day 

River. Distribution of westslope cutthroat trout is highly fragmented and limited to headwater 

streams in the Upper John Day River Basin (Figure 53). The Beech Creek population is located 

 

21 Disjunct species are those that exhibit unusually wide gaps within their overall distribution.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

319 of 632

in the Magone project planning area and includes the streams of East Fork Beech Creek, Lake 

Creek, and Thompson Creek. 

The Beech Creek population does not pass distribution criterion being found within only 15 

percent of their historical distribution within the watershed. Most populations are isolated from 

each other due to elevated water temperatures and low flows (Kostow 1995).

Habitat in the Analysis Area – Water temperatures greater than 20 °C (68 °F) are not favorable to 

westslope cutthroat trout and favor rainbow trout (Bear 2007). Approximately 75 percent of 

cutthroat populations within the Pacific Northwest are found in streams with greater than 11°C 

(51.8 °F) (Isaak 2015). Habitat within the project planning area includes East Fork Beech Creek, 

Thompson Creek, and Lake Creek totaling approximately 9.8 miles. There are 150 miles of 

occupied westslope cutthroat habitat within the Malheur National Forest, and the area within the 

Magone Project represents approximately 6.5 percent of available habitat on the Forest. 

Westslope cutthroat have not been captured within East Fork Beech Creek (Reach 7) since 1993 

when the previous R6 stream survey was conducted. Fish distribution surveys conducted in 2014 

did not capture any westslope cutthroat.

Figure 52. Westslope cutthroat distributions within the Magone project planning area.
Magone Project

320 of 632

Figure 53. Westslope cutthroat distribution within the John Day subbasin (John Day Subbasin 

Plan 2005). Circle indicates project planning area.

Columbia Spotted Frog – Affected Environment

The Columbia spotted frog is a Region 6 sensitive species. Spotted frogs are highly aquatic and 

are rarely found far from permanent water. They are most commonly associated with perennial 

streams, and less commonly in lakes, ponds, springs, and marshes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

321 of 632

During winter, spotted frogs burrow into banks adjacent to streams, ponds, and springs. Breeding 

occurs in the spring varying with elevation. In the Columbia Basin of Washington, breeding 

occurs March to April in lower elevations, and May to June in the higher elevations. Breeding 

habitat is usually found in quiet waters along streams or shallow water in ponds. Breeding may 

also occur in flooded areas adjacent to streams and ponds. Adults may disperse overland in the 

spring and summer after breeding.

Spotted frogs may be considered to occupy a similar range as redband trout on the Forest due to 

their predominantly stream-oriented habitat use. Spotted frogs would thus occupy approximately 

42.7 miles of habitat within the project planning area, which represents approximately 3.9 

percent of available habitat on the Malheur National Forest. The project planning area is situated

centrally within available habitat on the Forest.

Population Status – This species occurs in extreme southeastern Alaska, southwestern Yukon, 

northern British Columbia, and western Alberta south through Washington east of the Cascades, 

eastern Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana to Nevada (disjunct, Mary’s, Reese, and Owyhee 

river systems), southwestern Idaho (disjunct), Utah (disjunct, Wasatch Mountains and west 

desert), and western and north-central (disjunct) Wyoming. Disjunct populations occur on 

isolated mountains and in arid-land springs. In Oregon, Columbia spotted frogs appear to be 

widely distributed east of the Cascade Mountains.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists livestock grazing and introduction of nonnative fish 

(salmonids and bass) as primary threats to the Great Basin population of Columbia spotted frogs 

(66 FR 1295).

Habitat in the Analysis Area – The spotted frog is considered present in all subbasins on the 

Malheur National Forest, including the Magone aquatic analysis area. It is assumed this species 

is widely distributed in the Upper John Day River Subbasin. Limited habitat surveys have been 

conducted specifically for spotted frogs; however, habitat probably exists along low gradient 

perennial streams. Fish surveys record incidental sightings of frogs but most do not differentiate 

species.

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences

3.8.2.1 Issues Addressed and Indicators for Assessing Effects

The measurement indicators (riparian management objectives (RMOs) for pool frequency, large 

woody debris (LWD), sediment, temperature, and width-to-depth ratio ) detailed in Table 71 and 

described above, are used for assessing the effects to aquatic species and habitat in the Magone 

project planning area.

3.8.2.2 Methodology

Information for the aquatic analysis was compiled from multiple sources. Region 6 (R6) stream 

survey reports provided existing condition data. Table 70 lists the most recent stream surveys and 

data for the six primary aquatic habitat elements for 13 streams in the analysis area. The Aquatic 

Resources Report – Appendix A displays stream survey data for the six primary habitat 

indicators and several other habitat metrics for surveys completed prior to and during 2014. 

Additionally, all Category 1 streams within the project planning area were walked by the project 

fish biologist.
Magone Project

322 of 632

The existing condition for potential fish-bearing streams that have not been surveyed but walked 

by the fish biologist were evaluated qualitatively, based on principles of applied fisheries and 

watershed science, professional judgment, and knowledge of the area. Other sources of 

information considered for this report include field trips to perennial portions of fish-bearing 

streams within the project planning area, the Forest GIS spatial and tabular data, Forest water 

temperature monitoring data, streamnet.org, discussions with Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife personnel from the John Day Watershed District, and discussions with personnel from 

the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. Analysis for aquatic 

habitat was conducted by analyzing the impacts of the action for each alternative on the six 

aquatic habitat elements.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The project planning area lies within the Beech Creek Watershed of the Upper John Day River 

Subbasin. The analysis area encompasses all known and potential habitats for threatened, 

endangered, Region 6 sensitive species and management indicator species that may be affected 

by the Magone Project. Based on topography, drainage patterns and the effects analysis, the 

Aquatic Analysis area (action area) includes the following streams and their tributaries: East 

Fork Beech Creek, Clear Creek, Thompson Creek, Lake Creek, Tinker Creek, and Grub Creek. 

Measurable effects from proposed activities are unlikely to extend downstream of this area. The 

analysis area for aquatic species and the cumulative effects boundary are the same as used for 

aquatic habitat.

Effects timeframes for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects varies by habitat element. 

Measureable improvements in pool frequency, large woody debris, width-to-depth ratios, and 

bank stability are expected to occur immediately following habitat restoration activities 

identified in foreseeable actions related to aquatic restoration, and persist in the long-term (35

years or more).

A short-term increase (one to five years) in fine sediment and embeddedness may occur at and 

immediately downstream of aquatic habitat restoration treatment sites, but treatments would lead 

to a long-term reduction (five years or more) in fine sediment levels and therefore would have 

beneficial impacts to aquatic habitat and fish.

Stream shading may be reduced in the short-term (5 to 10 years) at habitat restoration sites 

immediately following treatment, but is expected to return to baseline levels after that period. 

Measurable improvements in stream shading are expected to occur in the long-term (beyond 10 

years) once the synergistic benefits of the proposed action and cumulative effects of 

improvements in passive riparian management are realized. Measureable increases in water 

temperature associated with the minor short-term reductions in stream shading are not 

anticipated to occur due to adherence to PDCs within the Aquatic Restoration EA/ARBO II, and 

by obtaining instream wood from upland sources where feasible. Restoration activities would 

have long-term beneficial impacts to aquatic habitat and fish.

Measurable improvements in water temperature are expected to occur in the long term beginning 

approximately 10 years after treatments, particularly in East Fork Beech Creek, once water 

storage, sediment transfer, riparian hardwood communities, and floodplain connectivity within 

McClellan Creek, Clear Creek, Thompson Creek and Tinker Creek are restored. Such 

improvements are expected to extend downstream of the project planning area to approximately 

the confluence of Beech Creek and possibly downstream into other aquatic restoration work 

occurring on Beech Creek private lands. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

323 of 632

Reduced peak flows and increased base flows associated with riparian and upland treatments are 

anticipated to contribute to reductions in water temperature in the long-term as well. Increases in 

air temperature and reductions in snow pack (with associated increases in stream temperatures) 

described in some global climate change projections may offset expected improvements in 

stream temperatures resulting from the proposed action. However, the expected improvements in 

riparian vegetation and hydrological processes (water conveyance and storage) is expected to 

provide the resiliency required to prevent further water temperature warming than currently 

exists even with projected climate scenarios.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

All past activities, past wildfires, present activities, foreseeable activities, and the current project 

proposal have been considered for their cumulative effects on aquatic habitat and associated 

aquatic species. Effects are addressed for all aquatic species considered in this analysis together 

due to the insignificant differences between the species’ niches. The following discussion 

focuses on the past, ongoing, and foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or 

negative effects. The effects determination and rationale by species and alternative are discussed 

in the effects section and summarized in Table 101Table 101. The analysis area for aquatic 

species and the cumulative effects boundary are the same as used for aquatic habitat.

During the past 100 years, homesteading, water diversions, livestock grazing, mining, timber 

harvest activities, stream dewatering, firewood cutting, fire suppression, road construction, road 

density, lack of road maintenance, and general road use on public and private lands have 

contributed to landscape changes that may have affected processes such as overland flows, 

channel development, and riparian and fish habitat within the drainages associated with this 

project. Legacy effects from past management activities may continue to impact aquatic habitat 

in the project planning area and downstream of the project planning area. The magnitude and 

timing of these potential impacts are unpredictable, but they would have short-term (one to three

years) to long-term (50+ years) negative effects on fisheries habitat in this watershed.

There has been a marked shift in the last 10 years to more intermediate harvest and greater 

crown retention. Since the PACFISH amendment (1995) to the Malheur Forest Plan, RHCAs are 

left intact, thus limiting the effects to riparian habitat and stream channels. Recent projects on the 

Forest incorporate watershed restoration activities that include increasing the size of culverts and 

removal of fish passage barriers, restoring streams to their historical channel alignment, 

installing fish screens to prevent entrainment, implementing best management practices, and 

decommissioning roads to decrease erosion and sediment delivery to streams.

The no action alternative would permit a natural, slow, partial recovery from effects of past 

mining, grazing, riparian road construction, and riparian harvest. This recovery would occur as 

riparian trees grow larger, as large wood falls into the streams, as channel types change to more 

stable and narrow configurations, as sediment from past actions is washed out, and as riparian 

shrubs and sedge communities recover and contribute to more stable stream banks. Recovery 

would be only partial because some ongoing impacts from some existing roads would not permit 

full recovery.

Stream reach vegetation on East Fork Beech Creek has improved due to riparian fencing, 

changes in livestock management, and riparian planting. Additionally, current grazing 

management practices within the project planning area have allowed stream reaches to improve 

and develop an upward trend. However, legacy timber harvest, adjacent roads, and stream 

crossings within the project planning area resulted in such degraded stream conditions that the 
Magone Project

324 of 632

East Fork Beech Creek does not have the competency to recover from under current climatic 

conditions.

Under the action alternatives, the hazard of severe crown fire is lower than under the no action 

alternative, as described in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report and section.

The Camp Lick Project is a watershed restoration project currently in the early planning stages 

and would be of a similar scale and include similar types of actions as the Magone Project; the 

effects to aquatic habitat and species would likewise be similar.

Foreseeable Aquatic Restoration Actions in conjunction with Magone Project Actions 

Effects on the Six Primary Habitat Elements

Foreseeable aquatic restoration activities are summarized within Table 18. The effects of these 

aquatic restoration actions on the six primary habitat elements are summarized below and 

included in cumulative effects.

Pool Frequency

Aquatic habitat restoration activities proposed for the Magone project planning area may result 

in short-term cumulative effects because the proposed activities would likely result in short-term 

increases in fine sediment that may reduce pool frequency within localized areas. The short-term 

sediment increases may add to adverse effects because many streams in the analysis area 

presently do not meet objectives for pool frequency and associated impacts to aquatic habitat and 

salmonids. However, the proposed aquatic habitat restoration activities would address current 

altered fine sediment transport processes and the lack of hydrological features that support pool 

formation, leading to a long-term reduction in fine sediment levels and an increase in pool 

frequency. Aquatic habitat restoration activities would therefore have beneficial impacts to 

aquatic habitat and fish in the long-term. (See spatial and temporal context effects discussion 

above.)

Stream Shading and Water Temperature

Aquatic habitat restoration activities proposed for the Magone project planning area may result 

in short-term cumulative effects because the proposed activities would likely result in short-term 

decreases in stream shade. The short-term decrease may add to adverse effects because many 

streams in the analysis area presently do not meet objectives for water temperature and 

associated impacts to aquatic habitat and salmonids. However, the proposed aquatic habitat 

restoration activities would address the current riparian hardwood absence from localized stream 

reaches and reconnect floodplains through elevating water tables and invigorating riparian 

hardwood growth, leading to a long-term increase in stream shade levels and cool water storage 

resulting in improved water temperatures. Aquatic habitat restoration activities would therefore 

have beneficial impacts to aquatic habitat and fish. (See spatial and temporal context effects 

discussion above.)

Large Woody Debris

Aquatic habitat restoration activities proposed for the Magone project planning area may result 

in short-term cumulative effects because the proposed activities would likely result in short-term 

and long-term increases in large woody debris (LWD). The short-term increases would benefit 

many streams in the analysis area that presently do not meet objectives for LWD and associated 

impacts to aquatic habitat and salmonids. The proposed aquatic habitat restoration activities 

would address the current lack of LWD and the lack of hydrological features that support water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

325 of 632

storage, leading to a long-term increase in stocking levels of LWD for future recruitment. 

Aquatic habitat restoration activities would therefore have beneficial impacts to aquatic habitat 

and fish. (See spatial and temporal context effects discussion above.)

Fine Sediment and Embeddedness

Aquatic habitat restoration activities proposed for the Magone project planning area may result 

in short-term cumulative effects because the proposed activities would likely result in short-term 

increases in fine sediment. The short-term sediment increases may add to adverse effects because 

many streams in the analysis area presently do not meet objectives for embeddedness and fine 

sediment and associated impacts to aquatic habitat and salmonids. However, the proposed 

aquatic habitat restoration activities would address current excessive fine sediment input and 

lack of hydrological features that support fine sediment deposition, leading to a long-term 

reduction in fine sediment levels. Aquatic habitat restoration activities would therefore have 

beneficial impacts to aquatic habitat and fish. (See spatial and temporal context effects 

discussion above.)

Bank Stability and Width to Depth

Aquatic habitat restoration activities proposed for the Magone project planning area may result 

in short-term cumulative effects because the proposed activities would likely result in short-term 

increases in bank instability. The short-term increases would not result in an adverse effect to 

bank stability because the majority of streams meet bank stability criteria. Additionally, these 

banks are artificial in that they are cobble-dominated as a result of altered hydrology and 

sediment transport processes. Aquatic restoration activities may add to adverse effects related to 

width-to-depth ratios because many streams in the analysis area presently do not meet objectives 

for width-to-depth ratios and associated impacts to aquatic habitat and salmonids. However, the 

proposed aquatic habitat restoration activities would address current width-to-depth ratios and 

lack of the hydrological features that support fine sediment deposition (streambank building 

characteristics) and reduce streambank sheer stress, leading to a long-term reduction in fine 

sediment levels and width-to-depth ratios, and an increase in floodplain connectivity. Aquatic 

habitat restoration activities would therefore have beneficial impacts to aquatic habitat and fish. 

(See spatial and temporal context effects discussion above.)

Project design criteria (PDCs) for aquatic restoration activities include those identified in the 

Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO II) (USDI FWS 2013a) and those within the 

Malheur National Forest Aquatic Restoration Environmental Analysis (USDA Forest Service 

2014a). The ARBO PDCs and Aquatic Restoration EA PDCs specific to this project would be 

implemented as described in the ARBO and the Aquatic Restoration EA. In addition, any 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms & Conditions (RPMs and T&Cs) from Endangered 

Species Act section 7 consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service are non-discretionary and must be implemented as part of the Magone Project 

to minimize the amount or extent of incidental take of steelhead. The RPMs and T&Cs are 

included in FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria. 

The PDCs, RPMs, and T&Cs would reduce the probability and magnitude of this short-term risk. 

After about 2 years, effects of these activities are beneficial for water quality and fish habitat, 

including reduced sediment yield from the road prism.

The 2005 Final Rule for Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle 

Use (Travel Management Rule) requires national forests and ranger districts to designate those 

roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. The Malheur National Forest is not 
Magone Project

326 of 632

undertaking this process at this time. However, implementation in the future could restrict 

motorized travel to designated routes and restrict motorized cross-country travel. Implementation 

of this Rule on the Forest would reduce negative impacts to aquatic species and habitat 

associated with motorized travel within RHCAs.

Treatment of invasive plant infestations are authorized in the Malheur National Forest SiteSpecific Invasive Plants Treatment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2015b). Future 

treatment of these infestations would cumulatively result in fewer invasive plants and thus less 

impact to riparian areas and aquatic habitats, especially related to spotted knapweed infestations 

on East Fork Beech Creek.

The effects of other foreseeable activities described above on aquatic species are negligible with 

the exception of irrigation withdrawals that are potential temperature concerns. The effects of 

use and maintenance of roads that are not decommissioned would remain the same as at present.

3.8.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 1, there would be no management activities associated with timber harvest, 

fuels treatments, and recreation in the project planning area; however, there would be cumulative 

effects as described below. Roads would not be treated in this alternative, which would allow 

several miles of roads to continue acting as potential sediment sources, impeding and 

intercepting overland water flow and ground water seepage. Undersized culverts would continue 

to alter sediment transfer regimes within the East Fork Beech Creek and Grub Creek 

subwatersheds and act as sediment sinks retarding streambank and point bar formation. 

Conveyance of snowmelt and water across the project planning area would continue at an 

expedited rate within streams due to channel straightening and floodplain disconnection. 

Meadows with incised channels would continue to lose water storage capacity resulting in earlier 

and more frequent streambed drying events and less water storage capacity.

The hazard of a severe crown fire would be higher, especially for those areas surrounding 

Magone Lake and within the Nipple Butte IRA, as described in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality 

Report and section. Most of the forested stands in the project planning area are identified as 

moderate to high risk for stocking-induced mortality and related infestation of pests or disease. 

Without silviculture treatment or the controlled re-introduction of fire into the project planning 

area, current stand conditions would worsen and increase the chance of a stand replacement fire. 

A stand replacement wildfire would result in the loss of shading along stream channels, loss of 

instream wood, and both short-term (3 to 5 years) and long-term (10 to 50 years) loss of 

streamside vegetation. This could adversely affect fish habitat. Water temperatures would 

increase, for perhaps one to a few decades, depending on riparian shrub and tree recovery. 

Sediment from upland sources could increase for one to five years following a fire. 

Sediment from channel sources could increase due to higher peak flows and loss of stabilizing 

trees and shrubs. However, recovery of bank stabilizing herbaceous and shrubby vegetation 

would probably limit increased sediment from channel sources to less than five years. Severe fire 

would also supply an extended pulse of woody debris to streams, which would gradually decay 

over decades. In addition, localized extirpation of these fish could occur as the result of severe 

wildfires (Rinne 1996).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

327 of 632

As noted by Dunham et al. (2003), the effects of wildfires depend on a variety of factors 

including their timing, location, area, extent, and intensity. Other factors include the 

characteristics of the ecosystems and the species effected, along with other indirect physical and 

ecological linkages. While such events can cause short-term negative effects, such as those listed 

below, over long time periods the resulting habitat conditions may be more productive then in 

areas where natural disturbance has been suppressed (Dunham et al. 2003). Wildfires can have a 

number of detrimental effects to stream channels such as decreasing stream channel stability, 

increasing discharge and affecting discharge variability, altering LWD delivery and storage, 

increasing nutrient availability, increasing sediment delivery and transport, increasing solar 

radiation, and altering water temperature regimes (Dunham et al. 2003). In cases where natural 

stream processes are already impaired (Table 70), the recovery of the stream ecosystem from the 

effects of severe wildfire is likely to be slower, more sporadic, and potentially incomplete 

(Minshall 2003).

Recreational opportunities related to hiking, biking, and fishing within the Magone Lake 

recreation area would remain the same. Public use of the existing facilities is likely to increase in 

the future. The increase in recreational use may contribute to degradation of shoreline vegetation 

that stabilizes the shoreline and provides large woody debris and shade.

Fish habitat improvement (fish cribs and fish sticks) in Magone Lake would not occur under the 

no action alternative. Existing woody debris within the lake would continue to decay and break 

down, resulting in less aquatic habitat for game fish, forage fish, aquatic macro invertebrates and 

waterfowl. Recruitment of wood into the lake would remain sporadic and limited in extent due to 

lack of sufficient trees to supplement existing wood. Carrying capacity of existing fish 

populations and growth rates would remain stagnant with little opportunity for increase. The 

number of large size fish would remain a small fraction of the population as a whole without 

rigorous supplementation (i.e., stocking of large fish).

Direct and Indirect Effects – Pool Frequency

Alternative 1 would maintain the current levels of pool habitat, which are below objectives for 

streams in the analysis area (Table 70) and limit important habitat for salmonids, especially for 

rearing juveniles and adults migrating prior to spawning.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Water Temperature and Stream Shading

Alternative 1 would maintain the current levels of stream shading, with perhaps a slow increase 

as trees in previously logged riparian areas continue to grow at a retarded rate due to overstocked 

stands. Current water temperatures exceed or are at maximum threshold objectives for water 

temperature in nearly all streams in the analysis area (Table 70). Mean maximum water 

temperatures are at the maximum threshold range for westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, 

and juvenile steelhead that are all present in the aquatic analysis area during the summer months.

Water temperatures in most streams within the aquatic analysis area would likely not change 

over the short-term due in part to the influence of riparian shrub browse on streamside 

vegetation, lowered water tables, limited beaver activity, and disconnected floodplains. Water 

temperatures in EF Beech Creek and tributaries may slowly improve as streamside vegetation 

responds to improvements in range management activities. Recent range monitoring indicates 

that there is an upward trend in channel and stream bank vegetation in the analysis area. 

However, climate change models predict increases in air and water temperatures in the long-term 

(see Watershed Report). Additionally, precipitation within the project planning area is expected 
Magone Project

328 of 632

to change from a snowmelt driven system to a rain-driven system, with no snowpack by the year 

2080.

The hazard from severe wildfire would be the highest under the no action alternative. If a severe 

wildfire does occur, stream temperatures would likely increase due to a large-scale decrease in 

stream shading; in particular for the riparian areas within the Nipple Butte IRA and East Fork 

Beech Creek.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Large Woody Debris

Alternative 1 would maintain current levels of large woody debris (LWD). Current levels of 

LWD are below objectives for all streams in the project planning area (Table 70) and is resulting 

in degraded stream conditions including low pool frequencies. Replacement LWD would be 

recruited into stream channels as conifers die and fall into streams, stream scour undermines root 

systems, or as trees fall from windfall or hillslope slide events. Within incised or confined 

channels, wood would likely be suspended over the channel and not become incorporated as 

functional LWD immediately. However, depending on tree species decay rates, over time these 

pieces break up and are incorporated into the floodplain and stream channel. Limbs, treetops, 

and individual pieces of the tree bole become coarse woody debris, which are an integral part of 

debris jams associated with key pieces or LWD. Within 25 years, LWD would likely increase 

over current levels in the project planning area because trees present in the floodplain of most 

stream reaches in the project planning area would fall into streams. However, Forest roads 

located parallel to East Fork Beech Creek, lower reaches of Tinker Creek, Thompson Creek, and 

Magone Lake within RHCAs, decrease the area available for LWD growth and increase the 

removal of trees for firewood. In addition to roads paralleling these streams, under-sized culvert 

crossings effectively eliminate opportunities for conveyance of coarse woody debris downstream 

from source tributaries into East Fork Beech Creek, thus decreasing instream fish habitat 

complexity.

The hazard from severe wildfire would be higher under alternative 1 than alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

as shown in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report and section. If a severe wildfire does occur, a 

pulse of large wood likely would fall in most streams within the project planning area over an 

extended period. The development of large wood along reaches with relatively few trees within 

the floodplain would be postponed for 90+ years until trees grow to suitable size and become 

recruited into the stream.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Embeddedness and Fine Sediment

Alternative 1 would maintain the current levels of fine sediment and embeddedness over much 

of the analysis area. Existing fine sediment levels are likely having adverse impacts to aquatic 

habitat. These adverse effects include reduced spawning success for salmonids, and reduced 

quality of rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids. Fine sediment levels in the streams discussed 

above would slowly decrease as channels stabilize from past grazing and road building. 

However, native surface roads that are contributing fine sediment would stay in their current 

condition.

The hazard from severe wildfire would be higher under alternative 1 than alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

as shown in the Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report. If a severe wildfire does occur, a pulse of 

sediment would likely enter the streams due to soil erosion, channel erosion from increased peak 

flows, or decreased root structure on stream channels.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

329 of 632

Existing native surface roads located in RHCAs would remain. Delivery of fine sediment to 

streams would continue at their current levels. Stronghold populations of salmonids are 

associated with higher elevation forested lands, and the proportion declines with increasing road 

densities (Quigley et al. 1996). The higher the road density, the lower the proportion of 

subwatersheds that support strong populations of key salmonids. Specifically, Quigley et al. 

(1996) showed a strong correlation with road densities of 2 miles per square mile or higher and 

reduction of strong populations of salmonids. Further reductions of strong salmonid populations 

were identified at densities of 3 miles per square mile and 4 miles per square mile or greater. 

Roads in the project planning area that occur within 100 feet of streams, or cross streams, 

commonly impact fish and fish habitat more than roads located in uplands.

A high percentage of roads in RHCAs in the project planning area are native surface roads that 

contribute fine sediment to streams, which adversely affects aquatic habitat. Total open and 

closed road densities are approximately 2.6 miles per square mile. There are approximately 23 

miles of roads in the project planning area that impact streams due to proximity (100 feet or 

less). These conditions reduce availability of subsurface cool water storage and have caused 

streams to become disconnected from floodplains.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Width-to-Depth Ratio

Alternative 1 likely would maintain the current width-to-depth ratios over much of the analysis 

area. Width-to-depth ratios are higher than objectives for 26 reaches of the 28 surveyed stream 

reaches in the analysis area (Table 70) and are likely having adverse effects to aquatic habitat, 

primarily through altered sediment routing and elevated water temperatures. Adjacent roads are 

influencing the channel morphology of several of these streams by conveying water off adjoining 

hillslopes at elevated rates and altering sediment transport through modification of tributary 

alluvial fans. Livestock -329to Malheur Forest Plan standards on allotments within the analysis 

area and natural LWD recruitment should maintain or slowly improve width-to-depth ratios of 

these streams.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Bank Stability

Alternative 1 would maintain the current levels of bank stability. Bank stability is generally high 

in the analysis area with the exception of specific locations where bank instability is occurring 

due to altered hydrological processes. Altered hydrology can result in high streambank stability 

(as observed within East Fork Beech Creek), and lack of instream complexity and roughness has 

resulted in banks that are composed primarily of large cobble due to flushing flows preventing 

deposition of fine material. Range allotment monitoring in allotments within the analysis area 

indicates that bank stability is on an upward trend. This trend is expected to continue under 

current grazing levels.

Cumulative Effects – No Action

Under the no action alternative, streams would continue functioning in a degraded state, 

negatively affecting aquatic species habitat within the project planning area and downstream 

reaches. Recovery of localized areas due to changes in management would continue. 

However, degraded conditions related to altered sediment transport processes beyond the control 

of management would continue. The risk of severe wildfire would continue and wildlife habitat 

in upland areas would continue to decline in vegetative structure, resulting in a decrease of 

mountain mahogany and bitter brush within the project planning area. 
Magone Project

330 of 632

In the long-term, aquatic restoration activities would improve riparian condition and all six 

primary habitat elements within the project planning area; however, the activities may have 

short-term negative and meaningfully measurable effects as described above. (See discussion of 

aquatic restoration effects Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative 

Effects Analysis above and Table 97 below.) Road and crossing improvements related to haul 

would not occur in this alternative, which would allow several miles of roads to continue acting 

as potential sediment sources, impeding and intercepting overland water flow, sediment 

transport, and ground water seepage. Temporary road construction for haul would not occur and 

therefore effects related to fine sediment would not occur under the no action alternative. The 

threat of severe wildfire within the project planning area and its potential impacts on aquatic 

organisms would increase into the future under the no action alternative. Recreational 

opportunities within the Magone Lake area would remain as they are with limited hiking and 

biking opportunities. Effects related to new trail stream crossings and trail construction within 

100 feet of RHCAs would not occur under the no action alternative. Boating facilities would 

remain minimal with an expected increase in recreational use. Pedestrian traffic related to several 

activities occurring within a small localized area adjacent to Magone Lake would continue to 

impact shoreline vegetation.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Aquatic Species

Steelhead Determinations:

 Mid-Columbia Summer Steelhead ESA Determination (T): No Effect (NE).

 Mid-Columbia Summer Steelhead Sensitive Species Determination (S): No Impact (NI).

 Steelhead Management Indicator Species Determination (MIS): No Impact to Viability.

 Steelhead Designated Critical Habitat ESA Determination (D): No Effect (NE).

Redband Trout Determinations:

 Interior Redband Trout Sensitive Species Determination (S): No Impact (NI).

 Redband Trout Management Indicator Species Determination (MIS): No Impact to 

Viability.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Determinations:

 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Sensitive Species Determination (S): No Impact (NI).

 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Management Indicator Species Determination (MIS): No 

Impact to Viability.

Columbia Spotted Frog Determination:

 Columbia Spotted Frog Sensitive Species Determination (S): No Impact (NI).

Rationale:

The following rationale is specific for actions proposed within the scope of this FEIS without the 

separate aquatic restoration actions covered under the Malheur National Forest Aquatic 

Restoration Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice (USDA Forest Service 2014b). With 

implementation of aquatic restoration actions, a short-term adverse effect is expected for MCR 

steelhead critical habitat; however, a long-term beneficial effect to critical habitat is expected.

Habitat for MCR steelhead, redband trout, Westslope cutthroat trout, Columbia spotted frog, and 

western ridged mussel in the aquatic analysis area is currently in a degraded state. High water 

temperatures, high fine sediment levels, low LWD levels, and loss of floodplain connectivity 

from past land management practices have reduced the habitat capability of streams in the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

331 of 632

aquatic analysis area to support these species, and have limited recovery of degraded area. Loss 

of cold-water storage in meadows and stream networks has increased peak flows, reduced 

baseflows, and elevated water temperatures toward the upper end of thermal limits for 

salmonids. Legacy road and riprap in East Fork Beech Creek and associated tributaries and loss 

of floodplain and alluvial fan connectivity has resulted in high stream energy that prevents 

smaller streambed substrates from depositing, resulting in a plane bed stream channel dominated 

by cobble. This reduces the available spawning sites for steelhead, redband, and Westslope 

cutthroat trout. 

The hazard from severe wildfire would be higher under this alternative than alternatives 2, 3, and 

4. If a severe wildfire does occur, the lack of aquatic habitat connectivity may prevent fish from 

recolonizing disconnected streams after fire-related local extirpation (Rinne 1996).

Alternative 1 proposes no new activities. A slow and partial recovery of some habitat conditions 

would occur as a result of passive improvements in overall land management. If alternative 1 is 

selected, it is still a decision to do something. This would be choosing to allow habitat conditions 

that led to reduced viability of these species to continue having negative effects, especially 

within the upland areas.

Cumulative Effects

Effects of Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions for All Alternatives – Potential 

effects from alternative 1 would be cumulative with effects from non-federal activities within the 

project planning area and activities within the aquatic analysis area on federal, state, and private 

lands. Aside from this project, other non-restoration activities that may contribute to cumulative 

effects include: timber harvest activities, wildfires, livestock grazing, road use, flood 

irrigation/water diversion, and vegetation alteration. 

The aquatic restoration actions covered under the Aquatic Restoration Decision would alleviate 

degraded conditions within RHCAs but would have short-term adverse effects to several of the 

primary habitat elements, resulting in long-term benefits. (See discussion of aquatic restoration 

effects Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis above.)

The aquatic restoration activities would have a beneficial effect for all aquatic species listed 

above but the long-term benefit of these activities would not be realized to the extent that they 

could be under the no action alternative. Severe wildfire would continue to be a threat and 

upland forest health would continue to decline. Whilethe line between riparian and uplands is 

often blurred, many of the conditions observed within riparian areas are a function of the 

condition within the uplands and how water and sediment is conveyed across the landscape. 

Riparian health and upland health are integrally connected between both physical and biological 

components. Because of this relationship, only treating areas within the RHCA (under Aquatic 

Restoration Decision activities) may limit the extent and scope of recovery for the six primary 

habitat elements related to fish habitat. Processes related to the connectivity of upland, riparian, 

hydrology, sediment transport and geomorphology within the Magone project planning area 

would remain unbalanced with disturbance-driven processes critical for creating quality fish 

habitat in particular being minimal. (See discussion of aquatic restoration effects Past, Present, 

and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis above and Table 97 below.)

The 2005 Final Rule for Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle 

Use (Travel Management Rule) requires national forests and ranger districts to designate those 

roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. The Malheur National Forest is not 

undertaking this process at this time. However, implementation in the future could restrict 
Magone Project

332 of 632

motorized travel to designated routes and restrict motorized cross-country travel. Implementation 

of this Rule on the Forest would reduce negative impacts to aquatic species and habitat 

associated with motorized travel within RHCAs.

Treatment of invasive plant infestations are authorized in the Malheur National Forest SiteSpecific Invasive Plants Treatment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2015b). Future 

treatment of these infestations would cumulatively result in fewer invasive plants and thus less 

impact to riparian areas and aquatic habitats.

3.8.2.4 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures

The following project design criteria and mitigation measures are included in FEIS Appendix C

– Project Design Criteria. These measures have been found to be highly effective at minimizing 

any negative effects of projects similar to the Magone Project on TES species and their habitats.

 General Water Drafting Guidance for Road Maintenance and Non-emergency Fire Use 

for Watersheds with Anadromous Fish in the Blue Mountain Tri-Forest Area.

 National Marine Fisheries Service Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria for Pump Intakes.

 Relevant project implementation criteria for road maintenance activities as included in 

the 2010 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and MagnusonStevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Malheur National Forest Road 

Maintenance Activities 2010–2015.

 Best management practices selected for project implementation.

 Magone Project design criteria (PDCs) relevant to aquatics.

 Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO II)(USDI FWS 2013a) and Malheur 

National Forest Aquatic Restoration Decision PDCs.

 Central Oregon Trail Alliance (COTA) Trail standards.

Proposed Action Project Elements

For the purposes of this analysis, the component parts of the proposed action are organized into 

the following project elements shown below:

 Timber felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling)

 Fuels treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling and burning, and biomass removal)

 Temporary roads and landings

 Stream crossings

 Road decommissioning and road closures

 Road maintenance and use (includes haul and water drafting)

 Recreational trails and interpretive signage

 North side Magone Lake day use area

 Recreational boat docks and fishing dock installation

 Magone Lake fish habitat improvement (fish sticks and fish cribs)

Descriptions and tables regarding proximity of project elements to aquatic resources are stated in 

only the first of the six primary habitat elements below (pool frequency) for brevity. The analysis 

of effect for the other five primary habitat elements are referenced in the summary tables 

included under pool frequency for the project element metrics.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

333 of 632

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects – Pool Frequency

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – Timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under alternative 2, 

therefore no meaningfully measureable effects to pool frequency are expected.

Approximately 18 acres of conifer reduction within adjoining upland aspen stands outside of 

RHCAs would occur in alternative 2. Aspen restoration activities involve non-commercial 

thinning of conifers extending up to 100 feet outside of 7 upland aspen stands to encourage

expansion of the stands through a reduction in competition for light and water. Smaller diameter 

trees and slash from larger trees would be cut, handpiled and burned, or left on the ground to 

provide a protective barrier to ungulate grazing. Fences would also be constructed around aspen 

stands to reduce livestock grazing pressure.

Aspen restoration treatments would not likely result in adverse impacts to existing and future 

pool habitat due to the small scale of treatments and location within upland sites. The reduction 

in stocking densities following treatments would increase new growth of aspen and the vigor of 

larger aspen in the overstory.

Felling of danger trees for human safety along haul routes in RHCAs has the potential to reduce 

the supply of LWD to stream channels and therefore pool habitat. Under PACFISH, trees may be 

felled in RHCAs when they pose a safety risk (PACFISH Standard RA-2). Danger trees felled 

within or into RHCAs would be felled into the stream where feasible or otherwise left within the 

RHCA. Felling of trees for road construction also has the potential to reduce the supply of LWD 

to stream channels and therefore pool habitat; however, these trees would be treated in the same 

manner as danger trees as described above and all road construction within RHCAs would occur 

on existing road beds, requiring minimal tree removal to bring roads to a useable state. Where 

trees are felled into the stream, they may create pools.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The majority of fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs and would have 

beneficial effects to fisheries resources by reducing surface fuels, thinning trees, stimulating 

growth of aspen and other hardwoods, and increasing the canopy base height. Biomass removal, 

piling and burning, and post and pole removal would not occur within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs 

under alternative 2.

Most prescribed burning would mimic low intensity fires that create a mosaic pattern of burned 

and unburned landscape that are characteristic of natural burning patterns that tend to occur in 

riparian areas.

Low intensity underburning would be scheduled to occur after any planned mechanical 

treatments are completed. Initial underburning would typically occur in the spring when duff and 

large logs are still moist, so that only a portion of the buildup of ground fuels is consumed by the 

first burn. Subsequent burns would occur under dryer, fall-like conditions. Fireline construction 

is not anticipated in RHCAs; however, firelines would be rehabilitated after use if construction 

were deemed necessary. Using these techniques, mortality of understory trees would occur in 

burned patches, but few overstory trees would be killed. Methods would be implemented as 

described in the fuels section to protect large trees, prevent fire intensities that would be high 

enough to consume trees or downed wood large enough to function as LWD in stream channels, 

and retain at least 90 percent of the shrub and tree shade directly shading perennial streams.
Magone Project

334 of 632

Burning activities would not result in delivery of fine sediment to stream channels sufficient to 

result in a meaningfully measureable reduction of pool habitat. The reduction in stocking 

densities following burning activities would also increase the vigor of larger trees in the 

overstory for future LWD to create pools; this effect would be positive and meaningfully 

measureable.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

2. Limiting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing 

and future pool habitat. Approximately 0.8 miles of temporary road construction are proposed 

within 100 feet of Category 4 RHCAs (Table 77). Most temporary roads would have a 

discountable effect to fisheries resources due to one or more of the following: road location 

would 1) be outside of RHCAs, 2) be on Category 4 RHCAs more than 100 feet from stream 

channels, 3) be within 100 feet from stream channels but on existing road beds requiring 

minimal disturbance to bring to a useable state, and 4) cross Category 4 streams over 0.18 miles 

upstream of fish-bearing streams. No temporary road construction is proposed within in MCR 

steelhead critical habitat or Category 1 and 2 RHCAs within alternative 2.

Temporary or closed to open road entire segment lengths that may impact aquatic species habitat 

include the following:

 5 temporary road crossings of Category 4 RHCAs occur within alternative 2.

 2 crossings of native surface roads occur within alternative 2 on Tinker Creek and East 

Fork Beech Creek in MCR steelhead critical habitat. 

 4 crossings on native surface roads within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs in alternative 2

 45 crossings of category 4 RHCAs 

With implementation of stream crossing PDCs (see log haul PDCs in FEIS Appendix C – Project 

Design Criteria), construction of these temporary roads would have a negative but not 

meaningfully measureable effect for pool frequency. Stream crossings within MCR steelhead 

critical habitat and RHCA categories are summarized by road surface type in Table 74 below. 

Effects related to pool frequency for stream crossing improvements (not culvert replacement) are 

discussed below. Effects on sediment and pool frequency related to culvert replacement or 

removal are discussed under foreseeable aquatic restoration actions in conjunction with Magone 

project actions effects on the six primary habitat elements above.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – There are seven stream crossings on MCR steelhead 

critical habitat; two crossings are on asphalt, three are on crushed aggregate, and two are on 

native surface (Table 75). Within Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs in the project planning area there 

are a total of 12 crossings on asphalt, 25 on crushed aggregate, and 45 on native surface. Road 

status for the stream crossings within each RHCA category for alternative 2 are summarized 

inTable 75. Crossings on native surface roads may contribute sediment to stream channels but 

with implementation of BMPs and PDCs related to rocking of road crossings and appropriate 

drainage features, a reduction in pool frequency due to sediment inputs is not likely to occur.

There is a short-term risk of mobilizing and/or delivering sediment to streams during and shortly 

after stream crossing improvement activities. Bare soil is prone to erosion and can result in fine 

sediment entering stream channels and resultant increases in turbidity. Habitat impacts are likely 

to include areas of exposed streambank in isolated locations primarily in the vicinity of stream 

crossings. Exposed areas and other disturbances are likely to result in a slight increase in 

turbidity for a short distance downstream during rainstorms or runoff events. However, given 

background levels of turbidity during runoff events it would be difficult to distinguish between 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

335 of 632

turbidity resulting from this project activity and background turbidity. An unknown amount of 

sediment would be mobilized into streams. Timing of work outside of the wet season and 

adherence to all PDCs and BMPs would further limit fine sediment delivery. A slight increase in 

fine sediment deposition within pools for a short distance downstream of exposed and disturbed 

areas is also likely to occur. Because of the small amount of fine sediment expected and the 

vegetated buffer between the road prism and stream, a negative but not meaningfully measurable 

effect is expected for pool frequency. 

Stream crossing improvement activities (not culvert replacement) would also have a positive but 

not meaningfully measurable effect on pool frequency due to a lasting but minor decrease in fine 

sediment delivery to streams as a result of installing the appropriate drainage features and road 

surface within RHCAs and stream crossings.

Stream crossings on native surface roads may contribute sediment to stream channels resulting in 

a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect for fine sediment and embeddedness. Designs 

would consider utilizing dips, outsloping, insloping with a ditch-relief culvert, and/or erosion 

control on vegetative buffers (slash from roadside brushing, revegetation, coir logs22, etc.) in 

addition to rocking. Implementation of BMPs and PDCs related to these crossings and 

appropriate drainage features would result in a beneficial effect that is not meaningfully 

measurable for pool frequency.

Table 74. Alternative 2 stream crossings by road surface type, MCR steelhead critical habitat

MCR steelhead 

critical habitat

Asphalt Crushed aggregate/gravel Native surface Temporary

Streams crossed 2 streams

Grub Creek,

Tinker Creek

3 streams: EF Beech Creek,

Tinker Creek, Clear Creek

2 streams: Tinker 

Creek, EF Beech 

Creek

0

Table 75. Alternative 2 haul route road surface, route designation, and stream crossings within 

RHCA category

RHCA category Asphalt Crushed 

aggregate/gravel

Native surface Temporary

Category 1 3 crossings

(open FS and 

County roads)

5 crossings

(open FS and 

County roads)

2 crossings

(1 open FS road 

and 1 closed to 

open FS road)

0

Category 2 3 crossings

(open FS and 

County roads)

8 crossings

(open FS and 

County roads)

2 crossings

(2 open FS 

roads and 1 

closed to open 

FS road)

0

Category 4 6 crossings

(open FS and 

County roads)

12 crossings

(open FS and 

County roads)

41 Crossings

(12 open FS 

roads and 29 

closed to open 

FS roads)

5

Total 12 25 45 5

Road Decommissioning and Road Closure – A total of 0.3 miles (1 segment of road) are 

proposed for decommissioning and 1.1 miles of road (4 road segments) are proposed for closure. 

 

22 Coir logs are constructed of biodegradable materials and used for slope and stream bank stabilization.
Magone Project

336 of 632

Another 1.4 miles (2 road segments) of currently open road are proposed for co-designation as a 

trail and ML 1 road. The table below summarizes the miles of road within 100 feet of RHCA 

Categories 1, 2, and 4 proposed for decommissioning or closure.

Approximately 0.32 miles of road decommissioning (Table 76) would occur on 1 segments of 

road within alternative 2. The decommissioned segment within a category 4 RHCAs occurs on

Grub Creek approximately 1 mile above MCR steelhead critical habitat. Road segments that 

would be closed occur on East Fork Beech Creek and unnamed tributaries to East Fork Beech 

Creek, and Clear Creek above MCR steelhead critical habitat.

Table 76. Alternative 2 miles of decommissioned road and closed road segments with riparian 

habitat conservation area (RHCA) categories

Road changes within 100 

feet of RHCA

Category 1 RHCA Category 2 RHCA Category 4 RHCA

Decommissioning 0 0 0.3

Close road 0.03 0.06 0.20

Approximately 0.30 miles of open roads would be closed under alternative 2 within Category 1, 

2, and 4 RHCAs (Table 76). Closed roads are those roads on which motorized traffic has been 

excluded by regulation, barricade blockage, or by obscuring the entrance. A closed road is an 

operating facility on which motorized traffic has been removed (year-long or seasonal) and 

remains on the Forest Road Transportation System. Roads would be closed using gates or signs. 

Closed roads would be left in a stable condition and maintained.

One segment of road would be closed in the Category 1 RHCA (0.02 miles) of Clear Creek 

below the uppermost limit of fish distribution. There is one crossing and road segment identified 

for decommissioning (0.3miles) within Category 4 RHCA of Grub Creek. Closure and 

decommissioning of the road segments would likely reduce delivery of fine sediment to Clear 

Creek and Grub Creek from road use. The reduction in sediment would result in a positive but 

not meaningfully measureable change to pool frequency within TES/MIS species habitat. 

However, the potential for increase in LWD recruitment due to road decommissioning would 

likely result in a positive and meaningfully measurable increase in pool frequency in the long 

term. 

Four segments of roads within 100 feet would also be closed in Category 4 RHCAs totaling 

approximately 0.2 miles; these road segments are on tributaries to fish-bearing portions of Clear 

Creek and East Fork Beech Creek.

One segment of road within 100 feet would be decommissioned in Category 4 RHCAs totaling 

approximately 0.3 miles within Grub Creek.

Closure of these road segments would likely result in a measurable reduction in sediment 

delivery to subject streams, but would not be of sufficient magnitude to result in a meaningfully 

measurable change in pool frequency.

Road closure actions include construction of drainage structures that would be self-maintaining 

after closure. Closure of these roads poses a negligible risk of sedimentation to fish-bearing 

streams because dry land “filtration” lies between the closure sites and any streams, and the 

amount of land disturbed during gate construction is too small and too flat to produce significant 

sediment. However, since these roads would remain part of the forest road system, the benefits 

of the closures would likely not be “permanent.” Because of the low risk of sedimentation from 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

337 of 632

road closures and reduction in vehicle travel resulting in vegetation covering the roadbed, filling 

of pools and a reduction in pool frequency is expected to be positive but not meaningfully 

measurable

Decommissioning activities result in the removal of a road from the permanent transportation 

system of the Forest. The impacts of the road on the environment are eliminated or reduced to an 

acceptable level; the goal is to leave the road in a “hydrologically disconnected” state and 

convert the former roadway to other resource use. Decommissioning includes restoring 

hydrologic function by re-contouring, subsoiling, and scarification of the surface. Watershed 

design criteria identify specific measures for decommissioning.

The National Forest Management Act requires “re-establishing vegetative cover” on 

decommissioned roads within 10 years {16 USC 1608(b)}. To accomplish this, the roadbed 

would be covered with natural materials such as logs, rocks, slash, and brush for a distance 

deemed to prohibit motor vehicle use; re-contouring, ripping/subsoiling, and seeding would 

occur as necessary. Roads decommissioned within RHCAs would also be planted to maintain 

vegetation establishment and growth. Vegetation would be re-established as well via seeding and 

planting of conifers and hardwoods.

Road decommissioning activities would not include removal of trees that could function as LWD 

in stream channels, nor result in delivery of sediment to streams to a degree that pools are filled; 

therefore, reductions in existing pool habitat would be negligible. Trees would be planted in 

decommissioned road segments in RHCAs as part of the decommissioning process. Further, 

LWD would be added to streams adjacent to decommissioned roads (see LWD discussion 

below). Restoration of floodplain connectivity and stream channel complexity through road 

decommissioning, LWD additions, and revegetation activities would restore stream process and 

function, and result in a long-term increase in pool frequency. Restoration of LWD recruitment 

processes on the sides of streams where roads previously occurred would increase and maintain

LWD recruitment, resulting in an increase in pool frequency in the long-term (70 to 100

years).The long-term effects are expected to be positive and meaningfully measurable.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – Approximately 78 road 

segments totaling 77.7 miles are scheduled for haul maintenance within alternative 2. Table 77

summarizes these miles by road activity type and road surface type, within 100 feet of RHCA

categories.

Table 77. Alternative 2 miles of road type and road surface within 100 feet of Category 1, 2, and 4 

riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs)

Road types and surfaces within 100 

feet of RHCA

Category 1 RHCA Category 2 RHCA Category 4 RHCA

Road type

Closed to open Forest Service road 0.35 0.03 2.69

Open County road 1.93 0.25 0.36

Open Forest Service road 4.77 1.65 2.14

Temporary road 0 0 0.72

Total miles 7.05 1.93 5.91

Road surface

Asphalt 0.46 0.65 0.43

Crushed aggregate or gravel 5.96 1 0.26
Magone Project

338 of 632

Road types and surfaces within 100 

feet of RHCA

Category 1 RHCA Category 2 RHCA Category 4 RHCA

Native material 0.59 0.20 4.7

Temporary 0 0 0.37

Improved native material 0 0.09 0.14

Total miles 7.01 1.93 5.91

Table 78. Alternative 2 miles of road type and surface type for haul within 100 feet of Mid-Columbia 

River steelhead critical habitat (2.93 miles total)

Road type Asphalt Crushed aggregate Native material

Closed to open Forest Service road 0 0 0.11

Open County road 0.28 0.82

Open Forest Service road 0.13 1.49 0.10

Temporary road 0 0 0

Total miles 0.41 2.31 0.21

Approximately 15 miles of haul routes and road maintenance would occur in Category 1, 2, and 

4 RHCAs; approximately 7 miles of these activities would occur within 100 feet of Category 1 

RHCA streams (Table 77 and Table 78). Road maintenance would occur on all haul routes. With 

implementation of PDCs, delivery of fine sediment resulting from road maintenance and use 

would not be of sufficient magnitude to result in a meaningfully measureable reduction in pool 

frequency.

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul activities would occur. Water withdrawals 

would be in accordance with the PDCs, including National Marine Fisheries Service guidance. 

Use of these PDCs would insure that water withdrawals do not result in a reduction in pool 

habitat that is meaningfully measurable.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – In alternative 2, 48.8 miles of trail 

are proposed with 40.7 miles of new trail construction. A total of 14.8 miles of these trails are 

within the Nipple Butte IRA (Table 79). The miles of trail within 100 feet of RHCA categories 

and MCR steelhead critical habitat, as well as the number of stream crossings, are summarized in 

Table 80. With implementation of PDCs, BMPs, and ARBO criteria for livestock crossing 

streams on recreational trail crossings within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs, there would be a neutral 

effect to pool frequency from this proposed activity. No interpretive sites or trailheads are within 

Category 1, 2, or 4 RHCAs or within MCR steelhead critical habitat.

Interpretive signage along the north side of Magone Lake may be within 50 feet of the shoreline; 

however, a minimal amount of ground disturbance to place 4x4 posts for mounting signs, with 

no felling of shade trees, would result in no effect to pool frequency.

Table 79. Alternative 2 trails

Proposed trail Miles of trail

Total proposed trails 48.8

New construction 40.7

Within Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area 14.8
Final Environmental Impact Statement

339 of 632

Table 80. Number of stream crossings in RHCAs and Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead critical 

habitat, and miles of trail within 100 feet of these areas

Stream designation Number of stream 

crossings

Miles of trail within 100 feet of RHCA 

and MCR steelhead critical habitat

Category 1 RHCA 7 1.28

Category 2 RHCA 9 0.95

Category 4 RHCA 18 0.96

Mid-Columbia River steelhead 

critical habitat

4 0.41

Day Use Area North side Magone Lake – Approximately 0.2 miles of existing trail on the 

north side of Magone Lake would be improved to meet standards for accessibility. The new day 

use and picnic area would be placed more than 50 feet from the shoreline on a level surface. No 

clearing of trees or vegetation is expected to occur. Some shoreline trampling of vegetation may 

occur by the public accessing the lake. No fishing dock for lake access is proposed for 

alternative 2. These effects are expected to be minimal and no effect to pool frequency is 

expected with implementation of specific PDCs (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria 

and the Watershed Report for recreation development).

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – In alternative 2, 15–20 fish cribs and 70–100 fish sticks in clusters 

of 5 to 7 trees would be placed on the east side of Magone Lake for fish and wildlife habitat 

improvement. Since the fish sticks and cribs are within Magone Lake, which was formed from a 

landslide that blocks connection to any downstream portions of Lake Creek, no meaningfully 

measurable change to pool frequency is expected. Additionally, work for fish cribs and fish 

sticks is proposed to be carried out over snow and frozen conditions reducing any likelihood of 

sediment being added to the lake. Therefore, no effect to pool frequency within Lake Creek 

downstream of Magone Lake is expected.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – The day use boat dock and campground 

boat mooring are within Magone Lake, therefore they would not have an effect on pool 

frequency.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Water Temperature and Stream Shading

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – All timber felling activities would occur outside Category 1 and 2 RHCAs under 

alternative 2, therefore no meaningfully measureable effects to water temperature and stream 

shading are expected.

Skyline yarding removal of shade-providing trees would be limited in size and frequency. All 

skyline yarding units were designed to yard uphill, and because no skyline units are within 

RHCAs, the need to yard across streams is unlikely. Tailholds23 are needed for each skyline 

corridor that may cross streams. Yarding corridors 12 feet in width and a minimum 100 feet apart 

are highly unlikely to cause increased solar radiation and warming of surface waters. Usually no 

trees need to be felled; however, some limbing may be needed within RHCAs. Tailhold trees are 

typically located outside RHCAs. Further, the majority of shade-providing trees removed 

adjacent to streams occur along intermittent streams, reducing the likelihood that removal of 

these trees would result in a change in water temperature. This is because intermittent streams go 

dry before water temperatures in aquatic TES/MIS habitat downstream becomes limiting to fish. 

 

23 Tailhold: A sturdy stump or tree used to support a block through which a cable runs back to a yarder.
Magone Project

340 of 632

No measureable stream heating from solar radiation is anticipated and water temperatures would 

be maintained; therefore, the probability that stream temperatures would increase from these

activities is discountable at the site and reach scale.

Approximately 18 acres of conifer reduction within upland aspen stands outside of RHCAs 

would occur in alternative 2. Aspen restoration activities involve non-commercial thinning of 

conifers up to 100 feet outside of 7 aspen stands to encourage expansion of the stands through a 

reduction in competition for light and water. Smaller diameter trees and slash from larger trees 

would be cut, handpiled and burned, or left on the ground to provide a protective barrier to 

ungulate grazing. Fences would also be constructed around aspen stands to reduce livestock 

grazing pressure. Because these aspen units are within upland sites, no effect to pool frequency is 

expected.

Felling of danger trees may occur along roughly 8 miles of haul routes that are within 100 feet of 

Category 1 RHCA streams, and previous field observations suggest 1 to 2 trees per mile may be 

felled for a total of 8 to 16 trees over 8 miles. Danger trees are usually dead and provide little 

shade especially when surrounded by live trees; considering this, as well as the minimal number 

of danger trees anticipated to be felled, measurable increases in stream temperatures would not 

likely result from proposed danger tree felling. Additionally, danger trees felled within or into 

RHCAs would be felled into the stream where feasible or otherwise left within the RHCA. 

Conifers felled into streams would immediately shade a minor portion of the stream, as well as 

provide sheltered sites for riparian hardwood growth through reduction of browse by herbivores, 

which would enhance stream shading in the long-term. See Watershed Report for additional 

analysis regarding the effects of the proposed action on stream temperatures.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The majority of fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs and would have 

beneficial effects to aquatic resources by reducing surface fuels, thinning trees, stimulating 

growth of aspen and other riparian hardwoods, and increasing the canopy base height.

Burn prescriptions and PDCs would give the burn personnel a high degree of control over the 

burn intensities within the RHCAs to maintain the majority of the burn at a low intensity to 

minimize the severity on soils and riparian vegetation. These techniques would result in a patchy 

distribution of burned and unburned areas in RHCAs, based on the Forest’s experience with past 

prescribed burning activities in RHCAs using the same technique. Best management practices 

(BMPs) for low-intensity burning include retention of at least 90 percent of stream shade. The 

prescribed burning would occur when moisture and climate conditions would minimize the 

potential for a high intensity burn. 

With a low intensity burn, very little shade-providing stream vegetation is expected to be 

consumed under the more moist conditions encountered in riparian areas associated with 

perennial streams. In a recent study, Beche et al. (2005) found that a fall prescribed fire within 

the riparian zone of a mixed-conifer forest in El Dorado County, California, was patchy in terms 

of intensity, consumption, and severity. Additionally they found that although 49.4 percent of all 

tagged trees (>11.5 centimeters/4.5 inches) and snags were scorched by the prescribed fire, only 

4.4 percent of all tagged trees were dead one year after the prescribed fire. In general, the trees 

killed by the prescribed fire were small and located near areas of high litter accumulation (Beche 

et al. 2005). It is not expected there would be loss of shade from low-intensity burns, but if there 

were, it would be less than 10 percent, which is not enough to affect stream temperature.

Invigoration of riparian hardwoods because of prescribed burning is expected to result in a 

positive and meaningfully measurable effect for shade and water temperature.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

341 of 632

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

2. Limiting these activities to areas outside RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing 

water temperature and shade. Most temporary roads would have a discountable effect to fisheries 

resources (see discussion under pool frequency). No temporary road construction occurs within 

category 1 and 2 RHCAs within alternative 2. Sites requiring removal of shade-providing trees 

for temporary road construction are limited in size and frequency, and the majority of shadeproviding trees removed adjacent to streams occur along intermittent streams, reducing the 

likelihood that removal of these trees would result in a change in water temperature. Because 

intermittent streams go dry before water temperatures in occupied TES/MIS habitat downstream 

become limiting to fish, the removal of shade associated with construction of temporary roads 

would not have a negative and meaningfully measureable effect to stream shading and water 

temperature.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – Stream crossing activities may involve removal of trees 

and other shading vegetation; however, these activities would not likely result in a measureable 

increase in water temperature due to the small disturbance footprint and well-developed canopy 

of shade-producing trees in the vicinity of the crossings where tree removal would occur. There 

would be no removal of riparian hardwood adjacent to the stream channel. Additionally, any 

trees removed for stream crossing improvement would be utilized within the stream channel.

There is a short-term risk of removal of shade to streams during, and shortly after, stream 

crossing improvement activities. Trees within the stream crossing vicinity are often immature 

because of culvert installation during previous road work. Work related to stream crossing 

improvements would occur primarily on top of the road prism and would not require removal of 

shrubs adjacent to the stream. Adherence to all PDCs and BMPs would further limit impacts to 

shade. A slight decrease in shade within localized small areas at stream crossings would result in 

a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect to shade, but no measurable increase in water 

temperature is anticipated.

Road Decommissioning and Road Closure – Road decommissioning and road closure actions 

would not have any immediate effect on shade. Removal of danger trees in RHCAs for 

decommissioning activities is not anticipated. Conifers and native riparian hardwoods would be 

planted in decommissioned road segments as part of the decommissioning process. Over the 

long-term (50 to 70 years) shading would increase beyond baseline as planted conifers become 

established and grow to a size that provides shading. A positive and meaningfully measurable 

effect on shade is expected for road decommissioning in the long-term.

Road closure actions include construction of drainage structures that would be self-maintaining

after closure. Closure of these roads poses a negligible risk for shade to fish-bearing streams 

since these closed roads may be open again and trees would not likely grow of a sufficient size 

within the roadbed to provide shade. However, since these roads are being kept as part of the 

forest road system, the benefits of shade from these closures would likely not be “permanent.” A

positive but not meaningfully measurable effect to shade from road closures is expected.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – Road maintenance and haul

may require the felling of hazard trees adjacent to streams that would have a negative but not 

meaningfully measurable effect to stream shading but because of the localized areas where this 

may occur no measurable increase in water temperatures is expected. Water withdrawals for dust 

abatement during haul activities would occur. Water drafting can occur only as long as supply is 

adequate to provide for both fish and withdrawal. The maximum withdrawal from one site in an 

8-hour period would be 18,000 gallons of water. Water withdrawals would be in accordance with 
Magone Project

342 of 632

the criteria described in the 2010 Malheur National Forest Road Maintenance Biological 

Assessment and National Marine Fisheries Service guidance, included as FEIS Appendix C –

Project Design Criteria. Use of these criteria would insure that water withdrawals do not result in 

a measurable increase in water temperatures.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The miles of trail within 100 feet 

and stream crossings within Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs is the same as those discussed under 

pool frequency. No felling of primary shade trees or LWD within 100 feet of the stream channel 

is expected. With implementation of PDCs, BMPs, and ARBO criteria for livestock crossing 

streams on recreational trail crossings within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs, there would be a neutral 

effect to shade and water temperature from this proposed activity. No interpretive sites or 

trailheads are within Category 1, 2, or 4 RHCAs or within MCR steelhead critical habitat.

Interpretive signage along the north side of Magone Lake may be within 50 feet of the shoreline; 

however, a minimal amount of ground disturbance to place 4x4 posts for mounting signs with no 

felling of shade trees would result in no effect to shading or temperature for Magone Lake.

Day Use Area North side Magone Lake – Approximately 0.2 miles of existing trail on the 

north side of Magone Lake would be improved to meet accessibility standards. The new day use 

and picnic area would be placed more than 50 feet from the shoreline and on level surface. No 

clearing of trees or vegetation is expected to occur. However, if some large trees are felled to 

improve the existing trail, and placed within the lake, this may have a negative but not 

meaningfully measurable effect on shade and temperature (due to minimal amount of trees being 

felled). Some shoreline trampling of vegetation may occur by the public accessing the lake, 

resulting in a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect for shade-providing riparian 

hardwoods. No fishing dock for lake access is proposed for alternative 2. These effects are 

expected to be minimal, and with implementation of specific PDCs (see FEIS Appendix C –

Project Design Criteria and the Watershed Report and section) no effect to shading or water 

temperature is expected if trees are not felled for trail improvement and day use area 

construction.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – In alternative 2, 15–20 fish cribs and 70–100 fish sticks in clusters 

of 5 to 7 trees would be placed on the east side of Magone Lake for fish and wildlife habitat 

improvement. Material for fish sticks and fish cribs would consist of smaller diameter trees

obtained greater than 50 feet from the shoreline. Primary shade trees along the shoreline would 

not be utilized for material. Because the trees would be obtained outside of the primary shade 

zone no meaningfully measurable change to shade or water temperature is expected. 

However, placement of fish sticks would create overhead cover that would be positive but not 

meaningfully measurable for shade within Magone Lake.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – The day use boat dock and campground 

boat mooring would not require any felling or removal of trees adjacent to the shoreline of the 

lake. Therefore no effect to shade or water temperature is expected.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Large Woody Debris

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under 

alternative 2, therefore no meaningfully measureable effects to LWD are expected from 

silviculture prescriptions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

343 of 632

Trees felled within or into RHCAs would be felled into the stream where feasible and left within 

the RHCA. Conifers felled into streams would immediately provide LWD. Accelerated growth 

of remaining conifers in response to thinning of overstocked stands would contribute to 

restoration of recruitment LWD. Short- and long-term effects to LWD would be positive but not 

meaningfully measurable due to the localized and limited number of trees that may be felled 

related to danger tree felling.

Skyline yarding removal of trees that could function as LWD would be limited in size and 

frequency. All skyline yarding units were designed to yard uphill, and since no skyline units are 

within RHCAs, the need to yard across streams is unlikely. Tailholds are needed for each skyline 

corridor, which may cross streams. Usually no trees need to be felled, and some limbing may be 

needed within RHCAs. Tailhold trees are typically outside RHCAs. Further, the majority of trees 

that could be removed adjacent to streams occur along intermittent streams, upstream of 

occupied habitat for TES species. Further, any trees needing felling would be felled into streams 

where feasible; where not feasible, it is usually because they lean away from the stream and 

would not have been recruited as LWD when falling under natural processes. Skyline yarding 

would have a negative effect on LWD that would not be meaningfully measureable.

Upland aspen restoration treatments would not likely result in negative and meaningfully 

measurable effects to LWD due to the small scale of treatments and their location outside of 

RHCAs. Reduction in stocking densities following treatments would increase new growth of 

aspen and the vigor of larger aspen in the overstory.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The majority of fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs. Where prescribed 

burning does occur within RHCAs, the majority would be low intensity fires, using techniques 

that would achieve mortality of understory trees in burned patches but few overstory trees would 

be killed. Methods would be implemented as described in the fuels section to protect large trees. 

Fire intensities would not be high enough to consume trees or downed wood large enough to 

function as LWD in stream channels. The reduction in stocking densities following burning 

activities would increase the vigor of larger trees in the overstory. Consumption of coarse wood 

near stream channels greater than 4 inches DBH would be minimized. Beche et al. (2005) found 

that prescribed fire did not change the amount or movement of LWD in their study reach relative 

to unburned streams. Individual pieces or portions of LWD may be consumed in the prescribed 

fire but is not expected to result in a meaningfully measurable decrease in LWD.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

2. Limiting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing 

and future LWD. Most temporary roads would have a discountable effect to fisheries resources 

(see discussion under pool frequency above). Sites requiring the removal of trees that could be 

recruited as LWD for temporary road construction are limited in size and frequency, and the 

majority of trees removed adjacent to streams occur along intermittent streams, upstream of

occupied habitat for TES/MIS species. Conifers would be felled into streams where feasible as 

described above. In most cases, trees that can safely be felled across the road often lean away 

from the stream channel and would be less likely to fall into stream channels where they could 

function as LWD. Further, only a percentage of conifers removed would be close enough to the 

channel to provide LWD. Temporary road construction would have a negative effect on LWD 

that would not be meaningfully measurable.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – Stream crossing and improvement activities may 

involve removal of trees that could function as recruitment LWD; however, any trees requiring 
Magone Project

344 of 632

removal would be tipped and placed into streams to provide immediate LWD. These activities 

would have a positive effect on LWD by ensuring that any removed trees immediately provide 

the stream processes and functions of LWD, although due to the small scale of treatments, a 

slight meaningfully measureable effect is anticipated.

There is a short-term risk removal of LWD adjacent to streams during and shortly after stream 

crossing improvement activities that would be negative and not meaningfully measurable. Trees 

within the stream crossing vicinity are often immature due to installation of culverts from 

previous road work. Work related to stream crossing improvements would occur primarily on top 

of the road prism and would not require removal of shrubs adjacent to the stream. Adherence to 

all PDCs and BMPs would further limit impacts to LWD. All trees felled within the RHCA for 

stream crossing improvements would be used to improve drainage features and placed within the 

creek or adjacent RHCA. Because of the small extent of the area and the placement of any LWD 

within the stream crossings, a positive but not meaningfully measurable effect is anticipated.

Road Decommissioning and Road Closures – Road decommissioning activities would not 

include removal of trees that could function as LWD in stream channels. Conifers would be 

planted in decommissioned road segments as part of the decommissioning process. Over the 

long-term (70 to 100 years) LWD recruitment processes would be restored on the sides of 

streams previously occupied by roads as planted conifers become established and trees that fall 

across the previous roaded area are no longer cut and removed for vehicle access. Further, LWD 

additions would occur in streams associated with road decommissioning therefore a positive and 

meaning measurable effect for LWD is expected.

Road closure actions include construction of drainage structures that would be self-maintaining 

after closure. Closure of these roads poses a negligible risk for LWD to fish-bearing streams 

since these closed roads may be open again therefore trees would not likely grow of a sufficient 

size within the roadbed to provide LWD. Firewood cutting within the RHCA may be reduced as 

a result of road closure. However, since these roads are being kept as part of the forest road 

system, the benefits to LWD from these closures would likely not be “permanent.” As a result, 

road closure is expected to have a positive but not meaningfully measurable effect on LWD.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – Activities would not likely 

result in a reduction of LWD to Category 1, 2, or 4 RHCA stream channels because in most 

cases, trees that can only safely be felled across the road often have a lean away from the stream 

channel and would be less likely to fall into stream channels where they could function as LWD. 

Where conifers are felled into the stream, they would immediately function as LWD. The effects 

of this action would be negative for LWD but would not be meaningfully measurable.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The miles of trail within 100 feet 

and stream crossings within Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs is the same as those discussed under 

pool frequency. No felling of primary shade trees or LWD within 100 feet of the stream channel 

is expected. With implementation of PDCs, BMPs, and ARBO criteria for livestock crossing 

streams on recreational trail crossings within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs, there would be a neutral 

effect to LWD from this proposed activity. No interpretive sites or trailheads are within Category 

1, 2, or 4 RHCAs or within MCR steelhead critical habitat.

Because interpretive signage along Magone Lake would not require the removal or felling of 

trees, no effect to LWD is expected.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

345 of 632

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – Approximately 0.2 miles of existing trail on the 

north side of Magone Lake would be improved to meet accessibility standards. The new day use 

and picnic area would be placed more than 50 feet from the shoreline on a level surface. No 

clearing of trees or vegetation is expected to occur. However if these trees are felled within 50 

feet of the lake shoreline, there could be a long-term negative and meaningfully measurable 

effect from the action on future LWD recruitment. Some shoreline trampling of vegetation may 

occur by the public accessing the lake. No fishing dock for lake access is proposed for 

alternative 2. These effects are expected to be minimal, and with implementation of specific 

PDCs (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria and the Watershed Report), no effect to 

LWD is expected if trees are not felled for existing trail improvement and construction of new 

day use area.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – In alternative 2, 15–20 fish cribs and 70–100 fish sticks in clusters 

of 5 to 7 trees would be placed on the east side of Magone Lake for fish and wildlife habitat 

improvement. Material for fish sticks and fish cribs would consist of smaller diameter trees

obtained greater than 50 feet from the shoreline. The placement of fish stick and cribs within 

Magone Lake is expected to be beneficial and meaningfully measurable for LWD.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – No felling of trees within 50 feet of the 

shoreline for placement of the day use boat dock and campground mooring is expected, therefore 

no effect LWD is expected.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Embeddedness and Fine Sediment

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – Juniper treatments outside RHCAs, but immediately upslope (ridge top) of MCR 

steelhead critical habitat, would occur within the Nipple Butte IRA in alternative 2. The majority 

of these slopes are scablands that consist of limited herbaceous vegetation. PDCs in FEIS 

Appendix C – Project Design Criteria and the Watershed Report and section would minimize 

overland flow from precipitation events, thus reducing fine sediment transport. Additionally, the 

RHCA buffers would be adequate to capture any fine sediment that may be carried into the 

RHCA from upland treatments. The majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of 

RHCAs under alternative 2. 

Because of the implementation of PDCs and BMPs regarding juniper treatments on scablands 

and the RHCA vegetative buffers, no meaningfully measureable effects to stream embeddedness 

and fine sediment are expected.

In the unexpected event that skyline corridors would cross streams, full suspension of logs across 

channels through limited width skyline corridors would filter sediment caused by ground 

disturbing activities.

Since proposed aspen restoration treatments and danger tree felling do not involve grounddisturbing activities, inputs of fine sediment are not expected to occur.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

Most fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs. Ignition of prescribed burns 

would occur outside RHCAs, allowing fire to back into RHCAs from upslope burning units. 

Ignition would also occur within some RHCAs, stopping within 25 feet of the stream channel. 

Most burning activities would mimic low intensity fires that are characteristic of natural burning 

patterns in riparian areas. Fireline construction is not anticipated in RHCAs; however, firelines

would be rehabilitated after use if construction were deemed necessary. These techniques would 
Magone Project

346 of 632

result in a patchy distribution of burned and unburned areas in RHCAs. Using these techniques, 

fire intensities would not be high enough to consume downed wood that plays a role in trapping 

fine sediment. 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 low 

severity burning activities is unlikely due to the combination of a patchy, low intensity burn in 

RHCAs, typical recovery of ground cover within 2 years of burning, and the low erosion 

potential for the subwatersheds.

Some moderate-severity burning would also occur in isolated patches with the objective of 

restoring and invigorating decadent riparian hardwood vegetation (deciduous trees and shrubs)

where black hawthorn has become dominant. Black hawthorn is a native riparian shrub that has 

expanded considerably to form wide swaths in the project planning area due to limited 

palatability by livestock. The goal of the moderate-severity burn is to restore riparian shrub 

diversity. These actions would occur within RHCAs under the Aquatic Restoration Decision and 

ARBO II PDCs. Targeted moderate-severity burns associated with cottonwood, willow, and 

riparian hardwood treatments identified in the aquatic restoration cumulative effects table (Table 

18) would occur in no more than an average 20 percent of the area within RHCAs per 

subwatershed per year. Such burns would be contained within the observable historical 

boundaries of the target riparian vegetation, plus any area needed to create controllable burn 

boundaries. Due to the minor extent of moderate severity burning activities and PDCs that would 

be implemented with this action, moderate severity prescribed burning would not result in 

delivery of fine sediment to stream channels sufficient to result in meaningfully measureable 

effects to embeddedness and fine sediment. As invigorated riparian vegetation growth following 

the reintroduction of fire occurs, fine sediment from upland sources would be filtered and stored 

in outer portions of RHCAs, resulting in a long-term beneficial effect to embeddedness and fine 

sediment that is meaningfully measureable.

Beche et al. (2005) conducted intense post-prescribed fire monitoring (e.g., pebble counts, 

longitudinal profiles, and cross-sections) and observed little to no change in stream sediment 

composition 1 year post-fire. Similarly, they observed little to no change in stream channel 

morphology and no substantial change in erosion or deposition in the surveyed reaches (Beche et 

al. 2005).

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

2. Limiting these ground-disturbing activities to areas outside of RHCAs along with erosion 

control BMPs, would prevent negative and meaningfully measurable impacts to embeddedness 

and fine sediment. PACFISH RHCA buffer widths were designed to provide an area to trap fine

sediment generated from upslope activities such as timber harvest.

With implementation of PDCs and BMPs, construction of most temporary roads would not result 

in a meaningfully measureable increase in embeddedness and fine sediment.

Temporary road construction (including post-use rehabilitation) of the segment that comes to 

within 100 feet of a Category 2 stream channel in Clear Creek would likely result in creation and 

transport of a negligible amount of fine sediment to Clear Creek due to loosening of sediment 

particles and destruction of ground cover. No temporary road construction within Category 1 

RHCAs or MCR steelhead critical habitat occurs within alternative 2 and therefore no effect to 

embeddedness and fine sediment is anticipated.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

347 of 632

Stream Crossings and Improvements – There is a short-term risk of mobilizing and/or 

delivering sediment to streams during and shortly after haul and road crossing improvement 

activities. Bare soil is prone to erosion and can result in fine sediment entering stream channels 

and the resultant increases in turbidity. Habitat impacts are likely to include areas of exposed 

streambank in isolated locations primarily in the vicinity at stream crossings. Exposed areas and 

other disturbances that occur are likely to result in a slight increase in turbidity for a short 

distance downstream during rainstorms or runoff events. However, given background levels of 

turbidity during runoff events it would be difficult to distinguish between turbidity resulting from 

this project activity and background turbidity. An unknown amount of sediment would be 

mobilized into streams. Timing of work outside of the wet season and adherence to all PDCs and 

BMPs would further limit fine sediment delivery. A slight increase in fine sediment deposition 

for a short distance downstream of exposed and disturbed areas is also likely to occur but is not 

expected to be meaningfully measurable. 

Design criteria include those identified in the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO II)

(USDI FWS 2013a) as well as design criteria developed by the Blue Mountain Ranger District 

interdisciplinary team. The ARBO PDCs specific to this project would be implemented as 

described in the ARBO and the Aquatic Restoration Decision. In addition, any Reasonable 

Prudent Measures and Terms & Conditions (RPMs and T&Cs) from Endangered Species Act 

section 7 consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service are non-discretionary and must be implemented as part of the Magone Project to 

minimize the amount or extent of incidental take of steelhead. The RPMs and T&Cs are included 

in FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria. The PDCs, RPMs, and T&Cs would reduce the 

probability and magnitude of this short-term risk. After about 2 years, effects of these activities 

are beneficial for water quality and fish habitat, including reduced sediment yield from the road 

prism.

Stream crossings on native surface roads may contribute sediment to stream channels resulting in 

a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect for fine sediment and embeddedness. Designs 

would consider utilizing dips, outsloping, insloping with a ditch-relief culvert, and/or erosion 

control on vegetative buffers (slash from roadside brushing, revegetation, coir logs, etc.) in 

addition to rocking. Implementation of BMPs and PDCs related to these crossings, and 

appropriate drainage features, would result in a positive effect that is meaningfully measurable 

for degraded road crossings and road drainage features.

Road Decommissioning and Road Closure – The procedure for decommissioning a road 

would include removing all culverts and reshaping the immediate area. In addition, cross ditches 

would be constructed to maintain drainage and reduce the potential for surface erosion. These 

measures would be implemented during decommissioning to “hydrologically disconnect” roads 

from streams, to reduce sediment entering streams and affecting fish habitat.

There is a short-term risk of generating sediment during and shortly after decommissioning 

activities that could reach streams, primarily in the vicinity of stream crossings where culvert 

removal, scarification, or subsoiling is needed to discourage vehicle use and improve infiltration. 

Bare soil is prone to erosion and can result in fine sediment entering stream channels and the 

resultant increases in turbidity. Habitat impacts are likely to include areas of exposed streambank 

in isolated locations primarily in the vicinity of stream crossings. Exposed areas and other 

disturbances that occur are likely to result in a slight increase in turbidity for a short distance 

downstream during rainstorms or runoff events. However, given background levels of turbidity 

during runoff events it would be difficult to distinguish between turbidity resulting from this 
Magone Project

348 of 632

project activity and background turbidity. An unknown amount of sediment would be mobilized 

into streams. Timing of work outside of the wet season and adherence to all PDCs and BMPs 

would further limit fine sediment delivery. A slight increase in fine sediment deposition for a 

short distance downstream of exposed and disturbed areas is also likely to occur. There is the 

potential for fine sediment to slightly increase embeddedness within gravels suitable for 

spawning when the gravel is located immediately downstream from road decommissioning sites. 

Increased embeddedness may also result in a decrease in the potential for production of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates as discussed above. These impacts are expected to be localized and shortterm. Consequently, the effect to embeddedness and fine sediment by road decommissioning is 

negative and expected to be measureable.

Road decommissioning would also have a positive and meaningfully measureable effect on 

embeddedness and fine sediment due to a lasting but minor decrease in fine sediment delivery to 

streams as a result of hydrologically disconnecting unneeded roads from the drainage system. 

Design criteria include those identified in the ARBO as well as design criteria developed by the 

Blue Mountain Ranger District interdisciplinary team. The ARBO PDCs specific to this project 

would be implemented as described in the ARBO. Implementation of the PDCs, as well as 

implementation of any Reasonable Prudent Measures and Terms & Conditions from Endangered 

Species Act section 7 consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria and Appendix B of the Aquatic 

Resources Report), would reduce the probability and magnitude of this short-term risk. After 

about 2 years, effects of road decommissioning would be beneficial for water quality and fish 

habitat. The improved infiltration and ground cover condition of the decommissioned roads, as 

well as restoration of the energy-dissipating functions associated with floodplain connectivity, 

would help restore natural watershed function, including reduced sediment yield from the road 

prism.

Road closure actions include construction of drainage structures that would be self-maintaining 

after closure. Closure of these roads poses a negligible risk of sedimentation to fish-bearing 

streams since dry land "filtration" lies between the closure sites and any streams, and since the 

amount of land disturbed during gate construction is too small and too flat to produce significant 

sediment. However, since these roads are being kept as part of the forest road system, the 

benefits of the closures would likely not be “permanent.” Because of the low risk of 

sedimentation from road closures, and reduction in vehicle travel resulting in vegetation 

covering the roadbed, effects to embeddedness and fine sediment are expected to be positive but 

not meaningfully measurable due to the lack of permanency for closures.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – Road maintenance would occur 

at a level commensurate with use, and would include several activities that may potentially result 

in sedimentation from the road prism to the ditch line or the adjacent slope. Typical road 

maintenance activities would blade and shape roads, including existing drainage dips, grade 

sags, and waterbars; repair damaged culverts and ditches; place rock in some existing drainage 

dips and grade sags; place rock in wet areas of road; remove brush and danger trees; and apply 

dust abatement. Roads crossing streams would be rocked for 100 feet on each side of the 

crossing where deemed appropriate based on inspection by a fish biologist, hydrologist, and 

engineer. Machinery would be kept on the road prism (see log haul PDCs in FEIS Appendix C –

Project Design Criteria).

The longer term effects of road maintenance are to maintain or improve existing road conditions. 

Road maintenance may decrease chronic sedimentation in some locations. Improving drainage, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

349 of 632

removing ruts and rills from the driving surface, and adding less erosive surfacing material 

would reduce detachment and transport of sediment. This is especially important for roads within 

RHCAs. Because road maintenance activities would be commensurate with use, it is possible 

that if winter logging occurs, little to no road maintenance may be necessary and therefore would 

not occur. Alternatively, if operations occur in the summer, road maintenance may occur on all or 

nearly all of the haul roads.

Proposed road maintenance and haul activities in RHCAs would likely result in creation and 

transport of a negligible amount of fine sediment to stream channels due to loosening of 

sediment particles and destruction of ground cover. However, PDCs would be implemented 

during these activities, and are expected to limit fine sediment delivery to streams, keeping 

amounts reaching stream channels to negligible levels for other than rare precipitation events 

(negative but not meaningfully measurable).

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul would be in accordance with the PDCs, 

including NMFS guidance. Use of PDCs for water drafting would ensure that water withdrawals 

do not result in significant delivery of fine sediment to streams.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The miles of trail within 100 feet 

and stream crossings within Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs is the same as those discussed under 

pool frequency for alternative 2. No felling of primary shade trees or LWD within 100 feet of the 

stream channel is expected. With implementation of PDCs, BMPs, and ARBO criteria for 

livestock crossing streams on recreational trail crossings within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs, there

would be a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect on embeddedness and fine sediment 

from this proposed activity. No interpretive sites or trailheads are within RHCA Categories 1, 2, 

or 4 or within MCR steelhead critical habitat.

Interpretive signage along Magone Lake would require minimal disturbance limited to inserting 

4 by 4 posts into the ground for attaching signage. Due to the small scale of these disturbances, 

no effect related to embeddedness and fine sediment is expected from placing interpretive signs.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – Approximately 0.2 miles of existing trail on the 

north side of Magone Lake would be improved to meet accessibility standards. The new day use 

and picnic area would be placed more than 50 feet from the shoreline and on level surface. No 

clearing of trees or vegetation is expected to occur. Some shoreline trampling of vegetation may 

occur by the public accessing the lake for recreational activities. No fishing dock for lake access 

is proposed for alternative 2. 

These effects are expected to be minimal, and with implementation of specific PDCs (see FEIS 

Appendix C – Project Design Criteria and the Watershed Report and section), the effects for 

embeddedness and fine sediment are expected to be negative but not meaningfully measurable 

for fine sediment.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – In alternative 2, 15–20 fish cribs and 70–100 Fish sticks in 

clusters of 5 to 7 trees would be placed on the east side of Magone Lake for fish and wildlife 

habitat improvement. Material for fish sticks and fish cribs would consist of smaller diameter 

trees obtained greater than 50 feet from the shoreline. Activities related to tree placement, tipping

or felling would occur over snow or frozen ground during the winter. Trees for fish sticks would 

be slid out onto the ice and cribs would be constructed on top of the ice. A minor amount of fine 

sediment may be contained within the rootwads of trees that were tipped. The general practice of 

shaking the trees with equipment reduces soil attached to rootwad. Holes would be immediately 
Magone Project

350 of 632

filled where trees are removed. Implementation of PDCs regarding tree tipping and LWD stock 

piling contained within the Aquatic Restoration Decision. The effects for fine sediment and 

embeddedness are neutral and not meaningfully measurable.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – There is a potential for a negligible 

amount of fine sediment to be washed into Magone Lake during precipitation events at the day 

use boat dock and campground dock boat mooring. Work for the day use boat dock would occur 

within the existing footprint of the current day use boat dock, and the shoreline connection for 

the boat mooring dock would be hardened and appropriate drainage installed at the trail access 

point. With implementation of BMPs and PDCs a neutral effect for fine sediment and 

embeddedness is expected.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Width-to-Depth Ratio and Streambank Stability

Width-to-depth ratio and streambank stability indicators are grouped since they are affected 

similarly by PEs.

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – Most timber felling activities would have no effect on width-to-depth ratios or 

streambank stability due to proximity of most actions away from the stream channel and 

implementation of PDCs and BMPs. The possible minor amounts of sediment entering channels 

and small areas of bank instability would not affect width/depth ratios at the site or reach scale. 

Effects from these actions on width/depth ratios would be neutral.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) – A 

minor short-term decrease in stream bank stability would occur as a result of prescribed burning 

activities in RHCAs until vegetation recovers. However, it is unlikely that burned patches along 

stream banks would be in sufficient sizes or quantity to result in a meaningfully measureable 

decrease in bank stability. These impacts would not be of a scale that would result in 

destabilization of stream channels, thus a neutral effect to width-to-depth ratios from fuels 

treatments is anticipated. Over the long-term as fire invigorates riparian shrub growth, bank 

stability would increase in a meaningfully measureable way. No effects to bank stability or 

width-to-depth ratios are expected from pile burning and biomass removal due to proximity of 

these activities away from stream channels.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within Category 1, 2, and 4 

RHCAs under alternative 2. No temporary road construction would occur within in Category 1 

and 2 RHCAs or MCR steelhead critical habitat. Therefore No effect is anticipated to 

streambank stability or width to depth ratios.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – Currently, many of the existing stream crossings 

contain undersized culverts within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs. These culverts facilitate bank

instability downstream, interrupt sediment processing, and may be fish passage barriers. 

Removal and replacement and log haul PDCs would address current bank stability and width-todepth ratio issues at work sites, having long-term beneficial effects to stream processes and 

functions that extend well beyond those work sites. Effects from stream crossing improvements 

on width-to-depth ratios and bank stability would be positive and meaningfully measureable. 

(See Reasonably Foreseeable Aquatic Restoration Activities under Cumulative Effects section 

for description of culvert replacement and removal and Table 97 for effects on the 6 primary 

habitat elements.)
Final Environmental Impact Statement

351 of 632

Stream crossing improvements on native surface roads may result in some bank instability below 

improvements in the short-term, and are expected to be negative but not meaningfully 

measurable Designs would consider utilizing dips, outsloping, insloping with a ditch-relief 

culvert, or erosion control on vegetative buffers (slash from roadside brushing, revegetation, coir 

logs, etc.) in addition to rocking. Implementation of BMPs and PDCs related to these crossings 

and appropriate drainage features would result in a beneficial effect that is meaningfully 

measurable for stream banks above and below drainage features.

Road Decommissioning and Road closures – Road decommissioning would positively affect 

bank stability and width-to-depth ratios by obliterating roads that restrict floodplain connectivity. 

The minor amount of sediment delivered to streams associated with road decommissioning 

would not affect width-to-depth ratios. Due to the extent and location of treatments, this effect 

would be positive and meaningfully measureable.

Road closure actions include construction of drainage structures that would be self-maintaining 

after closure. Closure of these roads poses a negligible risk for bank stability and a neutral effect 

for width-to-depth ratios to fish-bearing streams since dry land "filtration" lies between the 

closure sites and any streams, and since the amount of land disturbed during gate construction is 

too small and too flat to produce significant sediment. However, since these roads are being kept 

as part of the forest road system, the benefits of the closures would likely not be “permanent.” 

Because of the dryland filtration and distance from the stream, the effects to bank stability and 

width-to-depth ratio are expected to positive but not meaningfully measurable due to the lack of 

permanency for closures.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – The possible minor amounts of 

sediment entering channels from road maintenance activities would not affect floodplain 

connectivity, streambank stability, or width-to-depth ratios at the site or reach scale. A neutral 

effect is anticipated.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The miles of trail within 100 feet 

and stream crossings within Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs is the same as those discussed under 

pool frequency for alternative 2. No felling of primary shade trees or LWD within 100 feet of the 

stream channel is expected. With implementation of PDCs, BMPs, and ARBO criteria for 

livestock crossing streams on recreational trail crossings within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs, there 

would be a neutral effect to streambank stability and width-to-depth ratios from this proposed 

activity. No interpretive sites or trailheads are within Category 1, 2, or 4 RHCAs or within MCR 

steelhead critical habitat.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – Approximately 0.2 miles of existing trail on the 

north side of Magone Lake would be improved to meet accessibility standards. The new day use 

and picnic area would be placed more than 50 feet from the shoreline and on level surface. No 

clearing of trees or vegetation is expected to occur. Some shoreline trampling of vegetation may 

occur by the public accessing the Lake for recreational activities. No fishing dock for lake access 

is proposed for alternative 2. These effects are expected to be minimal, and with implementation 

of specific PDCs (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria and the Watershed Report and 

section), the effects for bank stability are expected to be negative but not meaningfully 

measurable and width-to-depth ratios do not apply to Magone Lake.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – In alternative 2, 15–20 fish cribs and 70–100 fish sticks in clusters 

of 5 to 7 trees would be placed on the east side of Magone Lake for fish and wildlife habitat 

improvement. Material for fish sticks and fish cribs would consist of smaller diameter trees 
Magone Project

352 of 632

obtained greater than 50 feet from the shoreline. Activities related to tree placement, tipping or 

felling would occur over snow or frozen ground during the winter. Trees for fish sticks would be 

slid out onto the ice and cribs would be constructed on top of the ice. Due to the work occurring 

on snow cover or frozen ground no effect to bank stability is expected and width-to-depth ratios 

do not apply to Magone Lake.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – There is a potential for a negligible 

amount of bank instability to occur at the day use boat dock and campground dock boat mooring. 

Work for the day use boat dock would occur within the existing footprint of the current day use 

boat dock and the shoreline connection for the boat mooring dock would be hardened and 

appropriate drainage installed at the trail access point. With implementation of BMPs and PDCs 

a neutral effect for bank stability is expected.

Cumulative Effects

Potential effects from alternative 2 would be cumulative with effects from non-federal activities 

within the project planning area and activities within the aquatic analysis area on federal, state, 

and private lands. Aside from this project, other non-restoration activities that may contribute to 

cumulative effects include; timber harvest activities, wildfires, livestock grazing, road use, flood 

irrigation/water diversion, and vegetation alteration.

The aquatic restoration actions covered under the Aquatic Restoration Decision would alleviate 

degraded conditions within RHCAs but would have short term adverse effects to several of the 

primary habitat elements; primarily fine sediment related to culvert replacement and removal, 

large and coarse wood placement, log weir and boulder modification, and prescribed fire. These 

actions directly address altered sediment transport regimes for scour and deposition and riparian 

vegetative structure resulting in long term benefits for all fish habitat elements. (See discussion 

of aquatic restoration effects under past, present, and foreseeable activities relevant to 

cumulative effects analysis above and Table 97 below.)

3.8.2.5 Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects – Pool Frequency

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The effects from silviculture prescriptions, yarding, and aspen restoration in 

alternative 3 are the same as alternative 2 with the exception of an increase in the units and 

acreage associated with silviculture prescriptions and associated activities (tractor and skyline). 

The intensity and scope of these effects increases incrementally from that of alternative 2 to 

alternative 3. The effects and scale of Juniper-conifer reduction treatments within the Nipple 

Butte IRA are the same as described in alternative 2 for pool frequency.

Felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs. Felling of danger trees for human safety along 

haul routes in RHCAs has the potential to reduce the supply of LWD to stream channels and 

therefore pool habitat. Under PACFISH, trees may be felled in RHCAs when they pose a safety 

risk (PACFISH Standard RA-2). Danger trees felled within or into RHCAs would be felled into 

the stream where feasible or otherwise left within the RHCA. Felling of trees for road 

construction also has the potential to reduce the supply of LWD to stream channels and therefore 

pool habitat; however, these trees would be treated in the same manner as danger trees as 

described above and all road construction within RHCAs would occur on existing road beds,
Final Environmental Impact Statement

353 of 632

requiring minimal tree removal to bring a road to a useable state. Where trees are felled into the 

stream, they may create pools.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The effects from fuels treatments for alternative 3 are the same as alternative 2 for pool 

frequency with the exception of an increase in the acres treated with grapple piling and hand 

piling. The majority of fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs and would have 

beneficial effects to fisheries resources by reducing surface fuels, thinning trees, stimulating 

growth of aspen and other hardwoods, and increasing the canopy base height.

Prescribed burning would indirectly occur within RHCAs to help restore plant species 

composition and structure that would occur under natural fire regimes. Ignition would occur 

outside RHCAs, allowing fires to back into RHCAs from adjacent upslope areas. Ignition would 

also occur within some RHCAs using drip torches, stopping within 25 feet of the stream channel.

Most prescribed burning would mimic low-intensity fires that create a mosaic pattern of burned 

and unburned landscape that are characteristic of natural burning patterns that tend to occur in 

riparian areas.

Low-intensity underburning would be scheduled to occur after any planned mechanical 

treatments are completed. Initial underburning would typically occur in the spring when duff and 

large logs are still moist, so that only a portion of the buildup of ground fuels is consumed by the 

first burn. Subsequent burns would occur under dryer, fall-like conditions. Fireline construction 

is not anticipated in RHCAs; however, firelines would be rehabilitated after use if construction 

were deemed necessary. Using these techniques, mortality of understory trees would occur in 

burned patches but few overstory trees would be killed. Methods would be implemented as 

described in the Fuels section to protect large trees, prevent fire intensities that would be high 

enough to consume trees or downed wood large enough to function as LWD in stream channels, 

and retain at least 90 percent of the shrub and tree shade directly shading perennial streams.

Some moderate-severity burning would also occur in isolated patches with the objective of 

restoring and invigorating decadent riparian hardwood vegetation (deciduous trees and shrubs). 

Targeted moderate-severity burns associated with riparian enhancement and cottonwood, willow, 

and riparian hardwood aquatic restoration actions identified in the foreseeable aquatic actions 

table (Table 18) would occur in no more than an average 20 percent of the area within RHCAs 

per subwatershed per year. This PDC as specified in the ARBO would be easily achieved due to 

the minor spatial extent of proposed treatments relative to the RHCA network. Such burns would 

be contained within the observable historical boundaries of the target riparian vegetation, plus 

any area needed to create controllable burn boundaries.

Burning activities would not result in delivery of fine sediment to stream channels sufficient to 

result in a meaningfully measureable reduction of pool habitat. The reduction in stocking 

densities following burning activities would also increase the vigor of larger trees in the 

overstory for future LWD to create pools; this effect would be positive and meaningfully 

measureable.

No biomass removal activities would occur in RHCAs.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

3. Limiting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing

and future pool habitat. Most temporary roads would have a discountable effect to fisheries 
Magone Project

354 of 632

resources due to one or more of the following: road location would 1) be outside of RHCAs; 2) 

be on Category 2 or 4 RHCAs more than 100 feet from stream channels; 3) be within 100 feet 

from stream channels but on existing road beds requiring minimal disturbance to bring to a 

useable state; 4) cross Category 2 streams over 0.5 miles upstream of fish distribution; 5) cross 

Category 4 streams over 0.18 miles upstream of fishbearing streams. Temporary roads that may 

impact aquatic species habitat include the following:

 0.20-mile road segment (temporary road 29) is within Category 1 RHCA and MCR 

steelhead critical habitat (Tinker Creek) and a Category 4 RHCA. An existing 

decommissioned roadbed is present.

 0.1-mile road segment (temporary road 6) is within Category 1 RHCA and MCR 

steelhead critical habitat (East Fork Beech Creek). No existing roadbed present.

Table 81. Alternative 3 temporary roads within 100 feet of Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead 

critical habitat (same as alternative 2)

Road type Miles within MCR steelhead critical habitat (100 feet) native surface

Closed to open Forest 

Service road

0.11 Tinker Creek

Temporary road 0.30 Tinker Creek and EF Beech Creek

Temporary road 29 is on an existing roadbed that is greater than 100 feet from the stream and 

temporary road 6 is separated from East Fork Beech Creek by a crushed gravel Forest Service 

road (Table 81).With implementation of PDCs construction of this temporary road would result 

in a negative but not meaningfully measureable reduction in pool frequency. However, both of 

these roads are on relatively steep inclines increasing the risk associated with road failure and 

drainage issues (fine sediment).

Stream Crossings and Improvements – There are seven stream crossings in MCR steelhead 

critical habitat; two are on asphalt, three are on crushed aggregate, and two are on native surface, 

which is the same as alternative 2. Within Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs in the project planning 

area there are a total of 12 crossings on asphalt, 25 on crushed aggregate, and 65 on native 

surface (Table 83Table 82). Road status for the crossings within each of RHCA categories for 

alternative 3 are also summarized in Table 83. The effects of native road surface crossings 

described within alternative 2 for alternative 3 have increased by an additional 16 native surface 

road crossings for haul within Category 2 and 4 RHCAs (closed to open roads) and one

additional temporary road crossing. Stream crossings on native surface roads may contribute 

sediment to stream channels but with implementation of BMPs and PDCs related to rocking of 

road crossings and appropriate drainage features a reduction in pool frequency due to sediment 

inputs is not likely to occur. However, the risk associated with these crossings contributing 

sediment is increased and thus the risk of a reduction in pool frequency increases with the 

increase in native surface road crossings. Effects related stream crossing improvements are 

discussed under alternative 2 for pool frequency.

Stream crossings on native surface roads may contribute sediment to stream channels resulting in 

a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect for pool frequency. Designs would consider 

utilizing dips, outsloping, insloping with a ditch-relief culvert, and/or erosion control on 

vegetative buffers (slash from roadside brushing, revegetation, coir logs, etc.) in addition to 

rocking. Implementation of BMPs and PDCs related to these crossings, and appropriate drainage 

features, would result in a beneficial effect that is meaningfully measurable for degraded road 

crossings and road drainage features. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

355 of 632

The effects of stream crossing improvements on pool frequency are the same as those described 

in alternative 2 but with a greater intensity due to the increase in roads within 100 feet of RHCAs 

and number of crossings.

Table 82. Alternative 3 stream crossings by road surface type and Mid-Columbia River (MCR) 

steelhead critical habitat

MCR steelhead 

critical habitat

Asphalt Crushed 

aggregate/gravel

Native surface Temporary

Streams crossed 2 streams Grub 

Creek, Tinker 

Creek

3 streams EF Beech 

Creek, Tinker Creek, 

Clear Creek

2 streams Tinker Creek,

EF Beech Creek

0

Table 83. Alternative 3 road surface, road designation, stream crossings, and number of route 

crossings (bolded text indicates increase from alternative 2)

RHCA category Asphalt Crushed 

aggregate/gravel

Native surface Temporary

Category 1 3 crossings (open 

Forest Service and 

County roads)

Grub Creek, Tinker 

Creek, Lake Creek

5 crossings (open 

Forest Service and 

County roads)

Lake Creek, Tinker 

Creek, Clear Creek, 

EF Beech Creek, 

Thompson Creek

2 crossings (1 open 

Forest Service road and 

1 closed to open Forest 

Service road)

0

Category 2 3 crossings (open 

Forest Service and 

County roads)

8 crossings (6 open 

Forest Service and 2 

open County roads)

10 crossings (4 open 

Forest Service and 6 

closed to open Forest 

Service roads)

0

Category 4 6 crossings (open 

Forest Service and 

County roads)

12 crossings (9 open 

Forest Service and 3 

open County roads)

49 crossings (11 open 

Forest Service and 35 

closed to open Forest 

Service roads)

6 crossings

Total 12 25 61 6

Road Decommissioning and Road Closures – Approximately 0.32 miles of road 

decommissioning would occur on one segment of road within alternative 3. The decommissioned 

segment occurs within a Category 4 RHCA on Grub Creek approximately 1 miles above MCR 

steelhead critical habitat. Close Road segments occur on East Fork Beech Creek and unnamed 

tributaries to East Fork Beech Creek, and Clear Creek above MCR steelhead critical habitat. The 

miles of road closure within alternative 3 are less than alternative 2 within Category 2 and 4 

RHCAs (approximately 0.08 miles).

Table 84. Alternative 3 miles of decommissioned road and closed road segments with RHCA 

categories (same as alternative 2)

Road changes within 100 feet of 

RHCA

Category 1 RHCA Category 2 RHCA Category 4 RHCA

Decommissioning 0 0 0.32

Close road 0.03 0 0.12

Decommissioning activities result in the removal of a road from the permanent transportation 

system of the Forest. The impacts of the road on the environment are eliminated or reduced to an 

acceptable level; the goal is to leave the road in a “hydrologically disconnected” state and 

convert the former roadway to other resource use. Decommissioning includes restoring 
Magone Project

356 of 632

hydrologic function by re-contouring, subsoiling, and scarification of the surface. Watershed 

design criteria identify specific measures for decommissioning.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires “re-establishing vegetative cover” on 

decommissioned roads within 10 years {16 USC 1608(b)}. To accomplish this, the roadbed 

would be covered with natural materials such as logs, rocks, slash, and brush for a distance 

deemed to prohibit motor vehicle use; re-contouring, ripping/subsoiling, and seeding would 

occur as necessary; roads decommissioned within RHCAs would also be planted with conifers to 

maintain vegetation establishment and growth. Vegetation would be re-established as well via 

seeding and planting of conifers and hardwoods.

Road decommissioning activities would not include removal of trees that could function as LWD 

in stream channels, nor result in delivery of sediment to streams to a degree that pools are filled; 

therefore, reductions in existing pool habitat would not occur. Conifers would be planted in 

decommissioned road segments in RHCAs as part of the decommissioning process. Further, 

LWD would be added to streams adjacent to decommissioned roads (see LWD discussion 

below). Restoration of floodplain connectivity and stream channel complexity through road 

decommissioning, LWD additions, and revegetation activities would restore stream process and 

function, and result in a long-term increase in pool frequency over the long term that is positive 

and meaningfully measureable. Restoration of LWD recruitment processes on the sides of 

streams where roads previously occurred would increase and maintain LWD recruitment and 

resulting pool frequency in the long-term (70 to 100 years).

Road decommissioning would have a positive and meaningfully measurable effect on pool 

frequency within Grub Creek.

Approximately 0.15 miles of open roads would be closed under alternative 3 within Category 1 

and 4 RHCAs (Table 84). This is 1.85 miles less than alternative 2. Closed roads are those roads 

on which motorized traffic has been excluded by regulation, barricade blockage, or by obscuring 

the entrance. A closed road is still an operating facility on which motorized traffic has been 

removed (year-long or seasonal) and remains on the Forest Road Transportation System. Roads 

would be closed using gates or signs. Closed roads would be left in a stable condition and 

maintained.

Two segments of roads would be closed in the Category 4 RHCA of Clear Creek and East Fork

Beech Creek and one road segment on RHCA Category 1 on Clear Creek. Closure of these road 

segments would likely reduce delivery of fine sediment to Clear Creek and East Fork Beech 

Creek from road use, although this reduction in sediment would not result in a meaningfully 

measureable change to pool frequency within TES/MIS species habitat.

The effects of road closures on pool frequency would be the same as those described in 

alternative 2 for pool frequency.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – Approximately 17.8 miles of 

haul routes and road maintenance would occur in Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs; approximately 

7.1 miles of these activities would occur within 100 feet of Category 1 RHCA streams (Table 

85). The number of miles of native surface and temporary road within 100 feet of Category 2 and 

4 RHCAs is greater in alternative 3 that alternative 2 (Table 85). Road maintenance would occur 

on all haul routes. With implementation of PDCs, delivery of fine sediment resulting from road 

maintenance and use would not be of sufficient magnitude to result in a meaningfully 

measureable reduction in pool frequency. However, the increase in native surface and temporary 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

357 of 632

road haul routes within alternative 3 increases the risk associated with delivery of fine sediment 

into pools more than alternative 2.

Table 85. Alternative 3 miles of road type and road surface within 100 feet of Category 1, 2 and 4 

RHCAs. Bold numbers indicate difference from alternative 2 (more miles)

Road types and surfaces within 

100 feet of RHCA

Category 1 RHCA Category 2 RHCA Category 4 RHCA

Road type

Closed to open Forest Service road 0.35 1.15> 4.25>

Open County road 1.93 0.25 0.33

Open Forest Service road 4.77 1.82> 2.13

Temporary road 0.04 0.011 0.68

Total miles 7.09 3.23 7.45

Road surface

Asphalt 0.47 0.6 0.43

Crushed aggregate or gravel 5.96 1 0.26

Native material 0.59 1.5> 5.91>

Temporary 0.07 0.1 0.70

Improved native material 0.1 0.14

Total miles 7.09 3.3 7.44

Table 86. Alternative 3 miles of road type and surface type for haul within 100 feet of Mid-Columbia 

River steelhead critical habitat. Bold numbers indicate difference from alternative 2 (> indicates 

increase, < indicates decrease)

Road type Asphalt Crushed aggregate Native material

Closed to open Forest Service road 0 0 0.11

Open County road 0< 1.10> 0

Open Forest Service road 0.04< 0.53< 1.15>

Temporary road 0 0.01 0

Total miles 0.04 1.64 1.66

The miles of Forst Service native surface road within 100 feet of MCR steelhead and open 

county road on crushed aggregate increases within alternative 3 from alternative 2 (Table 86).

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul activities would occur. Water withdrawals 

would be in accordance with the PDCs, including National Marine Fisheries Service guidance. 

Use of these PDCs would insure that water withdrawals do not result in a reduction in pool 

habitat.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – In alternative 3, 92.4 miles of trail are 

proposed with 80.8 miles of new trail construction. A total of 28.2 miles of these trails are within 

the Nipple Butte IRA (Table 87). The miles of trail within 100 feet of RHCA categories and 

MCR steelhead critical habitat as well as the number of crossings are summarized in Table 

88Table 87. The number of RHCA crossings within RHCA categories increases from alternative 

2 with a large increase in category 4 RHCA crossings when compared to alternative 2. The 

number of crossings within MCR steelhead critical habitat is the same as alternative 2. The mile 

of trail within 100 feet of all RHCA categories is greater for alternative 3 than alternative 2. The 

miles of MCR steelhead critical habitat is the same as alternative 2.
Magone Project

358 of 632

With implementation of PDCs, BMPs, Central Oregon Trail Alliance trail standards, and ARBO 

criteria for livestock crossing streams on recreational trail crossings within Category 1 and 2 

RHCAs, there would be a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect to pool frequency 

from this proposed activity. No interpretive sites or trailheads are within Category 1, 2, or 4 

RHCAs or within MCR steelhead critical habitat.

Table 87. Alternative 3 trails

Proposed trail Miles of trail

Total proposed trail 92.4

New construction 80.8

Within Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area 28.2

Table 88. Number of stream crossings in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) and MidColumbia River (MCR) steelhead critical habitat, and miles of trail within those areas

Stream designation Number of 

stream crossings

Miles of trail within 100 feet of RHCA 

and MCR steelhead critical habitat

Category 1 RHCA 9 1.49

Category 2 RHCA 17 2.08

Category 4 RHCA 52 3.07

Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical habitat 4 0.41

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – The effects to pool frequency are the same as 

described for alternative 2. 

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The effects to pool frequency are the same as described for 

alternative 2.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring, Fishing Dock – The effects to pool 

frequency are the same as described for alternative 2 for the day use boat dock and campground 

mooring with the exception of the addition of a seasonal floating fishing dock placed 

approximately 0.3 miles further down the existing trail from the new day use area in the vicinity 

of fish cribs and fish sticks. PDCs would be followed regarding access to the dock; this includes 

hardening of the shoreline access point and proper drainage features to the dock as required 

under the Oregon State Marine Board for public safety. Dock would be constructed out of 

material that requires very limited maintenance and does not contribute contaminants to the 

water (leaching) but fits the “rustic” setting. Dock would consist of individual floating sections 

that can be removed in the fall and placed back in the spring. Presence of the fishing dock may 

alleviate the potential for trampling of shoreline vegetation adjacent to the proposed new day use 

area by recreationists and the shoreline on the east side of Magone Lake in general.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Water Temperature and Stream Shading

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under 

alternative 3 and are the same as described for described for alternative 2 with the exception of 

an increase in the upland acreages proposed under silviculture treatments, therefore no 

meaningfully measureable effects to water temperature and stream shading are expected.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

359 of 632

The effects of skyline yarding on water temperature and shade would be the same as those 

described for alternative 2, but with greater intensity due to the increase in acreage identified for 

skyline.

The effects to stream shading and water temperature from upland aspen restoration are the same 

as described for alternative 2.

Felling of danger trees may occur along roughly 7.09 miles of haul routes that are within 100 

feet of Category 1 RHCA streams, and previous field observations suggest one to two trees per 

mile may be felled for a total of 8 to 14 trees over seven miles. Danger trees are usually dead and 

provide little shade especially when surrounded by live trees; considering this as well as the 

minimal number of danger trees anticipated to be felled, measurable increases in stream 

temperatures would not likely result from proposed danger tree felling. Additionally, danger trees 

felled within or into RHCAs would be felled into the stream where feasible or otherwise left 

within the RHCA. Conifers felled into streams would immediately shade a minor portion of the 

stream, as well as provide sheltered sites for riparian hardwood growth through reduction of 

browse by herbivores, which would enhance stream shading in the long-term. 

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal)

Fuels treatments within silvicultural treatment unit acreages increase by 2,182 acres and from 

108 units to 164 units with alternative 3. Prescribed burning within the Nipple Butte IRA would 

be confined to the fall but the acreages remain the same as described for alternative 2.

The majority of fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs and would have 

beneficial effects to aquatic resources by reducing surface fuels, thinning trees, stimulating 

growth of aspen and other hardwoods, and increasing the canopy base height. The effects of 

prescribed burn on stream shade and water temperature are the same as those described for 

alternative 2, but to a greater extent due to the increase in acreage.

Piling and burning would occur outside of the primary shade zone within RHCAs and would not 

impact water temperature or stream shading.

Biomass removal is not proposed for within RHCAs, therefore no impact to stream shading or 

water temperature is anticipated.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

3. Limiting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing 

and future pool habitat. Most temporary roads would have a discountable effect to fisheries 

resources (see discussion under pool frequency alternative 2). Sites requiring the removal of 

shade-providing trees for temporary road construction are limited in size and frequency and 

outside of 100 feet from the stream channel. The majority of shade-providing trees removed 

adjacent to streams would occur along intermittent streams, reducing the likelihood that removal 

of these trees would result in a change in water temperature because intermittent streams go dry 

before water temperatures in occupied TES/MIS habitat downstream become limiting to fish. 

The removal of shade associated with construction of temporary roads would have a negative 

effect to stream shading and water temperature that would not be meaningfully measureable.

Stream Crossings and Improvement – The effects related to stream crossings on shade and 

water temperature are the same as those described for alternative 2. In alternative 3 the number 

of crossings on native surface roads is greater than that of alternative 2. Therefore, the intensity 
Magone Project

360 of 632

of those effects is greater in alternative 3 than alternative 2. Stream crossing activities may 

involve removal of trees and other shading vegetation, however these activities would not likely 

result in a measureable increase in water temperature due to the small disturbance footprint and 

well-developed canopy of shade-producing trees in the vicinity of the crossings where tree 

removal would occur. Effects would be negative but not meaningfully measurable.

The effects of stream crossing improvements on shade and water temperature are the same as 

those described in alternative 2, but with the increase in roads within 100 feet of RHCAs and the 

number of crossings, the intensity of these improvements is expected to increase and be greater 

than alternative 2.

Road Decommissioning and Road Closures – The effects of road decommissioning and road 

closures on shade and water temperature under alternative 3 are the same as described for 

alternative 2. Alternative 3 has less miles of road closure within category 2 and 4 RHCAs than 

alternative 2. Because there are less miles of road closure the benefits associated with these 

actions on shade and water temperature are also less.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – Approximately 17.8 miles of 

haul routes and road maintenance would occur in Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs; approximately 

7.1 miles of these activities would occur within 100 feet of Category 1 RHCA streams (Table 

85). The number of miles of native surface and temporary road within 100 feet of Category 2 and 

4 RHCAs is greater in alternative 3 than alternative 2 (Table 85). Road maintenance would occur 

on all haul routes. With implementation of PDCs, delivery of fine sediment resulting from road 

maintenance and use would not be of sufficient magnitude to result in a meaningfully 

measureable reduction in shade and water temperature. However, the increase in native surface 

and temporary road haul routes within alternative 3 increases the risk associated with removal of 

shade trees for maintenance and haul at RHCA crossings and within 100 feet of roads more so 

than alternative 2.

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul activities would occur. Water drafting can 

occur only as long as supply is adequate to provide for both fish and withdrawal. The maximum 

withdrawal from one site in an 8-hour period would be 18,000 gallons of water. Water 

withdrawals would be in accordance with the criteria described in the 2010 Malheur National 

Forest Road Maintenance Biological Assessment and National Marine Fisheries Service 

guidance, included in FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria. Use of these criteria would 

insure that water withdrawals do not result in a measurable increase in water temperatures.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The general effects related to trail 

construction for shade and water temperature are the same as alternative 2 for shade and water 

temperature. The miles of trail construction within 100 feet of RHCAs increases substantially 

from alternative 3. However, clearing of shade providing trees would not occur as part of trail 

construction and design standards for trails within riparian areas (COTA 2011). Due to the 

distance from the streams, trail construction is expected to have a negligible and not 

meaningfully measurable effect on stream shade and water temperature.

The effects to shade and water temperature for interpretive signage are the same as those 

described for alternative 2.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – The effects of making approximately 0.5 miles of 

trail around Magone Lake accessible and constructing a day use area on the north side of 

Magone Lake is not expected to have a meaningfully measurable effect on shade or water 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

361 of 632

temperature. The north side of Magone Lake is relatively open with large ponderosa pine 

generally spaced 50 feet or greater apart. Removal or felling of shade trees for construction of 

the day use area is not expected to occur. 

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The number of fish cribs and fish sticks placed within Magone 

Lake is the same as described for alternative 2. Effects to shade and water temperature is not 

expected to be meaningfully measurable due to the material for the cribs and fish sticks coming 

from greater than 50 feet from the lake shoreline therefore not effecting primary shade trees. 

However, additional shade over water from floating fish sticks immediately adjacent to the 

shoreline is expected to be positive in the form of overhead cover for fish and nesting areas for 

waterfowl, and is expected to be meaningfully measurable within Magone Lake.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring, Fishing Dock – The effects to shade and 

water temperature from installation of a day use boat dock and campground boat mooring are the 

same as described for alternative 2. No tree removal from within 50 feet of the shoreline is 

expected as part of the fishing dock installation and placement, therefore no effect to shade or 

water temperature is expected from placement of the fishing dock. However, a positive but not 

meaningfully measurable effect for overhead cover created by the fishing dock is anticipated.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Large Woody Debris

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under 

alternative 3, therefore no meaningfully measureable effects to LWD are expected.

The effects of skyline yarding on LWD would be the same as those described for alternative 2, 

but with greater intensity due to the increase in acreage identified for skyline.

Aspen restoration treatments are the same as described for alternative 2 and would not likely 

result in negative and meaningfully measurable effects to LWD, due to the small scale of 

treatments, and aspen stands being located outside of RHCAs. The reduction in stocking 

densities following treatments would increase new growth of aspen and the vigor of larger aspen 

in the overstory.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The majority of fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs. Where prescribed 

burning does occur within RHCAs, the majority would be low intensity fires, using techniques 

that would achieve mortality of understory trees in burned patches, though few overstory trees 

would be killed. Methods would be implemented as described in the fuels section to protect large 

trees. Fire intensities would not be high enough to consume trees or downed wood large enough 

to function as LWD in stream channels. The reduction in stocking densities following burning 

activities would increase the vigor of larger trees in the overstory. Consumption of coarse wood 

near stream channels greater than 4 inches DBH would be minimized. Beche et al. (2005) found 

that prescribed fire did not change the amount or movement of LWD in their study reach relative 

to unburned streams.

Moderate-intensity burning would occur in openings associated with riparian enhancement 

willow, cottonwood, aspen, and hawthorn activities. However, these burns would occur after 

riparian enhancement. Minor short-term reduction in LWD from moderate severity burning is 

anticipated, and some consumption of smaller size classes of downed LWD is expected; the 

magnitude of this reduction is anticipated to result in negative effects to LWD that are not

meaningfully measureable. Long-term beneficial effects to LWD are anticipated to occur from 
Magone Project

362 of 632

the restoration of fire-related riparian processes and functions through burning to invigorate 

riparian areas the effects of which are anticipated to be positive and meaningfully measureable 

for existing and recruitment LWD.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

3. The miles of temporary roads with alternative 3 increases from alternative 2. Two temporary 

roads within MCR steelhead critical habitat occur within Tinker Creek (existing roadbed) and 

East Fork Beech Creek. Therefore, the effects to large wood are greater than alternative 2 for 

temporary road construction. Limiting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent 

adverse impacts to existing and future LWD. Most temporary roads would have a discountable 

effect to fisheries resources (see discussion under pool frequency for alternative 2). Sites 

requiring the removal of trees that could be recruited as LWD for temporary road construction 

are limited in size and frequency, and the majority of trees removed adjacent to streams occur 

along intermittent streams, upstream of occupied habitat for TES/MIS species. Conifers would 

be felled into streams where feasible as described above. In most cases, trees that can safely be 

felled across the road often lean away from the stream channel and would be less likely to fall 

into stream channels where they could function as LWD. Further, only a percentage of conifers 

removed would be close enough to the channel to provide LWD. Temporary road construction 

would have a negative effect on LWD that would not be meaningfully measurable.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – The effects of stream crossings on LWD are the same 

as alternative 2. However, the number of crossings within Category 2 and 4 RHCAs on native 

surface roads increases by eight within Category 2 and by eight within category 4 RHCAs (Table 

82). Stream crossing activities may involve removal of trees that could function as recruitment 

LWD; however, any trees requiring removal would be tipped and placed into streams to provide 

immediate LWD. These activities would have a positive effect on LWD by ensuring that any 

removed trees immediately provide the stream processes and functions of LWD, although due to 

the small scale of treatments, a slight meaningfully measureable effect is anticipated.

The effects of stream crossing improvements to LWD are the same as those described in 

alternative 2, with the intensity of these treatments increasing due to an increase in the miles of 

road within 100 feet of RHCAs and the number of stream crossings.

Road Decommissioning and Road Closure – Road decommissioning activities would not 

include removal of trees that could function as LWD in stream channels. Conifers would be 

planted in decommissioned road segments as part of the decommissioning process. Over the 

long-term (70 to 100 years) LWD recruitment processes would be restored on the sides of 

streams previously occupied by roads as planted conifers become established and trees that fall 

across the previous roaded area are no longer cut and removed for vehicle access. Further, LWD 

additions would occur in streams associated with road decommissioning. The miles of road 

decommissioning are the same as described for alternative 2. Road decommissioning would have 

a positive effect on LWD that would be meaningfully measureable.

The effects of road closures on LWD are the same as those described for alternative 2.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – The effects of road maintenance 

activities on LWD within alternative 3 is same as for alternative 2 but at an increased intensity 

because the miles of road within 100 feet of RHCAs and the number of crossings increases.

The miles of closed to open road and open Forest Service road within 100 feet of category 2 and 

4 RHCAs for alternative 3 is greater than for alternative 2. The majority of these roads are on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

363 of 632

native material roads (Table 85). Activities would not likely result in a reduction of LWD to 

Category 1, 2, or 4 RHCA stream channels because in most cases, trees that can only safely be 

felled across the road often lean away from the stream channel and would be less likely to fall 

into stream channels where they could function as LWD. Where conifers are felled into the 

stream, they would immediately function as LWD. The effects of this action would be negative 

for LWD but would not be meaningfully measurable.

Recreation Trail Construction Interpretive Signage – The general effects of trail construction 

on LWD would be the same as described for alternative 2. However, the intensity of these effects 

increases by the number of miles within 100 feet of category 1, 2, 3 and 4 RHCAs (Table 87). 

Within alternative 3, the miles of trail within 100 feet of streams increases within each RHCA

category when compared to alternative 2. The number of trails crossing streams within category 

2 RHCAs doubles and the crossings within Category 4 RHCAs increases almost threefold from 

alternative 2. The effects of trail construction and stream crossings are expected to be of a greater 

intensity than that of alternative 2. However, felling of large-diameter primary shade trees within 

the RHCA is not anticipated for trail construction especially within 100 feet of Category 1 and 2

RHCAs. Therefore a neutral effect for LWD is expected from the felling or removal of smaller 

diameter trees as part of trail construction.

The effects to LWD from interpretive signage around Magone Lake is the same as described for 

alternative 2.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – The effects to LWD for construction of a day use 

area on the north side of Magone Lake is the same as described for alternative 2 for LWD.

Felling of any large trees within 100 feet of the shoreline is not expected to occur, therefore no 

effect to LWD within Magone Lake is expected.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The number of fish cribs and fish sticks added to Magone Lake for 

alternative 3 is the same as described for alternative 2. The addition of entire trees out from the 

shoreline and fish cribs within the lake is expected to have a beneficial and meaningfully 

measureable effect on LWD within Magone Lake.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring, Fishing Dock – The effects to LWD 

associated with the day use boat dock and campground boat mooring are the same as described 

for alternative 2. Since no trees are expected to be felled for installation of the fishing dock, no 

effect to LWD within Magone Lake is expected.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Embeddedness and Fine Sediment

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under 

alternative 3; therefore no meaningfully measureable effects to embeddedness and fine sediment 

are expected. No commercial treatments would occur within RHCAs.

The effects of skyline yarding on embeddedness and fine sediment would be the same as those 

described in alternative 2, but with greater intensity due to the increase in acreage identified for 

skyline. In the unexpected event that skyline corridors would cross streams, full suspension of 

logs across channels through limited width skyline corridors would filter sediment caused by 

ground disturbing activities.

Since proposed aspen restoration treatments and danger tree felling do not involve grounddisturbing activities, inputs of fine sediment are not expected to occur.
Magone Project

364 of 632

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

Most fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs. Ignition of prescribed burns 

would occur outside RHCAs, allowing fire to back into RHCAs from upslope burning units. 

Ignition would also occur within some RHCAs, stopping within 25 feet of the stream channel.

Due to the minor extent of moderate severity burning activities and PDCs that would be 

implemented with this action, moderate severity prescribed burning would not result in delivery 

of fine sediment to stream channels sufficient to result in meaningfully measureable effects to 

embeddedness and fine sediment. As invigorated riparian vegetation growth following the 

reintroduction of fire occurs, fine sediment from upland sources would be filtered and stored in 

the outer portions of RHCAs, resulting in a long-term beneficial effect to embeddedness and fine 

sediment that is meaningfully measureable.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

3. Limiting these ground-disturbing activities to areas outside of RHCAs along with erosion 

control BMPs would prevent negative and meaningfully measurable impacts to embeddedness 

and fine sediment. PACFISH RHCA buffer widths were designed to provide an area to trap fine 

sediment generated from upslope activities such as timber harvest.

The miles of temporary road construction (including post-use rehabilitation) of the segments that 

come to within 100 feet of a Category 1 stream channel in East Fork Beech Creek and Tinker 

Creek would likely result in creation and transport of fine sediment to East Fork Beech Creek 

and Tinker Creek due to loosening of sediment particles, destruction of ground cover, and 

construction of a new roadbed within the RHCA.

Proposed temporary road construction activities in RHCAs would likely result in creation and 

transport of fine sediment to stream channels due to loosening of sediment particles and 

destruction of ground cover. With implementation of PDCs, construction of most temporary 

roads within category 4 RHCAs would not result in a meaningfully measureable increase in 

embeddedness and fine sediment. However, temporary road 6 within East Fork Beech Creek 

goes up a steep hillside slope where no existing roadbed is present within MCR steelhead critical 

habitat. Temporary road 29 is on an existing roadbed that travels up a category 4 RHCA within 

MCR steelhead critical habitat and consists of a steep grade connected to Tinker Creek. Due to 

the steepness of the temporary road grades, lack of an existing roadbed, and risk associated with 

road drainage features, the level of sediment generated from construction of temporary roads 

within MCR steelhead critical habitat is expected to be negative and meaningfully measurable 

for fine sediment and embeddedness.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – The effects of stream crossings for alternative 3 are the 

same as those described for alternative 2 but at a greater intensity. However, due to the increase 

in the number of stream crossings within Category 2 and 4 RHCAs on native surface roads when 

compared to alternative 2 (Table 82), the effect is expected to be negative but not meaningfully 

measurable for embeddedness and fine sediment with implementation of log haul PDCs (FEIS 

Appendix C – Project Design Criteria).

The effects of stream crossing improvement on fine sediment and embeddedness would be the 

same as those described in alternative 2, but at a greater intensity because of the increase of haul 

routes within 100 feet of RHCAs and the number of RHCA crossings, but is not expected to rise 

to a level that is meaningfully measurable for fine sediment and embeddedness.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

365 of 632

Road Decommissioning and Road Closure – The miles of road decommissioning identified 

within RHCAs in alternative 3 are the same as described for alternative 2. The procedure for 

decommissioning a road would include removing all culverts and reshaping the immediate area. 

In addition, cross ditches would be constructed to maintain drainage and reduce the potential for 

surface erosion. These measures would be implemented during decommissioning to 

“hydrologically disconnect” roads from streams, to reduce sediment entering streams and 

affecting fish habitat.

There is a short-term risk of generating sediment during and shortly after decommissioning 

activities, which could reach streams, primarily near stream crossings where culvert removal, 

scarification, or subsoiling is needed to discourage vehicle use and improve infiltration. Bare soil 

is prone to erosion and can result in fine sediment entering stream channels and resultant 

increases in turbidity. Habitat impacts are likely to include areas of exposed streambank in 

isolated locations primarily in the vicinity of stream crossings. Exposed areas and other 

disturbances that occur are likely to result in a slight increase in turbidity for a short distance 

downstream during rainstorms or runoff events. However, given background levels of turbidity 

during runoff events it would be difficult to distinguish between turbidity resulting from this 

project activity and background turbidity. An unknown amount of sediment would be mobilized 

into streams. Timing of work outside of the wet season and adherence to all PDCs and BMPs 

would further limit fine sediment delivery. A slight increase in fine sediment deposition for a 

short distance downstream of exposed and disturbed areas is also likely to occur. There is the 

potential for fine sediment to slightly increase embeddedness within gravels suitable for 

spawning when the gravel is located immediately downstream from road decommissioning sites. 

Increased embeddedness may also result in a decrease in the potential for production of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates as discussed above. These impacts are expected to be localized and shortterm. Consequently, the effect to embeddedness and fine sediment by road decommissioning is 

negative and expected to be measureable.

Road decommissioning would also have a positive and meaningfully measureable effect on 

embeddedness and fine sediment due to a lasting but minor decrease in fine sediment delivery to 

streams as a result of hydrologically disconnecting unneeded roads from the drainage system. 

Design criteria include those identified in the ARBO as well as design criteria developed by the 

Blue Mountain Ranger District interdisciplinary team. The ARBO PDCs specific to this project 

would be implemented as described in the ARBO. Implementation of the PDCs, as well as 

implementation of any Reasonable Prudent Measures and Terms & Conditions from Endangered 

Species Act section 7 consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria) would reduce the probability and 

magnitude of this short-term risk. 

After about 2 years, effects of road decommissioning are beneficial for water quality and fish 

habitat. The improved infiltration and ground cover condition of the decommissioned roads, as 

well as restoration of the energy-dissipating functions associated with floodplain connectivity, 

would help restore natural watershed function, including reduced sediment yield from the road 

prism.

The effects of road closure on embeddedness and fine sediment are the same as those described 

for alternative 2.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul and water drafting) – The miles of road within 

100 feet of RHCAs for haul is greater than alternative 2 for alternative 3 in Category 2 and 4 

RHCAs (Table 85). The effects of road maintenance on embeddedness and fine sediment are the 
Magone Project

366 of 632

same as those described for alternative 2. However, the effects are expected to increase in 

intensity due to the increase in miles of road within 100 feet of Category 2 and 4 RHCAs. Road 

maintenance would occur at a level commensurate with use, and would include several activities 

that may potentially result in sedimentation from the road prism to the ditch line or the adjacent 

slope. Typical road maintenance activities would blade and shape the road, including existing 

drainage dips, grade sags, and waterbars; repair damaged culverts and ditches; place rock in 

some existing drainage dips and grade sags; place rock in wet areas of road; remove brush and

danger trees; and apply dust abatement. Machinery would be kept on the road prism.

The longer term effects of road maintenance are to maintain or improve existing road conditions. 

Road maintenance may decrease chronic sedimentation in some locations. Improving drainage, 

removing ruts and rills from the driving surface, and adding less erosive surfacing material 

would reduce detachment and transport of sediment. This is especially important for roads within 

RHCAs. Because road maintenance activities would be commensurate with use, it is possible 

that if winter logging occurs, little to no road maintenance may be necessary and therefore would 

not occur. Alternatively, if operations occur in the summer, road maintenance may occur on all or 

nearly all of the haul roads.

Proposed road maintenance and haul activities in RHCAs would likely result in creation and 

transport of a negligible amount of fine sediment to stream channels due to loosening of 

sediment particles and destruction of ground cover. However, PDCs would be implemented 

during these activities, and are expected to limit fine sediment delivery to streams, keeping 

amounts reaching stream channels to negligible levels for other than rare precipitation events 

(negative but not meaningfully measurable).

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul would be in accordance with the PDCs, 

including National Marine Fisheries Service guidance. Use of PDCs for water drafting would 

ensure that water withdrawals do not result in significant delivery of fine sediment to streams.

Recreation Trail Construction Interpretive Signage – In alternative 3, 92.4 miles of trail are 

proposed with 80.8 miles of new trail construction. A total of 28.2 miles of these trails are within 

the Nipple Butte IRA (Table 87). The miles of trail within 100 feet of RHCA categories and 

MCR steelhead critical habitat as well as the number of crossings are summarized in Table 87. 

The number of RHCA crossings within RHCA categories increases from alternative 2 with a

large increase in category 4 RHCA crossings when compared to alternative 2. The number of 

crossings within MCR steelhead critical habitat is the same as described for alternative 2. The 

mile of trail within 100 feet of all RHCA categories is greater for alternative 3 than alternative 2. 

The miles of MCR steelhead critical habitat is the same as described for alternative 2. 

Implementation of PDCs, BMPs, and ARBO criteria for livestock crossing streams on 

recreational trail crossings within Category 1 and 2 RHCAs are expected to limit fine sediment 

delivery to streams; however, effects are expected to be negative and meaningfully measurable

for embeddedness and fine sediment due to the magnitude of trails and trail crossings within 

category 4 RHCAs in alternative 3. No interpretive sites or trailheads are within Category 1, 2, 

or 4 RHCAs or within MCR steelhead critical habitat.

The effects of interpretive signage on fine sediment are the same as described for alternative 2.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – The effects for embeddedness and fine sediment for 

construction of a day use area on the north side of Magone Lake is the same as described for 

alternative 2. Construction of a day use area may increase the activity along the shoreline 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

367 of 632

immediately adjacent to the day use area. This activity could result in trails devoid of vegetation 

traversing down the slope from the day use area. With implementation of PDCs and BMPs the 

effects for fine sediment are expected to be negative but not meaningfully measurable.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – Disturbance related to tipping of conifers for fish cribs and fish 

sticks will occur more than 50 feet from the Magone Lake Category 3 RHCA shoreline. 

Rootwads attached to trees may contain a small amount of soil when placed within the lake. 

PDCs requiring work to occur over snow and frozen ground and BMPs would minimize any 

potential for sediment reaching the lake. Therefore, a negligible amount of fine sediment is 

expected to be delivered to Magone Lake and is not expected to be meaningfully measurable.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring, Fishing Dock – Sediment may be generated 

as part of installation and construction of access points for the docks but these areas would be 

small, approximately 4x4 feet. PDCs such as hardened shoreline access points for moorings,

implementation of BMPs, and the use of primarily hand tools would minimize ground 

disturbance within these area. The effects for installation of a day use boat dock, campground 

boat mooring, and fishing dock are expected be negligible and not meaningfully measurable for 

sediment within Magone Lake.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Width-to-Depth Ratio and Streambank Stability

Width-to-depth ratio and streambank stability indicators are grouped since they are affected 

similarly by project elements.

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The acres of silviculture prescriptions, yarding, and danger tree felling is greater 

than alternatives 2 and 4. Most timber felling activities would have a neutral effect on width-todepth ratios and streambank stability due to proximity of most actions away from the stream 

channel and outside of RHCAs, in addition to implementation of PDCs and BMPs.

The effects of skyline yarding on width-to-depth ratios and bank stability would be the same as 

those described for alternative 2, but with greater intensity due to the increase in acreage 

identified for skyline. In the unexpected event that skyline corridors would cross streams, full 

suspension of logs across channels through limited width skyline corridors would filter sediment 

caused by ground disturbing activities.

The possible minor amounts of sediment entering channels and small areas of bank instability 

would not affect width-to-depth ratios at the site or reach scale. Effects from these actions on 

width-to-depth ratios would be neutral.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The acreage of fuels treatments within alternative 3 is greater than alternative 2. Planned 

ignitions within the Nipple Butte IRA would only occur in the fall.

Minor short-term decrease in stream bank stability would occur as a result of prescribed burning 

activities outside RHCAs, where fire is allowed to back into the RHCA until vegetation recovers. 

However, it is unlikely that burned patches along stream banks would be in sufficient sizes or 

quantities to result in a meaningfully measureable decrease in bank stability. These impacts 

would not be of a scale that would result in destabilization of stream channels, thus a neutral 

effect to width-to-depth ratios from fuels treatments is anticipated. Over the long-term, as fire 

invigorates riparian shrub growth, bank stability would increase in a meaningfully measureable 
Magone Project

368 of 632

way. No effects to bank stability or width-to-depth ratios are expected from pile burning and 

biomass removal due to proximity of these activities away from stream channels.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings would occur within RHCAs. Construction of a 

temporary road that comes to within 100 feet of East Fork Beech Creek and Tinker Creek is 

proposed, but would not damage stream banks or deliver sediment to the degree that any effects 

to bank stability or width-to-depth ratios would occur (neutral effects).

Stream Crossings and Improvements – The effects of stream crossings on streambank stability 

and width-to-depth ratios are the same as those described for alternative 2, but with greater 

intensity. The number of native surface road crossings increases within category 2 and 4 RHCAs 

(Table 82). Stream crossings would address current bank stability and width-to-depth ratio issues 

at crossing sites, having long-term beneficial effects to stream processes and functions that 

extend well beyond those work sites. Effects from stream crossing improvements on width-todepth ratios and bank stability would be positive and meaningfully measureable.

Road Decommissioning and Road Closure – Road decommissioning and road closure would 

positively affect bank stability and width-to-depth ratios by obliterating roads that restrict 

floodplain connectivity and closing roads that may be creating bank instability. The minor 

amount of sediment delivered to streams associated with road decommissioning would not affect 

width-to-depth ratios. Due to the extent and location of treatments, this effect would be positive 

and meaningfully measureable.

The effects of road closure on streambank stability and width-to-depth ratios is the same as those 

described for alternative 2.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting, road closures, and recreation 

interpretive site development) – The possible minor amounts of sediment entering channels 

from road maintenance activities would not affect floodplain connectivity, streambank stability, 

or width-to-depth ratios at the site or reach scale. A neutral effect is anticipated.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The general effects related to trail 

construction for width-to-depth ratios and bank stability are the same as described for alternative 

2. However, the miles of trail construction within 100 feet of RHCAs increases substantially 

within alternative 3. However, clearing of shade-providing trees would not occur as part of trail 

construction and trail widths would be less than 3 feet. Due to the number of trail miles within 

100 feet of streams and the number of stream crossings, trail construction is expected to have a 

negative and meaningfully measurable effect on streambank stability and a neutral effect on 

width-to-depth ratios.

The effect of interpretative signage around Magone Lake is the same as those described for 

alternative 2.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – The effects to bank stability and width-to-depth 

ratios are the same as described for alternative 2 for construction of a day use area on the north 

side of Magone Lake. 

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The effects to bank stability and width-to-depth ratios for 

installation of fish cribs and fish sticks are the same as described for alternative 2

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring, Fishing dock – The effects to bank stability 

and width-to-depth ratios for installation of a day use boat dock and campground boat mooring 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

369 of 632

are the same as described for alternative 2. Sediment may be generated as part of installation and 

construction of access points for the docks but these areas would be small, approximately 4 by 4 

feet. PDCs such as hardened shoreline access points for moorings, implementation of BMPs, and 

the use of primarily hand tools would minimize ground disturbance within these areas. The 

effects of installation of a day use boat dock, campground boat mooring, and fishing dock are 

expected to be negligible and not meaningfully measurable for sediment within Magone Lake. 

Placement of a fishing dock adjacent to the proposed north side day use area may alleviate 

trailing along the shoreline by recreationists and minimize damage to shoreline vegetation by 

providing a hardened access point.

Cumulative Effects

Potential effects from alternative 3 would be cumulative with effects from non-federal activities 

within the project planning area and activities within the aquatic analysis area on federal, state, 

and private lands. Aside from this project, other non-restoration activities that may contribute to 

cumulative effects include: timber harvest activities, wildfires, livestock grazing, road use, flood 

irrigation and water diversion, and vegetation alteration.

Although the aquatic restoration actions covered under the Aquatic Restoration Decision would 

alleviate degraded conditions within RHCAs, there would be short-term adverse effects to 

several of the primary habitat elements; primarily fine sediment related to culvert 

replacement/removal, large and coarse wood placement, log weir and boulder modification, and 

prescribed fire. These actions directly address altered sediment transport regimes for scour and 

deposition and riparian vegetative structure resulting in long-term benefits for all fish habitat 

elements. (See discussion of aquatic restoration effects to past, present, and foreseeable activities 

relevant to cumulative effects analysis and Table 97 below.)

3.8.2.6 Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects – Pool Frequency

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The number of acres within silviculture prescriptions and potential danger tree 

felling is less for alternative 4 than alternatives 2 and 3 (approximatelyhalf of alternative 2). The 

number of upland aspen stand treatments is the same for all alternatives except alternative 1. The 

majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under alternative 4, therefore 

no meaningfully measureable effects to pool frequency are expected.

The effects of skyline yarding on pool frequency would be the same as those described in 

alternative 2 but with less intensity due to the decrease in acreage identified for skyline. In the 

unexpected event that skyline corridors would cross streams, full suspension of logs across 

channels through limited width skyline corridors would filter sediment caused by ground 

disturbing activities.

The effects of aspen restoration activities on are the same as described for alternatives 2 and 3

for pool frequency.

The miles of haul route within RHCA categories for alternative 4 is less than alternatives 2 and 

3. Effects related to felling of danger trees are the same as alternatives 2 and 3. Therefore, the 
Magone Project

370 of 632

effects related to danger tree felling on pool frequency would be less than those described in 

alternatives 2 and 3.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The acres of prescribed fire proposed for alternative 4 is less than alternatives 2 and 3. Planned 

ignitions would not occur in the Nipple Butte IRA. The majority of fuels treatment activities 

would occur outside of RHCAs and would have beneficial effects to fisheries resources by 

reducing surface fuels, thinning trees, stimulating growth of aspen and other hardwoods, and 

increasing the canopy base height but to a lesser extent than described for alternatives 2 and 3.

Burning activities would not result in delivery of fine sediment to stream channels sufficient to

result in a meaningfully measureable reduction of pool habitat. The reduction in stocking 

densities following burning activities would also increase the vigor of larger trees in the 

overstory for future LWD to create pools; this effect would be positive and meaningfully 

measureable.

Piling would not occur within RHCAs. Pile burning activities would not result in delivery of fine 

sediment to stream channels sufficient to result in a meaningfully measureable reduction of pool 

habitat.

Biomass removal activities would not occur in RHCAs. Biomass removal activities would not 

result in delivery of fine sediment to stream channels sufficient to result in a meaningfully 

measureable reduction of pool habitat.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

4. Limiting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing 

and future pool habitat. The effect of temporary road construction within Category 1 RHCAs on 

pool frequency is the same as described for alternative 2.

Temporary roads in Category 4 RHCA stream channels would not result in a reduction in pool 

frequency because of the existing road bed from past partial decommissioning and the fact that 

in most cases, trees that can only safely be felled across the road often lean away from the stream 

channel and would be less likely to fall into stream channels where they could function in the 

formation of pools and/or contribute coarse particulate organic matter directly to the stream. No 

temporary roads would occur within MCR steelhead critical habitat in alternative 4.

Table 89. Alternative 4 miles temporary and closed to open roads within Mid-Columbia River (MCR) 

steelhead critical habitat

Road type Miles within MCR steelhead critical habitat (100 feet) native 

surface road 

Closed to open Forest Service road 0.11 (EF Beech Creek, Tinker Creek)

Temporary road 0

With implementation of PDCs and BMPs, reopening of the closed road would result in a 

negative but not meaningfully measureable reduction in pool frequency for those on existing 

roadbeds.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – There are nine crossings on MCR steelhead critical 

habitat; two are on asphalt, five are on crushed aggregate, and two are on native surface, which is 

the same as described for alternatives 2 and 3. Within Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs in the project 

planning area there are 12 crossings on asphalt, 25 on crushed aggregate, and 43 on native 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

371 of 632

surface (Table 90). Road status for the crossings within each RHCA category for alternative 4 are 

also summarized in Table 91. The effects of native road surface crossings described within 

alternatives 2 and 3 have decreased by an additional 18 native surface road crossings for haul 

within category 2 and 4 RHCAs (closed to open roads) and one less temporary road crossing. 

Stream crossings on native surface roads may contribute sediment to stream channels but with 

implementation of BMPs and PDCs related to rocking of road crossings and appropriate 

drainage features a reduction in pool frequency due to sediment inputs is not likely to occur. 

However, the risk associated with these crossings contributing sediment is decreased and thus 

the risk of a reduction in pool frequency decreases with the decrease in native surface road 

crossings.

The effects of stream crossing improvements on pool frequency are the same as those described 

in alternatives 2 and 3 but with less intensity due to a decrease in the miles of road within 100

feet of RHCAs and number of stream crossings.

Table 90. Alternative 4 stream crossings by road surface type and Mid-Columbia River (MCR) 

steelhead critical habitat

MCR steelhead 

critical habitat

Asphalt Crushed 

aggregate/gravel

Native surface Temporary

Streams crossed 2 streams Grub 

Creek, Tinker 

Creek

5 streams EF 

Beech Creek,

Tinker Creek, Clear 

Creek

2 streams Tinker 

Creek,

EF Beech Creek

0

Table 91. Alternative 4 road surface, road designation, stream crossings

RHCA category Asphalt Crushed 

aggregate/gravel

Native surface Temporary

Category 1 3 crossings (open 

Forest Service and 

County roads)

5 crossings (open 

Forest Service and 

County roads)

2 crossings (1 open 

Forest Service and 1 

closed to open 

Forest Service 

roads)

0

Category 2 3 crossings (2 open 

Forest Service and 

1 open County 

roads)

8 crossings (6 open 

Forest Service and 

2 open County 

roads)

3 crossings (2 open 

Forest Service and 1 

closed to open 

Forest Service 

roads)

0

Category 4 6 crossings (2 open 

Forest Service and 

4 open County 

roads)

12 crossings (9 

open Forest 

Service and 3 open 

County roads)

38 crossings (11 

open Forest Service 

and 27 closed to 

open Forest Service 

roads)

5 crossings

Total 12 25 43 5

Road Decommissioning and Road closure – Approximately 0.32 miles of road 

decommissioning would occur on one segment of road with alternative 4, which is the same as 

alternative 2 and 3. The decommissioned segment within a category 4 RHCAs occurs on Grub 

Creek approximately 1 mile above MCR steelhead critical habitat (Table 92). Road closure 

segments occur on East Fork Beech Creek and unnamed tributaries to East Fork Beech Creek, 

and Clear Creek above MCR steelhead critical habitat (Table 92). The miles of road closure 

within alternative 4 are less than alternative 3 within Category 2 and 4 RHCAs (approximately 

0.08 miles). The miles and locations of road decommissioning are the same as alternative 3 but 

less than alternative 2. The effects of road decommissioning for alternative 4 are the same as 
Magone Project

372 of 632

alternative 3, with slightly less of a positive and meaningfully measurable increase as that of 

alternative 2 in pool frequency for the long-term.

Table 92. Alternative 4 miles of decommissioned road and closed road segments with riparian 

habitat conservation area (RHCA) categories

Road changes within 100 feet 

RHCA

Category 1 RHCA Category 2 RHCA Category 4 RHCA

Decommissioning 0 0 0.32

Close road 0.02 0 0.12

Decommissioning activities result in the removal of a road from the permanent transportation 

system of the Forest. The impacts of the road on the environment are eliminated or reduced to an 

acceptable level; the goal is to leave the road in a “hydrologically disconnected” state and 

convert the former roadway to other resource uses. Decommissioning includes restoring 

hydrologic function by re-contouring, subsoiling, and scarification of the surface. Watershed 

design criteria identify specific measures for decommissioning.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires “re-establishing vegetative cover” on 

decommissioned roads within 10 years {16 USC 1608(b)}. To accomplish this, the roadbed 

would be covered with natural materials such as logs, rocks, slash, and brush for a distance 

deemed to prohibit motor vehicle use; re-contouring, ripping/subsoiling, and seeding would 

occur as necessary; roads decommissioned within RHCAs would also be planted with conifers to 

maintain vegetation establishment and growth. Vegetation would be re-established as well via 

seeding and planting of conifers and hardwoods.

Road decommissioning activities would not include removal of trees that could function as LWD 

in stream channels, nor result in delivery of sediment to streams to a degree that pools are filled; 

therefore, reductions in existing pool habitat would not occur. Trees would be planted in 

decommissioned road segments in RHCAs as part of the decommissioning process. Further, 

LWD would be added to streams adjacent to decommissioned roads (see LWD discussion 

below). Restoration of floodplain connectivity and stream channel complexity through road 

decommissioning, LWD additions, and revegetation activities would restore stream process and 

function, and result in a long-term increase in pool frequency that is positive and meaningfully 

measureable. Restoration of LWD recruitment processes on the sides of streams where roads 

previously occurred would increase and maintain LWD recruitment and resulting pool frequency 

in the long-term (70 to 100 years).

The effects of road closure on pool frequency are the same as those described for alternatives 2 

and 3.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul and water drafting) – Approximately 14.8 miles 

of haul routes and road maintenance would occur in Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs; approximately 

7 miles of these activities would occur within 100 feet of Category 1 RHCA streams. Road 

maintenance would occur on all haul routes. With implementation of PDCs, delivery of fine 

sediment resulting from road maintenance and use would not be of sufficient magnitude to result 

in a meaningfully measureable reduction in pool frequency.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

373 of 632

Table 93. Alternative 4 miles of road type and road surface within 100 feet of Category 1, 2 and 4 

riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). Bold numbers indicate difference from alternative 2 

(fewer miles)

Road types and surfaces within 

100 feet of RHCA

Category 1 RHCA Category 2 RHCA Category 4 RHCA

Road type

Closed to open Forest Service road 0.34 0.03 2.57

Open County road 1.9 0.25 0.4

Open Forest Service road 4.79 1.65 2.1

Temporary road 0.03 0 0.70

Total miles 7.1 1.9 5.8

Road surface

Asphalt 0.5 0.7 0.5

Crushed aggregate or gravel 6 1 0.3

Native material 0.06 0.2 4.6

Temporary 0.03 0 0.4

Improved native material 0.1 0.1

Total miles 7.1 1.9 5.8

Table 94. Alternative 4 miles of road type and surface type for haul within 100 feet of Mid-Columbia 

River steelhead critical habitat

Road type Asphalt Crushed 

aggregate

Native material

Closed to open Forest Service road 0.11 0 0.01

Open County road 0.28 0.82

Open Forest Service road 0 0.60 1.13

Temporary road 0 0 0.01

Total miles 0.39 1.42 1.15

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul activities would occur. Water withdrawals 

would be in accordance with the PDCs, including National Marine Fisheries Service guidance. 

Use of these PDCs would insure that water withdrawals do not result in a reduction in pool 

habitat.

Approximately 0.14 miles of open roads would be closed under alternative 4. Closed roads are 

those roads on which motorized traffic has been excluded by regulation, barricade blockage, or 

by obscuring the entrance. A closed road is still an operating facility on which motorized traffic 

has been removed (year-long or seasonal) and remains on the Forest Road Transportation 

System. Roads would be closed using gates or signs. Closed roads would be left in a stable 

condition and maintained. The effects for pool frequency related to road closures would be the 

same as described for alternative 2.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The miles of trail within Category 

1, 2, and 4 RHCAs is 1.06 miles, which is approximately two miles less than alternative 2, and 

five miles less than alternative 3. There are seven RHCA crossings within alternative 4, which is 

27 less than alternative 2 and 71 less than alternative 3. There are no crossings of MCR steelhead 

critical habitat within alternative 4, but four crossings within alternative 2 and 3. 
Magone Project

374 of 632

There are no trails within 100 feet of MCR steelhead critical habitat in alternative 4.The effects 

related to trail crossings and construction within alternative 4 would be less than alternatives 3 

and 4 for pool frequency. With implementation of PDCs, there would be a neutral effect to pool 

frequency from this activity.

The effects of interpretive signage on pool frequency would be the same as alternative 2.

Table 95. Alternative 4 trails

Proposed trail Miles of Trail

Total proposed trail 11.9

New construction 9.4

Within Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area 3

Table 96. Number of stream crossings in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) and MidColumbia River (MCR) steelhead critical habitat trail, and miles of trail within these areas

Stream designation Number of 

stream crossings

Miles of trail within 100 feet of RHCA 

and MCR steelhead critical habitat

Category 1 RHCA 2 0.27

Category 2 RHCA 4 0.71

Category 4 RHCA 2 0.08

Mid-Columbia River steelhead critical 

habitat

0 0

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – There would be no development of a north side day 

use area on Magone Lake, and therefore no effect to pool frequency.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The number of fish cribs with alternative 4 would be 5 to 10,

which is less than alternatives 2 and 3, and the number of fish sticks is also less than alternatives 

2 and 3. The effects described in alternatives 2 and 3 for these activities on pool frequency would 

be the same for alternative 4, but would decrease in intensity.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – The effects to pool frequency from 

installation of a day use boat dock and campground boat mooring would be the same as 

alternatives 2 and 3. No fishing dock would be placed on Magone Lake for alternative 4.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Water Temperature and Stream Shading

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The number of acres within silviculture prescriptions and potential danger tree 

felling is less for alternative 4 than alternatives 2 and 3 (approximately half of alternative 2). The 

number of upland aspen stand treatments is the same through all alternatives except alternative 1. 

The majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under alternative 4, 

therefore no meaningfully measureable effects to stream shading and water temperature is 

expected.

The effects of skyline yarding on pool frequency would be the same as those described in 

alternatives 2 and 3 but with less intensity due to the decrease in acreage identified for skyline.

In the unexpected event that skyline corridors cross streams, full suspension of logs across 

channels through limited width skyline corridors would filter sediment caused by ground 

disturbing activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

375 of 632

Felling of danger trees may occur along haul routes that are within 100 feet of Category 1 RHCA 

streams, and previous field observations suggest there would be one to two trees per mile.

Danger trees felled within the RHCA would be utilized within the RHCA. Danger trees are 

usually dead and provide little shade, especially when surrounded by live trees. Considering this,

as well as the minimal number of danger trees anticipated to be felled, measurable increases in 

stream temperatures would not likely result from proposed danger tree felling. Additionally, 

danger trees felled within or into RHCAs would be felled into the stream where feasible, or 

otherwise left within the RHCA. Conifers felled into streams would immediately shade a minor 

portion of the stream, as well as provide sheltered sites for riparian hardwood growth through 

reduction of browse by herbivores, which would enhance stream shading in the long term. 

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The majority of fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs and would have 

beneficial effects to aquatic resources by reducing surface fuels, thinning trees, stimulating 

growth of aspen and other hardwoods, and increasing the canopy base height.

The effects of prescribed burning on stream shading and water temperature are the same as those 

described for alternatives 2 and 3. With alternative 4, prescribed fire is not proposed within the 

Nipple Butte IRA, and the acres of prescribed burning in the project area decreases. Due to the 

decrease in prescribed burning adjacent to RHCAs, the effects to shade and water temperature 

are expected to be less than alternatives 2 and 3, with a neutral and not meaningfully measurable 

effect to shade and water temperature. However, the lack of fire within these areas may result in 

a more severe wildfire, especially in the Nipple Butte IRA, resulting in a negative and 

meaningfully measurable effect to shade and water temperature. Therefore, benefits to RHCAs 

associated with wildfire would not be realized to the extent as that of alternatives 2 and 3, and 

wildfire could result in negative consequences.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

4, which is the same as alternatives 2 and 3. The effects of temporary road construction on shade 

and water temperature are the same as those described for alternative 2. Sites requiring the 

removal of shade-providing trees for temporary road construction are limited in size and 

frequency. The majority of shade-providing trees removed adjacent to streams occur along 

intermittent streams, reducing the likelihood that removal of these trees would result in a change 

in water temperature because intermittent streams go dry before water temperatures in occupied 

TES/MIS habitat downstream become limiting to fish. The removal of relatively young and short 

in stature trees associated with temporary roads constructed on existing roadbeds would not 

occur within perennial streams and therefore effects to shade and water temperature would not 

be meaningfully measureable. Additionally there are older, taller trees immediately adjacent to 

the roadbed (not in the roadbed) and stream channels that function as primary shade.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – The effects related to road crossings on shade and 

stream temperature are the same as those discussed under shade and water temperature within 

alternatives 2 and 3. Within alternative 4 there is a decrease in the number of Category 2 and 4 

stream crossings on native surface roads. Therefore, the intensity of the effects associated with 

stream crossings is less than that of alternatives 2 and 3. Implementation of log haul PDCs (see 

FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria) and BMPs would result in a negative effect on 

shade and water temperature that is not meaningfully measurable.

The effects of stream crossing improvements to shade and water temperature are the same as 

those described in alternatives 2 and 3 but with less intensity due to a decrease in the number of 

RHCA crossings.
Magone Project

376 of 632

Road Decommissioning and Road Closure – Road decommissioning actions would not have 

any immediate effect on shade. Removal of danger trees in RHCAs for decommissioning 

activities is not anticipated. Conifers and native riparian hardwoods would be planted in 

decommissioned road segments as part of the decommissioning process. Over the long-term (50 

to 70 years), shading would increase beyond baseline as planted conifers become established and 

grow to a size that provides shading.

The effects of road closures on stream shading and water temperature are the same as those 

described for alternatives 2 and 3.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – Road maintenance and use 

would have a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect to stream shading and water 

temperatures because of the likelihood that some hazard trees may be felled adjacent to RHCAs. 

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul activities would occur. Water drafting can 

occur only as long as supply is adequate to provide for both fish and water withdrawal. The 

maximum water withdrawal from one site in an 8-hour period would be 18,000 gallons of water. 

Water withdrawals would be in accordance with the criteria described in the 2010 Malheur 

National Forest Road Maintenance Biological Assessment and National Marine Fisheries Service

guidance, included in FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria. Use of these criteria would 

insure that water withdrawals do not result in a measurable increase in water temperatures.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The miles of trail within Category 

1, 2, and 4 RHCAs in alternative 4 is considerably less than with alternatives 2 and 3. Effects to 

shade and water temperature described for alternatives 2 and 3 would be the same but to a lesser 

degree in alternative 4.

No interpretive signage would occur within alternative 4.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – The day use area is not proposed within alternative 4; 

therefore no effect to stream shade or temperature is anticipated.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The effects of fish cribs and fish sticks on shade and water 

temperature are the same as those described for alternatives 2 and 3. The intensity of the actions 

associated with these structures is less than that of alternatives 2 and 3.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – The effects of installation of the day use 

boat dock and campground boat mooring on shade and water temperature in alternative 4 would 

be the same as described for alternatives 2 and 3.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Large Woody Debris

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under 

alternative 4, therefore no meaningfully measureable effects to LWD are expected.

The effects of skyline yarding on LWD would be the same as described for alternatives 2 and 3

but with less intensity due to a decrease in acreages from that of alternatives 2 and 3.

The effects of aspen restoration would be the same as described for alternatives 2 and 3 for LWD 

and the acreage treated remains the same.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

377 of 632

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

The effects of prescribed burning, piling and burning, and biomass removal on LWD are the 

same as those described for alternative 2 but to a lesser degree than alternatives 2 and 3 due to 

the decrease in all of the above proposed activities in alternative 4.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

4. Limiting these activities to areas outside of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing 

and future LWD. Effects of temporary roads on LWD are the same as those described for 

alternative 2. Sites requiring the removal of trees that could be recruited as LWD for temporary 

road construction are limited in size and frequency, and the majority of trees removed adjacent to 

streams occur along intermittent streams, upstream of occupied habitat for TES/MIS species. 

Conifers would be felled into streams where feasible as described above. In most cases, trees that 

can safely be felled across the road often lean away from the stream channel and would be less 

likely to fall into stream channels where they could function as LWD. Temporary road 

construction within RHCAs would have a negative effect on LWD that would not be 

meaningfully measurable due to the limited number of miles of temporary road and that they are 

located on former roadbeds.

Stream Crossings and Improvements – The effects related to road crossings on LWD are the 

same as those discussed under LWD for alternatives 2 and 3. With alternative 4 there is a 

decrease in the number of Category 2 and 4 stream crossings on native surface roads. Therefore 

the intensity of the effects associated with stream crossings on LWD is less than that of 

alternatives 2 and 3.

The effects of stream crossing improvements on LWD are the same as those described for 

alternatives 2 and 3 but with less intensity due to a decrease in the number of stream crossings on 

native surface roads within RHCAs.

Road Decommissioning and Road Closure – The effects of road decommissioning and road 

closure on LWD are the same as those described for alternatives 2 and 3.The miles of road 

closure and road decommissioning within 100 feet of RHCAs is the same as alternative 2.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – The effects of road maintenance 

activities on LWD are the same as those described for alternative 2. Activities would not likely 

result in a reduction of LWD to Category 1, 2, or 4 RHCA stream channels because in most 

cases, trees that can only safely be felled across the road often lean away from the stream 

channel and would be less likely to fall into stream channels where they could function as LWD. 

Where conifers are felled into the stream, they would immediately function as LWD. The effects 

of this action would be negative for LWD but would not be meaningfully measurable.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Signage – The effects of trail construction on 

LWD would be the same as described for alternative 2, but at less intensity due to the decrease in 

trail construction within 100 feet of Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs, which is less than with 

alternatives 2 and 3.

No interpretive signage would be installed as part of alternative 4.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – The day use area on the north side of Magone Lake 

would not be constructed with alternative 4.
Magone Project

378 of 632

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The effects of fish cribs and fish sticks would be the same as those 

described for alternatives 2 and 3 but with slightly less of a beneficial effect on LWD.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – The effects of LWD from installation of a 

day use boat dock and campground boat mooring would be the same as described for alternatives 

2 and 3.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Embeddedness and Fine Sediment

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – The majority of timber felling activities would occur outside of RHCAs under 

alternative 4, therefore no meaningfully measureable effects to embeddedness and fine sediment 

are expected. No commercial or non-commercial treatments would occur within RHCAs.

The effects of skyline yarding on embeddedness and fine sediment are the same as those 

described for alternative 2, but less than alternatives 2 and 3 due to the decrease in skyline 

acreages. In the unexpected event that skyline corridors would cross streams, full suspension of 

logs across channels through limited width skyline corridors would filter sediment caused by 

ground disturbing activities.

Since proposed aspen restoration treatments and danger tree felling do not involve grounddisturbing activities, inputs of fine sediment are not expected to occur.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) –

Most fuels treatment activities would occur outside of RHCAs. The effects of prescribed fire on 

embedded and fine sediment would be the same as described for alternative 2, but to a lesser 

extent than alternatives 2 and 3 due to planned prescribed burning not occurring within the 

Nipple Butte IRA (units 6 and 7).

Due to the minor extent of moderate severity burning activities and PDCs that would be 

implemented with this action, moderate severity prescribed burning would not result in delivery 

of fine sediment to stream channels sufficient to result in meaningfully measureable effects to 

embeddedness and fine sediment. As invigorated riparian vegetation growth following the 

reintroduction of fire occurs, fine sediment from upland sources would be filtered and stored in 

outer portions of RHCAs, resulting in a long-term beneficial effect to embeddedness and fine 

sediment that is meaningfully measureable.

Beche et al. (2005) conducted intense post-prescribed fire monitoring (e.g., pebble counts, 

longitudinal profiles, and cross-sections) and observed little to no change in stream sediment 

composition one year post-fire. Similarly, they observed little to no change in stream channel 

morphology and no substantial change in erosion or deposition in the surveyed reaches (Beche et 

al. 2005).

Biomass removal would not occur in RHCAs.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings are proposed within RHCAs under alternative 

4. Limiting these ground-disturbing activities to areas outside of RHCAs along with erosion 

control BMPs, would prevent negative and meaningfully measurable impacts to embeddedness 

and fine sediment. PACFISH RHCA buffer widths were designed to provide an area to trap fine 

sediment generated from upslope activities such as timber harvest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

379 of 632

The effects of temporary road construction on fine sediment and embeddedness for temporary 

roads within Category 1 RHCAs are the same as those described in alternative 2. With 

implementation of PDCs, construction of most temporary roads on existing road beds would not 

result in a meaningfully measureable increase in embeddedness and fine sediment.

Stream Crossing and Improvements – There are nine crossings of MCR steelhead critical habitat;

two are on asphalt, five are on crushed aggregate, and two are on native surface, which is the 

same as alternatives 2 and 3. Within Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs in the project planning area 

there are 12 crossings on asphalt, 25 on crushed aggregate, and 43 on native surface (Table 90). 

Road status for the crossings within each of the RHCA categories for alternative 4 are 

summarized in Table 91. The effects of native road surface crossings described within 

alternatives 2 and 3 are decreased by an additional 18 native surface road crossings for haul 

within Category 2 and 4 RHCAs (closed to open roads) and one less temporary road crossing. 

Stream crossings on native surface roads may contribute sediment to stream channels resulting in 

a negative but not meaningfully measurable effect for fine sediment and embeddedness. Designs 

would consider utilizing dips, outsloping, insloping with ditch-relief culverts, erosion control on 

vegetative buffers (slash from roadside brushing, revegetation, coir logs, etc.), or rocking.

Implementation of BMPs and PDCs related to these stream crossings, and appropriate drainage 

features, would result in a beneficial effect that is meaningfully measurable for degraded road 

crossings and road drainage features. The effects of stream crossings for fine sediment and 

embeddedness for alternative 4 are the same as described for alternatives 2 and 3, but with less 

intensity. 

Road Decommissioning and Road Closures – The effects of road decommissioning and road 

closure for alternative 4 are the same as those described for alternatives 2 and 3 for 

embeddedness and fine sediment.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – Road maintenance would occur 

at a level commensurate with use, and would include several activities that may potentially result 

in sedimentation from the road prism to the ditch line or the adjacent slope. Typical road 

maintenance activities would blade and shape the road, including existing drainage dips, grade 

sags, and waterbars; repair damaged culverts and ditches; place rock in some existing drainage 

dips and grade sags; place rock in wet areas of road; remove brush and danger trees; and apply 

dust abatement.

The longer term effects of road maintenance are to maintain or improve existing road conditions. 

Road maintenance may decrease chronic sedimentation in some locations. Improving drainage, 

removing ruts and rills from the driving surface, and adding less erosive surfacing material 

would reduce detachment and transport of sediment. This is especially important for roads within 

RHCAs. 

Because road maintenance activities would be commensurate with use, it is possible that if 

winter logging occurs, little to no road maintenance may be necessary and therefore would not 

occur. Alternatively, if operations occur in the summer, road maintenance may occur on all or 

nearly all of the haul roads.

Proposed road maintenance and haul activities in RHCAs would likely result in creation and 

transport of a negligible amount of fine sediment to stream channels due to loosening of 

sediment particles and destruction of ground cover. However, PDCs would be implemented 

during these activities, and are expected to limit fine sediment delivery to streams, keeping 
Magone Project

380 of 632

amounts reaching stream channels to negligible levels for other than rare precipitation events 

(negative but not meaningfully measurable).

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul would be in accordance with the PDCs, 

including National Marine Fisheries Service guidance. Use of PDCs for water drafting would 

ensure that water withdrawals do not result in significant delivery of fine sediment to streams.

Recreation Trail Construction and Interpretive Site development – The effects of trail 

construction for fine sediment and embeddedness are the same as described for alternative 2 but 

at a much lesser intensity due to the decrease in new trail construction.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – Construction of a day use area on the north side of 

Magone Lake is not proposed for alternative 4.

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The effects of fish cribs and fish sticks on fine sediment and 

embeddedness are the same as described for alternative 2 but to a lesser extent due to a decrease 

in the number of fish cribs and fish sticks.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – The effects to fine sediment and 

embeddedness from installation of a day use boat dock and campground boat mooring would be 

the same as described for alternatives 2 and 3.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Width-to-Depth Ratio and Streambank Stability

Width-to-depth ratio and streambank stability indicators are grouped since they are affected 

similarly by project elements.

Timber Felling (includes silviculture prescriptions, yarding, aspen restoration, and danger 

tree felling) – Most timber felling activities would have no effect on width-to-depth ratios or 

streambank stability due to proximity of most actions away from the stream channel and 

implementation of PDCs. The possible minor amounts of sediment entering channels and small 

areas of bank instability would not affect width-to-depth ratios at the site or reach scale. Effects 

from these actions on width-to-depth ratios would be neutral.

Fuels Treatments (includes prescribed burning, piling/burning, and biomass removal) – A 

minor short-term decrease in stream bank stability would occur as a result of prescribed burning 

activities in RHCAs until vegetation recovers. However, it is unlikely that burned patches along 

stream banks would be in sufficient sizes or quantity to result in a meaningfully measureable 

decrease in bank stability. These impacts would not be of a scale that would result in 

destabilization of stream channels, thus a neutral effect to width-to-depth ratios from fuels 

treatments is anticipated. Over the long-term as fire invigorates riparian shrub growth, bank 

stability would increase in a meaningfully measureable way. 

No effects to bank stability or width-to-depth ratios are expected from pile burning and biomass 

removal due to proximity of these activities away from stream channels.

Temporary Roads and Landings – No landings would be within RHCAs. The effects of 

temporary road construction on bank stability and width-to-detph ratios are the same as those 

described for alternatives 2 and 3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

381 of 632

Stream Crossings and Improvements – The effects of road crossings on bank stability and 

width-to-depth ratios would be the same as described for alternative 2 but to a lesser extent due 

to the decrease in the number of crossings within Category 2 and 4 RHCAs.

The effects of stream crossing improvements are the same as described for alternatives 2 and 3, 

with less intensity than alternatives 2 and 3.

Road Decommissioning and Road Closures – Road decommissioning would positively affect 

bank stability and width-to-depth ratios by obliterating roads that restrict floodplain connectivity. 

The minor amount of sediment delivered to streams associated with road decommissioning 

would not affect width-to-depth ratios. Due to the extent and location of treatments, this effect 

would be positive but not meaningfully measureable.

The effects of road closures on bank stability and width-to-depth ratios are the same as those 

described for alternatives 2 and 3, but with less intensity.

Road Maintenance and Use (includes haul, water drafting) – The possible minor amounts of 

sediment entering channels from road maintenance activities would not affect floodplain 

connectivity, streambank stability, or width-to-depth ratios at the site or reach scale. A neutral 

effect is anticipated.

Recreation Trail Construction Interpretive Signage – The effects of trail construction would 

be the same as those described for alternative 2 for bank stability and width-to-depth ratios but to 

a lesser extent and magnitude because of the decrease in trail crossings of RHCAs and within 

100 feet of RHCAs. No interpretive signage would be installed with alternative 4.

Day Use Area North Side Magone Lake – No day use area on the north side of Magone Lake 

would be constructed with alternative 4

Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks – The effects of fish crib and fish stick installation on bank stability 

and width-to-depth rations would be the same as described for alternative 2 but to a lesser extent 

because of the reduction in the number of cribs and fish sticks.

Day Use Boat Dock, Campground Boat Mooring – The effects to bank stability and width-todepth ratios related to installation of a day use boat dock and campground boat mooring are the 

same as described for alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Potential effects from alternative 4 would be cumulative, with effects from non-federal activities 

within the project planning area and activities within the aquatic analysis area on Federal, State, 

and private lands. Aside from this project, other non-restoration activities that may contribute to 

cumulative effects include: timber harvest activities, wildfires, livestock grazing, road use, flood 

irrigation and water diversion, and vegetation alteration.

Although the aquatic restoration actions covered under the Aquatic Restoration Decision would 

alleviate degraded conditions within RHCAs, there would be short-term adverse effects to 

several of the primary habitat elements; primarily fine sediment related to culvert replacement 

and removal, large and coarse wood placement, log weir and boulder modification, and 

prescribed fire. These actions directly address altered sediment transport regimes for scour, 

deposition, and riparian vegetative structure resulting in long-term benefits for all fish habitat 

elements. (See discussion of aquatic restoration effects past, present, and foreseeable activities 

relevant to cumulative effects analysis above and Table 97 below.)
Magone Project

382 of 632

Table 97. Summary of effects to the primary habitat elements for all past, ongoing, and foreseeable aquatic restoration actions, such as Aquatic 

Restoration Decision

Aquatic restoration actions Pool frequency Water temperature 

and stream 

shading

Large woody 

debris

Embeddedness 

and fine 

sediments

Width-todepth ratioBank stability

Fish passage restoration 

(culvert replacement/removal)

NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

PNMM PNMM NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

PMM NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

Large wood, boulder, and gravel 

placement; including tree removal 

for large wood placement

PMM NNMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

PMM NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

PMM NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

Dam and legacy structure 

removal

PMM PMM Neutral NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

PMM NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

Reduction/relocation of recreation 

impacts

Neutral PMM PMM PMM Neutral PMM

Livestock fencing, stream 

crossings and off-channel 

livestock watering

Neutral PMM Neutral PMM PMM PMM

Road and trail erosion PMM PMM PMM PMM PMM PMM

Riparian vegetation treatment 

(controlled burning)

NNMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

NNMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

NNMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

Neutral NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

Riparian vegetation planting Neutral PMM Neutral PMM (long-term) PMM PMM

Beaver habitat restoration PMM PMM Neutral Neutral PMM Neutral

Juniper removal Neutral PMM Neutral NMM (short-term)

PMM (long-term)

Neutral Neutral

NNMM = Negative, not meaningfully measured; PNMM = Positive, not meaningfully measured; PMM = Positive, meaningfully measured; NMM = Negative, meaningfully measured; N = 

Neutral
Final Environmental Impact Statement

383 of 632

Table 98. Alternative 2 summary of project element effects of the Magone Project to the primary habitat elements

Primary 

habitat 

elements

Timber 

felling

Fuels 

treatments

Temporary 

road and

landing 

construction

Stream 

crossing

Stream 

crossing 

improvements

Road 

decommissioning 

and closure

Road 

maintenance 

and use

Magon

e Lake

aquatic 

actions

Trails Recreation 

(boat and 

fishing 

docks)

Pool frequency NNMM

PNMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM NNMM NNMM

PMM

NNMM NA Neutral NA

Water 

temperature 

and stream 

shading

NNMM NNMM

PMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM

PNMM

NNMM

PMM

NNMM

PNMM

PNMM NNMM NA

Large woody 

debris

NNMM

PNMM

NNMM

PMM

NNMM PNMM

NNMM

NNMM

PNMM

PMM

PNMM

NNMM PMM NNMM NA

Embeddedness 

and fine 

sediments

NNMM NNMM

PMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM

PMM

NMM

PMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM NNMM

Width-to-depth 

ratio

Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral NA Neutral NA

Bank stability NNMM NNMM

PNMM

Neutral NNMM NNMM

PNMM

NMM

PMM

Neutral NNMM NNMM NNMM

Actions included under each project element are restated here for reference:

o Timber Felling (includes Silviculture Prescriptions, Yarding, Aspen Restoration, and Danger Tree Felling)

o Fuels Treatments (includes Prescribed Burning, Piling/Burning, and Biomass Removal)

o Temporary Roads & Landings

o Stream Crossing Improvements

o Road Decommissioning (includes Road Construction to facilitate decommissioning)

o Road Maintenance & Use (includes Haul, Water Drafting, Road Closures, & Recreation Interpretive Site Development)

NNMM = Negative, not meaningfully measured; PNMM = Positive, not meaningfully measured; PMM = Positive, meaningfully measured; NMM = Negative, meaningfully measured; N 

= Neutral
Magone Project

384 of 632

Table 99. Alternative 3 summary of project element effects of the Magone Project to the primary habitat elements

Primary 

habitat 

elements

Timber 

felling

Fuels 

treatments

Temporary 

road and

landing 

construction

Stream 

crossing

Stream 

crossing 

improvements

Road 

decommissioning 

and closure

Road 

maintenance 

and use

Magon

e Lake

aquatic 

actions

Trails Recreation 

(boat and 

fishing 

docks)

Pool frequency NNMM NNMM NNMM NNMM NNMM

PNMM

NNMM

PMM

NNMM NA NNMM NA

Water 

temperature 

and stream 

shading

NNMM NNMM

PMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM

PNMM

NNMM

PMM

NNMM Neutral NNMM

Large woody 

debris

NNMM NNMM

PMM

NNMM NNMM

PNMM

PNMM PMM NNMM PMM Neutral

Embeddedness 

and fine 

sediments

NNMM NNMM

PMM

NMM NNMM NNMM

PMM

NMM

PMM

NNMM NNMM NMM

Width-to-depth 

ratio

Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral PNMM PMM Neutral NA Neutral

Bank stability Neutral NNMM

PMM

Neutral NNMM PNMM NNMM

PMM

Neutral NNMM NMM

Actions included under each project element are restated here for reference:

o Timber Felling (includes Silviculture Prescriptions, Yarding, Aspen Restoration, and Danger Tree Felling)

o Fuels Treatments (includes Prescribed Burning, Piling/Burning, and Biomass Removal)

o Temporary Roads & Landings

o Stream Crossing Improvements

o Road Decommissioning (includes Road Construction to facilitate decommissioning)

o Road Maintenance & Use (includes Haul, Water Drafting, Road Closures, & Recreation Interpretive Site Development)

NNMM = Negative, not meaningfully measured; PNMM = Positive, not meaningfully measured; PMM = Positive, meaningfully measured; NMM = Negative, meaningfully measured; N 

= Neutral
Final Environmental Impact Statement

385 of 632

Table 100. Alternative 4 summary of project element effects of the Magone Project to the primary habitat elements

Primary 

habitat 

elements

Timber 

felling

Fuels 

treatments

Temporary 

road and 

landing 

construction

Stream 

crossing

Stream 

crossing 

improvements

Road 

decommissioning 

and closure

Road 

maintenance 

and use

Magone 

Lake

aquatic 

actions

Trails

Pool 

frequency

NNMM NNMM

PNMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM

PNMM

NNMM

PMM

NNMM NA Neutral

Water 

temperature 

and stream 

shading

NNMM

PNMM

NNMM

PNMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM PMM NNMM PNMM Neutral

Large woody 

debris

NNMM

PNMM

NNMM

PNMM

NNMM NNMM PNMM PMM NNMM PMM Neutral

Embeddednes

s and fine 

sediments

NNMM NNMM

PNMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM

PMM

NNMM

PMM

NNMM NNMM NNMM

Width-to-depth 

ratio

Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral PMM Neutral NA Neutral

Bank stability NNMM PMM Neutral Neutral PNMM NNMM

PMM

Neutral NNMM NNMM

Actions included under each Project Element are restated here for reference:

o Timber Felling (includes Silviculture Prescriptions, Yarding, Aspen Restoration, and Danger Tree Felling)

o Fuels Treatments (includes Prescribed Burning, Piling/Burning, and Biomass Removal)

o Temporary Roads & Landings

o Stream Crossing

o Road Decommissioning and Road closure 

o Road Maintenance & Use (includes Haul, Water Drafting, Road Closures, & Recreation Interpretive Site Development)

o Recreation Trails and Interpretive Signage

o Magone Lake Fish Cribs and Fish Sticks

o Day use area North Side of Magone Lake

NNMM = Negative, not meaningfully measured; PNMM = Positive, not meaningfully measured; PMM = Positive, meaningfully measured; NA= Not Applicable
Magone Project

386 of 632

Direct Effects to Species

The Magone analysis area contains MCR steelhead, redband trout, and westslope cutthroat 

spawning and rearing habitat. At certain times and under various conditions it is possible for 

components of six project elements to directly affect MCR steelhead, redband trout, and/or 

westslope cutthroat trout: embeddedness/fine sediment, pool frequency, and bank stability. These 

include new recreation trails, road decommissioning, and temporary road construction. Direct 

effects to MCR steelhead, redband trout, and westslope cutthroat trout from the remaining five

project elements are not expected to occur

For project elements requiring work area isolation through PDCs, MCR steelhead, redband trout, 

Columbia River bull trout, and mussels may be captured and relocated. Direct effects on juvenile 

salmonids from work area isolation and fish relocation include mechanical injury during capture, 

holding, or release, and potential horizontal transmission of disease and pathogens and stressrelated phenomena. Stress approaching or exceeding the physiological tolerance limits of 

individual fish can impair reproductive success, growth, resistance to infectious diseases, and 

survival. Electro-fishing would be used to salvage fish, it would particularly increase stress 

loads. Harmful effects of electro-fishing include internal and external hemorrhage, fractured 

spines, and death. Although some fish may die from electro-shocking, fish would only be 

exposed to stress caused by work area isolation activities once and the fish relocation is only 

expected to last a few hours. Mussels may be affected similarly to fishes, except that salvage 

would occur prior to use of electrofishing. In the absence of work area isolation and salvage 

activities, more fish and mussels would be injured or killed.

In addition, several conservation measures would be implemented to limit stress and mortality 

during work area isolation and fish relocation. Limiting the activities to the July 15–August 15 

in-stream work period would greatly reduce the chance of affecting adult fish, as these periods 

are designated to avoid times when adult steelhead, redband trout, or westslope cutthroat trout 

are most likely to be present.

In-water equipment use could temporarily affect steelhead, redband trout, and bull trout, 

including impacts on redds, smothered or crushed eggs and alevins, blocked migration, and 

disrupted or disturbed over-summering behavior. MCR steelhead within the John Day Basin are 

particularly vulnerable during the spring, when adults are migrating and spawning. They are also 

vulnerable during late spring/early summer when eggs and fry are still present in the substrate. 

The activities could move juveniles out of over-summering habitats such as deep pools and into 

inferior habitats. However, because of the seasonal restrictions imposed by in-stream work 

windows, these effects would be avoided. Mussel salvage would minimize the potential for 

individuals to be crushed by equipment.

Water withdrawals for dust abatement during haul activities would occur. Water is the only agent 

that would be used for dust abatement for proposed haul activities. Water drafting could 

potentially decrease stream flow and thus, the amount of water available for fish. Water drafting 

could also remove fish from the stream or injure them, if they are held against screens. Water 

drafting can occur only as long as supply is adequate to provide for both fish and withdrawal. 

Approved screens would be attached to intake hoses to prevent adverse impacts to fish. National 

Marine Fisheries Service developed criteria for pump intake screens would be used on all water 

pump intakes. Screen mesh openings shall not exceed 3/32 inch for woven wire or perforated 

plate screens, or 0.0689 inch for profile wire screens, with a minimum 27 percent open area. 

Trucks would be maintained to prevent oil leaks. Loading is done in a manner to minimize 

overflowing and discharge of wash into streams. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

387 of 632

The maximum withdrawal from one site in an 8-hour period would be 18,000 gallons of water. 

PDCs include the National Marine Fisheries Service criteria and water drafting guidelines from 

the 2010 Forest Road Maintenance BA, included in FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria. 

These guidelines would prevent the potential harm to fish.

The Magone analysis area also contains habitat for Columbia spotted frogs, which are highly 

aquatic and rarely found far from permanent water. At certain times and under various conditions 

it is possible for all project elements to directly affect spotted frogs. Due to the implementation 

of PDCs, the short-term nature of this risk, the timing of ground-disturbance in- and near-water 

project activities during dry field conditions (low to moderate soil moisture levels) when spotted 

frogs are unlikely to be dispersing, and the distance of the vast majority of project sites from 

permanent water, direct effects on spotted frogs would be minimized.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Aquatic and Riparian Habitat

Use of the six primary habitat elements to determine effects to TES species is based upon using 

the effects of the action on key habitat elements as a surrogate for effects to the species. The 

premise is that the primary habitat elements depict the biological requirements of the TES 

species. Since there is a direct relationship between habitat condition and the growth and 

survival of individual fish and sensitive species at various life stages, the effects of the action on 

habitat variables can be linked to effects to individuals of the species, and ultimately to an effects

determination.

The analysis in the primary habitat elements section evaluated specific key habitat features that 

correspond to the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of listed species critical habitat. The 

PCEs are used to describe “those physical or biological features that are essential to the 

conservation of the listed species.” The same sub-set of key habitat features evaluated for effects 

to PCEs also apply to the analysis of effects to the species. Those primary habitat 

element/project element combinations for which a conclusion of effect was “negative and 

meaningfully measured” are listed below, and have the potential to adversely affect listed MCR 

steelhead and designated critical habitat. Negative and meaningfully measurable effects do not 

meet the Endangered Species Act (ESA) definition of “insignificant” effects, and are not 

discountable because the effects are likely to occur. Consequently, the effect determination for 

MCR steelhead and designated critical habitat is “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” (ESA 

effects); they also May Impact Individuals or Habitat (Region 6 sensitive species effects to 

redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and Columbia spotted frog). These conclusions were 

found for the following components of the project elements: new recreation trail construction 

(alternative 3), temporary road construction (alternative 3) and road decommissioning

(alternatives 2, 3, and 4) for actions within the Magone Project coupled with aquatic restoration 

actions for fish passage restoration, LWD additions, and legacy treatments. The indicators for 

which “negative and meaningfully measured” effects were concluded are:

♦ Embeddedness and fine sediment

The literature reports that suspended sediment and turbidity influences on fish range from 

beneficial to detrimental. Elevated total suspended solids (TSS) have been reported to enhance 

cover conditions, reduce piscivorous fish/bird predation rates, and improve survival, but elevated 

TSS have also been reported to cause physiological stress, reduce growth, and adversely affect 

survival. Although fish that remain in turbid waters experience a reduction in predation from 

piscivorous fish and birds, chronic exposure can cause a physiological stress response that can 

increase maintenance energy and reduce feeding and growth.
Magone Project

388 of 632

As suspended fine sediment settles out downstream from the construction areas, minor increases 

in stream substrate embeddedness occurs. The literature reports that increases in fine sediments 

in stream substrates can decrease productivity and habitat quality for juvenile salmonids. 

Significant increases in fine sediment levels reduce interstitial spaces between substrate particles, 

leads to shifts in invertebrate community structure, fills pools, and can entomb redds. In such 

cases, eggs are smothered, prey available for rearing juveniles is reduced, and habitat features 

are lost.

When heavy equipment is operating in the riparian areas or stream, there is also the potential for 

fuel or other contaminant spills. Operation of bulldozers, excavators, and other equipment 

requires the use of fuel and lubricants, which, if spilled into the channel of a water body or into 

the adjacent riparian zone, can injure or kill aquatic organisms. Petroleum-based contaminants 

(such as fuel, oil, and some hydraulic fluids) contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which 

can be acutely toxic to salmonids at high levels of exposure and can cause acute and chronic sublethal effects on aquatic organisms.

The Forest Service would implement a suite of PDCs including those identified in the ARBO 

that are intended to reduce the short-term effects caused by near instream construction. Limiting 

instream construction to low flow periods and using sediment control measures greatly reduces

the amount of fine sediment and turbidity created by the actions. Refueling and servicing 

equipment outside the riparian area reduces the chances of spilling toxic fuels and lubricants. 

Development and implementation of a pollution and erosion control plan limit any potential 

adverse effects of a toxic material spill by ensuring that spill response materials are on site 

during all construction activities. Ensuring that all heavy equipment that would operate instream 

is cleaned and free of leaks would also reduce the introduction of contaminants into the aquatic 

environment. Several conservation measures also would be implemented to limit stress and 

mortality during work area isolation and fish/mussel relocation. Limiting the activities to instream work periods would greatly reduce the chance of affecting adult fish, as these periods are 

designated to avoid times when adult salmonids are present.

Project elements except for 1) temporary road and landing construction, and 2) road maintenance 

and use, timber felling, recreation trail construction and RHCA road crossings would also have 

Positive and Meaningfully Measureable effects to one or more of the primary habitat elements 

(Table 98, Table 99, and Table 100).

The effects of foreseeable actions identified for aquatic restoration within the Magone project 

planning area on the six primary habitat elements are summarized in Table 97. These actions 

may occur prior to the actions identified for the Magone Project to some extent, and/or within 

the next 10 years. Because these actions would occur in multi-year phases negative short term 

effects from these actions may occur asynchronously with those actions identified in the Magone 

Project.

The Magone Project would partially restore upland forest health and processes, and introduce 

disturbance related fire effects. Fish habitat in Magone Lake would be improved and recreational 

opportunities would increase. Magone Project actions, in conjunction with reasonably 

foreseeable aquatic restoration actions, would restore riparian processes and functions, resulting 

in a strong positive effect on aquatic TES/MIS species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

389 of 632

Effect Determinations

Effect determinations for TES and MIS species are presented below and summarized in Table 

101.

MCR Steelhead Determinations:

 Mid-Columbia Summer Steelhead ESA Determination (T): May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect (LAA) in the short term. Beneficial Effect (BE) in the long-term when 

combined with foreseeable aquatic restoration actions.

 Mid-Columbia Summer Steelhead Sensitive Species Determination (S): May Impact 

Individuals or Habitat, but will not cause a loss of viability to the population or species 

(MIIH) in the short term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the long-term when combined with 

foreseeable aquatic restoration actions.

 Steelhead Management Indicator Species Determination (MIS): Continued Viability at 

the Forest Scale.

 Steelhead Designated Critical Habitat (D): May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

(LAA) in the short term. Beneficial Effect (BE) in the long-term when combined with 

foreseeable aquatic restoration actions.

Because this alternative impacts less than 4.6 percent of suitable steelhead habitat across the 

Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects (discussed below) would result in a 

small negative trend of habitat in the short-term. The negative effect on habitat would be 

insignificant at the scale of the Malheur National Forest. This alternative is consistent with the 

Malheur Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of steelhead is expected on the Malheur 

National Forest.

The proposed actions within the Magone Project would have a slightly beneficial to neutral 

effect on habitat conditions for MCR steelhead. Overall, when combined with foreseeable 

aquatic restoration actions, a significant beneficial result for MCR steelhead critical habitat 

would occur (Table 97). However, high water temperatures and altered stream channel 

conditions in untreated stream reaches would likely persist.

Redband Trout Determinations:

 Interior Redband Trout Sensitive Species Determination (S): May Impact Individuals or 

Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species (MIIH) in the short-term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the 

long-term.

 Redband Trout Management Indicator Species Determination (MIS): Continued Viability at 

the Forest Scale.

Because this alternative impacts less than 3.17 percent of suitable redband trout habitat in 

relation to the distribution throughout the Malheur National Forest, the overall direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects would result in a small negative trend of habitat in the short-term. The 

effect on habitat would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. As such, implementation of the 

Magone Project proposed actions may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely 

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

Forest-scale.

The proposed actions within the Magone Project would have a slightly beneficial to neutral 

effect on habitat conditions for redband trout. Overall, when combined with foreseeable aquatic 

restoration actions, a significant beneficial result for redband trout would occur (Table 97).
Magone Project

390 of 632

However, high water temperatures and altered stream channel conditions in untreated stream 

reaches would likely persist.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Determinations:

 Interior Westslope cutthroat trout Sensitive Species Determination (S): May Impact 

Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or 

cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) in the short-term. Beneficial 

Impact (BI) in the long-term.

 Westslope cutthroat trout Management Indicator Species Determination (MIS): 

Continued Viability at the Forest Scale.

Because this alternative impacts less than 6.5 percent of suitable westslope cutthroat trout habitat 

in relation to the distribution throughout the Malheur National Forest, the overall direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects would result in a small negative trend of habitat in the short-term. The 

effect on habitat would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. As such, the implementation of 

the project may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute toward federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species at the Forest-scale.

The proposed actions within the Magone Project would have a slightly beneficial to neutral 

effect on habitat conditions for westslope cutthroat trout. Overall, when combined with 

foreseeable aquatic restoration actions, a significant beneficial result for westslope cutthroat trout 

would occur (Table 97). However, high water temperatures and altered stream channel 

conditions in untreated stream reaches would likely persist.

Columbia Spotted Frog Determination:

 Columbia Spotted Frog Sensitive Species Determination (S): May Impact Individuals or 

Habitat, but would not likely contribute toward federal listing or loss of viability to the 

population or species (MIIH) in the short term. Beneficial Impact (BI) in the long-term.

Because this alternative impacts a small percentage of suitable spotted frog habitat on the 

Malheur National Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a 

small negative trend of habitat in the short-term. The effect would be insignificant at the Forest 

scale. The action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute 

toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species at the Forest-scale.

The proposed actions within the Magone Project would have a slightly beneficial to neutral 

effect on habitat conditions for Columbia spotted frog. Overall, when combined with foreseeable 

aquatic restoration actions, a significant beneficial result for Columbia spotted frog would occur 

in the long-term (Table 97). However, high water temperatures and altered stream channel 

conditions in untreated stream reaches would likely persist.

Cumulative Effects

Aquatic Habitat

The cumulative effects boundary is the same as the aquatic analysis area. Past and ongoing 

actions are described in this FEIS (Table 17). Effects of the past and ongoing actions are 

described in the affected environment section above:

 Effects of past and ongoing actions

 General existing stream conditions
Final Environmental Impact Statement

391 of 632

 The affected environment sub-sections for pool frequency, large woody debris, bank 

stability, embeddedness and fine sediment, width-to-depth ratio, and water temperature

and stream shading.

Effects are mostly due to roads, road/stream crossings, past grazing, and past riparian harvest. 

Lesser effects may be due to current grazing, irrigation withdrawals (temperature), riparian 

firewood cutting (LWD), and fish passage and habitat restoration projects (sediment).

The aquatic habitat and water quality effects of future activities described in this FEIS are 

negligible, except for the ongoing actions mentioned in the preceding paragraph and those 

Magone Project actions identified within Table 98, Table 99, and Table 100 above, which were 

found to have negative and meaningfully measurable effects. The effects of use and maintenance 

of roads that are not decommissioned would remain about the same as at present. The negative 

effects of fish passage and habitat restoration projects decreases after instream work is finished, 

and would likely be negligible within two years after implementation (Table 97). The positive 

effects probably would last for decades.

With full implementation of Malheur Forest Plan grazing standards there is little likelihood of 

cumulative effects from grazing since these standards are designed to allow a near natural rate of 

recovery of aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation. The current grazing standards are designed to 

eliminate any effects on aquatic habitats that could carry over to the following year.

If a severe crown fire occurs, shade would be reduced, and water temperatures would increase. 

Sediment would increase from channel and upland sources, and a pulse of woody debris would 

fall into the streams. Both low flows and peak flows would increase for perhaps 10 years, until 

evapotranspiration recovers. The risk of this occurring is greater in alternative 4 and the no 

action alternative (alternative 1). 

The no action alternative would permit natural slow, partial recovery from effects of past 

grazing, past riparian road construction, and past riparian harvest, but not past fire suppression 

activities. This recovery would occur as riparian trees grow larger, as large wood falls into the 

streams, as channel types change to more stable, narrow configurations, as sediment from past 

actions is flushed out of stream substrates, and as riparian shrubs and sedges recover and 

contribute to more stable stream banks. Recovery would be only partial because of ongoing 

impacts from past land management activities, particularly past riparian road maintenance and 

construction, would not permit full recovery nor restore physical processes that facilitate 

recovery.

The analysis of effects of nine grouped project elements on the six primary habitat elements 

determined that new recreation trail construction (alternative 3), temporary road construction 

(alternatives 2, 3, and 4), and road decommissioning would have a negative and meaningfully 

measurable effect on the primary habitat element of embeddedness and fine sediment. The 

analysis determined that the effect of the remaining five project elements on the remaining five 

primary habitat elements was either negative and not meaningfully measurable, positive and not 

meaningfully measurable, or neutral.

Project elements for fuels treatments, stream crossing, and road drainage improvements, and 

road decommissioning would have positive and meaningfully measureable effects to one or more 

of the primary habitat elements (Table 98, Table 99, and Table 100). Foreseeable aquatic 

restoration activities (Table 97) in the project planning area would have short-term negative and 
Magone Project

392 of 632

meaningfully measurable effects, but result in long-term benefits resulting in positive and 

meaningfully measurable effects on the primary habitat elements.

Combined Effects from Past, Proposed, Ongoing and Foreseeable Actions

Common sources of sediment within the analysis area include both natural processes (such as 

channel erosion), and past and ongoing actions on both National Forest and private lands, such 

as channel and floodplain modification from logging, livestock grazing (especially past grazing), 

and roads/culvert crossings. The analysis of effects determined that new recreation trail 

construction (alternative 3), temporary road construction (alternatives 2, 3, and 4), and road 

decommissioning, and foreseeable aquatic restoration actions identified in Table 97 would have a 

short-term negative and meaningfully measurable effect on embeddedness and fine sediment.

Ongoing grazing activities could potentially contribute sediment to streams. The effect of the 

remaining five project elements on the remaining five primary habitat elements was either 

negative and not meaningfully measurable, positive, or neutral. The exception is for trail

proposals with alternative 3, which has a not meaningfully measurable effect on bank stability. It 

is unlikely that these project elements would result in measurable adverse cumulative effects 

when considered with range management activities. Sediment production by new recreation trail 

construction (alternative 3), temporary road construction (alternative 3), road decommissioning, 

and foreseeable aquatic restoration actions identified in Table 97 may result in short-term 

increases in fine sediment. However, the level of these cumulative effects with grazing 

management activities is not likely to reach a point where measurable adverse effects would 

occur where grazing standards are met.

However it is unlikely that these increases would result in cumulative adverse effects when 

combined with past, ongoing, or future actions. This is because sediment production generated 

by the project elements listed above would be a small proportion of the total sediment from 

natural processes and from past and ongoing actions. Design criteria for the project would limit 

sediment delivery to streams. Thus the cumulative effects of the Magone Project would be a 

relatively small, short-term increase in total sediment production.

Four of the project elements (fuels treatments, stream crossing improvements, road 

decommissioning, and fish cribs/fish sticks) would have positive and meaningfully measurable 

effects to one or more of the primary habitat elements. All other elements except for temporary 

road and landing construction, new trail construction (alternative 3), road maintenance and use, 

and timber felling would have Negative and not Meaningfully Measureable effects or neutral 

effects to one or more of the primary habitat elements.

All action alternatives of the Magone Project in conjunction with aquatic restoration actions 

would restore upland and riparian processes and functions resulting in positive effects on aquatic 

TES species. The cumulative effects of these actions when combined with the effects of past, 

ongoing, and foreseeable actions are expected to offset the negative effects described in the 

preceeding paragraphs and result in significant beneficial cumulative effects to species habitat 

considered in the biological evaluation. A strong positive response is expected in populations of 

MCR steelhead, redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and Columbia spotted frog. This project 

is consistent with Malheur Forest Plan and PACFISH objectives, and is expected to achieve 

those objectives in treated areas where not currently met.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

393 of 632

Threatened, Endangered, and Region 6 Sensitive and Management Indicator Species 

Effects Summary

The following is a summary of both threatened, endangered, and R6 sensitive (TES) species and 

management indicator species (MIS) effects determinations for alternatives documented from the 

Aquatic Biological Evaluation for the Magone Project (Table 101).

Table 101. Aquatic threatened, endangered, and Region 6 sensitive species, and management 

indicator species with effects determinations by alternative

Aquatic species Status Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 

(proposed 

action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Mid-Columbia River 

steelhead

Oncorhynchus mykiss

T, S, MIS NE

NI

LAA - BE

MIIH – BI

LAA - BE

MIIH - BI

LAA - BE

MIIH - BI

Mid-Columbia River 

steelhead Designated 

critical habitat

D NE LAA – BE LAA - BE LAA - BE

Interior redband trout

O. mykiss gairdneri

S, MIS NI MIIH – BI MIIH - BI MIIH - BI

Westslope cutthroat 

trout

Oncorhynchus clarki 

lewisi

S, MIS NI MIIH – BI MIIH - BI MIIH - BI

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris

S NI MIIH – BI MIIH - BI MIIH - BI

Note:

 Federal listing status abbreviations: T = Federally threatened; S = Sensitive species from Regional Forester’s list; 

MIS = Management indicator species; D = Designated critical habitat; and P = Proposed critical habitat.

 Threatened and endangered species effects determinations abbreviations: NE = No Effect; NLAA = May Effect, 

Not Likely to Adversely Affect; LAA = May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect; and BE = Beneficial Effect.

 Sensitive species determinations abbreviations: NI = No Impact; MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but 

Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or 

Species; WIFV = Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a Consequence that the Action May Contribute to a Trend 

Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species; and BI = Beneficial Impact.

 Designated critical habitat effects determinations abbreviations: NE = No Effect; LAA = May Effect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect; and NLAA = May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect.

3.8.2.7 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

Malheur Forest Plan

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 (no action) does not fully meet the MA–3B standards, and PACFISH standards and 

guidelines. Alternative 1 is not consistent with the following Malheur Forest Plan standards:

 MA–3B Standard 41: “...Minimize the density of opens roads in this management area 

by obliterating, revegetating, or closing unnecessary roads or any roads causing 

significant resource damage.”

 PACFISH Standard RF – 3c: Determine the influence of each road on riparian 

management objectives (RMOs). Meet RMOs and avoid adverse effects on inland native 

fish by:
Magone Project

394 of 632

o Closing and stabilizing or obliterating, and stabilizing roads not needed for 

future management activities. Prioritize these actions based on the current and 

potential damage to anadromous native fish in priority watersheds, and the 

ecological value of the riparian resources affected.

Degraded aquatic habitat conditions that have known adverse impacts to aquatic resources would 

remain in their current condition under alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are consistent with the following applicable MA3B and PACFISH 

standards:

 PACFISH RM-1: Design, construct, and operate recreational facilities, including trails 

and dispersed sites, within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) in a manner that 

contributes to attainment of the RMOs. For existing recreation facilities inside RHCAs, 

assure that RMOs are met. Where RMOs cannot be met, require relocation or closure of 

recreational facilities.

 PACFISH RM-2: Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that are 

inconsistent with attainment of RMOs. Where adjustment measures such as education, 

use limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, 

and/or specific site closures are not effective, eliminate the practice or occupancy.

 MA3B Standard 48: Construct and maintain trails to prevent environmental damage. 

Design reconstruction projects to mitigate sediment.

 MA3B Standard 2: Limit and distribute use as necessary to protect and /or rehabilitate 

areas.

 MA3B Standard 4: Meet visual quality objectives ranging from retention to modification 

depending on the visual quality objective of adjacent lands.

 PACFISH RF-2b: Proposed temporary roads and landings/staging areas in RHCAs are 

minimized.

 PACFISH RF-3a & b: Roads that will be used for proposed vegetation management 

activities will have drainage problems repaired and will be brought up to standards prior 

to haul.

 PACFISH RA-2: Danger trees felled in RHCAs and outside of the road way will be left 

on site where woody debris objectives are not being met.

 Forest Plan DFCs/RMOs: Activities proposed under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not 

retard the attainment of RMOs for aquatic habitat (LWD, replacement LWD, pool 

frequency, bank stability, width-to-depth ratio, sediment/substrate, shading, and water 

temperature). Design criteria will be used to minimize the amount of fine sediment 

resulting from proposed activities.

 Design prescribed burn projects and prescriptions to contribute to the attainment of 

RMOs (PACFISH Standard FM-4).

 Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxicants within RHCAs. Prohibit refueling within 

RHCAs unless there are no other alternatives. Refueling sites within a RHCA must be 

approved by the Forest Service and have an approved spill containment plan (PACFISH 

Standard RA-4).

 Locate water drafting sites to avoid adverse effects to listed anadromous fish and 

instream flows, and in a manner that does not retard or prevent attainment of RMOs 

(PACFISH Standard RA-5).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

395 of 632

 Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and actions so as not to 

prevent attainment of RMOs, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and 

vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and 

identify those instances where fire suppression or fuel management actions could 

perpetuate or be damaging to log-term ecosystem function, listed anadromous fish, or 

designated critical habitat (PACFISH Standard FM-1).

Clean Water Act

All alternatives comply with the Clean Water Act and the Malheur Forest Plan, since none raise 

water temperatures, and since all follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) as specified in 

“Forest Service R6 General Water Quality Best Management Practices” (1988), and in standards 

and guidelines in the Malheur Forest Plan. The site specific BMPs are listed in FEIS Appendix C

– Project Design Criteria, in PACFISH standards and guidelines (as described earlier in the 

Regulatory Framework section), and in standard timber sale contracts.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are 

required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed 

species. Federally listed fish species and their designated critical habitats in the project area 

subject to consultation include Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead and their designated 

critical habitat. The Malheur National Forest has initiated ESA section 7 consultation with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on the actions proposed as 

part of the Magone Project, and will provide the regulatory agencies with a biological 

assessment regarding effects of the project to threatened Mid-Columbia River steelhead and their 

designated critical habitats. The completed biological assessment and consultations will be 

located in the project record.

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988)

Executive Order 11988 says that Federal agencies shall avoid direct adverse effects to 

floodplains or minimize potential harm. Floodplains greater than 300 feet wide with a gradient of 

less than 3 percent occur along portions of East Fork Beech Creek, McClellan Creek, Clear 

Creek, and Tinker Creek within the aquatic analysis area. These areas within wide valley 

bottoms are recognized as MSRA (most sensitive riparian areas) for their depositional features 

related to MCR steelhead spawning and water storage. The floodplains are well within RHCAs, 

and so all alternatives avoid adverse effects to the floodplains, and thus are consistent with 

Executive Order 11988.

Recreational Fisheries

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 (no action) would maintain the current degraded aquatic habitat conditions. The 

current aquatic habitat conditions are resulting in reduced recreational fishing opportunities.
Magone Project

396 of 632

Alternative 2, 3, and 4

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 include the placement of fish habitat improvement structures (fish cribs 

and fish sticks) within Magone Lake. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 also include improvements in the 

existing boat landing and campground boat mooring dock. 

These actions would improve quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

recreational fisheries by reducing impacts from elevated levels of fine sediment as directed under 

Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries.

Alternative 3 includes the placement of a new floating fishing dock on the east side of Magone 

Lake in association with fish habitat improvement structures. This action would improve the 

distribution of recreational fisheries by reducing impacts from elevated levels of fine sediment 

related to shoreline vegetation trampling as directed under Executive Order 12962, Recreational 

Fisheries.

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures

There are no fish runs subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act in the Magone project planning area or that could be impacted by the Magone Project.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible effects are not expected. Reduced population viability for MCR summer-run 

steelhead, Westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and Columbia spotted frog is not expected. 

PACFISH established explicit goals and objectives for anadromous fish habitat condition and 

function. By following PACFISH standards and guidelines as well as design criteria specific to 

this project, it is believed that irretrievable commitments of this resource can be avoided. The 

goal is to achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of 

habitat features.

3.9 Analysis Issue – Wildlife

3.9.1 Regulatory Framework

Three principal laws most relevant to the Forest Service for wildlife management are the 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, 

and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Direction relative to wildlife follows:

 NFMA requires the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable 

populations of all native and desirable non-native wildlife species and conserve all listed 

threatened or endangered species populations (36 CFR 219.19).

 ESA requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are required to 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if a proposed activity may affect the 

population or habitat of a listed species.

 MBTA established an international framework for the protection and conservation of 

migratory birds. This act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, 

hunt, take, capture, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any 

means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, 

or in any manner, any migratory bird.”
Final Environmental Impact Statement

397 of 632

Forest Service Manual direction provides additional guidance to identify and prescribe measures 

to prevent adverse modifications or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for 

the conservation of endangered, threatened, and proposed species (FSM 2670.31 (6)). This 

manual directs the Regional Forester to identify sensitive species for each national forest where 

species viability may be a concern. On December 9, 2011, Regional Forester Kent Connaughton 

released an updated sensitive species list that includes federally listed, federally proposed, and 

sensitive species lists24. The Regional Forester’s Special Status Species list, December 2011, was

used to determine threatened, endangered, and Region 6 sensitive (PETS) wildlife species 

discussed in this document.

Regional Forester’s Amendment 2 (Eastside Screens) established interim wildlife standards for 

old growth, old growth connectivity, snags, large down logs, and northern goshawks. The 

Regional Forester has periodically distributed letters clarifying direction in Amendment 2 

(Regional Forester, October 2, 1997; October 23, 1997; June 11, 2003).

Additional management direction is provided for conservation of migratory landbirds. This 

direction is consolidated in the Forest Service Landbird Strategic Plan and further developed 

through the Partners in Flight Program. The Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight Conservation 

Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington 

(Altman 2000) identifies priority bird species and habitats for the Blue Mountains in Oregon.

The principal policy document relevant to wildlife management on the Forest is the 1990 

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, referred to as the Malheur Forest 

Plan for the remainder of this section. The Malheur Forest Plan provides standards and 

guidelines for management of wildlife species and habitats. Standards and guidelines are 

presented at the Forest level (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV–26 to IV–33) or 

Management Area level (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV–50, IV–53, IV–56 to IV–57, 

IV–105 to IV–107, and IV–108).

3.9.2 Analysis Methods

Effects on wildlife species and habitat were assessed within national forest lands in the Magone

project planning area, focusing on the implementation of actions described within each 

alternative. Some wildlife habitats require a detailed analysis and discussion to determine 

potential effects on a particular species. Other habitats may either not be impacted or are 

impacted at a level which does not influence the species or their occurrence.

Effects were analyzed within the context of the Magone project planning area, unless otherwise 

noted. The cumulative effects analysis area for wildlife species is variable depending on the 

extent and distribution of species and associated habitat that may be affected by activities 

proposed in the Magone Project.

Species presence/absence determinations were based on one or a combination of the following: 

habitat presence, review of wildlife sightings recorded in District and Forest wildlife databases, 

the National Resources Information System wildlife database, non-Forest Service databases, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife reports, as well as notes, maps, and summary reports of 

 

24 In this Final EIS, we acknowledge there is a more current version of the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species 

list, dated July, 2015. However, guidance allows specialists to continue using the listing that was current as of the date 

of project initiation, and the Magone Project was initiated prior to the release of the 2015 Regional Forester’s Special 

Status Species list.
Magone Project

398 of 632

wildlife observations made during field reconnaissance, and status/trend and source habitat trend 

documented for the Interior Columbia Basin.

There is a high confidence level that species discussed in this document are currently present, or 

their habitat is present, in the project planning area. However, formal wildlife surveys were not 

conducted for most species and data gaps may include a lack of on-the-ground snag and dead 

and downed wood surveys (information for this analysis was based on DecAID), project scale 

northern goshawk surveys (not required), and survey data for difficult to access areas.

The Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List, December 2011, was used to determine 

sensitive wildlife species discussed in this document. Conservation status, trends, and source 

habitats for these and other species were obtained from the Oregon Biodiversity Information 

Center “Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of Oregon” (October 2010), NatureServe 

Explorer (accessed 2014), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (USDI 

FWS 2008a), and viability assessments for the Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision (Wales et al. 

2011).

The duration of effects on the wildlife resource is described generally according to the following 

terms and definitions unless otherwise noted:

 Immediate – Approximately one growing season or several months or less

 Short-term – 0 to 5 years

 Mid-term – 5 to 25 years

 Long-term – 25+ years 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of activities proposed in each alternative are identified 

and discussed.

Rather than addressing all wildlife species, the Malheur Forest Plan focuses on four categories of 

wildlife: proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species; management indicator 

species (MIS); featured species; and landbirds, including neotropical migratory birds. Oldgrowth and late and old forest structure as it pertains to wildlife habitat is also discussed. 

Categories are summarized below:

 Proposed, Endangered. Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species – This analysis 

uses the December 2011 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List25.

 Management Indicator Species (MIS) – Rocky Mountain elk represent big game 

species. American (pine) marten, pileated woodpecker, and three-toed woodpecker 

represent old growth habitats. Primary cavity excavators (mostly woodpeckers) represent 

dead wood habitat. Effects to MIS species are discussed in the MIS section.

 Old Growth and Late and Old Forest Structure (LOS) Network – Management Area 

13, and LOS and how these habitats are connected.

 Featured Species – The featured species associated with the project planning area are 

blue grouse and osprey. Additionally, the northern goshawk is analyzed in this section as 

a result of its inclusion in the Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 

(Eastside Screens). Upland sandpiper, California bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, and 

 

25 In this Final EIS, we acknowledge there is a more current version of the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species 

list, dated July, 2015. However, guidance allows specialists to continue using the listing that was current as of the date 

of project initiation, and the Magone Project was initiated prior to the release of the 2015 Regional Forester’s Special 

Status Species list.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

399 of 632

greater sage grouse are featured species that do not occur within the Magone project 

planning area.

 Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds (NTMB) – These species and 

associated habitat are discussed in the Migratory and Resident Birds section.

3.9.3 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species

A proposed species is an animal or plant species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be 

listed under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. An endangered species is an animal or 

plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is an animal or plant species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A sensitive species is an animal or plant 

species identified by the Forest Service Regional Forester (Region 6) for which species viability 

is a concern either a) because of significant current or predicted downward trend in population 

numbers or density, or b) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat 

capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

Forest Service Manual 2672.4 requires the Forest Service to review all of its planned, funded, 

executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on proposed, endangered, 

threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided a list of 

PETS that potentially occur in Grant County for consideration in this analysis (USDI FWS 

2014). There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for threatened or endangered terrestrial 

species in the affected subwatersheds.

Nineteen (19) species on the 2011 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list26 occur on the 

Malheur National Forest (Table 102). Although Canada lynx, as listed in Table 102, may have 

potential habitat on the Forest, the species is not considered to occupy territory on the Forest. 

Eleven (11) of these species have documented suitable or marginal habitat within the vicinity of 

the project planning area and warrant further analysis (Table 102). These PETS species are gray 

wolf, Townsend’s big-eared bat, fringed myotis, pallid bat, bufflehead, American peregrine 

falcon, bald eagle, Lewis’s woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Johnson’s hairstreak, and

silver-bordered fritillary.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing one avian species, black-backed 

woodpecker, with documented habitat within the project planning area, to determine if listing 

two populations that occur in Oregon as either subspecies or distinct population segments under 

the Endangered Species Act is warranted (USDI FWS 2013b).

Table 102. Species and habitat occurrence for proposed, endangered, threatened, and Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species (PETS)

Species common name/ 

scientific name

Habitat requirements Status Species/habitat 

occurrence

Canada lynx

(Lynx canadensis)

Primary habitat in sub-alpine fir, lodgepole 

forest. No critical habitat mapped in 

Oregon.

T HN/N*

 

26 In this Final EIS, we acknowledge there is a more current version of the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species 

list, dated July, 2015. However, guidance allows specialists to continue using the listing that was current as of the date 

of project initiation, and the Magone Project was initiated prior to the release of the 2015 Regional Forester’s Special 

Status Species list.
Magone Project

400 of 632

Species common name/ 

scientific name

Habitat requirements Status Species/habitat 

occurrence

Gray wolf

(Canis lupus)

Habitat generalist. S HD/N

Pygmy rabbit

(Brachylagus idahoensis)

Strongly associated with dense tall Big 

sagebrush and deep friable soils.

S HN/N

California wolverine

(Gulo gulo luteus)

Alpine tundra, subalpine cirque basins for 

denning. Scavenger in diverse habitats 

during dispersal.

S/C HN/N 

(dispersal only)

Pallid bat

(Antrozous pallidus)

Desert grasslands and shrub-steppe with 

rock outcrops. Uses rock crevices/caves.

S HD/S

Townsend’s big-eared bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii)

Desert shrub, juniper, and pine forests. 

Associated with caves, mines, and 

buildings.

S HD/S

Fringed myotis

(Myotis thysanodes)

Most habitat types, forested, riparian. 

Roosts in caves, crevices, bridges, mines, 

and large conifer snags.

S HD/S

Wallowa rosy finch

(Leucosticte tephrocotis 

wallowa)

Alpine basins above timberline. S HN/N

Grasshopper sparrow

(Ammodramus savannarum)

Grasslands and bunchgrass prairies. S HN/N

Upland sandpiper

(Bartramia longicauda)

Montane meadows >1,000 acres. S HN/N

Bufflehead

(Bucephala albeola)

Nests in cavities near high mountain lakes 

surrounded by open woodlands. Open 

waters on major rivers and lakes outside of 

the breeding season.

S HD/S

Greater sage grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus)

Sagebrush obligate. Leks in openings in 

sagebrush. Needs grasses for nesting.

S HN/N

Bobolink

(Dolichonyx oryzivorus)

Mowed moist meadows, grasses, sedges, 

forbs with mesic shrubs. Irrigated hay 

fields.

S HN/N

American peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus anatum)

Nests on cliffs >75 feet high. S, DL HD/N

Bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Large bodies of water. Large conifers for 

nesting. Winter roost present in adjoining 

watershed.

S, DL HD/D

Lewis’s woodpecker

(Melanerpes lewis)

Open forests, Ponderosa pine savannah. 

Nests in large snags in cavities created by 

other cavity nesters or in very soft snags.

S HD/D

White-headed woodpecker

(Picoides albolarvatus)

Open ponderosa pine forests with large 

trees and snags in large patches.

S HD/D

Johnson’s hairstreak

(Callophrys johnsoni)

Western dwarf mistletoe in large ponderosa 

pine.

S HD/S

Silver-bordered fritillary

(Boloria selene)

Open wet meadows and bogs. S HD/N

*There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for Canada lynx in the affected area. Based upon the National Lynx 

Survey, the Malheur National Forest falls under the designation of “Unoccupied Mapped Lynx Habitat” (USDI FWS

2006). There is no effect (NE) expected to Canada lynx.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

401 of 632

Table 103. Species status abbreviations and species/habitat occurrence

Status Species/habitat occurrence

E Federally Endangered HD Habitat documented or suspected within the 

project planning area or near enough to be 

impacted by project activities

T Federally Threatened HN Habitat not within the project planning area or 

affected by its activities

DL Federally Delisted D Species documented in general vicinity of 

project activities

S Regional Forester's Sensitive Species 

List

S Species suspected in general vicinity of project 

activities

C Endangered Species Act Candidate 

Species

N Species not documented and not suspected in 

general vicinity of project activities

3.9.3.1 Gray Wolf

Existing Conditions for Gray Wolf

The Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf population 

includes a portion of eastern Oregon—east of the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78 

north of Burns Junction and that portion of Oregon east of the centerline of Highway 95 south of 

Burns Junction (USDI FWS 2008b). A final rule published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

on May 5, 2011 (Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 87) delisted wolves in the Northern Rocky 

Mountain DPS). Wolves in this eastern third of Oregon (east of Highway 395) were returned to 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) management. The U.S. Forest Service 

designates the status of gray wolves as “sensitive.” Wolves west of Highway 395 (outside of the 

Northern Rocky Mountain DPS) remain protected by the federal Endangered Species Act with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead management agency for these populations. The 

Magone project planning area lies east of Highway 395 and falls under ODFW management; 

therefore, the gray wolf will not be analyzed as an endangered species for this project.

Historically, wolves occupied all habitats of the Malheur National Forest (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

In 1999, a radio-collared wolf from Idaho was confirmed near the Middle Fork John Day River 

on the Malheur National Forest. Two radio-collared individuals made their way south through 

Grant County in 2011.

The entire Magone project planning area would be potential foraging or dispersal habitat for gray 

wolves. The estimated wolf population for the state of Oregon is 64 wolves, in eight packs, with 

those packs concentrated in northeastern Oregon (ODFW 2014). On December 15, 2014, two 

wolves were documented by ODFW biologists in Grant and Umatilla Counties and an Area of 

Known Wolf Activity was designated. Although wolves have been documented on the Forest, 

there are no confirmed gray wolf denning or rendezvous sites.

Effects to Gray Wolf

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Informal consultation with ODFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was conducted for 

management activities on the Malheur National Forest. The two management agencies 

recommended that the Malheur National Forest follow guidelines described in the The 

Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho Final 
Magone Project

402 of 632

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDI FWS 1994) when considering effects to the gray 

wolf.

The FEIS defines occupied gray wolf range as follows: “areas of confirmed presence of resident 

breeding packs or pairs of wolves are areas consistently used by > 1 resident wolf or wolves over 

a period of at least one month” (USDI FWS 1994, page 76). Confirmation of wolf presence is to 

be made or corroborated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ODFW. Until an active pack 

or confirmed pair are identified within the Magone project planning area, there would be no 

effect to gray wolves as a result of the proposed project.

Currently a no impact (NI) determination is recommended by ODFW for projects within the 

Malheur National Forest (east of Hwy 395). Therefore there would be no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects to wolves as a result of alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. If a pack (i.e., pair) is 

identified in the project planning area, the only land use restriction would be limiting the 

operating period around den sites, which would be coordinated with ODFW.

Additionally, gray wolves are highly adaptable; therefore, management activities would be 

expected to have little effect on habitat use. Analysis for elk can be found in the Management 

Indicator Species – Rocky Mountain Elk section, and concludes that implementation of the 

Magone Project may impact elk distribution at the local level but would not affect elk viability at 

the Forest level, therefore adequate prey would remain for gray wolves.

Cumulative Effects

Because no direct or indirect effects are anticipated as a result of the action alternatives, there 

would be no cumulative effects to gray wolves.

3.9.3.2 Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat, Pallid Bat, and Fringed Myotis

Existing Conditions for Bats

Although there are differences between these three bat species, threats in common include loss of 

roost habitat (snags) and degradation of foraging habitat. Therefore the effects for all three bat 

species are combined as one discussion.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat—Roost habitat includes caves, mines, hollow trees, and man-made 

structures (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). Snags and large trees may be important roosts for this 

species, although maternity colonies and winter hibernacula are usually associated with caves, 

mines, or buildings (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). In eastern Oregon, ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer forest, and riparian-wetland habitat is used by Townsend’s big-eared bats. The bats 

forage in and around foliage at mid and upper canopy levels where they generally capture insects 

in the air.

Threats include disturbance or destruction of roost sites, loss or degradation of water sources and 

foraging areas, and exposure to pesticides or other toxic chemicals.

Townsend’s big-eared bats are documented for the Malheur National Forest. Rock crevice, large 

tree and snag, and foraging habitat occur within the project planning area.

Pallid Bat—Habitat for pallid bats in Oregon includes drier shrub/steppe habitat and grasslands, 

often near rocky outcrops and water. Open ponderosa pine forest with cliff habitat is also used 

(Ferguson and Azerrad 2004, NatureServe 2012). Roosts include rock crevices, buildings, under 

bridges, and under rock overhangs. Rock piles, hollow trees, and cavities in ponderosa pine are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

403 of 632

also used (Verts and Carraway 1998). Pallid bats forage for arthropods and insects off the 

ground; their diet is composed of beetles, moths, crickets, scorpions, centipedes, and an 

occasional lizard or small rodent (Verts and Carraway 1998).

Within the Magone project planning area, roost habitat exists in small bridges, rock outcrops, 

hollow trees, and cavities within ponderosa pine. Foraging habitat within the project planning 

area occurs in sagebrush, juniper woodland, and grassland, particularly in the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area.

Fringed Myotis—Fringed myotis use a fairly broad range of habitats and, in eastern Oregon, 

appear to prefer forested and riparian areas (Csuti et al. 2001). Roost habitat includes caves, 

mines, cliffs, buildings, and snags. Suitable tree roosting habitat contains late successional 

ponderosa pine with high-density clusters of snags in early to medium stages of decay (Keinath 

2004). Foraging habitat includes a heterogeneous mix of conifer forest, including ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir, and shrubland/grassland, with ample water sources and an abundance of insect 

prey (Keinath 2004).

Threats include disturbance or destruction of roost sites, loss or degradation of water sources and 

foraging areas, and exposure to pesticides or other toxic chemicals.

Fringed myotis are documented for the Malheur National Forest. Within the project planning

area, rock crevice, snag, and foraging habitat occur.

Bat Habitat

Potential roost habitat includes large trees with dead tops, cracks, or cavities; large hollow trees; 

and large snags. A watershed analysis of snags was done for the Magone project planning area 

and can be found in the Management Indicator Species section of this report under Dead and 

Defective Habitat. Therefore, the remainder of this analysis will focus on roost habitat within 

live trees and foraging habitat.

The highest potential roost habitat within live trees would occur in old forest (old forest multi 

strata and old forest single stratum). Acres of this tree roost habitat occur on approximately 8,856 

acres (32.8 percent) of the project planning area.

A diversity of foraging habitat is also important for these three bat species. Unique habitats such 

as aspen stands increase the diversity of available forage habitat and attract insects that bats rely 

on. Healthy riparian vegetation also increases insect diversity and abundance, which is important 

for bats. Within the project planning area there are approximately 24 acres of aspen and 4,200 

acres of riparian habitat conservation area considered potential foraging habitat for these bat 

species.

Effects to Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat, Pallid Bat, and Fringed Myotis

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no management activities proposed as part of the Magone 

Project would occur. In the short- to mid-term, the various habitats that currently exist within the 

project planning area would be maintained in the current condition and provide for the species 

diversity, density, and distribution that currently exists. Fire hazard and risk of insect outbreaks 

would remain elevated for some stands. Conversely, in the absence of disturbance in the longterm, open pine stands could continue to transition to multi-story stands. Closed roads currently 
Magone Project

404 of 632

being used would remain open, resulting in loss of security for some species and potential loss of 

snags from firewood cutting.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Of the 8,856 acres of potential late and old structure tree roost habitat in the project planning 

area, approximately 8 percent would be impacted by activities proposed under alternative 2; 

approximately 10 percent would be impacted by alternative 3; and approximately 5 percent 

under alternative 4. The following analysis focuses on the live tree component of bat habitat. A

watershed analysis of snags can be found in the Management Indicator Species section under 

Dead and Defective Habitat.

All of the action alternatives would retain snags on the landscape wherever possible. However, 

alternatives 2 and 3 propose 48.8 and 92.4 miles of new trail, respectively. The construction and 

maintenance of these trails would likely increase the number snags identified as hazard trees that 

would subsequently be removed. This would contribute further snag loss and could reduce deadtree roosting habitat for bats. In the short-term, project implementation could result in the 

potential further loss of large snags as a result of firewood cutting along roads temporarily 

opened for log haul or roads with unauthorized use. 

Large green trees with dead tops provide habitat that receives solar radiation that warms the tree, 

and roosting bats often select sites that have higher temperatures. While roosting, especially 

during cooler weather, bats may go into a torpor, which is a state of reduced activity and 

metabolism as a result of lowered body temperatures (Tuttle 1997). Torpor and reduced body 

metabolism help the animal conserve energy during its daytime fast. A risk associated with this 

strategy includes the inability to respond quickly to threats. Depending on season and body 

temperature, a bat waking from torpor may not be able to fly for several minutes to an hour. If a 

roost tree with bats is felled, the animals may not be able to warm themselves and respond 

quickly enough to escape before the tree hits the ground and shatters.

Project design criteria would help retain snags within thinning units and during prescribed fire 

operations. Prescribed burning may also create habitat. Bats generally benefit from clusters of 

snags; areas where torching occurs during prescribed burning may result in tree mortality and 

snag creation beneficial for bat roost habitat. Further, in units where heavy machinery use would 

be required, some snag creation would be expected through “scuffing” and unintentional girdling 

of trees.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would likely retain habitat in the short-term, and increase habitat in the

long-term, as all trees greater than and equal to 21 inches DBH would be retained within late and 

old structure forest and across the landscape. 

Retaining large trees of other species on the landscape may provide interim habitat important for

roost habitat, while younger stands grow and develop into old forest. There is also suitable 

roosting habitat in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), in cracks and crevices of 

the many rock cliffs, and this habitat would not be altered or disturbed under any alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3, and to a lesser extent alternative 4, would provide increased diversity in 

upland shrub habitats because of conifer and juniper removal prescriptions designed to enhance 

mountain mahogany and bitterbrush stands. This expected increase in plant diversity would 

result in an increase in prey diversity and abundance, and increase overall foraging habitat for 

bats, especially pallid bats and fringed myotis. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose 5,500 acres of 

upland shrub enhancement thinning, including areas in the Nipple Butte IRA as well as the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

405 of 632

Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA); alternative 4 proposes substantially less with all 

units outside the IRA and WEA.

Aspen stand enhancement treatments would increase the vigor, recruitment, and ultimately the

size of aspen stands in the project planning area. This would also create a more diverse prey base 

for bats, although benefits would be negligible as only 18 acres are proposed under all action 

alternatives.

Other recreation activities (i.e. accessible trail development, trailheads, interpretive signs, and 

boat and fishing docks) and the Magone Lake restoration activities (i.e., fish crib and fish stick 

placement) would not be expected to have any effect to bat species or habitat other than 

temporary disturbance and displacement during project activities. 

Increased understory and plant vigor from thinning and prescribed fire in alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

would also likely increase insect populations, and therefore provide higher quantities of insects

and conceivably provide a more diverse prey base for bats in treated areas across the project 

planning area.

Alteration of roosting, maternity, and hibernacula habitat for bats (e.g., caves, adits, rock faces, 

buildings, and bridges) would not be expected through implementation of any action alternative.

All action alternatives would move younger stands toward old forest structure at some level, 

ultimately developing either large snags or large green trees with potential for dead tops, and 

would provide roost habitat benefiting these bat species in the long-term. Additionally, 

alternatives 2 and 3 propose approximately 5,550 acres of upland shrub enhancement treatments 

that would enhance or even create foraging habitat. Any of the action alternatives would benefit 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and fringed myotis.

Cumulative Effects to Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat, Pallid Bat, and Fringed Myotis

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Magone project planning area and adjacent 

subwatersheds. All activities in Table 17 and Table 18 have been considered for their cumulative 

effects on Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and fringed myotis.

Past timber harvest, thinning, road construction, fire suppression, wildfire, prescribed fire, and 

grazing have combined to create the existing condition within the Magone project planning area. 

Existing forest structure compared with the historical range of variability (HRV) reflects the 

effects of past management activities as well as large-scale disturbance events.

Past timber harvest targeted and removed many of the largest diameter trees, reducing old forest 

structures (old forest multi strata and old forest single stratum) in the Warm Dry biophysical 

environment. Large green replacement trees removed during this time reduced future snag 

potential and subsequent large snag densities throughout the project planning area.

The Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, directs that timber sales be conducted to move stands 

towards old forest multi strata and old forest single stratum structural stages; maintain all live 

trees greater than or equal to 21 inches DBH; and maintain connectivity and reduce 

fragmentation of late and old structure (LOS) between LOS and dedicated old growth. Timber 

sales planned since that time within the project planning area have not contributed to loss of late 

and old growth forest, although understory stocking may have been reduced.
Magone Project

406 of 632

The County Road 18 Healthy Forest Restoration Act Project adjacent to and overlapping the 

eastern Magone project boundary is ongoing, and will ultimately thin commercially and noncommercially thin 1,200 and 1,600 acres, respectively. Prescribed burning is occurring along this 

corridor as well. The purpose of the County Road18 Project is to create a strategic fuel break 

along County Road 18, and is expected to result in very open, single strata pine stands with little 

to no component of snags or downed wood from high levels of mechanical treatment and 

repeated burning. This project could add cumulative effects to snag and LOS habitat suitable for 

bats.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would likely retain hollow trees useful for roosting Townsend’s bigeared bat, pallid bat, and fringed myotis as older, 21 inch trees and greater would not be 

removed. Moving stand structure towards HRV by restoring natural vegetation conditions and 

fire regimes would improve the sustainability of these habitats for associated wildlife species, 

and lower the risk of large scale insect infestation and higher severity wildfire. In the long-term, 

larger and older stand structure would provide snags valuable as roosting habitat.

Although prescribed fire proposed for the Magone Project could potentially consume a small 

number of smaller snags, it would also be expected to contribute small pulses of additional snag 

and potential roost habitat, benefiting Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and fringed myotis.

Public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open and closed roads with unauthorized 

use and contribute to loss of snags in the project planning area.

Projects within the Magone project planning area authorized under the Malheur National Forest 

Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice (USDA Forest Service

2014b) would enhance or create riparian habitat, create or increase pools along riparian 

corridors, and enhance meadow habitat, resulting in beneficial impacts to bat species as these 

activities would be expected to increase insect diversity as well as create habitat more suitable 

for bat foraging.

Based on the proposed Malheur National Forest Access Travel Management Plan, it is 

foreseeable that cross country travel would be restricted for off road vehicle travel, with the 

exception of accessing dispersed camping sites from open roads. This would ultimately have a 

beneficial cumulative effect on snag retention, by reducing access for firewood cutting.

Overall, the combined effects of the Magone Project with the effects of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect populations of 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and fringed myotis.

Determination

With their ability to use a broad range of habitats, it is expected that habitat for bats would be 

affected through implementation of any of the action alternatives. However, habitat alteration in 

the project planning area would not necessarily deem that habitat unsuitable; it would likely only 

change the way the habitat would be used by bats.

The proposed alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to 

a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) 

because: there could be a degree of displacement or disturbance for bat species during project 

implementation; some live and dead trees providing habitat may be removed; enhancing foraging 

areas could benefit these species; and treatment could potentially change how affected habitat 

would be used by bat species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

407 of 632

3.9.3.3 Bufflehead

Existing Condition for Bufflehead

The bufflehead is a species of duck widely distributed throughout Oregon, although populations 

are relatively low. Bufflehead typically nest in cavities created by northern flickers or pileated 

woodpeckers near high mountain lakes surrounded by open woodlands, but will frequent open 

waters on major rivers and lakes outside of the breeding season (Gauthier 2014).

Although existing suitable habitat has not been formally surveyed for bufflehead, they have been 

documented at Magone Lake. Few mountain lakes or reservoirs provide appropriate nesting 

habitat on the Forest, and it is believed that appropriate breeding habitat for bufflehead is 

uncommon on the Blue Mountain Ranger District. However, Magone Lake is one of the most 

likely places on the District to be used by nesting bufflehead. Though buffleheads are 

documented at Magone Lake, nesting status has not been determined in the area.

Suitable post breeding habitat includes slow flowing, sheltered waters that ideally remain icefree year round. With East Fork Beech Creek within the project planning area, some postbreeding areas for bufflehead may be present. Although there is no formal documentation 

recorded in Forest Service databases for buffleheads on or near the creek, occasional postbreeding presence is suspected in times of sufficient water flow.

Effects to Bufflehead

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, no management activities would occur and post-breeding habitat would 

remain unaltered. Buffleheads would continue to occur.

Increased recreation would not be expected as with the action alternatives. If buffleheads 

currently use Magone Lake for nesting, the level of nesting and nest success would be expected 

to remain unchanged.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Any direct and indirect impacts to buffleheads related to silviculture treatments and/or road 

activities would be expected to occur in or around post-breeding habitat. Effects from these 

activities would be expected to be short-term and most often associated with waterways where 

buffleheads utilize free-flowing waters, like East Fork Beech Creek, outside of the breeding 

season.

Although no direct habitat removal or alteration is planned in potential habitat types, project 

activities are expected to occur within close proximity to post-breeding areas. Increased traffic 

and activity levels along East Fork Beech Creek may temporarily displace loafing or feeding 

bufflehead in or around the project planning area. However, this disturbance would only be 

expected during implementation of treatments.

Recreation activities are proposed under all action alternatives. However, the miles of new trails 

and number of developments around Magone Lake are substantially higher in alternatives 2 and 

3. Development of new biking and hiking trails would increase displacement and disturbance in 

areas where trails are constructed in potential post breeding habitat.

Improving trails, developing new day use areas, and modifying and constructing new docks 

around the lake as proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 would likely increase recreation in the area 
Magone Project

408 of 632

and ultimately decrease the likelihood of Magone Lake being utilized as nesting habitat for 

buffleheads. Further, an increase in the number of areas regularly used by recreationists would 

potentially increase the removal of snags identified as hazards. Removal of any snags containing 

or likely to contain cavities excavated by northern flickers or pileated woodpeckers would 

directly remove potential nesting areas for bufflehead.

Trees felled into or near Magone Lake for use as “fish sticks” under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could 

also reduce the number of future snags and subsequent cavities suitable for nesting bufflehead, 

although trees selected for “fish sticks” would mostly be 8 to 12 inches DBH. By selecting 

smaller trees, the larger trees more valuable as future snags and potential nesting trees for 

buffleheads would be retained.

Cumulative Effects to Bufflehead

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Magone project planning area and adjacent 

subwatersheds. All of the activities in Table 17 and Table 18 were considered for their

cumulative effects to bufflehead or their habitat.

Management activities and uses that have occurred in the past have not likely influenced the 

availability and quality of habitat for bufflehead because land management activities, recreation 

infrastructure development, and transportation corridors have not decreased the overall amount 

of suitable breeding and post-breeding habitat available. Intermittent disturbance and 

displacement from post-breeding habitat likely only resulted in individuals moving into adjacent 

areas with suitable post-breeding habitat, such as Beech Creek (during times of adequate water 

flow) and the main stem John Day River.

At the local level, there may be impacts to individual buffleheads but population level effects are 

unlikely because: (1) buffleheads can easily travel longer distances, therefore, if temporarily 

displaced, they can easily move into other undisturbed habitat within or adjacent to the Magone 

project planning area; (2) any post-breeding habitat impacted would not be rendered unsuitable 

for bufflehead post-project; and (3) there is little suitable nesting habitat on the Blue Mountain 

Ranger District and nesting is not documented at Magone Lake or elsewhere within the project 

planning area. Therefore, any activities near Magone Lake would not be expected to routinely 

affect nesting buffleheads; thus population viability.

Determination

Due to the conclusion of effects discussed above, primarily displacement from post-breeding 

habitat and potential loss of suitable nesting cavities, the determination of effect of the action 

alternatives on the bufflehead is may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

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

(MIIH).

3.9.3.4 American Peregrine Falcon

Existing Condition for Peregrine Falcon

American peregrine falcon typically nest on cliffs and man-made structures greater than 75 feet 

high and are normally found no farther than 1 mile from water sources (Marshall et al. 2006). 

The presence of prominent cliffs is the most common habitat characteristic of peregrine falcon 

nesting territories (Hayes and Buchanan 2002, Hays and Milner 1999). A source of water, such 

as a river, lake, marsh, or marine waters, is typically in close proximity to nest sites and likely is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

409 of 632

associated with an adequate prey base of small to medium sized birds (Cade 1982, Johnsgard 

1990).

No known peregrine falcon nest sites have been verified on the Malheur National Forest; 

however, potential natural nesting habitat may exist in the northern portion of the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area as well as areas adjacent to the project planning area at Ragged 

Rocks. However, peregrines have not been documented in the East Fork Beech Creek or Grub 

Creek subwatersheds.

Effects to Peregrine Falcon

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

No documented nest sites or observations occur within the project planning area. Further, 

activities are not proposed near any potentially suitable nesting habitat under any alternative. 

Therefore, no direct or indirect effects would be expected.

Cumulative Effects to American Peregrine Falcon

Because no direct or indirect effects are anticipated as a result of the action alternatives, there 

would be no cumulative effects to American peregrine falcons.

Determination

The determination for American peregrine falcons is no impact (NI) for any of the alternatives 

because no activities are proposed in or adjacent to suitable nesting habitat under any alternative. 

Further, although potential nesting habitat exists in the project planning area, no nests or 

incidental observations have been documented.

3.9.3.5 Bald Eagle

Existing Condition for Bald Eagle

Bald eagle populations are managed under the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI 

FWS 1986), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI FWS 2007).

Bald eagles generally nest near rivers, large lakes, or streams that support an adequate food 

supply, which generally consists of fish, waterfowl, and/or carrion. Potential nesting habitat is 

generally located within one mile of water (Marshall et al. 2006) and nest trees are normally 

mature or old-growth trees, with a large and open branch structure that can support the large 

nests. They shelter at winter roost sites, utilizing large trees with open branching patterns in the 

crown. The birds show a preference for the largest trees or snags in roosting areas (USDI FWS 

1986).

Major threats to bald eagles continue to be environmental contaminants (especially lead shot or 

bullet fragments), excessive disturbance by humans, and illegal shooting (NatureServe 2010).

Incidental sightings of bald eagles are documented within the project planning area. However, no 

known roosts or nests are documented at this time.
Magone Project

410 of 632

Effects to Bald Eagle

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, there would be no management activities. Existing cover and 

stand densities would remain the same. Within the dry forest types, stocking levels for some 

stands would remain elevated. Potential losses from insects, disease, or wildfire would remain 

elevated for some stands. Wildfire events or outbreaks of insects and disease could affect large 

overstory trees used by bald eagles for roost or nest habitat; however, location, extent, and 

severity would determine the level of disturbance. Current open road access would remain the 

same, with potential loss of large snags along these roads as firewood is removed.

This alternative could lead to the decrease of the health and vigor of large diameter ponderosa 

pine used for nesting and roosting. Trends in risk of loss to insect, disease, and wildfire would 

not be altered. This action may result in loss of large ponderosa pine and reduce or eliminate the 

use of the area for nesting.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

No known bald eagle nests exist in the project planning area. If nests are discovered before or 

during any stage of project implementation, buffers and timing restrictions would be 

incorporated into the project design criteria, as per National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 

(USDI FWS 2007), which would aid in mitigating possible project impacts. Further, if additional 

impacts were to be determined, further mitigations and restrictions would apply.

Bald eagles have been documented in the project planning area outside of breeding season, likely 

utilizing East Fork Beech Creek and possibly Magone Lake for general travel and/or foraging. If 

bald eagles were encountered during implementation of proposed activities, displacement and 

avoidance would be expected in areas of activity or increased traffic from roads or trails.

The action alternatives were developed to meet the purpose and need of the Magone Project. The 

purpose and need includes the desire to retain and develop future old trees. Retention of existing 

large trees, and accelerating tree growth to move younger stands towards older forest structure

with large trees, would benefit bald eagles in the long-term by providing larger, older tree 

structure and additional potential roost trees. In the short-term, project implementation could 

result in the potential loss of large snags if designated as hazard trees (e.g., within units or along 

haul routes), or lost as a result of firewood cutting along roads temporarily opened for log haul or 

roads with unauthorized use. 

A watershed-scale snag analysis has been done for the watershed and is summarized in the 

Management Indicator Species section under Dead and Defective Habitat.

Prescribed fire activity could result in the loss of large green trees or snags; design criteria that 

include ignition patterns avoiding snags, and clearing brush and fuel accumulations from select 

snags would minimize losses. Overall reduction in fire risk as a result of thinning and fuels 

reduction would benefit retention of large old ponderosa pine and snags, benefiting bald eagle 

nest and roost habitat in the long-term.

Alternative 2 proposes 1.1 miles of road closures and 0.3 miles of road decommissioning within

potential bald eagle habitat. Alternatives 3 and 4 propose 0.3 miles of road closure and the same 

amount of road decommissioning as alternative 2. Road closure activities likely would result in 

retaining more snags as a result of less public firewood cutting. However, an increase in biking 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

411 of 632

and hiking trails could reduce snag numbers through danger tree removal along newly developed 

trails. Snag retention may increase winter roost sites or perch trees, although there would likely 

be no effect to nesting bald eagles as described in Isaacs and Anthony report that 98.9 percent of 

eagle nests are built in live trees (Issacs and Anthony 1987, Marshall et al. 2006).

Prey species would not be negatively affected. In the long-term, activities that improve riparian 

conditions such as shade or riparian hardwood diversity and vigor, or activities to enhance fish 

habitat in Magone Lake, would result in beneficial effects for fish species, prey for bald eagles.

Cumulative Effects to Bald Eagle

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Magone project planning area. All of the 

activities listed in Table 17 and Table 18 were considered for their cumulative effects to bald 

eagles and their habitat.

Past timber harvest, thinning, road construction, fire suppression, wildfire, prescribed fire, and 

grazing have combined to create the existing condition within the project planning area. Existing 

forest structure compared with the historical range of variability (HRV) reflects the effects of 

past management activities as well as large-scale disturbance events.

Past timber harvest targeted and removed many of the most valuable, largest diameter ponderosa 

pine, reducing potential roosting and nesting habitat. However, the Malheur Forest Plan, as 

amended in 1995, directed the Malheur National Forest to conduct timber sales in a manner that 

moves stands towards old forest multi strata and old forest single stratum structural stages, and 

timber sales planned since that time would not have contributed to loss of mature and old growth 

forest.

The County Road 18 Healthy Forest Restoration Act Project adjacent to and overlapping the 

eastern Magone project boundary is ongoing, and will ultimately commercially and noncommercially thin 1,200 and 1,600 acres, respectively. Proposed commercial harvest adjacent to 

the Magone project planning area includes the Camp Lick Project (currently being analyzed).

Cumulatively, the effects of the County Road 18 and Camp Lick projects would likely benefit 

bald eagles, as both projects would retain and develop future old trees.

Public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. Based on the proposed 

Malheur National Forest Access Travel Management Plan, it is foreseeable that cross-country 

travel would be restricted for off-road vehicle travel, with the exception of accessing dispersed 

campsites from open roads. 

Proposed road decommissioning and closure activities for the Magone Project, combined with 

the foreseeable changes in travel management, would have a beneficial cumulative effect on 

snag retention by reducing access for firewood cutting, thus increasing potential winter roost and 

eagle perch sites.

The implementation of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide positive effects and may diminish 

some past negative cumulative impacts to large tree structure within the cumulative effects 

boundary.

Determination

The determination for bald eagle is may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species 
Magone Project

412 of 632

(MIIH). In the long-term, treatments would help retain and promote growth and longevity of 

large trees and would have a beneficial impact (BI) on bald eagles.

3.9.3.6 Lewis’s Woodpecker

Existing Condition for Lewis’s Woodpecker

Lewis’s woodpecker inhabits primarily open forests and woodlands, with breeding habitat 

typically characterized by open canopy and brushy understory, with perch sites and abundant 

insects (Abele et al. 2004). This species is strongly associated with post-fire habitats, particularly 

high burn severity areas with clumps of decaying large diameter snags.

This species is considered a weak excavator and seldom excavates its own nest cavity; instead it 

relies on cavities created by other woodpeckers (Bock 1968). Nesting habitat consists of two 

distinct types in eastern Oregon: riparian areas with large cottonwoods, and fire maintained or 

burned old-growth ponderosa pine forests (NatureServe 2014). Burned ponderosa pine stands 

appear to represent the highest quality breeding habitat for Lewis’s woodpeckers, based on 

reproductive success and nest-site selection (Saab and Vierling 2001). Presence of Lewis’s

woodpecker is also connected with unburned ponderosa pine forests with open canopies and 

large trees; however, it is generally at lower abundance in these habitats than in post-fire habitat.

For purposes of analysis, primary source habitat is defined as post-fire habitat and secondary 

source habitat is defined as old forest single stratum forest and riparian areas with large tree 

structure.

In 2014, the Region 6 wildlife ecologist classified (modelled) habitat for late-seral associated 

management indicator species (MIS) on the Malheur National Forest using vegetation type, size 

class, canopy closure, and canopy layer data provided in the Forest-wide vegetation data layer as 

of May 5, 2014. This provided Malheur National Forest wildlife biologists with acres and 

distribution of primary and secondary habitat for these late-seral associated species across the 

Forest. This data was corrected by Blue Mountain District wildlife staff to eliminate “slivers,” or 

miniscule polygons with no data. The data was also corrected to an accurate Malheur National 

Forest boundary.

Primary habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker was not included in this effort as primary habitat is 

defined as post-fire habitat. There are 24,689 acres of secondary habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker 

on the Malheur National Forest. Approximately 796 acres, or about 3.5 percent, of those acres 

are within the Magone project planning area.

There are 4,200 acres of riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) within the project planning 

area; however, most acres lack the cottonwood component desirable for Lewis’s woodpecker. 

Further, no recent large fires have occurred within the Magone project planning area and 

therefore no primary source habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker is present. Therefore, Lewis’s 

woodpeckers would be expected to have minimal suitable breeding habitat within the project 

planning area.

Analysis of habitat is a broad scale look at the live tree component and does not provide 

information on stand specific snag or down wood levels. A watershed-scale snag analysis has 

been done for the Beech Creek and Grub Creek watersheds and is summarized in the 

Management Indicator Species section under Dead and Defective Habitat.

Lewis’s woodpeckers are not documented within the Magone project planning area; however, 

they are expected to occur in low densities in the 796 acres of secondary habitat present in the 

planning area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

413 of 632

Effects to Lewis’s Woodpecker

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker would not be treated and current trends in habitat condition 

would continue. Habitat would remain below the HRV, and Lewis’s woodpecker habitat would 

be expected to decline with the ingrowth of understory trees and subsequently a reduction in the 

amount of open habitats. Trends in risk of habitat loss to insect, disease, and wildfire would not 

be altered. Refer the Silviculture and Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality reports for detailed discussion 

of risk of loss to these disturbance agents. This alternative could ultimately lead to an elevated 

risk of high-intensity wildfire, which could provide an increase in habitat for the Lewis’s 

woodpecker.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

The purpose and need of the Magone Project identifies restoring ecological structure and 

function of forest ecosystems within the project planning area to improve forest health and 

increase resilience to drought, fire, insects, diseases, and other disturbances. Therefore, action 

alternatives would not promote primary source habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker as compared to 

the no action alternative.

Action alternatives would utilize commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, and prescribed 

fire to reduce the understory fir component on acres dominated by ponderosa pine and western 

larch. Prescriptions are designed to increase the abundance of more open stand structure with 

ponderosa pine contributing a relatively larger percentage of the species composition. This 

would help restore Lewis’s woodpecker habitat and bring levels closer to the historical range of 

variability (HRV). Implementation of alternative 2 would result in a 10 percent increase of 

secondary habitat, while implementation of alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a 13 percent 

increase and a 6 percent increase of secondary habitat, respectively. However, alternatives 2 and 

4 would remain below HRV estimates by Powell (1998).

Affects to snags are likely to result from prescribed fire, temporary opening of closed roads for 

log haul, construction of temporary roads, and hazard tree removal. Prescribed fire has the 

potential to modify the size, abundance, and condition class of snags in treated areas, which 

could yield both positive and negative results to habitat for this species. A watershed-scale

analysis of snags done for the Magone Project can be found in the Management Indicator 

Species section under Dead and Defective Habitat.

The extent of project activities and expected outcomes should provide for a net increase of 

secondary habitat acres for each action alternative (Table 104). The amount of secondary habitat 

would be increased by all action alternatives. In the short-term habitat would remain below the 

HRV in alternatives 2 and 4; however, modeling predicts that by 2055 habitat would be within 

the HRV as identified by Powell (1998).

Table 104. Warm Dry forest structural stages, displaying old forest single stratum by alternative and 

historical range of variability (HRV), based on modeling for year 2025 and 2055

Year Description Alternative

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative

3

Alternative

4

HRV

2025 Old forest 

single-stratum

3% 13% 16% 9% 15-55%

2055 Old forest 

single-stratum

15% 30% 37% 23% 15-55%
Magone Project

414 of 632

Source: Compiled from Magone Silviculture Report.

During project operations, a degree of disturbance and displacement of Lewis’s woodpeckers 

would be possible.

Cumulative Effects to Lewis’s Woodpecker

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Magone project planning area and adjacent 

subwatersheds, to include other proposed projects. All of the activities in Table 17 and Table 18

have been considered for their cumulative effects on Lewis’s woodpecker.

Past timber harvest, thinning, road construction, fire suppression, wildfires, prescribed fire, and 

grazing have combined to create the existing condition within the Magone project planning area. 

Existing forest structure compared with the historical range of variability (HRV) reflects the 

effects of past management activities as well as large-scale disturbance events.

Past timber harvest targeted and removed many of the most valuable, largest diameter ponderosa 

pine, reducing potential roosting and nesting habitat. However, the Malheur Forest Plan, as 

amended in 1995, directs the Malheur National Forest to conduct timber sales in a manner that 

moves stands towards old forest multi strata and old forest single stratum structural stages. 

Timber sales planned since that time would not have contributed to loss of mature and old 

growth forest. Proposed commercial harvest within and adjacent to the project planning area that 

may continue includes the 18 Road Fuels Reduction Project and the adjacent Camp Lick Project. 

Both projects propose to reduce hazardous fuels and would retain and develop future old trees. 

The 18 Road Project includes commercially thinning 1,200 acres, non-commercially thinning 

1,600 acres, and applying prescribed fire throughout the corridor. The result is generally open 

pine stands suitable for Lewis’s woodpeckers. Cumulatively, the effects of the 18 Road and 

Camp Lick projects would likely increase secondary source habitat but inhibit the development 

of primary source habitat.

Current livestock grazing in the uplands and along streams is affecting nesting and foraging 

habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker. Cattle may shift plant species composition and abundance 

through selection of more palatable forage species. Cattle reduce ground cover through 

trampling or consuming vegetation, decreasing insect availability. Past grazing in stream 

corridors has also reduced riparian shrub habitat. 

The conditions of some riparian areas and aspen habitats has been improved by new 

management practices and restoration activities in more recent years, but some areas are still not 

fully restored to conditions that are most suitable for Lewis’s woodpecker. Expanding and 

enhancing riparian habitats would benefit the Lewis’s woodpecker.

The road network in the analysis area (largely a result of past harvest) has impacted snag 

densities by decreasing habitat from road construction and increasing accessibility of the area to 

firewood cutting. Public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. Based on the 

proposed Malheur National Forest Access Travel Management Plan, it is foreseeable that crosscountry travel would be restricted for off-road vehicle travel, with the exception of accessing 

dispersed camping sites from open roads. The proposed road decommissioning and closure 

activities for the Magone Project (though negligible), combined with the foreseeable changes in 

travel management, would have a beneficial cumulative effect on snag retention by reducing 

access for firewood cutting, thus increasing potential nesting and foraging habitat for Lewis’s 

woodpecker.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

415 of 632

Within the cumulative effects boundary, invasive weed treatments, as authorized by the Malheur 

National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Record of Decision (USDA Forest 

Service 2015b), would be beneficial to the persistence of native vegetation but would have little 

to no impacts to the Lewis’s woodpecker or its habitat. Cumulative effects when combined with 

invasive weed treatments would be negligible.

Determination

The determination of effect of the action alternatives on the Lewis’s woodpecker is may impact 

individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or loss 

of viability to the population or species (MIIH). In the long-term, treatments would help retain 

and promote growth and longevity of large trees and would have a beneficial impact (BI) on 

Lewis’s woodpecker.

3.9.3.7 White-Headed Woodpecker

Existing Condition for White-Headed Woodpecker

The white-headed woodpecker occurs mainly in open ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forests 

dominated by ponderosa pine (Marshall et al. 2006). Landscapes with a mosaic of open habitat 

for nesting in close proximity to closed-canopy forests that provide foraging habitat seem to be 

important for white-headed woodpeckers (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). This species relies on 

seeds from ponderosa pine cones and insects gleaned off ponderosa pine and mixed conifer trees 

for its foraging needs.

Large ponderosa pine snags, mean diameters ranging from 25 to 31 inches, are utilized for 

nesting (Frenzel 2004). Nest cavities are relatively low to the ground, and can fail as a result of 

predation from small mammals.

Throughout the range, habitat components include an abundance of mature pines (with large 

cones and abundant seed production), with relatively open canopy cover within preferred habitat 

(Garrett et al. 1996).

Habitat degradation and loss of large diameter ponderosa pine stands continue to be the greatest 

threats to white-headed woodpeckers. Habitat for white-headed woodpeckers in Oregon and 

Washington is probably less than 10 percent of what existed prior to European-American 

settlement (Henjum 1994). Historically, white-headed woodpeckers were well distributed 

throughout the Blue Mountains.

A conservation assessment for the white-headed woodpecker (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013) 

includes the following management considerations for restoration of habitat used by whiteheaded woodpeckers:

• Retaining and producing large, older ponderosa pine used for foraging

• Retaining and producing large snags used for nesting

• Reducing shrub cover and excess down wood to reduce numbers of small mammals that 

prey on nests

• Reducing canopy density to provide interspersion of open and closed pine stands

• Maintaining within stand heterogeneity

There are approximately 350,096 acres of white-headed woodpecker habitat across the Malheur 

National Forest, modeled as primary (180,978 acres) and secondary (169,118 acres) habitat. 

However, within the project planning area there are 605 acres of primary and 2,154 acres of 

secondary habitat; less than 1 percent of the overall habitat on the Forest.
Magone Project

416 of 632

Analysis of habitat is a broad scale look at the live tree component and does not provide 

information on stand specific snag or down wood log levels. A watershed-scale snag analysis has 

been done for the Beech Creek and Grub Creek watersheds and is summarized in the

Management Indicator Species section under Dead and Defective Habitat.

White-headed woodpeckers have been documented throughout its habitat in the project planning 

area.

Effects to White-Headed Woodpecker

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

The no action alternative would remain below the HRV for white-headed woodpecker and its

associates in the short-term. This alternative would maintain the existing acres of fir-dominated 

understories and the trend toward fir-dominated habitats. In the long-term, there would be a 

continued decline in habitat for white-headed woodpecker, which prefers open pine-dominated 

stands. Mortality of large ponderosa pine due to stand densities being above sustainable levels 

would likely result in loss of foraging habitat for white-headed woodpeckers (live pine) as the 

overstory pine trees succumb to stress from competition in overstocked stands. Open road 

density would remain the same, thus fuelwood cutting (snag removal) is not likely to change.

Over time, stand conditions are expected to decline on sites that cannot sustain high densities of 

conifers. As trees on such sites succumb to insect invasion they would stop producing seeds, sap,

and invertebrates associated with foliage. These are listed as important food resources for this 

species (Marshall et al. 2006). If tree mortality becomes extensive and live canopy closure is lost 

in large areas of severe insect infestations or fire intensity, affected areas would become less 

suitable for this species. If the mortality remains moderate and patchy, the affected areas may 

become more suitable for this species, which prefers relatively open forest conditions.

Under alternative 1, habitat for the white-headed woodpecker would not be treated and current 

trends in habitat condition would continue. Habitat for the white-headed woodpecker would 

remain below the HRV. Trends in risk of habitat loss to insects, diseases, and wildfire would not 

be altered.

This alternative would have no direct effects on the white-headed woodpecker. Indirectly, it 

could ultimately lead to an elevated level of risk of habitat loss in some areas. Lack of treatment 

in ponderosa pine habitats to reduce stand density and create single stratum habitats would 

maintain the current projection of reduced habitat suitability for the white-headed woodpecker.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

The purpose and need of the Magone Project identifies transitioning the drier forest landscapes 

to more historically present fire resistant tree species, and retaining and developing future old 

trees. Therefore, the action alternatives would likely promote high quality habitat for whiteheaded woodpecker as compared to the no action alternative.

Action alternatives would utilize commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, and prescribed 

fire to reduce the understory fir component on acres dominated by ponderosa pine and western 

larch. Prescriptions are designed to increase the abundance of more open stand structure with 

ponderosa pine contributing a relatively larger percentage of the species composition. This 

would help restore white-headed woodpecker habitat and bring levels closer to HRV. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in a 10 percent increase of source habitat, while 

implementation of alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a 13 and 9 percent increase of source 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

417 of 632

habitat, respectively. However, alternatives 2 and 4 would remain below HRV estimates by 

Powell (1998).

Affects to snags are likely to result from prescribed fire, temporarily opening closed roads for 

log haul, construction of temporary roads, and danger tree removal. Prescribed fire has the 

potential to modify the size, abundance, and condition class of snags in treated areas, which 

could yield both positive and negative results to habitat for this species. A watershed-scale 

analysis of snags done for the Magone Project can be found in the Management Indicator 

Species section under Dead and Defective Habitat.

Malheur Forest Plan standards for green tree replacements would be met during commercial 

thinning activities. These replacement trees would be available to meet future snag needs in all 

harvest units. Forest plan standards for retention of snags within activity units would also be met 

(see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria).

In the short-term, habitat would remain below the HRV; however, modeling predicts that by 

2055 habitat would be within the HRV for white-headed woodpecker as identified by Powell 

(1998).

Cumulative Effects to White-Headed Woodpecker

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Magone project planning area. All of the 

activities in Table 17 and Table 18 have been considered for their cumulative effects on whiteheaded woodpecker.

Past timber harvest, thinning, road construction, fire suppression, wildfire, prescribed fire, and 

grazing have combined to create the existing condition within the Magone project planning area. 

Existing forest structure compared with the historical range of variability (HRV) reflects the 

effects of past management activities as well as large-scale disturbance events.

Past timber harvest targeted and removed many of the most valuable, largest diameter ponderosa 

pine, reducing potential roosting and nesting habitat. However, since 1995, the Malheur Forest 

Plan as amended has directed the Malheur National Forest to conduct timber sales in a manner 

that moves stands towards old forest multi strata and old forest single stratum structural stages, 

and timber sales planned since that time would not have contributed to loss of mature and old 

growth forest. Proposed commercial harvest within and adjacent to the project planning area that 

may continue includes the 18 Road and Camp Lick projects. Both projects propose to reduce 

hazardous fuels and would retain and develop future old trees. The 18 Road Project includes

commercially thinning 1,200 acres, non-commercially thinning 1,600 acres, and applying 

prescribed fire throughout the corridor. The result is generally the open pine stands preferred by 

white-headed woodpeckers. Cumulatively, the effects of the 18 Road and Camp Lick projects

would likely increase high quality habitat.

Current livestock grazing in the uplands and along streams may have caused shifts in plant 

species composition and abundance through selection of more palatable forage species; however,

grazing does not alter snag densities or the number of mature pine so there are no anticipated 

effects as a result of implementation of any of the action alternatives. Therefore, there would be 

no cumulative effects on white-headed woodpecker as a result of livestock grazing.

The road network in the analysis area (largely a result of past harvest) has impacted snag 

densities by decreasing habitat from road construction and increasing accessibility of the area to 

firewood cutting. Public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. Based on the 
Magone Project

418 of 632

proposed Malheur National Forest Access and Travel Management Plan, it is foreseeable that 

cross-country travel would be restricted for off-road vehicle travel, with the exception of 

accessing dispersed campsites from open roads. The proposed road decommissioning and 

closure activities for the Magone Project though negligible, combined with the foreseeable 

changes in travel management would have a beneficial cumulative effect on snag retention, by 

reducing access for firewood cutting, thus increasing potential nesting and foraging habitat for 

white-headed woodpeckers.

Within the cumulative effects boundary, invasive weed treatments, as authorized by the Malheur 

National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plant Treatment Record of Decision (USDA Forest 

Service 2015a), would be beneficial to the persistence of native vegetation but would have little 

to no impacts to the white-headed woodpecker or its habitat. Cumulative effects when combined 

with invasive weed treatments would be negligible.

Determination

The determination of effect of the action alternatives on the white-headed woodpecker is may 

impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or 

loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). In the long-term, treatments would help 

retain and promote growth and longevity of large trees and increase in old forest single stratum, 

which would have a beneficial impact (BI) on white-headed woodpecker.

3.9.3.8 Johnson’s Hairstreak

Existing Condition for Johnson’s Hairstreak

Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly range from southwestern British Columbia, south through 

Washington, Oregon, and western Idaho to central California. Scattered sightings in Oregon 

occur in the Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Blue Mountains, and Wallowas.

These butterflies spend the majority of their time in the top of the forest canopy, so are 

infrequently seen. Adults feed on nectar of flowers from numerous genera including 

Actostophylos, Ceanothus, Cornus, Fragaria, Rorrippa, and Spraguea. In the northern parts of the 

range, or at higher altitudes, adults fly from late May through mid-July. At lower elevations, 

adults fly from mid-May to early September, with peaks occurring in May and August (Pyle 

2002). In northeastern Oregon, Johnson’s hairstreak larvae have been documented feeding on 

western dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) on ponderosa pine. Other dwarf 

mistletoes occurring in the Blue Mountains include dwarf mistletoes on lodgepole pine, western 

larch, and Douglas-fir. While these other dwarf mistletoes are possible hosts, use of these species 

by Johnson’s hairstreak larvae have not been confirmed (Spiegel 2014). Dwarf mistletoe does 

not occur on grand or white fir in the Blue Mountains (Spiegel 2014).

Hessburg et al. (1999) investigated changes from historical to current insect and disease

vulnerabilities of selected subbasins within the Columbia River Basin, including subbasins in the 

Blue Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit, which covers the area reported to host Johnson’s 

hairstreak (Spiegel 2014). The Hessburg et al. (1999) analysis reveals the slow decline of dwarf 

mistletoe-infected ponderosa pine through the loss of much of the pine overstory and the 

encroachment of shade-tolerant species into once pine-dominated stands (Spiegel 2014). 

Additionally the analysis determined that the maintenance of healthy populations of Johnson’s 

hairstreak requires the maintenance of ponderosa pine and possibly western larch (Spiegel 2014).

No documented occurrences of Johnson’s hairstreak have been recorded within the project 

planning area; however, suitable habitat does exist. Dwarf mistletoe supporting caterpillar larvae 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

419 of 632

could occur on ponderosa pine forested stands within the project planning area. The ponderosa 

pine plant associations (as well as Douglas-fir plant associations, and drier grand fir plant 

associations where ponderosa pine is often common along with the fir) were used to determine 

potential habitat for Johnson’s hairstreak. Approximately 16,000 acres of potential habitat is 

found within the project planning area. Nectar plants used by adult butterflies are generally 

widespread and common within the project planning area.

Effects to Johnson’s Hairstreak

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no management activities proposed for the Magone Project

would occur. In the short- to mid-term, the various habitats that currently exist within the project 

planning area would be maintained in the current condition, and provide for the species diversity, 

density, and distribution that currently exists. Over the long-term, increased stand densities and 

related stress would result in a greater incidence of insects and disease in the project planning 

area. Dwarf mistletoe, one of the diseases that increases with increasing stand densities, would 

increase where present within the project planning area. However, in the event of a wildfire, 

uncharacteristically intense burns could effectively sanitize stands of dwarf mistletoe. When all 

trees are killed, reestablishment of dwarf mistletoe in stands could take decades, as seeds are 

reintroduced by birds and the mistletoe slowly spreads (Spiegel 2014).

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Action alternatives were developed to meet the purpose and need of the Magone Project, which

includes: transitioning the drier forest landscapes to more historically present fire resistant tree 

species (ponderosa pine and western larch); and restoring the ecological structure and function of 

forest ecosystems within the project planning area to improve forest health and increase 

resilience to drought, fire, insects, diseases, and other disturbances. Additionally, Malheur Forest 

Plan standards include: 1) avoid the creation of vegetation conditions which could promote 

insect and disease infestations (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Forest-wide Standard 187, page IV45); and, 2) apply integrated pest management principles to minimize the impacts of the 

mountain pine beetle, western spruce budworm, tussock moth, and other insect and disease 

infestations to the extent necessary to achieve the overall goals and objectives (USDA Forest 

Service 1990a, Forest-Wide Standard 186, page IV-45).

All action alternatives propose using commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, and 

prescribed fire to reduce appropriate stand densities to achieve the overall goals and objectives of 

the Malheur Forest Plan and meet the purpose and need of the Magone Project.

Maintaining, reestablishing, or enhancing ponderosa pine in areas where it was historically 

dominant would benefit Johnson’s hairstreak in the long-term. In ponderosa pine, and drier 

Douglas-fir and grand fir plant associations, commercial and non-commercial thinning would 

result in more open stands favoring ponderosa pine. Trees targeted for removal on drier, more 

southerly exposure sites would generally be grand fir. Consequently, host ponderosa pine and 

western dwarf mistletoe are anticipated to be retained on the landscape.

For all alternatives, harvest of some mistletoe-infected trees potentially providing habitat for 

Johnson’s hairstreak would occur. This would result in a direct reduction of potential habitat, and 

may impact Johnson’s hairstreak individuals, but would not impact the ability of the species to 

survive in the Blue Mountains (Spiegel 2014). Many larger, older trees (over 150 years old)

would be retained. Skips within units and no treatment units would also retain ponderosa pine 
Magone Project

420 of 632

trees that could potentially host dwarf mistletoe. Further, project design criteria would leave an 

adequate number of “wolfy” mistletoe infested trees for wildlife habitat; primarily for blue 

grouse and Johnson’s hairstreak.

Because larvae feed on all exposed plant parts of dwarf mistletoe and can be found on host 

leaves April through October, prescribed burning may impact Johnson’s hairstreak in the shortterm. Heat and smoke from underburning operations may affect larvae, depending on the 

intensity of the burn and if wind moves smoke and heat out of the canopy. The butterflies 

themselves would be mobile and able to shift from an area being underburned. Not all areas 

within the project planning area would be burned at any given time. Burn blocks would not be 

contiguous, providing unburned refugia where butterflies and caterpillar larvae would be 

expected to persist. While short-term impacts could occur, prescribed burning that reduces fuels, 

and future fire intensity, would maintain ponderosa pine on the landscape and benefit potential 

Johnson’s hairstreak habitat in the long-term.

Cumulative Effects to Johnson’s Hairstreak

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Magone project planning area. All of the 

activities in Table 17 and Table 18 have been considered for their cumulative effects on 

Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly.

Past timber harvest, thinning, road construction, fire suppression, wildfire, prescribed fire, and 

grazing have combined to create the existing condition within the Magone project planning area. 

Existing forest structure compared with the historical range of variability (HRV) reflects the 

effects of past management activities as well as large-scale disturbance events.

Present and foreseeable future projects within the cumulative effects boundary that would affect 

the Johnson’s hairstreak include the 18 Road and Camp Lick projects. The 18 Road and Camp 

Lick projects propose to reduce hazardous fuels and would retain and develop future old trees. 

The 18 Road Project includes commercially thinning 1,200 acres, non-commercially thinning

1,600 acres, and applying prescribed fire throughout the corridor. The result is generally open 

pine stands suitable for Johnson’s hairstreak, although some mistletoe could be reduced. 

Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects on the Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly as a result 

of implementing the 18 Road and Camp Lick projects. Conversely, these projects combined with 

the Magone Project should cumulatively benefit the Johnson’s hairstreak by decreasing the risk 

of loss of habitat from wildfire.

Determination

The proposed alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to 

a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) in the 

short-term because the harvest of mistletoe-infected trees would occur and heat and smoke from 

underburning could affect larvae and adult individuals. In the long-term, alternatives 2 and 3 and, 

to a lesser extent, alternative 4 would maintain healthy levels of large ponderosa pine and 

mistletoe and therefore have a beneficial impact (BI) on the Johnson’s hairstreak.

3.9.3.9 Silver-Bordered Fritillary

Existing Condition for Silver-Bordered Fritillary

Habitat for this butterfly species consists of open wet meadows, bogs, and marshes. Caterpillar 

host plants consist of violets, including pioneer violet (Viola glabella) and northern bog violet (V. 

nephrophylla). Adult nectar plants are composite flowers including goldenrod (Solidago spp.) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

421 of 632

and black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia spp.). Emergence and flight of adults begins in June through 

July, with a second generation flight occurring late summer and fall during August through 

September (Miller and Hammond 2007).

The silver-bordered fritillary is dependent upon the maintenance of wet meadow habitat and its 

associated food plants. Downcutting of creeks and subsequent draining and drying out of 

meadow habitat, loss of native plant species due to overgrazing or trampling by domestic cattle, 

and invasion of non-native grasses and other weedy species remain the dominant threats to 

habitat.

Two primary colonies occur in Oregon; one at Big Summit Prairie on the Ochoco National 

Forest and one in the Strawberry Mountains on the Malheur National Forest (Miller and 

Hammond 2007). Other potential habitat on the Forest exists as moist and wet meadows

consisting of approximately 19,500 acres. Within the project planning area 60 acres of 

riparian/moist meadows is present (less than 1 percent of the project planning area). Although, 

no silver-bordered fritillaries have been documented within the project planning area, no formal 

surveys for the butterfly were conducted.

Effects to Silver-Bordered Fritillary

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no management activities proposed for the Magone Project 

would occur. In the short- to mid-term, the various habitats that currently exist within the project 

planning area would be maintained in the current condition, and provide for the species diversity, 

density, and distribution that currently exists. Meadow habitat potentially used by silver-bordered 

fritillary would not change; effects would be primarily from ongoing cattle grazing. Open road 

densities would remain about the same, potentially resulting in invasive weed establishment 

from seeds brought in by vehicles. Drying of moist to wet meadows may result in conifer 

succession and loss of habitat in the long-term. Alternative 1would not alter habitat for this 

species. In the short-term, meadow habitats would remain in their current state. However, in the 

long-term, drying of moist wet meadows may result in loss of habitat.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for silver-bordered fritillary are similar and expected to be 

limited. No commercial or non-commercial thinning activities are scheduled for moist or wet 

meadow habitat. Burn blocks may encompass moist to wet meadow habitat for all alternatives, 

through inclusions associated with timbered stands. No direct lighting of meadow habitat is 

scheduled.

Open roads have the potential to introduce invasive weeds to meadow habitat, degrading native 

plant communities. Road closures after project implementation and project design criteria to 

reduce the spread of invasive weed species would offset effects. Meadow areas are protected 

from vehicle traffic and road construction (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria).

While no direct lighting of meadow habitat is anticipated during prescribed burning operations, 

some backing fire could occur in meadow habitat. Spring burns would have limited potential for 

burning in wet meadows. Fall burns would generally occur late enough in the season to avoid 

affecting nectar plants important to adult butterflies. Riparian restoration that would influence 

adjacent meadow habitat would likely benefit silver-bordered fritillary.
Magone Project

422 of 632

Proposed recreation trails would avoid moist to wet meadows and therefore not have any effects 

to silver-bordered fritillary.

Cumulative Effects to Silver-Bordered Fritillary

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Magone project planning area. All of the 

activities listed in Table 17 and Table 18 were considered for their cumulative effects on silverbordered fritillary or their habitat.

Unregulated livestock grazing earlier in the century may have affected grass, forb, and sedge 

composition within meadow habitat in the project planning area. Introduction of non-native 

grasses and invasive weedy species may have also affected meadow habitat. Over time, and with 

changes in grazing management, habitat has improved. Cattle grazing is ongoing within the 

project planning area. It is expected that the current use levels would continue to contribute to an 

upward trend in riparian and associated moist to wet meadow habitat.

Invasive weed species that affect native vegetation may be spread by vehicles. Project design 

criteria requiring cleaning of equipment would limit potential additive weed establishment 

within units or along haul routes. Based on the proposed Malheur National Forest Access and 

Travel Management Plan, it is foreseeable that cross-country travel would be restricted for offroad vehicle travel, with the exception of accessing dispersed camping sites from open roads. 

Proposed road decommissioning and closure activities for the Magone Project, though 

negligible, combined with the foreseeable changes in travel management would have a beneficial 

cumulative effect in the reduction of potential weed establishment in native plant communities 

important as silver-bordered fritillary habitat.

Overall, the combined effects of the Magone Project with the effects of past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect populations of 

silver-bordered fritillary.

Determination

The determination for silver-bordered fritillary and its habitat would be no impact (NI). The 

silver-bordered fritillary is not known to occur within the project planning area although habitat 

is present. The action alternatives would have negligible effects to moist and wet meadow habitat 

because of project design criteria.

3.9.3.10 Summary of Effects Determinations for Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive Species

Table 105 summarizes the effects determinations for threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species as they relate to proposed activities.

Table 105. Effects to proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species

Common name Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Gray wolf (E of Hwy 395) NI NI NI NI

Pallid Bat NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Fringed myotis NI MIIH MIIH MIIH

Bufflehead NI MIIH MIIH MIIH
Final Environmental Impact Statement

423 of 632

Common name Alternative 1 

(no action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

American peregrine 

falcon

NI NI NI NI

Bald eagle NI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Lewis's woodpecker NI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

White-headed 

woodpecker

NI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Johnson’s Hairstreak NI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Silver-bordered fritillary NI NI NI NI

NI = No Impact.

MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a 

Loss of Viability to the Population or Species.

WIFV = Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a Consequence that the Action May Contribute to a Trend Towards 

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

BI = Beneficial Impact.

3.9.4 Management Indicator Species

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

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

Management indicator species (MIS) were selected for emphasis in planning, and MIS are 

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

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

The amount and quality of habitat is used as a proxy for determining the effects of projects on 

MIS.

The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction for managing habitat quality for MIS by 

management area. Forest-wide Standard 61 of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV–32) directs land managers to “...provide habitat requirements for its selected 

management indicator species.”

Table 106 lists the terrestrial species selected as MIS in the Malheur Forest Plan. All 11 species 

have potential habitat present or have been documented in the analysis area, and effects of the 

project on these MIS will be assessed.

Table 106. Management indicator species identified in the Malheur Forest Plan

Species Representing Habitat description Habitat 

present in 

analysis 

area

Species 

present in 

analysis 

area

Lewis’s

woodpecker

Dead and defective 

wood habitat

Open, late-seral ponderosa pine 

forest, post-fire habitat, cottonwood

Yes

(secondary)

Suspected

Red-naped 

sapsucker*

Dead and defective 

wood habitat

Riparian habitat with aspen, 

cottonwood

Yes Suspected

Williamson’s 

sapsucker

Dead and defective 

wood habitat

Open, late-seral ponderosa pine 

and mixed conifer forest, aspen and 

cottonwood

Yes Documented

Downy 

woodpecker

Dead and defective 

wood habitat

Riparian habitat with aspen, 

cottonwood

Yes Documented

Hairy 

woodpecker

Dead and defective 

wood habitat

Coniferous forests from low to mid 

elevation, post-fire habitat

Yes Documented
Magone Project

424 of 632

Species Representing Habitat description Habitat 

present in 

analysis 

area

Species 

present in 

analysis 

area

Black-backed 

woodpecker

Dead and defective 

wood habitat

Post-fire habitat, beetle killed forest, 

conifer forests from subalpine to low 

elevations

Yes

(secondary)

Suspected

Northern 

flicker

Dead and defective 

wood habitat

Forest habitat generalist Yes Documented

Rocky 

Mountain elk

Species commonly 

hunted

Forested mountains and meadows 

with suitable forage (grasses and 

forbs)

Yes Documented

Pileated 

woodpecker

Old growth; dead 

and defective wood 

habitat

Closed canopy, late-seral 

subalpine, montane and lower 

montane forests

Yes Documented

American 

(pine) marten

Old growth Closed canopy, late-seral subalpine 

and montane forests

Yes Suspected

Three-toed 

woodpecker

Old growth 

lodgepole; dead 

and defective wood

habitat

Subalpine and montane forests, 

lodgepole pine, post-fire habitat

Yes Suspected

White-headed 

woodpecker

Dead and defective 

wood habitat, 

OFSS

Open, late-seral forests with 

ponderosa pine, post-fire habitat

Yes Documented

*Current taxonomy – replaces yellow-bellied and red-breasted sapsucker listed in the Malheur Forest Plan.

Viability of MIS is being assessed using the historical range of variability (HRV) concept 

comparing current amounts and distribution of habitat to historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 

2000, Suring et al. 2011). Scientists assume that species are more likely to persist into the future 

under the conditions that remain most similar to the conditions that they persisted in during the 

past (Landres et al. 1999, Samson et al. 2003). By managing habitat within HRV, it is assumed 

that adequate habitat would be provided because species survived at those habitat levels in the 

past. Thus, if we manage current habitats within the historical range of variability, we are likely 

to do an adequate job of maintaining population viability for those species that remain, by 

providing quality habitat. The further current habitat conditions are from the HRV, the more 

likely it is that population viability would be compromised.

Vegetation data used to assess current habitat conditions for American pine marten, pileated 

woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and three-toed woodpecker are from the FSVEG Spatial 

Data Analyzer imputed dataset (see ForestWideWildlifeHabitatClassification.docx, in the 

analysis file). Estimates of HRV were derived for this FEIS (Countryman and Justice 2010). The 

HRV for dead wood is from DecAID unharvested vegetation plots for the Blue Mountains only 

(Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; BlueMtsSnags2014.xlsx 

and BlueMtsDW2014.xlsx, in analysis file). Current conditions are from gradient nearest 

neighbor data (LEMMA; based on 2012 Landsat imagery).

3.9.4.1 Dead and Defective Habitat for Cavity Excavation Birds

Pedestrian surveys were completed throughout the project planning area during the 2014 field 

season. Dedicated old growth (DOG) and proposed replacement old growth (ROG) stands were 

surveyed more intensively. Detections of management indicator species (MIS) were recorded.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

425 of 632

Because these MIS were selected to represent dead and defective wood habitat, this analysis and 

discussion focuses primarily on that habitat component. Additional information on cavityexcavating birds’ habitat associations, distribution, and life history requirements is summarized 

in Mellen-McLean (2012a).

A few MIS woodpeckers are discussed in more detail due to conservation concerns. Blackbacked woodpecker are ranked as vulnerable (S3) by NatureServe (2014) and are discussed in 

more detail below. The pileated woodpecker and three-toed woodpecker are also MIS for oldgrowth habitats and they are further discussed in the Old-Growth Network section of this 

document. Detailed discussion of the white-headed woodpecker and Lewis’s woodpecker can be 

found in the Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species section of this document.

Table 107. Conservation status of cavity-nesting management indicator species (MIS)

Species USFS Sensitive NatureServe Ranks*

Global

Nature Serve Ranks*

OR

Black-backed woodpecker No G5 S3

Downy woodpecker No G5 S4

Hairy woodpecker No G5 S4

Lewis’s woodpecker Yes G4 S2S3

Northern flicker No G5 S5

Three-toed woodpecker No G5 S3

Red-naped sapsucker No G5 S4

White-headed woodpecker Yes G4 S2S3

Williamson’s sapsucker No G5 S4B S3N

*NatureServe 2010

G5 or S5 – Widespread, abundant, secure

G4 or S4 – Apparently secure

G3 or S3 – Vulnerable

G2 or S2 – Imperiled

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

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

(Wisdom et al. 2000). Of the cavity-excavating MIS, breeding bird surveys in Oregon have 

detected a statistically significant decrease in populations of the northern flicker between 1966 

and 2010 (Sauer et al. 2011).

Current Malheur Forest Plan direction, as amended by the Eastside Screens, is to maintain snags 

at 100 percent of biological potential for all woodpecker species that occur on the Forest 

throughout the stand rotation. This equates to 2.25 snags per acre greater than 12 inches diameter 

at breast height (DBH) and 0.14 snags per acre greater than 20 inches DBH. Snags can be 

averaged over an area no larger than 40 acres. Snags should be left in a clumped distribution.

Rose et al. (2001) report that results of monitoring indicates that biological potential models are 

a flawed technique. New information about the ecology, dynamics, and management of decayed 

wood has been published since the biological potential concept was developed, and the state of 

the knowledge continues to change. However, until the Malheur Forest Plan is amended to 

reflect new science, 100 percent biological potential is the minimum number of snags that need 

to be maintained through the life of the stand rotation.
Magone Project

426 of 632

The latest science is incorporated into this analysis using DecAID Advisor (version 2.2) (MellenMcLean et al. 2012). DecAID is an internet-based summary, synthesis, and integration (a “metaanalysis”) of the best available science: published scientific literature, research data, wildlife

databases, forest inventory databases, and expert judgment and experience. In addition to data 

showing wildlife use of dead wood, DecAID also contains data showing amounts and sizes of 

dead wood across the landscape based on vegetation inventory data.

Data from unharvested plots are assessed separately and these data can be used as a reference 

condition to approximate the historical range of variability (HRV) of dead wood. There is debate 

among professionals about the impact fire exclusion has on stands relative to HRV of dead 

wood. One caveat to using these data, on the eastside in particular, is current levels of dead wood 

may be elevated above historical conditions due to fire suppression and increased mortality, and 

may be depleted below historical levels in local areas burned by intense fire or subjected to 

repeated salvage and firewood cutting (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Even with this caveat, these 

reference condition data are used in this analysis because they are some of the best data available 

to assess HRV of dead wood, even in eastside dry forests; they are the only available data 

showing distribution and variation in snag and down wood amounts across the landscape; and 

the data from unharvested stands are in the range of other published data on HRV of dead wood, 

even in the drier vegetation types (Mellen-McLean 2011). For a full discussion go to the website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid-guide/hrv-dead-wood-comparison.shtml.

A distribution analysis (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid-guide/distribution-analysisgreen-tree.shtml) was used to determine how close current conditions for dead wood on the 

landscape match reference conditions. Existing conditions for down wood were derived by using 

gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) data (LEMMA). GNN produces pixel-based maps with 

associated snag and down wood data. These maps provide the direct data necessary to construct 

“current situation” histograms. GNN uses the same data that were used to develop the 

distribution histograms for DecAID. For more information see Ohmann and Gregory (2002), and 

go to the website: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=imap&id=home.

GNN data are based on 2000–2001 imagery and have been updated for fires through 2009 

(analysis background and details on file at the Malheur National Forest).

The analysis area for the distribution analysis is larger than the project planning area and 

encompasses the Beech Creek and Grub Creek watersheds. The larger analysis area was needed 

because the project planning area is split by the two watersheds, and to meet the minimum 

analysis area size of 12,800 acres per wildlife habitat type recommended by the authors of 

DecAID (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).

The distribution analysis results were compared to the needs of woodpecker species using 

tolerance levels and intervals (range between 2 tolerance levels) from DecAID. A tolerance 

interval is similar to the more commonly used confidence interval but with a key difference: 

tolerance intervals are estimates of the percentage of all individuals in the population that are 

within some specified range of values. In comparison, confidence intervals are estimates of 

sample means from the population of interest. For more information see Marcot et al. (2010) and

go to the website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/pages/What-is-a-tolerancelevel.html.

An applied use of a tolerance level is as follows. If the 50 percent tolerance level for snag 

density at pileated woodpecker nest sites in a specific wildlife habitat type is 7.8 snags per acre, 

the interpretation would be that 50 percent of nest sites used by pileated woodpeckers in that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

427 of 632

habitat have less than 7.8 snags per acre and 50 percent of nest sites used by pileated 

woodpeckers have more than 7.8 snags per acre.

Existing Conditions of Dead and Defective Habitat

The ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat types (WHTs) occur 

in the analysis area in an adequate amount (>12,800 acres) for accurate analysis and are 

discussed below. Results of the DecAID distribution analysis are displayed in Figure 54 through 

Figure 57. Tolerance levels for woodpeckers in these WHTs are displayed in Table 108 and Table 

109.

Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir Wildlife Habitat Type

In the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife habitat type (PPDF WHT), the landscape in the 

project planning area is near or above reference conditions for densities of large snags (>20 

inches DBH) and small snags (>10 inches DBH) (Figure 54 and Figure 55). This WHT makes up 

approximately 14 percent and 2 percent of the Beech Creek and Grub Creek watersheds, 

respectively. There is less area lacking snags (zero snags/acre) than would be expected under 

reference conditions, and more area in the lower snag density classes. Distribution of snag 

densities across the Malheur National Forest in the PPDF WHT is similar to this landscape 

(USDA Forest Service 2014c).

Most woodpecker species using this WHT should currently have an adequate amount of snag 

habitat on the landscape. Large snag habitat for pileated woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker 

is rare in this WHT both currently and with reference conditions.

A weighted average between the Beech Creek and Grub Creek watersheds was used to calculate 

current conditions in this WHT so that enough acres were included for the most accurate 

analysis.

Eastside Mixed-Conifer Wildlife Habitat Type

In the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type (EMC WHT), the landscape in the project 

planning area is deficit in snag density classes above two snags per acre for large snags (>20 

inches DBH), as compared to reference conditions (Figure 56). This WHT makes up 

approximately 33 percent and 19 percent of the Beech Creek and Grub Creek watersheds, 

respectively. Snag density classes above two snags per acre provide habitat above the 50 percent 

tolerance level for cavity-nesting birds in general, and the 30 percent tolerance level for pileated 

woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker. For snags larger than 10 inches DBH, the landscape is 

below reference conditions for snag density classes above six snags per acre (Figure 57). 

Distribution of snag densities across the Malheur National Forest in the EMC WHT is similar to 

this landscape (USDA Forest Service 2014c).

Snag habitat for cavity-nesting birds, except for white-headed woodpeckers, may be limiting in 

this WHT. Pileated woodpeckers and Williamson’s sapsuckers may be limited to more 

productive sites in this WHT where snag densities are expected to be higher (Bull et al. 2007, 

Ohmann and Waddell 2002).

The amount of the landscape in the highest density classes for snags from unharvested stands 

(DecAID data) may be somewhat inflated due to an excess of dense stands with more smaller 

trees susceptible to mortality than likely occurred historically. In addition, the data used in the 

calculation of reference conditions are from the late 1990s when spruce budworms were active in 

the Blue Mountains, which created high levels of tree mortality. However, the current deficit is 
Magone Project

428 of 632

departed enough from reference conditions that the departure likely cannot be totally explained 

by these situations. Lack of snags in this WHT in the Beech Creek watershed is likely due to past 

harvest, fire suppression, and firewood cutting.

Only data from the Beech Creek watershed was used in the analysis for this WHT, as it 

comprises about 85 percent of the Magone project planning area. Further, 23,225 acres of this 

WHT was recorded for the Beech Creek watershed, which is substantially more than the 

minimum 12,800-acre requirement for sound analysis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

429 of 632

Table 108. Tolerance levels for woodpeckers occurring in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife habitat type

Snag density/acre for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels

Species Green forests

>10 inches DBH

Green forests

>20 inches DBH

Recent post-fire

>10 inches DBH

Recent post-fire

>20 inches DBH

Black-backed woodpecker 2.5, 13.6, 29.2 0.0, 1.4, 5.7 37.4, 52.8, 76.5 --

Hairy woodpecker -- -- 39.2, 63.3, 100.0 --

Lewis’s woodpecker -- -- 24.7, 42.7, 70.6 0.0, 6.2, 16.1

Northern flicker -- -- 25.0, 44.9, 83.1 2.2, 17.4, 39.6

White-headed woodpecker 0.0, 3.9, 11.9 0.5, 1.8, 3.8 22.2, 40.9, 68.3 --

Williamson’s sapsucker 14.0, 28.4, 49.7 3.0, 8.4, 16.3 -- --

 Source: DecAID Tables PPDF_S/L.sp-22 and PPDF_PF.sp-22.

Figure 54. Comparison of the historical range of variability (HRV) to current 

condition for snag density classes in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife 

habitat type portion of the Beech Creek and Grub Creek watersheds; snags 

>20 inches DBH, 50 percent tolerance levels for wildlife species. HRV 

reference condition derived from DecAID figures PPDF_L.inv-14, 

PPDF_S.inv-14, and PPDF_O.inv-14; wildlife tolerance levels from Tables 

PPDF_S/L.sp-22 and PPDF_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).

Figure 55. Comparison of the historical range of variability (HRV) to current 

condition for snag density classes in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife 

habitat type portion of the Beech Creek and Grub Creek watersheds; snags >10 

inches DBH, 50 percent tolerance levels for wildlife species. HRV reference 

condition derived from DecAID figures PPDF_L.inv-14, PPDF_S.inv-14, and 

PPDF_O.inv-14; wildlife tolerance levels from Tables PPDF_S/L.sp-22 and 

PPDF_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).
Magone Project

430 of 632

Table 109. Tolerance levels for woodpeckers occurring in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type

Snag density/acre for 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels

Species Green forests

>10 inches DBH

Green forests

>20 inches DBH

Recent post-fire

>10 inches DBH

Recent post-fire

>20 inches DBH

Black-backed woodpecker 2.5, 13.6, 29.2 0.0, 1.4, 5.7 57.2, 82.4, 119.2 --

Hairy woodpecker -- -- 42.9, 67.2, 104.1 --

Lewis’s woodpecker -- -- 24.2, 39.5, 62.8 0.0, 6.2, 16.1

Northern flicker -- -- 26.8, 49.6, 84.1 2.2, 17.4, 39.6

Pileated woodpecker 14.9, 30.1, 49.3 3.5, 7.8, 18.4 -- --

White-headed woodpecker 0.3, 1.9, 4.3 0.0, 1.5, 3.8 18.6, 52.0, 98.7 --

Williamson’s sapsucker 14.0, 28.4, 49.7 3.3, 8.6, 16.6 -- --

 Source: DecAID Tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and EMC_PF.sp-22.

Figure 56. Comparison of the historical range of variability (HRV) to current 

condition for snag density classes in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife 

habitat type portion of the Beech Creek watershed; snags >20 inches DBH, 50 

percent tolerance levels for wildlife species. HRV reference condition derived 

from DecAID figures EMC_ECB_L.inv-14, EMC_ECB _S.inv-14, and EMC_ECB 

_O.inv-14; wildlife tolerance levels from Tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and 

EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).

Figure 57. Comparison of the historical range of variability (HRV) to current 

condition for snag density classes in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife 

habitat type portion of the Beech Creek watershed; snags >10 inches DBH, 50 

percent tolerance levels for wildlife species. HRV reference condition derived 

from DecAID figures EMC_ECB_L.inv-14, EMC_ECB _S.inv-14, and EMC_ECB 

_O.inv-14; wildlife tolerance levels from Tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and 

EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

431 of 632

Effects on Dead and Defective Habitat

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Refer to the Silviculture Report and section for the expected future vegetation conditions under 

the no action alternative.

Under the no action alternative, existing levels of snags and downed wood would remain fairly 

constant in the area in the short- to mid-term. Since no management activities would be 

implemented, there would be no creation or loss of existing snags or downed wood from 

implementation activities. With absence of large-scale disturbance (e.g., fire, insect outbreaks) 

snags would continue to be recruited at or near existing rates. In the short- to mid-term, large 

diameter snags would continue to exist at their current levels, except for snags lost to firewood 

cutting. In the long-term, a decrease in snag densities would be expected over time. Without 

treatment, mortality would not be reduced in any stands and continued fire suppression and 

multi-strata development may increase the chance of insect infestations and disease). Insect and 

disease infestation could potentially increase mortality, and therefore increase snag densities over 

time. Downed wood densities would be expected to increase as existing snags fall.

In the short- to mid-term, habitat would remain unchanged and the no action alternative would 

have minimal effects on primary cavity excavators (PCEs) found within the project planning 

area, as current conditions would not change. Snag and downed wood habitats would continue to 

be provided at or near current rates for PCE species such as pileated woodpecker, Lewis’s 

woodpecker, hairy and downy woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, and 

northern flicker. In the long-term, potential disease and insects may increase foraging habitat for 

PCEs. Bark beetle outbreaks would be beneficial for foraging three-toed and black-backed 

woodpeckers. Although, conditions expected under the no action alternative could result in high 

fuels and a landscape vulnerable to large scale, stand-replacing wildfire.

In some areas of the project, continued increases in canopy could result in beneficial effects 

(security and cover) to pileated woodpecker and adverse effects (i.e., lack of mature pine for 

foraging) to white-headed woodpecker.

Riparian habitat, including aspen, and hardwood shrub communities required by some species 

would continue to be impacted by ungulate grazing/browsing and competition by conifers. Rednaped sapsucker and downy woodpecker could be negatively impacted by habitat loss due to 

continued decline in riparian habitat, hardwood shrub communities, and aspen stand quality and 

quantity.

Higher fuel loads would increase the chance of high-intensity wildfire within the analysis area 

(see Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Report and section). Large-scale crown fire and stand 

replacement events would dramatically affect snag and downed wood densities. Since blackbacked woodpeckers, three-toed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, Lewis’s woodpeckers, and 

northern flickers are strongly associated with post-fire environments, these species would benefit 

from increased insect populations and nesting habitats created by fire events. White-headed 

woodpeckers and Williamson’s sapsuckers prefer mixed fire mortality associated with light to 

moderate intensity burns. These species would benefit, in the long-term, from smaller patch size 

fires that create some snags, especially those in larger size classes required for nest trees. 

Pileated woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, and red-naped sapsuckers have much weaker 

associations with high-intensity post-burn habitats and would not likely benefit from those 

events (Hutto 1995, Saab et al. 2007).
Magone Project

432 of 632

The assumption is that snag creation due to endemic levels of insects, disease, and stress 

mortality generally equals the loss of snags through natural processes. However, due to the 

increased number of dense stands in the project planning area, wildfire risk is increased, which 

could lead to increased snags in larger areas than with active management. Alternative 1 has the 

greatest potential for the development of high density snag patches.

Although the no action alternative could result in snag creation due to endemic levels of insects, 

disease, and stress mortality, and result in a higher proportion of dense, fire-prone multi-strata 

habitat across the landscape, the event of an insect infestation or large wildfire is speculative.

Conclusion – The no action alternative would not affect dead and defective wood habitat and 

therefore would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for MIS dead and defective wood

habitat dependent species, such as primary cavity excavators, on the Malheur National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects by Proposed Activity

Please refer to Table 14 to review the differences in intensity (i.e., acres or miles) of proposed 

treatments under each alternative. It is assumed that as the intensity of the proposed treatments 

change, the level of expected effects discussed below would also change accordingly.

According to the DecAID analysis, the Magone project planning area is at or above HRV in 

small (>10 inch DBH) and large (>20 inch DBH) snags in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir 

wildlife habitat type (WHT). Conversely, snag habitat is deficit in the eastside mixed conifer

WHT (see Management Indicator Species – Dead and Defective Habitat). In the short- to midterm, the silvicultural and fire related activities proposed would likely maintain or slightly add to 

the snag deficit due to removal of hazard trees and any direct loss from fire in those WHTs. 

Snags would continue to be lost to firewood cutting as well. In the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir 

WHT, where snag levels are above HRV, the incidental snag loss from project activities would 

not be expected to create levels below HRV. It is not expected that a substantial increase in the 

deficit would occur in the eastside mixed conifer WHT; losses from activities would be expected 

to be minor because no project activities would target snags, and only hazard trees would be 

intentionally removed. In the long-term, however, snag deficits would still be expected compared 

to HRV values used in DecAID in the eastside mixed conifer WHT, even in untreated areas. 

However, due to expected increased growth rates in treated stands, protection of snags and older 

trees (see project design criteria), additional mortality from prescribed and potential wildfire, 

incidental damage of trees from equipment in treatment units, and retention of LOS and 

connectivity corridors and expansion of the MA13 old growth network, increased snag quantity, 

larger snags, and higher quality snags would be expected to be distributed across the landscape 

in the long-term (50+ years).

Silviculture Treatments and Prescribed Burning – The Magone Project proposes thinning and 

prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads and restore forested stands toward the HRV, where stands are 

considered at risk. The effects of proposed treatments to primary cavity excavator management 

indicator species vary by species and the intensity of treatments. Some species have mixed 

effects, both good and bad.

Thinning prevents or slows the spread of crown fire by reducing surface and ladder fuels, raising 

crown base height, and breaking canopy continuity (Graham et al. 2004, Pollet and Omi 2002). 

In the short-term, implementation of thinning could result in some direct loss (consumed by fire) 

of snags, future snags, and down wood that are important stand attributes of healthy forests and 

critical components of wildlife and invertebrate habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

433 of 632

Wildlife and invertebrate species that depend on down wood, snags, dwarf mistletoe brooms, 

dense forest with abundant saplings and small poles, and closed canopy-forests for survival and 

reproduction, are likely to be detrimentally affected by thinning activities that alter these habitat 

elements due to the short-term loss in down wood. However, the DOG/ROG/PWFA system, 

discussed in the following Old Growth Network section, is part of an approximately 9,000-acre 

connectivity corridor in alternatives 2 and 4, and approximately 6,700 acres in alternative 3. 

With the proposed corridors, which include dense multi stratum stands and the overall large 

portion of the project planning area that would not be treated (34 percent in alternatives 2 and 4; 

25 percent in alternative 3) as well as the inventoried roadless areas, current snag levels and rates 

of recruitment and retention would likely remain the same in the short-term, assuming the 

absence of large scale disturbance. Implementation of thinning is likely to result in the loss of 

snags, future snags, and downed wood as a result of increasing forest health and through the 

falling of hazard trees. Loss of snags to hazard trees is expected to be very low. However, none 

of the action alternatives would target snags, and project design criteria would retain snags and 

down wood habitat for primary cavity excavators. Some new snags may be created during 

implementation where equipment could damage live trees. Where only harvest and thinning 

occurs, treatment methods may provide more control over tree mortality and snag creation as 

opposed to burning. Silvicultural management practices such as variable density thinning 

prescriptions, which are being utilized for the project, would be expected to decrease project 

impacts to primary cavity excavator species such as Williamson’s sapsucker and northern flicker 

due to the expected mosaic it would create, and the potential to retain “clusters” of snags as part 

of the leave patches.

Prescribed burning can alter or remove vertical and horizontal stand structure including snags 

and down wood. Studies by Hardy and Reinhardt (1998) document both the loss of existing 

snags during prescribed burning and recruitment of new snags through fire caused mortality. 

Variation in the severity of the burn influences residual stand characteristics, including the spatial 

distribution and availability of litter, down wood, snags, and vegetation (Jain et al. 2004). In 

most cases, prescribed fire results in increased structural complexity and habitat heterogeneity 

over time (Pilliod et al. 2006). However, multiple entries with prescribed fire (repeated burning), 

which is often the only way to reduce fuels effectively without thinning, may reduce the 

structural complexity of forest stands (Pilliod et al. 2006). Large prescribed fires, greater than 

100 hectares, could also potentially homogenize the landscape for some species and decrease 

overall wildlife habitat (Brown et al. 2004). The level of loss and the replacement is dependent 

on fire intensity, time of year, local weather conditions, and fuel load. Prescriptions using only 

prescribed burning would exhibit the largest number of snags recruited from direct mortality, but 

burning activities have the potential to both consume existing snags and down logs and to create 

new snags. Any snag creation as a result of fire would benefit post-fire dependent species like 

the black-backed woodpecker. Although this pulse of snags would provide foraging for 

numerous woodpecker species, most snags likely would be too small to provide suitable nesting 

habitat. Design features are included to minimize consumption of existing habitat. Although 

some snags are expected to be lost as a result of implementation, losses would be expected to be 

minor across the landscape.

In areas where both thinning and prescribed burning occur, stand structure is at risk of becoming 

homogenized. Although thinning and prescribed fire would help restore historical stand 

structure, it is assumed in these areas that snag loss would be the highest due to the combination 

of loss from fire consumption and minimal loss from hazard tree felling, thus stand structure 

would be most similar. 
Magone Project

434 of 632

To maintain habitat diversity and create a mosaic of fire conditions, thinning using variable 

density spacing would be implemented and prescribed burn boundaries larger than 500 acres 

would require a wildlife biologist input to mitigate impacts to various wildlife species including 

primary cavity excavators. To further maintain habitat diversity, except in areas identified for 

specific riparian restoration treatments, ignition would be avoided within 100 feet of intermittent 

and perennial streams.

The season selected for implementation of prescribed fire activities has important consequences 

for wildlife and invertebrates (King et al. 1998). Some spring burns are conducted prior to greenup and many grasses, forbs, and some shrubs would sprout or resprout within a few weeks of a 

spring fire. Fall fires tend to burn hotter and consume more of the down wood and snags. Stands 

generally have a range of tree sizes, and the smaller diameter trees would most likely be killed 

by prescribed fire. These dead trees may provide temporary foraging habitat for some species, 

such as bark and wood-boring beetles and woodpeckers that feed on them. Fewer trees tend to be 

killed with spring burns than with fall burns due to higher moisture content. Consumption of 

large logs by fire is regulated by fuel moisture, which is often higher in spring and may minimize 

the loss of these important habitat elements compared to fall burns. In the spring, burning

operations that remove large trees and snags would likely affect species nesting in tree canopies 

and cavities of snags or live tree boles. In addition, spring burning can also disrupt (i.e., 

displace), or halt (i.e., nest abandonment) breeding activities for many wildlife species, 

particularly those that are less mobile. There are numerous design criteria to help lessen or 

mitigate potential effects of prescribed burning (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria).

All action alternatives propose non-commercial conifer removal for the purpose of mountain 

mahogany and bitterbrush enhancement, primarily along ridge tops and scabby openings where 

these upland shrub species were historically prevalent. Fire suppression and overall lack of 

management and disturbance has created late seral and in some cases depauperate27 conditions 

for upland shrub species due to competing stem densities and canopy closure, primarily from 

western juniper and young ponderosa pine. These treatments were designed to remove young 

pines and western juniper to release and promote the upland shrub plant communities that would 

have historically existed on these sites. These activities would also include project design criteria 

to protect snags, decadent trees, and older legacy trees of all species. Due to the protection of 

current snags and decadent trees, and many of the conifers targeted for removal being young and 

smaller diameter, this treatment is not expected to have any effects to current or future snag 

density or distribution. Where suitable, some pines less than 21 inches DBH may be selected for 

girdling to create snags and improve densities and distribution across the project planning area. 

Because few trees would be selected for girdling, any benefits to primary cavity excavators and 

snag densities would be negligible.

In the short- to mid-term (1 to 25 years), treatments involving tree removal may affect oldgrowth species dependent on high canopy cover and structure, such as the Williamson’s 

sapsucker. Species preferring large trees in open habitat types (e.g., hairy woodpecker, Lewis’s 

woodpecker, and the northern flicker) would benefit immediately as a result of treatments. In 

areas treated exclusively with fire, it is anticipated that a large pulse of small diameter snags 

would benefit black-backed woodpeckers. However, this benefit would diminish with any 

additional prescribed burning entries into the same units. 

 

27 Depauperate – Lacking in number and variety of species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

435 of 632

To minimize the effects to black-backed woodpeckers and numerous other wildlife species, 

prescribed burn boundaries larger than 500 acres would require a wildlife biologist input; 

ensuring heterogeneity is maintained on the landscape.

Treatments are considered beneficial to old-growth dependent species in the long-term (25+ 

years) as treated stands would better mimic historical, more resilient conditions. Old forest multi 

strata would be converted back to old forest single stratum stands where they occurred 

historically, benefitting the hairy woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, and northern flicker. Tree 

species and stand structure would better mimic historical more sustainable conditions. Younger 

structural stage stands (young forest multi strata, stem exclusion closed canopy, stem exclusion 

open canopy, stand initiation, and understory reinitiation) would be thinned to accelerate 

development of large diameter trees and restoration of old forest structure more similar to 

historical conditions. However, untreated patches would be left in harvest units, some several 

acres in size in larger treatments units to mimic historical mosaics common with low- to midseverity fires. Retention of these “patches” of trees combined with the effects of prescribed fire 

would ensure those areas continue to provide avenues for snag creation, and provide foraging 

and nesting habitat in the short-term. Patches with higher densities of snags would be priority for 

leaving.

Road Activities – The effective closing or decommissioning of roads would secure potential 

habitat from the risks of firewood cutting and hazard tree removal. However, new and temporary 

road construction and road maintenance for haul would affect potential dead and defective wood 

habitat as snags could be removed from building and/or maintaining the road, firewood cutting

(if road left open), and hazard tree removal. Continued unauthorized use on closed roads is likely 

to result in negligible effects, since activities like firewood cutting are currently ongoing.

Aspen/Riparian Treatment and Protection – Refer to the Silviculture Report for details

regarding aspen stand treatment. Some old and decadent aspen may be directly reduced as a 

result of prescribed fire, which could affect species preferring hardwoods or hardwood snags in 

the short-term.

Prescribed fire would enhance natural regeneration as soil heating stimulates root suckering and 

existing suckers and saplings that are protected would become more vigorous. In the long-term, 

saplings would grow into larger size classes, becoming resistant to ungulate browsing as fences 

(where applicable) start to deteriorate. Overstory composition would change. Understory grass 

and forb cover would increase, as would deciduous riparian shade, root structure, and soilholding capacity within the stands. Diversity of habitat would increase, especially foraging and 

nesting opportunities for neo-tropical migrants and cavity nesters, including downy woodpecker 

and red-naped sapsucker. Genetic diversity of the treated aspen stands would be maintained and 

preserved. Black–backed woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, and Williamson’s sapsucker would 

show little if any affect from the proposed aspen treatments as aspen provide a minor component 

of these species habitat. Habitat generalists such as hairy woodpecker and northern flicker would 

benefit slightly from the proposed aspen treatments.

Although there may be some disruption of nesting activities during implementation, species 

preferring riparian habitats and hardwoods would benefit as a result of activities associated with 

the proposed aspen and riparian treatments.

Recreation Opportunity Improvements – Each action alternative proposes some level of new 

hiking or bicycle trail construction, designating hiking/biking trails on existing roads, trailhead 
Magone Project

436 of 632

development or improvement, employing interpretive signs, and recreation enhancement 

activities around Magone Lake.

As new miles of trail are developed and maintained, a subsequent number of dead and defective 

trees along those trails would likely be identified as ‘hazard’ or ‘danger’ trees. For the safety of 

the construction and maintenance crews, as well as trail users, these trees would be removed. It 

is currently not practical to try to determine the number of snags that would be removed under 

each alternative, however it is expected that a substantial number of dead or dying trees would 

be removed; increasing with proposed trail miles. Further, future trees becoming decadent along 

the trails would also likely be removed as danger trees, potentially resulting in a substantial or 

even total loss of all current and future snags in areas immediately adjacent to the proposed new 

trails. In areas where trails would be designated on existing roads, the snag loss would not be 

beyond current levels as hazard trees are currently removed from roadways. Snags are also lost 

to firewood cutting along roads. Un-designating 3.9 miles of existing trails would eliminate the 

need for hazard tree removal and thus allow snags densities to increase in the areas immediately 

adjacent to these trails over time.

Improving trails, developing new day use areas, and modifying and constructing new docks 

around the lake could result in an increase in the areas regularly used by recreationists and could 

potentially increase the removal of snags identified as hazards. Any snags removed would 

directly remove potential nesting and foraging areas for woodpeckers.

Trees felled into or near Magone Lake for use as “fish sticks” under the action alternatives could 

also reduce the number of future snags, although trees selected for “fish sticks” would mostly be 

8 to 12 inches DBH. By selecting smaller trees, the larger trees more valuable as future snags 

and potential nesting and foraging trees would be retained.

3.9.4.2 Black-Backed Woodpecker

Below is a summary of black-backed woodpecker ecology important to providing information 

pertinent to assessing impact of the project on the species. For additional details see MellenMcLean (2013) in the analysis file. Also see Hutto and Gallo (2006), Goggans et al. (1988), 

Nielsen-Pincus and Garton (2007), Dudley (2005), Haggard and Gaines (2001), Saab et al. 

(2009), and Hanson et al. (2012).

Black-backed woodpeckers are associated with coniferous forests across northern portions of 

North America. Recently burned conifer forests or insect-infested forests provide key conditions 

for nesting and foraging, as the birds require conditions that produce bark and wood-boring 

beetles. They reach highest densities and reproductive success in areas with high densities of 

trees recently dead (fewer than five years). Nesting rarely occurs in burned areas where salvage 

logging has occurred (Cahall and Hayes 2009; Hutto and Gallo 2006; Saab et al. 2007).

Black-backed woodpeckers do occur in dense, undisturbed forests in low densities. These 

secondary habitats may be important areas for maintaining the birds between disturbance events, 

and serve as a source for future habitat when disturbance occurs in the stands (Hanson et al. 

2012).

Snags provide nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. They use 

smaller snags than many other woodpecker species, ranging from about 11 to 15 inches DBH. 

Snags used are recently dead trees of a wide variety of conifer species (Mellen-McLean et al. 

2013).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

437 of 632

Black-backed woodpeckers are considered vulnerable in the state by Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife and NatureServe. They are considered vulnerable primarily due to the following 

threats and risks: salvage of dead trees, fire suppression, and treatments to reduce stand densities.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing the black-backed woodpecker to 

determine if listing two populations that occur in Oregon as either subspecies or distinct 

population segments under the Endangered Species Act is warranted (USDI FWS 2013b).

Existing Conditions for Black-Backed Woodpecker

The number of acres burned by wildfire across the western United States in recent years has 

reached levels that occurred in the early 1900s prior to fire suppression (Littell et al. 2009). 

Climate change is also expected to increase fire frequency in the future (McKenzie et al. 2004, 

Westerling et al. 2006) and thus should provide a continual supply of habitat for the blackbacked woodpecker.

A viability assessment completed for the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision indicates 

moderate concern for the black-backed woodpecker on the Malheur National Forest (USDA 

Forest Service 2014c, Wales et al. 2011). The analysis was weighted heavily to post-fire habitat, 

but only included fires through 2006, thus did not include recent large fires that have occurred on 

the Forest. Little salvage logging has occurred in these recently burned areas which can provide 

habitat for approximately 5 years post-fire. On the Forest, approximately 114,000 acres of 

wildfire have occurred since 2009, with salvage occurring on 250 acres within the Parish Cabin 

fire. These post-fire areas are likely contributing to black-backed woodpecker habitat. Within the 

project planning area, recent fire is limited to the Cornett Fire in 2013 that burned approximately 

20 acres, and the OR-MAF-042 fire that burned approximately 24 acres in the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area. Additionally, the Grouse Creek Complex burned with 0.2 miles of 

the project planning area on private land. Although recent post-fire habitat suitable for blackbacked woodpecker is limited to two small patches, secondary habitat does exist.

Warm Dry Sites—In drier areas, mid- and late-seral forests that provide secondary habitat are 

well above the historical range of variability (HRV) across the Forest (Wales et al. 2011).

In the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife habitat type (WHT), snag densities are above HRV in 

unburned stands at the 30 and 50 percent black-backed woodpecker tolerance levels for snags 

>10 inches, and near HRV at the 80 percent tolerance levels (Figure 58). Under natural 

conditions, only about 4 percent of the area would be expected to have more than 24 small snags 

per acre, which includes the 29.2 snags per acre required to meet the 80 percent tolerance level 

for black-backed woodpeckers.

In the eastside mixed-conifer WHT, large snag densities are well above HRV in unburned stands 

at the 30 and 50 percent black-backed woodpecker tolerance levels (Figure 58). However, small 

snag densities are well below HRV for the 50 and 80 percent black-backed woodpecker tolerance 

levels. Under natural conditions, about 5 percent of the area would be expected to have between 

24 and 36 small snags per acre, where the 80 percent tolerance level for black-backed 

woodpeckers would be expected.
Magone Project

438 of 632

Figure 58. Amount of secondary habitat across the Malheur National Forest by potential vegetation 

type compared to the historical range of variability (HRV). Secondary habitat is considered closed 

canopy stages of mid- and late-seral forested stands (data from Wales et al. 2011).

The amount of the landscape in the highest density classes for snags for reference conditions 

may be somewhat inflated due to an excess of dense stands with smaller trees susceptible to 

mortality than likely occurred historically. In addition, the data used in the calculation of 

reference conditions are from the late 1990s when spruce budworms were active in the Blue 

Mountains, which created high levels of tree mortality. However, the current deficit is departed

enough from reference conditions that the departure likely cannot be totally explained by these 

situations.

Due to the limited extent of recent fire in the analysis area, the current amount of unsalvaged 

post-disturbance habitat is probably not providing adequate amounts of habitat with high snag 

densities in this WHT. The high densities of snags provided by stand-replacing disturbances are 

transitory and only provide habitat for black-backed woodpeckers for about 5 years postdisturbance.

Cool/Cold Sites—Mid- and late-seral forests that provide secondary habitat are within or above 

the historical range of variability (HRV) across the Forest but well below HRV for Cold Dry 

forests (Wales et al. 2011). These forests are susceptible to stand replacing fire and insect 

outbreaks and thus are likely to provide some primary habitat in the future; however, the amount 

of Cold Dry forest is too low to solely provide an adequate, continual supply of habitat for the 

black-backed woodpecker.

Snags are also critical habitat components for the black-backed woodpecker. Currently in the 

eastside mixed-conifer WHT, snag habitat in the project planning area is below HRV in the 

higher density classes. Conversely, in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir WHT, the project planning 

area is near or exceeding HRV values for snag density.

Habitat queries run for the Malheur National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2014c) indicate there 

is approximately 654,838 acres of black-backed woodpecker secondary habitat available forest-
Final Environmental Impact Statement

439 of 632

wide. It is estimated there are approximately 14,127 acres of secondary black-backed habitat 

found within the Magone project planning area, or approximately 2 percent of the overall habitat 

on the Forest.

Effects to Black-Backed Woodpecker

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no management activities are proposed. Tree mortality in some 

lodgepole pine stands, as well as grand fir and other plant association groups within the project 

planning area is occurring from insects and disease, which is exacerbated by high stand densities. 

Most of this mortality is occurring in the less than 20 inch DBH size classes, although some 

larger trees are also being affected. Under the no action alternative, this trend would continue 

and mortality would likely increase into the future.

Smaller scale disturbances similar to historical fire events or insect outbreaks would benefit 

black-backed woodpeckers. Large-scale events outside of the historical range of variability 

would also benefit black-backed woodpeckers in the short- to mid-term, for about 5 years postdisturbance, but then may be detrimental in the long-term since replacement trees that ultimately 

provide future snags could take a long time to develop.

Based on forest-wide modeling, mid- and late-seral forests that provide secondary habitat are 

well above HRV across the Forest (Wales et al. 2011). These forests are susceptible to stand 

replacing fire and insect outbreaks and thus are likely to provide more primary habitat in the 

future. The number of acres burned by wildfire across the western United States in recent years 

has reached levels that occurred in the early 1900s prior to fire suppression (Littell et al. 2009). 

Climate change is also expected to increase fire frequency in the future (McKenzie et al. 2004, 

Westerling et al. 2006) and thus should provide a continual supply of habitat for the blackbacked woodpecker.

Conclusion – In the short-term, the no action alternative may benefit black-backed woodpecker 

as a result of a higher likelihood of bug kill and fire mortality. In the long-term, large-scale 

events within the project planning area may render the area unsuitable until future snags develop. 

Alternative 1 would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Malheur National Forest 

for black-backed woodpeckers.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Generally, thinning and fuel reduction treatments combined would render treated stands 

unsuitable for black-backed woodpeckers. Although some tree mortality would be expected in 

burn units, therefore providing small pockets of nesting or foraging habitat for black backed 

woodpeckers. Thinning and burning would have overall negative effects to black-backed 

woodpecker by reducing stand density and cover, thus reducing overall nesting and foraging 

habitat. However, in 2015 black-backed woodpeckers were documented nesting and foraging 

near the fishing dock in the Magone Lake recreation area, approximately 2 to 3 meters from the 

hiking trail. This suggests that black-backed woodpeckers may utilize more open habitat than 

previously considered. Further, black-backed woodpeckers may tolerate higher levels of 

disturbance.

Rendering stands less susceptible to fire and insect outbreaks would reduce the likelihood of any 

future fires or natural disturbances and therefore reduce potential black backed woodpecker 

habitat. However, the extensive DOG/ROG/PWFA areas and connectivity corridors being left 
Magone Project

440 of 632

untreated would leave those stands and habitats therein in their current (short-term) and 

increasingly decadent state (mid- to long-term) and susceptible to insect infestations and 

wildfires. The project planning area has historically experienced a frequent, mixed severity fire 

history (see Historical Conditions section in Silviculture and Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality reports 

and sections) so it would be expected some of these untreated areas would eventually burn and 

provide habitat.

Alternative 3 would create the highest proportion of open forest, and would therefore be 

expected to have the highest level of effect on secondary black-backed woodpecker habitat. 

Alternative 2 would increase open forest, but would only marginally decrease old forest multistrata habitat in the short-term. Dense, old multi-strata forest would remain at current levels 

(percentage HRV) in the short-term under alternative 4. In the long-term (2055 modeled stand 

structure), older multi-strata forest would increase from current levels and exceed HRV under 

any of the action alternatives. Young-forest multi strata would decrease in the short- and longterm under all action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects to Dead and Defective Habitat and Black-Backed Woodpeckers

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Beech Creek watershed. All of the proposed 

activities have been evaluated for their cumulative effects on species that use dead and defective 

wood. The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing, and foreseeable future activities 

that may contribute positive or negative effects. Past activities such as timber harvest, road 

construction associated with timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression, and firewood cutting have 

impacted the quantity, quality, and distribution of dead wood habitats and primary cavity 

excavators populations dependent on these habitat features across the analysis area. These 

activities have created the existing condition of dead wood habitats described in the existing 

condition section.

Present actions include thinning and burning activities in the County Road 18 Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act Project. The 18 Road Project includes 1,200 acres of commercial thinning, 1,600 

acres of non-commercial thinning, and prescribed burning to create strategic fuel breaks adjacent 

to County Road 18. The Magone Project combined with the effects of hazard tree removal and 

unauthorized firewood cutting along the 18 Road corridor would result in additive effects to snag 

density departures. Activities implemented in the 18 Road Project generally result in more open, 

single-strata habitat with a cleaner understory. The treated stands in this project are more resilient 

and less susceptible to insect and fire disturbance, likely contributing to fewer snags being 

created in these stands in the short- to mid-term.

Other reasonably foreseeable future projects authorized under the Malheur National Forest 

Aquatic Restoration Decision (Table 18) could have some additive effects to the proposed 

project. Particularly riparian enhancement thinning (where large/coarse woody debris would be 

tipped and added into streams), could reduce future large snag densities, although no snags 

would be targeted. Reducing lodgepole encroachment along 3 miles of Tinker Creek could 

decrease suitable secondary habitat for black-backed woodpeckers; and potentially three-toed 

woodpeckers depending on actual presence. Riparian shrub enhancement and planting would 

likely have a negligible effect to most dead and defective habitat obligates. However, some 

species, like the red-naped sapsucker and downy woodpecker, would likely see additive 

beneficial impacts from these activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

441 of 632

Other projects similar to the proposed Magone Project are currently in implementation stages 

across the Malheur National Forest including Galena, Damon, Soda Bear, and Starr on the Blue 

Mountain Ranger District. 

Firewood cutting and fire suppression are ongoing.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the project planning areas associated with 

accelerated restoration (e.g., Big Mosquito and Camp Lick) which would propose to move 

current vegetation conditions towards the historical range of variability, and likely include 

similar proposals of thinning, prescribed burning, aspen/riparian treatments, and upland shrub 

enhancement among other activities.

Past timber harvest activities and associated road construction in the analysis area affected snag 

densities by decreasing habitat from road construction and increasing accessibility of the area to 

firewood cutting. Snags that pose a hazard to workers and equipment--not only within units but 

along haul routes--would be felled. It is likely that firewood removal would be highest during 

implementation of the project, and subside once project implementation is over.

Firewood cutting is having a negative effect on species requiring snags and down wood, such as 

raptors, pine marten, and cavity-nesting species. Recent increases in the amount of large pine 

snags targeted for woodcutting, added to impacts from the currently allowable firewood 

guidelines (16 cords), may affect the amount of available nesting and roosting habitat for a 

variety of species. Firewood cutting, in association with high road densities, also has the 

potential to eliminate habitat for cavity nesting species, such as all PCEs including black-backed 

woodpeckers.

Primary cavity excavators (PCEs) are expected to be impacted by some of these cumulative 

present and foreseeable future actions, such as snag and down wood reduction and habitat 

fragmentation related to large-scale thinning and underburning treatments, including the 18 Road 

Project. Restoration of HRV in the dry forest types is expected to reduce the risk of 

uncharacteristic disturbances such as severe wildfire and insect epidemics that could result in an 

undesirable ratio of open and closed canopy habitats. Substantial reduction of wildfire and 

insect/disease related snag and downed wood creation would impact PCE species such as blackbacked woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, and hairy and downy woodpeckers.

Fire activity within close proximity to the Magone project planning area is described in the 

Historical Conditions section of the Silviculture and Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality reports and 

sections. Although small, recent (<5 years) post-burn areas in the project planning area created

small pulses of snags that are likely providing additional snag habitat in the short- to mid-term.

Snags and down wood from these fires are expected to continue to provide habitat for primary 

cavity excavators, further mitigating effects during the implementation of the proposed activities.

Fire suppression has resulted in dense, multi-strata stands and snag and down log densities that 

are generally higher in these stands than less dense ponderosa pine stands. Fire suppression has 

led to the buildup of ground fuels and overstocked stands. These overstocked stands are at risk of 

competition pressure, which increases the potential of insects, disease, and wildfires. These 

characteristics provide habitat for primary cavity excavators. However, these stands are at risk of 

a large-scale fire. Project design criteria were established to retain and recruit a sufficient amount 

of dead and defective wood; therefore, the Magone Project would decrease the risk of large-scale 

fire, while retaining habitat for primary cavity excavators.
Magone Project

442 of 632

Decreasing the risk of large-scale fires could potentially decrease the potential for increased 

post-fire habitat desirable to black-backed woodpeckers.

Under the action alternatives, changes in dead wood habitats would be considered minor on a 

forest scale. In the short- to mid-term, the actions would contribute cumulatively to the loss of 

snag and down wood habitat from other similar projects currently being implemented or 

analyzed across the Forest, and a potential decrease in green tree mortality rates. Project design 

criteria would aid in mitigating the initial loss of snags in the project planning area. In the longterm, snag levels would likely decrease as a result of increased forest health and multiple entry 

underburning. As trees respond to proposed activities, increased vigor and health would have 

cumulative effects on those species, which prefer dead, insect infested trees susceptible to fire. 

However, in the long-term, stand structure would better mimic historical sustainable conditions, 

and snag levels would be similar to those reported by Matz (1927).

When the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered in combination with 

the action alternatives there is not expected to be a significant change in snag densities across the 

watershed. However, the proposed project and associated action alternatives would not move 

snag density and distribution towards historical conditions as reported in DecAID, rather it 

would likely add to current deficits where they exist.

The high-density snag categories are typically created from wildfires and are not expected to 

occur from prescribed fire activities that are part of the proposed actions. Returning fire to the 

watershed has the potential to create small snag patches within the watershed but is not expected 

to move overall snag densities in the high-density category towards HRV.

Together with fire suppression and other landscape objectives that limit or discourage large 

beetle outbreaks, the project would contribute to a small negative trend in black-backed 

woodpecker habitat across the Forest. While some additive cumulative effects may be 

anticipated, projects are consistent with Malheur Forest Plan objectives because the project is 

consistent with the standards and guidelines relating to MIS – PCE species.

Conclusion for Dead and Defective Habitat – In the short-term, there could be some negative 

effects to cavity excavating species from disturbance and direct loss of snags during 

implementation through hazard tree removal and consumption from prescribed fire. However, 

snags would not be targeted with thinning treatments and true hazard trees needing removal are 

expected to be rarely encountered during vegetation actions. Project design criteria are in place 

to decrease or prevent loss from prescribed fire, and fire would likely add snags from direct 

mortality. Thinning over-stocked stands could eventually help move multi-strata habitat towards 

older, single-strata habitat, benefitting the hairy woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, and northern 

flicker. Williamson’s sapsucker would benefit as all other thinning would accelerate younger 

structural stage stands to develop large diameter trees and restore resilient old forest structure. 

However, more resilient stands would be less susceptible to mortality due to stress, insects, or 

fire, and could potentially produce even fewer snags than current conditions in the mid-term, 

resulting in further snag density departures from HRV in the eastside mixed-conifer WHT that

makes up about 33 percent and 19 percent of the Beech Creek and the Grub Creek watersheds, 

respectively. As mentioned above, only the Beech Creek watershed was considered in the 

DecAID analysis, as it comprises 85 percent of the project planning area. The ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir WHT would be expected to continue to provide snags at or above the HRV.

In the long-term (50+ years), stand structure would better mimic historical conditions, become 

comprised of larger, older trees, and eventually become more decadent. At this point, these 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

443 of 632

stands would likely start producing higher quantities of larger, better quality snags of more 

desirable species, and therefore would ultimately be beneficial to cavity excavating species.

The net change in road densities is negligible under all action alternatives and is not expected to 

have a substantial effect on snag or downed wood loss. Although some additional loss would 

occur in the short-term, decommissioning and effectively closing roads would likely eliminate 

some future loss of snags from firewood collectors and hazard tree removals. Effectively reclosing roads temporarily opened for haul and temporary roads (constructed for haul) would be 

critical to mitigate potential additional losses from firewood cutting.

Aspen stand and riparian area treatments would benefit the downy woodpecker and red-naped 

sapsucker, and likely have negligible effects to other PCEs. Only 18 acres of aspen treatment are 

proposed under each action alternative and reasonably foreseeable projects authorized under the 

Aquatic Restoration Decision would not directly remove snags or remove downed wood once 

felled. These activities would not treat large, contiguous blocks of habitat resulting in habitat that 

is not highly altered from its existing condition.

Under all action alternatives, a slight decrease in forest-wide dead, down, and defective 

habitat or population trends for primary cavity excavators would be expected as a result of 

implementation in the short-term. In the mid- to long-term, habitat would be expected to 

recover and improve and conditions would better mimic HRV. However, due to the more 

extensive trail system, less area designated as connectivity, and substantially more acres and 

units treated, alternative 3 would have a greater effect on dead and defective habitat. All 

alternatives would provide more resilient stands leading to larger, older age class trees eventually 

becoming decadent and producing higher quality dead and defective habitat. Therefore, no 

forest-wide threats to any PCE’s population viability would be expected from implementation of 

the action alternatives in this project planning area. However, implementing alternative 3 would 

result in the project planning area likely being highly departed from historical snag levels.

Conclusion for Black-Backed Woodpecker – All of the action alternatives would impact 

suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat in the project planning area. However, the highest 

level of activities proposed under alternative 3 would impact less than 2 percent of suitable 

habitat at the Forest-level, and current conditions greatly exceed HRV for black-backed 

woodpeckers. The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a small 

negative trend of habitat. The loss of habitat would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. 

Further, wildfire events are possible, or likely, at the Forest-level, which could create more 

suitable habitat and partially mitigate any negative effects of the project. The Magone Project is 

consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the black-backed 

woodpecker is expected on the Malheur National Forest.

3.9.4.3 Rocky Mountain Elk

Rocky Mountain elk were selected as a management indicator species (MIS) for the Malheur 

National Forest due to their economic and social value, and for their documented response to 

changes in forest cover, forage quality, and road densities.

Thomas et al. (1988) developed the habitat effectiveness index (HEI) model for estimating elk 

habitat effectiveness on the landscape. The existing condition and the effects analysis by 

alternative for elk habitat effectiveness were evaluated using the HEI model, marginal and 

satisfactory cover percentages, and open road densities. Existing big game cover was designated 

using stand exams, most similar neighbor analysis using geographic information system (GIS) 
Magone Project

444 of 632

layer files, aerial photographs, and ground reconnaissance. Open road densities were calculated 

using the District access travel management database. Values were estimated by winter range and 

summer range in the East Fork Beech Creek and Grub Creek subwatersheds.

The Malheur Forest Plan establishes minimum standards for HEI for both summer range (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a, pages IV–27 to IV–29) and winter range (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

pages IV–69 to IV–73). In addition, the Malheur Forest Plan identifies minimum standards for 

retention of satisfactory, marginal, and total cover. The Forest Plan also establishes standards for 

open road density.

The Malheur National Forest defines elk and deer habitat by four broad categories based on 

vegetative conditions: satisfactory cover, marginal cover, hiding cover, and forage. These 

categories generally reflect the gradation of forest vegetation from late structural stages to early 

structural stages. A mosaic of cover and forage areas with adequate water is preferred. 

Definitions follow:

 Forage areas are all areas that do not meet the definition of satisfactory or marginal 

cover. Forage consists of all woody and non-woody plants available as a food source. In 

general, elk prefer forage dominated by grasses.

 Satisfactory cover is a stand of coniferous trees 40 or more feet tall with an average 

canopy closure equal to or more than 50 percent for ponderosa pine and 60 percent for 

mixed conifer. Satisfactory cover is considered superior to marginal cover.

 Marginal cover is a stand of coniferous trees 10 or more feet tall with an average canopy 

closure equal to or more than 40 percent. As with satisfactory cover, marginal cover 

must be at least 10 acres in size and 600 feet wide. Marginal cover and satisfactory cover 

are also sometimes referred to as thermal cover. Often marginal cover also provides 

suitable hiding cover.

 Hiding cover, also referred to as security cover, is vegetative cover that hides at least 90

percent of an adult elk at 200 feet. Hiding cover provides a visual barrier between big 

game animals and potential predators or sources of disturbance, and is especially 

important during hunting season when big game alter their travel patterns to avoid 

humans.

Existing Condition of Rocky Mountain Elk Habitat

For analysis, the project planning area was divided into winter range and summer range in the 

East Fork Beech Creek and Grub Creek subwatersheds. Winter range is primarily at lower 

elevations where forested areas are interwoven with non-forested grasslands and shrublands, and 

for HEI, portions of the subwatersheds not classified as winter range are considered summer 

range. Further, the 5,795 acre Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA; MA21) is included in 

the project planning area and was considered for independent HEI analysis, as there are different 

standards for this management area in the current Malheur Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 

1990a, pages IV–131). The Nipple Butte WEA is entirely within the East Fork Beech Creek 

subwatershed, and nearly entirely in winter range. The WEA was also included in the data for the 

East Fork Beech Creek winter and summer range.

There are approximately 9,207 acres of winter range and 13,733 acres of summer range in the 

East Fork Beech Creek subwatershed portion of the project planning area, and about 2,877 acres 

of winter range and 1,269 acres of summer range in the Grub Creek subwatershed portion of the 

project planning area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

445 of 632

Malheur Forest Plan standards are different for summer range, winter range, and WEAs. Table 

110 displays the existing HEI values in the Magone project planning area. In summer range, 

forage is not considered a limiting factor therefore a forage value is not used in calculations.

Table 110. Existing habitat effectiveness index values, cover percentages, and open road densities

for East Fork Beech Creek, Grub Creek and Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA)

Summer range

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile2

Malheur Forest 

Plan Standard

0.3 0.3 N/A 0.4 0.4 12 5 20 3.2 (1.5*)

East Fork 

Beach Creek

0.82 0.55 N/A 0.54 0.59 51.9 28.3 80.3 1.48

Grub Creek 0.71 0.66 N/A 0.41 0.55 31.8 45.5 77.4 2.82

Winter range (MA4a)

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile2

Malheur Forest 

Plan Standard

0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 10 10 25 2.2(1.0*)

East Fork 

Beach Creek

0.81 0.64 0.50 0.68 0.65 45.4 27.9 73.4 0.72

Grub Creek 0.67 0.46 0.50 0.47 0.52 29.5 57.9 87.4 2.18

Nipple Butte WEA (MA21)

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile2

Malheur Forest 

Plan Standard

0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 20 20 40 1.5

Nipple Butte 

WEA

0.83 0.69 0.5 0.97 0.73 46.8 23.8 70.6 0.05

*Desired open road density based on Malheur Forest Plan Record of Decision.

HEc = habitat effectiveness derived from the quality of cover

HEs = habitat effectiveness derived from the size and spacing of cover

HEf = habitat effectiveness derived from the quantity and quality of forage; HEf is not used in summer range.

HEr = habitat effectiveness derived from the density of roads open to vehicular traffic

%S = Satisfactory Cover, %M = Marginal Cover, % Total Cover = %S + %M

N/A = Not Applicable. HEf is not used for summer range.

Forage consists of all woody and non-woody plants that are available to livestock or wildlife as a 

food source. Browsing refers to foraging on woody plants, typically hardwood shrubs or trees. In 

general, deer prefer browse forage such as shrubs and forbs, while elk prefer forage dominated 

by grasses.

In summer range, all values meet or exceed Malheur Forest Plan standards. Both subwatersheds 

meet the standard for open road density (<3.2 miles of open road per square mile) for summer 

range. However, the actual number of “used” roads would be expected to be higher as many 

officially closed roads on the Malheur National Forest regularly experience unauthorized use. 

Total, marginal, and satisfactory cover all exceed the Malheur Forest Plan standards.
Magone Project

446 of 632

Winter range occurs in both subwatersheds. In all winter range in the project planning area, the 

habitat effectiveness index (HEI) values exceeds the Malheur Forest Plan standards; however, 

the HEI value is just below standards in winter range in the Grub Creek subwatershed. Winter 

range open road densities meet Malheur Forest Plan standards in both subwatersheds.

Although open road densities meet Malheur Forest Plan standards, both summer and winter 

range in the Grub Creek subwatershed are above the desired road density based on the Malheur 

Forest Plan (<1.5 miles per square mile and <1.0 mile per square mile, respectively). In winter 

range total, satisfactory, and marginal cover exceeds Malheur Forest Plan standards.

Although HEI and cover requirements are meeting or exceeding Malheur Forest Plan standards, 

cover requirements are not always compatible with the historical range of variability. This 

conflict is apparent in Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests dominated by ponderosa pine. Historical 

conditions and fire return intervals favored large blocks of trees with canopy closure too low to 

support satisfactory or marginal cover. Today, cover requirements are being met on many 

ponderosa pine sites; however, stands are overstocked and at high risk to bark beetle and severe 

wildfires. Cover levels may not be sustainable. This inherent conflict may be even more relevant 

in winter range, which is often located in low elevation, Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests 

dominated by ponderosa pine. Unfortunately, tree thinning, the treatment that most effectively 

reduces beetle and fire risk, also reduces the effectiveness of a stand as cover.

Elk Populations

Big game management on the Malheur National Forest 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 big game populations. The Magone project planning area is 

located within the Northside Big Game Management Unit, which is currently about 700 elk

above management objective.

Effects to Rocky Mountain Elk

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

With no activities proposed, values utilized to evaluate habitat effectiveness for elk, such as 

cover percentages, quantity and quality of forage, and open road densities, would remain in their

current condition in the short-term. Total percent, satisfactory and marginal cover would remain 

in excess of Malheur Forest Plan standards for the portions of the East Fork Beech Creek and 

Grub Creek subwatersheds in the project planning area. Cover and forage would remain well 

distributed.

In the mid- to long-term (with continued fire suppression), development of late and old structure 

(LOS) and/or multi-strata stands could create additional satisfactory and marginal cover stands. 

Long-term changes could increase cover over time, although with improved cover or potentially 

larger homogenous stands of cover, there could be less forage, which could conceivably reduce

HEI values. In the mid- to long-term, forage would decrease as tree canopies close and shade the 

ground.

With no thinning or prescribed fire, increased tree stocking could increase the frequency and 

intensity of high-severity wildfire events. A fire of moderate to intense magnitude and severity 

could convert LOS or multi-strata cover habitat to stand initiation forage habitat in the short- and 

mid-term, therefore changing forage to cover ratios and distribution across the project planning 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

447 of 632

area. With proportionate changes in ratios, HEI values would not be expected to fall below

Malheur Forest Plan standards.

Open road densities would be maintained at current levels as described in the MIS – Big Game 

Existing Condition section. Open road densities meet Malheur Forest Plan standards. In summer 

and winter range, marginal, satisfactory, and total cover is in excess of Malheur Forest Plan 

standards. Where satisfactory and marginal cover provide hiding cover, the excess of total cover 

could mitigate the effects of elevated road density (based on HEI). This alternative would not 

result in direct effects to big game security. Implementation of this alternative would construct 

no new permanent roads or modify existing open road densities or road management. 

Relationships between the spatial distribution and disturbance associated with open roads and 

hiding cover habitat would also not change, as existing road densities and levels of use are 

expected to remain the same in the short-, mid-, and long-term.

Aspen stands would remain in their current condition in the short- to mid-term. Grazing and 

browsing of aspen stands could continue. Conifer encroachment into aspen groves would remain 

and continue to increase. The overstory of each stand could remain even aged and approach the 

end of their life cycle. Aspen would continue to decline and stands would slowly disappear over 

the mid to long-term. If riparian restoration treatments are not implemented, forage conditions 

would continue to decrease in quality in those identified areas.

Upland shrub enhancement (conifer removal) treatments would not occur under this alternative 

and mahogany/bitterbrush communities would continue to be encroached and could ultimately 

be lost in the long-term. These communities provide critical quality browse and hiding cover for 

big game species. Allowing these upland shrub areas to continue to be overtopped and 

diminished could result in a substantial loss of quality habitat for elk and mule deer.

No biking/hiking trails would be developed under this alternative and therefore disturbance to 

big game from human interaction would be expected to remain at current levels, which are 

relatively low outside of fall hunting seasons.

Conclusion – Elk habitat would remain the same in the short-term. In the mid- to long-term, 

forage would likely decrease as a result of increasing cover, and critical habitats such as upland 

shrub areas and aspen could be degraded and eventually lost. However, because of their high 

mobility, extensive distribution, and the ability of elk and other big game species to find and use 

a variety of suitable habitats, there would be no negative trend in viability on the Malheur 

National Forest for Rocky Mountain elk.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects by Proposed Activity

Please refer to Table 14 to review the differences in treatments and intensity (i.e., acres or miles) 

of proposed treatments under each action alternative. The effect of each activity type is assumed 

to be the same across alternatives unless otherwise noted. Further, it is also assumed that as the 

intensity of the proposed treatments change, the level of expected effects discussed below would 

also change accordingly.

Silviculture Treatments and Prescribed Burning – Non-commercial thinning of small trees 

and understory removal would have the greatest impact on hiding cover in the short-term. 

Through variable density thinning, the potential negative effects of removing understory trees 

would be reduced in many areas by retaining unthinned patches of dense trees throughout the 

project planning area. Unthinned patches would comprise up to 10 to 25 percent of areas treated 

with the variable density prescription (see Silviculture Report for percent of project areas 
Magone Project

448 of 632

treated) and range from 1 to 10 acres in size depending on the location on the landscape and 

moisture gradient. Leave patches may be even larger if they connect through the unit. Untreated 

patches would remain at high risk to bark beetle attack and would likely not provide cover if tree

mortality were high. These patches would likely be gradually lost over the next 25 years. 

Further, the designation of connectivity corridors and retention and expansion of the MA13 oldgrowth network proposed in the project planning area would provide elk cover and permeability 

across the landscape. All action alternatives propose to expand the MA13 old-growth network 

equally; however, an additional 2,326 acres would be designated in alternatives 2 and 4. 

Alternative 3 would have minimal acreage designated as connectivity.

Areas where thinningoccur would be expected to transition back into at least marginal cover in 

approximately 25 to 50 years depending on the residual stand density, species composition, and 

site quality following treatment. Many areas would be expected to recover to marginal or 

satisfactory cover much sooner than the 25 to 50 years because of accelerated growth rates and 

understory response.

Under alternatives 2 and 4, approximately 630 acres comprised of multiple stands were 

identified as areas of higher importance for elk security. These acres would be treated with 

commercial and non-commercial thinning; treatments were designed in conjunction with District 

wildlife staff specifically to meet the purpose and need of the project while providing optimum 

elk security. These acres would also be included in the approximate 6,200-acre connectivity 

corridors proposed under the same alternatives. Under alternative 3, these stands would not be 

left as dense and connectivity corridors would only comprise about 3,900 acres of the project 

planning area landscape.

The proposed activities would be conducted over a period of several years. At any one time, 

management activities would be localized in portions of the watersheds, and elk may or may not 

shift use areas as a result. Disturbance from logging operations and associated traffic from log 

haul cause animals to move to undisturbed security areas (i.e., non-treatment areas, corridors). In 

areas where topography is steep or ridges separate logging operations, big game movement is 

expected to be minimal. Edge (1982) reported elk moved 0.67 miles and Lieb (1981) found 

average displacement of 0.9 miles from logging operations in Montana. Under most 

circumstances, displacement of elk by human activities during logging is temporary. Some 

animals may return during night and weekends, when logging operations cease (Edge 1982). Elk 

and deer become habituated to logging in the non-hunting seasons due to the influx of quality 

food from lichens and moss on the felled trees. This has been commonly noted across the Blue 

Mountain Ranger District. Winter and late autumn logging benefits big game because food can 

be limiting during these seasons. Disturbance to big game is a concern in winter range. In big 

game winter range (MA4a), timber management activities would be restricted where appropriate 

(see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria) to minimize disturbance to wintering deer and 

elk.

Analysis assumes that the greater the reduction in cover, the greater the increase in forage. 

Although, this may not necessarily be the case in the Cool Moist biophysical environments 

where woody understory recovery would be expected with little value as forage. Juxtaposition of 

cover and forage patches is also important, because big game use of openings decrease with 

increased distance from cover/forage edge areas, as well as size and spacing of cover and forage 

patches.

Prescribed fires are expected to burn relatively cool, move slowly, and burn in a mosaic of 

burned and unburned patches to ensure a mosaic pattern of forage and cover are maintained. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

449 of 632

Individual burn blocks larger than 500 contiguous acres would require a wildlife biologist input 

to ensure that big game forage objectives are being met. Large, highly mobile animals like deer 

and elk tend to move calmly about the periphery of a fire (Smith 2000). Generally, small crews 

of about 5 to 10 people would manage the fire. However, if all-terrain vehicles with drip torches

were used to traverse the area, deer and elk may move further out from the fire perimeter; and if 

a helicopter were used, deer and elk may move an even greater distance from the fire perimeter. 

Disturbance would be short-term, unlikely lasting more than 2 or 3 days on the larger burning 

operations. Elk and deer could return to burn areas as soon as the ground cools.

Direct fire-caused mortality of elk would be unlikely as mortality typically occurs only in 

uncontrolled wildfire where fire fronts are wide and fast moving, fires are actively crowning, and 

thick smoke occurs. Spring treatments would potentially affect calving (and fawning) habitat. 

However, to help mitigate effects to calves (and fawns) crews are to watch for lone elk or deer 

from May 1 to June 30. If crews see lone animals, they would search the immediate area for 

calves or fawns and avoid lighting where newborns are found.

Prescribed burning can reduce hiding cover when allowed to burn at moderate or high intensity 

in thickets of young understory. Understory tree mortality would vary considerably but rarely 

would burning reduce stocking of understory trees at the upper level. In areas where mechanical 

treatments preceded prescribed fire, hiding cover would likely be reduced to the point that 

prescribed fire would have minimal additional effects.

The negative impact of understory removal is compounded near roads where sight distance is 

increased, thereby raising the potential for poaching and harvest vulnerability of elk and deer. 

Burning might increase the possibility of insect activity, particularly bark beetle. If beetle 

activity intensifies, there would be some risk of additional losses of hiding cover.

Because prescribed fire would be expected to burn in a mosaic, ground vegetation would be 

reduced but not entirely eliminated. Temporarily, forage opportunities may be better elsewhere 

until ground vegetation is reestablished.

Burning would eventually improve forage conditions as more open canopies allow more light to 

reach the forest floor. Most native grasses and forbs and many shrubs respond positively to 

increased light and fire. Plants tend to sprout vigorously from their roots if the above ground 

portions are killed by fire. Fire can also increase nutrient content and palatability of forage, 

although the increased quantity of forage after a fire may be greater than the increased quality of 

that forage (Smith 2000). Species that respond favorably to fire include pinegrass, elk sedge, 

wild rose, snowberry, ceanothus, serviceberry, chokecherry, and currant.

Roads Activities – Road densities after implementation of alternative 2 would remain at or near 

current levels across the project planning area. Note that road densities produced in the habitat 

effectiveness index (HEI) model did not change from existing conditions when compared to 

proposed actions in alternatives 3 and 4. This is likely a result of road changes in those 

alternatives being so negligible (0.3 mile) that net change was not detected by the HEI model.

Within the first few years (approximately 2 to 10), temporary road construction and use would 

increase open road densities. During timber harvest, log haul activities would temporarily 

increase local traffic levels. Disturbances to big game would be expected to increase over the 

current condition. Elk are likely to shift use areas as activities progress across the watershed 

(USDA Forest Service 2006). After completion of timber harvest, specified haul roads would be 

closed. As road closures are completed, disturbances to deer and elk from vehicular traffic and 
Magone Project

450 of 632

mortality from hunting would be expected to decrease from current levels. However, the 

decrease in disturbances to deer and elk would only occur if road closures are effective. Closures 

would in part mitigate losses in hiding cover that occur due to timber harvest and prescribed fire. 

A wildlife biologist would review all road closures to determine effectiveness.

Seasonal restrictions in winter range would minimize effects from proposed activities during the 

most sensitive season. Disturbance is less of a concern to summer range where more of the land 

base is available for use.

Aspen/Riparian Treatment and Protection – Aspen stands throughout the project planning 

area are proposed for treatment (see Silviculture Report for details). Fencing would occur after 

treatment activities are completed in suitable areas to protect suckers from browsing by

ungulates. Riparian treatments (see Aquatics Report and section) would open up areas in riparian 

corridors to promote deciduous species in areas with a high likelihood of success. Elk in the 

immediate area could be displaced during riparian/aspen treatment. During the first several years 

post-treatment, many of these trees would be essentially off limits to elk, but as new regeneration 

becomes established and protective fences deteriorate or are removed, available browse should 

increase. Aspen groves would be larger and healthier and more likely to remain a viable 

component of the landscape.

Enhancing deciduous shrubs/trees in applicable riparian areas could potentially increase forage 

for elk and deer in the short-term, and potentially provide additional vertical structure for cover.

Recreation Opportunity Improvements – Recreation opportunities would increase under any 

of the action alternatives (Table 14). However, the miles of new trail designation and new trail 

construction are significantly higher in alternatives 2 and 3. The total length of new trails would 

be 48.8 miles in alternative 2 and 92.4 miles in alternative 3. Only 11.9 miles of new trails are 

proposed in alternative 4.

Wisdom et al. (2005) found that mountain bikes caused flight responses (disturbance and 

displacement) in elk and mule deer. Disturbance to elk from bike riders was found to be slightly 

less than from ATV riders, but higher than from hikers or horseback riders. The distance and 

time that elk showed flight responses varied throughout the study. Depending on use timing and 

use levels (duration and number of users), disturbance to big game and other wildlife could be 

substantial under alternatives 2 and 3. Under alternative 2, the proposed trails would contain 

approximately 2.5 miles within the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area, primarily along the 

fringes. Approximately 15 miles of trails would be constructed in the Nipple Butte Inventoried 

Roadless Area (IRA). 

Currently the IRA, and the included WEA, provide quality areas of little disturbance to big game 

animals. Although the trail system proposed in alternative 2 is fairly extensive, it would leave 

large areas across the landscape for big game refuge.

Under alternative 3, there would be an extensive network of approximately 5 miles of trails 

within the WEA and approximately 28 miles of trails in the IRA. This, combined with existing 

levels of disturbance from roads, would likely result in a very little proportion of the landscape 

being suitable for big game security. During seasons of higher recreation use, the majority of the 

project planning area would be minimally suitable for big game, if not entirely avoided.

Trails proposed under alternative 4 would result in some levels of disturbance to big game from 

users; however, by only adding 11.9 miles of trail throughout the entire project planning area, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

451 of 632

any effects would be minor. This would include approximately 3 miles of trails in the IRA and 

none in the WEA.

Effects from increased trails in big game winter range would be expected under alternatives 2 

and 3, which contain approximately 12 and 24 miles of trails, respectively, proposed through big 

game winter range. Some of these effects could be mitigated by project design criteria that would 

seasonally close the trails in big game winter range, and much of the project planning area would 

likely not be accessible to mountain bikers in the wintering months. In years of milder weather 

or when animals remain on winter range after closure dates, displacement would be expected. 

However, no protection could be guaranteed to fawning/calving animals that may be along the 

trails. This could lead to abortion or abandonment in isolated encounters depending on stage of 

pregnancy and age of newborn animals. These encounters would be expected to be very minimal 

and not the norm. However, as trail miles increase across alternatives, opportunity for these 

encounters would increase. In the short-term, alternative 3 could plausibly reduce calving and 

fawning success rates and overall population recruitment in the project planning area. This 

would only be expected in the short-term due to the habituation to and/or total avoidance of the 

trails and immediately adjacent areas.

In the mid- to long-term under alternative 4, individuals would likely become habituated to trail 

users and increased recreation along those trails. Big game would likely avoid areas immediately 

adjacent to trails proposed in alternative 2, rendering any available security patches increasingly 

valuable. Under alternative 2, adequate cover and security patches would be expected to remain 

in suitable patches and distribution to provide escape from increased recreation. Under 

alternative 3 in the mid- to long-term, proposed trails would likely change big game distribution 

in the project planning area to entirely avoid these trails and adjacent areas, and could 

conceivably increase big game densities and associated resource competition in adjacent 

subwatersheds. Although big game distribution would not be expected to completely avoid the 

entire project planning area, under alternative 3 many areas that are currently providing valuable 

cover and forage for big game would no longer be readily suitable or used. The trails proposed 

under alternative 3 could have an adverse effect to elk habitat and their use thereof in the project 

planning area.

Habitat Effectiveness Index

Any of the action alternatives would maintain the overall habitat effectiveness for each 

subwatershed in summer and winter range at or above Malheur Forest Plan standards. Table 111

displays post-treatment habitat effectiveness index (HEI), cover, and open road densities. 

See discussion above regarding how the proposed treatments under each alternative were

compared to the existing condition and the subsequent changes in structural stages based on 

treatments. The HEI model runs are located in the project record for the Magone Project.

The primary effect from the action alternatives is the reduction in satisfactory and marginal 

cover and the change in cover and forage distribution. Following treatment, satisfactory cover 

and marginal cover would continue to exceed Malheur Forest Plan standards except in Grub 

Creek (both summer and winter range) and the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA) 

under alternatives 2 and 3. Total cover would fall below Malheur Forest Plan standards in Grub 

Creek winter range under alternative 3, and throughout the WEA. However, total cover in the 

WEA would fall below standards by less than 1 percent under either alternative. This is likely 

due to the proposed extensive upland shrub enhancement treatments that would remove juniper 

and other conifer cover but still provide cover from mahogany, and substantially increased 
Magone Project

452 of 632

forage. Outside of the WEA, cover distribution would likely be better than the model can predict 

due to the leave patches and design of the variable density thinning practice. This would leave 

numerous patches providing cover distribution. While satisfactory, marginal, and total cover, and 

size and spacing (distribution) is reduced in some areas, HEI values remain at or above Malheur 

Forest Plan standards. Further, HEI values (HEIcsfr) generally increase under each action 

alternative except for alternative 4 in the WEA, where HEI values decrease.

Following the completion of implementation of vegetation treatments proposed in alternatives 2 

and 3 (mid- to long-term), it would be expected that overall habitat for elk would substantially 

improve from current conditions. Mechanical treatments combined with prescribed fire would 

open the forest canopy, promote regeneration, promote vigor and expansion of grass and many 

browse species. Most lost vertical cover would be recovered quickly, and both forage and cover 

quality and quantity would be expected to increase substantially. Satisfactory cover would be 

expected to meet or exceed Malheur Forest Plan standards in Grub Creek and the WEA in the 

short- to mid-term as marginal cover moved to satisfactory, and additional cover through 

regeneration and increased vigor would be added. Forage would increase under all alternatives.

The vegetation treatments proposed in alternative 4 would have similar beneficial effects to elk 

habitat, however not as evident compared to alternatives 2 and 3. The lack of upland shrub 

enhancement (conifer removal) treatments in the WEA is noticeable under alternative 4 as HEI 

values actually decrease. These treatments under alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to 

improve big game habitat vastly on 3,865 acres in the IRA, the majority of which would occur in 

the WEA.

Table 111. Habitat effectiveness index values, cover percentages, and open road densities for East 

Fork Beech Creek, Grub Creek, and Nipple Butte WEA by alternative.

Summer Range

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile*

Malheur Forest 

Plan Standard

0.3 0.3 N/A 0.4 0.4 12 5 20 3.2 (1.5*)

East Fork Beech Creek

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile*

Alternative 1 (no 

action)

0.82 0.55 N/A 0.54 0.59 51.9 28.3 80.3 1.48

Alternative 2 

(proposed action)

0.72 0.76 N/A 0.55 0.62 20 25.9 45.9 1.42

Alternative 3 0.72 0.73 N/A 0.54 0.61 15.9 20.3 36.2 1.48

Alternative 4 0.86 0.61 N/A 0.54 0.61 47.3 19.3 66.5 1.48
Final Environmental Impact Statement

453 of 632

Grub Creek

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile*

Alternative 1 (no 

action)

0.71 0.66 N/A 0.41 0.55 31.8 45.5 77.4 2.82

Alternative 2 

(proposed action)

0.62 0.7 N/A 0.41 0.55 10.1 30.4 40.4 2.82

Alternative 3 0.62 0.65 N/A 0.41 0.53 8.2 27.4 35.6 2.82

Alternative 4 0.77 0.66 N/A 0.41 0.57 29.7 25.4 55.2 2.82

Winter Range (MA4a)

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile*

Malheur Forest 

Plan Standard

0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 10 10 25 2.2(1.0*)

East Fork Beech Creek

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile*

Alternative 1 (no 

action)

0.81 0.64 0.50 0.68 0.65 45.4 27.9 73.4 0.72

Alternative 2 

(proposed action)

0.68 0.8 0.50 0.69 0.66 13.5 23.2 36.7 0.69

Alternative 3 0.69 0.76 0.5 0.68 0.65 12.5 21 33.5 0.72

Alternative 4 0.8 0.68 0.5 0.68 0.66 38.2 26.4 35.4 0.72

Grub Creek

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile*

Alternative 1 (no 

action)

0.67 0.46 0.5 0.47 0.52 29.5 57.9 87.4 2.18

Alternative 2 

(proposed action)

0.6 0.66 0.5 0.47 0.55 5.9 22.2 28 2.18

Alternative 3 0.6 0.58 0.5 0.47 0.53 3.3 13.8 17.1 2.18

Alternative 4 0.67 0.66 0.5 0.47 0.57 20.7 41.6 62.2 2.18

Nipple Butte WEA (MA21)

Subwatershed HEc HEs HEf HEr HEcsfr %S %M % 

total 

cover

Open road 

density 

miles/mile*

Malheur Forest 

Plan Standard

0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 20 20 40 1.5

Alternative 1 (no 

action)

0.83 0.69 0.5 0.97 0.73 46.8 23.8 70.6 0.05

Alternative 2 

(proposed action)

0.71 0.84 0.5 0.97 0.73 16.5 23 39.5 0.05

Alternative 3 0.71 0.84 0.5 0.97 0.73 16.6 22.7 39.3 0.05

Alternative 4 0.8 0.66 0.5 0.97 0.71 42.8 29.2 72 0.05

*Desired open road density based on Malheur Forest Plan Record of Decision

HEc = habitat effectiveness derived from the quality of cover

HEs = habitat effectiveness derived from the size and spacing of cover

HEf = habitat effectiveness derived from the quantity and quality of forage; HEf is not used in summer range.

HEr = habitat effectiveness derived from the density of roads open to vehicular traffic

%S = Satisfactory Cover, %M = Marginal Cover, % Total Cover = %S + %M

N/A – Not Applicable. HEf is not used for summer range.

Conclusion for Elk Habitat and Habitat Effectiveness Index Analysis – The results of the 

HEI analysis for alternative 2 (proposed action) (Table 111) shows the interaction between the 

four variables (HEs, HEr, HEf, HEc) maintains the HEI value resulting from the proposed 
Magone Project

454 of 632

activities above Malheur Forest Plan standards under each alternative. However, alternatives 2 

and 3 generally increase HEI values with the exception of summer range in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed. Overall, with achievement of expected results of treatments in the mid- to longterm, it is expected that all action alternatives would improve elk habitat according to HEI in the 

project planning area. However, alternative 2 would most improve elk habitat throughout the 

project planning area due to higher residual cover values as opposed to alternative 3, increasing 

forage, and including the upland shrub enhancement treatments throughout the IRA and WEA. 

Any negative or adverse impacts would be short-term, and ultimately result in a beneficial 

impact to elk habitat and therefore elk populations.

Cumulative Effects to Elk

All of the activities listed in Table 17 and Table 18 were considered when determining potential 

cumulative effects on big game habitat. The cumulative effects analysis focuses on past, 

ongoing, and foreseeable future activities that may contribute to impacts on big game utilizing 

the area.

The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing, and foreseeable future activities that 

may contribute positive or negative effects. Past activities such as grazing, timber harvest, road 

construction associated with timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression, and firewood cutting have 

impacted the quantity, quality, and distribution of cover and forage across the analysis area. 

These activities have created the existing condition of elk habitat and baseline conditions for 

HEI.

Past timber harvest activities in the analysis area have affected elk habitat by decreasing hiding 

cover and increasing forage and understory development. Road construction associated with 

timber increased accessibility of the area to firewood cutting and hunting, increased pressure and 

disturbance to elk. Conversely, following the years of heavy timber harvest on the Malheur

National Forest, many subsequent years of fire suppression has rendered much of the project 

planning area outside of HRV and has likely created higher cover values, and therefore higher 

HEI values than would be expected historically. But, forage values would have likely been 

higher under HRV.

Present actions include thinning and burning activities under the County Road 18 Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act Project. The 18 Road Project includes 1,200 acres of commercial thinning, 1,600 

acres of non-commercial thinning, and prescribed burning to create strategic fuel breaks adjacent 

to County Road 18. The Magone Project would cumulatively add to the effects of the reduction 

in cover from implementation of the 18 Road Project. The 18 Road Project borders the eastern 

portion of the Grub Creek subwatershed portion of the Magone project planning area, which 

would be below Malheur Forest Plan standards in summer and winter range with the 

implementation of alternatives 2 or 3. However, connectivity corridors established during the 

design of the 18 Road Project were aligned with proposed connectivity corridors in the Magone 

Project, providing elk and other wildlife secure travel corridors through expansive areas with 

reduced cover. Retaining these connectivity corridors in a high quality condition would be

paramount for landscape permeability.

Other reasonably foreseeable future projects authorized under the Malheur National Forest 

Aquatics Restoration Decision (Table 18) could have some additive effects to the proposed 

project. Particularly, riparian enhancement thinning where large and coarse woody debris would 

be tipped and added into streams could create very small openings in the riparian areas where 

forage would be expected to increase. Typically, forage associated with riparian areas is of higher 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

455 of 632

quality than upland forage during hotter, drier times. Riparian shrub enhancement and planting 

would likely create additional elk forage as well, although some areas would be fenced and not 

readily available. Any riparian enhancement projects would be beneficial or of negligible effect 

to elk.

The development of at least 10 springs into water troughs for livestock (which would be 

accomplished under the Aquatic Restoration Decisin) would likely have negligible effects to elk, 

but may provide more reliable and readily available surface water (at the trough) during hotter, 

drier times and would be beneficial to elk.

Other projects similar to the proposed Magone Project are currently in implementation stages 

across the Malheur National Forest, including Galena, Damon, Soda Bear, and Starr on the Blue 

Mountain Ranger District.

Firewood cutting and fire suppression are ongoing.

Cumulative impacts to big game habitat related to alternative 2 (proposed action) could include a 

decrease in habitat effectiveness resulting from changes in cover and forage (HEI values); and 

increased human disturbance and access to critical calving/rearing areas, and increased hunting 

pressure in the short-term.

Reduction in cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed and WEA would cumulatively add to the 

reduction of cover from other large-scale projects being implemented on Forest Service lands 

within close proximity, such as the 18 Road and Galena projects. However, with appropriate 

project design criteria, treatment prescriptions, connectivity corridors, and best management 

practices, the combined effects from current and future timber projects would be expected to 

maintain overall HEI at the Forest-level within Malheur Forest Plan standards.

Fire activity within close proximity to the Magone project planning area is described in the 

Historical Conditions section of the Silviculture and Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality reports and 

sections. These post-fire areas are currently providing increased forage to elk and other big game 

species in and around the project planning area. Big game animals would continue to benefit 

from the effects of these fires in the short- to mid-term.

The action alternatives are expected to increase available forage for domestic and wild ungulates 

through commercial and non-commercial thinning and fire. Forage would be increased 

substantially across the landscape under alternatives 2 and 3 (higher reduction in cover). This 

would cumulatively increase forage on the larger landscape when combined with other landscape 

restoration projects in the area. Competition from ungulate diets for the domestic and wild 

species studied appear most similar in late summer, when forage biomass and quality declines 

with summer drought, suggesting increased potential for competition. Livestock grazing may 

reduce available forage for big game species, but with the increase in forage availability for both 

wild and domestic ungulates there are no detrimental cumulative impacts from grazing.

Although hiking trails are sparse and bike trails are essentially non-existent across the Blue 

Mountain Ranger District, the additional miles of trails under alternative 2 and particularly 

alternative 3 would substantially add to the current 7-mile trail system. The cumulative effects of 

adding these trails to the current trail system would have negative effects on elk through routine 

disturbance and displacement, and to overall elk distribution; however, those effects would be 

expected to stay mostly within the Magone project planning area.
Magone Project

456 of 632

Conclusion for Elk – Although each action alternative would likely enhance elk habitat, 

alternative 3 would have the most detrimental effects to elk because of the smaller proportion of 

landscape proposed for connectivity, and the extensive recreation trails and associated effects. 

Trails proposed under alternative 2 could also have notable effects on elk distribution but would 

still provide areas of quality security.

The Northside Game Management Unit, which contains all of the Magone project planning area, 

is approximately 700 elk over the management objective of 2,000 elk. Adjacent Desolation and 

Murderer’s Creek Game Management Units are also above management objectives. Therefore, 

although alternative 3 would have the highest level of effects to elk and big game, there would 

not be a viability concern for the species on the Blue Mountain Ranger District or Malheur 

National Forest under any action alternative.

3.9.4.4 Old Growth Network

The Malheur Forest Plan identifies three management indicator species for old growth (primarily 

old forest multi strata structured stands): pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and three-toed 

woodpecker (Table 112). In addition, the white-headed woodpecker is a good indicator of the 

health of old forest single stratum habitat. By providing old growth habitat for these species, it is 

assumed that habitat for other old growth obligate species would be provided for as well.

Table 112. Old growth management indicator species

Management indicator 

species

Representing Habitat requirements Habitat present in 

analysis area

Pine marten

(Martes americana)

Old growth Mature, mesic coniferous 

forests, with high structural 

diversity in the understory

Limited due to large 

proportion of open, 

dry forest.

Pileated woodpecker

(Dryocopus pileatus)

Old growth, primary 

cavity nester, snags 

and down wood

Extensive areas of dense 

coniferous forests with tall 

closed canopy, high basal 

area and large diameter 

snags

Yes

Three-toed woodpecker

(Picoides tridactylus)

Old growth, primary 

cavity nester, snags 

and down wood

Higher elevation (above 

4,500 feet) lodgepole pine 

and mixed conifer forests 

with a lodgepole component

Limited due to lack of 

montane mixed 

conifer and lodgepole 

habitat.

White-headed 

woodpecker

(Picoides albolarvatus)

Old growth, primary 

cavity nester, snags 

and down wood

Open ponderosa pine 

forests with large trees and 

snags in large patches

Yes

To provide for pileated woodpecker and pine marten habitat viability, the Malheur Forest Plan

Management Area 13 (MA13) provides for the management of old growth habitat through a 

system of dedicated old growth (DOG) areas and replacement old growth (ROG) areas. DOGs 

were delineated forest-wide to provide an even distribution of habitat; one DOG for roughly 

every 12,000 acres, or approximately 5 miles apart. ROGs are established to counter possible 

catastrophic damage or deterioration. Although replacement areas may not have all the 

characteristics of old growth, they are managed to achieve old-forest structure over time. Thus, 

when a DOG no longer meets the needed habitat requirements, the associated ROG has already 

been established to replace it. To ensure species viability for three-toed woodpeckers, Malheur 

Forest Plan Standard 59 gives direction to identify potential or existing old growth lodgepole 

pine forests. There are currently no old-growth lodgepole pine forests in the Magone project 

planning area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

457 of 632

The Malheur Forest Plan directs that pileated woodpecker areas be comprised of 600 acres, 

composed of a 300-acre DOG (reproductive area) and a 300-acre pileated woodpecker feeding 

area (PWFA). In addition, the Malheur Forest Plan and its corresponding Final Environmental 

Impact Statement identify requirements and guidelines for identifying ROGs and PWFAs for 

each DOG. ROGs are intended to be half the size of DOGs (i.e., 150 acres for replacement of 

pileated woodpecker DOGs). In addition, ROGs may overlap with feeding areas. Pine marten 

units are to be 240 total acres, composed of a 160-acre DOG and an 80-acre ROG. Again, ROGs 

are intended to represent replacement units and only need to be half the size of their 

corresponding DOG. DOGs managed for both species should be managed at least at the 600-acre 

minimum recommended size for pileated woodpeckers. Management requirements are derived 

from the U.S. Forest Service (1986) Minimum Management Requirements.

The Malheur Forest Plan directs continued review of DOG and ROG acreages, with adjustments 

to boundaries as appropriate, to ensure that suitable levels of old-growth habitat are provided for 

species dependent upon them and to ensure that those areas meet Malheur Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines. MA13 direction permits exchanging the status of DOGs and ROGs in the event a 

DOG is destroyed by wildfire or is otherwise no longer providing old growth habitat.

MA13s are typically adjusted during development of a project’s proposed action(s).

All or part of eight (8) MA13 areas are located within the Magone project planning area. 

However, three of these DOGs are located along the project boundary with few acres actually 

within the Magone project planning area. Table 113 describes existing acreages and minimum 

Malheur Forest Plan requirements for DOGs, ROGs, and PWFAs for acres within and outside of 

the project planning area.

Most of the designated DOGs provide highly suitable habitat for pileated woodpeckers and 

occupancy has been documented in those DOGs. However, intensive remote camera surveys for 

pine marten were conducted in many of the DOGs and other suitable old-forest habitat and pine 

marten occurrence was not documented. Even within pine marten DOGs and modeled pine 

marten habitat, most habitat is marginal and adequate connectivity to more suitable and occupied 

habitat does not currently exist.

DOG and ROG acreages, Malheur Forest Plan requirements, and species management 

designations for DOGs and ROGs within the Magone project planning area are described in 

Table 113.

Table 113. Old Growth Management Area 13 – Malheur Forest Plan minimum requirements and 

existing acreages

Old Growth Management Areas – existing condition Minimum MA13 

acre 

requirements

Existing acres 

(in project planning 

area)

DOG 03318 (318) Pileated/Pine Marten (PP)

1 160 410 (6)

03318 Replacement Area 80 0

DOG 03259 (259) Pine Marten (MM) 160 293 (285)

03259 Replacement Area 80 0

DOG 03259 (259) Pine Marten (MM) 160 167 (5.3)

03259 Replacement Area 80 0

DOG 03260 (260) Pine Marten (MM) 160 159 (7)

03260 Replacement Area 80 0
Magone Project

458 of 632

Old Growth Management Areas – existing condition Minimum MA13 

acre 

requirements

Existing acres 

(in project planning 

area)

DOG 03515 (515) Pine Marten (MM) 160 434 (all)

03515 Replacement Area 80 0

DOG 03114 (114) Pileated Woodpecker (PW) 300 341 (322)

03114 Feeding Area (PPFA) 300 0

03114 Replacement Area (PPRO) 150 0

DOG 03115 (115) Pileated Woodpecker (PW) 300 327 (326)

03115 Feeding Area (PWFA) 300 0

03115 Replacement Area 150 0

DOG 03119 (119) Pileated Woodpecker (PW) 300 403 (all)

03119 Feeding Area (PWFA) 300 0

03119 Replacement Area 150 0

Total DOGs in Magone project planning area 1,788

Total ROGs in Magone project planning area 0

Total PWFAs in Magone project planning area 0

Total ROG/PWFA in Magone project planning area 0

Late and Old Structure

Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 (1995) amended the Malheur Forest Plan 

to manage late and old structure (LOS) stands within the historical range of variability, including 

areas inside and outside of the DOG/ROG network. There are approximately 8,856 acres of LOS 

in the Magone project planning area, roughly 33 percent of the project planning area, with 

approximately 89 percent of that being old forest multi strata and 11 percent in old forest single 

stratum. Late and old structure within the project planning area provides suitable habitat for 

pileated woodpeckers; however, most LOS stands (including MA13 areas) are not currently 

providing ideal or adequately connected habitat for pine marten. Pine marten presence in LOS 

could not be determined in the project planning area.

Interior Columbia Basin habitat evaluations for white-headed woodpeckers—a species that 

shows a strong preference for mature, single-stratum ponderosa pine dominated habitats—

indicated that roughly 70 percent of the watersheds in the Blue Mountains showed a decreasing 

trend in the preferred habitat type, with a 30 percent static or increasing trend (Wisdom et al.

2000). Results from the evaluation also indicated declines in large trees (≥20 inches DBH) and 

open canopied forest types (<40 percent crown closure) in the dry biophysical environment. 

Habitats for species closely associated with these mature open-canopied forest types, such as 

white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, and western bluebird, have likely declined across 

the landscape from historical levels. Although the Magone project planning area only has 

approximately 856 acres of old forest single stratum in the upland portions of the project 

planning area, these species have been documented throughout the old forest single stratum 

habitat as well as old forest multi strata and younger forests. White-headed woodpeckers were 

commonly encountered during field reconnaissance and surveys of the Magone project planning 

area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

459 of 632

Effects to Old Growth and Late and Old Structure (LOS) Network

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 1, there would be no changes to the MA13 network. No ROGs would be 

designated, no LOS stands would be treated, and no connectivity corridors would be designated. 

Malheur Forest Plan standards regarding the MA13 network would not be met. No change from 

the existing condition would be expected.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

All action alternatives propose to alter the location or stand boundaries of dedicated old growth 

(DOG) areas in order to expand the current MA13 network to include replacement old growth 

(ROG) and pileated woodpecker feeding areas (PWFAs) to meet Malheur Forest Plan standards 

(Table 114). Ultimately, there would be a net loss of approximately 263 acres of dedicated old 

growth, but an overall expansion of approximately 1,478 acres of the MA13 network including 

DOGs and ROGs/PWFAs. The following descriptions provide an explanation of the proposed 

changes to the MA13 network under all action alternatives.

Explanation of Proposed Old Growth Changes

DOG 03115PW – There would be minor changes along the perimeter of the DOG to adjust 

MA13 to actual old growth stand boundaries. In addition, this DOG would be relocated to more 

suitable old-growth habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Further, a 470-acre ROG/PWFA would 

also be designated adjacent to the new DOG boundary. The 327 acres where the DOG is 

currently designated does not exhibit old-growth characteristics and would be treated in 

alternatives 2 and 3 to promote increased growth and resiliency for desired species, and to move 

the stand towards LOS forest. Under alternative 4, location and boundary proposals would be 

consistent; however, no treatment would take place. This stand also contains many mistletoeinfested trees that would be deferred from harvest to retain important habitat for blue grouse and 

other wildlife species. This stand would be re-designated as ROG for DOG03114PW.

DOG 03114PW – There would be minor changes along the perimeter of the DOG to adjust 

MA13 to actual old growth stand boundaries. The currently designated DOG03115PW would be 

designated as ROG/PWFA for this DOG. An additional 61 acres would be added to this 

ROG/PWFA for a total of a 355-acre ROG/PWFA.

DOG03119PW – 336 acres of the existing 403 acres would remain designated as DOG03119PW. 

The remaining 67 acres, combined with additional adjacent 232 acres would be designated as 

ROG/PWFA. The splitting of this DOG and adding additional acres to the ROG would be 

specifically for the purpose of expanding the MA13 network and meeting Malheur Forest Plan 

standards.

DOG03515MM – There would be minor changes along the perimeter of the DOG to adjust 

MA13 to actual old growth stand boundaries. In addition, the existing DOG would be split to 

include a 230-acre DOG and a 266-acre ROG to meet Malheur Forest Plan standards.

DOG03259 – There would be minor changes along the perimeter of the DOG to adjust MA13 to 

actual old growth stand boundaries. An additional 88-acre ROG would be designated for this 

stand, including a portion of the DOG as well as acres from other management areas.
Magone Project

460 of 632

Connectivity Corridors

Connectivity corridors were designed during project planning and are proposed under each 

action alternative to serve as connectivity between late and old structure (LOS) stands to allow 

for movement of old growth species and big game. The goal of creating “connectivity” is to 

manage stands in corridors at higher canopy densities when compared to more intensively 

managed stands located outside of corridors. Corridors established for old growth species in the 

project planning area would allow for big game migratory and dispersal movements, as well as 

providing higher cover rates and forage. Magone connectivity corridors would link LOS stands, 

including dedicated old growth (DOG), replacement old growth (ROG), and associated old 

growth areas to LOS areas throughout the project planning area, including those within the 

Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area. The 

Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area is entirely with the IRA. The designated connectivity 

corridor is approximately 9,066 acres in alternatives 2 and 4, and about 6,740 acres in alternative 

3 (approximately 34 and 25 percent of the project planning area, respectively), including 

proposed acreages from DOGs, ROGs, pileated woodpecker feeding areas (PWFAs) and areas 

that would be treated but left denser specifically for connectivity and big game security. Not 

including the MA13 areas, the proposed connectivity would be approximately 6,218 acres in 

alternatives 2 and 4, and approximately 3,892 acres in alternative 3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

461 of 632

Table 114. Old Growth Management Area 13 – minimum requirements, existing and proposed acres after adjusting boundaries for the proposed action

Old Growth Management Areas – existing 

condition

Minimum 

MA13 acre 

requirements

Existing acres 

in project 

planning area

Adjusted 

Acreages

Comments

DOG 03318 (318) Pine Marten/Pileated (PP) 300 6 6 Most of DOG is outside project planning area and will 

be adjusted in future projects.

03318 Feeding Area 300 0 0

03318 Replacement Area 150 0 0

DOG 03259 (259) Pine Marten (MM) 160 285 249 There would be minor changes along the perimeter of 

the DOG to adjust MA13 to actual old growth stand 

boundaries. Designated 88 acres for ROG. The 

detached piece of DOG 259 is currently 167 acres but 

only 5.3 are in the project areas.

03259 Replacement Area 80 0 88

DOG 03260 (260) Pine Marten (MM) 160 7 7 Most of DOG is outside project planning area and will 

be adjusted in future projects.

03260 Replacement Area 80 0 0

DOG 03515 (515) Pine Marten (MM) 160 434 230 There would be minor changes along the perimeter of 

the DOG to adjust MA13 to actual old growth stand 

boundaries. Original 434 acres were divided into 230

acre DOG and 266 acre ROG.

03515 Replacement Area 80 0 266

DOG 03114 (114) Pileated Woodpecker (PW) 300 322 405 There would be minor changes along the perimeter of 

the DOG to adjust MA13 to actual old growth stand 

boundaries. DOG 03115 was re-designated as 

ROG/PWFA for DOG 03114 with an additional 28

acres. New ROG (existing DOG 115) would be treated 

under alternatives 2 and 3. All 355 acres of the PWFA 

was also designated as ROG, therefore all of the 

required 150 acre ROG overlaps.

03114 Feeding Area (PWFA) 300 0 355*

03114 Replacement Area 150 0 355
Magone Project

462 of 632

Old Growth Management Areas – existing 

condition

Minimum 

MA13 acre 

requirements

Existing acres 

in project 

planning area

Adjusted 

Acreages

Comments

DOG 03115 (115) Pileated Woodpecker 300 327 315 There would be minor changes along the perimeter of 

the DOG to adjust MA13 to actual old growth stand 

boundaries. Moved DOG 03115 to more desirable 

location and added 470 acres additional PWFA/ROG. 

All 470 acres were designated as ROG and would 

include the PWFA.

03115 Feeding Area (PWFA) 300 0 470*

03115 Replacement Area 150 0 470

DOG 03119 (119) Pileated Woodpecker (PW) 300 403 336 336 acres of existing DOG would be used as new 

DOG. The remaining 67 acres would be designated as 

ROG with an additional 232 acres as ROG.

03119 Feeding Area (PWFA) 300 0 299*

03119 Replacement Area 150 0 299

Total DOGs 1,784 1,548

Total ROGs 0 1,478

Total PWFAs 0 1,124*

Total Old Growth (MA13) 1,784 3,026*

*PWFAs are not added to the total estimated acreages because all additional acres were designated as ROG and assumes to include PWFAs.

DOG = dedicated old growth; ROG = replacement old growth; PWFA = pileated woodpecker feeding areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

463 of 632

3.9.4.5 Old-Growth Dependent Species

Existing Condition of Pileated Woodpecker

Pileated woodpecker is a management indicator species for both dead and defective wood habitat 

and old growth habitats and is considered a keystone habitat modifier in the Pacific Northwest.

Pileated woodpeckers prefer late successional stages of coniferous or deciduous forest, but also 

use younger forests that have scattered, large, dead trees (Bull and Jackson 2011, Bull et al. 

2007). In northeastern Oregon, these large woodpeckers tend to select unlogged stands of oldgrowth grand fir with closed canopies and, in some cases, open stands with high densities of 

large snags and logs (Bull and Holthausen 1993, Bull et al. 2007). They are rarely found in 

stands of pure ponderosa pine (Bull and Holthausen 1993). Because they nest in large-diameter 

snags, roost in large-diameter hollow trees, and use large logs and snags for foraging, pileated 

woodpeckers are associated primarily with late and old structure stands (Bull et al. 2007). 

Approximately 80 percent of pileated woodpecker foraging in northeastern Oregon occurs in 

dead trees and dead and downed logs.

Pileated woodpecker nest cavities are quite large, with a mean diameter of 8 inches (21 

centimeters) and cavity depth of 22 inches (57 centimeters). In eastern Oregon, nest trees are 

predominantly ponderosa pine, with a smaller proportion in western larch (Bull 1987). Roosts 

are typically found in live and dead grand fir with a mean DBH of 28 inches (Bull and 

Holthausen 1993). Timber harvest has had a negative effect on habitat for this woodpecker (Bull 

2003, Bull et al. 2007). Removal of live and dead large-diameter trees, downed woody material, 

and canopy eliminates nest and roost sites, foraging habitat, and protective cover. In addition, 

prescribed fire may eliminate or reduce the number of snags, logs, and cover (Bull 2003).

Wildlife use data from DecAID was used in conjunction with snag estimates to determine acres 

of potential habitat for forest types across the Forest. DecAID values for existing condition on 

the Malheur National Forest, as they relate to pileated woodpecker habitat requirements, are 

displayed in the Management Indicator Species section under Dead and Defective Habitat 

(Figure 54 through Figure 57; Table 108 and Table 109). Snag habitat is likely to be a limiting 

factor for pileated woodpeckers in the eastside mixed-conifer habitat type throughout the 

Magone project planning area.

Due to an increase in dense, multi-canopy stands caused by fire suppression, structural 

conditions used by pileated woodpeckers have increased on drier ponderosa pine sites, and 

habitat for pileated woodpeckers is increasing across the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

However, this habitat type does not produce large-diameter snags (>21 inches DBH) in densities 

used by pileated woodpeckers (Figure 54 and Table 108 and densities of large-diameter snags 

have declined from historical to current levels (Korol et al. 2002, Wisdom et al. 2000).

Currently there are 148,508 acres of source habitat for pileated woodpecker on the Malheur

National Forest. Acreages for the Magone project planning area are estimated at 3,223 acres, or 

about 2 percent of the habitat on the Forest. The project planning area contains substantial 

pileated woodpecker habitat and pileated woodpeckers have been documented throughout the 

project planning area, including habitat within dedicated old-growth areas.

Pileated woodpeckers are considered vulnerable in the state by Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf). 

However, they are considered “apparently secure” in Oregon by NatureServe 

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Dryocopus+pileatus).
Magone Project

464 of 632

Effects to Pileated Woodpecker

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no management activities are proposed; animals would not be 

displaced, harassed, or injured by the project. Habitat would remain as described in the existing 

condition section.

Due to an increase in dense, multi-canopy stands due to fire suppression, habitat for pileated 

woodpeckers is increasing across the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, densities 

of large-diameter snags (>21 inches DBH) have declined from historical to current levels (Korol 

et al. 2002, Wisdom et al. 2000). These trends would continue into the future under the no action 

alternative.

With the no action alternative there is an elevated risk of insect activity as well as higher severity 

wildfire. Mortality to large pine from insect activity could result in snags for pileated 

woodpecker nesting habitat. However, depending on extent and severity, insect activity or 

wildfire effects would possibly set back the structural stage development, resulting in areas of 

young trees and longer time spans to develop old forest structures. Smaller fires of lower 

intensity could create snag habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Larger more intense fire events 

would reduce suitable pileated woodpecker habitat.

In the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir wildlife habitat type (PPDF – WHT) the landscape is near or 

above reference conditions for snag densities of both large (>20 inches DBH) and small (>10

inches DBH) snags. However, large snag habitat for pileated woodpecker is generally rare in this 

WHT both currently and within historic reference conditions.

In the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type (EMC- WHT) the landscape is deficit in snag 

density classes above two snags per acre for large (>20 inches DBH) snags, as compared to 

reference conditions. The snag density classes in this WHT are below the 30 percent tolerance 

level for pileated woodpecker. Large snag habitat for pileated woodpecker species may be 

limiting in this WHT. Woodpeckers may be limited to the more productive sites in this WHT,

where snag densities are expected to be higher (Bull et al. 2007, Ohmann and Waddell 2002).

Conclusion – Alternative 1 would not affect pileated woodpecker habitat and therefore would 

not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Malheur National Forest for this species.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 14 displays the differences in intensity (i.e., acres or miles) of proposed treatments under 

each alternative. It is assumed that as the intensity of the proposed treatments change, the level 

of expected effects discussed below would also change accordingly.

Refer to the Silviculture Report and section for a more detailed description of expected future 

vegetation conditions. In the 25-year modeling period, vegetation structure would move toward 

alignment with the historical range of variability (HRV) for old forest single stratum (OFSS) 

under all action alternatives. Vegetation structure would move towards HRV for old forest multi 

strata (OFMS) in alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would further depart OFMS from HRV. 

Under the 40-year modeling scenario, all action alternatives would result in attaining HRV in 

OFSS, however all action alternatives would result in OFMS exceeding HRV. Therefore, 

alternatives 2 and 3 could reduce pileated woodpecker habitat in the short-term.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

465 of 632

The reduction of habitat (outside the MA13 network) would result from commercial and noncommercial thinning activities. Prescribed burning could have varying effects on habitat 

suitability as well. Commercial treatment and some levels of non-commercial treatment would 

reduce the suitability of some stands for nesting and foraging immediately after treatment. With 

time, canopy closure would be expected to recover to some extent, as the retained trees expand 

their crowns in diameter and depth in response to the release from competition that results from 

the thinning. Non-commercial and commercial thinning where old trees are deferred would help 

to promote the development of larger trees in the stand. Thus, these treatments could facilitate 

the development of higher quality foraging and nesting habitat in the long-term. However, 

foraging habitat in primarily grand fir stands may be slightly reduced because thinning would

select against grand fir species, which is a desirable forage species for pileated woodpeckers.

Prescribed burning may reduce habitat suitability by reducing down wood and canopy closure, 

and by altering the timing of mortality in grand fir and Douglas-fir. Fire is likely to result in an 

increase of fire-killed fir trees soon after the treatment, providing a flush of foraging substrate, 

but later within stand mortality is expected to decline and thus foraging opportunities. The level 

of impact to suitability for pileated woodpeckers with this treatment is dependent on fuel loading 

and burn conditions initially, as well as the frequency of maintenance burning. It is assumed that 

across the majority of the proposed prescribed fire areas forested stands are expected to retain 

sufficient tree densities.

Within the MA13 network, only the existing DOG03115PW (proposed to become ROG for 

03114PW) would be treated with commercial and non-commercial harvest. This treatment would 

likely reduce stand structure enough to make it unsuitable for pileated woodpecker nesting in the 

short-term; however, the area would continue to serve as an ideal foraging area. Each action 

alternative proposes an approximate 1,067-acre expansion of the MA13 network as well as an 

extensive connectivity corridor (6,218 acres in alternatives 2 and 4 and 3,892 acres in alternative 

3). The MA13 network and proposed connectivity corridors would continue to provide nesting 

and foraging habitat at existing levels. Activities within designated connectivity corridors would 

be designed to manage stands within the top third of site potential so that stand structure would 

not be lost. These areas would also be expected to continue to provide suitable nesting habitat for 

pileated woodpeckers.

Further, approximately 10,000 acres (approximately 37 percent) of the project planning area is 

within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). Habitat within the IRA is currently 

providing suitable nesting and foraging habitat (most of timbered portions and riparian habitat 

conservation areas) would continue to provide habitat at current levels.

For analysis of the expected effects of proposed activities to dead and defective habitat, see the 

Management Indicator Species section of this report under Dead and Defective Habitat.

Conclusion for Pileated Woodpecker – In the 25-year modeling period, vegetation structure 

would move toward alignment with HRV for old forest single stratum (OFSS) under all action 

alternatives. Vegetation structure would move towards HRV for old forest multi strata (OFMS) in 

alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would further depart OFMS from HRV. Under the 40-year 

modeling scenario, all action alternatives would result in attaining HRV in OFSS; however, all 

action alternatives would result in OFMS exceeding HRV. Therefore, alternatives 2 and 3 could 

reduce existing pileated woodpecker habitat in the short-term (short-term decrease in OFMS). 

However, with OFMS expected to increase and exceed HRV under each alternative in the longterm, habitat for pileated woodpecker would be expected to increase eventually.
Magone Project

466 of 632

The expansion of the MA13 network and designation of extensive connectivity corridors would 

retain large portions of the project planning area in their existing condition. Most of these areas 

currently provide suitable nesting and/or foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers, and would 

be expected to continue to do so.

Further, this project would impact less than 2 percent of suitable habitat across the Forest.

Due to the expected shifts in forest structure, expansion of the MA13 network, extensive 

connectivity, and treatment of a fraction of forest-wide habitat, the overall direct and indirect

effects could result in a small negative trend of habitat in the short- to mid-term (short-term 

decrease in existing OFMS). Any loss or shift of habitat would be negligible at the scale of the 

Forest. However, OFMS habitat would remain within or above HRV in the short- and long-term 

under each action alternative. Therefore, population viability for pileated woodpecker is 

expected on the Malheur National Forest under each action alternative.

Existing Condition White-Headed Woodpecker

Information regarding white-headed woodpeckers and associated expected effects are discussed 

in the Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species section of this document.

Existing Condition Pine Marten

Pine marten is a management indicator species for old-growth habitats. Below is a summary of 

pine marten ecology important to providing information pertinent to assessing the impacts of the 

project on this species. For additional detail see Mellen-McLean (2012b) and the body of work 

led by Evelyn Bull (Bull 2000, Bull and Blumton 1999, Bull et al. 2005, Bull and Heater 2000, 

2001a, and 2001b).

Pine marten are associated with old multi- and single-story, and unmanaged young multi-story 

structural stages in subalpine and montane forests. Large snags and down logs provide rest and 

den sites for marten (Wisdom et al. 2000).

In the Blue Mountains, marten selected unharvested, closed canopy (50 to 75 percent), oldstructure stands in subalpine fir and spruce forests (Bull et al. 2005). Stands used by martens had 

higher densities of large snags (>20 inches DBH), averaging 4.0 snags per acre. Snags used as 

resting and denning sites average from 26 to 38 inches DBH in eastern Oregon, depending on 

habitat type (Bull and Heater 2000, Raphael and Jones 1997).

In addition to providing rest and den sites, down wood is an important component of marten 

habitat because the primary prey of martens is small mammals associated with down wood. 

These small mammals include voles (Microtus sp.), red-backed voles (Clethrionomys gapperi), 

snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), and squirrels in northeast Oregon (Bull and Blumton 1999, 

Bull 2000). Subnivean (under snow) spaces created by logs provide marten with access to prey 

during the winter (Bull and Blumton 1999). Down wood used as rest and den sites in the Blue 

Mountains averaged 26 inches DBH (Bull and Heater 2000).

Because of an increase in dense, multi-canopy stands due to fire suppression, habitat for pine 

marten is increasing across the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, densities of 

large-diameter snags (>21 inches DBH) have declined from historical to current levels (Korol et 

al. 2002, Wisdom et al. 2000).

As discussed in the Management Indicator Species section under Dead and Defective Habitat, 

densities of large snags (>20 inches DBH) in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

467 of 632

(EMC WHT) are well below reference conditions in the snag density classes that provide habitat 

for pine marten (Figure 56; snag density classes 2–4 and 4–6). Snag habitat is likely to be a 

limiting factor for marten in the EMC WHT. It is not expected that any areas in the ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir WHT are currently providing suitable habitat for pine marten.

Down wood is not likely to be limiting for pine marten across the Forest. Large wood used by 

marten are near reference conditions in the EMC WHT. Downed wood is also near or above 

historical conditions in the Beech Creek watershed that comprises about 85 percent of the 

Magone project planning area (Figure 59 and Figure 60).

Pine marten are considered vulnerable in the Blue Mountains by Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf); 

however, they are also a hunted species. They are considered “vulnerable” to “apparently secure” 

in Oregon by NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe). Reduction

in amount of late-seral forest and associated large snags and logs, and associated fragmentation 

of habitat are the main reasons marten are considered vulnerable (Hargis et al. 1999, Wisdom et 

al. 2000).

Habitat models developed by Mellen-McLean (2012b) estimate marten source habitat on the 

Malheur National Forest to be 18,248 acres, with 9,704 acres of secondary habitat (USDA Forest 

Service 2014c, as corrected by Blue Mountain Ranger District wildlife staff). Approximately 4 

percent of the available primary habitat on the Forest, roughly 720 acres, is within the Magone 

project planning area. In addition, approximately 643 acres (about 6.5 percent Forest-wide) of 

secondary habitat exists within the Magone project planning area. Due to current population 

viability concerns, it is important to retain or manage appropriate stands towards primary habitat 

conditions and retain currently primary habitat. No treatments are proposed for suitable pine 

marten source habitat in the Magone project planning area. However, after ground truthing the 

model, some habitat that was modeled as source primary lacked the desirable structure and/or 

opportunity for adequate connectivity to other or better habitat. These areas were considered for 

management actions as they did not have the characteristics of suitable marten habitat.

Despite intensive survey efforts through deployment of remote camera traps, no marten were 

documented and therefore presence could not be confirmed in the project planning area.
Magone Project

468 of 632

Figure 59. Comparison of reference condition to current condition for 

down wood in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type portion of 

the Malheur National Forest; down wood >5 inches DBH; 50% tolerance 

levels for wildlife species. Reference condition derived from DecAID 

unharvested vegetation plots in the Blue Mountains (see analysis file); 

wildlife tolerance levels from tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and EMC_PF.sp-22 

(Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).

Figure 60. Comparison of reference condition to current condition for 

down wood in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type portion of 

the Malheur National Forest; down wood >20 inches DBH; 50% 

tolerance levels for wildlife species. Reference condition derived from 

DecAID unharvested vegetation plots in the Blue Mountains (see 

analysis file); wildlife tolerance levels from tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and 

EMC_PF.sp-22 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

469 of 632

Figure 61. Comparison of reference condition to current condition for 

down wood the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type portion of 

the Magone analysis area; down wood >5 inches DBH; 50% tolerance 

levels for wildlife species. Reference condition derived from DecAID 

unharvested vegetation plots in the Blue Mountains (see analysis file); 

wildlife tolerance levels from tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and EMC_PF.sp-22 

(Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).

Figure 62. Comparison of reference condition to current condition for 

down wood the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type portion of 

the Magone analysis area; down wood >20 inches DBH; 50% tolerance 

levels for wildlife species. Reference condition derived from DecAID 

unharvested vegetation plots in the Blue Mountains (see analysis file); 

wildlife tolerance levels from tables EMC_S/L.sp-22 and EMC_PF.sp-22 

(Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).
Magone Project

470 of 632

Table 115. Tolerance levels for wildlife occurring in the eastside mixed-conifer wildlife habitat type

Species Down wood percentage cover 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels

Black-backed woodpecker 4.7, 13.0, 25.1

Three-toed woodpecker 6.5, 17.0, 32.0

Pileated woodpecker 4.0, 4.5, 5.1

Source: DecAID Tables EMC_S.sp-22 and EMC_L.sp-22.

Effects to Pine Marten

No Action (Alternative 1) – Direct and Indirect Effects

In this alternative, no silviculture treatments, road activities, fuels reduction, trail construction, or 

prescribed burning would occur within the project planning area. There would be no direct 

effects to pine marten; animals would not be displaced, harassed, or injured by the project. 

Habitat would remain as described in the existing condition section.

In the absence of disturbance, stands would further develop old-growth characteristics and move 

towards climax conifer species. In the long-term, some stands could potentially lose canopy 

cover as some larger trees would die and become snags. Insect activity as well as fire hazard 

would remain elevated in the project planning area.

Disturbances due to wildfire or insects could have beneficial or detrimental effects for pine

marten habitat, depending on the plant community affected, and the severity or extent of such 

events. Large-scale events outside of the historical range of variability may result in loss of cover 

and the overall gap in snag recruitment or large down wood over extensive areas could be 

detrimental in the long-term, since replacement trees that ultimately provide future snags or large 

down wood could take decades to develop.

Conclusion – Alternative 1 would not affect pine marten habitat and therefore would not 

contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Malheur National Forest.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 14 displays the differences in intensity (i.e., acres treated or miles proposed) of proposed 

treatments under each alternative. It is assumed that as the intensity of the proposed treatments 

change, the level of expected effects discussed below would also change accordingly.

Due to the concerns for marten viability on the Forest, no management activities under any 

action alternative would occur within the modeled primary marten habitat except in 84 acres 

comprised of five stands. Three of those stands (about 50 acres) are isolated stands that lack the 

desired structure for marten and any opportunities for connectivity to other suitable marten 

habitat. The remaining 34 acres are strategic fuel break treatments along roads, which would 

likely not provide suitable marten habitat. These proposed acres are consistent across all action 

alternatives.

Many stands determined to be modeled source habitat are either associated with riparian areas, 

or are located in the northern part of the project planning area (primarily in the inventoried 

roadless area), and would not be treated under any action alternative. Primary habitat is old 

forest stands with high canopy closure within Cool Moist or Cold Dry plant association groups. 

Other than the 84 acres of modeled habitat determined to not be suitable for marten or in 

strategic fuel break areas, there would be no direct effects to pine marten source habitat. In these 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

471 of 632

84 acres, habitat would not likely be suitable for martens post-treatment. However, these acres 

are not currently suitable and are not expected to be occupied by pine marten in their existing 

condition.

Secondary habitat consists of smaller diameter tree size (15 to 20 inches DBH) in similar plant

associations. Modeled secondary habitat would not be excluded from treatment under any action 

alternative. Retention of higher basal areas of grand fir or western larch, high canopy closure, 

and retention of large snags, hollow trees, or large down logs would be key.

Commercial and non-commercial thinning in higher density (secondary) habitats would result in 

impacts to the density of ground level vegetation and its effectiveness as cover for pine marten.

Denser understory development is important to the security of the species from predation, as 

well as its ability to successfully hunt and find prey (Ruggiero et al. 1994).

While dead wood habitats would remain relatively unchanged in secondary habitat, and continue 

to provide habitats for marten, the loss of vegetation cover may be enough to limit or prevent use 

of treated habitats in the short- to mid-term. Treatments were designed to move stands towards 

older age classes and more aligned with HRV, which could be beneficial to pine marten in the 

long-term without repeated entries for thinning activities.

Prescribed underburning can alter or remove vertical and horizontal stand structure including 

snags and down wood. Studies by Hardy and Reinhardt (1998) document both loss of existing 

snags during prescribed burning and recruitment of new snags through fire caused mortality. The 

level of loss and the replacement is dependent on fire intensity, time of year, local weather 

conditions, and fuel load. Generally, smaller diameter trees would be killed by fire, resulting in 

the recruitment of small diameter snags. Large diameter snags could be consumed by fire 

depending on the time of year burned and the fuel moisture content. Underburning could result 

in a loss of down wood, and reduce prey availability and subnivean access (Bull and Blumton 

1999).

The entire project planning area is included for potential planned ignition areas under 

alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would not permit planned ignitions in the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and alternative 3 would confine planned ignitions in the IRA to 

fall only. Alternative 2 would permit planned ignitions throughout the project planning area in 

spring or fall.

Spring burning would not be expected to significantly affect pine marten habitat, as fuel moisture 

is generally higher resulting in minimal loss of the critical down wood component of marten 

habitat. Further, project design criteria would require coordination with District wildlife staff 

prior to any planned ignitions near MA13 areas or primary marten habitat to eliminate or 

minimize effects to this habitat.

Fall burning would be expected to have more substantial impacts to marten habitat. With fuel 

moisture generally lower in the fall and the inherent density of dead and down wood that 

constitutes primary marten habitat (ladder fuels), fall burning could consume a larger amount of 

downed wood resulting in unsuitable habitat for pine marten. The majority of pine marten 

primary habitat and MA13 network designated for pine marten are within the inventoried 

roadless area and in the northern portions of the project planning area (proposed prescribed burn 

units 6 and 7). 
Magone Project

472 of 632

Ignition in these areas would be limited to fall only under alternative 3 and is not proposed in 

alternative 4. Alternative 4 would only permit managing unplanned ignitions in units 6 and 7. 

Depending on the size and intensity of fall burns, alternative 3 could remove a significant 

amount of suitable marten habitat in the project planning area.

Alternative 4 would offer the highest levels of protection of pine marten habitat. However, 

project design criteria would require coordination with District wildlife staff prior to ignition and 

would eliminate or mitigate any expected effects from controlled prescribed fire regardless of 

alternative.

The proposed biking/hiking trails under alternatives 2 and 3 would dissect some MA13 areas, as 

well as primary source habitat for pine marten. This could result in increased predation potential 

as areas along the proposed trails became more open, resulting in direct disturbance and 

displacement of individuals along those trails. Although the distance affected is unknown, 

depending on levels of recreation, some areas immediately adjacent to these trails could become 

entirely unsuitable for pine marten due to routine disturbance and displacement. Although 

alternative 2 only proposes 14.8 miles of trails through the IRA as opposed to the 28.2 miles in 

alternative 3, effects are expected to be similar. Effects would be somewhat reduced in 

alternative 2 compared to alternative 3 as the proposed trails primarily stay on the outer edges of 

the IRA and along ridgetops. Alternative 3 proposes trails throughout the IRA that would cross

MA13 areas and primary habitat with higher frequency than alternative 2. The 11.9 miles of new 

trail proposed under alternative 4 would include approximately 3 miles of trails in the IRA, but 

due to location would not be expected to have substantial effects to pine marten individuals or 

habitat. Refer to the Management Indicator Species section of this document under Dead and 

Defective Habitat for the expected effects to snags from the proposed trail systems. Loss of 

snags and downed wood ultimately would remove these critical components of marten habitat 

and render habitat within the area of effect unsuitable for pine marten, and could potentially 

fragment large blocks of currently suitable habitat in the long-term. However, these effects 

cannot be quantified, as the levels of recreation and use of these trails are impossible to predict.

The Forest’s network of dedicated old growth (DOG) and replacement old growth (ROG),

combined with the proposed expansion under the action alternatives in the Magone project 

planning area, would continue to be managed to maintain or develop habitat for pine marten and 

pileated woodpecker.

Aspen and riparian restoration would enhance habitat diversity and benefit prey species of pine

marten. In the long-term, improved cover within riparian areas would increase overhead security 

for pine marten.

Conclusion for Pine Marten – Although alternatives 2 and 3 could have considerable effects to 

pine marten individuals and habitat from the proposed trail systems, potential prescribed fall 

burning and silvicultural treatments in secondary habitat, continued viability of the pine marten 

is expected on the Malheur National Forest under all action alternatives for the following 

reasons:

 Timber management activities would avoid primary source marten habitat except for 84

acres that are not currently providing suitable pine marten habitat. This would retain 

approximately 4 percent of primary habitat Forest-wide.

 Secondary habitat in the project planning area only equates to about 6.5 percent of 

secondary habitat Forest-wide, and treatments would manage these stands towards older 

age class stands and the HRV.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

473 of 632

 MA13 expansion and extensive connectivity corridors would result in approximately 

9,066 acres in alternatives 2 and 4, and approximately 6,740 acres in alternative 3 that 

would retain and connect LOS habitat, including primary source habitat for pine marten. 

Even with intermittent trail interruptions, this would provide, retain and connect 

adequate habitat for pine marten denning, foraging and dispersal.

 Current down wood levels are near or above the HRV in all size and density classes.

 Project design criteria would minimize the loss of snags and down wood from project 

activities.

 Although adequate habitat exists and intensive surveys occurred throughout this habitat, 

no pine martens were documented. Although absence cannot be assumed, densities are 

expected to currently be very low throughout the project planning area.

Existing Condition Three-Toed Woodpecker

Three-toed woodpeckers are a management indicator species for both dead and defective wood 

habitat and old-growth lodgepole pine habitats. The three-toed woodpecker prefers stands where 

lodgepole pine is either dominant or co-dominant, and mostly uses trees 9 inches DBH and 

greater for both nesting and foraging (Bull et al. 1980, Goggans et al. 1988). Suitable habitat is 

tied to existing levels of diseased and decaying trees with heart rot for nesting and roosting, as 

well as decaying substrate to provide a prey base for wood-boring insects (Goggans et al. 1988). 

In particular, three-toed woodpeckers are attracted to areas with high concentrations of bark 

beetles, such as habitats created by stand replacing burns or blowdown. Three-toed woodpeckers 

are associated with locally abundant insect outbreaks, and their populations are irruptive as they 

follow beetle outbreaks across the landscape.

A habitat relationship model developed for the three-toed woodpecker in Oregon indicates that 

that the presence of recently dead trees killed by mountain pine beetle was the best predictor of 

presence of the woodpecker, with a contribution to the model of 47.5 percent (Chapman 2011). 

Quadratic mean diameter of the dominant conifer, lodgepole pine basal area, and density of 

snags greater than 10 inches DBH all contributed about equally to the model (18.5, 15.4, and 

14.6 percent, respectively).

Three-toed woodpeckers are considered vulnerable in the state by Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife and NatureServe. They are considered vulnerable primarily due to the following 

threats and risks: salvage of dead trees, fire suppression, and decline in old forests of lodgepole, 

subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, habitat for this 

woodpecker, and associated species has been increasing in the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 

2000).

Snags provide nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for three-toed woodpeckers. They use 

smaller snags than many other woodpecker species, ranging from about 11 to 15 inches DBH. 

Snags used are recently dead trees of a wide variety of conifer species. (Mellen-McLean et al. 

2013).

There are 33,401 acres of active beetle-infested forest in lodgepole and high-elevation mixed 

conifer stands on the Malheur National Forest. Estimates of current forest conditions susceptible 

to future insect infestations and/or stand-replacing fire gives an indication of how much potential 

habitat is available for the three-toed woodpecker on the Forest. An analysis of current 

vegetation in closed-canopy forests of small, medium, and large tree structure classes indicate 

42,601 acres currently exist on the Forest in the vegetation types used by the woodpeckers 

(FSVEG Spatial Data Analyzer imputed dataset, May 2014 version).
Magone Project

474 of 632

Based on analysis of current conditions, mid- and late-seral forests that provide potential habitat 

are well below the historical range of variability (HRV) across the Malheur National Forest and 

in Cold Dry forests (Figure 63). These forests are susceptible to stand-replacing fire and insect 

outbreaks and thus are likely to provide some primary habitat in the future; however, the amount 

of these forests is currently too low to provide an adequate, continual supply of habitat for the 

three-toed woodpecker.

Figure 63. Amount of three-toed woodpecker habitat across the Malheur National Forest by 

potential vegetation type compared to the historical range of variability (HRV). Secondary habitat is 

considered closed canopy stages of mid- and late-seral forested stands (Wales 2011).

Estimates of available potential habitat compared to HRV estimates were derived using 

vegetation and HRV data from the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision (Wales et al. 2011).

Approximately 117,600 acres of recent post-fire habitat (post 2005) occurs on the Malheur 

National Forest. Within and adjacent to the Magone project planning area there is no suitable 

post-fire habitat. However, large sections adjacent to the project planning area have experienced 

insect outbreaks, including mountain pine beetle.

Snags are also critical habitat components for the three-toed woodpecker. They are associated 

with areas of high snag density that result from beetle kill or other disturbances. Currently, the 

lodgepole pine and moist mixed-conifer wildlife habitat types (WHTs) are limited within the 

project planning area and on the landscape. Snag habitat within these WHTs was not analyzed 

because the analysis area and surrounding watersheds did not meet the minimum acre 

requirement for sound DecAID analysis.

In the eastside mixed-conifer WHT, densities of snags greater than 10 inches DBH are well 

below reference condition for snag density classes above six snags per acre (Figure 57). Due to 

lack of recent fire within the analysis area, there are not adequate amounts of habitat with high 

snag densities in this WHT.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

475 of 632

Effects to Three-Toed Woodpecker

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no management activities proposed for the Magone Project 

would occur. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to three-toed woodpecker 

or its habitat as a result of management activities.

Tree mortality in some lodgepole pine stands, as well as grand fir and other plant association 

groups within the project planning area, is occurring from insects and disease that is exacerbated 

by high stand densities. Most of this mortality is occurring in the size class less than 20 inches, 

although some larger trees are also being affected. Under the no action alternative, this trend 

would continue and mortality would likely increase into the future.

Disturbances due to wildfire or insects could have beneficial or detrimental effects for 

woodpecker habitat, depending on the plant community affected and the severity or extent of 

such events.

Smaller scale disturbances similar to historical fire events or insect outbreaks would benefit most 

primary cavity nesters dependent on snags and down wood. Large-scale events outside the 

historical range of variability would benefit some species in the short- to mid-term, but the 

overall gap in snag recruitment or large down wood over extensive areas could be detrimental in 

the long-term, since replacement trees that ultimately provide future snags could take decades to 

develop.

Fires of various size and intensity occur annually on the Malheur National Forest, providing 

some new post-fire habitat every year. This trend is expected to continue under the no action 

alternative.

Conclusion – Alternative 1 would not affect three-toed woodpecker habitat and therefore would 

not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Malheur National Forest.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

A variety of treatments are proposed under each action alternative, including commercial and 

non-commercial thinning and prescribed fire, with the intent to reduce susceptibility to fire and 

insect and disease activity by reducing stand density and moving species composition more 

toward the ecologically desired mix (i.e., ponderosa pine and western larch) in Warm Dry forest 

types.

Thinning would occur in three-toed woodpecker secondary habitat within the Cold Dry forest 

type and Cool Moist habitat (see Silviculture Report and section for percentages), although no

thinning would occur in designated old growth in either forest type. Cool Moist/Cold Dry 

lodgepole pine habitat currently below HRV would be treated in the Magone project planning 

area, but the expanded MA13 complex and extensive wildlife corridors would help mitigate the 

potential effects. However, only approximately 2 percent of the forest-wide secondary habitat for 

three-toed woodpeckers exists in the Magone project planning area, primarily in the Beech Creek 

subwatershed.

Proposed treatment prescriptions in Cool Moist habitat were designed to mimic historical, 

mixed-severity fire conditions with the goal of creating more resilient, healthier Cool Moist 

habitats. Further, the Malheur National Forest is within HRV for Cool Moist three-toed 

woodpecker habitat. 
Magone Project

476 of 632

In the short-term, three-toed woodpecker habitat would be expected to decrease in the project 

planning area; however, sustainable Cool Moist/Cold Dry lodgepole pine habitat would help 

ensure habitat retention in the long-term.

Both action alternatives propose aspen stand enhancement and riparian restoration. However, 

these activities would have negligible benefits to the three-toed woodpecker.

Because of the small amount of secondary habitat, small amounts of Cool Moist habitat and Cold 

Dry lodgepole habitat, the location of suitable secondary habitat, and the expansion of the MA13 

network and designation of extensive connectivity corridors under all action alternatives, it is not 

expected the Magone Project would result in any viability concerns to three-toed woodpeckers.

Cumulative Effects to Old Growth and Old Growth Dependent Species

The area considered for cumulative effects is the Beech Creek watershed. All of the activities in 

Table 17 and Table 18 have been considered for their cumulative effects on old growth, 

connectivity habitat and associated species. The following discussion focuses on those past, 

ongoing, and foreseeable future activities that may contribute positive or negative effects. Past 

activities such as timber harvest, road construction, fire suppression, and wildfire have combined 

to create the current old growth condition in the analysis area. The historical range of variability 

(HRV) of forest vegetation in the Magone project planning area reflects the effects of past 

activities on structural stage.

Continued livestock grazing and active mining would not reduce old growth habitat, important 

snag habitat, down wood, or decrease connectivity for old growth dependent species. As a result, 

there is not likely to be a cumulative effect under any alternative on old growth dependent 

species from continued livestock grazing and active mining.

Although alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce old forest multi strata (OFMS) throughout the 

project planning area in the short-term, OFMS would not be altered within the proposed MA13 

network. In dry forest types, stands would be managed towards old forest single stratum (OFSS)

structural stage (where HRV indicates). There would not be a loss of old growth habitat as a 

result of any action alternative, although structural stages could change. The action alternatives 

would retain old growth habitat and expand and manage a system of DOGs, ROGs, and PWFAs. 

There would be a net loss of 312 acres of dedicated old growth, but an expansion of 1,067 acres 

in the MA13 network. Those 312 acres of dedicated old growth would not be lost from the 

network, only reclassified as replacement old growth. Furthermore, old growth habitats would be 

connected by extensive connectivity corridors under each alternative, ensuring the landscape 

would not be fragmented (other than intermittent disruptions from recreation trails) as a result of 

management activities.

Proposed projects may require new and temporary road construction, road decommissioning, and 

road closures. During harvest operations, it is expected that habitat would be lost through the 

felling of snags that pose a hazard to workers and equipment, not only within units but along 

haul routes as well. New road construction would allow access to snags, which could be 

removed as firewood, reducing habitat for pileated woodpeckers, martens, white-headed 

woodpeckers, three toed woodpeckers, and other species that use dead wood habitats. Effects 

resulting from the proposed activities would be mitigated by effective road closures after 

implementation of an action alternative and project design criteria for snag retention.

Changes in dead wood habitats as a result of the Magone Project could be detrimental to old 

growth habitat under alternatives 2 and 3, particularly with fall burning. Alternative 2 would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

477 of 632

provide more opportunity to design and time prescribed fire to have minimal effects to old 

growth habitat. Fragmentation of old growth habitat as a result of trail construction could be 

significant under alternatives 2 and 3, depending on the levels and timing of use.

In the short-term, the action alternatives would not contribute to cumulative losses of old growth 

habitat because late and old structure (LOS) stands would not be treated except to enhance oldgrowth attributes. In the long-term, the action alternatives would contribute positively to 

cumulative effects by accelerating the development of OFSS, retaining OFMS within or above 

HRV, and maintaining connectivity habitat between LOS. Therefore, proposed activities 

combined with MA13 expansion proposed in other projects forest-wide would contribute 

positively toward the viability of species that use these habitats. There would be no adverse 

cumulative effects to pileated woodpeckers, pine martens, three-toed woodpeckers, or whiteheaded woodpeckers or their habitat within the MA13 network from alternatives 2 or 4. 

Alternative 3 could result in significant cumulative loss and fragmentation of pine marten habitat 

from potential fall burning, and higher recreation use levels along proposed mountain bike trails. 

However, as discussed in the pine marten section above, it is not expected that alternatives 2 or 4 

proposed for the Magone Project would significantly affect pine marten population viability at 

the Forest-scale. There would be positive effects to white-headed woodpeckers from OFSS 

development.

Cumulative Effects Specific to Pileated Woodpecker

Past timber harvest projects were generally very intensive; focusing upon the removal of the 

larger, more valuable ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch trees (green tree 

replacements). Past activities were done with disregard to habitat fragmentation, leaving a 

sufficient amount of old growth habitat for wildlife, or maintaining connectivity between LOS 

habitats. The majority of timber harvest and prescribed fire activities in the Magone Project 

would be conducted in the dry forest types where much of the vegetation is outside the HRV. 

Much of the past fuels reduction and timber sale projects occurred within pileated woodpecker 

habitat. Proposed thinning and fuels treatments are additive to other similar projects in the larger 

cumulative effects area.

Together with other landscape objectives that limit or discourage large fires and insect outbreaks, 

the Magone Project would help protect existing old growth habitat from these disturbances. 

However, these same treatments would contribute to a negative trend in dead and defective wood 

habitat across the Forest. These treatments, added to the needs for hazard tree falling along roads 

and trails either from new, ongoing, or existing projects, would alter or remove potential pileated 

woodpecker nesting, roosting, and foraging snags.

While additive cumulative effects may be anticipated, projects are consistent with Malheur 

Forest Plan objectives because the project is consistent with the standards and guidelines relating 

to pileated woodpecker (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Forest-wide Standard 1, page V-30) and 

habitat would remain above the HRV within the project planning area.

Cumulative Effects Specific to Pine Marten

Past timber harvest targeted and removed many of the largest diameter trees reducing old forest 

structure. Within mixed-conifer stands, even large diameter grand fir (important resting and 

denning habitat for pine marten), were often removed and piled in cull decks to be disposed of 

by burning or chipping. Large green replacement trees removed during this period reduced future 

snag potential and subsequent large snag densities throughout the project planning area. Past 
Magone Project

478 of 632

harvest activities that included overstory removal, shelterwood, and regeneration harvest, 

reduced the quantity and quality of connectivity between LOS and DOG/ROG habitat in some 

areas. Restoration prescriptions (thinning) under each action alternative for the Magone Project 

would add to cumulative impacts from past timber harvest and fuels reduction projects.

Together with other landscape objectives that limit or discourage large fires and insect outbreaks, 

the Magone Project would help protect existing old growth habitat from these disturbances. 

However, these same treatments would contribute to a negative trend in dead wood, an important 

component of marten habitat, across the Forest. These treatments, added to the needs for hazard 

tree falling along roads and trails either from new, ongoing, or existing projects, would alter this 

component of marten habitat, particularly in alternative 3 and to a lesser extent alternative 2.

Fire suppression allowed shade-tolerant tree species to increase, shifting many stands to denser, 

multi-story structure. Fire suppression also removes snags as hazards. Prescribed fire would open 

some stands, removing some of the smaller ingrowth. Low intensity prescribed fire would be 

expected to burn in a mosaic, creating a diversity of habitat at various scales. Small patches of 

mortality could provide snags or create down wood from fallen trees, important habitat features 

for pine marten and their associated prey species. Higher severity fall burning in marten habitat 

could reduce suitable habitat significantly in the short- to mid-term if high levels of dead and 

down wood are consumed.

Roads and potentially trails create openings and fragment blocks of contiguous forest habitat. 

Vehicle and recreationist traffic, and the resulting disturbance, reduce security for some species. 

Roads also provide access for firewood cutting. Public firewood cutting is expected to continue 

along open roads and could have an additive negative effect on snag retention. Based on the 

proposed Malheur National Forest Access Travel Management Plan, it is foreseeable that crosscountry travel would be restricted for off road vehicle travel, with the exception of accessing 

dispersed campsites from open roads. Proposed road decommissioning and closure activities for 

the Magone Project, combined with the foreseeable changes in travel management would have a 

beneficial cumulative effect on snag retention, by reducing access for firewood cutting. 

However, high levels of recreation along with the extensive trails system proposed in alternatives 

2 and 3 would be expected to cumulatively add to snag loss through hazard tree felling, and 

could conceivably cumulatively add to fragmentation of old-growth and LOS habitat.

While additive cumulative effects may be anticipated, suitable primary habitat would not be 

altered for pine marten. Because this project planning area only contains approximately 4 percent

of suitable primary habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

will result in a small negative trend of modeled habitat. The loss of habitat would be insignificant 

at the scale of the Forest. However, the expansion of MA13 and extensive connectivity proposed

would cumulatively add to old growth and LOS habitat that would develop and retain more 

suitable pine marten habitat.

Cumulative Effects Specific to Three-Toed Woodpeckers

Much of the past fuels reduction and timber sale projects occurred within three-toed woodpecker 

habitat. Most projects had similar objectives and thus likely made those areas less susceptible to 

wildfire as well as insects and disease. Therefore, proposed thinning and fuels treatments are 

additive to other similar projects in the larger cumulative effects area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

479 of 632

Together with other landscape objectives that limit or discourage large beetle outbreaks, the 

project would contribute to a small negative trend in three-toed woodpecker habitat (<2 percent

reduction in habitat) across the Forest.

The extensive road network in the analysis area (largely a result of past harvest) has impacted 

snag densities by decreasing habitat from road construction and increasing accessibility of the 

area to firewood cutting. Public firewood cutting is expected to continue along open roads. 

Based on the proposed Malheur National Forest Access Travel Management Plan, it is 

foreseeable that cross-country travel would be restricted for off road vehicle travel, with the 

exception of accessing dispersed campsites from open roads. Proposed road decommissioning 

and closure activities for the Magone Project under each action alternative, combined with the 

foreseeable changes in travel management would have a beneficial cumulative effect on snag 

retention, by reducing access for firewood cutting, thus increasing dead and defective wood 

habitat used by the three-toed woodpecker.

Because this project impacts less than 2 percent of suitable habitat across the Forest, the overall 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a small negative trend of habitat. The loss 

of habitat would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. While additive cumulative effects 

may be anticipated, continued viability of the three-toed woodpecker is expected on the Malheur 

National Forest because conditions would be more in line with the HRV.

3.9.5 Featured Species

Featured species are identified in the Malheur Forest Plan as species that require special 

protections. The Malheur Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV–30 and IV-31) 

provides direction (Forest-wide standards 50–55) for the protection of habitat for these species. 

Table 116 lists the seven (7) featured species currently on the Malheur National Forest. The table 

also includes their habitat requirements and whether habitat exists in the project planning area. 

Only species with habitat in the project planning area are discussed in detail. Sage grouse and 

upland sandpiper are also listed as Forest Service sensitive species, although there is no suitable 

habitat for either species in the Magone project planning area.

Table 116. Featured species of the Malheur National Forest – habitat requirements and presence 

within the Magone project planning area

Featured species Habitat requirements Habitat present in project 

planning area

Northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis)

A mosaic of mature, mixed conifer 

stands, with closed canopies and 

interspersed openings suitable of 

supporting a wide array of prey.

Yes, one (1) designated 

goshawk territory. 

Additional habitat present

in project planning area.

Blue (Dusky) grouse

(Dendragapus obscurus)

Coniferous forests (Douglas-fir, grand 

fir, subalpine fir) with a mixture of 

deciduous trees and shrubs near 

edges and openings with clumps of 

mistletoe infected Douglas-fir on ridge 

tops or upper slopes of ridges.

Yes

Sage grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus)

Open sagebrush plains ranging from 

4,000-9,000 feet elevation.

No

Osprey

(Pandion haliaetus)

Large, old growth trees with dead 

tops or large snags suitable for 

nesting (30 inches DBH and >60 feet

high) adjacent to large rivers or lakes.

Yes, suspected foraging 

habitat along East Fork 

Beech Creek and Magone 

Lake
Magone Project

480 of 632

Featured species Habitat requirements Habitat present in project 

planning area

Pronghorn antelope

(Antilocapra americana)

Open grasslands with low sagebrush 

as an important component.

No

California bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis)

Alpine-desert grasslands associated 

with mountains, cliffs, foothills, and 

river canyons.

No

Upland sandpiper

(Bartramia longicauda)

Native prairie grasslands and 

montane meadows.

No

3.9.5.1 Northern Goshawk

Existing Condition for Northern Goshawk

In 1995 the Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 (Eastside Screens) amended 

the Malheur Forest Plan. This amendment included interim management guidelines for northern 

goshawk in regards to timber harvest. The northern goshawk is a raptor, and the Malheur Forest 

Plan provides guidance for the protection of nests, the protection of habitat surrounding nests, 

and the minimizing of disturbance to nesting individuals.

The northern goshawk, a “true” hawk highly adapted for forested landscapes, is found 

throughout the intermountain west (Hanauska-Brown and Bechard 2003). In the Pacific 

Northwest, goshawks prefer to nest in mature, unlogged, or lightly managed forested habitats. 

These areas include sites with closed canopies (greater than 60 percent), northerly exposures, 

gentle slopes, and close proximity to water (Reynolds et al. 1992). Canopy closure is an 

important factor in nest site selection and, in the desired percentages, provides security from 

avian predators and decreases impacts from human disturbance. Nest trees are typically 

dominant trees in the canopy (10 to 58 inches DBH) and are usually in Douglas-fir, ponderosa 

pine, and western larch (McGrath et al. 2003).

Recent peer-reviewed research suggests that goshawks forage in a variety of forested and nonforested environments (Brewer et al. 2007). Small openings and forest edges in mixed conifer 

and ponderosa pine forests appear to be important for foraging. These foraging habitats support 

higher plant diversities and, in turn, support a higher number of desirable prey species such as 

rabbits, squirrels, and grouse.

Because it decreases availability of appropriate nesting habitat, timber harvest methods that 

create large areas of reduced canopy cover (less than 35 to 40 percent cover) are considered a 

primary threat to breeding goshawks (Beier and Drennan 1997, Bright-Smith and Mannan 1994). 

In addition, increased human presence could also displace the northern goshawk during nesting.

Amendment 2 established minimum standards for protection of the northern goshawk, stating 

that “until further information is known and management plans approved to ensure species 

viability, the following standards are to be met as a minimum.” The minimum standards that are 

still in effect are:

 Protect every known active and historically used goshawk nest site from disturbance. 

“Historical” refers to known nesting activity occurring at the site in the last 5 years. 

Seasonal restrictions on activities near nest sites will be required for activities that may 

disturb or harass a pair while bonding and nesting.

 30 acres of the most suitable nesting habitat surrounding all active and historical active 

nest tree(s) will be deferred from harvest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

481 of 632

 A 400-acre “post fledging area” will be established around every known active nest site. 

While harvest activities can occur within this area, retain late and old structure (LOS) 

stands and enhance younger stands toward LOS condition, as possible.

There is one known nesting territory within the project planning area. A 400+ acre post-fledging 

area (PFA) was mapped for this territory. A nest stand has been delineated for the territory and 

meets the 30-acre requirement as required by the Eastside Screens.

The active goshawk territory in the Magone project planning area is within the Warm Dry 

biophysical environment and consists of ponderosa pine or ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

stands. The territory is located near Magone Lake and the pair is likely accustomed to human 

activity and noise associated with recreation around the lake.

Additional habitat outside the PFA exists within the project planning area. Habitat queries 

identified 7,818 acres of suitable northern goshawk reproductive habitat within the project 

planning area and 170,500 acres on the Forest. The 7,818 acre total includes those acres 

identified within the PFA.

Effects to Northern Goshawk

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no management activities proposed for the Magone Project 

would occur. In the short- to mid-term, the northern goshawk habitat within the project planning 

area would be maintained in the current condition. In the absence of disturbance, open pine 

stands would continue to transition to multi-story stands. In the long-term, habitat for northern 

goshawk could increase in some areas as stand density and canopy cover increases. Availability 

of habitat would depend on physical characteristics of the site, as nests are generally located near 

water in drainages or swales, and in areas of gentle topography. Stand composition may 

deteriorate, as overstocking may actually retard the development of mature forests and larger 

trees, or reduce the mosaic of structural stages required for diversity of prey species.

In the absence of disturbance, within all of the northern goshawk territories, there would be a 

continued accumulation of surface fuels (litter and duff) and ladder fuels (small trees growing in 

and around larger trees). Fire hazard and risk of insect outbreaks would remain elevated for some 

stands.

Open road and trail density would remain the same as would the loss of snags due to firewood 

cutting. This loss of snags may reduce goshawk prey habitat, perch sites, and plucking posts.

Conclusion – The no action alternative would maintain the suitability of all existing habitat. 

Additionally, this alternative would not result in displacement of goshawks.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat alteration, such as management activities, can affect nest occupancy and productivity 

(Crocker-Bedford 1998, Wisdom et al. 2000). Because it decreases availability of appropriate 

nesting habitat, timber harvest methods that create large areas of reduced canopy cover (<35 to 

40 percent) are considered a primary threat to breeding goshawks (Beier and Drennan 1997, 

Bright-Smith and Mannan 1994). In addition, timber harvest activities near nests can directly 

cause nest failure (Boal and Mannan 1994).
Magone Project

482 of 632

Changes in forest structure related to fire suppression tend to increase cover and structure within 

source habitat for goshawk. However, due to a thicker understory component, some of the denser 

unburned forest stands may not be optimal goshawk habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000), particularly 

for foraging. These denser stands are more vulnerable to stand-replacing wildfires. Standreplacing fires would represent total loss of forest structure and would subsequently greatly 

reduce goshawk nesting and foraging habitat.

Goshawks are generally highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season. Human 

disturbance to goshawk nests has been a suspected cause of nest abandonment (Reynolds et al. 

1992).

Magone Lake Nest Stand and Post-Fledging Area (PFA) – No treatments are proposed within 

the one known nest stand under any action alternative in the project planning area. However, the 

proposed hiking trail from Magone Lake to the landslide overlook, which is considered under all 

action alternatives, would go through the southern edge of the nest stand and continue through 

the PFA. This could result in disturbance of nesting goshawks, nest failure, or nest abandonment 

by birds using this particular nest site. Although the pair of goshawks are likely accustomed to 

noise and human-caused disturbance due to their close proximity to the lake, disturbance this 

close to the nest would not likely be tolerated. This nest was active in 2013 but was unoccupied 

in 2014.

Light thinning treatments would occur on the eastern-most boundary of the PFA as part of a 

strategic fuel break along the edge of the Magone Lake recreation area. Project design criteria 

would limit activities in the goshawk nesting season and therefore direct disturbance or 

displacement would not occur from these activities. This small amount of thinning within the 

PFA would create a more open “roadside” stand that could conceivably create a small area more 

ideal for goshawk foraging, however the effect would be negligible.

The Magone Lake nest and PFA would be included within the extensive connectivity corridor 

under all action alternatives.

Other Reproductive Habitat – Habitat queries identified 7,818 acres of suitable reproductive 

habitat within the Magone project planning area (which includes the Magone Lake PFA). 

Therefore, it is expected that goshawk nest stands exist in the project planning area that were not 

discovered during surveys and ground reconnaissance. The following analysis considers 

expected effects of activities to goshawk habitat or individuals if nesting goshawks were present 

and unknown by District wildlife staff.

Commercial and non-commercial thinning of trees would reduce overall forest canopy cover in 

the short-term. This reduction in cover would likely impact northern goshawks and existing 

territories may be abandoned due to lack of preferred nesting and foraging habitat structure.

Disturbance during the nesting season could also cause nest abandonment and failure. However, 

available information on the impact of the above types of activities within the goshawk postfledging area is limited and often conflicting. Reynolds et al. (1992) and Reynolds et al. (2008) 

states that goshawks select nesting habitat based on pray abundance and availability and 

therefore some treatments, particularly those that create certain prey habitats, could improve 

PFAs. Others such as Greenwald et al. (2005), argue that nesting habitat is selected based on

certain habitat components alone and recommend that PFAs should not be treated. District 

records of northern goshawk displacement have primarily been associated with disturbance to 

the nest stand rather than the PFAs. Different birds exhibit various levels of tolerance to human 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

483 of 632

activity or disturbance. Security for fledglings within some areas of the PFAs may be reduced. 

Although in the long-term, forest stand structure would be comprised of more late and old 

structure habitat, in areas where the focus of the activities in each action alternative is to 

accelerate single stratum structure, not the multi strata preferred by goshawks, and any long-term 

benefits to northern goshawks utilizing the project planning area are negligible. However, the 

extensive connectivity and overall amount of old forest multi strata (OFMS) not being treated 

across the project planning area would likely mitigate effects to unknown goshawk territories. 

Further, goshawks have been observed across the Malheur National Forest successfully nesting 

in non-traditional nest-type habitat (i.e., OFMS) and instead utilizing young forest multi strata, 

single-strata stands, and even plantation-like stands in one case. These activities may impact 

individuals or habitat, but overall, should not adversely impact northern goshawk populations.

Thinning could also alter foraging habitat by reducing canopy cover and, consequently, prey 

assemblages. However, literature is conflicting as to whether goshawks select stands based on

prey abundance or forest structure (i.e., higher canopy closure, higher tree density). Goshawk 

nesting and breeding activities are more likely to be adversely impacted as a result of treatments 

in multi-strata stands than foraging (Drennan and Beier 2003), as goshawks forage on a wide 

variety of prey species (Reynolds et al. 1992). Generally, a diverse and complex post-fledgling 

area would support a more diverse prey base, resulting in more prey availability. Since denser 

unburned stands are also more vulnerable to stand replacing fires, thinning may potentially 

benefit goshawks in the long-term by reducing the risk of forest structure loss.

Prescribed fire could enhance goshawk prey conditions and is expected to help advance stands 

toward late or old structural conditions, although likely old forest single stratum. Individuals 

may be temporarily displaced, may have to travel farther for foraging opportunities, and hunting 

skills may be temporarily hindered by smoke during implementation of prescribed fire. 

However, underburning and prescribed fire are expected to enhance goshawk prey habitat, 

therefore a beneficial effect to goshawks.

The expansive bike trail network proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 could have varying levels of 

effect on nesting and fledging goshawks depending on the intensity of use from bikers. The 

highest levels of use would be expected during the most critical nesting and fledging times for 

goshawks (April 1 – August 15). Although intermittent interactions between bikers and 

goshawks would not likely result in nest or territory abandonment, repeated disturbance 

potentially could. The distance from trails that goshawks would feel secure and successfully nest 

is unknown, however it would be expected that eventually all goshawks in the project planning 

area would relocate nests and territories to avoid these trails. 

Further, with 170,500 acres of suitable reproductive habitat across the Forest and 7,818 acres in 

the project planning area, adequate amounts of habitat would be available for nesting goshawks 

to disperse and relocate into within or outside of the project planning area.

Road construction would reduce habitat for goshawk prey species, and construction of temporary 

roads would fragment existing mature stands. However, open road densities would not 

substantially increase as a result of project implementation. As closed roads recieving

unauthorized use are effectively closed, overall disturbance from vehicles is expected to 

decrease. New or temporary road construction would not dissect any known nest stands or PFAs, 

further limiting disturbance from roads.

Aspen treatment and protection would change overstory composition of aspen stands. 

Understory grass and forb cover could increase potentially increasing prey species for goshawk. 
Magone Project

484 of 632

Small openings in riparian areas, particularly with enhanced deciduous vegetation, could 

conceivably increase prey diversity, potentially increasing prey availability and abundance for 

goshawks. However, it is expected that the proposed aspen and riparian treatments would have 

negligible direct or indirect effects to goshawk individuals.

Conclusion for Northern Goshawk – Although treatments are proposed within reproductive 

habitat and PFAs, no treatment would occur within known nest stands. For all action alternatives,

habitat would remain above the HRV for old forest multi strata and approach the HRV for old 

forest single stratum, both of which may have sufficient canopy cover to be reproductive habitat. 

However, some treated stands would be structurally less complex following treatment and, 

though still suitable, they may have reduced habitat quality immediately following treatment. 

Over time, stand complexity is expected to improve and may in the long-term result in habitat 

that is higher in quality than what may develop in some untreated stands.

There would be an adequate amount of nesting habitat available to goshawks displaced from nest 

stands and PFAs as a result of increased recreation along proposed bike trails in alternatives 2 

and 3. There could be increased nest abandonment and failure, which could lead to decreased 

recruitment in the short-term. However, no loss of individuals would be expected from project 

activities under any action alternative. In the mid- to long-term, goshawks would acclimate to the 

increased presence of humans or move to other suitable nesting habitat within or outside the 

project planning area. Therefore, no effects to goshawk viability would be expected from the 

implementation of any of the action alternatives.

3.9.5.2 Blue (Dusky) Grouse

Existing Condition for Blue Grouse

Blue grouse prefer coniferous forest (Douglas-fir, grand fir, and sub-alpine fir) with a mixture of 

deciduous trees and shrubs near edges and openings.

Dusky grouse nest in a variety of forest and shrub vegetation types, from foothills to timberline. 

Dense coniferous thickets of small trees, stumps, and down logs are used by blue grouse for 

resting, drumming, and escape cover. Grouse also utilize dense deciduous areas in riparian 

corridors.

The Malheur Forest Plan standard for the protection of grouse habitat (USDA Forest Service 

1990a, Forest-wide standard 50, page IV–30) states that projects “maintain grouse winter roost 

habitat.” Winter range typically includes conifer forests from lower elevations to subalpine, and 

they generally utilize large, mistletoe infected Douglas-fir trees, generally located within the 

upper 1/3 of slopes, as winter roosts.

Past fire suppression in parts of the project planning area allowed for the encroachment of shadetolerant conifer species, including Douglas-fir. Subsequently, increased stand densities have 

resulted in an increase in insect damage, disease, and parasitism, including dwarf mistletoe in 

mixed conifer stands.

Formal surveys for dusky grouse have not been conducted in the project planning area, but 

several individuals were documented during the breeding, nesting, and wintering periods. Winter 

roost habitat is present across the project planning area, with the most suitable areas in the 

northern portion of the project, particularly in and near the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless 

Area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

485 of 632

Effects to Blue Grouse

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, no management activities proposed for the Magone Project 

would occur. Habitat conditions would remain unchanged in the short- and mid-term. Over the 

long-term, increased stand densities and related stress would result in a greater incidence of 

insects and disease in the project planning area. Dwarf mistletoe, one of the diseases that 

increases with increasing stand densities, would increase where present within the project 

planning area. Winter roost habitat would also increase given an increase in mistletoe-infected 

Douglas-fir. Heavy gnarled limbs and dense foliage (“witches brooms”) created by dwarf 

mistletoe would create ideal roosting habitat for blue grouse. In the event of a wildfire, however, 

uncharacteristically intense burns could effectively sanitize stands of dwarf mistletoe. When all 

trees are killed, reestablishment of dwarf mistletoe in stands could take decades, as seeds are 

reintroduced by birds and the mistletoe slowly spreads (Spiegel 2014).

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Harvest of mistletoe-infected trees potentially providing winter roost habitat for blue grouse 

would occur from commercial and non-commercial thinning under each action alternative. 

Activities that would remove Douglas-fir trees with mistletoe would reduce roost habitat and 

preferred forest structure. Since blue grouse depend on needles and buds of Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine during the winter, thinning of mature Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine would also 

impact winter food supplies. Larger, older trees over 150 years old would be retained. Younger 

trees less than 150 years, regardless of size, could be removed. As directed by the Malheur 

Forest Plan, design elements would be incorporated into harvest prescriptions to maintain winter 

roost habitat (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria). Skips within units and no 

treatment areas would also retain trees that could potentially host dwarf mistletoe. Consequently, 

dwarf mistletoe is anticipated to be retained on the landscape.

It is written in the silviculture prescription to “provide blue grouse winter roosts” by “retaining 

large mistletoe infested or wolfy Douglas-fir trees, where available, at five to eight trees per acre 

along ridge tops and large scab openings. Overall, it is expected that forest health would increase 

from implemented thinning treatments, resulting in a decrease in dwarf mistletoe.

Prescribed burning would directly remove nesting habitat and, if implemented during the 

primary nesting season, could cause direct mortality of blue grouse adults and offspring. 

However, grasses and forbs suitable for blue grouse nesting cover would be expected to establish

and become denser and more vigorous within several years (2 to 5) after ignition events,

resulting in enhanced habitat. Herbaceous vegetation conceals the broods and contains insects, 

an important food source for blue grouse (Mussehl 1963). In eastern Oregon, prescribed burning 

and additional methods that maintain park-like stands may benefit this species. Prescribed 

burning project design criteria would mitigate some expected direct impacts to blue grouse.

Project implementation would result in some level of disturbance and displacement of wildlife in 

the short-term by thinning activities. Routine disturbance and displacement along mountain bike 

trails proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected as long as the trails are being 

maintained and used. The level of disturbance and displacement would depend on the time of 

year, extent, and the tolerance of the species and individuals involved. Not all areas of blue 

grouse habitat would be impacted at any given time; any mistletoe-infected trees over 150 years 

old would be retained, habitat where no treatment was occurring would be available for blue 

grouse.
Magone Project

486 of 632

Roads open (temporary construction or maintenance of currently closed roads) during project 

implementation may allow increased access for personal use firewood cutting. Personal use 

firewood cutting reduces the number of snags adjacent to open forest roads. This activity does 

not affect live trees with a potential to be used by grouse; however, recently dead mistletoeinfected trees may be removed. Woodcutting generally occurs where topography is gentle, 

providing easy access; not all areas with roosting habitat are accessible to woodcutters.

Project design criteria state that clumps of mistletoe-infected Douglas-fir would be maintained at 

the top or upper slopes of ridges for winter roost habitat and therefore meet Malheur Forest Plan 

standards (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Forest-wide standard 50, page IV-30). 

Aspen and riparian treatment and protection would change overstory composition of aspen 

stands. Small openings would be created in selected riparian areas, which could also change 

overstory composition in very small patches. Understory grass, forb, shrub, and downed wood 

cover could increase in both aspen and riparian areas selected for treatments. This would be 

anticipated to increase potential nesting, feeding, and hiding/loafing cover for blue grouse, as 

well as insects, an important food source.

Conclusion – All action alternatives contain project design criteria that follow Regional 

Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment 2 standards for retaining grouse winter roost habitat. 

Action alternatives may affect grouse habitat, however, habitat would remain above HRV and no 

adverse effects would be expected to blue grouse habitat or populations from implementation of 

any of the action alternatives.

3.9.5.3 Osprey

Existing Conditions for Osprey

Osprey build nests in large old-growth trees with dead tops, or in the tops of large snags, usually 

in the vicinity of streams, rivers, or lakes with adequate fish populations. Osprey nests generally 

occur within 2 miles of fish-bearing streams and rivers (Marshall et al. 2006). On the Malheur 

National Forest, nests are large and bulky and placed at the top of what is usually a broken-off 

ponderosa pine snag. These trees are often larger in comparison and visible above the tops of the

surrounding timber.

The Malheur Forest Plan standard for the protection of osprey nesting habitat states that projects 

“Maintain or create large nesting snags and green replacement trees for osprey within half a mile 

of streams, lakes, or reservoirs that are currently used for feeding by osprey. Preference will be 

given to large ponderosa pine (30 inches or greater in diameter, 60 foot minimum height) with 

broken tops and large limbs, at a density of one per 1⁄4 mile of linear stream length ...” (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a, page IV–31).

Large ponderosa pine within the East Fork Beech Creek corridor and near Magone Lake 

provides the best potential nesting habitat for osprey within the Magone project planning area. 

However, because of frequent traffic and recreation associated with these areas, it is not expected 

that osprey are currently nesting in the area. Magone Lake is likely providing intermittent 

opportunistic foraging opportunities for osprey.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

487 of 632

Effects to Osprey

Alternative 1 (No Action) – Direct and Indirect Effects

Due to the highly migratory nature of osprey and limited foraging opportunities in the project 

planning area, direct and indirect adverse effects to osprey or their existing habitat are not 

anticipated from the no action alternative.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Effects

Activities, such as thinning, that would remove potential or existing nest sites such as large trees 

and snags within close proximity (2 kilometers) to rivers and lakes could impact this species.

Under the action alternatives, suitable nesting trees and high quality snags would be protected. 

However, it is likely that some danger trees within potential habitat would be removed as a result 

of the proposed activities. Since ospreys are known to nest in areas adjacent to suitable foraging 

habitat (i.e., fish-bearing waterways), proposed thinning could adversely impact ospreys utilizing 

the area by direct removal of existing and potential nest sites. Although, in the long-term, 

accelerated growth by trees remaining in units after treatment activities would ultimately provide 

large mature trees and potential osprey nest snags in the future. Further, foraging opportunities in 

the project planning area would be limited to East Fork Beech Creek during late spring and early 

summer months and Magone Lake, which receives high levels of recreational use. It is expected 

that the project planning area receives infrequent use by osprey.

Osprey nests and foraging behavior have not been documented in the analysis area. Regardless, 

with implementation measures in place, it is expected that any suitable or potential osprey nest 

trees would be maintained, and disturbance to nesting birds (if discovered) would be minimized.

Conclusion for Osprey – Nesting and foraging habitat within the project planning area is 

limited, and therefore there are no impacts expected to osprey that would result in a change in 

the number of individuals, populations, or prey species as a result of the any of the action 

alternatives.

3.9.5.4 Cumulative Effects to Featured Species

All past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future activities (see Table 17 and Table 18) that

may contribute to adverse cumulative effects to northern goshawks, blue grouse, and osprey or 

their habitat were considered. The area considered for cumulative effects is the Beech Creek 

watershed.

Active mining claims are not likely to affect foraging and nesting habitat for goshawk, blue 

grouse, or osprey. Therefore, mining claims are not likely to contribute to cumulative effects to 

goshawks.

Invasive plants lead to habitat degradation by competing with native vegetation. Project design 

criteria in the Magone project planning area would help with the establishment or spread of nonnative plants. Further, the Record of Decision for the Malheur National Forest Site-Specific 

Invasive Plants Treatment Project (USDA Forest Service 2015b) would authorize herbicide, 

manual, mechanical, biological, and/or cultural treatments of invasive plants on the Forest. 

Future treatment of this infestation would cumulatively increase native plants, and thus improve 

blue grouse nesting and foraging habitat, as well as goshawk prey habitat.
Magone Project

488 of 632

Cumulative Effects Specific to Northern Goshawk

Past grazing practices may have impacted herbaceous and shrubby vegetation that provides 

important food for goshawk prey species. However, current livestock grazing practices, 

including forest plan standards, provide for a sustained production of palatable forage for grazing 

by livestock and dependent wildlife species. Overall forage is not considered a factor limiting 

goshawk population viability, and consequently cumulative changes to foraging habitat, whether 

positive or negative, may not contribute to a measurable change in goshawk populations.

Nesting habitat is typically the primary limiting factor for goshawks. Historical timber harvest 

within and adjacent to the project planning area was largely related to area settlement and mining 

activities during the late 1800s. The highest percentage of timber harvest included clearcutting of

old growth and was not geared toward retention of mature forest structure. Since 1995, the 

Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, has directed the Malheur National Forest to conduct timber 

sales in a manner that moves stands towards old forest multi strata (OFMS) and old forest single 

stratum (OFSS) structural stages. Project design adheres to Malheur Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, therefore stands would be managed to promote OFMS and OFSS development.

Northern goshawks are considered highly sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season; 

hence, design incorporates seasonal restrictions for activities on Forest lands located near known 

nest sites. The extensive trail system proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to 

cumulatively add to the amount of goshawk disturbance and displacement during the breeding 

season. The additive effect would be much higher in alternative 3.

Road development, associated with logging activities, has also contributed to habitat loss and has 

fragmented habitat important for prey species. The Magone Project proposes temporary road 

construction, road decommissioning, and road closures. 

In the short-term, road use and on-site work would include increased human presence in the area 

and increase noise and overall disturbance associated with activities. After project 

implementation, road closures and decommissioning would reduce effects to breeding and 

nesting goshawks.

In the short-term, implementation of any of the action alternatives would contribute to habitat 

loss and fragmentation for prey species. In the long-term, alternatives 2 and 3 would contribute 

to possible acceleration of OFSS and OFMS structure in some areas, and reduce catastrophic fire 

risk in treatment areas. Alternative 4 would further accelerate OFMS structure.

Cumulative Effects Specific to Blue Grouse

Cumulatively, where livestock grazing coincides with nesting and foraging, grazing would likely 

reduce the height of ground vegetation and possibly degrade habitat. Prescribed burning would 

benefit blue grouse habitat in the long-term by encouraging reintroduction of native grasses and 

forbs.

Restoration of HRV in the dry forest types is expected to improve the health of the forest; 

reducing dwarf mistletoe-infested Douglas-fir, as well as reducing cover structure important to 

blue grouse. Wildlife and silviculture incorporated design criteria into each action alternative to 

retain mistletoe-infested Douglas-fir; this would aid in mitigating potential impacts to blue 

grouse individuals and their associated habitat as a result of timber harvest. Additional 

implementation criteria regarding shrub retention in prescribed burn units, as well as riparian 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

489 of 632

areas, would further aid in mitigating potential impacts to blue grouse and their associated 

habitat.

The no action alternative would not contribute to adverse cumulative effects to blue grouse 

populations. The combined effects of the Magone Project proposed action alternatives and past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities would not be expected to adversely affect 

populations or viability of blue grouse within the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects Specific to Osprey

Grazing and past timber harvest and thinning have affected the quality and quantity of nesting 

and foraging habitat in the project planning area.

Cumulatively, where livestock grazing occurs, water quality may become diminished and osprey 

foraging habitat may be impacted. Watershed improvements, geared toward protecting native 

fish populations and better distribution of livestock, may mitigate some of these impacts.

Historical timber harvest within and adjacent to the project planning area was largely related to 

area settlement and mining activities during the late 1800s. The highest percentage of timber 

harvest included clearcutting of old growth and was not geared toward retention of mature forest 

structure. The Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, has directed the Malheur National Forest to 

conduct timber harvest in a manner that moves stands towards OFMS and OFSS structural 

stages. Standards and guidelines including snag retention, green tree replacement, and

implementation criteria for mitigating disturbances to osprey are incorporated in the project 

design.

Project design criteria would be included to protect potential or newly discovered osprey nest 

sites, therefore cumulative adverse effects would not be expected to reduce population viability 

of osprey as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives in the Magone Project.

3.9.6 Migratory and Resident Birds

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Authorities Related to Bird Management.

3.9.6.1 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA)

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements various treaties and conventions between the United 

States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory 

birds. Under the act, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or kill) a migratory bird except 

as permitted by regulation (16 U.S.C. 703-704). The regulations at 50 CFR 21.11 prohibit the 

take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, 

or possessing migratory birds, including nests and eggs, except under a valid permit or as 

permitted in the implementing regulations (Director's Order No. 131). A migratory bird is any 

species or family of birds that live, reproduce, or migrate within or across international borders 

at some point during their annual life cycle.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and 

conserving migratory birds in the United States; however, under Executive Order 13186 all other 

federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds and the 

habitats on which they depend. In response to this order, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management have implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be 

addressed in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process when actions have the 

potential to negatively or positively affect migratory bird species of concern.
Magone Project

490 of 632

3.9.6.2 Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001) 

“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”

This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their 

actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. This 

Executive Order also requires federal agencies to develop Memorandums of Understanding 

(MOUs) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conserve birds, including taking 

steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating 

migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever possible. The Bureau of 

Land Management and Forest Service have both completed, and are currently implementing, 

their respective MOUs with the USFWS.

Forest Service and USFWS Memorandum of Understanding (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 Forest Service shall:

Address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, 

or revising management plans for national forests and grasslands, consistent with National 

Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act, 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) USFWS 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.

The Birds of Conservation Concern 2008

In December 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a Birds of Conservation Concern 

report (USDI FWS 2008a) that 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. The goal is to 

prevent or remove the need for additional Endangered Species Act bird listings by implementing 

proactive management and conservation actions. It is recommended that these lists be consulted 

in accordance with Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

Migratory Birds.” In the Forest Service and USFWS MOU, both parties shall: Work 

collaboratively to identify and address issues that affect species of concern, such as migratory 

bird species listed in the Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and USFWS’s Focal Species 

initiative.

BCC 2008 is intended to stimulate coordinated and collaborative proactive conservation actions 

among Federal, State, Tribal, and private partners. The hope is that, by focusing attention on 

these highest-priority species, this report will promote greater study and protection of the 

habitats and ecological communities upon which these species depend, thereby contributing to 

healthy avian populations and communities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

491 of 632

3.9.6.3 Partners-In-Flight Bird Conservation Regions

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with 

similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. BCRs are a hierarchical 

framework of nested ecological units delineated by the Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation.

The overall goal of these BCRs are to list and identify the migratory and resident bird species 

(beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our 

highest conservation priorities.

The Malheur National Forest is included in BCR 10 (Northern Rockies). BCR lists are updated 

every five years by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

BCR 10: (Northern Rockies U.S. portion only)

Bald Eagle (b) Williamson's Sapsucker

Swainson's Hawk White-headed Woodpecker

Ferruginous Hawk Olive-sided Flycatcher

Peregrine Falcon (b) Willow Flycatcher (c)

Upland Sandpiper Loggerhead Shrike

Long-billed Curlew Sage Thrasher

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (w. U.S. DPS) (a) Brewer's Sparrow

Flammulated Owl Sage Sparrow

Black Swift McCown’s Longspur

Calliope Hummingbird Black Rosy-Finch

Lewis’s Woodpecker Cassin's Finch

(a) ESA candidate, (b) ESA delisted, (c) non-listed subspecies or population of threatened or 

endangered species.

Avian Conservation Planning (Migratory and Resident Birds):

Migratory birds are those that breed in the United States and winter south of the border in 

Central and South America. Many of our well-known passerine songbirds, flycatchers, vireos, 

swallows, thrushes, warblers, and hummingbirds fall into this category. Most others are included 

in the resident category. Birds are a vital element of every terrestrial habitat in North America. 

Conserving habitat for birds will therefore contribute to meeting the needs of other wildlife and 

entire ecosystems (Partners-In-Flight Continental Plan). Continent-wide declines in population 

trends for many avian species have developed into an international concern and led to the 

creation of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Under this initiative, plans have 

been developed for the conservation of waterbirds, shorebirds, seabirds, and landbirds. The 

landbird initiative known as Partners-In-Flight (PIF) has developed a series of bird conservation 

plans for every state. Partners-In-Flight has gained wide recognition as a leader in the landbird 

conservation arena.

The Oregon and Washington Chapter of PIF, formed in 1992, has developed a series of 

publications aimed at assisting private, state, tribal, and federal agencies in managing for 

landbird populations. The most recent and applicable publications for the two state area have 

been conservation plans for landbirds.
Magone Project

492 of 632

Partners-In-Flight Bird Conservation Plans:

Five conservation plans have been developed by PIF covering the various geographic regions 

found in Oregon and Washington. These documents have been prepared to stimulate and support 

a proactive approach to the conservation of landbirds throughout Oregon and Washington. They 

represent the collective efforts of multiple agencies and organizations within Oregon and 

Washington. Participants included biologists from federal and state agencies, industry, private 

consulting firms, environmental organizations, and academia in order to ensure a full range of 

ideas and practicalities were addressed by the plans.

Recommendations included in the documents are intended to inform planning efforts and actions 

of land managers, and to stimulate monitoring and research that support landbird conservation. 

The recommendations are also expected to serve as a foundation for developing detailed 

conservation strategies at multiple geographic scales to ensure functional ecosystems with 

healthy populations of landbirds.

The plans can be found on the OR-WA PIF website at www.orwapif.org. The plan applicable to 

this planning effort is the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains 

of Eastern Oregon and Washington.

The overall goal of PIF bird conservation planning is to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy 

populations of native landbirds. These documents are intended to facilitate that goal by 

identifying conditions and habitat attributes important to the landbird community, describing the 

desired landscape based on habitat relationships of a select group of species, providing interim 

management targets (i.e., biological objectives) to achieve desired conditions, and 

recommending management actions (i.e., conservation options) that can be implemented by 

various entities at multiple scales to achieve the biological objectives.

Implementation of parts or all of the conservation strategy should help prevent reactionary 

approaches typically needed to address listed species issues. When these ecosystem-driven 

conservation strategies are fully implemented at large geographic scales, the aggregated effect 

will be the creation of landscapes that should function to conserve landbird communities.

The strategy for achieving functioning ecosystems for landbirds is described through the habitat 

requirements of “focal species.” By managing for a group of species representative of important 

components in a functioning coniferous forest ecosystem, many other species and elements of 

biodiversity also will be conserved. Executive Order 13186 and the MOUs signed by the Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service require 

agencies to incorporate migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever 

practicable. The PIF plans assist federal agencies in achieving this direction.

The appropriate bird conservation plan and Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) species list for 

the Magone project planning area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the 

project planning area are incorporated, and effects are disclosed in this analysis. Table 117

displays a list of BCC in the Magone project planning area that are known or likely to be present 

and could be affected by the proposed actions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

493 of 632

Table 117. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern found in the planning area. Bird Conservation Region 10 – Northern Rocky 

Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington

Species General habitat requirements Impacts to habitat: no 

action

Impacts to habitat: alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Bald eagle Associated with large bodies of water, 

forested areas near the ocean, along 

rivers, and at estuaries, lakes, and 

reservoirs.

See Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and 

Sensitive Species section for 

analysis.

See Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive 

Species section for analysis.

Flammulated 

owl

Associated with ponderosa pine forests 

and mixed conifer stands with a mean 

67% canopy closure, open understory 

with dense patches of saplings or 

shrubs.

Continued decline of open 

forest and early seral 

species.

Increase in grassy openings from commercial thinning and 

prescribed burning, but likely reduction of dense thickets from 

non-commercial thinning. Although suitable habitat remains 

below historical range of variability, there would be an 

increase for all action alternatives.

Calliope 

hummingbird

Predominantly a montane species 

found in open shrub sapling seral 

stages (8 to 15 years) at higher 

elevations and riparian areas.

Continued decline of habitat 

as result of increased stand 

densities.

Forest gaps would increase open shrub sapling stages on 5 

to 20% of treated areas and across 5,500 acres of upland 

shrub enhancement treatments in alternatives 2 and 3, and 

1,685 acres in alternative 4.

Lewis's 

woodpecker

Ponderosa pine, cottonwood riparian or 

oak habitats with an open canopy, 

brushy understory, dead and down 

material, available perches and 

abundant insects.

See Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and 

Sensitive Species section for 

analysis.

See Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive 

Species section for analysis.

Williamson's 

sapsucker

Eastern Cascades, mid- to highelevation, mature open and mixed 

coniferous - deciduous forests. Snags 

are a critical component.

See Management Indicator 

Species –Dead and 

Defective Wood section for 

analysis.

See Management Indicator Species –Dead and Defective 

Wood section for analysis.

White-headed 

woodpecker

Open conifer forests (<40% canopy 

cover) and edge habitats where 

standing snags and scattered tall trees 

remain after a disturbance.

See Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and 

Sensitive Species section for 

analysis.

See Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive 

Species section for analysis.

Olive-sided 

flycatcher 

(Contopus 

cooperi)

Open conifer forests (<40% canopy 

cover) and edge habitats where 

standing snags and scattered tall trees 

remain after a disturbance.

Suitable habitat condition 

would continue to be limited 

until suppression mortality 

created gaps and edge 

habitat.

Thinning would create more open stand conditions and 

accelerate growth of larger trees that may become snags. 

Forest gaps would increase understory growth, contributing to 

increased insect production over the next 20 years. Increased 

forest edge habitat would also enhance foraging 

opportunities. Gaps created by thinning may allow foraging 

until the canopy eventually closes again and these 
Magone Project

494 of 632

Species General habitat requirements Impacts to habitat: no 

action

Impacts to habitat: alternatives 2, 3, and 4

opportunities are lost. Upland shrub enhancement treatments 

would create optimum foraging areas.

Willow 

flycatcher*

Associated with riparian shrub 

dominated habitats, especially 

brushy/willow thickets. In southeast 

Washington also found in xeric brushy 

uplands.

Continued decline of riparian 

habitats. Stream channels 

would remain gullied. 

Riparian vegetation would 

be further departed from 

historic conditions.

Hardwood treatments are designed to enhance hardwood 

species such as aspen, willow, alder, and cottonwood. 

Cassin’s finch Open, mature coniferous forests of 

lodgepole and ponderosa pine, aspen, 

alpine fir, grand fir, and juniper steppe 

woodlands.

Continued risk of loss of 

habitat due to 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

Warm Dry late and old structure is moved from old forest 

multi strata to old forest single stratum post treatment. 

Increased habitat suitability from aspen stand enhancement 

and thinning of young trees and upland shrub enhancement 

treatments.

*Non-listed subspecies or population of threatened or endangered species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

495 of 632

3.10 Analysis Issue – Botanical Resources

3.10.1 Existing Condition

This section summarizes the biological evaluation (BE) for plants as well as the Botany Report. The 

BE process is outlined in the Forest Service Manual 2672.42 (USDA Forest Service 2005b).

The objectives of the biological evaluation process are:

1. To ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or 

desired non-native plant, or contribute to a trend towards Federal listing of any species.

2. To comply with the portion of the Endangered Species Act that requires that the actions of 

Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed 

species.

3. To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, 

and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-making process.

This section describes sensitive plant species and their habitats potentially found in the project 

planning area. Project design criteria (PDCs) were developed to help protect both known sensitive 

plant populations, and potential sensitive plant habitat. See FEIS Appendix C – Project Design 

Criteria for detailed PDCs. Potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on 

known sensitive plant populations and potential sensitive plant habitat are also presented in this 

section. Effects analysis determinations follow definitions as outlined in Forest Service Manual 

2672.42.

3.10.1.1 Malheur National Forest Plant Habitat Groups

Sensitive plants tend to grow in specialized habitat types within broader plant communities. For 

example, some species are found in moist swales and depressions within general sagebrush habitat. 

Other species occur in the transition zones between habitat types. For this analysis, plant 

communities and special habitats have been grouped into broad habitat association groups. Culturally 

significant plants are also discussed under their various habitat groups.

Potential vegetation groups discussed here are described in USDA PNW-GTR-709 Potential 

Vegetation Hierarchy for the Blue Mountains Section of Northeastern Oregon, Southeastern 

Washington, and West-Central Idaho (Powell et al. 2007). According to this report, “Potential 

vegetation is defined as the community of plants that would become established if all successional 

sequences were completed without interference by humans, under existing environmental conditions 

including edaphic, topographic, and climatic factors. Potential vegetation is used to characterize 

biophysical settings, and their associated potential natural communities. Potential vegetation groups 

are named for a predominant or controlling temperature or moisture relationship.” Only the more 

prevalent potential vegetation groups are included in the following discussion. They will be used to 

characterize habitat groups for the sensitive plants that may be found on the Malheur National 

Forest. Acres of each habitat type listed here are from the Malheur National Forest FS Veg database.

Ninety (90) Region 6 sensitive plant species may potentially occur on the Malheur National Forest. 

Since there are so many potential sensitive plant species on the Forest, it is more efficient to talk 

about broad habitat types, rather than each individual species.

Each sensitive plant species has been assigned to one or more of each of the described habitat 

groups. See Appendix 1: Malheur National Forest Sensitive Plants Grouped by Habitat Type in the 

Botany Report. In order to simplify the analysis, it is assumed for the effects analysis that all plants 
Magone Project

496 of 632

growing in a particular habitat would have similar responses to activities. It is acknowledged that 

there are some species-specific differences, such as annual species versus perennials with deeprooted bulbs. However, the overall effects should be relatively similar. Potential project effects will 

be discussed in regards to the habitat type affected. Sensitive species documented in the project 

planning area are discussed individually.

Most areas that do not support trees are described simply as “non-forested” or “shrubland” in the 

Forest Service existing vegetation database and associated GIS layers. There is generally no further 

distinction for various shrub and grassland types. Due to this generalization, it is not possible to 

quantify how many acres of various habitat types are present in the project planning area. Only 

habitat types that occur in the project planning area will be discussed.

Forested Communities

Forested plant communities on the Malheur National Forest are generally dominated by conifers. 

Potential vegetation groups are split out based on temperature and moisture regimes. Although these 

communities are discussed separately here, effects from project activities will be discussed 

collectively in terms of potential effects to the four larger groups: upland coniferous forests, upland 

woodlands, warm riparian (deciduous) forests, and cold riparian forests.

Cold Upland Coniferous Forest (1,080 acres in project planning area)

Cold upland forests on the Malheur National Forest range from moderate elevation areas with 

lodgepole pine as the climax tree, through subalpine fir dominated areas, and up to white bark pine 

forests in the highest and coldest areas. The plant association groups are the Cool Dry, Cold Dry, and 

Cold Moist. Common shrubs include grouse huckleberry and common juniper. These areas are 

characterized by their short growing season. There is relatively little of this community in the 

Magone project planning area.

Moist Upland Coniferous Forest

Moist upland forest types include Warm Moist, Cool Moist, and Cool Wet plant association groups. 

The dominant climax species of trees in these areas range from Douglas-fir in warmer sites, to grand 

fir in moist areas, to lodgepole pine in higher elevation or cooler areas. Shrubs in these areas include 

Rocky mountain maple and Pacific yew. Moist site indicator herbs include twin-flower, queens’ cup 

bead-lily, and heartleaf arnica. Several understory species in these forest types are culturally 

significant plants. They are collected for foods and herbal medicines. Morel mushrooms are also 

commonly found in these forest types. Although some morels are found in undisturbed areas, they 

often fruit more abundantly after disturbance caused by animals, logging, or fire. Big huckleberry is 

an important food plant found in these areas. Traditionally collected by Native Americans, 

huckleberry is now collected by many other people. On the Malheur National Forest, virtually all 

collection of huckleberries is for personal, non-commercial use. This habitat type has been heavily 

altered due to timber harvest and fire suppression.

Dry Upland Coniferous Forest

Dry upland coniferous forest types include Hot Dry and Warm Dry plant association groups. The Hot 

Dry forests are those areas that have ponderosa pine as their climax tree species. The driest sites have 

inclusions of juniper. The understory consists of dry site indicator shrubs, such as bitterbrush and 

Oregon apple (Peraphyllum ramosissum), as well as bunchgrasses and elk sedge.

Warm Dry forests include ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir as their climax species. The 

understory is often dominated by low shrubs, such as snowberry, pinemat manzanita, and birch-leaf 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

497 of 632

spiraea. The main grasses and sedges found here are pinegrass, Ross’ sedge, and Geyer’s sedge. 

These forest communities are found across the Malheur National Forest.

These plant communities occur in areas that historically were heavily logged. Outside of roadless 

areas, most of the large old ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir have been removed. Fire exclusion has 

facilitated the growth of relatively thick stands of younger trees in many areas. Much of this habitat 

type is now in uniform plantations of young trees. Relatively few sensitive plant species are 

suspected to occur in these areas; those that are found rely on deep organic duff, or slightly moister 

sites within the broader area. The database shows that dry upland coniferous forest accounts for the 

vast majority of the acres in the project planning area.

Upland Woodlands

Upland woodlands are characterized by the presence of juniper as the climax dominant species. Both 

dry and moist upland woodlands are included. In many areas, mountain mahogany is found growing 

with the juniper. It tends to occur on rocky ridges or in otherwise drier areas. The understory in these 

communities often includes low sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, and/or Idaho fescue. These 

communities are found most extensively on the southern portion of the Forest. Fire exclusion has 

facilitated the growth and expansion of juniper in these areas. The main sensitive species in this 

community is the cordilleran sedge; it has been found often associated with mountain mahogany, as 

well as in the riparian zones in these areas. The other sensitive species listed here are generally found 

in unusual soil outcrops, on barren rocky ridges, or in moister microsites within the broader 

community. Bitter-root and various biscuit roots are culturally significant plant species that are found 

in these open rocky habitats.

In the Magone project planning area, much of what may appear to be this habitat type has been 

included in the Hot Dry upland forest stands (described above). Therefore, the estimate of 1,790 

acres of upland woodlands may actually be low compared to what is on the ground. Most rocky 

ridgetops in the project planning area fall under this habitat type.

Warm Riparian Forest (aspen, cottonwood) and Shrublands

Aspen and cottonwood communities are included within the warm riparian forest potential 

vegetation group. This group also includes some grand fir plant associations. Riparian grand fir will 

be grouped for analysis with the Cool Moist vegetation group. Aspen and cottonwood patch sizes in 

these communities are usually less than 40 acres in size. Many patches are found as stringers along 

streams and intermittently wet draws. The fire frequency interval has not been established for the 

warm riparian forest potential vegetation group. Findings documented in Quigley et al. (1997) show 

that fire exclusion has resulted in declines in aspen communities within the Interior Columbia Basin. 

This has largely resulted from conifers competing with the aspen. Grazing has also altered the 

reproductive and growth cycles of both aspen and cottonwoods. There are relatively few acres of 

these habitats in the Magone project planning area. Most riparian areas in this project planning area 

are dominated by conifers, rather than cottonwoods or aspen.

Warm riparian shrublands are found in narrow bands along streams and around wetlands. They often 

are found as understory with conifers growing in the adjacent uplands. Shrubs that are indicative of 

this vegetation group include mountain alder, water birch, and various willows. 

In addition, lower-growing shrubs such as currants, choke-cherry, and red osier dogwood are often 

associated with these areas. The stream banks are often covered with native sedges and grasses. 

Introduced Kentucky bluegrass has also successfully colonized many of these areas.
Magone Project

498 of 632

Some aspen are found in the project planning area in isolated patches within the much drier 

surrounding forest. The understory plants in these areas are more indicative of the surrounding dry 

forest than plants found in typical riparian plant communities. Upland stands of aspen with conifer 

encroachment are often targeted for restoration. Sensitive plants are more likely to occur in the 

wetter areas that support aspen and cottonwood.

Aspen stands are well delineated in the Malheur National Forest GIS. Other warm riparian forest and 

shrub types are generally not well documented in the Forest Service vegetation database; however, 

they can generally be identified in the Forest GIS by their association with the stream layers.

Non-Forested Dry Upland Communities

Sagebrush Shrubland

Sagebrush shrublands are communities with at least 5 percent crown cover of various species of 

sagebrush. Potential vegetative communities include several plant associations dominated by big 

sage (Artemisia tridentata), three-tip sage (Artemisia tripartita), or low sage (Artemisia arbuscula). 

Stiff sagebrush (Artemisia rigida) communities are included under the habitat group lithosol.

Sagebrush in the Blue Mountains generally is killed by high intensity fire. The exclusion of fire has 

led to higher densities of sagebrush than may have historically occurred in these habitats. 

Historically, sagebrush was purposely killed in many parts of the west to provide more grass for 

cattle forage. Sagebrush habitats often have small inclusions of slightly different microhabitats. 

These include vernally wet swales and outcrops of barren ash soils. Small inclusions of lithosols are 

also found in many areas of more general sagebrush habitat. Many sensitive plants that may be found 

in the sagebrush shrubland community type are found in these extremely limited microsites within 

the broader sagebrush community.

The Magone project planning area currently supports little sagebrush. It is not possible to know how 

much sagebrush historically occurred in the area. There are some plants of stiff sage and low sage in 

the rocky ridgetop sites. The Forest GIS vegetation layer shows 68 acres of Hot Dry upland shrubs; 

however, sage is also found in areas that are mapped as Hot Dry upland forest and Hot Dry upland 

woodlands.

Lithosol

Lithosols are habitats with very shallow soils on poorly weathered basalt or andesitic bedrock. This 

habitat type is often called scabland. While the soils can be saturated following spring snowmelt, 

they dry quickly and are exposed to full sun the entire growing season. Plants adapted to this harsh 

environment usually bloom and fruit early in the growing season. Basalt lithosols can be found in the 

dry upland shrubland potential vegetation group (68 acres mapped in the planning area), and the dry 

upland herbland potential vegetation group (84 acres mapped in the planning area). Basalt lithosols 

may also be found as small inclusions within a larger matrix of grassland and shrublands. Given the 

low productivity and discontinuous fuels in this habitat group, low intensity fires have probably 

burned infrequently in this habitat type. 

Non-native grasses such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), medusa head (Taeniatherum caputmedusae), and North Africa grass (Ventenata dubia) have invaded many of these sites. The presence 

of non-native grass species has the potential to alter the intensity of fires in these habitats.

Lithosol habitat supports two sensitive rice grasses, Henderson’s rice grass (Achnatherum 

hendersonii) and Wallowa rice grass (Achnatherum wallowaense). The woven spore lichen 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

499 of 632

(Texosporium sancti-jacobi) is also found in this habitat type. Bitter-root and various biscuit roots are 

culturally significant plants found in this habitat type.

Cliffs, Rock Outcrops, and Talus

Cliffs and rock outcrops have vertical rock faces. Talus consists of accumulated boulders and cobbles 

at the base of cliffs or on steep slopes. This habitat type is not discussed on the potential vegetation 

hierarchy for the Blue Mountains.

This habitat type is generally limited on the Malheur National Forest. There is often an abundance of 

ferns, mosses, and lichens growing on these outcrops. Some of the sensitive plant species that occur 

in this habitat type include Bridge’s cliff-brake (Pellaea bridgesii), many-flowered phlox (Phlox 

multiflora), and several mosses. Some sensitive plants that occur in this habitat type are further 

restricted to specific, unusual rock types, such as limestone or argillite. The project planning area has 

a relative abundance of rock outcrops and small cliffs. These are derived from basaltic andesite lava

flows.

Aquatic and Riparian Dependent Communities

Aquatic and riparian habitats are collectively defined by high soil moisture and/or running water. 

There are several significantly different aquatic and riparian plant communities on the Malheur 

National Forest. They are described in detail below. These wetland and riparian areas provide 

important habitat for many of the sensitive plants on the Forest. Because the Malheur Forest Plan 

directs management of these habitats similarly under direction for riparian areas, the effects to 

species dependent upon these habitats will be addressed together in the effects analysis.

These community types are generally not mapped in the Forest Service GIS vegetation layer. They 

are often identified on the National Wetlands Inventory maps as freshwater emergent wetlands or 

riverine habitats.

Springs and Seeps

Springs and seeps are points where groundwater emerges and flows. Springs and seeps are typically 

small but well distributed on the Malheur National Forest. Many springs are mapped in GIS. Seeps 

are generally less well documented on the Forest. Seeps and springs are often developed for cattle 

troughs. Many of these areas have been dewatered and/or trampled due to these developments. Many 

developed springs now have fences to protect the water source. These areas provide important 

habitat for several sensitive plant species, most notably mosses and liverworts. Springs are scattered 

in this project planning area. There is a concentration of springs and seeps in the northwestern 

portion of the project planning area; this is where a rare grape fern was found in 2013.

Aquatic Habitats

Aquatic habitats include areas with standing water at least part of the year. These include ponds, 

lakes, streams, and rivers. These areas support plants that are free-floating or are rooted at the bottom 

under the water. Some ponds only have standing water in the spring. 

This habitat type is very limited on the Malheur National Forest. The larger ponds and lakes are 

identified in GIS. Many ponds on the Malheur National Forest are human-created stock ponds; these 

are generally mapped in GIS. This habitat type is not addressed in the potential vegetation hierarchy 

guide. Aquatic habitats support unique groups of plants that cannot grow anywhere else. There are 

only a few sensitive plants that are suspected to occur in these habitats on the Malheur National 
Magone Project

500 of 632

Forest. Culturally significant species that are found in these areas include bulrush, wapato, and cattails.

In the Magone project planning area the main aquatic habitat is provided by Magone Lake. This lake 

has steep sides and does not support much riparian habitat around the edge. In addition, there are 

very few aquatic plants growing in the standing water.

Intermittent and Perennial Streams

Perennial streams are channelized areas where water flows all year long. These are classified as 

stream category 1 (fish-bearing) or stream category 2 (non-fish bearing). Intermittent streams are 

channelized areas where water runs only part of the year. Most of the moisture in these streams 

comes from snowmelt runoff. These areas are classified as stream category 4 for riparian 

management standards and objectives. These habitat types are generally quite narrow on the Malheur 

National Forest; they often extend upslope less than 100 feet above the water level. In flatter areas, 

they transition into moist and wet meadow types. Streams on most portions of the forest are 

dominated by trees. The potential vegetative groups in the forested areas have been described above 

under riparian forest types.

This habitat type is where many sensitive plant species occur. Many of the riparian areas have 

relatively high humidity. This condition provides excellent habitat for non-vascular plants (mosses, 

liverworts, and lichens). Several sensitive plant species are also found in the transition zone between 

the riparian zones and the surrounding uplands. Culturally significant plants that occur in this habitat 

type include Pacific yew, red osier dogwood, willows, elderberries, and chokecherries.

Moist and Wet Meadows

Moist meadows are typically saturated in the spring, but by mid to late summer the water table has 

fallen below the soil surface. Wet meadows are saturated throughout the growing season with the 

water table at or slightly below the soil surface. For riparian management and mapping in GIS, the 

wet meadow areas greater than one acre are called stream category 3 and those less than one acre are 

stream category 4. Moist and wet meadows are classified by the National wetlands inventory as 

freshwater emergent wetlands. Potential vegetation groups included here are the warm riparian herb, 

and the cool associations of the cold riparian herb group. This habitat type is where many sensitive 

plant species occur. Most rare non-vascular plants are found in these habitat types. Several sensitive 

plant species are also found in the transition zone between the wet or moist meadows and the 

surrounding forest or otherwise drier areas. This habitat type is very limited in the project planning 

area. The National wetlands inventory map only shows a total of 20 acres of either freshwater 

emergent, or freshwater forested or shrubland wetland types in the project planning area. The rare 

plant Bolander’s spike rush was found in one of these mapped areas.

3.10.1.2 Federally Listed, Proposed, or Candidate Plant Species

There are no federally threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species or potential habitat 

documented or suspected to occur on the Malheur National Forest.

White bark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is a candidate for federal listing. This is due to concerns 

regarding the species’ decline caused by introduced white pine blister rust and native bark beetles. 

White bark pine is found only in subalpine habitats, usually near timberline. Sites are usually fairly 

dry, with thin, rocky, cold soils. This tree occurs throughout western North America. Global warming 

may also become a threat as the species occupies the highest elevation sites available and the trees 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

501 of 632

cannot migrate higher to avoid warmer temperatures. This combination of threats seriously affects 

the species throughout its range.

The Magone project planning area does not have the high elevation habitats necessary for white bark 

pine. There are no known occurrences or habitat in the project planning area.

3.10.1.3 Sensitive Plant Species

The following sensitive species are documented in the project planning area. Specific locations of 

sensitive plant populations and their geographic relationship to proposed project activities are 

documented in the project file. See Appendix 3: Documented Sensitive Plants and Status in Project 

Planning Area for a summary of global and state rarity ratings for each of these species. This 

appendix also lists the number of documented populations for these species on the Malheur National 

Forest and in the project planning area in the Botany Report.

Bolander’s spikerush (Eleocharis bolanderi) is a small grass-like plant in the sedge family. It grows 

in vernally wet swales, along intermittent streams, and in wet depressions in moist meadows. Plants 

are found in slight depressions that hold snow later in the season than surrounding areas. The habitat 

dries out by mid-summer. The surrounding forest is usually ponderosa pine. The range of this species 

includes the Cascade Range and Blue Mountains in Oregon. It is also found in California, 

southeastern Idaho, and Utah. It has been found in scattered locations on the Malheur National 

Forest.

In the Magone project planning area this species was found in four small populations, with an 

estimated total of 4,500 plants. This plant is hard to count, as they tend to grow in clumps and it is 

hard to tell where one plant ends and another begins. The plants occupy slightly less than 10 acres. 

All of the populations are in the eastern portion of the project planning area, located within a 1-mile 

by 2-mile area. The channel where one population occurs is experiencing active head-cutting. This 

has probably led to a lowered water table. Most of the plants in this population are along the edge of 

the vernally wet channel. A few plants were found in the surrounding dry upland meadow. This may 

indicate that more plants historically occurred in the currently dry meadow. There is also a stock 

pond within 100 feet of this population. Use by cattle may have caused erosion and the down cutting 

of the stream, which probably lowered the water table. It was noted that some of the Bolander’s 

spike rush plants had been grazed at this site by the end of summer 2014.

Crenulate moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) is a small spore-bearing plant that usually grows in 

and around the edges of wet meadows, riparian areas, or springs. Forest types include moderate 

elevation mesic forests to lodgepole pine and subalpine fir forests. This species is found in 

appropriate habitats throughout northern North America. It has been documented on all Blue 

Mountain forests.

There are currently 38 documented population of this species on the Malheur National Forest. Some 

of these records are old, the current status of the populations is not known.

There is one single plant of this species documented in the project planning area. It is located along 

the edge of a spring in the headwaters of Nipple Creek. No grazing by domestic animals was noted at 

the time this plant was discovered in 2014. It is highly likely that more plants of this species, and 

potentially additional species of moonworts, are present in the project planning area.

Identification of threats to moonworts is somewhat challenging because much information is lacking 

on habitat requirements, environmental tolerances, and the effects of management. Information on 

known occurrences indicate that off-road vehicle damage, camping and hiking, timber harvest and 
Magone Project

502 of 632

firewood cutting, exotic plants and herbicides, succession to closed canopy (fire suppression), and 

road widening and maintenance are threats (Ahlenslager and Potash 2007).

Least phacelia (Phacelia minutissima) is a tiny (less than 4 inches tall) annual plant in the phlox 

family. It is found in moist, open places, along streambanks, in vernally wet meadows, and in 

ephemerally moist swales. The surrounding forest is usually ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir. It is 

often found with false hellebore (Veratrum californicum). It has been found growing with aspen in 

Washington State. This species is found widely scattered in the intermountain west. It has been found 

around the flanks of the Wallowa Mountains, as well as in scattered locations on the Malheur 

National Forest.

There was a historically known site (from 2001) for this species that was relocated in 2014. The 

population is on the extreme eastern edge of the project planning area. Two hundred plants were 

counted in a drainage ditch and in another small area that is wet in the spring. There is a dispersed 

campsite very close to part of this population. There is also a risk that road maintenance could 

change the drainage pattern and potentially bury the site with gravel. This plant is extremely hard to 

detect and it is highly probable that there are additional populations of this species in the project 

planning area.

3.10.1.4 Culturally Significant Plant Species

Many plant species may be used for food, medicine, or fiber products. Every habitat in the project 

planning area supports some plant species of interest to humans. Some more commonly known 

culturally significant plant species are listed above with their respective habitat types. Members of 

Native American tribes and the general public collect various species for different uses. Some habitat 

types harbor more species than other habitat types; for example, shallow soiled areas often support 

several species that are gathered for their edible roots. Other species are found commonly in wet 

meadows.

In the Magone project planning area there are many species of plants that have cultural significance. 

Since these species are so widespread, and often common, the Forest Service does not map or track 

these species. Commonly collected species in the Magone Project area are big huckleberry, yampa, 

camas, bitterroot, and morel mushrooms. Other berries and roots are also likely collected for food, 

medicine, and ceremonial purposes.

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences

3.10.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

No botany related key or analysis issues, or indicators were identified during scoping. The following 

analysis will focus on effects as outlined in the biological evaluation process.

Methodology

Each sensitive plant species has been assigned to one or more of the described Malheur National 

Forest sensitive plant habitat groups (see Appendix 1: Malheur National Forest Sensitive Plants 

Grouped by Habitat Type in the Botany Report). It is assumed for the effects analysis that all plants 

growing in a particular habitat will have similar responses to project activities. Potential project 

effects will be discussed in regards to the habitat type affected. When particular species are 

documented in the project planning area, these will be discussed individually.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

503 of 632

Since all of the action alternatives include similar activities and project design criteria, the analysis 

will focus primarily on a general discussion of potential effects. Then the individual alternatives will 

be compared in relation to the amount of area proposed for the various activities.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Landscape scale analysis does not allow for detailed site-specific plant surveys. Most surveys for this 

project were done before specific ground disturbing activities had been proposed. It is possible that 

activities could be implemented in areas that will not be surveyed. Therefore, there may potentially 

be effects to undiscovered populations of sensitive plants.

The only sensitive fungus currently suspected on the Malheur National Forest is the umbrella falsemorel (Pseudorhizina californica). Fungi only fruit under very specific moisture and temperature 

conditions. Therefore, it is very difficult to locate species of fungi due to their ephemeral nature. It is 

possible that there are undocumented populations of the umbrella false-morel in the project planning 

area.

Some sensitive plant species do not produce above-ground plants every year. These plants include 

some grape-ferns (Botrychium spp.) and many annual species, which are dependent upon sufficient 

early spring rains. Some of the annual sensitive species include least phacelia (Phacelia 

minutissima), disappearing monkey flower (Mimulus evanescens), dwarf evening-primrose 

(Camissonia pygmaea), annual muhly grass (Muhlenbergia minutissima), lowland tooth-cup (Rotala 

ramosior), and desert chaenactis (Chaenactis xantiana). It is therefore possible that surveys may not 

detect these plants in years when conditions do not favor germination.

Some species, such as the least phacelia, annual muhly grass, and grapeferns, are so tiny and difficult 

to find in dense vegetation that even expert botanists may overlook them during surveys. Many of 

the non-vascular plants are very difficult to identify; it is possible that botanists may also overlook 

some of these species. For these reasons, it is not possible to state with complete certainty that all 

sensitive plant species would be detected during sensitive plant surveys.

There are no empirical studies on the effects of logging, burning, or grazing to most sensitive plant 

species that occur on the Malheur National Forest. The strategy for management of known 

populations has generally been avoidance of activities that may affect populations. 

Therefore, all discussion of potential effects to sensitive plant populations and habitat is based upon 

general experience and inferred responses based upon observations and studies of more common 

species.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The spatial context for this analysis is the project planning area. This scale is large enough to identify 

trends to sensitive species that could result from implementing this project. Since plants do not 

generally move over large areas quickly and no downstream effects are anticipated, it is not 

necessary to analyze effects to sensitive plants outside of the project planning area.

The temporal context for effects analysis includes short-term and long-term effects. Short-term 

effects for this analysis are considered to be one to two years after project implementation. These 

would generally be from direct effects, such as ground disturbance or incineration. Long-term effects 

for this analysis are considered to be longer than two years. These effects would generally be from 

indirect effects, such as changes in sunlight, hydrologic regimes, and changes in animal grazing 

patterns and intensity.
Magone Project

504 of 632

Basis of Effects Determinations

The four possible effect determinations for sensitive plants are outlined in Forest Service Manual 

2670. These definitions were used to guide the determination of effects:

 NI  When sensitive species occur in habitats that are not expected to be directly or 

indirectly affected in any way, they are given a “no impact” determination. This is also used 

for known specific existing populations where no project activities are proposed, or the 

population is buffered or otherwise protected from project activities.

 BI  When sensitive species, and their potential habitats, are expected to be favorably 

affected by a particular alternative, they are given a “beneficial impact” determination.

 MIIHWhen sensitive species, and their potential habitats, occur that could possibly be 

negatively affected, they are given a determination of “May impact individuals or habitat, 

but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species”. This determination is used in cases where there is 

unsurveyed potential habitat, or where potential effects are uncertain, or considered to be 

relatively minor.

The MIIH determination acknowledges that the action could have negative impacts, but the 

degree of consequences is not known with certainty due to the following factors:

1) the complexity of the proposed action,

2) the differential impacts across the landscape, and/or

3) the lack of best available science.

Additionally, this recognizes that even the most substantial effects of the proposed action 

will not contribute to a trend toward listing the species under the Endangered Species Act. 

The effects are expected to be minor enough that they will not cause a loss of viability of the 

species in the project planning area.

 WIFV  When sensitive species, and potential habitat, occur that will most likely be 

negatively affected by the project, they are given a determination of “Will impact 

individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend 

towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species”. This 

determination is used in cases where negative impacts will clearly occur, and they are of a 

magnitude that they may contribute to crossing a threshold leading to federal listing under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects

In the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future, there have been, and will continue to be, 

projects and activities within the project planning area that may affect 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 effects 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. In addition, restoration efforts such as road 

decommissioning, and stream improvements may also potentially negatively affect sensitive plant 

populations and habitat. Road construction and recreation developments have permanently altered 

native plant habitat in limited areas of the project planning area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

505 of 632

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 has a direct 

effect on plants through plant herbivory and trampling. Grazing can have an indirect effect on plant 

species by causing changes in shade, soil compaction, soil disturbance, smothering by cow pies, and 

alteration of nutrient cycling. The degree of effect 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 will continue to occur in the project planning area.

A court decision in 2002 concluded that the Malheur National Forest noxious weed control 

environmental assessment was insufficient under NEPA. The Forest has been limited to nonchemical eradication methods since this ruling. Because of this restriction on treatment methods, and 

limited funds, non-native invasive plants have undoubtedly increased in the project planning area 

over time. Non-native invasive plants may potentially outcompete and dominate sensitive plant 

habitat. The Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Record of Decision 

(USDA Forest Service 2015a) added the use of herbicides for treatment of these species, thus the 

cumulative effects from non-native invasive plants should be reduced over time.

The historical abundance and distribution of sensitive species on the Forest is not known. Past 

activities have likely affected their current abundance and distribution. Beginning in approximately 

1990, botanical surveys and biological evaluations were conducted for most Forest Service projects 

planned and implemented on the forest. As a result, activities conducted since 1990 have been 

designed to reduce negative effects to sensitive species.

Pre-Field Review: Existing Populations and Surveys for Sensitive Plant Species

A pre-field review was conducted to determine the probability that sensitive plant populations and 

potential sensitive plant habitat are located within or adjacent to the project planning area. This 

information was used to determine the need for, and intensity of, botanical surveys.

The following sources of information were used to determine which species, and their respective 

habitats, may occur within or adjacent to the project planning area:

 U.S. Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species List28 (USDA Forest Service 2011).

 Malheur National Forest geographic information system (GIS) mapping layers (vegetation, 

streams and wetlands, aerial imagery).

 Project GIS layers showing potential activity units.

 Field Guide to Sensitive Plants of the Malheur National Forest (USDA Forest Service, 

unpublished document 2014); compiled from multiple public sources. Information includes 

associated habitats, species distributions, key identification characters, photos, and drawings.

 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS) website. This 

website identifies which federally listed, proposed, and candidate species occur in each 

county of each state. This website was queried to determine which federally listed, 

candidate, and proposed plant species may occur in Grant and Baker Counties, Oregon.

 Forest Service Natural Resource Manager (NRM) database (USDA Forest Service 2015c). 

This database includes information on where botanical surveys and known sensitive plant 

 

28 In this Final EIS, we acknowledge there is a more current version of the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species list,

dated July, 2015. However, guidance allows specialists to continue using the listing that was current as of the date of 

project initiation, and the Magone Project was initiated prior to the release of the 2015 Regional Forester’s Special Status 

Species list.
Magone Project

506 of 632

populations are mapped and documented. It was queried to determine where populations of 

sensitive plants are known within and adjacent to the project planning area.

Botanical surveys for this project were conducted according to standard Forest Service procedures 

for conducting biological evaluations (USDA Forest Service Manual section 2670-Wildlife, Fish, 

and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management 1995). Surveys were done using the intuitive control 

technique. This means that large areas are surveyed, with emphasis on searching special habitats. At 

the time of the surveys, individual activity units, proposed riparian restoration, and road work was 

not yet delineated, so surveys were not done in all proposed vegetation management units, nor were 

all specific road work areas surveyed. Selected high probability areas with potential for ground 

disturbance would be surveyed before project implementation. If any sensitive plants are found, 

mitigations for protection will be developed.

3.10.2.2 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1, the no action alternative, does not propose any new activities in the project planning 

area. Therefore, if the no action alternative were selected, there would be no direct or indirect effects

to sensitive plant species, culturally significant plant species, or potential habitat in the short-term. 

There is no quantitative monitoring information or published studies that clearly indicate what the 

long-term effects of fire suppression and natural succession are for any of the sensitive plants that 

may occur in the project planning area. It would therefore be speculative to try to determine what the 

long-term effects of no action would be on sensitive plants. Therefore, the overall call for the no 

action alternative for all sensitive plants that may occur in the project planning area is no impact

(NI).

Cumulative Effects

Because no management would occur, there would be no proposed action effects to add to ongoing 

or future actions that would contribute cumulative effects.

3.10.2.3 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no known populations, or potential habitat, for any federally listed, or proposed, plant 

species in the project planning area. White bark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is a candidate for federal 

listing. There are no known populations or potential habitat for this species in the project planning 

area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action would have no effect to any federally listed, 

proposed, or candidate plant species.

Project design criteria and buffers around known populations of sensitive plants would protect all 

known populations of sensitive plants in the project planning area from ground disturbing activities. 

Some populations may be subject to prescribed burning. Project design criteria state that a botanist 

would be consulted before burning occurs in areas with known sensitive plant populations. These 

protections should ensure that there are no direct or indirect effects from project activities to the 

known populations. Therefore, there would be no impact to documented populations of sensitive 

plants from project activities associated with the proposed action.

Project design criteria would prohibit or minimize ground disturbance in special habitat areas. 

Prescribed fire would be relatively low intensity in lithosols, sagebrush shrublands, grasslands, cliffs, 

rock outcrops, and talus. Therefore, there would be no impact (NI) to the above listed special habitats 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

507 of 632

and undocumented populations that may occur in those habitats from activities associated with the 

proposed action.

Activities in coniferous forests, aspen stands, and riparian dependent communities may potentially,

directly and indirectly, affect habitat and undiscovered populations of sensitive plants. Potential 

detrimental direct effects include the destruction of sensitive plants from ground disturbance 

associated with cutting of trees, yarding trees, piling slash, or scattering slash. 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. Fireline construction has the potential to directly kill or 

dislodge sensitive plants in the area that is denuded. Indirect effects could result from altering the 

hydrologic regime and changing light intensity. Vegetation management may also alter the 

interaction of herbivores and plants. By opening the forest canopy, grasses and other palatable plants 

may increase. This may lead to increased ingestion and trampling of sensitive plants from ungulates.

Construction of hiking and bicycle trails may potentially negatively impact undiscovered populations 

of sensitive plants. Plants could be uprooted and destroyed during construction and by trampling by 

bicycles and hikers. Potential indirect negative effects of new bicycle trails include increased use by 

cattle and motorcyclists and the introduction and spread of non-native invasive plants. Road 

construction, maintenance, and decommissioning all have the potential to cause direct negative 

impacts to sensitive plants. These negative impacts include direct destruction and indirect impacts 

due to changes in cattle movements, motorized access, and non-native invasive plant introduction 

and spread.

Project design criteria would reduce the risk of detrimental effects, but would not entirely eliminate 

the possibility of effects to habitat and undiscovered populations in these habitat types. None of the 

sensitive plant species that may occur in coniferous forest, aspen, and riparian dependent habitats on 

the Malheur National Forest is extremely rare on a global scale. Therefore, even if project activities 

may negatively affect individual plants or habitat, implementation of alternative 2 should not 

increase the need for Federal listing of any sensitive species.

For alternative 2, the determination of effects for forested communities, aspen, and riparian 

dependent habitats and associated sensitive plants is may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH), but 

will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to populations of 

sensitive plant species. In the case of aspen enhancement, since the aspen stands would be 

rejuvenated and protected from grazing, implementation of the proposed action should have a 

beneficial impact (BI) to sensitive plant species that may occur there in the long-term.

Because culturally significant plants are not tracked or mapped, it is difficult to assess the effects to 

these species from proposed activities. Many of these plants occur in unique habitats such as 

lithosols, wet meadows, or ephemerally wet areas. The project design criteria that protect these 

unique habitats would help to protect the long-term viability of these species. Treatments that will 

reduce the chances of high-intensity fire should help to prevent the death of plants from excess heat. 

Conversely, some species may actually be helped by the removal of competition and the nutrient 

flush that is associated with fire in the environment.

Cumulative Effects

It is likely that historical activities, such as grazing, timber harvest, mining, road construction, and 

fire suppression, have destroyed populations and altered habitats for sensitive plants. These historical 

effects are not quantifiable. Climate change effects may be considered as a component of cumulative 

effects. Changes in climate influence vegetation, water, and disturbance frequencies, and these 
Magone Project

508 of 632

changes, in turn, influence one another. Attempts to quantify the degree of change would be 

speculative.

Since 1990, protection and management of sensitive species and their habitats (in the form of project 

design criteria, avoidance, or other mitigation) have been included in the design of all projects. This 

has reduced, and would continue to reduce, the potential of cumulative effects to sensitive plant 

populations and habitats.

The potential for detrimental direct and indirect effects to these habitats from the proposed activities 

have been minimized through the use of project design criteria. There are no current plans to conduct 

vegetation management activities in this area beyond the scope of this project for the next 10 years. 

Therefore, this project combined with foreseeable future projects, and those that have occurred in the 

recent past, are not likely to contribute to any cumulative adverse effects to sensitive plants.

3.10.2.4 Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 proposes similar activities as alternative 2. Alternative 3 proposes more activities than 

alternative 2. The main difference is related to the number of acres proposed for commercial and 

non-commercial thinning (more of each in alternative 3). In addition, in alternative 3, much more 

biomass may be removed, and nearly twice as many bicycle trails would be constructed. The 

potential effects to sensitive plants and habitats are therefore proportionally greater for alternative 3 

compared with alternative 2.

Project design criteria and buffers around known populations of sensitive plants would protect all 

known populations of sensitive plants in the project planning area from ground disturbing activities. 

Some populations may be subject to prescribed burning. Project design criteria state that a botanist 

would be consulted before burning occurs in areas with known sensitive plant populations. 

These protections should ensure that there would be no direct or indirect effects from project 

activities to the known populations. Therefore, there would be no impact (NI) to documented

populations of sensitive plants from project activities associated with the implementation of 

alternative 3.

The potential for negative effects to non-forested dry upland communities is similar to alternative 2. 

Since these habitats would be protected by project design criteria, there should be no impact (NI) to 

these habitats, or to any sensitive plants that may occur.

The potential effects to forest and riparian dependent communities would be greater for alternative 3 

than for alternative 2. This is mostly because more acres are proposed for silvicultural activities. This 

increased risk of negative impacts is not enough to change the determination call for these habitats, 

and any sensitive plants that may occur there. Therefore, for alternative 3 the determination of effects 

for forested communities, riparian dependent communities, and any sensitive plants that may occur 

in those communities is may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute to a 

trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to populations of sensitive plant species. The 

potential affect to culturally significant plants from this alternative would be similar to those from 

alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

509 of 632

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for alternative 3 would be essentially the same as for alternative 2. All of the past 

and potential future activities are the same between the two alternatives.

3.10.2.5 Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 proposes fewer activities than alternative 2; the main difference is related to the 

number of acres proposed for commercial and non-commercial thinning (less of each in alternative 

4). In addition, in alternative 4 less biomass may be removed and fewer bicycle trails would be 

constructed. The potential effects to sensitive plants and habitats are therefore proportionally less for 

alternative 4 compared to alternatives 2 or 3.

Project design criteria and buffers around known populations of sensitive plants would protect all 

known populations of sensitive plants in the project planning area from ground disturbing activities. 

Some populations may be subject to prescribed burning. Project design criteria state that a botanist 

would be consulted before burning occurs in areas with known sensitive plant populations. These 

protections should ensure that there would be no direct or indirect effects from project activities to 

the known populations. Therefore, there would be no impact (NI) to documented populations of 

sensitive plants from project activities associated with the implementation of alternative 4.

The potential for negative effects to non-forested dry upland communities is similar to alternative 2. 

Since these habitats would be protected by project design criteria, there should be no impact (NI) to 

these habitats, or to any sensitive plants that may occur.

The potential effects to forest and riparian dependent communities would be less for alternative 4

than for alternatives 2 or 3. This is mostly because fewer acres are proposed for silvicultural 

activities. The decreased risk of negative impacts is not enough to change the determination call for 

these habitats, and any sensitive plants that may occur there. 

Therefore, for alternative 4 the determination of effects for forested communities, riparian dependent 

communities, and any sensitive plants that may occur in those communities is may impact 

individuals or habitat (MIIH), but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause 

a loss of viability to populations of sensitive plant species. The potential affect to culturally 

significant plants from this alternative would be similar to those from alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for alternative 4 would be essentially the same as for alternative 2. All of the past 

and potential future activities are the same between the two alternatives.

3.10.2.6 Overall Summary of Effects to Sensitive Plants

Although there is a small chance of negative effects to sensitive plant species from the action 

alternatives, the potential of negative effects is relatively small. All known populations of sensitive 

plants will be buffered from all activities (except burning). The acres of potential habitat that are

proposed for treatment are a relatively small percentage of the potential habitat for sensitive plants 

species throughout their range. Therefore, although the project may negatively affect individuals and 

habitats for sensitive plants, implementation of any action alternative should not result in a 

contribution towards a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive plant species. The selection of 

any action alternative should not lead to a reduction in the long-term viability of any sensitive plant 

species on the Malheur National Forest (see Table 118).
Magone Project

510 of 632

Table 118. Sensitive plant species occurrence in the project planning area and effects calls

Fungi

Scientific name Common name Occurrence in

planning area*

Effects calls**

all action alternatives

Albetrellus avellaneus Avel's albatrellus polypore Suspected MIIH

Pseudorhizina californica umbrella false morel Suspected MIIH

Lichen

Scientific name Common name Occurrence in 

planning area*

Effects calls**

all action alternatives

Texosporium sancti-jacobi woven spore lichen Suspected NI

Liverwort

Scientific name Common name Occurrence in 

planning area*

Effects calls**

all action alternatives

Anastrophyllum minutum tiny notchwort Suspected MIIH

Anthelia julacea alpine silverwort Suspected MIIH

Barbilophozia 

lycopodioides

giant fourpoint, maple liverwort Suspected MIIH

Harpanthus flotovianus great mountain flapwort Suspected MIIH

Jungermannia polaris Arctic flapwort Suspected MIIH

Lophozia gillmanii Gillman’s pawwort Suspected MIIH

Peltolepis quadrata shieldscale liverwort No Habitat NI

Preissia quadrata blister ribbon Suspected MIIH

Ptilidium pulcherrimum blunt water moss, worm moss Suspected MIIH

Moss

Scientific name Common name Occurrence in 

planning area*

Effects calls**

all action alternatives

Bryum calobroides Bryum moss Suspected MIIH

Encalypta brevipes candle snuffer moss,

stubby extinguisher moss

Suspected MIIH

Entosthodon fascicularis banded cord moss, Hasselquist’s 

hyssop

Suspected MIIH

Helodium blandowii blandow’s feather moss,

wet plume moss

Suspected MIIH

Meesia uliginosa Meesia moss Suspected MIIH

Pseudocalliergon trifarium blunt water moss, worm moss Suspected MIIH

Schistidium 

cinclidodonteum

schistidium moss Suspected MIIH

Schistostega pennata schistostega moss Suspected MIIH

Splachnum ampullaceum purple-vased stink moss,

small capsule dung moss

Suspected MIIH

Tetraphis geniculata tetraphis moss Suspected MIIH

Tomentypnum nitens tomentypnum moss Suspected MIIH

Tortula mucronifolia mucron-leaf tortula moss Suspected MIIH

Vascular plants

Scientific name Common name Occurrence in 

planning area*

Effects calls**

all action alternatives

Achnatherum hendersonii Henderson’s ricegrass Suspected NI

Achnatherum 

wallowaense

Wallowa ricegrass Suspected NI

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. 

longicaulis

Lahontan sagebrush No Habitat NI

Astragalus tegetarioides Deschutes milk-vetch No Habitat NI

Botrychium ascendens upward-lobed moonwort Suspected MIIH

Botrychium crenulatum crenulate moonwort Documented MIIH

Botrychium hesperium western moonwort Suspected MIIH

Botrychium lineare slender moonwort Suspected MIIH

Botrychium lunaria common moonwort Suspected MIIH

Botrychium montanum mountain moonwort Suspected MIIH

Botrychium paradoxum twin-spiked moonwart Suspected MIIH
Final Environmental Impact Statement

511 of 632

Scientific name Common name Occurrence in 

planning area*

Effects calls**

all action alternatives

Botrychium 

pedunculosum

stalked moonwort Suspected MIIH

Bupleurum americanum American thorough-wax No Habitat NI

Calochortus 

longebarbatus var. peckii

Peck’s long-bearded sego-lily No Habitat NI

Calyptridum roseum rosy calyptridium Suspected MIIH

Carex atrosquama brass-fruit sedge No Habitat NI

Carex cordillerana cordilleran sedge Suspected MIIH

Carex diandra lesser panicled sedge Suspected MIIH

Carex idahoa Idaho or Parry’s sedge No Habitat NI

Carex lasiocarpa slender woolly sedge Suspected MIIH

Carex media Scandinavian sedge No Habitat NI

Carex micropoda timberline sedge No Habitat NI

Carex nardina spikenard sedge No Habitat NI

Carex pelocarpa dusky seed sedge No Habitat NI

Carex retrorsa retrorse sedge Suspected MIIH

Carex saxatilis limestone or russet sedge No Habitat NI

Carex scirpoidea ssp. 

stenochlaena

Alaskan single spiked sedge Suspected MIIH

Carex subnigricans dark mountain sedge No Habitat NI

Carex vernacula foetid or native sedge No Habitat NI

Chaenactis xantiana desert chaenactis No Habitat NI

Cheilanthes feei Fee's lip-fern No Habitat NI

Cryptogramma stelleri Steller’s rock-brake No Habitat NI

Cymopterus nivalis snowline cymopterus No Habitat NI

Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady’s slipper Suspected MIIH

Elatine brachysperma short-seeded waterwort Suspected MIIH

Eleocharis bolanderi Bolander’s spike-rush Documented MIIH

Eremothera pygmaea dwarf evening primrose Suspected MIIH

Eriogonum cusickii Cusick’s buckwheat No Habitat NI

Eriogonum salicornioides playa or saltwort buckwheat No Habitat NI

Heliotropium 

curassavicum

salt heliotrope No Habitat NI

Kobresia myosuroides Bellard’s kobresia No Habitat NI

Listera borealis northern twayblade Suspected MIIH

Lomatium erythrocarpum red-fruited desert parsley No Habitat NI

Luina serpentina colonial luina No Habitat NI

Lupinus cusickii var. 

cusickii

Cusick’s lupine No Habitat NI

Lycopodium complanatum ground-cedar Suspected MIIH

Mimulus evanescens disappearing monkey-flower Suspected MIIH

Muhlenbergia minutissima annual or little-seed muhly grass Suspected MIIH

Ophioglossum pusillum adder’s-tongue Suspected MIIH

Pellaea bridgesii Bridge’s cliff-brake Suspected NI

Phacelia minutissima dwarf or least phacelia Suspected MIIH

Phlox hendersonii Henderson’s phlox No Habitat NI

Phlox multiflora many-flowered phlox Suspected MIIH

Pilularia americana American pilwort Suspected MIIH

Pinus albicaulis whitebark pine No Habitat NI

Pleuropogon oregonus Oregon semaphore grass Suspected MIIH

Potamogeton diversifolius diverse-leaved pondweed Suspected MIIH

Rotala ramosior lowland toothcup Suspected MIIH

Salix farriae Farr’s willow No Habitat NI

Salix wolfii Wolf’s willow No Habitat NI

Saxifraga adscendens 

ssp. oregonensis

wedge-leaved saxifrage No Habitat NI

Stanleya confertiflora biennial stanleya No Habitat NI

Thelypodium eucosmum arrow-leaved thelypody No Habitat NI
Magone Project

512 of 632

Scientific name Common name Occurrence in 

planning area*

Effects calls**

all action alternatives

Trifolium douglasii Douglas’ clover Suspected MIIH

Trollius albiflorus American globeflower Suspected MIIH

Utricularia minor lesser bladderwort Suspected MIIH

* Project planning area occurrence: Documented = Species is documented in the project planning area; Suspected = Potential 

habitat present, and species is suspected to occur in project planning area; and No Habitat = No potential habitat present, 

species not expected in project planning area

** Effects calls: NI = No impact, the species does not occur in project area, and/or activities will not impact populations;

MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species; WIFV = Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species; and BI = Beneficial impact.

3.10.2.7 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

National Environmental Policy Act

The botanical specialist report and biological evaluation for this project fulfills, in part, requirements 

of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which directs federal agencies to “... insure that 

environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and 

before actions are taken” [40 CFR § 1500.1(b)], and to ensure that the applicable standards and 

guidelines of Malheur Forest Plan are included in the project design. The Botanical Resource Report 

and Biological Evaluation disclose the existing condition of sensitive plant populations and habitats, 

and analyze the potential effects to these resources.

Endangered Species Act and Forest Service Sensitive Species Policy

The Botanical Resource Report and Biological Evaluation for this project analyze potential effects to 

federally listed, proposed, and candidate plant species. It also analyzes potential effects to plant 

species designated as sensitive on the most recent Region Six Regional Forester’s Special Status 

Species List29 (USDA Forest Service 2011).

Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur Forest Plan) does not 

specifically outline any goals or desired future conditions for sensitive plants.

Under Fish and Wildlife, two goals may be interpreted to include plants (USDA Forest Service 

1990a, page IV-2):

 Goal #15. Assist in the identification, protection, and recovery of threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species.

 Goal #19. Provide a diversity of habitat sufficient to maintain viable populations of all 

species.

Malheur Forest Plan objectives under Fish and Wildlife may be interpreted to include plants (USDA

Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-16 and IV-17): 

 

29 In this Final EIS, we acknowledge there is a more current version of the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species list,

dated July, 2015. However, guidance allows specialists to continue using the listing that was current as of the date of 

project initiation, and the Magone Project was initiated prior to the release of the 2015 Regional Forester’s Special Status 

Species list.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

513 of 632

 Plan and design all management activities to avoid actions that may cause a species to 

become threatened or endangered. Critical habitats and other habitats necessary for the 

conservation of these species would not be destroyed or suffer adverse modification.

 Cooperate with future recovery efforts on behalf of the bald eagle, American peregrine 

falcon, and other threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. Consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of 

Agriculture, and the Natural Heritage Foundation for technical assistance in developing 

management guides and in determining viable population levels.

 Manage habitat of candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered in cooperation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Monitor known populations and survey for 

additional populations with the cooperation of The Nature Conservancy and the Oregon 

Natural Heritage Database (now called the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center).

The Malheur Forest Plan standard for Unique and Sensitive Habitats (microhabitats) would help 

protect potential rare plant habitat (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-31):

 Standard #56. Maintain the integrity of unique habitats including meadows, rim rock, talus 

slopes, cliffs, animal dens, wallows, bogs, sees and springs by incorporation cover buffers 

approximately 100 feet in width. Utilize additional mitigation and enhancement measure 

identified through project level analysis.

Malheur Forest Plan forest-wide standards for threatened, endangered and sensitive species include 

(USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-32 and IV-33):

 Standard #62. Meet all legal and biological requirements for the conservation of 

threatened and endangered plants and animals. Assess all proposed project that involve 

habitat change or disturbance and have the potential to alter the habitat of threatened, 

endangered or sensitive plant and animal species.

 Standard #64. When threatened or endangered species or habitats are present, follow the 

required biological assessment process, according to the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act (Public Law 93-205). Meet all consultation requirements with the USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies.

 Standard #65. Specify all protection or mitigation requirements (36 CFR 219.27(a) *8)) 

before project implementation begins. Manage all habitats for existing federally 

classified threatened and endangered species to help achieve recovery objectives. 

 Standard #66. Perform a biological (field) evaluation for use in planning of proposed 

projects when sensitive species are present or suspected. Conduct surveys in cooperation 

with other agencies and groups to document the locations of sensitive species 

populations and to provide more specific information on habitat requirements and 

relative management guidelines.

All project design criteria and project proposals for all action alternatives comply with the above 

listed laws and Forest Service regulations. All proposed project activities are consistent with the 

applicable Malheur Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

3.11 Analysis Issue – Invasive Plants

3.11.1 Existing Condition

Fourteen different types of invasive plant species are known to occur within the Magone project 

planning area. These species are listed in Table 119 along with their scientific name and approximate 
Magone Project

514 of 632

acres of infestation. Most of the species located within the project planning area are “A” rated

species, which are normally limited in distribution throughout the state. Eradication, containment, 

rejection, or other holding actions are the most common actions to be taken on these species. A 

comprehensive site-specific inventory for non-native invasive plants has not been done in this project 

planning area. There are undoubtedly many undocumented acres and potentially additional species of 

non-native invasive plants in the project planning area.

Table 119. Known non-native invasive plant occurrence and abundance within the Magone project 

planning area

Common name Scientific name Total acres

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 3.58

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 12.03

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 3.68

Common mullein Verbascum thapsus 0.92

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica 2.71

Diffuse knapweed Centaura diffusa 1.88

Hardheads Acroptilon repens 0.21

North Africa grass Ventenata dubia 0.17

Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare 0.02

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium 0.46

Spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos 60.78

St. Johnswart Hypericum perforatum 0.67

Stinking willie Senecio jacobaea 0.10

Sulphur cinquefoil Potentilla recta 3.86

The invasive plants within the project planning area encompass approximately 91 acres (0.33

percent) of the project planning area.

Invasive plant spread on the Malheur National Forest has occurred largely due to past and ongoing 

activities, which can increase the likelihood of weed spread. Additionally, invasive plants can spread 

from the following activities:

 Seeds becoming attached to fur of wildlife and domestic livestock as they pass through 

existing infestations and then fall off at another location.

 Seeds and weed propagules being transported by vehicles and machinery that have been 

operated in infested areas.

 Management actions that disturb soils and reduce competing vegetation, making more 

desirable sites for invasive/invasive plant establishment.

 Ingestion of seeds by animals followed by defectation away from the original infestation.

 Prescribed burning and actions associated with creation and burning of slash piles.

In addition to the above vectors, invasive plants can spread through natural vectors such as wind fire, 

and water.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

515 of 632

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences

3.11.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The measurement indicator for assessing effects from non-native invasive plants is the risk of spread 

from ground disturbance.

3.11.2.2 Methodology

Several methods were used to determine the existing condition of invasive plants and to determine 

the expected effects of each alternative. The state of Oregon weed list and the Grant County weed list 

were reviewed to identify known invasive plants of concern in the general area. A Geographic 

Information System map was reviewed showing the existing known invasive plant infestations in the 

project planning area.The data on this map came from surveys on the Forest recently performed by 

the Forest Service; additionally, the range specialist also performed ongoing visual monitoring of the 

project planning area to identify expansions of known sites and look for introduction of new species. 

All documented invasive plant sites from these surveys are recorded in a national database, Natural 

Resources Information System. The database includes individual site records indicating the location, 

size of infestation, plant numbers and density, type of past treatment implemented, recommended 

follow-up treatments and effectiveness.

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Past and ongoing actions such as timber sales, road construction and maintenance, fire suppression, 

livestock grazing, big game wildlife, and recreational uses (refer to Table 17 for further information) 

have introduced invasive plant populations to the project planning area.

Foreseeable activities occurring within the project planning area would provide a moderate to high 

probability of the introduction and spread of invasive plants. Foreseeable activities include (but are 

not limited to) use and maintenance of Forest roads, fire suppression, livestock grazing, slash piling 

and burning, firewood cutting, and year-round recreational use.

The Forest’s invasive plant management program consisting of annual surveys combined with 

mechanical and hand pulling treatments would continue. The amount of treatment within the project 

planning area would vary annually based on funding and Forest priorities. With the approval of the 

Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Record of Decision (USDA Forest 

Service 2015b), additional invasive plant treatments (potentially including the use of herbicides) may 

occur in the Magone project planning area.

3.11.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, there would be no change to the existing rate of spread, nor a change in the 

introduction of new species from the current rate. Minor changes in spread occur where invasive 

plants are found along roads and where bare ground found or created as a result of wildfire, both 

naturally occurring and human caused. Monitoring and control for invasive plants conducted by the 

forest would continue to occur.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no additive effects that would contribute to the spread of invasive plants under the 

no action alternative. Cumulative effects that are likely to occur in alternative 1 include the reduction 

in invasive plants with implementation of the Record of Decision for the Malheur National Forest 
Magone Project

516 of 632

Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project (USDA Forest Service 2015b). This document may 

authorize the use of herbicides for treatment of invasive species on the Forest.

3.11.2.4 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Silviculture treatments that cause ground disturbance would increase the risk for spread and 

introduction of invasive plants. If seeds were introduced to these disturbed areas they can germinate 

more readily than if the soil surface was intact (Gelbard and Belnap 2003; Silveri et al. 2001). The 

invasive plant seed could come from a nearby invasive plant patch, be transported by soil clinging to 

equipment or be introduced from some other source (birds, animals, recreation). Contractors 

mobilizing equipment from other areas have the potential to introduce invasive plants within 

harvested areas and along existing access roads. This effect can be greatly limited by ensuring that 

machines do not travel from invasive plant patches to areas without invasive plants. Additionally, 

this effect can also be minimized by ensuring that bare ground created as a result of this action is 

limited and not continuous such that a stand of invasive plants could become established.

Prescribed burning may increase invasive plant populations (Briese 1996; Maret and Wilson 2000). 

Burned areas provide nutrients and space for invasive plants to establish. A monitoring study done on 

the Forest noted that an increase in invasive plants was closely related to the intensity of a fire. 

Lower intensity fires had fewer invasive plants develop in the area (Kerns et al. 2006). Therefore, 

since low intensity fires are proposed in the project planning area, invasive plants would not be 

expected to increase at a rate greater than that of the no action alternative.

Riparian restoration activities that create bare ground would increase the risk for spread and 

introduction of invasive plants. Specifically, in riparian areas where water is abundant, the spread of 

invasive plants is a risk. Once invasive plants are established in riparian areas there are few 

successful treatment options currently available to the Forest. Additionally, invasive plants 

established within riparian areas spread at a much faster rate given the availability of resources and 

become a problem for the resource in a short period of time.

Recreation opportunity improvements proposed are likely to increase the spread of invasive 

plants. Invasive plant locations are commonly found along roads and trails within this project 

planning area. The increased activity along these roads and trails from the proposed increase in 

recreation is likely to increase the spread of invasive plants to locations that currently are un-altered 

by their species.

Magone Lake Restoration activities are not likely to increase the spread of invasive plants within 

the project planning area.

Roads activities proposed in the project planning area are likely to be the largest contributor to the 

spread of invasive plants. The majority of the invasive plants on the Forest are concentrated along 

the Forest road system. This is likely due to several factors including; the high use of the roads that 

transport the invasive plants, the preferable seedbed created by road gravels, and the continual 

disturbance of the road surface. As such, activities that create new disturbed ground adjacent to or 

within the road prism or further disturb the road surface would be likely to spread invasive plants. 

Road maintenance, new road construction, road decommissioning and temporary road construction 

all disturb soil to some degree.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

517 of 632

Cumulative Effects

The action alternatives have the potential to increase the spread and introduction of invasive plants 

during treatment. However, with the proper mitigation measures in place; continued diligence 

towards minimizing bare ground, eradicating new invasive plant sites, minimizing potential invasive 

plant sources such as unclean machinery, and reseeding when bare ground is created, the amount and 

extent of cumulative effects can remain minimal. With the proper mitigation the adverse effects 

would remain unmeasurable. Cumulative effects that are likely to occur with implementation of the 

action alternatives include the reduction in invasive plants with implementation of the Record of 

Decision for the Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment Project (USDA 

Forest Service 2015b). This document may authorize the use of herbicides for treatment of invasive 

plant species on the Forest.

3.11.2.5 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

All alternatives are consistent with the Forest-wide standards for invasive plants, including forest 

plan modifications made by the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2005a).

3.12 Analysis Issue – Range

The authority to protect, manage, and administer the National Forest System lands and other lands 

under Forest Service administration for range management purposes is found in the following two 

acts:

 Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, 1960 established the policy and purpose of national 

forests to provide for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services.

 Forest and Range Renewable Resources Planning Act, 1974 established public land policy 

and guidelines for management, protection, development, and enhancement of public lands.

The Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, provides general direction, objectives, and goals for the 

management of forest resources (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV–2) including:

 Provide a sustained production of palatable forage for grazing by livestock and dependent 

wildlife species (Forest Goal 20).

 Manage rangelands to meet the needs of other resources and uses at a level that is responsive 

to site-specific objectives (Forest Goal 21).

 Permit livestock use on suitable range when the permittee manages livestock using 

prescribed practices (Forest Goal 22).

The Malheur National Forest Post-Fire Grazing Interim Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2003) is 

an interim guide providing direction that establishes minimum timeframes an area would be rested 

from grazing following a wildfire or prescribed fire.

3.12.1 Existing Condition

Within the project planning area there are a total of nine grazing allotments: John Day, Beech Creek, 

Roundtop, Keeney Meadows, Dixie, Fox, Long Creek, Herberger, and McCullough (Table 120). 

Seven of the allotments currently have 10-year term grazing permits (Table 121).
Magone Project

518 of 632

Table 120. Allotments in the Magone project planning area

Allotment Total acres Acres within project 

planning area

Percentage of allotment 

within project planning area

John Day 18,629 11,992 64%

Beech Creek 3,913 1,011 26%

Roundtop 13,707 12,398 90%

Keeney Meadows 450 63 14%

Dixie 26,874 64 0.24%

Fox 26,220 49 0.19%

Long Creek 49,000 68 0.14%

Herberger 553 155 28%

McCullough 627 478 76%

Table 121. Allotment livestock grazing numbers, animal unit months (AUMs), and permitted dates of use

Allotment Livestock numbers 

(cow/calf pairs)

AUMs30 On date Off date

John Day 177 1,052 11-Jun 5-Oct

Beech Creek 35 304 15-May 30-Nov

Roundtop 200 1,059 1-June 30-Sep

Keeney Meadows 57 114 19-Jun 3-Aug

Dixie 173 1,028 1-Jun 15-Oct

Fox 293 997 11-Jun 30-Sept

Long Creek 967 3,246 1-Jun 15-Oct

Herberger* 8 26 1-Aug 15-Oct

McCullough* 33 174 1-Jun 30-Sep

*The Herberger and McCullough allotments are currently not authorized to graze.

The allotments within the project planning area contain diverse ecosystems including south facing 

slopes with grassland type environments that contain moderate amounts of Idaho fescue and 

bluebunch wheatgrass with a ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir over story; and meadow environments that 

were historically agricultural private land and/or used extensively by Civilian Conservation Corps 

crews during the 1930s to 1940s for the conservation and development of natural resources. 

Additionally, within these allotments there are upland Cool Moist plant associations comprising 

limited amounts of forage dominated by forbs and shrubs; and riparian ecosystems that are 

composed of sedges and rushes with an alder or willow dominant canopy.

Forage availability within most areas of the project planning area has decreased due to fire 

suppression activities and lack of recent thinning activities. The result is an increase in the tree

canopy structure, which reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor and amount of 

available forage.

Prior to European-American settlement of the area, fire played a dominant role in shaping the 

landscape. Forest Service fire suppression policies have significantly altered the ecosystem. Areas of 

open ponderosa pine stands have been converted to dense, overstocked, dead and dying stands of 

diseased forest that provide little in the way of forage for grazing animals. Conifers have encroached 

 

30 Animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage required by one mature (1,000 pound) cow or its equivalent for one 

month (based upon average forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry matter per day).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

519 of 632

upon areas that were once open meadows and dry rangeland. Densely stocked forest stands have 

succumbed to insects and disease, and reduced vigor because of overcrowding. Where significant 

tree mortality has occurred, fallen trees restrict movement of wild ungulates and livestock, thereby 

further limiting the amount of forage available.

Native grass and forb species are still predominant in many areas of the dry forest type, however 

some areas have been mixed with non-native species (intermediate wheatgrass and Kentucky 

bluegrass) introduced to stabilize soils along roads, skid trails, and landing sites. Some of these same 

disturbed locations now host populations of invasive plants.

3.12.1.1 Riparian Conditions within the Project Planning Area

Within the Magone project planning area the Forest Service interdisciplinary team annually collects 

riparian monitoring data for the amount of utilization by permitted livestock. Additionally, at regular 

intervals, the PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

collects data relating to the condition of the streams specifically relating to livestock use levels. This 

data indicates that livestock use of riparian areas has been within allowable levels for several years. 

As a result of continued acceptable use by livestock, the riparian areas have been able to recover 

from their historically poor condition.

3.12.1.2 Upland Conditions within the Project Planning Area

In 1970, condition and trend monitoring of plant communities within the project planning area was 

completed. The results of this monitoring indicated that the condition of the vegetative community 

was “poor.”

In 2014, the sites monitored in 1970 were re-monitored using the same protocol. The results of the 

most recent monitoring indicated the condition of the vegetative community was “Good –

Excellent.” See examples of the 1970 and 2014 monitoring photos in the Range Report.

Upland Water Developments

Throughout each allotment, a number of structural improvements are maintained by the permittees. 

These improvements include allotment boundary and pasture fences, small enclosure fences, and 

watering troughs and ponds. Fences on the allotments are maintained annually and troughs and 

ponds are maintained on an as-needed basis, typically at least every five years.

There are 52 existing upland water developments within the project planning area, including 32 

ponds, 19 water troughs, and one drinking water spring.

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences

3.12.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The measurement indicators detailed in Table 122, and described above, are used for assessing the 

effects to rangeland resources in the Magone project planning area.
Magone Project

520 of 632

Table 122. Range resource indicators and measures for assessing effects

Objective Indicator Justification

Availability of water developments to increase 

cattle distribution in the uplands

Upland water sources USDA Forest Service 1990a

Assess changes to forage production Forage production USDA Forest Service 1990a

Assess changes to acres available for livestock 

grazing 

Acres available for 

livestock grazing

USDA Forest Service 1990a

3.12.2.2 Methodology

This section provides basic rangeland resource information within the project planning area. 

Discussion regarding the project planning area is focused on the grazing allotments and their 

respective pastures for the purpose of addressing grazing permit administrative impacts or impacts to 

permittees.

Annual range vegetation monitoring has been conducted on the grazing allotments located within the 

project planning area. Range administration is conduced yearly by both the Forest Service and the 

permittees to meet terms and conditions of the grazing permit.

Other sources of information include:

 Grazing permits

 Malheur National Forest geographic information system (GIS) database

 Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

 On-the-ground knowledge of the project planning area

 Conversations and field visits with permittees

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis

Past actions in or near the project planning area include, but are not limited to, timber management, 

wildland fuels management, fire suppression, grazing, recreation, firewood cutting, road and 

facilities construction and maintenance, aquatic restoration, and increasing elk populations.

3.12.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Current grazing practices would continue on all allotments within the project planning area. The no 

action alternative would have no overall direct short-term impacts to permittee operations.

Forage availability under the no action alternative is predicted to decrease over time due to the 

increased plant competition that occurs when overstory shading from trees increases. Decreases in 

forage availability would likely affect livestock distribution within the allotments. Additionally, 

under this alternative, it is expected that the increase in tree density would decrease the available 

water in springs, thus increasing the difficulty in managing livestock.

Under this alternative, the existing forage base would continue to decline in vigor and abundance as 

tree canopy cover increases and becomes closed. Tight canopies reduce available sunlight on the 

forest floor, increase the duff layer, and reduce soil moisture and nutrients. Carrying capacity would 

decline as grasses, forbs, and shrubs are crowded out by shade-tolerant species, resulting in a 

reduction of available forage. If more suitable rangeland is not created by future management 

projects or natural disturbance, the number of livestock permitted to graze on this project planning 

area may need to be decreased in the future to avoid unacceptable environmental damage.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

521 of 632

With the no action alternative, no additional ground disturbance would occur, so grasses and grasslikes31 are not as likely to be disturbed by invasive plants. Aspen stands would continue to degrade, 

as increased competition from evergreens crowds them out. Declining resource conditions and 

increased canopy cover would also favor larger, high-intensity wildfires in the long-term. With more 

intense fire regimes, less palatable and non-native invasive species would increase. Invasive plants 

readily establish in high intensity burns and prevent re-establishment of native forage.

Under the no action alternative, the existing spring developments and fence lines would require 

slightly more maintenance. Fence maintenance cost would increase as snag densities increase and 

fall into the fence right-of-way, thus needing to be removed. Increases in tree densities under this 

alternative would increase the difficulty for permittees to access spring developments and keep them 

in proper functioning condition.

With the no action alternative, no changes would be made in road densities that would impact 

permittee operations or access to improvements.

Cumulative Effects

The reasonable and foreseeable future activities in the project planning area include (but are not 

limited to) use and maintenance of Forest roads, fire suppression, livestock grazing, firewood 

cutting, aquatic restoration activities, and year-round recreational use. Cumulatively, the existing 

forage base would continue to decline in vigor and abundance, invasive species would increase, 

maintenance costs for fences may increase, and cattle and permittee access may decline.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not move the project planning area towards a healthier, resilient, 

diverse, and sustainable ecosystem. If no action were taken, forage quality and production would

continue to decline, reducing the quantity of primary, secondary, and suitable rangeland over time. 

There would be a decreased likelihood that the area could be managed in the long-term toward open 

forest conditions, consistent with the historical range of variability. There would be a decrease in the 

likelihood that the area could continue to be managed in the long-term for multiple use, as prescribed 

by our agency mission, including livestock grazing.

3.12.2.4 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Silviculture treatments: Silviculture treatments would positively affect range conditions and increase 

available forage for livestock. Based on professional experience on the Malheur National Forest, the 

proposed thinning and prescribed burning would have a positive effect for both the short- and longterm range conditions by reducing conifer density in stands, reducing ground fuel loadings that 

restrict livestock movement, and increasing transitory range forage. Therefore, the alternatives can 

be expected to decrease the impacts of cattle grazing on riparian zones by providing cattle more 

suitable upland rangeland to use. Alternative 3 (which includes the greatest amount of silviculture 

treatment acres) would increase available forage the most for livestock, followed by alternative 2, 

and then alternative 4.

Prescribed burning: Prescribed fire that consumes light herbaceous material has a positive effect on 

range management. By burning decedent fuels, more plant material comes into contact with the soil 

surface, which increases the rate of decay of the material. This increase in decay allows the 

 

31 Grasses are from the family Poaceae. Grass-likes are the variety of plants with long, narrow leaves that sheath the stem 

(like a grass). They resemble grasses or sedges, but do not have a perigynium (female part of the flower) like sedges, or 

flowers arranged in spikelets as in true grasses.
Magone Project

522 of 632

incorporation of organic matter into the soil, which increases the nutrients available to the plant as 

well as increasing the water holding capacity of the soil. All of these factors combine to increase 

forage production of a site. Short-term impacts from prescribed fire may occur; however, the effects 

are not expected to decrease the ability for permittees to effectively manage their allotments. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 (which include the greatest amount of prescribed burning) would increase 

available forage the most for livestock, followed by alternative 4.

The vegetation of the Blue Mountains is highly adapted to periodic fire in forest, shrub-land, and 

grassland ecosystems. Fire was once an integral function of the majority of ecosystems in northeast 

Oregon. The predominant vegetation would recover quickly after underburning, and rest periods 

from grazing are not anticipated in most pastures, therefore impacts to permittee operations is not 

anticipated. Fuel treatment areas are predominately composed of elk sedge and pine grass. These 

fire-tolerant herbaceous species are less desirable forage by livestock.

Advanced coordination with a District Range Specialist and permittees prior to prescribed burning 

activities is required (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria). Grazing management 

adjustments would be developed in coordination with the allotment permittee and incorporated into 

the annual grazing strategies. After underburning is initiated, grazing management practices would 

be implemented to achieve desired use levels. These practices may include deferment or electric 

fencing, adjustment of livestock placement in pastures, and use of salt blocks or other management 

practices that would promote use by livestock in portions of the pasture away from treatment areas. 

The proposed actions are consistent with the Malheur National Forest Post-Fire Interim Grazing 

Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2003) which states that vegetation types such as elk sedge and 

pine grass require little recovery time after a light burn.

Generally, spring burns have the fewest undesirable effects to forage species, perhaps due to higher 

soil moistures. However, bluebunch wheatgrass has a higher mortality if spring burned, compared to 

fall burning. In the elk sedge/pinegrass communities, low to moderate severity fire may result in 

rapid rhizome extension and greater palatability.

Burning impacts on plant species in this project planning area would vary in response to a variety of 

conditions such as the weather, season of burning, plant morphology, current plant condition and

vigor, accumulated litter, soil moisture, and fire intensity. Fire intensity is probably the primary

influencing factor that may affect individual plants and forage production. The wide variation in 

burning intensity across treatment units (unburned to light to moderate) would create wide variability 

in results and recovery. Low-intensity fires would have low plant mortality and stimulate plant vigor. 

Plants with increased vigor produce more leaf matter and set more seed, resulting in an increase in 

forage production. Increased plant mortality is expected with heavier fuel loading. In these areas, reseeding with native plant seed mixes would be necessary.

Low-intensity burning is expected where fuel loads are mostly herbaceous, and there is very little 

woody material, less than one ton per acre as in open grassland with only light shrub cover. When 

prescriptions call for broadcast burning of scattered fuels, the burning impacts would be widespread 

over the unit, with severe burning intensity creating cover voids but with surviving plants 

interspersed throughout the unit. Bunched slash and piles burned at landings mean certain death for

understory species and re-seeding would be necessary.

Long-term impacts of prescribed burning are anticipated to be positive in terms of moving treatment 

units towards the historical condition objective and improving both watershed values and production 

of rangeland resources. Burning “effects” include the release of nutrients which have been tied up in 

the system so that there is a stimulant (fertilizer affect) on the understory. Recovery of vigor and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

523 of 632

production in the herbaceous species is quickest for pine grass and elk sedge. With low-intensity 

fires, dry site bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue should be stimulated by the defoliation. Long 

term maintenance would requirefollow-up treatment so that shrub recovery does not reach 

pretreatment levels or dominate understories. Historical conditions on these sites probably did not 

have heavy shrub cover in many places since fire-return intervals thinned the shrub cover repeatedly.

Prescribed fire has an indirect effect of promoting better livestock distribution due to improved 

quality of forage. Indirect effects related to management of grazing permits include loss of control if 

gates are left open or fences are burned up. This causes loss of control of livestock, and resultant loss 

of effective management of the rangeland vegetation.

Road activities: During project implementation the increase in road activity would likely 

detrimentally affect cattle distribution. The extent of this effect is unpredictable and is based on 

several fluctuating factors that are largely controlled by the timing of the road activities in correlation 

with the effectiveness of the intensive management of livestock with the project planning area. This 

effect is expected only to last until the project is complete. Alternative 3 would have the greatest 

increase in road activity (with the greatest miles of road maintenance for haul and temporary road 

construction), followed by alternative 2, and then alternative 4 (with the least miles of road 

maintenance for haul and temporary road construction).

Access to much of the project planning area by permittees with livestock grazing permits is by 

means of horseback. As such, decreasing road densities would not negatively effect livestock 

management.

Permittees with term grazing permits are allowed limited off-road use in order to administer their 

grazing permits pursuant to Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations 261.5. In addition, any existing 

closed road that is needed for access for the administration of grazing permits within Malheur 

National Forest lands are available for use even if closed for use by the general public. Permittees 

exercise care and caution with their authorization as not to abuse their privilege in accordance with 

their term grazing permits. As such, the increase or decrease of open roads as proposed by the 

alternatives would likely not affect livestock management activities. Alternative 2 would have the 

most affect to the current road system (with the most road miles proposed for road closure), followed 

by alternatives 3 and 4.

Recreation opportunity improvements: Recreation may have a negative effect on range 

management. Recreation increases the chance of cattle being harassed and moved to areas were 

resources are more limited; areas were resources are being managed under stricter guidelines due to 

threatened species habitat; areas that are being rested, have already been grazed, or can be damaged 

by grazing (too sensitive to be grazed by livestock). Typically this occurs by gates being left open as 

access to recreational sites increases. Additionally, it is anticipated that as trails are created, more 

types of transportation would use the trails, further increasing the likelihood for the harassment of 

livestock, gates being left open, and fences being cut for access.

All action alternatives include some extent of trail construction within the project planning area. It is 

expected that as this activity increases, negative effects to the range program and the ability to 

manage livestock properly would be realized. Alternative 3 would have the greatest impact (with the 

most miles of new trail construction and designation proposed), followed by alternative 2, and then 

alternative 4 (with the least miles of new trail construction and designation).

Specifically, livestock management within the project planning area is strictly regulated due to the 

presence of the threatened species steelhead and their critical habitat. The Malheur National Forest 
Magone Project

524 of 632

follows the grazing standards as listed in the Biological Opinion and Letters of Concurrence written 

by National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In order to achieve 

successful livestock management in accordance with the current regulations, livestock are pushed 

and drawn to the ridgetops, away from the critical habitat and sensitive areas. 

Typically, upland water sources have been developed in these areas and these areas are approved by 

the Forest Service as acceptable for the placement of livestock luring compounds such as low 

moisture blocks or high protein mineral tubs.

Many of the proposed trails are in the same locations used by livestock, in lieu of livestock using 

riparian areas along the critical habitat streams. As such, it is expected that the actions proposed in 

the alternatives would decrease the Forest’s ability to propose grazing strategies that encourage 

effective management of livestock away from steelhead critical habitat, and decrease the permittees’ 

ability to effectively manage livestock away from steelhead critical habitat.

The recreational activity proposed in alternative 3 to designate OHV use on FSR 36 to 4 corners is 

not likely to have a negative effect on range management. FSR 36 is currently heavily traveled and 

thus the increase activity from OHV use compared to passenger vehicles is not expected to have a 

negative effect. There are no gates on that road that could be left open by OHV users and there is not 

likely to be concentrated livestock use in this area that may be harassed by OHV use.

Magone Lake restoration activities: There would be no impact to range management from this 

activity because activities would take place within the Magone Lake recreation area, where grazing 

is restricted (which includes Magone Lake).

Spefically, there would be no impact to range management from the proposed accessible trail 

development (alternatives 2 and 3), placement of the day use boat dock (alternatives 2, 3, and 4), 

placement of the campground boat mooring (alternatives 2, 3, and 4), or placement of the fishing 

dock (alternatives 2 and 3) because these activities would take place within the Magone Lake 

recreation area, where grazing is restricted.

Cumulative Effects

The action alternatives would move the project planning area towards a healthier, resilient, diverse, 

and sustainable ecosystem. The action alternatives would increase the amount of available forage for 

livestock as well as increase the amount of open area accessible by livestock. This increase in forage 

and space would lead to an overall decrease in the concentration of utilization of forage by livestock,

as well as wildlife. Combining more available forage with the current trend of increased conditions 

of vegetation in the project planning area may increase the options for forest land management to 

continue toward increased multiple use, as described in our agency mission.

The negative effects from increased recreation within the project planning area, as described in more 

detail above, would likely carry over to the areas surrounding the project planning area and have a 

negative effect on them as well. Recreation use within and between grazing allotments increases the 

chance of gates being left open and livestock assessing adjoining allotments. The domino effect of 

increased recreation would likely impede the forest’s ability to continue to manage grazing 

allotments in a manner consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan.

Fire suppression: Fire suppression allows trees to increase canopy cover and thus decreases 

available forage on the forest floor, which has a negative effect on range management. Alternatively, 

uncontrolled wildland fire would have short-term negative effects to range management since the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

525 of 632

intensity can often sterilize soils increases chances of invasive plant infestations due to the increased 

bare ground.

Grazing: Grazing has a beneficial effect to range management. Grass has evolved with grazing and is 

genetically disposed to respond positively to the effects of grazing. Grass can be grazed after seed 

production as a way to increase the abundance of the species, since grazing helps incorporate seeds 

into the soil through micro sites that are created by livestock hoofs. Grass can be grazed prior to seed 

emergence and, through the natural process of nutrient cycling, can be fertilized prior to seed 

production—the time in a plants maturity which take the most nutrients to complete.

Firewood cutting: Firewood cutting is a common activity that has a negative impact on range 

management. Fences are often cut, broken, or destroyed by people accessing trees. This allows 

livestock to access areas that have already been grazed, are too sensitive to be grazed, or are being 

protected for another resource.

Aquatic restoration: The effects of riparian restoration activities (authorized under the Aquatic 

Restoration Decision 2014) that involve the placement of woody debris within the riparian area is 

likely to detrimentally affect the amount of available forage for livestock within the project planning 

area. Furthermore, aquatic restoration activities that decrease the amount of available acres for 

livestock grazing would also have a detrimental effect to range management. These detrimental 

effects are expected to be balanced by the thinning activities within the project planning area. Thus, 

it is expected there would be a positive effect from aquatic restoration by decreasing livestock access 

to stream channels and thus increasing the amount of time that livestock are able to stay in a pasture. 

This is accompanied by a negative effect as well, in that the action can create ‘traps’ along the stream 

channel that hold cattle along the sensitive stream banks and can decrease the amount of forage 

availability, and decrease the overall movement of livestock through a pasture or allotment.

3.12.2.5 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

All alternatives are consistent with the Forest-wide Standard 82: Manage residues to facilitate the use 

of forage by domestic livestock (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-34). 

Alternative 2 is consistent with the following Forest-wide Standards:

 Forest-wide Standard 85: Design improvements to protect tree regeneration and/or to 

distribute livestock use (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-35).

 Forest-wide Standard 88: Design and implement structural and nonstructural range 

improvements to maintain productivity and range condition in addition to benefiting both 

wildlife and livestock. Locate range structural and nonstructural improvements to encourage 

livestock movement away from riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-35).

Range permittees were contacted during collaboration and the scoping period to solicit and 

incorporate comments on project activities.

3.13 Analysis Issue – Heritage

Cultural resources are fragile and irreplaceable resources that chronicle the history of people utilizing 

the forested environment. Cultural or heritage resources include:

 Historic properties, places which are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion to the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) by virtue of their historic, archaeological, 

architectural, engineering, or cultural significance. Buildings, structures, sites, and portable 
Magone Project

526 of 632

objects (e.g., signs, heavy equipment) may be considered historic properties. Traditional 

Cultural Properties (TCPs), localities that are significant in light of the role it plays in a 

community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices (Parker and King 1998), are 

also considered historic properties. Historic properties are subject to the National Historic 

Preservation Act’s Section 106 review process.

 American Indian sacred sites located on federal lands. These may or may not be historic 

properties.

 Cultural use of the natural environment (e.g., subsistence use of plants or animals), which 

must be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The effects analysis addresses the no action alternative and three action alternatives. The four 

alternatives should have no adverse effect on historic properties that are eligible or potentially 

eligible for inclusion to the NRHP.

3.13.1 Regulatory Framework

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, is the foremost 

legislation that governs the treatment of cultural resources during project planning and 

implementation. Implementing regulations that clarify and expand upon the NHPA include 36 CFR 

800 (Protection of Historic Properties), 36 CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National

Register of Historic Places), and 36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources).

The Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), and the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), signed a programmatic 

agreement regarding the management of cultural resources on National Forest system lands in 2004. 

The agreement outlines specific procedures for the identification, evaluation, and protection of 

cultural resources during proposed activities.

The National Envrionmental Policy Act (NEPA) is also a cultural resource management directive, as 

it calls for agencies to analyze the effects of their actions on socio-cultural elements of the 

environment. Laws such as the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, the Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, and Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) also 

guide Forest Service decision-making as it relates to heritage. The American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of their projects 

on the free exercise of traditional Indian religions.

The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur Forest Plan) (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a), as amended, tiers to the previously-mentioned laws and corresponding Forest 

Service manual direction as it sets forth resource management goals, objectives, and standards. 

Forest-wide management standards that are pertinent for this project include:

 Conduct a professionally supervised cultural resource survey on National Forest lands to 

identify cultural resource properties. Use sound survey strategies and the Malheur National 

Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Survey Design. (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Standard 

14, page IV-25)

 Consider the effects of all Forest Service undertakings on cultural resources. If a National 

Register and eligible property is affected, considerations shall include the formulation and 

analysis of alternatives, and the examination of interactions and impacts among cultural 

resources and other resource uses. Coordinate the formulation and evaluation of alternatives 

with the State cultural resource plan, the SHPO and State Archaeologist, other State and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

527 of 632

Federal agencies, and with traditional and religious leaders of Native American Indian 

groups and tribes with historic ties to the project planning area. (USDA Forest Service 

1990a, Standard 15, page IV-26)

 Evaluate the significance of sites by applying the criteria for eligibility to the National 

Register of Historic Places. (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Standard 19, page IV-26)

 Protect National Register and eligible properties from human impacts and natural 

destruction. (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Standard 21, page IV-26)

3.13.2 Existing Condition

Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for this 

undertaking includes the entire Magone project planning area, which covers an area of 27,087 acres 

within the Grub Creek and East Fork Beech Creek subwatersheds. Drainages in the area are 

tributaries to the John Day River, which ultimately empties into the Columbia River. The John Day 

River lies to the south of the project planning area and tributaries within the project planning area 

flow south to southeast from higher elevations until ultimately emptying into the John Day River.

The project planning area is located within the southern portion of the Blue Mountains physiographic 

province which is north of the High Lava Plains and Basin- Range physiographic provinces. The 

Owyhee Uplands lie to the south of the province while the High Lava Plains stretch to the west 

(Baldwin 1964). The topography of the area is characteristically mountainous with gentle to 

moderately steep slopes reaching up from the floor of the John Day River valley. Primary landforms 

include ridgetops, mountain slopes, and dissected canyons. Elevations vary from about 4,000 to 

6,000 feet. Culturally important plant species, such as bitterroot, biscuitroot, yampa, lomatium, and 

huckleberries have been recorded in the area.

The history of the Magone project planning area is thematically rich. The area has been occupied by 

Native Americans for at least 10,000 years. The southern Blue Mountains were utilized by people 

representing the adaptive traditions of both the northern Great Basin and the Southern Columbia 

Plateau (Burtchard 1998). The area had seasonal use by the ancestors of the modern Cayuse, Nez 

Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Northern Paiute tribes (Reid et al. 1989).

The Northern Paiute also utilized the area and developed a cultural pattern shaped by the demands of 

a semi-desert environment. During the spring, summer, and fall, small bands of Northern Paiute 

moved through the area collecting and gathering a wide range of food resources including seeds, 

plant foods, rabbit, fish, and antelope (Couture 1996). The Northern Paiute were divided into many 

bands and the project planning area lies within the Wada’ tika (meaning seed eaters) band territory. 

The Burns Paiute tribe is composed of people who are descendants of the Wada’ tika band (Couture 

1996).

American Indian people procured tool stone from a variety of locations within and adjacent to the 

project planning area. The tool stone was used to create a variety of artifacts including knives, drills, 

scrapers, and projectile points. Groundstone tools used for plant processing have also been observed. 

Naturally occurring deposits of chalcedony, chert, petrified wood, and fine grained basalt are found 

in outcrops and in gravel bars. Obsidian was the most commonly used tool stone in the project 

planning area based on the artifacts encountered during surveys. The nearest obsidian sources are 

located approximately 20 miles to the southeast on the southern flanks of the Strawberry Mountains.

Non-native historic use of the project planning area has been relatively minor compared to American 

Indian use. Logging activities began on the Malheur National Forest in the late nineteenth century.

Cattle ranching flourished in the region beginning in the 1860s. Sheep herding became large scale 
Magone Project

528 of 632

after the severe winters of the late 1880s devastated the cattle industry. Historic cabin sites, rock 

cairns, and log troughs all provide evidence for these past activities.

Federal land management of the Magone project planning area began with the creation of the Blue 

Mountain Forest Reserve in 1906, the precursor to the existing Malheur National Forest that was 

established two years later (Mosgrove 1980) to alleviate the increasing conflicts between cattlemen 

and sheep drovers. The Forest Service assigned A.S. Ireland as Forest Supervisor with oversight for 

the Western Division, which included the future Malheur National Forest with headquarters in 

Prineville. Ireland set out to resolve grazing issues by creating grazing districts and separating sheep 

and cattle allotments.

Early forest improvements included the addition of lookout towers, which were first suggested in 

1912 in a letter from the District Forester to the Forest. The first tower was erected in 1916 on 

Strawberry Mountain (Mosgrove 1980). Many changes were initiated in regards to fire control policy 

from 1921 through 1939 (Mosgrove 1980).

Following the methodology discussed in Section 3.13.3.2, the predictive model was applied which 

divided the Magone project planning area into high, moderate, and low probability zones. The 

majority of the project planning area falls within low probability (18,284 acres) because of steep 

terrain. The model identified 3,113 acres of high probability, those areas with the greatest likelihood 

of locating archaeological sites. In general, sites previously identified are located within these high 

probability areas. They are predominately pre-contact lithic scatter sites. Lithic scatters are surface 

assemblages that contain debitage (waste flake from stone tool manufacturing) and/or formed stone 

tools (e.g., projectile points or bifaces) and occasionally ground stone. These sites range from very 

small lithic scatters, indicative of expedient tool manufacture or reworking, to large sites with heavy 

lithic concentrations, which could suggest heavy and long-term use. Diagnostic projectile points 

identified suggest that human use of the area began during the Early Holocene. Historic uses of the 

project planning area are primarily associated with livestock grazing and Forest Service 

administration.

There have been 37 cultural resource inventories previously conducted within the boundary of this 

project. 

These surveys have resulted in the discovery of 45 heritage sites within the project planning area 

boundary and include four historic sites, 34 prehistoric sites, and seven sites with both historic and 

prehistoric components. One new pre-contact site and four isolated finds were recorded during 

surveys conducted in 2014. Twenty sites are deemed eligible for inclusion on the National Register 

of Historic Places, five sites are considered not eligible, and 20 remain undetermined.

Among the pre-contact and multicomponent sites, there are three lithic scatters sites that contain only 

debitage and 30 sites that contain debitage and formed stone tools. Seven additional time diagnostic 

projectile points were identified and described during the Magone inventory survey in 2014, for a 

total of 67 documented in the project planning area. The majority of projectile points were typed to 

the Elko series which dates between 3,500 and 1,250 Before Present (BP) (Justice 2002). This is 

broadly consistent with the Malheur National Forest as a whole. Rosegate series projectile points are 

also prevalent in the project planning area.

Typologies demonstrate that the Magone project planning area was inhabited through much of the 

Holocene Era. Use appears to have been most intensive during the late Middle Archaic (1,250 to 

5,300 BP). Use seems to reach its peak and then decline during the Late Archaic period.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

529 of 632

Five rock feature sites exist in the Magone project planning area; none have been given a cultural 

affiliation or date range due to a lack of diagnostic information. Four out of the five rock features are 

cairns. None of these sites appear to be associated with artifacts that securely place them within a 

certain age range, and it is difficult to accurately assign the sites with a historic or prehistoric status.

There is one recorded cambium peeled tree within the project planning area. In the past, the Burns 

Paiute Tribe has expressed particular interest in cambium ponderosa pine peeled trees. These 

culturally modified features are considered an important link to the Tribe’s ancestral and historic 

past. Whenever they are a safety hazard, the trees will need to be removed in consultation with the 

Tribe. The density of culturally important plants was low according to our records and survey notes.

In the project planning area, land use during the historic period was primarily associated with 

livestock grazing and the administration of public land use by Forest Service personnel. Eleven 

historic sites (including multicomponent sites) have been identified during previous surveys. Two of 

the eleven historic sites include buildings identified as cabins.

One historic site and one historic isolate located within the Magone project planning area is the Lake 

Butte Lookout tower. The Lake Butte Tower was built in 1924 (Mosgrove 1980). The other Forest 

Service site was discovered through archival research and has been identified as a triangulation 

station. Stations such as this one were implemented by the Forest Service to assist in map making. 

The original site report describes the site as being the location of a U.S. Geological Survey 

benchmark dated to 1938 and 1940 with the reference mark dated to 1941. Both of the Forest Service 

related sites were monitored during the 2014 field season.

The condition of archaeological sites within the project planning area varies. The integrity of historic 

sites, such as wooden structures and log troughs, are affected by weathering and wild fires. Many 

pre-contact sites within the project planning area have experienced disturbances from historic 

livestock grazing, logging, road building, modern recreation infrastructure construction and activity, 

and artifact collecting.

The Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the Magone project planning area is in the process of 

being completed and will be sent to the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office for review.

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences

This section of the report consists of a non-quantitative analysis of the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the silviculture treatments, prescribed burning, road activities, recreation 

opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake restoration activities on cultural properties and 

resources in the project planning area.

A project is considered to have an adverse effect on cultural properties when it results in the 

alteration of characteristics that qualify the property for the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). The cultural properties that have been identified within the Magone project planning area 

are eligible or potentially eligible (unevaluated for the NRHP on the basis of their ability to yield 

scientific information that is important to studies of prehistory and history). Therefore, proposed 

activities that modify the patterning of surface or buried archaeological deposits are considered to 

result in an adverse effect.

3.13.3.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

No applicable issues.
Magone Project

530 of 632

3.13.3.2 Methodology

Cultural resource identification efforts in the vicinity of the Magone project planning area have 

focused on two primary types of resources: pre-contact archaeological sites and historic 

archaeological sites. Places that may support resources of contemporary tribal interest (i.e., culturally 

significant plant locations) were also considered.

In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, Executive Order 11593, and Forest Service Manual Chapters 2361 and 2363, a pre-field 

investigation and subsequent archaeological survey was performed for the proposed Magone Project 

in an attempt to locate all visible cultural resource sites that may be eligible for nomination to the 

National Register of Historic Places and could potentially be impacted by the undertaking.

The Malheur National Forest Inventory Plan stipulates that a survey design will be completed for 

inventories using the stratified probability zones defined in the plan. The Forest uses a GIS-based 

probability based on the criteria provided in the inventory plan.

3.13.3.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) 

result from the action alternatives, and thus are not germane to the no action alternative.

Fuels loads across the landscape would not be reduced under alternative 1. As such, the threat of 

severe or moderately severe wildfire would not contribute to the long-term stability of heritage sites.

Cumulative Effects

By definition, cumulative effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the action alternatives, and thus are 

not germane to the no action alternative. Because there would be no direct or indirect effects, no 

cumulative effects would occur.

3.13.3.4 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

A project is considered to have an adverse effect on historic properties when it results in the 

alteration of characteristics that qualify the property for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Most of the historic properties within the Magone project planning area have been determined 

eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion 

D—have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Therefore, 

proposed activities that modify the patterning of surface or buried archaeological deposits are 

considered to result in an adverse effect.

The majority of the proposed activities are expected to have no, or extremely minor, direct effects on 

all known heritage sites within the project planning area as long as the PDCs in FEIS Appendix C –

Project Design Criteria are followed. In most cases, eligible or unevaluated sites would be avoided or 

properly mitigated throughout the lifetime of any of the proposed activities. Following the PDCs, 

there is no difference in the potential for effects between the three action alternatives. This is because 

all sites would be avoided or mitigations put in place regardless.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

531 of 632

There is potential for project activities to cause effects to previously undocumented cultural

resources. If during project activities, cultural material is encountered, all activities would cease 

immediately and a Forest Service Heritage specialist would be contacted to evaluate the discovery.

Unanticipated discoveries or known sites may be protected before implementation occurs by 

rerouting if it is determined there is potential to adversely affect the hypothetical historic property. 

Consultation with the SHPO, Indian tribes, and other interested parties is required to determine 

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect according to the Programmatic 

Agreement or 36 CFR Part 800 regulations.

Some habitat for plants that are of historic importance to regional groups of Native Americans may 

be enhanced by the vegetation treatments. As the fuel load is reduced via specific silviculture 

treatments, habitat of native plant populations like huckleberry would be improved.

An additional indirect effect may result by reducing the accumulations of fuels through commercial 

and non-commercial thinning and other proposed fuel reduction activities associated with this 

project. This would reduce the severity of potential wildfires and would enhance the long-term 

stability of archaeological and historic resources within areas adjacent to the Magone Project.

Cumulative Effects

Past and future management projects have the potential to impact cultural resources within the 

project planning area. These projects can cause surface disturbance that affect the integrity of the 

historic features and pre-contact sites. Implementation of the mitigation measures addressed should 

prevent, or at least reduce, impacts that are currently affecting archaeological sites within these 

allotments. However, the cumulative effects of natural elements, logging, road building, grazing, 

surface collection, illegal digging, and natural fuels reduction projects could still be reflected in these 

sites. Impacts to tribal uses would be cumulative with past and future management of vegetation. 

Future vegetation management projects should have a positive effect on vegetation and associated 

resources in the long-term which should have a beneficial impact to tribal uses.

3.13.3.5 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

The legal framework that mandates the Forest to consider the effects of its actions on cultural 

resources is wide-ranging. In this case, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966 (amended in 1976, 1980, and 1992) is the foremost legislation that governs the 

treatment of cultural resources during project planning and implementation. Implementing 

regulations that clarify and expand upon the NHPA include 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic 

Properties), 36 CFR 63 (Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places), and 

36 CFR 296 (Protection of Archaeological Resources). The Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) of 

the Forest Service Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO) signed a programmatic agreement (PA) regarding the management of 

cultural resources on National Forest system lands in 2004. The 2004 PA outlines specific procedures 

for the identification, evaluation, and protection of cultural resources during activities or projects 

sponsored by the Forest Service. It also establishes the process that the SHPO utilizes to review 

Forest Service undertakings for NHPA compliance.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is also a cultural resource management directive, as 

it calls for agencies to analyze the effects of their action on socio-cultural elements of the 

environment. Laws such as the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, the Native American Graves Protection 
Magone Project

532 of 632

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, and Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) also 

guide Forest Service decision making as it relates to heritage resources. The American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 requires that federal agencies consider the impacts of their 

projects on the free exercise of traditional Indian religions.

3.14 Analysis Issue – Roads

The primary access routes to the Magone project planning area are County Road 18 and Hwy 395. 

Other main access roads are Forest Service roads (FSR) 3600, 3618, 3620, 3940, and 3947, which 

are either maintenance level 2 or 3 roads with an aggregate or improved surface. These roads are 

considered part of the Malheur National Forest primary road system and are used on a regular basis.

Each road in the project planning area was field checked and road condition surveys were completed 

to reflect existing conditions. An interdisciplinary process was then used involving members of the 

Blue Mountain Ranger District staff to complete the roads analysis for the Magone Project. The team 

was charged with analyzing all of the roads in the project planning area and recommending whether 

each road should remain open, be closed, re-opened, or decommissioned. This determination was 

based on the guidelines included in the Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis Report, dated 

December 2004.

Project level roads analysis strives to meet long-range road density goals established in the Malheur 

Forest Plan by identifying opportunities to reduce both open road densities and total road densities. 

The result of these efforts should focus on reducing the amount of funding needed for road 

maintenance, reducing road related impacts to fish and wildlife, and reducing the spread of invasive

plants while balancing needs for public and administrative access.

3.14.1 Existing Condition

This section describes the existing condition and its effects on access and travel management and 

maintenance of National Forest System roads in the Magone project planning area. Road 

maintenance, temporary road construction, road closures, and decommissioning are the proposed 

activities that would potentially affect access and travel management and maintenance. These 

activities can affect resources such as wildlife habitat, water quality, and fish habitat. The 

management and maintenance of open roads comes at a cost to the federal government. The fewer 

miles of open road on the Forest, the less cost to the taxpayer. The agency’s top priority is to provide 

a road system that provides administrative access, is responsive to public needs, is safe and 

environmentally sound, and is affordable and efficient to manage.

In 1908, the Malheur National Forest was established and a slow but steady road-building program 

began. Most of these roads were established to facilitate fire protection and other administrative 

duties. A limited number of roads were constructed primarily to expedite recreational use of the 

Forest. By 1928 there were 383.5 miles of road on the Forest (Mosgrove 1980). This was sufficient, 

in theory, to allow firefighters to reach any fire reported on the Forest within one hour. The pace of 

road building increased in the 1930s through the 1980s as larger networks of roads were developed 

to support commercial timber harvest and, to a lesser extent, recreation on the Forest. By the late 

1980s, over 8,000 miles of road existed on the Malheur National Forest (USDA Forest Service 

1990a, Appendix I). Most roads on the Forest were originally constructed for commercial access 

purposes including grazing, timber, and mineral extraction. Other roads were developed to access 

administrative sites, private property, recreation facilities, trailheads, power line corridors, or 

construction for other administration purposes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

533 of 632

The Magone project planning area encompasses approximately 27,000 acres in the Grub Creek and 

East Fork Beech Creek subwatersheds, which equals 42.2 square miles. The existing total road 

density is 2.6 miles/square mile for maintenance level (ML) 1, 2, and 3 roads.

The transportation system associated with the Magone Project consists of 163 roads in the project 

planning area, totaling 110 miles under Forest Service jurisdiction (Table 123). Approximately 3 

roads totaling 12 miles are ML 3 roads. Approximately 60 roads totaling 35 miles are ML 2 roads. 

Approximately 100 roads totaling 63 miles are ML 1 roads; these roads were closed under previous 

NEPA decisions.

Table 123. Transportation system in the Magone project planning area

Maintenance level (ML) Number of roads Miles of road

ML 1 - Closed 100 63

ML 2 - Open 60 35

ML 3 - Open 3 12

Total 163 110

Of the road maintenance levels currently in use, three levels apply within the Magone project 

planning area.

Maintenance Level 1 (ML 1): Closed Road – The ML 1 roads in the Magone project planning area 

in the following condition:

 A closed road may have a physical closure, such as an earth berm, pole gate, or be closed 

naturally by vegetation. These roads are effective closures.

 A closed road may also be closed with an earth berm or pole gate where the earth berm has 

been breached or a pole gate has been damaged. These are not effective closures and the 

roads are being used by the public.

 A closed road may have no physical closure or sign indicating the closure. These roads are 

also being used by the public.

Maintenance Level 2 (ML 2): Open Road – The ML 2 roads in the Magone project planning area 

are in either in fair or poor condition as described below:

 Fair condition of the roadbed would have an aggregate, improved, or native surface with 

good drainage features.

 Poor condition of the roadbed would mean there are not enough drainage features and major 

rutting of the roadway is present. Drainage features such as cross drains and water bars are 

not always present or not functioning correctly, causing erosion rutting and damaging the 

road surface.

 Poor condition could also mean that the road is physically closed on the ground by natural 

vegetation overgrowth, obscuring the designed roadway due to no public or administrative 

use.

Maintenance Level 3 (ML 3): Open Road – Surveys in the Magone project planning area have 

found ML 3 roads in the following condition:

♦ Open, good to fair condition

The maintenance needs of local roads (ML 1, 2, and 3) are often deferred because funds to maintain 

roads to standard are unavailable. The overall result is that most of the Forest road system is in a 

deteriorating condition; this is particularly true for many ML 2 roads that remain open despite 
Magone Project

534 of 632

receiving little maintenance. Most of the roads in the Magone project planning area would need to 

receive maintenance to meet current road maintenance objectives and classification standards.

Some roads in the Magone project planning area traverse private property, but have a right-of-way 

agreement in place allowing access. There is 1 road, totaling 0.10 miles, on private property with no 

right-of-way access. Use of this road will be analyzed through the planning process.

There are 100 ML 1 roads shown as being closed in the Forest Service INFRA (infrastructure) 

database (Table 123). Most of these roads were closed by past NEPA decisions as far back as 1990 

and 1992. Approximately 70 of of the ML 1 roads (70 percent) are closed by either natural vegetation 

overgrowth or a physical closure. These closures are effective. Approximately 30 of the ML 1 roads 

(30 percent) are open on the ground and being used by the public because there is no physical 

closure, the existing closure (pole gate) has been damaged, or an earth berm has been breached. 

When road closure efforts are not effective at eliminating motorized use, it results in detrimental 

resource impacts and an increase in need for maintenance and associated funding. These roads will 

be effectively closed as specified in the past NEPA decisions, and closure could be implemented 

during this project or within the next five years depending on funding availability.

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences

3.14.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The measurement indicators detailed in Table 124, are used for assessing the effects to the 

transportation system in the Magone project planning area.

Table 124. Roads resource indicators for assessing effects

Objective Indicator

Assess change to road density Road density

Assess change to miles of road open to the public Miles of open road

Assess change to miles of road closed to the public Miles of closed road

Assess change to miles of National Forest System roads Miles of road to be decommissioned

3.14.2.2 Methodology

Each road in the project planning area was field checked and road condition surveys were completed 

to reflect existing conditions. Information sources for transportation analysis include the 

transportation GIS records that house the spatial data for road locations. An inventory of road 

attributes for National Forest System (NFS) roads is maintained for the National Forest through the 

I-Web database. A complete list of road attributes and definitions of these attributes is located in the 

project record.

The Magone interdisciplinary team reviewed each road in the project planning area to provide 

recommendations on whether to open, close, re-open, or decommission that road based on the road’s 

condition, the access it provides, and if the road is detrimentally impacting forest resources. This 

determination was based on the guidelines included in the Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis 

Report (USDA Forest Service 2004). This analysis was designed to provide the decision-maker with 

the information needed to develop road systems that are safe and responsive to public needs and 

desires, are affordable and efficiently managed, have minimal adverse ecological effects on the land, 

and are more in balance with available funding for needed management actions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

535 of 632

Project level road analyses need to continue to strive to meet long-range road density goals by 

identifying opportunities to reduce both open road densities and total road densities. The results of 

those efforts focus on reducing the amount of funding needed for road maintenance, reducing road 

related impacts to fish and wildlife, and reducing the spread of invasive plants.

3.14.2.3 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects 

Analysis

Past, present, and foreseeable activities relevant to the cumulative effects analysis for the 

transportation system include road closures authorized by past planning decisions and use and 

maintenance of Forest system roads, which includes road blading, brushing, cleaning ditches, and

cleaning culverts.

3.14.2.4 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, all existing open roads would remain open in their current condition.

Access would be provided at existing levels; however, there would be no opportunity to close or 

decommission roads or to improve drainage by installing additional drainage dips, water bars, or 

cross ditches.

The no action alternative would leave road densities and miles of road unchanged. Road maintenance 

and motorized access would continue at current levels. This alternative has the least impact on 

access.

Alternative 1 (no action) would not bring this area closer to meeting the standards and guidelines in 

the Malheur Forest Plan for road densities, fish habitat, or water quality.

This alternative would continue to deliver sediment into streams at the current level or higher and 

would remain at the same cost to the federal government to meet road maintenance standards. 

Alternative 1 would not provide opportunities to do maintenance, which has drastically declined over 

the past decade.

Unneeded roads, such as those proposed for decommissioning under the action alternatives, would 

remain on the road system. As a result, the Forest backlog of deferred maintenance would continue 

to grow in magnitude.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative effects from past and present projects because the no action 

alternative would not change road densities or miles. Current levels of road maintenance and 

motorized access would continue at current levels. The cumulative effects related to road 

maintenance costs for the entire road system would remain the same.

3.14.2.5 Activities Common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Several road-related activities are proposed in the project planning area, including road maintenance, 

construction of temporary roads, decommissioning roads, closing roads, converting roads to trails, 

and co-designating roads as trails (Table 125).
Magone Project

536 of 632

Table 125. Summary of proposed road activities and road system changes within the Magone project

planning area

Activities by alternative Alternative 1

(no action)

Alternative 2 

(proposed 

action)

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Road maintenance for haul 0 miles 77.7 miles

78 road segments

98.5 miles

105 road 

segments

77.2 miles

77 road segment

Temporary roads 0 miles 9.3 miles

32 road segments

13.3 miles

50 road segments

8.9 miles

31 road segments

Closed roads to be 

temporarily opened for haul

0 miles 28.7 miles

45 road segments

46.9 miles

68 road segments

28.5 miles

45 road segments

Road decommissioning 0 miles 0.3 miles

1 road segments

0.3 miles

1 road segments

0.3 miles

1 road segments

Road closures 0 miles 2.5 miles

6 road segments

0.3 miles

2 road segments

0.3 miles 

2 road segments

Note: ML = maintenance level.

Road Maintenance

All of the work needed on proposed haul routes inside and outside of the project planning area is 

defined as maintenance under 36 CFR 212.1.

There are several haul roads that are maintenance level (ML) 1 roads and currently closed. These 

roads would be re-closed upon completion of other project activities (e.g., silvicultural treatments).

Road maintenance on the Malheur National Forest is based on traffic use. Of the five road 

maintenance levels currently in use, three levels of roads are within the Magone project planning 

area.

Maintenance Level 1 (ML 1)

Maintenance level 1 roads have been placed in storage between intermittent uses. The period of 

storage must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to prevent damage to adjacent 

resources and to keep the road for future resource management needs. Emphasis is normally given to 

maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this 

level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are to “prohibit” and “eliminate” all traffic. The 

road is not open to traffic.

Roads receiving level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard and may be 

managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. While being 

maintained at level 1, the road is closed to vehicular traffic but may be available and suitable for 

non-motorized uses. Opening a closed road is normally considered maintenance.

Maintenance Level 2 (ML 2)

Maintenance level 2 is assigned to roads open for high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic, user 

comfort, and user convenience are not considerations. Traffic volume is normally minor, usually 

consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other 

specialized uses. Motorists should have no expectations of being alerted to potential hazards while 

driving these roads. Route markers and regulation signs are in place and useable. The road is open to 

traffic.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

537 of 632

Maintenance Level 3 (ML 3)

Maintenance level 3 is assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a 

standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this 

maintenance level are typically low speed with single lanes and turnouts. Appropriate traffic 

management strategies are to either “encourage” or “accept.” For certain classes of vehicles or users, 

“discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed.

Road Maintenance Activities

Forest roads used for thinning and product extraction would have road maintenance activities to 

varying degrees, dependent upon severity of road damage, erosion and sediment production, and 

designated maintenance level. Because the maintenance work would be commensurate with use, the 

amount actually accomplished would vary depending on existing road conditions, season of use, and 

other factors. The following work is included in the maintenance requirements for roads:

 Blading and shaping road including existing drain dips and grade sags

 Constructing water bars and cross ditches

 Roadside brushing

 Removing danger trees

 Seeding

 Spot rocking in wet area of the roadway

 Removing snow

 Minor realigning of road junctions

 Cleaning culverts

 Removing excess material from roadway

 Placing fill material for major rutting in the roadway

 Installing minor drainage features

 Watering roadway for dust abatement

In addition, construction requirements would be used for roads requiring the following work:

 Major realignment

 Constructing drain dips

 Constructing and installing wood pole or steel gate closure devices

Under the action alternatives, danger trees would be felled along haul roads. This would result in 

increased user safety during project activities as well as increased public safety on roads that are 

open to public access after activities are complete.

Temporary Roads

A temporary road is a short-term system road constructed and rehabilitated under the terms of the 

contract. If the road will be needed for future resource management subsequent to the contract 

termination day, it must be constructed as a specified road. Temporary roads are roads authorized by 

contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization or emergency operation not intended to be part 

of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management. Temporary 

roads are not intended to be included as part of the forest transportation system, as they are managed 

by the projects or activities under which they are authorized and decommissioned at the conclusion 

of the authorized activity. Rehabilitating a temporary road is considered a permanent closure. Soil 

compaction would be reduced where feasible and cut or fill slopes may be returned to natural 

contours.

Road rehabilitation would include a combination of the following design criteria:
Magone Project

538 of 632

 Water-barring as needed to restore natural drainage patterns.

 Re-contouring slopes (removing cut and fill slopes) and pulling berms from the edge of the 

road back onto the road.

 Sub-soiling (loosening) compact soils in a “J” pattern to a depth of approximately 16 inches 

(unless prevented by bedrock or rock content of soils).

 Planting or seeding disturbed areas with native species that naturally occur in the project 

planning area to achieve a minimum of 35 percent ground cover.

 Placing slash, boulders, and logs on the roadbed (where available).

 Disguising the visible road entrance with pieces of cull logs, tops of cut trees, and/or rocks to 

prevent vehicle use.

Decommissioning Roads

Decommissioned roads are roads permanently closed by official actions and no longer on the 

transportation map. These roads would be permanently removed from the Forest transportation 

system, either because there is no reasonably foreseeable need for the road or because continued use 

of the road is not compatible with aquatic habitat protection needs. The goal is to establish a 

condition that will not require custodial maintenance in the future, through stabilization and 

restoration to a more natural state.

Road decommissioning treatments are designed to improve hydrological and ecological function. 

Roads to be decommissioned would be rehabilitated by applying the design criteria for closure of 

temporary roads (listed above) with the following exceptions/additions:

 All culverts, roadside ditches, and ruts would be removed.

 Stream crossing areas would be reshaped to resemble a natural condition by meeting the 

Road and Trail Erosion Control and Decommissioning Requirements found in the 

Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration (USDI FWS 2013a).

 Erosion control measures (sediment filters or straw bales) would be utilized where necessary 

to prevent sediment from reaching the stream. Dispose of fill or waste material in stable sites 

out of the flood-prone area.

 The road surface would be reshaped or out-sloped, and/or frequent cross ditches or waterbars would be constructed to ensure there is not a continuous flow pattern to the stream.

 Effective barriers at the beginning of the road (e.g., berms, rocks, logs, etc.) would be 

installed to prevent vehicle use.

Closing Roads

Closures are proposed when there is no short-term management need for the road and/or closing the 

road is needed to address other resource concerns or needs.

3.14.2.6 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementation of the proposed action would result in a temporary increase in open road densities in 

and adjacent to the project planning area during the periods when roads are being used for timber 

haul and project activities (e.g., silvicultural treatments). Approximately 9.3 miles of temporary 

roads would be constructed under this alternative. Temporary roads would be restored to ensure soil 

productivity is restored, the road has adequate drainage and ground cover to prevent erosion, the road 

is no longer drivable, and the road is not highly visible approximately 5 years after completion of 

project activities. Approximately 28.7 miles of closed roads would be re-opened under this 

alternative. Closed roads that are opened for project activities would be re-closed long-term with the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

539 of 632

same type of closure devices that were present before, using earthen berms or gates and roadway 

slash. After project activities are complete, the open road density would be approximately 1.1 miles

per square mile inside the project planning area boundaries for motorized use by the public under 

this alternative. The total road density upon the completion of project activities would be 

approximately 2.5 miles per square mile under this alternative which includes both open and closed 

roads.

The condition of haul routes would be improved by maintenance activities associated with timber 

harvest. Direct beneficial effects from the proposed action would include improved road drainage 

and surface conditions. Maintenance activities would have limited adverse effects on the use of 

roads, as roads would remain open during project activities. To bring the roads up to a standard 

needed for commercial haul, road maintenance activities are proposed on approximately 77.7 miles 

of road in alternative 2. There are approximately 2.5 miles of road to be permanently closed, and 0.3 

miles of roads to be decommissioned under this alternative. These actions would decrease road 

density in the project planning area, which would potentially help secure wildlife habitat and reduce 

the amount of sediment released into the streams. There are 0.8 miles of road currently naturally 

closed on the ground that would be closed under this alternative. The closing of these roads would 

have no effect on the current travel access in the project planning area. Table 126 below captures the 

road system changes under alternative 2 for the Magone project planning area.

Table 126. Alternative 2 road system changes

Road 

number

Prescription Current 

maintenance level

Beginning 

mile post

Ending 

mile post

Miles

1800760 Close road 2 0.00 1.00 1.00

1800933 Decommission (excluding area 

used as dispersed campsite)

2 0.00 0.30 0.30

3600162 Close road 2 0.00 0.40 0.40

3600187 Close road 2 0.10 0.10 0.10

3600612 Close road 2 0.00 0.40 0.40

3618125 Close road 2 0.00 0.40 0.40

3940071 Close road 2 0.39 0.60 0.21

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the proposed road maintenance, road closures, and decommissioning 

combined with foreseeable annual road maintenance activities and road closures would be fewer 

roads to maintain, less money needed for maintenance, and improved road conditions on open roads 

for all forest users.

Approximately 54.7 miles of roads in the project planning area are currently designated in the 

transportation system as closed to vehicular travel based on prior planning decisions. However, 

because many of these roads are ineffectively closed, their existence and use potentially impacts

wildlife habitat and security, soil and timber productivity, and water quality. These roads will be 

effectively closed as specified in past decisions, and closures could occur during implementation of 

this project. Approximately 8.3 miles are show as maintenance level 1 (closed) in the Infra road 

system database; these roads were administratively closed in the past, but do not have an associated 

signed NEPA decision regarding their closure and would be confirmed as closed as part of the 

Magone Project. In addition, approximately 1 mile of maintenance level 1 (closed) roads may be 

decommissioned under the Aquatic Restoration Decision. There would be approximately 64.5 miles 

of closed roads in the project planning area following implementation under this alternative

combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Magone Project

540 of 632

The Magone Project proposed road closure and decommissioning actions, combined with 

foreseeable road closures in the future, would result in approximately 44.2 miles of open roads in the 

project planning area under this alternative.

3.14.2.7 Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects are generally the same as described for alternative 2; with the 

exception that alternative 3 has minor variations of road system activities and changes that are 

captured in Table 125. There would be 2.2 fewer miles of road closures. Approximately 13.3 miles of 

temporary roads would be constructed under this alternative. After project activities are complete, the 

open road density would be approximately 1.1 miles per square mile inside the project planning area 

boundaries for motorized use by the public under this alternative. The total road density upon the 

completion of project activities would be approximately 2.5 miles per square mile under this 

alternative which include both open and closed roads.

To bring the roads up to a standard needed for commercial haul, road maintenance activities are 

proposed on approximately 98.5 miles of road in alternative 3. The proposed increase in miles of 

road to receive maintenance under this alternative would not only improve the condition of roads 

during implementation of project activities, but would also reduce the cost and need for maintenance 

after completion of project activities. There are minor variations in the amount of road system 

changes and activities under this alternative; however, the direct and indirect effects would remain 

consistent with that of alternative 2. Table 127 below captures the road system changes under 

alternative 3 for the Magone project planning area.

Table 127. Alternative 3 road system changes

Road 

number

Prescription Current 

maintenance level

Beginning 

mile post

Ending 

mile post

Miles

1800933 Decommission (excluding area 

used as dispersed campsite)

2 0.00 0.30 0.30

3600187 Close road 2 0.10 0.10 0.10

3940071 Close road 2 0.39 0.60 0.21

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the proposed road maintenance, road closures, and decommissioning 

combined with foreseeable annual road maintenance activities and road closures are generally the 

same as described for alternative 2; with the exception that alternative 3 has minor variations of road 

system activities and changes that are captured in Table 125.

3.14.2.8 Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects are generally the same as described for alternative 2; with the 

exception that alternative 4 has minor variations of road system activities and changes that are 

captured in Table 125. There would be 2.2 fewer miles of road closures. Approximately 8.9 miles of 

temporary roads would be constructed under this alternative. After project activities are complete, the 

open road density would be approximately 1.1 miles per square mile inside the project planning area 

boundaries for motorized use by the public under this alternative. The total road density upon the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

541 of 632

completion of project activities would be approximately 2.5 miles per square mile under this 

alternative which include both open and closed roads.

To bring the roads up to a standard needed for commercial haul, road maintenance activities are 

proposed on approximately 77.2 miles of road in alternative 4. Although the miles of road to receive

maintenance under this alternative is less than the proposed miles of road maintenance in alternatives 

2 and 3, the cost and need for maintenance would also be reduced after completion of project 

activities under alternative 4. There are minor variations in the amounts of road system changes 

under this alternative; however, the direct and indirect effects would remain consistent with that of 

alternative 2 and 3, respectively. Table 128 below captures the road system changes under alternative

4 for the Magone project planning area.

Table 128. Alternative 4 road system changes

Road # Prescription Current 

maintenance level

Beginning 

mile post

Ending 

mile post

Miles

1800933 Decommission (excluding area used 

as dispersed campsite)

2 0.00 0.30 0.30

3600187 Close road 2 0.10 0.10 0.10

3940071 Close road 2 0.39 0.60 0.21

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the proposed road maintenance, road closures, and decommissioning 

combined with foreseeable annual road maintenance activities and road closures are generally the 

same as described for alternative 2 and 3; with the exception that alternative 4 has minor variations 

of road system activities and changes that are captured in Table 125.

3.14.2.9 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies and Plans

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 meet Malheur Forest Plan standards for road density and moves the project 

planning area toward meeting the overall desired condition for road density in big game summer and 

winter range.

Specific Malheur Forest Plan standards and desired future conditions are:

 To maintain roads and trails to the minimum level required to meet integrated land 

management objectives; and minimize tie-through roads (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

Forest-wide standard 157, page IV–42).

 To limit the disturbance to big game, the open road density in big game summer range will 

be 3.2 miles per square mile by 1999 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Forest-wide standard 33, 

page IV–29).

 To limit disturbance to big game, the road density in big game winter range will be 2.2 miles 

per square mile by 1999 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Standard 24, MA4A, page IV–22).

 Overall desired condition in the Malheur Forest Plan is 1.5 miles per square mile in summer 

range and 1.0 miles per square mile in winter range (USDA Forest Service 1990a, Desired 

Future Condition, fish and wildlife, page IV–6).

3.15 Analysis Issue – Visuals

This section describes scenery values and effects associated with the Magone Project. Viewing 

scenery is one of the most popular recreation activities on the Malheur National Forest (National 
Magone Project

542 of 632

Visitor Use Monitoring; USDA Forest Service 2009b). Scenery is a primary public value and legacy 

within the national forests, benefitting people through improved quality of life, recreational 

enjoyment, and tourism economics.

Visual resources are defined in the Malheur Forest Plan as “the composite of basic terrain, geologic 

features, water features, vegetative patterns, and land use effects that typify a land unit and influence 

the visual appeal the unit may have for visitors.” In other words, managing visual resources is 

managing the scenic views visitors expect within specific areas. The Malheur Forest Plan specifies 

the desired level of management based on physical and sociological characteristics of a management 

area. 

This is the visual quality objective (VQO) and it refers to the degree of acceptable alteration of the 

characteristics of the landscape. Additionally, this section will also evaluate the scenic stability of the 

visual resource. Scenic stability measures sustainability of the valued scenic character and its 

attribute using six levels from very high where all attributes are sustainable to no stability where no 

dominant attributes are sustainable through time. “Scenic stability recognizes the often subtle, 

incremental changes that can severely diminish or eliminate valued scenic character – it uses 

historical range of variation as a reference baseline for sustainability” (Mattson 2012).

The Magone and County Road 18 visual corridors are located along portions of Forest Service roads 

36, 3618, and 3620 and County Road 18, which provide primary access into the Magone Lake area. 

These corridors include all of the foreground and middleground area visible (and potentially visible) 

from the roads described above. Visitor sensitivity is significant along these routes because they 

provide access to the popular Magone Lake Campground and day use area. The proposed Magone 

Project lies in a sensitivity level II corridor with a visual quality objective of partial retention in the 

foreground and modification in the middleground. Partial retention objectives are met when the 

results of management activities are noticeable to the casual forest visitor; however, visual changes 

are not so obvious as to dominate a particular portion of the landscape. There is a completed visual 

corridor plan for Magone; this plan excludes the Magone Lake geological area.

This evaluation applies current National Forest Scenery Management methodology in conjunction 

with existing Malheur Forest Plan direction (USDA Forest Service 1990a). This includes scenery 

sustainability concepts described in Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, 

Agriculture Handbook 701 (USDA Forest Service 1995c) and Recommended SMS Refinements

(USDA Forest Service. 2007. Appendix J). This analysis relies on field studies and photography from 

Magone and County Road 18 visual corridor sensitive viewpoints and other views of the project

planning area, as well as coordination with project interdisciplinary team members and consideration 

of public preferences for scenic quality. Cumulative scenic quality was evaluated within the 

geographic scope of roadways and other sensitive public viewpoints within and adjacent to the 

project planning area. Integration of this scenery analysis will assure the Magone Project is 

consistent with scenery-related Malheur National Forest direction, Forest Service policies, and 

applicable elements of Forest Service Visual Management and Scenery Management Systems.

3.15.1 Existing Condition

The overall project planning area provides a mostly natural appearance. The exception is the recent 

County Road 18 Project that has evidence of harvest activities less than 2 years old. Roads, landings, 

logging residues, and openings created by harvesting are noticeable to the casual visitor traveling 

along County Road 18.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

543 of 632

The existing project planning area is characterized by scattered pine and fir overstory above a dense 

layer of grand fir and Douglas-fir trees. Snags and dying trees are highly visible in portions of the 

area.

3.15.1.1 Ecosystem Context

Vegetation, as the major scenery attribute of the Magone project planning area, offers opportunities 

for both scenery and ecosystem improvement. The Magone project planning area’s dense conifer 

vegetation often obscures views of existing scenery attributes within and below the understory, and 

restricts or prevents the presence of many potential scenery attributes. Among the many potential 

scenery attributes that are under-represented are large trees 26 to 36 inches or more diameter at 

breast height (DBH) (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-110), diverse and mature forest 

structures (especially Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, both as individual trees and within stands), 

and small intra-stand openings or meadows with shrubs, grasses, and forbs. The existing dense and 

homogenous conifer vegetation also obscures forest floor accents, as well as outward “openings” to 

adjacent forests and landforms. In addition, logging, fire exclusion, and road construction on national 

forest and adjacent private lands have interrupted and diminished scenic vegetation attributes 

throughout the project planning area. These actions have made the forest canopy uniform in some 

places; in other places, the canopy is fragmented in patterns and shapes inconsistent with historical, 

ecologically established scenery.

3.15.1.2 Scenic Character

The Magone project planning area’s dominant scenic identity is its largely continuous conifer forest 

overlaying Clarno formation and Columbia River Basalt landforms, accented by meadows and a few 

rock features. The project planning area offers both close-up and distant views from the Magone and 

County Road 18 visual corridors in and around the project planning area. The major scenery 

attributes of the Magone project planning area are its diverse conifer-dominant forest vegetation with 

occasional large tree character, its riparian meadows, aspen, and its single large geological area. The 

forest canopy includes mixed conifer species stands as well as stands dominated by Douglas-fir or 

grand fir. Lower elevation portions of these stands are often interspersed by attractive wet and dry 

meadows, aspen trees/groves, and shrubs and forbs (e.g., Coxie Meadow). Patterns of this vegetative 

mosaic are typically fine-scaled, with forest canopy openings typically being less than an acre, while 

the meadows and geologic areas are typically much larger (25 to 185 acres). Minor scenery attributes 

include small scattered rocks and outcrops, fall colors, wildlife sightings of birds and mammals, and 

consistent atmospheric clarity. Research shows that such diversity of scenery attributes supports a 

positive viewing experience for people traveling through or recreating within the project planning 

area, and supports the quality of life for local residents and visitors (Ryan 2005).

3.15.1.3 Existing Visual Quality

The existing visual quality is evaluated by looking at the scenery from the routes and sites that were 

utilized in assigning the visual quality objectives for the Malheur Forest Plan. An evaluation of the 

existing condition considers the degree of visual disturbances of past activities to the natural 

appearing scenery that is derived by the contextual landscape and the historical range of variability.

Scenic Routes and Areas

Magone Foreground Visual Corridor

There are 4,878 acres within the Magone foreground visual corridor. The Magone project planning 

area’s dominant scenic identity is its largely continuous conifer forest overlaying Clarno formation 

and Columbia River Basalt. The typical view includes a mix of ponderosa pine, fir, western larch, 
Magone Project

544 of 632

mountain mahogany, and aspen plant communities. Mature, large diameter ponderosa pine with red 

to yellow colored boles are present but scattered. 

Immature pine stocking varies from low to high density depending on site conditions. The view by 

East Fork Beech Creek has associated riparian vegetation in the foreground, with a backdrop of 

dense mixed-conifer stands on the north-facing slope above the stream. Past management activities 

in the timbered stands are not obvious to the casual observer. Riparian management activities, 

including man-made weirs and fencing, are noticeable. Stands above the stream are composed of a 

mix of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. Remnant mature and over-mature pine and Douglas-fir form 

a scattered overstory throughout most of the stands, occurring in clumps and individually. The 

understory fir is fairly healthy with relatively full crowns. Mistletoe is present in areas. Patches of 

dead and dying fir 1⁄4 acres or less in size are visible at several points along the road. Terrain in these 

stands is generally steep. The visual impression created by most of these stands is of lush, dark green 

vegetation, providing high contrast to the open, airy appearance on the north side.

The dominant visual features along the private land are meadow and riparian vegetation and open 

pine stands north of the Forest Service road (FSR) 36. Large diameter pine are scattered throughout, 

but the majority of trees are immature. On FSR 36, the area opens up and is dominated by junipersage communities and thin stringers of ponderosa pine in shallow draws. On East Fork Beech Creek 

there is a visually diverse mix of brush, cottonwoods, aspens, and large ponderosa pine.

The junction of FSR 3618 and 3620 transitions from a healthy mix of pine and fir stands to an area 

of unhealthy mixed conifer showing signs of insect attack and disease. The area along FSR 3618 to 

Magone Lake Campground is dominated by ponderosa pine, fir, and juniper. From FSR 3618 (off of 

County Road 18) to Magone Lake Campground there are recent harvest activities from the County 

Road 18 project and past harvesting can be seen as one moves through this area. Most of the stands 

are screened by the densely stocked, multi-layered, mixed-conifer stands along the roadside; stand 

health conditions are poor due to overstocking, prolonged drought, and insect outbreaks. FSR 3620 

provides views of large ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands across Tinker Creek, and short 

views of mixed conifer and scattered large pine up the slope to the east. Much of the route along FSR 

3620 is overstocked lodgepole pine and ceanothus. Riparian vegetation is in poor condition (USDA 

Forest Service 1992).

The Magone Lake Geological Area (Management Area 8) is unique for the landslide formation that 

created Magone Lake. The slide face is not visible from the road; hundreds of large ponderosa pine 

growing at strange angles and numerous slump block terraces are visible from the road. Stands 

within the geological area are composed of a mature pine overstory above a mix of Douglas-fir, 

ponderosa pine, and grand fir. The suppression of wildfires in these stands has allowed an increasing 

amount of fir to develop beneath the pine and the majority of stands are moving toward a fir climax 

condition.

Magone Middleground Visual Corridor

There are 136 acres of middleground within the Magone visual corridor. Middleground stands 

include the area beyond foreground stands in which individual trees are still visible but do not stand 

out distinctly from the stand. To determine the visual impact of proposed activities in middleground 

areas, viewing angles are important; one area may be visible from many locations. Presently, most of 

the middleground areas appear relatively undisturbed to the casual viewer. Stocking composition 

varies from pure pine stands on south slopes to mixed conifer stands on north-facing slopes. From a 

distance, many of the stands appear densely stocked.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

545 of 632

County Road 18 Foreground Visual Corridor

There are 2,024 acres of foreground within the County Road 18 visual corridor and no middleground 

acres.

The most recent project within the foreground of County Road 18 was the creation of a fuelbreak—a 

strategic reduction of fuels within a wide block or strip of land to reduce flammability along County 

Road 18. The fuelbreak reduced the surface and ladder fuels and opened up the canopy.

Foreground areas would be managed for partial retention visual quality objective (Table 129).

Management activities in foreground areas may be evident to the viewer, but must remain visually 

subordinate to the surrounding landscape.

3.15.1.4 Scenic Integrity and Stability

Scenic Integrity

Scenic integrity is a measure of the degree to which the scenery is free from visible disturbances that 

detract from the existing scenic character that people value. Integrity is used to manage the attributes 

of landscape character vegetative pattern, form, line, color, texture, and scale.

Scenic integrity is measured on the Malheur National Forest through six graduated levels defined by 

the visual quality objectives (VQOs) within the U.S. Forest Service Visual Management System, 

Agricultural Handbook 462 (USDA Forest Service 1974). These scenic integrity levels can be 

applied in two ways: (1) to describe a degree of existing scenic integrity/disturbance or (2) to 

describe a minimum threshold for future integrity to be achieved. These levels and descriptors of 

how people perceive them are shown below (Table 129).

Table 129. Scenic integrity as described by visual quality objective levels

Levels of scenic integrity/disturbance

(visual quality objectives)

The Forest’s scenic integrity

as people perceive it

Preservation Unaltered, visually complete or 

intact

Retention Unnoticeably altered

Partial retention (the most common current condition in the Magone 

project planning area and also the Malheur Forest Plan’s typical 

minimum scenery disturbance threshold for Magone project planning 

area)

Slightly altered

Modification Moderately altered

Maximum modification Heavily altered

Unacceptable modification (never an objective on National Forest 

System lands)

Unacceptably altered

Scenic integrity is measured from sensitive viewpoints inventoried by the Malheur Forest Plan, and 

as supplemented by project level analysis. Sensitive viewpoints occur along the Magone and County 

Road 18 visual corridors. The project’s thresholds for scenery disturbance (Malheur Forest Plan 

VQOs) apply only to views from these locations (see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 37). The 

Magone Project’s existing scenic integrity as viewed from these sensitive viewpoints typically meets 

the partial retention and modification levels. 
Magone Project

546 of 632

There are occasional disturbances such as localized stumps, clearings, and roadways; however, the 

overall landscape appearance from the sensitive viewpoints is “slightly altered.” Existing scenic 

integrity viewed from Magone and County Road 18 is largely undisturbed foreground scenery that 

cumulatively meets the partial retention level, with some minor or unnoticed contrasts such as 

existing roads, old skid roads, and scattered stumps that may individually meet partial retention or 

modification. The less frequent and more distant 0.5 to 4 mile middleground views available are 

largely natural appearing, overall meeting the modification level (Table 130).

Table 130. Viewing zones that apply to visual/scenery management

Distance zone Description

Foreground The portions of a view between the observer and up to half a mile distant.

Middleground The visible terrain beyond the foreground where individual trees are still visible, but do not 

stand out distinctly from the stand (approximately 0.5 to 4 miles)

Background The visible terrain beyond the foreground and middleground where individual trees are not 

visible, but are blended into the total fabric of the stand (approximately 4 miles to horizon).

Table 131 identifies the visual quality objectives for the management areas present in the Magone 

project planning area.

Table 131. Visual quality objectives for specific management areas present in the Magone project 

planning area

Management Area Acres* Visual quality objective

General Forest (MA1) 8,700 acres Retention to Modification

Rangeland (MA2) Included in MA1 Retention to Modification

Riparian Areas (MA3)/ riparian habitat 

conservation areas (RHCAs)

4,200 acres Retention to Modification

Big-Game Winter Range Maintenance (MA4A) 4,000 acres Retention to Modification

Special Interest Area – Magone Geological Area 

(MA8)

200 acres Retention or Partial Retention

Developed Recreation Area (MA12) 300 acres Retention or Partial Retention

Old Growth Habitat (MA13) 800 acres Manage for VQO consistent with 

adjacent lands

Visual Corridors (MA14F – Foreground)

Visual Corridors (MA14M – Middleground)

4,500 acres

100 acres

Magone and County Road 18 

Foreground – Partial Retention

Magone Middleground – Modification

Wildlife Emphasis Area (with Non-Scheduled 

Timber Harvest) (MA21)

4,800 acres Retention to Modification

Scenic Stability

Scenic stability is the degree to which the desired scenic character can be sustained through time and 

ecological progression (USDA Forest Service 1995c). For the project planning area, the existing 

scenic stability analysis focuses on the scenery attribute of vegetation, addressing its ecosystem 

conditions.

Scenic stability of other minor scenery attributes, such as landform, rock features, wildlife sightings,

and atmospheric clarity are not involved in this evaluation, since they are not as critical to the 

Magone area’s scenic character and will change relatively little over time, regardless of ecosystem 

and human influences.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

547 of 632

The Magone Project scenic stability evaluation addresses current ecosystem conditions and stresses 

identified by field observation, data on vegetation and fire history, and interdisciplinary input from 

the Magone Project silviculture and fuels specialists. Assessing scenic stability for vegetation in the 

Magone project planning area is guided by methods described in Appendix J—Recommended SMS 

Refinements (USDA Forest Service 2007), a supplement to the U.S. Forest Service Scenery 

Management System to sustain socially valued scenery within an ecosystem stewardship context.

Some of the Magone Project’s vegetation scenery attributes are considered ecologically unstable 

because they have departed from the stability of historical reference conditions, especially within the 

Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). The landscape within the IRA had a historical fire 

regime of frequent low-intensity fires, which limited the presence of fire-intolerant grand fir trees, 

favored greater numbers of shade-intolerant trees and meadows with aspen, and regularly removed 

understory woody debris. Many decades of fire exclusion have allowed grand fir stands to intrude on 

aspen, meadow, and pine vegetation, and transform these diverse vegetation scenery attributes into a 

much more uniform pattern. As described elsewhere in this section, much of the Magone project 

planning area is inconsistent with, and trending away from, vegetation conditions that are more 

sustainable in this fire-adapted ecosystem. Much of the project planning area is departed from 

historical vegetation conditions and departed from historical wildfire cycle conditions (see the 

Silviculture and Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality sections).

The six scenic stability levels described below can be directly correlated to this vegetation 

information for the Magone project planning area. The following are the scenic stability levels:

 Very High Stability – All dominant and minor scenery attributes of the valued landscape 

character are present and are likely to be sustained.

 High Stability – All dominant scenery attributes of the valued landscape character are 

present and are likely to be sustained. However, there may be scenery attribute conditions 

and ecosystem stressors that present a low risk to the sustainability of the dominant scenery 

attributes.

 Moderate Stability – Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued landscape character 

are present and are likely to be sustained. A few attributes may have been lost or are in 

serious decline.

 Low Stability – Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present 

and are likely to be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors 

may seriously threaten or have already eliminated the others.

 Very Low Stability – Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are 

seriously threatened or absent due to their conditions and ecosystem stressors and are not 

likely to be sustained. The few that remain may be moderately threatened but are likely to be 

sustained.

 No Stability – Dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are absent or 

seriously threatened by their conditions and ecosystem stressors. None are likely to be 

sustained, except relatively permanent attributes such as landforms.

The predominant ecosystem stress influencing the vegetation scenery attributes is the 

uncharacteristic grand fir encroachment throughout the project planning area, resulting from almost a 

century of wildfire exclusion. This stress has impaired or eliminated many important scenery 

attributes (diverse, spacious and fire-adapted forest canopies, large trees, meadows, and aspen) 

within widespread portions of the Magone project planning area. Continued stress from grand fir 

encroachment would further impair and eliminate these socially valued scenery attributes. Other 

stressors such as pests, disease, drought, wildfire, and climate change are currently less significant, 

but also have potential to further impair valued scenery. Collectively, current ecosystem stress upon 
Magone Project

548 of 632

scenery attributes is considered to be at the high end of moderate for the project planning area, 

within a potential range of minor, moderate, or severe.

Because the Magone project planning area’s two major scenic attributes (diverse forest canopy with 

large canopy with large trees and meadows and aspen) share a typically moderate risk based on their 

condition and ecosystem stress, the scenic stability of these major vegetation scenery attributes 

correlates best with the low scenic stability level definition below:

 Low stability – Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present 

and are likely to be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors 

may seriously threaten or have already eliminated the others.

In conclusion, the existing scenic stability of the Magone Project’s major vegetation scenery 

attributes is low.

Numerous trends in the Magone project planning area indicate scenic stability is in decline or could 

be rated low. The coniferous forest is generally overstocked in both ponderosa pine and mixed fir 

types, with excess ground and ladder fuels. Natural processes associated with fire exclusion are 

obvious. These conditions will make it difficult to keep wildfire starts from expanding rapidly and 

burning intensely. Fire suppression has resulted in a change in species and structural stage 

composition. These conditions pose a high risk of losing key components of the ecosystem and 

dominant scenic attributes such as the open, park-like stands of ponderosa pine and minor scenic 

attributes such as the aspen stands.

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences

3.15.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The two indicators used to measure the effects to scenery resources are scenic integrity and scenic 

stability. These two indicators evaluate the intensity and duration of effects as well as the degree to 

which the alternatives would affect the resiliency of scenery attributes over the long-term.

Scenic Integrity is the degree to which the scenery is free from visible disturbances that detract from 

the natural and socially valued appearance, including disturbances due to human activities or 

extreme natural events inconsistent with the historical range of variability (USDA Forest Service 

2007). The Malheur Forest Plan has standards and guides which utilize the visual management terms 

(i.e., visual quality objectives). This analysis will disclose the effects in these terms to verify whether 

or not the project alternatives will meet the standards and guides, as well as translate to the scenic 

integrity terminology. The following table displays a cross walk of the two differing sets of 

terminology.

Table 132. Visual quality objectives and perceived alteration

Visual quality objectives Scenic integrity as people perceive it Scenic integrity objectives

Preservation Unaltered, visually complete or intact Very high

Retention Unnoticeably altered High

Partial retention Slightly altered Moderate

Modification Moderately altered Low

Maximum modification Heavily altered Very low

Unacceptable modification Unacceptably altered Unacceptable
Final Environmental Impact Statement

549 of 632

Scenic Stability is the degree to which the desired scenic character can be sustained through time and 

ecological progression (USDA Forest Service 2007).

3.15.2.2 Methodology

Indicators of effects of the Magone Project on scenery include: (1) a description of changes to scenic 

integrity and (2) a determination of scenic stability (changes in the sustainability of scenery

attributes). To determine these effects, Forest Service Scenery Management System (USDA Forest 

Service 2007) methods are applied to indicate changes in scenic character and its sustainability 

(scenic stability). Changes in scenery disturbance (scenic disturbance) are measured using criteria 

established by the Forest Service Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management, 

Agriculture Handbook 701 (USDA Forest Service 1995c) and Forest Service Visual Management 

System (USDA Forest Service 1974) as visual quality objectives (VQOs).

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The Magone project planning area (and half a mile surrounding it) is the spatial analysis area for 

scenic character and scenic stability because these apply to the entire area. Views from the sensitive 

recreation and public use roads or areas in or near the project planning area boundary are the spatial 

analysis area for scenic integrity. Descriptions of short-term scenery effects apply to those lasting 

less than 10 years; long-term scenery effects span 10 to 100 or more years.

3.15.2.3 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Scenic Integrity

Alternative 1 would not produce any short-term visual disturbances or directly change the project 

planning area’s existing disturbances viewed from the project planning area’s scenic visual corridors. 

Many of the existing scattered minor and moderate disturbances described in the existing condition 

section would be greatly diminished through vegetative renewal over the next 10 years. However, 

potentially strong and adverse indirect scenic disturbance effects could become increasingly more 

likely with alternative 1, since declines in fire-adapted vegetation and ecological resiliency would 

continue in future decades throughout the project planning area. In the event of an uncharacteristic 

wildfire, many of the desirable elements of landscape character would be lost for an extended period 

of time.

The Magone Project’s scenic integrity as viewed from sensitive viewpoints would continue to meet 

the partial retention and modification level. The Magone and County Road 18 foreground would 

continue to meet the partial retention level, and the middleground views would meet the modification 

level.

Scenic Stability

The no action alternative would cause no direct effects to the existing condition. The indirect effects 

of the no action alternative are related to increasing stand density, encroachment of less resilient 

species, increasing fuel loads, and high levels of mortality. This trend decreases the resiliency of the 

timber stands causing the scenic stability to be continually reduced as conditions degrade.

Scenic stability effects are based on assumptions for a continuation of the existing adverse vegetation 

conditions (of overly dense, small sized, and uniform vegetation), resulting in continued low 

stability. This level of scenic stability would likely persist for decades, unless vegetation and climate 
Magone Project

550 of 632

conditions result in an exceptionally large and severe canopy-consuming disturbance event (e.g.,

pests, insects, diseases, or wildfire), which could potentially lower the project planning area’s 

vegetation scenic attributes to the no stability level.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would continue two trends: 1) scenic disturbance reductions through vegetation 

regrowth, and 2) scenic impairment through increased tree density and loss of attractive variety 

(conifer stand spatial/structural diversity with large tree character and fire-adapted vegetation such as 

western larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir) and impaired ecosystem resilience.

3.15.2.4 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Scenic Integrity

Silviculture treatments and prescribed burning: Silviculture treatments and prescribed burning 

would produce minor short-term scenery disturbances, including visible soil color, canopy and 

tree/plant contrasts such as stumps, skid roads, burn piles, burn areas, and landings. A small portion

of these effects would be visible from the project planning area’s visual corridors.

Commercial harvest leaves stumps which are visible from an immediate foreground distance (300

feet). Commercial harvest would open up the stands and allow more sunlight into the forest floor, 

and would provide a longer viewing distance into the forest stands.

The activities of commercial harvest that would occur include tractor logging and skidding, skyline 

logging, and helicopter logging. Tractor logging and skidding create some soil disturbance along the 

skid trails, tearing up the topsoil and exposing the soils. The understory vegetation is torn up along 

these skid trails and would be visible from an immediate foreground distance. These visual effects 

are usually an immediate impact that dissipates within a short period of time. As vegetation returns,

the impacts are usually not visible to the casual viewer after one growing season. Skyline logging 

creates similar effects; however, the skid trails associated with skyline logging are usually longer 

than those associated with tractor logging. These trails can often be visible from middleground 

viewing distances, but the effects are also short-term.

Non-commercial thinning removes trees up to 11 inches diameter at breast height where these trees 

are in excess. This activity usually benefits visual quality. Most viewers prefer views of large trees 

with open spacing.

The fuel treatments that would occur congruently with the harvest treatments include mechanical 

thinning, prescribed burning of the fuels, whole tree yarding, cut to length, grapple piling, and hand 

piling. These treatments would clean up the majority of the slash created by the harvest activities.

The effects are primarily beneficial to the visual quality, reducing the visual impacts of human 

activities with a natural appearing landscape. Removal or burning of residual material (tree stumps, 

snags, limbs, and brush piles), removes the “clutter” that detracts from the remaining trees other 

scenic attributes. Most visual preference surveys indicate dislike for “messy” landscapes (Bradley 

1996).

Pile burning and underburning would create scorched and blackened underbrush, saplings, bark, 

grasses and forbs. These effects would continue for one to five years. There is a possibility of the 

prescribed fire getting into the crowns of trees. This could cause a cluster of dead scorched trees. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

551 of 632

After the following growing season, the majority of the effects would no longer be visible as new

growth of forbs and shrubs would quickly sprout. There may be some minimal long-term effects 

such as small patches of overstory mortality; however, the patches are not expected to detract from 

the landscape character.

Alternative 3 would authorize the most silvicultural treatments and activity fuels treatments within 

the Magone and County Road 18 foreground visual corridors and have the greatest short-term effects 

to visual quality, followed by alternatives 2 and 4. However, effects from these activities would be 

reduced under all alternatives by project design criteria (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design 

Criteria). Alternatives 2 and 3 would authorize the most prescribed underburning, and alternative 4

the least.

Treatments would improve the long-term scenic integrity by opening the stands for increased 

visibility and visual diversity. Prescribed fire would improve conditions for fire resistant species, 

which would indirectly improve landscape character attributes, large tree structure, and open stands 

that can withstand low-intensity fires. This treatment would improve visuals into the forest 

understory from foreground views. Alternative 3 would see the greatest improvements with the most 

acres treated, followed by alternatives 2 and 4.

Road activities: Temporary road construction and temporarily opening of closed roads (maintenance 

level 1) for log haul would be visible from some viewpoints. When these temporary roads are 

rehabilitated following use and maintenance level 1 roads (closed roads) temporarily opened for log 

haul are reclosed following logging, most of the visual impact would not be seen from open roads 

except for the berms and the first section of closed road. Alternative 3 would authorize the greatest 

number of temporary roads and the most temporary opening of closed roads for log haul within the 

Magone and County Road 18 foreground visual corridors, and thus have the greatest visual affect, 

followed by alternatives 2 and 4.

Decommissioning of FSR 1800933 is the only proposed road system change that would take place 

within the Magone and County Road 18 foreground visual corridors. This road segment is already 

effectively grown in on the ground and so would not have visual effects.

Recreation opportunity improvements: Some of the proposed trails, the accessible trail development 

along Magone Lake, trailhead developments, interpretive signs, and docks and boat moorings would 

take place within the Magone and County Road 18 foreground visual corridors. In particular, 

improving a portion of the Magone Lake Trail to be accessible, placing interpretive signs, and 

modifying/replacing docks and boat moorings would be apparent to visitors to Magone Lake. 

However, these proposed activities would take place in previously disturbed areas. New trails would 

be less visually evident to viewers due to their narrow width and visual screening from vegetation in 

most areas. These activities would continue to meet the partial retention VQO, as activities would be 

evident to the viewer but visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape.

Alternative 3 would have the most visually evident recreation developments with the most miles of 

new trail construction, the most new trailheads, and the most modifications/replacements of docks 

and boat moorings. Alternative 3 would also designate OHV use on FSR 36 to where it intersects 

with Four Corners; however, this is not expected to impact visual quality because it would be an 

additional activity on an already existing road. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both authorize 

development of the same number of interpretive signs.
Magone Project

552 of 632

Alternative 2 would have slightly fewer visually-evident recreation developments with fewer miles 

of new trail construction, new trailhead developments, and modifications/replacements of docks and 

boat moorings than alternative 3.

Alternative 4 would have the least visually evident recreation developments with the fewest miles of 

new trail construction and trailhead developments. Alternatives 2 and 4 would both authorize the 

same modifications/replacements of docks and boat moorings. This alternative would not authorize 

an accessible trail development along Magone Lake and would place no new interpretive signs.

Magone Lake restoration activities: Fish cribs and fish sticks would only be visible during the 

winter when they are installed on top of the ice. This would be a short-term effect over one winter 

season until the ice melts on Magone Lake. Fish cribs and sticks would sink to at least 5 feet below 

the water surface and would not be visually evident after that first winter they are placed. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would place more fish cribs and sticks than alternative 4, and thus would have a 

greater visual impact during that first winter when they are visible.

It is expected that all of the treatments proposed in all of the action alternatives would meet the 

visual quality objectives of the Malheur Forest Plan. The impacts would not exceed the limits of 

visual impacts defined by maximum modification, modification, and partial retention.

Scenic Stability

The scenic stability of the area is dependent upon conditions that favor resiliency to disturbances. 

Currently, much of the area is outside of the historical range of variability in ways that put the forest 

at greater risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Under all action alternatives the project planning area 

would receive treatments that would enhance the spatial and species diversity, scenic character 

attributes, and resilience of the forest canopy. These enhancements would include protection of large 

trees and old forest characteristics, as well as developing future large tree character and spatial and 

species diversity within the existing overly dense stands and plantations. Vegetation density within 

forest stands would be reduced through thinning and fuels reduction treatments that would create 

more attractive, open and structurally diverse conditions, favoring historically dominant species such 

as Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch. 

These more attractive, open, and diverse stand structure and species conditions would also 

considerably reduce the risk of scenery damaging ecosystem disturbances (pests, insects, disease, 

wildfires, etc.). More historical wildfire functions of the ecosystem would be established that would 

better perpetuate the Magone project planning area’s attractive and historical “natural” scenic 

character attributes. With these reductions in ecosystem risk to the project planning area’s vegetation 

scenery attributes, the scenic stability level would be transformed from the current low stability level 

(most vegetation attributes are threatened or absent) to the moderate level (most vegetation attributes 

are present and likely to be sustained). Alternative 3 would contribute the most toward scenic 

stability within the project planning because it would authorize the most silvicultural treatments, 

activity fuels treatments, and prescribed burning; alternatives 2 and 4 would also improve scenic 

stability, although to a lesser extent with fewer acres treated.

Road activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake restoration activities are not 

expected to contribute to or detract from scenic stability because they would not greatly alter the 

scenic character of the area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

553 of 632

Cumulative Effects

The past, present and foreseeable activities that contribute to the cumulative effects to scenery 

resources range from the regeneration harvests, thinning, prescribed fire, and grazing practices that 

overlap in space and time with the activities proposed as part of the Magone Project. The timeframe 

for which these effects overlap ranges from the time of the activity through the life of the effect. The 

spatial bounding is the project boundary as the activities are visible from commonly used routes.

Past Activities

Past harvest activities have created long-term visual effects in the area that overlap in time and space 

with the Magone Project. Substantial timber harvesting that facilitated the removal of the large 

ponderosa pine, western white pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir (early seral species) in the 

Magone area began in the 1930s. Since then, late seral species have grown in these areas increasing 

stand densities. So, while perhaps not immediately apparent to the casual viewer, stands are denser 

and with a different species composition than would have been experienced historically.

In the recent past, wildfires were actively suppressed leading to a buildup of ground fuels and 

overstocked stands. Because of current uncharacteristic fire behavior, all fires are being actively 

suppressed to reduce the chance of other major stand replacement fires. There have been minimal 

effects due to past wildfires; approximately 44 acres have been burned in the project planning area in 

recent years, which does not create significant cumulative effects to visual quality. The visual 

evidence of past fires is in keeping with what is expected in a fire-dependent ecosystem.

Present Activities

County Road 18 Healthy Forest Restoration Act Project – This project implemented approximately 

1,200 acres of commercial thinning and 1,600 acres of precommercial thinning along County Road 

18, including within the Magone project planning area. Prescribed burning along this corridor is 

ongoing. These treatments will not change the visual quality objective expected to be met by any of 

the three action alternatives. The scenic stability would remain the same as well.

Recreation – Ongoing use of the Magone recreation area, dispersed camping, hunting, firewood 

gathering, and other recreational uses occurs year-round (with peak use from late May through 

November). The ongoing recreation activities are not expected to decrease the visual quality 

objectives that are associated with the Magone project planning area. The effects of ongoing 

recreation activities are accounted for in the existing visual quality objective.

Grazing – Portions of seven allotments are currently permitted to graze within the Magone project 

planning area. The ongoing grazing activities are not expected to decrease the visual quality 

objective that is associated with the Magone project planning area. The effects of ongoing grazing 

activities are accounted for in the existing visual quality objective.

Invasive Plant Treatments – Invasive plant treatments (primarily by hand pulling and grubbing) is 

currently being done. The invasive plant treatments are not expected to add substantial effects to the 

Magone project planning area to effect the visual quality objective achievement. Reduction in 

invasive plants is an effort that maintains the scenic stability of the herbaceous scenic attributes.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities

Invasive Plant Treatments – The Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment 

Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2015b) authorizes treatment of known and newly 

discovered non-native invasive plants potentially using herbicide, manual, mechanical, biological 
Magone Project

554 of 632

and/or cultural treatments. Invasive plant treatments are expected to improve the grassland 

composition, restoring areas, and cumulatively maintain visual quality and scenic stability.

Aquatic Restoration Project Treatments – Potential projects that could be implemented under the 

2014 Aquatic Restoration Decision include: fish passage restoration (e.g., replacement or removal of 

culverts), large and coarse woody debris placement along streams in the project planning area, 

removal/reduction of lodgepole encroachment, juniper and hawthorn removal, aspen stand 

enhancement, log weir and boulder modification, legacy floodplain structure removal, reduction of 

recreation impacts and road erosion control, maintenance and development of off-channel livestock 

watering facilities, riparian hardwood planting, riparian fencing, and beaver habitat restoration. 

These activities would maintain or improve the scenic integrity and stability of the affected areas.

The foreseeable activities that are planned to occur here would perpetuate a modified scenic 

expression of the landscape. It is expected that this expression would improve as the present and 

foreseeable actions are of a lighter or more sensitive approach to management than those of the past. 

The resiliency of the scenic attributes is expected to be improved as management activities are 

carried out to maintain the vegetation within the natural range of variation. These practices should 

improve scenic integrity and stability.

3.15.2.5 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, 

Policies, and Plans

Forest Plan Objectives (pages IV-15 to IV-16)

 Manage other specified forest and county roads with a lower emphasis on maintaining visual 

quality (sensitivity level II). Meet the visual quality objectives of foreground partial retention 

and middleground modification in these corridor viewsheds. The effects of management 

activities would be obvious in these middlegrounds. This visual quality objective would be

met in the Magone and County Road 18 visual corridors.

 Emphasize horizontal diversity in the visual corridors (both sensitivity level I and II). This 

will be experienced as one moves through the corridor, not as vertical diversity on every 

acre. Create this by developing a sequence of visual experiences utilizing group selection 

harvest techniques applied to small treatment units (1/4 to 5 acres) in foregrounds... The 

effect is to have a multi-aged appearance... Treatments proposed in the visual corridors 

would promote horizontal diversity along the corridor.

 Manage unroaded areas and wilderness with sensitivity for the visual resource... 

Manage...semiprimitive motorized areas to meet the partial retention visual quality 

objective. Treatments proposed in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (an unroaded 

semiprimitive motorized area) would meet the partial retention visual quality objective.

Forest-Wide Standards (page IV-27)

 Forest-wide Standard 25: The minimum visual quality objective for the Forest is maximum 

modification. This visual quality objective would be applied and met in the General Forest 

areas. Evidence of proposed harvest activities would be visible including skid trails, skyline 

corridors, temporary roads, and landings. Activities characteristic of surrounding areas.

 Forest-wide Standard 27: Rehabilitate landscapes containing negative visual elements. The 

Magone and County Road 18 visual corridors were impacted by harvest activities prior to 

the 1990 Malheur Forest Plan. Encouraging large-tree components, gap and clump 

structure, reduced surface and ladder fuels, and a more historical species composition would 

improve landscape visual elements over time.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

555 of 632

Management Area Standards

 Project activities would meet a visual quality objective of retention, partial retention, or 

modification for the visible and potentially visible areas (MA14 Standard 2, page IV-108).

 Maintain visual corridors that overlap with big game winter range maintenance to achieve a 

minimum habitat effectiveness of 60 percent for elk. Refer to Management Area 4A 

standards (MA14 Standard 5, page IV-108). See Wildlife section.

 Fish and wildlife improvement and maintenance projects are designed and would be 

implemented to meet visual quality objectives (see direct and indirect effects above) (MA14

Standard 6, page IV-108).

 Timber harvest and related activities are designed to accomplish visual resource 

management objectives (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria) (MA14 Standard 9, 

page IV-109).

 Foreground areas would be managed to meet visual quality objectives (see direct and 

indirect effects above). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would benefit the health, resiliency, and 

visual appearances of the Magone and County Road 18 visual corridors (MA14 Standard 11, 

page IV-109).

 No regeneration or overstory removal harvesting would occur in foreground of sensitivity 

level 1 and 2 corridors (MA14 Standard 12, page IV-109).

 All middleground areas would be managed to meet visual quality objectives (see direct and 

indirect effects above) (MA14 Standard 14, page IV-109).

 Horizontal diversity and multi-age appearance of vegetation would be maintained within 

visual corridors by maintaining a mix of thinned and unthinned areas (spatial complexity) 

and variable thinning densities (MA14 Standard 16, page IV-109).

 Residues (i.e., fuels) would be managed to provide a natural-appearing landscape in visual 

corridors and to minimize visual effects (see FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria) 

(MA14 Standards 27 and 28, page IV-111).

3.16 Analysis Issue – Other Undeveloped Lands

3.16.1 Existing Condition

These acres of land have no history of harvest activity, do not contain forest roads, and are not 

designated as a wilderness area, identified as an inventoried roadless area, or included in the areas 

with wilderness characteristics inventory. They are stand-alone polygons of varying acreages all less 

than 5,000 acres within the project planning area.

There are no forest-wide or management area standards specific to other undeveloped lands in the 

Malheur Forest Plan; however, there are management areas that emphasize a non-motorized 

condition or prohibit harvest of timber. All lands, including other undeveloped lands, are managed 

consistent with forest-wide standards and guidelines and by designated Malheur Forest Plan 

management area allocations.

These acres of land have no history of harvest activity, do not contain forest roads, are not designated

as a wilderness area, or identified as an inventoried roadless area. They are areas that have no 

obvious previous activity and are “leftover” areas from other analyses. For example, these areas may 

have been too steep, in between roads and harvest areas, or too wet. These areas may have values 

associated with them such as scenery and cultural resources because of the lack of evidence of 

harvest or roads. These acres have no previous roads or harvest activities located in them.
Magone Project

556 of 632

Table 133 displays the acres of other undeveloped lands within the Magone project planning area. In 

the 27,000 acre Magone project planning area, approximately 3,900 acres have been identified as 

isolated polygons of other undeveloped lands, 10,000 acres are within the Nipple Butte IRA, and the 

remaining 13,100 acres are developed and managed (contain evidence of past harvest, mining, and/or 

forest roads). See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 17. Additionally, there are 80 acres of public lands 

managed by the Bureau of Land Management and 960 acres of privately-owned lands which were 

not included in this analysis. Individual polygons of other undeveloped lands less than one 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 133. Magone project planning area inventory for other undeveloped lands

Land area Acres

Acres inventoried for other undeveloped lands within the project planning area 27,000 acres

Lands within the project planning area with evidence of past harvest, mining, developed 

recreation sites, and/or forest roads (including land within 300 feet of a forest road*).

13,100 acres

Lands within an Inventoried Roadless Area 10,000 acres

Other undeveloped lands (remaining acres with no evidence of past harvest and forest 

roads1 and/or not contained within an inventoried roadless area).

3,900 acres

Bureau of Land Management managed public lands within the project planning area 

boundary

80 acres

Private lands within the project planning area boundary 960 acres

*This includes roads of any maintenance level (i.e., maintenance level 1 or higher).

Table 134 displays the number, size class, and approximate acres of undeveloped lands present

within the project planning area. Approximately 89 percent of the polygons are in the 1- to 100-acre 

size class. For perspective, one square mile is about 640 acres, and the closest designated wilderness 

area (Strawberry Mountain) is over 68,700 acres. The residual shape of each undeveloped polygon is 

the result of boundaries created by past harvest, mining, developed recreation sites, and road 

building. The largest polygon of other undeveloped lands is approximately 640 acres.

Table 134. Size class and acres of other undeveloped lands in the Magone project planning area

Size class Number of polygons Approximate acres

>1 acre 49 (41%) 3 acres

1 to 20.0 acres 39 (33%) 284 acres

20.1 to 100 acres 18 (15%) 768 acres

100.1 to 200 acres 7 (6%) 870 acres

200.1 to 400 acres 5 (4%) 1,364 acres

400.1 to 1,000 acres 1 (1%) 640 acres

>1,000.1 acres 0 0 acres

The majority of the 3,900 acres of other undeveloped lands are allocated to Malheur Forest Plan 

management areas (MAs): General Forest and Range (MA1 and MA2), Middle Ground Visual 

Corridor (MA14M), and Big Game Winter Range (MA4A). All of these management areas allow 

timber management on a scheduled basis, and all types of prescribed fire may be used to accomplish 

management objectives. Road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance are permitted within 

Malheur Forest Plan standards and guidelines. See Chapter 1 of this FEIS for a brief descriptions of 

goals, standards, and guidelines associated with each Malheur Forest Plan management area 

allocation located within Magone project planning area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

557 of 632

Other undeveloped lands include soils, water, fish and wildlife habitat that have not been directly 

impacted by past harvest, mining, and road building, or the impacts are not readily evident. Indirect 

impacts have and continue to occur due to fragmentation of vegetation. The current condition of soil; 

water; air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species; invasive plants; recreation; and cultural resources within the project planning area, including

within other undeveloped lands, are described elsewhere in Chapter 3 of this FEIS.

Human influences have had limited impact to long-term ecological processes within the other 

undeveloped lands. Disturbance by insects and fire has been and most likely would continue to be 

the factors with the most potential to impact the area. Opportunities for primitive recreation are 

limited to hiking (mostly cross-country) and hunting. Ongoing firewood gathering and removal of 

danger trees along forest roads that border each polygon changes the vegetation, leaves stumps, and 

presents a managed appearance within a developed transportation corridor.

Opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of adventure and awareness, serenity, and selfreliance are limited by the size and shape of the polygon. Distance and topographic screening are 

also factors. The optimum shape and location to retain solitude and a sense of isolation from noise 

and sights of other humans and their activities would be at the center of a circle. Areas greater than 

or equal to 5,000 acres or about 8 square miles may have sufficient size to offer a sense of solitude,

yet this may vary by individual. Long narrow shapes provide less distance from noise at their 

midpoint. Nearby, non-conforming sights and sounds of roads and timber harvest can be heard and 

often seen from within the 119 polygons of other undeveloped lands because they are all less than 

one square mile in size and none are a perfect circle in shape.

The existing condition of the remaining 13,100 acres of land in the project planning that are not 

found within an IRA or other undeveloped lands and affected by the project presents a landscape that 

has been managed and is generally developed in nature; these lands contain evidence of past harvest, 

active mining, and forest roads. Past management actions and current conditions within the 13,100 

acres reflect the multiple-use intent and decisions made in the Malheur Forest Plan, and reflect 

consistency with management area allocations.

3.16.2 Environmental Consequences

3.16.2.1 Indicators for Assessing Effects

The analysis issues for assessing effects of each alternative and for comparing alternatives include 

values and features that characterize other undeveloped lands. Intrinsic biological, physical, and 

social values are shown in Table 135. The majority of the indicators are essentially the same as 

disclosed for areas of proposed project activities described elsewhere in this chapter and are not 

reiterated in this report.

Table 135. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to other undeveloped lands

Objective Indicator

Maintaining values and features that 

characterize other undeveloped lands

 Change in acres of other undeveloped lands

 Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soil, water, 

wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.)

 Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, solitude, 

remoteness)
Magone Project

558 of 632

3.16.2.2 Methodology

The effects to other undeveloped lands were based on maps and polygons created using agency 

inventory procedures. These maps and polygons were created utilizing geographic information 

systems (GIS). The project planning area was evaluated for evidence of roads (open or closed, 

including a 300-foot buffer on each side of the road), prior timber harvest, mining, or development 

such as campgrounds.

Information regarding the effects of prior harvest, including previously harvested lands acquired by 

the Forest Service, was discussed and reviewed with the project silviculturist. Based on field review 

and professional judgement, these lands still show evidence of past harvest, including stumps and 

vegetation conditions outside of those expected and reflective of historical, pre-harvest conditions. 

Therefore, formerly private lands acquired by the Forest Service from lumber companies were 

excluded from analysis as other undeveloped lands.

Individual polygons of other undeveloped lands less than 1 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 1 acre are better disclosed as part of the other resource effects 

sections in this FEIS.

3.16.2.3 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The scale of analysis is the Magone project planning area. The spatial contexts for this analysis are 

unit boundaries and the areas with associated road activities. The temporal context for the effect 

analysis is long-term, 5 to 50 years. Road decommissioning, new road construction, and silviculture 

treatments would have a long-term effect and may result in more or less other undeveloped lands.

3.16.2.4 Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects 

Analysis

Past actions in or near the project planning area include timber management, wildland fuels 

management, fire suppression, mining, dispersed camping, firewood cutting, and road and facilities 

construction and maintenance. All activities have affected current forest composition, structure, and 

overall management infrastructure and have created developed lands within the area. These activities 

arereflected (with individual variances) in the current condition of the area’s natural resource and 

human environment values.

3.16.2.5 Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under alternative 1, there would be no direct or indirect effects to undeveloped lands because no 

activities would occur in these areas. The existing condition 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 with prescribed fires. All polygons of other undeveloped 

lands would continue to not be an inventoried roadless area, an area with wilderness characteristics, 

or a designated wilderness area.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be no direct or indirect effects under alternative 1, there would be no 

cumulative effects to other undeveloped lands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

559 of 632

3.16.2.6 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Changes in acres in other undeveloped areas

Under alternatives 2, 3, and 4, all acres of other undeveloped lands would continue to not be an 

inventoried roadless area or a designated wilderness area. Table 136 displays acres of proposed 

activities and miles of road activities that would occur under alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Table 137

displays a summary showing the changes in acres for other undeveloped lands under each action

alternative. Acres changed from undeveloped to developed acres include commercial harvest units, 

non-commercial thinning units, and temporary road construction with a 200-foot buffer for any 

portion of these roads or buffers that lie outside of the commercial harvest units.

Table 136. Acres of activities and miles of road proposed under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 that occur within 

other undeveloped lands in the Magone project planning area

Activities within other 

undeveloped lands

Alternative 

2

Distance 

(miles)

Alternative 

2

Size 

(acres)*

Alternative 

3

Distance 

(miles)

Alternative 

3

Size 

(acres)*

Alternative 

4

Distance 

(miles)

Alternative 

4

Size 

(acres)*

Silviculture treatments n/a 1,800 n/a 2,100 n/a 1,160

Prescribed burning n/a 3,900 n/a 3,900 n/a 3,900

New road construction 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

Road 

decommissioning**

0.5 50 0.5 50 0.5 50

Temporary roads 

(outside treatment 

units)

1.0 48 1.0 48 1.0 48

* Acres of some activities overlap.

** Decommission roads are within developed areas. Decommissioning these roads adds acres to undeveloped lands.

Table 137. Changes in other undeveloped lands in the Magone project planning area under alternatives 

2, 3, and 4

Alternative Other undeveloped 

acres after 

implementation

Acres changed 

(includes silviculture 

treatments and road 

activities)

Percentage of project planning 

area remaining as other 

undeveloped lands after 

implementation

Developed 

acres after 

implementation

2 2,100 -1,800 8% 14,900

3 1,750 -2,150 7% 15,250

4 2,740 -1,160 10% 14,260

Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soil, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.)

For other undeveloped lands within the Magone project planning area where activities proposed 

under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would occur, the impacts to soil; water quality; air quality; forage; plant 

and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation; 

invasive plants; and cultural resources are essentially the same as disclosed for areas of proposed 

project activity described in other sections of this chapter and individual resource reports, and are not 

reiterated here.

Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, solitude, remoteness)

The following effects to other undeveloped lands are common to alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Human influences have had limited impact to long-term ecological processes within these other 

undeveloped lands. Disturbance by insects and fire has been and most likely would continue to be 
Magone Project

560 of 632

the factors with the most potential to impact these areas. Silviculture treatments would increase the 

number of stumps and the open nature of the forest stand would likely be the most apparent visual 

change resulting from implementation. The lands would appear managed and developed. The sights, 

sounds, and changes in vegetation from harvest activities would further decrease the natural integrity 

and sense of naturalness within harvest units and along roads. All harvested units would remain 

forested after harvest, although skid trails, stumps, and landings would be evident. Stand structure 

would change, therefore diversity of plant and animal communities may shift from current patterns, 

though ecological diversity would remain (see Chapter 3, Level and Effects of Silviculture 

Treatments section). Impacts to natural integrity and sense of naturalness would likely be evident 

until stumps and vegetation canopies are no longer substantially recognizable (about 75 to 100 

years). The sounds of timber harvest and road building machinery from active units would reduce a 

sense of naturalness and solitude during project operations, 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 (about 

5 to 10 years). Impacts such as closed roads, skid trails, and tree stumps would be evident much 

longer.

Prescribed burning would change composition and structure of vegetation (Fire, Fuels, and Air 

Quality section), and the lands would appear managed and developed. For a few years burned areas 

would display a blackened color.

The sounds, smells, and possible sightings of mechanical activities and fuel treatment activities 

occurring in areas adjacent to the other undeveloped areas would reduce the sense of solitude and 

remoteness in the short-term, during project activities. Other ongoing previously-approved activities 

in areas adjacent to the boundary of the other undeveloped areas would continue to have short-term 

effects on opportunities for solitude and remoteness. In the long-term, there would be no change to 

the current availability of solitude or primitive recreation (see Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality section).

Proposed riparian restoration activities (e.g., riparian vegetation enhancement thinning and large 

woody debris placements) in other undeveloped lands would appear slightly-altered in the short-term 

until the disturbance softens and becomes more natural-appearing, as time weathers the actions. The 

sights and sounds of machinery from the activity would reduce a sense of naturalness and solitude 

during project operations but would not persist in the long-term. Impacts such as tree stumps and 

large woody debris would be evident much longer. In the long-term, these areas would blend in with 

the surrounding landscape with more of the native vegetation and structure that were present 

historically.

Range water developments and fence construction would change the natural appearance of the 

immediate landscape, and the lands would appear managed and developed. For a few years, the 

immediate area of the water development and the fence right-of-way would appear clear of ground 

debris and stumps may be likely. Impacts to natural integrity and sense of naturalness would likely 

be evident until stumps and vegetation canopies are no longer substantially recognizable (about 75 to 

100 years). These lands would not meet inventory criteria for areas with wilderness characteristics if 

the fencing exceeds 1 mile per section.

Proposed road activities in other undeveloped lands would reduce the size of the other undeveloped 

lands polygons. The lands would appear managed and developed. The sights, sounds, and changes in 

vegetation from associated road building and decommissioning and use would further decrease the 

natural integrity and sense of naturalness within harvest units and along roads. The sounds of road 

building machinery from active units would reduce a sense of naturalness and solitude during project 

operations but would not persist in the long-term. Impacts such as closed roads, skid trails, and tree 

stumps would be evident much longer.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

561 of 632

In the long-term the project would result in the development of historic open conditions 

characterized by larger diameter trees, though more stumps would be present. Treatments would 

provide an overall mix of size classes of trees for visual as well as biological diversity (see Level and 

Effects of Silviculture; Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality; and Visuals sections).

Opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of adventure and awareness, serenity, and selfreliance are limited by the size and shape of the polygon. Distance and topographic screening are 

also factors. The optimum shape and location to retain solitude and a sense of isolation from noise 

and sights of other humans and their activities would be at the center of a circle. Areas greater than 

or equal to 5,000 acres or about 8 square miles may have sufficient size to offer a sense of solitude 

yet this may vary by individual. Long narrow shapes provide less distance from noise at their 

midpoint. Nearby, non-conforming sights and sounds of project activities can be heard and often 

seen from within the polygons of other undeveloped areas because they are all less than 1 square 

mile in size and none is a perfect circle in shape. The existing condition of all remaining acres with 

evidence of past harvest and forest roads of land within and affected by the Magone Project presents 

a landscape that has been managed and is generally developed in nature. Past management actions 

and current conditions within these areas reflect the multiple-use intent and decisions made in the 

Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, and reflect consistency with forest plan management area 

allocations.

Other undeveloped lands with no proposed activities would still be classified as other undeveloped 

lands and would retain their intrinsic social values as described in the affected environment. They 

would remain free of developments such as forest roads or timber harvest stumps. All acres of other 

undeveloped lands within the project planning area would still not be considered an inventoried 

roadless areas or a designated wilderness area. These undeveloped lands would remain as small 

scattered areas detached from each other by terrain, roads, and harvest activities.

Cumulative Effects

For other undeveloped lands in which project activities would occur when combined with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, cumulative effects to soils; water quality; air 

quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; 

recreation; invasive plants; and cultural resources as disclosed elsewhere in this chapter and in the 

specialist reports and are not reiterated here.

Under alternatives 2 and 3, silvicultural treatments would increase the numbers of stumps, and the 

open nature of the forest stand would likely be the most apparent visual change resulting from 

implementation. In the long-term (about 50+ years), alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the 

development of historic open conditions characterized by larger diameter trees, though more stumps 

would be present than currently exist. Fuels treatments and future wildfires would cumulatively 

change the composition and structure of vegetation which could affect some forest visitor’s sense of 

naturalness and remoteness. 

For a few years, burned areas would display a blackened color. Outside of the burned areas, the 

conditions described in the affected environment would remain unchanged except by natural 

processes and ongoing management activities such as grazing and hunting.

Apparent naturalness, solitude, and remoteness would be cumulatively impacted by grazing, 

dispersed camping, and motorized vehicle use on open system roads and trails under all action 

alternatives. Effects associated with recreational use, including invasive plants spread, hunting, 

fishing, erosion, litter, and evidence of fire rings, are expected to remain cumulatively minor. 
Magone Project

562 of 632

Ongoing removal of hazard trees along forest roads and recreation trails changes the vegetation but 

does not change the overall sense of naturalness or sense of solitude along an existing developed 

transportation corridor. Overall, cumulative effects from these activities on apparent naturalness, 

solitude, and remoteness is very small (not measurable/indistinguishable) in proportion to the 

changes anticipated from the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives disclosed above.

3.17 Analysis Issue – Climate Change

3.17.1 Existing Condition and Analysis Methods

The Forest Service does not have a national policy or guidance for managing carbon, and the tools 

for estimating carbon and sequestration are not fully developed. Current direction for addressing 

climate change issues in project planning and the NEPA process is provided in the document Climate 

Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis (USDA Forest Service 2009c). This 

document outlines the basic considerations for assessing climate change in relation to project-level 

planning.

Ongoing climate change research was summarized in reports by the United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch), US Climate Change Science Program’s 

Science Synthesis and Assessment Products, and the US Global Change Research Program. These 

reports concluded that climate is already changing, that the change will accelerate, and that human 

greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, are the main source of 

accelerated climate change.

Because greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently 

possible to ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). In 

addition, because the large majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global 

atmospheric CO2 context, it is not presently possible to conduct quantitative analysis of actual 

climate change effects based on individual or multiple projects.

This analysis considers two types of climate change effects. One is the effects of the proposed 

project on climate change. The second is the effect of climate change on the proposed project.

3.17.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

3.17.2.1 Effects of the Alternatives on Climate Change

Climate change, as measured by greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide, was assessed 

for this project. Proposed activities that would cause carbon emissions are prescribed burning and 

harvest operations. Proposed activities that would cause carbon sequestration are harvesting of 

forests and conversion of trees into long-lived products or replacing fossil fuel use with biomass. 

The reduced risk of large-scale stand replacement wildfires would lead to a reduction in carbon 

emissions from the forest, both from the immediate consumption during the fire and later as 

unsalvaged wood decays and releases carbon.

Although it is possible to quantify a project’s direct effects on carbon emissions, there is no certainty 

about the actual intensity of individual project’s indirect effects on global climate change. 

Uncertainty in climate change effects is expected because it is not possible to meaningfully link 

individual project actions to quantitative effects on climatic patterns.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

563 of 632

Under the no action alternative, there would be an increased indirect risk of wildfire, which could 

contribute carbon dioxide emissions. The fuels that have accumulated are prone to be released back 

into the atmosphere by combustion and decay.

Under the action alternatives, up to 28,500 acres (under alternatives 2 and 3) and up to 17,200 acres 

(under alternative 4) are proposed for underburning. Underburning would release carbon dioxide into 

the air from the debris on the forest floor, but repeated underburns would produce substantially less 

emissions per acre than a wildfire, which consumes material from both the forest floor and the 

standing trees. Restoration of the forest by moving toward the historical range of variability 

(primarily through thinning), would result in a lowered risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. 

This reduction has a direct beneficial effect of decreased carbon emissions from these acres because 

the risk of acres being burned by uncharacteristically severe wildfires would be reduced.

The action alternatives are not expected to have a measurable change in the ability of the forest to 

sequester carbon. Thinning would reduce the number of trees, but the number of remaining 

treeswould continue to utilize most of the growing potential of the site with net growth remaining 

about the same. Harvesting wood and turning it into durable products such as lumber would 

sequester a portion of the carbon while retaining the capacity of the forest to absorb carbon from the 

atmosphere. Additionally, biomass utilization is itself a carbon neutral source of energy, but if it is 

replacing fossil fuel use, there is a net reduction in atmospheric carbon.

Overall, the combined effects of any of the action alternatives are expected to be a net reduction in 

atmospheric carbon.

3.17.2.2 Effects of Climate Change on Magone

Eastern Oregon is likely to experience changes in temperature and rainfall patterns with rising 

greenhouse gas levels. The mean temperature at the end of this century is projected to increase 

several degrees Fahrenheit, with the largest increase occurring during the summer months (June–

August), though each season has predicted higher average temperatures. Potential future average 

annual precipitation at the end of this century is projected to increase, though the summer (June–

August) precipitation is projected to decrease. Most future climate scenarios show increased 

precipitation for the Pacific Northwest, but with longer periods of summer drought.

The higher average temperatures and increased summer drought predicted by climate change models 

may lead to vegetation changes in the analysis area. Evidence also shows that long drought periods 

can lead to increased insect and disease activity, as well as increased wildfire activity and intensity.

Under the no action alternative the species composition and stand density would remain the same or 

trend toward late seral species and increased stand density. This would intensify any effects from 

increased summer temperatures and drought, leading to increased stress to the trees and reduced 

ability to resist insects and disease in the forest. Increased fuel loadings and warmer, drier weather 

would increase the risk of large stand replacement wildfires.

Under the action alternatives there are varying levels of silvicultural treatments including 

commercial thinning, non-commercial thinning, post and pole removal, conifer reduction in aspen 

stands, and biomass removal. Thinning would reduce forest density and improve the health and vigor 

of remaining trees, especially during periods of summer drought. A forest that is better adapted to 

handle disturbances, such as wildfire or disease, would be more resilient in the face of potential 

future climate change.
Magone Project

564 of 632

Additionally, complete quantifiable information about project effects on global climate change is not 

currently possible and is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

3.17.3 Cumulative Effects

As greenhouse gas emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to 

determine the cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with any number of 

particular projects. Nor is it expected that such disclosure would provide a practical or meaningful 

effects analysis for the Magone Project.

3.18 Evaluation of Proposed Forest Plan Amendments

As discussed in chapter 1, the Forest Service has identified a need to change the Malheur Forest Plan 

to better reflect current conditions and scientific understanding regarding necessary restoration of the 

Magone project planning area. Based on the direction provided in 36 CFR 219, the Responsible 

Official must determine the appropriate scope and scale of forest plan amendments and apply those 

provisions of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 that directly apply to the proposed amendment.32 In the 

following section, the provisions of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 that directly apply to the proposed 

amendments are briefly identified and discussed.

Provisions of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 that are not directly applicable to the proposed 

amendments can be found in the FEIS Appendix E, along with the rationale for why those provisions 

are not directly applicable to the proposed amendments.

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes

Based on the need for change, site-specific conditions in the Magone project planning area, and 

relevant forest-specific information and data, the following substantive requirements of 36 CFR 

219.8 through 219.11 apply to the proposed amendment to designate Dedicated Old Growth and 

Replacement Old Growth areas within the Magone project planning area. See FEIS Appendix E for a 

rationale for why other provisions of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 do not apply.

The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to inventory and validate all old growth areas during 

project planning, and correct previously dedicated old growth unit designations that are not meeting 

management requirements (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105, standard #4). This allows 

DOGs and ROGs to be designated to provide old forest structure for wildlife species dependent on 

that habitat across the landscape of the Malheur National Forest through time (36 CFR § 

219.8(a)(1)(ii)). Validation of these management areas provides the flexibility to move and designate 

DOGs in areas where old growth forest structure and composition currently exist, and ROGs in areas 

where it will potentially exist in the future. This promotes old forest structure and composition 

through time, and allows planning to be responsive to changes in stand structure and composition in 

a dynamic landscape driven by stand succession, drought, wildfire, insect and disease activity, or 

other ecological processes (36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) and § 219.10(a)(8)). Changes to MA13 for the 

Magone Project include:

 DOG 03115 would be relocated to more suitable old growth habitat for pileated 

woodpeckers.

 New ROGs would be designated for DOGs 03114, 03115, 03119, 03259, 03259, and 03515

to provide replacement old growth habitat to counter possible catastrophic damage or 

 

32 36 CFR § 219.13 (2012).
Final Environmental Impact Statement

565 of 632

probable deterioration of dedicated old growth, as directed by the Malheur Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105, standard 5).

 There would be minor changes along the boundaries of DOGs 03114, 03115, 03259, and 

03515 to adjust MA13 to actual old growth stand boundaries.

The goals of MA13 are to “Provide “suitable” habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, 

ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV105) (36 CFR § 219.9(a)(1) and § 219.9(a)(2)). DOGs are designed to provide habitat for pileated 

woodpecker, pine marten, and three-toed woodpecker, which are Malheur Forest Plan Management 

Indicator Species (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-32 and IV-105) (36 CFR § 219.9(a)(2)(i)).

ROGs are designed to provide replacement habitat for these species in the future. Although MA13 

are specifically designed to provide habitat for these three species, old forest structure and 

composition provides habitat for many other wildlife species as well. These species are commonly 

enjoyed and used by the public for trapping (pine marten) and observing (pileated woodpecker and 

three-toed woodpecker), as well as many other activities (36 CFR § 219.10(a)(5)). Wildlife 

connectivity corridors are also proposed under the Magone Project to serve as connectivity between 

DOGs, ROGs, and other late and old structure (LOS) stands. These corridors allow for the dispersal 

and movement of wildlife species that use and are dependent on old forest structure.

Changes to MA13 boundaries would have direct impacts to aesthetic values, fish and wildlife 

species, and habitat and habitat connectivity (36 CFR § 219.10(a)(1)). These impacts are addressed 

in the Magone FEIS. Specifically:

 Aesthetic values related to MA13 are provided through stands with large trees and old forest 

characteristics (see Magone FEIS chapter 3, Visuals section).

 MA13 provides nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers and threetoed woodpckers, and denning, foraging, and dispersal habitat for pine marten. See Magone 

FEIS chapter 3, wildlife section related to Management Indicator Species for old growth 

(pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and three-toed woodpecker).

 MA13 provides habitat for pileated woodpeckers, pine marten, three-toed woodpeckers, and 

other old growth dependent species, and contributes to the habitat connectivity of MA13, 

late and old structure (LOS) stands, and the wildlife connectivity corridors that connect 

them. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, wildlife section related to the Old Growth Network and 

Connectivity Corridors.

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the Wildlife; Level and Effects of Silviculture Treatments; and Visuals sections for the direct and 

indirect effects of the proposed old growth forest plan amendments.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under alternative 1, there would be no changes to the MA13 network. The DOG/ROG system in the 

Magone project planning area would continue failing to meet Malheur Forest Plan standards, 

contributing less than the action alternatives to the broader ecosystem integrity and diversity (both 

within the planning area and in the surrounding landscape), provided through DOG/ROGs, late and 

old structure, and the wildlife connectivity corridors that connect them.

Some DOGs would continue to be located in stands that do not provide actual old growth habitat, 

several DOGs would not have their associated ROG designated, and several ROGs would be located 

in stands that are not currently on the path toward becoming old growth habitat in the future. The 

current amount of MA13 that is providing aesthetic values in the form of maintaining stands of large 
Magone Project

566 of 632

trees viewable by the public would be maintained. This alternative would not be responsive to 

system drivers (e.g., ecological processes).

Alternative 2, 3, and 4

All action alternatives propose to alter the location and/or stand boundaries of dedicated old growth 

(DOG) areas in order to expand the current MA13 network to include replacement old growth 

(ROG) areas to meet Malheur Forest Plan standards (Table 4). Ultimately, there would be a loss of 

approximately 263 acres of DOGs in MA13, but an overall expansion of the MA13 network by 

approximately 1,478 acres.

Changes to the MA13 system in the Magone project planning area would contribute to the broader 

ecosystem integrity and diversity both within the planning area and in the surrounding landscape, 

provided through DOGs, ROGs, late and old structure, and the wildlife connectivity corridors that 

connect them (consistent with 36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(ii), § 219.9(a)(1), § 219.9(a)(2), §

219.9(a)(2)(i), and § 219.10(a)(1)). These boundary adjustments would relocate DOGs to areas that 

provide actual old growth habitat and relocate or designate ROGs in areas that are on the path to 

becoming old growth habitat in the future. Reviewing the DOG/ROG (MA13) system, and making 

these adjustments at the project planning level allows for MA13 to be adjusted in response to system 

drivers (e.g., ecological processes, disturbances, natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, 

and climate change) (consistent with 36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) and § 219.10(a)(8)).

Changes to the MA13 boundaries under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would maintain habitat for old 

growth dependent species (including pine marten, pileated woodpecker, and three-toed woodpecker), 

which are commonly enjoyed by the public for trapping and observing (consistent with 36 CFR §

219.10(a)(1) and § 219.10(a)(5)). In addition, DOGs and ROGs would provide aesthetic values in the 

form of maintaining stands of large trees viewable by the public (consistent with 36 CFR §

219.10(a)(1)).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for this proposed forest plan amendment are addressed at the Forest-scale. The 

1990 Malheur Forest Plan estimated 47,690 acres of dedicated old growth in Management Area 13 

outside of wilderness, research natural areas, semi-primitive areas, and wild and scenic rivers (ROD24). Since 1990, there have been 31 amendments that have affected the location and acreage of old 

growth areas (see Table 138). Most non-fire related old growth replacements were minor relocations

or adjustments to old growth area boundaries to better meet Malheur Forest Plan requirements for 

old growth habitat. With these amendments, there are currently approximately 74,297 acres of

mapped dedicated old growth (DOG) and replacement old growth (ROG) on the Forest with a MA13 

designation outside of wilderness, research natural areas, semi-primitive areas, and wild and scenic 

rivers. Additional old-growth habitat exists on the Malheur National Forest in other management 

allocations that are distributed across the Forest.

Table 138. Malheur Forest Plan amendments affected Old Growth (Management Area 13) since 1990

Number of 

projects with 

old growth 

amendments

Year Project Amendment

1 1990 Snowshoe Timber 

Sale

Location of ROGs can now be greater than 1⁄4 mile 

away from its associated DOG.

2 1992 Huck Timber Sale Located a ROG farther than 1⁄4 mile away from DOG 

106.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

567 of 632

Number of 

projects with 

old growth 

amendments

Year Project Amendment

3 1992 Forks Timber Sale Designated a ROG in the planning area further than 

the standard 1⁄4 mile from the original DOG.

4 1993 Hog Flat Timber 

Sale

Designated a ROG (HRO 036) in the Hog Flat 

planning area more than 1⁄4 mile from the original 

DOG (HMB 036).

5 1993 Tin Can Timber 

Sale

Relocated DOG 27 to Brophy Creek drainage and 

reallocated MA13 lands to MA1 lands in the planning 

area.

6 1993 Fawn Timber Sale Located a ROG beyond a 1⁄4 mile radius from the 

original DOG.

7 1993 Shirtail Relocated 2 DOGs.

8 1995 Awake Moved a DOG within the Awake Timber Sale Area to 

a location that better met management 

requirements.

9 1996 Powder Allowed salvage harvest entry into a DOG.

10 2000 Dry Fork Adjusted the boundaries of DOGs and ROGs in the 

analysis area.

11 2000 Triangle Lex Relocated two DOGs outside of lands legislated to 

be exchanged in the Triangle Land Exchange.

12 2001 Olmstead Adjusted DOG boundaries.

13 2001 Parasol Relocated DOGs and ROGs within the planning 

area.

14 2004 Silvies Canyon Adjusted boundaries of DOGs and ROGs in the 

planning area.

15 2004 Flagtail Fire Relocated DOGs and ROGs in the planning area.

16 2004 Monument Rock Relocated DOGs and ROGs in the planning area.

17 2004 Easy Relocated DOGs and ROGs in the planning area.

18 2005 Merit Adjusted boundaries of DOGs and ROGs in the 

planning area.

19 2007 Canyon Creek 

WUI

Exchanged DOG 236 and ROG 236.

20 2008 Thorn Fire 

Salvage Recovery

Relocated DOGs and ROGs in the planning area.

21 2008 Crawford Adjusted DOG boundaries and located ROGs.

22 2008 Balance Adjusted DOGs and increased the size of ROGs.

23 2008 Dads Creek WUI

24 2010 Damon WUI Commercial thinning in old growth and changed 

pileated woodpecker habitat management objectives 

to white-headed woodpecker management 

objectives in the Swick DOG.

25 2012 Marshall Devine Designated DOGs and ROGs.

26 2013 Blue Mountain 

Snow Park

Increased the size of DOGs and ROGs, increasing 

MA13 by 147 acres.

27 2013 Galena Designated DOGs and ROGs.

28 2013 Upper Pine HFRA Designated DOGs and ROGs.
Magone Project

568 of 632

Number of 

projects with 

old growth 

amendments

Year Project Amendment

29 2015 Elk 16 Increased the size of DOGs and ROGs and added 

ROGs, increasing MA13 by 259 acres.

30 2015 Wolf Added 1,715 acres to the old growth network.

31 2015 Big Mosquito Increased the size of DOGs and ROGs. MA13 

increased by 433 acres.

This proposed forest plan amendment would change MA13 boundaries for existing areas and 

delineate boundaries for new areas within the project planning area to bring total acres up to Malheur 

Forest Plan standards for alternatives 2, 3, and 4. DOGs would decrease by approximately 263 acres 

and ROGs would increase by 1,478 acres. The MA13 network would have a net increase of 1,215 

acres, resulting in approximately 75,512 acres of mapped DOGs and ROGs on the Forest with a 

MA13 designation outside of wilderness, research natural areas, semi-primitive areas, and wild and 

scenic rivers (see Table 139). See FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Maps 13 and 14 for the proposed 

locations of DOGs and ROGs.

Table 139. Summary of existing old growth habitat and proposed changes within the project planning 

area for pileated woodpecker and pine marten

Habitat type DOG areas DOG acres ROG areas ROG acres

Existing habitat 8 1,811 0 0

Proposed new areas 0 0 5 +1,478

Proposed changes to existing areas 3 -263 0 0

Habitat after proposed changes 8 1,548 5 1,478

Reasonably foreseeable future projects which could include forest plan amendments to Management 

Area 13 include the Camp Lick and Ragged Ruby projects on the Blue Mountain Ranger District, the 

Summit Project on the Prairie City Ranger District, and the Dove and Flat projects on the Emigrant 

Creek Ranger District. These projects, combined with the Magone Project, could increase the 

number of forest plan amendments to Management Area 13, and increase the acres of mapped DOGs 

and ROGs on the Forest with a MA13 designation to 78,639 acres (an increase of 4,342 acres) 

outside of wilderness, research natural areas, semi-primitive areas, and wild and scenic rivers. This 

would result in approximately 4.6 percent of the 1,700,000-acre Malheur National Forest allocated to 

the MA13 designation.

Table 140. Proposed and reasonably foreseeable Malheur Forest Plan amendments affecting Old 

Growth (Management Area 13)

Number of 

projects with 

old growth 

amendments

Year Project Amendment Total acres 

of MA13 

with 

proposed 

amendment

32 Expected in 

2017

Dove Preliminary EA states that alternatives 2 and 

3 would add an additional 1,000 acres of 

ROGs to MA13.

75,297

33 Expected in 

2017

Magone DOGs would decrease by approximately 263 

acres and ROGs would increase by 1,478 

76,512
Final Environmental Impact Statement

569 of 632

Number of 

projects with 

old growth 

amendments

Year Project Amendment Total acres 

of MA13 

with 

proposed 

amendment

acres. MA13 acres would increase by 1,215 

acres.

34 Expected in 

2017

Summit Scoping document states that with the 

designation of a ROG there would be an 

additional 327 acres of MA13.

76,839

35 Expected in 

2017

Camp 

Lick

Scoping document states that MA13 would 

increase by 1,800 acres

78,639

36 Expected in 

2017

Flat This project could include updates to MA13, 

however at this early stage in the planning 

process this has not yet been determined and 

thus there is no estimate of acres available.

--

37 Expected in 

2018

Ragged 

Ruby

See statement regarding the Flat Project. --

These management area changes are small in scale and there would be no changes to the standards 

and guidelines for any management area due to this amendment.

The relocation of DOGs and designation of ROGs would not alter the multiple use goals and 

objectives for long-term land and resource management because the changes in management areas 

would not alter the long-term relationship between goods and services projected by the Malheur 

Forest Plan, nor would it forgo the opportunity to achieve an output in later years. Combined, 

management area changes are small in scale and there would be no changes to the standards and 

guidelines for any management area due to these amendments. The Malheur Forest Plan anticipated 

that changes in Dedicated and Replacement Old Growth areas would occur. Management Area 13 

standards 4 through 8 direct that dedicated old growth units that are not meeting management 

requirements be corrected; and that replacement old growth areas be provided to counter possible 

damage or deterioration of dedicated old growth in the future.

The cumulative addition of MA13 across the Forest with past amendments, the proposed 

amendment, and foreseeable projects would improve the distribution, availability, and survivability 

of the MA13 network across the Malheur National Forest. This insures that adequate old growth 

habitat is currently available and suitable for species that utilize or are obligates of late-seral habitat, 

and also assures that habitat is designated for management towards old growth conditions so that old 

growth conditions persist in the long-term. Further, the expansion of the MA13 network combined 

with connectivity corridors would allow dispersal and landscape permeability of old growthdependent species across the Malheur National Forest. The amendment, combined with similar past 

and foreseeable amendments would ultimately expand the forest network of old growth habitat to 

support or improve old growth management indicator species populations and provide more 

opportunities for those species to disperse across the landscape as specified in the Malheur Forest 

Plan.

The proposed amendment meets the long-term goals of the Malheur Forest Plan to provide “suitable” 

habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic 

qualities.
Magone Project

570 of 632

Uniqueness of the Proposed Forest Plan Amendments for Old Growth

MA13 updates are proposed to locate the old growth management area designation on the unique 

sites in the Magone project planning area that are currently providing (in the case of DOGs) or are on 

the path to developing into (in the case of ROGs) old growth habitat. These sites provide habitat for 

wildlife species dependent on mature/overmature forest conditions (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV-105). This follows Malheur Forest Plan direction to inventory, validate, and correct 

dedicated old growth unit designations at the project planning level.

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range, and Wildlife Emphasis Area 

(Management Area 21) Cover below Malheur Forest Plan Standards

Based on the need for change, site-specific conditions in the Magone project planning area, and 

relevant forest-specific information and data, the following substantive requirements of 36 CFR 

219.8 through 219.11 apply to the proposed amendments to reduce Summer Range, Winter Range, 

and Wildlife Emphasis Area Cover below Malheur Forest Plan standards within the Magone project 

planning area. See FEIS Appendix E for a rationale for why other provisions of 36 CFR 219.8

through 219.11 do not apply.

Historically, the Grub Creek subwatershed and Nipple Butte WEA, as well as most of the Malheur 

National Forest, burned frequently (every 10 to 20 years) with low severity wildfire (Schmidt et al. 

2002, Johnston 2016). This disturbance regime typically kept most lower elevation forested areas in 

open woodland, shrubland, and grassland conditions with canopy closures too low to support 

satisfactory or marginal cover as it is defined by the Malheur Forest Plan. Over the past century, a 

wetter climate coupled with fire suppression and grazing, has allowed for the regeneration and 

encroachment of ponderosa pine and western juniper in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests of the 

Grub Creek subwatershed and Nipple Butte WEA. The Silviculture section shows that the more open 

structural stages (e.g., old forest single stratum and stand initiation) in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry 

plant association groups are currently much lower than the historical range of variability. Due to the 

encroachment of ponderosa pine and juniper, canopy closures are currently high enough to meet 

satisfactory and marginal cover requirements, as defined by the Malheur Forest Plan. However, 

stands are overstocked and are at a higher risk to beetle infestation and severe wildfire. Ponderosa 

pine and juniper are also competing for limited water supplies and shading out bunchgrasses, 

mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush that are valuable forage and browse species, changing the 

composition of these stands. Current cover levels are likely not sustainable.

A forest plan amendment to reduce cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed’s summer and winter 

range and the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area is needed to authorize proposed silviculture and 

fuels treatments. The proposed treatments are designed to help move the Grub Creek subwatershed 

and Nipple Butte WEA toward the historical range of variability given the historical fire regime 

(addressing substantive provisions § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) and § 219.10(a)(8)). Non-commercial thinning is 

designed to protect and release shrub and browse species, such as mountain mahogany and 

bitterbrush that are currently being overtopped and shaded out by ponderosa pine and juniper. 

Thinning is also designed to reduce tree density, retain old tree structure, create openings, and leave 

dense forested patches where appropriate to increase the diversity and overall resiliency of the 

subwatershed to disturbance processes and potential future climate change (§ 219.9(a)(1) and §

219.9(a)(2)). Fuels reduction treatments are designed to reduce current fuel loads and create the 

conditions where fire can safely be re-introduced into the landscape to help restore the fire adapted 

system (§ 219.8(a)(1)(v)). See chapter 3, Level and Effects of Silviculture Treatments and Fire, 

Fuels, and Air Quality sections for more detail.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

571 of 632

The Grub Creek subwatershed was historically much more open, providing more forage and less 

conifer canopy cover than it is currently. Reducing cover and restoring historical conditions would 

improve forage availability and quality for big game at the landscape scale (§ 219.9(a)(1), §

219.8(a)(1)(vi), and § 219.10(a)(1)). Thinning is designed to protect and enhance shrub and browse 

species that are an important food source for big game. Although these shrub species are not defined 

as cover in the Malheur Forest Plan, they are still tall, brushy shrubs that limit sight distances into 

stands and provide hiding cover for big game. In addition, unthinned patches would be retained to 

provide areas of dense conifer cover, and wildlife connectivity corridors would be provided under all 

of the action alternatives. Increased forage quality and quantity would draw animals off of adjacent 

private lands and onto the forest, enhancing recreational opportunities for big game hunting and 

wildlife viewing (§ 219.10(a)(5)). See chapter 3, Wildlife, Recreation, and Level and Effects of 

Silviculture Treatments sections for more information.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Cover Forest Plan Amendments

See the Wildlife; Level and Effects of Silviculture Treatments; Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality; and 

Recreation sections for the direct and indirect effects of the proposed cover changes forest plan 

amendments.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

With no activities proposed, satisfactory and total cover would be maintained in summer range and

Big-Game Winter Range (MA4a) in the Grub Creek subwatershed and the Nipple Butte Wildlife 

Emphasis Area (MA21) in the short-term. In the mid- to long-term (with continued fire suppression), 

development of late and old structure (LOS) and/or multi-strata stands could create additional 

satisfactory and marginal cover stands. Long-term changes could increase cover over time, although 

with improved cover or potentially larger homogenous stands of cover, there could be less forage as 

tree canopies close and shade the ground. With no thinning or prescribed fire, increased tree stocking 

could increase the frequency and intensity of high-severity wildfire events. A fire of moderate to 

intense magnitude and severity could convert LOS or multi-strata cover habitat to stand initiation 

forage habitat in the short- and mid-term, therefore changing forage to cover ratios and distribution 

across the project planning area. With proportionate changes in ratios, Habitat Effectiveness Index

values (quality of cover, size and spacing of cover, quantity and quality of forage, and density of 

open roads) would not be expected to fall below Malheur Forest Plan standards.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Summer and winter range in the Grub Creek subwatershed and the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis 

Area historically had more frequent, low intensity wildfires that maintained areas with more forage 

and less cover for big game than is currently present in the area. The proposed cover amendments 

would allow thinning and prescribed burning that would restore fire adapted ecosystems in the 

project planning area (consistent with 36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(iv), § 219.8(a)(1)(v), and §

219.10(a)(8)).

Cover and forage patches would be provided in sizes and with spacing beneficial to big game use. 

The proposed extensive upland shrub enhancement treatments (i.e., non-commercial thinning) would 

remove juniper and other conifer cover but still provide cover from mahogany, substantially 

increasing forage for big game. While satisfactory, marginal, and total cover, and size and spacing of 

cover would be reduced in some areas, numerous patches would be retained providing cover 

distribution. Alternatives 2 and 3 would substantially improve overall habitat for elk in the mid- to 

long-term (with increased forage quality and quantity), and the expected quick recovery of vertical 

cover. Alternative 4 would have similar beneficial effects to elk habitat, although not as evident 
Magone Project

572 of 632

compared with alternatives 2 and 3, due to the lack of upland shrub enhancement (conifer removal) 

treatments proposed in the Nipple Butte WEA. Consistent with 36 CFR § 219.9(a)(2), §

219.10(a)(1), and (§ 219.10(a)(5).

These cover amendments would allow treatments that contribute toward restoration efforts in the 

surrounding landscape, moving the area towards the historical range of variability (consistent with 

36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(vi), § 219.9(a)(1), and § 219.10(a)(1)). Ecosystem integrity would also be 

improved by increasing forage, which fits within the natural range of variability for this area 

(consistent with 36 CFR § 219.9(a)(1)). Following treatment, the Magone project planning area 

would be more responsive to the dominant ecological processes of the area, including wildland fire 

and climate change (consistent with 36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) and § 219.10(a)(8)).

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 does not include forest plan amendments to reduce cover below standards, effects are 

as described elsewhere in Magone FEIS chapter 3.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Forest Plan Amendment to Big Game Summer 

Range Cover (Forest-wide standard #28)

Since the Forest Plan was signed in 1990, there have been seven (7) amendments that have affected 

big game summer range cover. Most amendments allowed reductions of satisfactory cover below 

forest plan standards. A few amendments allowed reductions of marginal cover or total cover within 

summer range.

The Malheur Forest Plan directs that cover determinations for site specific projects be calculated at a 

subwatershed basis. Subwatershed boundaries across the Forest have been adjusted since some of 

these amendments were authorized. Typically, subwatershed boundaries have increased in size from 

those that existed when amendments were approved in the 1990s. Currently there are 178 

subwatersheds with portions of big game summer range on the Malheur National Forest. In total 

there are 1,338,781 acres of summer range within these subwatersheds (not all acres are on the 

Malheur National Forest). Using current subwatershed boundaries, amendments were approved 

within portions of 13 individual subwatersheds containing 133,905 acres of summer range. The 13 

subwatersheds contain approximately 10 percent of the big game summer range within the 178

subwatersheds. This is likely an overestimate of the percentage of summer range on the Malheur 

National Forest that has been impacted by amendments because of the adjustments in subwatershed 

boundaries since the Malheur Forest Plan was approved.

Areas where amendments were approved within summer range are well distributed across the 

Malheur National Forest. Three of the amendments were located in the Silvies summer range, one in 

the Malheur River summer range, one in the Upper John Day summer range, and one in the Middle 

Fork John Day summer range. Two of the projects (Olmstead and Silvies Canyon) had authorized 

amendments that were completed over 10 years ago. Table 141 shows specific details regarding past 

amendments for summer range cover.

The Magone Project would be the ninth forest plan amendment that allows a reduction of summer 

range satisfactory, marginal, or total cover below forest plan standards in the 26 years since the 

Malheur Forest Plan was approved. The Magone Project would increase the number of 

subwatersheds where cover amendments have been approved to 13 out of the 178 subwatersheds that 

contain big game summer. Approximately 13 percent of the big game summer range acres are 

contained within the 13 subwatersheds.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

573 of 632

The Malheur Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1990c, page 13) authorized 

different cover standards for seven summer range watersheds. The Magone Project would be the 

second project to authorize a summer range amendment in the Upper John Day summer range.

The Dove, Camp Lick, Flat, Ragged Ruby, and Cliff/Knox projects on the Malheur National Forest 

are currently in the planning stages and some of these projects could include a cover amendment in 

big game summer range (see Table 142)

Once cover is treated below forest plan standards, it is not permanently diminished. It is expected 

that residual vegetation would respond to treatments in such a way that cover values would improve 

to or beyond forest plan standards in the short-term (pending degree of departure). In response to the 

treatments, marginal cover (post-treatment) would likely become satisfactory cover, and areas termed 

“forage” with values just below those considered marginal cover would likely become marginal 

cover. The increases in cover values would be expected within 5 to 10 years post-treatment 

depending on site specific productivity and environmental conditions (i.e., drought). Therefore, it 

would be expected that any projects implemented prior to 2006 (10 years) would be providing 

marginal, satisfactory, and total cover above forest plan standards, which includes three of the seven 

past amendments. The cumulative reduction of marginal, satisfactory, or total summer range cover 

from the proposed amendment combined with past and foreseeable future amendments collectively 

affects approximately 4,833 acres (alternative 2) or 4,840 acres (alternative 3), or approximately 0.3 

percent of the Malheur National Forest.

Further, a reduction in cover typically assumes an increase in forage. Forage is an important 

component of both summer and winter range, but particularly important to big game in late summer 

when available forage begins to dry out, and competition from livestock grazing becomes more

concentrated to areas with residual suitable forage. In summer range, increasing the quantity and 

quality (both a result of thinning and prescribed fire treatments) would be beneficial to big game 

populations, even with a reduction in cover. An increase in the quality and quantity of forage 

contributes to adequate nutrition for lactating females, growing fawns, and calves, as well as 

ensuring sufficient body condition in males entering the breeding season in the fall.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) inventories Rocky Mountain elk populations 

each year in each wildlife management unit. Elk populations in each of the wildlife management 

units that overlap with the Malheur National Forest are at or above population management 

objectives set by ODFW. Most have shown increasing populations since 2010 (ODFW population 

summaries). Stable or increasing populations of elk across the Malheur National Forest as well as 

adjacent private lands indicates that elk population have not been negatively affected by forest plan 

amendments that reduce cover below standards on summer or winter range. Similar population 

trends (stable and increasing) would be expected to continue with proposed and foreseeable 

amendments for reducing cover.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Forest Plan Amendment to Big Game Winter 

Range Cover Standard #4

Since the Malheur Forest Plan was authorized 26 years ago, there have been 14 amendments that

have affected big game winter range cover. Most amendments reduced total or satisfactory cover 

below forest plan standards. Areas where amendments were approved within winter range are well 

distributed across the Malheur National Forest. Nine of the projects where amendments in big game 

winter range were authorized were implemented in the 1990s (Table 143).

Table 143 and Table 144 show specific details regarding past amendments for winter range cover..
Magone Project

574 of 632

Table 141. Malheur Forest Plan amendments affected big game summer range since 1990

Number of 

projects with 

summer 

range 

amendments

Year District 

and 

summer 

range

Project Amendment rationale Scale of amendment Current 

subwatersheds 

and acres of 

summer range

1 1995 Emigrant 

Creek, 

HarneyMalheur 

Lakes

Prater 

Planning Area

Allowed to be below summer range 

cover standards in both Prater and 

Coffeepot Creek subwatersheds.

Vegetative cover has most likely 

recovered since it has been 21 years 

since treatment.

Armstrong 

Canyon – 23 

acres

Coffeepot Creek

– 1,463 acres

2 1997 Emigrant 

Creek, 

Silvies

Badger 

Timber Sale

Reduced cover in the West Fork Hay 

Creek subwatershed. Vegetative 

cover has most likely recovered 

since it has been 19 years since 

treatment.

Hay Creek –

20,962 acres

3 2001 Prairie 

City, 

Upper 

John Day

Olmstead 

Vegetation 

and Road 

Management 

Analysis

337 acres will lose marginal cover canopy 

closure due to commercial thinning. This is 

relatively minor compared to the 5,787 acres 

that is currently meeting marginal cover 

standards (a reduction of 8%). The effects of 

activities are primarily within the next 5 to 20 

year time frame. Old Forest structures would 

develop with these treatments.

Commercially thin approximately 337 

acres of marginal cover in the 

Phipps subwatershed, reducing total

cover to 17%. Vegetative cover has 

most likely recovered since it has 

been 15 years since treatment.

Mill CreekMiddle Fork 

John Day –

16,652 acres

4 2003 Emigrant 

Creek, 

Silvies

Silvies 

Canyon

The areas selected for commercial thinning 

treatments had high tree densities, increasing 

the risk of stand replacing fire events and 

insect outbreak.

The canopy cover that will develop is expected 

to be more sustainable because it will be 

provided by fewer, but larger and healthier 

trees that are more adapted to site conditions 

than those there presently.

Satisfactory cover reduced below 

standards on 153 acres.

Marginal cover reduced below 

standards on 339 acres.

Total cover reduced below standards 

on 2,000 acres.

Stancliffe 

Creek-Silvies 

River – 6,934 

acres

Sagehen CreekSilvies River –

7,540 acres

Myrtle Creek –

20,362 acres

5 2012 Blue 

Mountain

Silvies

Soda Bear To reduce fire hazard and the severity of 

mountain pine beetle outbreak. The planning

area is primarily a dry forest landscape and 

retaining canopy closures greater than 50%

Reduction of satisfactory cover 

below forest plan standards in the 

Lower Bear Creek (4.3%), Middle 

Bear Creek (4.8%), and Soda Valley 

(2.9%) subwatersheds, affecting 790 

Lower Bear 

Creek – 3,697

Middle Bear 

Creek – 11,030 

acres
Final Environmental Impact Statement

575 of 632

Number of 

projects with 

summer 

range 

amendments

Year District 

and 

summer 

range

Project Amendment rationale Scale of amendment Current 

subwatersheds 

and acres of 

summer range

within these dry forest types would not meet 

the purpose and need.

acres. Total cover will be reduced to 

14.3% in the Soda Valley 

subwatershed, affecting 335 acres.

Soda ValleySilvies – 5,878 

acres

6 2013 Blue 

Mountain

Middle 

Fork 

John Day

Galena To meet the purpose and need, the project 

was designed to restore forested lands within 

the project area to more closely resemble the 

historical range of variability of species 

composition, density, and stand structure, 

especially within the warm dry and hot dry 

biophysical environments; and to reduce 

surface fuel loads, ladder fuels and crown 

density resulting in reducing the potential for 

large, stand replacing crown fires.

Satisfactory cover in the Vinegar 

Creek subwatershed was 8.2%, 

which is below the Forest Plan 

standard of 12%, and would further 

be reduced to 7.3% on 

approximately 128 acres.

Vinegar Creek –

Middle Fork 

John Day

7 2013 Emigrant 

Creek, 

Upper 

Malheur

Upper Pine To address the purpose and need, the project 

was designed to reduce fuels, to alter fire

behavior and move the area towards historical 

fire behavior (low intensity surface fires) and 

fire regime (frequency) with historical effects 

on vegetation (from high mortality to low 

mortality).

Satisfactory cover in the Upper Pine 

Creek subwatershed was reduced 

on 389 acres below standards (from 

5 to 3.3%).

Upper Pine 

Creek – 21,385 

acres

Table 142. Proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects with forest plan amendments affecting big-game summer range

Number of 

projects with 

summer 

range 

amendments

Year District and 

summer 

range

Project Amendment rationale Scale of amendment Current 

subwatersheds 

and acres of 

summer range

8 Expect

in 

2017

Emigrant 

Creek, 

Upper John 

Day

Dove The Dove planning area is primarily (87%) a 

Warm Dry or Hot Dry forest landscape and 

retaining canopy closures greater than 50%

within these dry forest types is not sustainable 

and would not meet the purpose and need of 

the project.

Satisfactory cover in the 

Headwaters South Fork John Day 

River subwatershed would be 

reduced on 339 acres (2.2%) below 

standards (from 20.4 to 9.8%).

Satisfactory cover in Venator Creek 

subwatershed would be reduced on 

Headwaters 

South Fork 

John Day River 

– 15,426 acres

Venator Creek –

7,484 acres
Magone Project

576 of 632

Number of 

projects with 

summer 

range 

amendments

Year District and 

summer 

range

Project Amendment rationale Scale of amendment Current 

subwatersheds 

and acres of 

summer range

352 acres (4.7%) below standards 

(from 16.2 to 7.3%).

9 Expect

ed in 

2017

Blue 

Mountain

Upper John 

Day

Magone To allow the non-commercial thinning (which 

would remove juniper and other conifer cover) 

to enhance upland shrubs, while still providing 

cover from mahogany and increasing forage.

Alternative 2 would reduce 

satisfactory cover from the existing 

31.8% to 10.1% in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed, 1.9% below the 

standard of 12%, affecting 8 acres.

Alternative 3 would reduce 

satisfactory cover from the existing 

31.8% to 8.2% in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed, 3.8% below the 

standard of 12%, affecting 15 

acres.

East Fork 

Beech Creek –

13,733 acres 

within the 

planning area

Grub Creek –

1,269 acres 

within the 

planning area

10 Expect

ed in 

2017

Blue 

Mountain

Middle Fork 

John Day

Camp Lick This project could include an amendment to 

summer range cover, however at this early 

stage in the planning process this has not yet 

been determined and thus there is no estimate 

of acres potentially affected.

-- --

11 Expect

ed in 

2017

Emigrant 

Creek, 

Silvies

Flat See statement regarding the Camp Lick 

Project.

-- --

12 Expect

ed in 

2018

Blue 

Mountain 

Middle Fork 

John Day

Ragged 

Ruby

See statement regarding the Camp Lick 

Project.

-- --

13 Expect

ed in 

2018

Prairie City, 

Upper 

Malheur

Cliff/ Knox See statement regarding the Camp Lick 

Project.

-- --
Final Environmental Impact Statement

577 of 632

Table 143. Malheur Forest Plan amendment affected Big Game Winter Range Maintenance (Management Area 4A) from 1990 to 1999

Number of 

projects with 

winter range 

amendments

Decision 

date

District 

and 

winter 

range

Project Amendment rationale

1 1990 Blue 

Mountain, 

Middle 

Fork John 

Day

Jungle 

Timber 

Sale

Temporarily modified cover standards to allow a reduction below satisfactory cover standards on 432 

acres in the Bear Creek/Hawkins Creek subwatershed to provide for quality winter range habitat for deer 

and elk in the future. If stands were not treated at that time they would have moved from a cover to a noncover state due to tree mortality.

Analysis for the 2015 Big Mosquito Project shows that these subwatersheds have recovered to meet forest 

plan standards.

2 1991 Emigrant 

Creek, 

Upper 

Malheur

Gabe 

Timber 

Sale

Temporarily modified cover standards to allow a reduction below total cover standards in the Gabe 

subwatershed.

Analysis for the 2010 Jane Project shows that the Calamity Creek subwatershed has recovered to meet 

forest plan standards.

3 1992 Blue 

Mountain, 

Middle 

Fork John 

Day

Slip and 

Slide 

Timber 

Sale

Temporarily modified cover standards to allow a reduction below satisfactory cover standards on 22 acres 

and below marginal cover standards on 532 acres in the Slide Creek subwatershed.

If stands were not treated at the time they would have moved from a cover to a non-cover state due to tree 

mortality. The project was expected to improve big game cover (marginal and satisfactory) approximately 

15-25 years sooner than the no action alternative.

Vegetative cover has most likely recovered since it has been 24 years since treatment.

4 1992 Blue 

Mountain, 

Middle 

Fork John 

Day

Leek 

Timber 

Sale

Temporarily modified cover standards to allow a reduction below satisfactory and total cover standards on 

approximately 700 acres in the Elk/Mosquito/Deep Creek subwatershed.

If stands were not treated at the time these stands would have fallen out of cover within 4 years due to 

insect defoliation and tree mortality.

Analysis for the 2015 Big Mosquito Project shows that these subwatersheds have recovered to meet forest 

plan standards.

5 1993 Emigrant 

Creek, 

Upper 

Malheur

Driveway 

Timber 

Sale

Temporarily modified cover standards to allow cover to remain below standards in the Muddy Creek 

subwatershed.

Vegetative cover has most likely recovered since it has been 23 years since treatment. No other large 

scale vegetation projects have occurred in this subwatershed since 1993.

6 1994 Emigrant 

Creek, 

HarneyMalheur 

Lakes

Cow 

Cabin 

Timber 

Sale

Allowed big game cover to be below big game winter range maintenance requirements for the portion of 

the Cow Creek subwatershed within the sale area. Cover would be reduced to 23% and the standard is 

25%.

Vegetative cover has most likely recovered since it has been 22 years since treatment.
Magone Project

578 of 632

Number of 

projects with 

winter range 

amendments

Decision 

date

District 

and 

winter 

range

Project Amendment rationale

7 1995 Emigrant 

Creek, 

HarneyMalheur 

Lakes

Prater 

Planning 

Area

Allowed to be below winter range cover standards in both Prater/Coffeepot Creek and Rattlesnake 

subwatersheds.

Vegetative cover has most likely recovered since it has been 21 years since treatment.

8 1996 Blue 

Mountain, 

Middle 

Fork John 

Day

Reek 

Timber 

Sale

Temporarily modified cover standards to allow a reduction in thermal cover on approximately 84 acres in 

the Elk Creek, Deep Creek, and Hawkins Creek subwatersheds.

Analysis for the 2015 Big Mosquito Project shows that these subwatersheds have recovered to meet forest 

plan standards.

9 1997 Emigrant 

Creek, 

Silvies

Badger 

Timber 

Sale

Reduced cover for winter range in the West Fork Hay Creek and Deadwood Creek subwatersheds.

Vegetative cover has most likely recovered since it has been 19 years since treatment. No other large 

scale vegetation projects have occurred in this subwatershed since 1997.

Table 144. Malheur Forest Plan amendment affected Big Game Winter Range Maintenance (Management Area 4A) from 2000 to 2016

Number of 

projects with 

winter range 

amendments

Decisio

n date

District and 

winter 

range

Project Amendment rationale Scale of amendment

10 2003 Emigrant 

Creek, 

Silvies

Silvies 

Canyon

The areas selected for commercial thinning 

treatments are areas where high tree densities are 

increasing their risk to stand replacement fire events 

and insect outbreak.

The canopy cover that will develop is expected to be 

more sustainable because it will be provided by 

fewer, but larger and healthier trees that are more 

adapted to site conditions than those there presently.

Boulder/Fawn– 6,762 acres

Marginal cover reduced an additional 102 acres

below standards.

Total cover reduced 473 acres below standards.

Burnt Mtn. – 8,523 acres

Myrtle Creek – 6,093 acres

Myrtle Park – 548 acres

Red Hill – 357 acres

Marginal cover reduced 6 acres below standards.

Total cover reduced 8 acres below standards.

Sagehen Creek – 3,364 acres

Marginal cover reduced 117 acres below 

standards.

Total cover reduced 437 acres below standards.

Stancliffe Creek – 946 acres

Satisfactory cover reduced 65 acres below 

standards.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

579 of 632

Number of 

projects with 

winter range 

amendments

Decisio

n date

District and 

winter 

range

Project Amendment rationale Scale of amendment

Total cover reduced 95 acres below standards.

11 2006 Blue 

Mountain, 

Upper John 

Day

Canyon 

Creek 

Wildland 

Urban 

Interface 

(WUI)

Fuels 

Reductio

n Project

Refines the original MA4A mapping to tie winter and 

summer range to logical boundaries and better reflect 

how big game species use this area (i.e., lower 

elevations along Canyon Creek are primarily being 

used as winter range rather than summer range).

Cover was reduced to reduce fire risk while 

maintaining hiding/security cover patches to mitigate 

effects. Most of the treatments occurred in dry forest 

types where stands were outside the HRV (i.e., 

overstocked and likely unsustainable given the high 

risk of uncharacteristically severe fire and insect 

epidemics). Most of these stands would likely have 

fallen out of cover within the next 25 years if not 

treated.

Big Game Winter Range (MA4A) boundaries were 

adjusted, increasing by approximately 875 acres.

The project reduced satisfactory cover below 

forest plan standards in the Vance Creek, East 

Fork Canyon Creek, and Upper Canyon Creek 

subwatersheds and below total cover standards in 

the Vance Creek and Upper Canyon Creek winter 

range, affecting less than 500 acres.

This area was also impacted by the 2015 Canyon 

Creek Complex Fire, which set back any 

vegetative recovery that had occurred.

12 2008 Blue 

Mountain, 

Middle Fork 

John Day

Balance 

Thinning 

and 

Fuels 

Reductio

n Project

Reduced satisfactory and total cover to reduce fire 

hazard adjacent to County Road 20, while 

maintaining hiding/security cover patches to mitigate 

effects. Treatments occurred in dry forest types 

where stands are outside the HRV (i.e., overstocked 

and likely unsustainable given the high risk of 

uncharacteristically severe fire and insect epidemics). 

Most of these stands would likely have fallen out of 

cover within the next 25 years if not treated.

Satisfactory cover was below forest plan 

standards in the Balance Creek/Coyote Creek 

subwatershed prior to the project. Implementation 

of the project further reduced satisfactory cover by

64 acres.

Total cover was above forest plan standards in 

the Balance Creek/Coyote Creek subwatershed. 

Implementation of the project reduced total cover 

below forest plan standards by 591 acres.

13 2008 Blue 

Mountain /

Prairie City, 

Upper John 

Day

Dads Reduced satisfactory and total cover to reduce the 

risk of loss of old growth trees due to wildfire, while 

maintaining habitat for old growth dependent wildlife 

species.

Satisfactory cover for winter range in the Dad’s 

Creek subwatershed was below forest plan 

standards prior to the project. Implementation of 

the project further reduced satisfactory cover by 8 

acres.

14 2013 Blue 

Mountain, 

Middle Fork 

John Day

Galena To meet the purpose and need of restoring forested 

lands within the planning area to more closely 

resemble the HRV of species composition, density, 

and stand structure, especially within the Warm Dry 

and Hot Dry biophysical environments; and to reduce 

surface fuel loads, ladder fuels and crown density 

resulting in reducing the potential for large, stand 

replacing crown fires.

Satisfactory cover for winter range in the Little 

Boulder/Deerhorn subwatershed was below forest 

plan standards and was further reduced by 3 

acres.
Magone Project

580 of 632

The Malheur National Forest has approximately 330,400 acres of big game winter range. 

Approximately 3.7 percent (approximately 12,084 acres) of the winter range on the Malheur 

National Forest is contained in the Magone project planning area. Alternative 2 would reduce 

satisfactory cover to 5.9 percent from 29.5 percent in the Grub Creek subwatershed, compared to the 

Malheur Forest Plan standard of 10 percent. Alternative 3 would reduce satisfactory cover to 3.3 

percent from 29.5 percent in the Grub Creek subwatershed, compared to the Malheur Forest Plan 

standard of 10 percent, and total cover to 17.1 percent from 87.4 percent in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed, compared to the Malheur Forest Plan standard of 25 percent. The Magone Project 

would be the 16th forest plan amendment that authorizes a reduction of winter range cover below 

Forest Plan standards in the 26 years since the Malheur Forest Plan was approved.

The Malheur Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1990c, page 13) authorized 

different cover standards for seven winter range watersheds. The Magone Project would be the 3rd 

project to authorize a summer range amendment in the Upper John Day winter range.

The Dove, Camp Lick, Flat, Ragged Ruby, and Cliff/Knox projects on the Malheur National Forest 

are currently in the planning stages and some of these projects could include a cover amendment in 

big game winter range (see Table 145).

Table 145. Proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects with forest plan amendments affecting Big 

Game Winter Range Maintenance (Management Area 4A)

Number of 

projects with 

summer 

range 

amendments

Year District 

and 

summer 

range

Project Amendment rationale Scale of 

amendment

15 Expected 

in 2017

Emigrant 

Creek, 

Upper 

South 

Fork John 

Day River

Dove The Dove planning area is primarily 

(87%) a Warm Dry or Hot Dry forest 

landscape and retaining canopy 

closures greater than 50% within 

these dry forest types is not 

sustainable and would not meet the 

purpose and need of the project.

Additionally, winter range is usually at 

lower elevations and in drier forest 

types and scablands. Forest fringe 

classified as winter range typically 

does not contain high amounts of 

cover for big game. Some forest fringe 

areas designated as winter range 

were historically pine savannah or 

non-forest. Each subwatershed has 

very small portions (less than 2,150

acres each) in winter range, thereby 

making reductions in cover magnified.

Lonesome Creek –

1,616 acres.

Satisfactory cover in 

the Lonesome Creek 

subwatershed would 

be reduced on 68 

acres (4.2%) below 

standards (from 13.5 

to 5.8%.

Venator Creek –

1,276 acres.

Satisfactory cover in 

the Venator Creek 

subwatershed would 

be reduced 68 acres 

(5.3%) below 

standards (from 15.8 

to 4.7%

16 Expected 

in 2017

Blue 

Mountain, 

Upper 

John Day

Magone To allow the non-commercial thinning 

(which would remove juniper and 

other conifer cover) to enhance upland 

shrubs, while still providing cover from 

mahogany and increasing forage.

Alternative 2 would 

reduce satisfactory 

cover from the 

existing 29.5 to 5.9% 

in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed, 4.1% 

below the standard 

of 10%, affecting 35 

acres.

Alternative 3 would 

reduce satisfactory 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

581 of 632

Number of 

projects with 

summer 

range 

amendments

Year District 

and 

summer 

range

Project Amendment rationale Scale of 

amendment

cover from the 

existing 29.5% to 

3.3% in the Grub 

Creek subwatershed, 

6.7 % below the 

standard of 10%, 

and total cover from 

the existing 87.4% to 

17.1% in the Grub 

Creek subwatershed, 

7.9% below the 

standard of 25%, 

affecting 57 acres.

17 Expected 

in 2017

Blue 

Mountain, 

Middle 

Fork John 

Day

Camp 

Lick

This project could include an 

amendment to big game winter range 

cover, however at this early stage in 

the planning process this has not yet 

been determined and thus there is no 

estimate of acres potentially affected.

--

18 Expected 

in 2017

Emigrant 

Creek, 

Silvies

Flat See statement regarding the Camp 

Lick Project.

--

19 Expected 

in 2018

Blue 

Mountain, 

Middle 

Fork John 

Day

Ragged 

Ruby

See statement regarding the Camp 

Lick Project.

--

20 Expected 

in 2018

Prairie 

City, 

Upper 

Malheur

Cliff/Knox See statement regarding the Camp 

Lick Project.

--

Once cover is treated below forest plan standards, it is not permanently diminished. It is expected 

that residual vegetation would respond to treatments in such a way that cover values would improve 

to or beyond forest plan standards in the short-term (pending degree of departure). In response to the 

treatments, marginal cover (post-treatment) would likely become satisfactory cover, and areas termed 

“forage” with values just below those considered marginal cover would likely become marginal 

cover. The increases in cover values would be expected within 5 to 10 years post-treatments 

depending on site specific productivity and environmental conditions (i.e., drought). Therefore, it 

would be expected that any projects implemented prior to 2006 (10 years) would be providing 

marginal, satisfactory, and total cover above forest plan standards, which includes 9 of the 14 past 

amendments. The cumulative reduction of marginal, satisfactory, or total big game winter range 

cover from the proposed amendment combined with past and foreseeable future amendments 

collectively affects approximately 2,640 acres (alternative 2) or 2,662 acres (alternative 3), or 

approximately 0.8 percent of big game winter range on the Malheur National Forest.

Winter range on the Malheur National Forest typically extends beyond Forest boundaries and is 

comprised of a higher proportion of private land than public land. Winter range on private lands have 

not been affected by past or proposed amendments, nor would foreseeable amendments. Further, a 
Magone Project

582 of 632

reduction in cover typically assumes an increase in forage. Forage is an important component of both 

summer and winter range. Across winter range, increasing the quantity and quality (both a result of 

thinning and prescribed fire treatments) would be beneficial to big game populations, even with a 

reduction in cover. An increase in the quality and quantity of forage helps to maintain adequate body 

condition of individuals and ultimately reduce susceptibility of big game individuals and populations 

to winter kill.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) inventories Rocky Mountain elk populations 

each year in each wildlife management unit. Elk populations in each of the wildlife management 

units that overlap with the Malheur National Forest are at or above population management 

objectives set by ODFW. Most have shown increasing populations since 2010 (ODFW population 

summaries). Stable or increasing populations of elk across the Malheur National Forest as well as 

adjacent private lands indicates that elk populations have not been negatively affected by forest plan 

amendments that reduce cover below standards on summer or winter range. Similar population 

trends (stable and increasing) would be expected to continue with proposed and foreseeable

amendments for reducing cover.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Forest Plan Amendment to Wildlife Emphasis 

Area (Management Area 21) Standard #4

While approximately 93 acres (with alternative 2) and 90 acres (with alternative 3) would be reduced 

below cover standards, since the Malheur Forest Plan was authorized 26 years ago, there have been 

no amendments to reduce cover in Management Area 21, including in the Nipple Butte WEA. The 

Dove, Summit, Camp Lick, Flat, Ragged Ruby, and Cliff/Knox projects on the Malheur National 

Forest are currently in the planning stages; however, none of these planning areas includes 

Management Area 21 and thus a cover amendment in a wildlife emphasis area is not a reasonably 

foreseeable future action in these areas. Thus, no cumulative effects are expected from this proposed 

forest plan amendment.

Uniqueness of the Proposed Forest Plan Amendments for Cover

Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area

The Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA) is one of only six WEAs located on the Malheur 

National Forest, and the only one located within the Beech Creek watershed. The area historically 

provided high quality winter range habitat (i.e., bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, and other forage 

and browse species). The WEA is predominately Warm Dry, Hot Dry, and non-forested areas with 

smaller pockets of Warm Moist and Cool Moist interspersed in between (see FEIS Appendix B –

Maps, Map 18). This area was historically open, except for stringers of forested stands along streams 

(see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 38). Currently, juniper and other conifers have encroached into 

historically open areas (see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 39). There is a higher fuel loading (15+ 

tons/acre) along Clear and McClellan creek’s riparian areas, and some of their tributaries. The fuel 

loading is much lower in other parts of the WEA (0-15 tons/acre). The WEA along these riparian 

areas and on the western third of the WEA have the potential for crown fire (see FEIS Appendix B –

Maps, Maps 20 and 25).

Nipple Butte WEA and IRA is a rugged area, comprised primarily of steep, mountainous terrain, 

dissected by the Clear Creek and McClellan Creek drainages. The area provides semiprimitive 

motorized, roaded natural, and roaded modified recreation opportunities. The main attraction of the 

area is the opportunity for big-game hunting, and it is a popular location to gain a backcountry 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

583 of 632

hunting experience on the Forest, and one of the few unroaded areas on the Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 1990b, Appendix C – Roadless Area Descriptions and Disposition, pages C-110 to C-117).

The majority of the Nipple Butte WEA and IRA ranges from approximately 4,000 to 5,000 feet in 

elevation, with some areas of higher elevation. In comparison, the majority of the Dry Cabin WEA 

and IRA ranges from approximately 4,000 to 5,500 feet in elevation, the McClellan Mountain WEA 

and IRA ranges from approximately 4,500 to 6,500 feet, the Jumpoff Joe WEA and IRA ranges from 

approximately 5,000 to 6,000 feet, the Dixie Butte WEA and IRA ranges from approximately 5,000 

to 6,800 feet, and the Baldy Mountain WEA and IRA ranges from approximately 5,000 to 7,500 feet. 

The Nipple Butte WEA and IRA is the lowest elevation IRA on the Blue Mountain Ranger District, 

and the only IRA on the Malheur National Forest with predominately south facing slopes. Given 

these conditions, forest types in the Nipple Butte WEA and IRA are much different than the other 

WEAs and IRAs on the District and are much more similar to forest types in the low elevation, 

Malheur Forest Plan General Forest Management Area. Low elevation, south facing slopes are the 

hottest, driest environments on the District. Historically, these areas burned frequently and were a 

mixture of open grassland, shrubland, pine savannah, and forested draws. However, unlike most low 

elevation forests on the District, most of the Nipple Butte WEA and IRA was not harvested 

historically because slope, topography, and soil type prevented any extensive road building in the 

area. This vegetation pattern reflects the generally shallow (less than 12 inches deep), clayey to clay 

surface soils (weathered from the Clarno formation). The Nipple Butte WEA and IRA have the most 

extensive areas of shallow soils on the Malheur National Forest; shallow soils are present elsewhere 

on the Malheur National Forest, but in much smaller patches. These soils conditions are reflected in 

the historically present large openings of grassy areas with few trees, this change can be seen by 

comparing the 1939 aerial photography to the 2012 NAIP imagery in the Magone FEIS Appendix B 

– Maps, Maps 38 and 39.

Views within and from the Nipple Butte WEA and IRA remain locally expansive in many places for 

several reasons: the open patchwork of vegetation, locally dissected topography, unobstructed views 

to the Strawberry Mountains, Aldrich Mountains, and John Day Valley over relatively low ridges. 

Historically, more of the area provided views that were open and unobstructed by encroaching 

vegetation.

Treatments that would reduce cover in the Nipple Butte WEA are proposed to meet the Malheur 

Forest Plan goals for this unique WEA:

 “Manage to provide for high quality fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. Timber

harvest will be on a non-scheduled basis and will be used only to meet a wildlife and/or fish 

habitat objective. Provide opportunities for high quality semiprimitive dispersed recreation.” 

(USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-131).

 “Provide necessary habitat to contribute to Forest-wide maintenance of viable populations of 

management indicator species and featured species. Develop strategies to promote a variety 

of species including those dependent upon old growth, riparian, and solitude.” (USDA Forest 

Service 1990a, page IV-131, Standard 3).

 “Harvest may occur to accomplish wildlife habitat or fish habitat objectives, as established 

in a project-level environmental analysis.” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-133, 

Standard 10).

 “Use planned ignitions, when within prescription, to achieve resource management 

objectives. Prescribed fire from lightning ignitions may be used to allow fire to play its 

natural ecological role.” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-133, Standard 19).
Magone Project

584 of 632

In the Nipple Butte WEA and IRA, mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other forage and browse 

species are being shaded out and lost. These habitats provide critical cover and forage for Rocky 

Mountain elk (Malheur Forest Plan Management Indicator Species) and mule deer, and provide 

habitat for a plethora of small mammals and birds including blue grouse (featured species) and rednaped sapsuckers (Malheur Forest Plan Management Indicator Species). The WEA includes habitat 

for Mid-Columbia River steelhead, Interior redband trout, and Westslope cutthroat trout along Clear, 

Thompson, and McClellan creeks (see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 32).

The desired future condition for this area is to provide the greater amount of forage and browse that 

would have been present historically, particularly in drier habitat types and along ridgetops (areas 

were formerly dominated by mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other forage and browse species).

Grub Creek Subwatershed

The Grub Creek subwatershed is predominately Warm Dry upland forest with some smaller pockets 

of Warm Moist, Cold Dry, Cool Moist, Hot Dry, and non-forested areas interspersed in between (see 

FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 18). The subwatershed has a mosaic of areas with different fuel 

loading ranging from 0-8 tons/acre, to 8-15 tons/acre, to 15+ tons/acre (see FEIS Appendix B –

Maps, Maps 20 and 25). Grub Creek provides habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead and Interior 

redband trout (see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 32).

Approximately 4,100 acres (98 percent) of the Grub Creek subwatershed located on the Malheur 

National Forest was formerly owned by the Oregon Lumber Company or other private landowners; 

only 100 acres of the subwatershed on the Malheur National Forest was originally reserved under the 

Organic Act (see FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Map 19). This is the highest on the Blue Mountain and 

Prairie City Ranger Districts of the Malheur National Forest, followed by the Granite Creek 

subwatershed of the Big Creek watershed (82 percent of the subwatershed located on the Malheur 

National Forest was formerly privately owned), the Bear Creek subwatershed of the Grub Creek 

watershed (74 percent), and the McHaley Creek subwatershed of the Cottonwood watershed (73 

percent). There are several subwatersheds on the southwestern end of the Emigrant Creek Ranger 

District with a high percentage that was formerly privately owned; however, the ecotype of this area 

is different than that found in the Magone project planning area.

This portion of the Grub Creek subwatershed on the Malheur National Forest has much of its 

boundary along private land. In addition, County Road 18 and FSR 36 (which are identified as 

escape corridors in the Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan and provide the main access to 

the Magone Lake Recreaiton Area) are located within the subwatershed (see FEIS Appendix B –

Maps, Map 34).

In the Grub Creek subwatershed, lands that were formerly privately-owned were managed to harvest 

the most valuable timber at the time based on market conditions (likely the largest trees). Most of 

these former privately-owned lands were acquired in the 1940s, with a couple smaller parcels 

acquired in 1979 and 2000. After the acquisition of these properties in the 1940s and 1950s, harvest 

was primarily done by the use of the Keen’s Vigor Classes (O’Hara et al. 2010). Overstory removal 

and regeneration harvests in this area started in the 1970s and continued through the 1990s. In 

addition, the area has been impacted by fire suppression.

The purpose of the proposed treatments in this area are to both move stands towards their natural 

range of variability and to reduce fuel loadings along County Road 18 and FSR 36.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

585 of 632

3.19 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of “the relationship between 

short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable 

means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can 

exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and 

future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

Short-term uses are those that generally occur annually. Long-term productivity refers to the ability 

of the land to produce a continuous supply of a resource. The Magone Project would result in shortterm impacts, but maintain the long-term productivity of the area through the use of specific Malheur 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, design measures built into the project’s design, and project 

design criteria. A description of impacts expected by alternative can be found by resource area in the 

above discussions. The project would result in a long-term yield of forest stands by reducing 

competition and improving growth of individual trees. The project would also result in an economic 

return from wood products produced and jobs created.

3.20 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

No unavoidable adverse effects over and above those addressed in the Malheur Forest Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Chapter 4, pages IV-89) have been identified.

3.21 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of 

time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as 

a power line right-of-way or road.

The action alternatives are not expected to create any impacts that would cause irreversible damage 

to soil productivity. The development and use of temporary roads and logging facilities is considered 

an irretrievable loss of soil productivity until their functions have been served and disturbed sites are 

returned back to a productive capacity.

3.22 Other Required Disclosures

The 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.”

3.22.1 Environmental Justice Act, Executive Order 12898, 

Consumers, Civil Rights, Minorities, or Women

Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice directs federal agencies to consider whether 

actions may have disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects on minority 

populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes. The order directs federal agencies to focus 

attention on human health and environmental effects to minorities (American Indians, Hispanics, 

African Americans, and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans), disabled people, and low-income 

groups.
Magone Project

586 of 632

The population of Grant County is predominately white (95.5 percent), followed by American Indian 

and Alaska Native (0.6 percent). The region is sparsely populated and contains low populations of 

other minority groups (3.9 percent of Grant County, 3.3 percent of Baker County, and 4.0 percent of 

Harney County) (United States Census Bureau 2014). The primary American Indian tribes 

represented are the Burns Paiute Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, and 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. With the exception of the Burns Paiute Tribe, other 

minority groups are scattered throughout the three counties.

Data regarding minorities or people with disabilities employed in the region in the timber, mining, 

ranching, road construction, forestry services, and recreation sectors is unavailable. Some contracts 

are reserved for award to minority businesses under the USDA Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization and the Small Business Administration.

Nearby low income communities would mainly be affected by economic impacts connected with 

contractors implementing harvest, road reconstruction, tree thinning, planting, fuels treatments, and 

aquatic restoration, providing jobs associated with project activities.

With implementation of the action alternatives, there would not be disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. The actions 

would occur in a remote area, and nearby communities would mainly be affected by economic 

impacts related to contractors implementing harvest and thinning activities. Racial and cultural 

minority groups are often well represented in the work force that would implement prescribed fire, 

tree planting, and thinning activities. Contracts contain clauses that address worker safety.

Effects on civil rights, including those of minorities and women, would be minimal. Activities 

associated with the proposed action would be governed by Forest Service contracts, which are 

awarded to qualified purchasers regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc. Such contracts also 

contain nondiscrimination requirements. While the proposed activities would create jobs and provide 

consumer goods, no quantitative output, lack of output, or timing of output associated with these 

projects would affect the civil rights, privileges, or status quo of consumers, minority groups, or 

women.

3.22.2 National Historic Preservation, Treaty Rights, Executive Order 

12875, Executive Order 13287, American Antiquities Act of 

1906, and American Indian Religious Freedom Act

Heritage and Tribal interests are regulated by Federal laws that direct and guide the Forest Service in 

identifying, evaluating, and protecting heritage resources. All of the alternatives would comply with 

federal laws. The Malheur Forest Plan tiers to these laws, therefore the action alternatives would 

meet forest plan standards. With the completion of the heritage inventory under the terms of the 2004 

Programmatic Agreement with Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, and by providing the 

interdisciplinary team with appropriate input as per NEPA, all relevant laws and regulations have 

been met.

3.22.3 Ecologically Critical Areas

There are no ecologically critical areas in the project planning area.

3.22.4 Prime Farmlands, Rangelands, and Forest Lands

Prime Farmlands: The project planning area is not located in or adjacent to prime farmlands; 

therefore, there would be no impact to Prime Farmlands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

587 of 632

Prime Rangelands: The project does not contain prime rangelands because of soils and climate. None 

of the proposed activities in the project planning area would convert rangelands to other uses. 

Therefore, there would be no negative impacts on Prime Rangelands.

Prime Forestland: 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 negative impacts 

on Prime Forestlands.

3.22.5 Clean Water Act, Floodplains, and Wetlands

3.22.5.1 Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500, also known as the Clean 

Water Act) and ensuing regulations form the foundation for environmental analysis for the watershed 

and hydrology resource. The main objective of the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters” (CWA Section 101 (a)). The 

Forest Service is directed to “Comply with State requirements in accordance with the Clean Water 

Act for protection of waters in the State of Oregon (see Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 

34041) through planning, application and monitoring of best management practices (BMPs) in 

conformance with Clean Water Act, regulations, and Federal guidance issued thereto” (USDA Forest 

Service 1990a, Standard 117, page IV-39).

The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to protect and manage water resources through 

compliance with State requirements described in a May 2002 Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) that are in accordance of the Clean Water Act. The MOU states that the Forest Service 

cannot further degrade water quality impaired streams through management activities. The MOU 

recognizes that BMPs are the primary means to control non-point source pollution on National 

Forest lands. Adherence to BMPs provides adequate protection and avoids significant effects to 

listed impaired streams within the project area or its influence.

3.22.5.2 Floodplains (Executive Order 11988)

Executive Order 11988 says that Federal agencies shall avoid adverse effects to floodplains or 

minimize potential harm. Floodplains several to hundreds of feet wide occur in the project planning 

area. The floodplains are primarily contained within riparian habitat conservation areas. 

Implementation activities proposed would improve the physical processes of floodplain connectivity 

and floodplain functions of water storage through being inundated. The action alternatives would 

minimize adverse effects to the floodplains, and thus be consistent with Executive Order 11988.

3.22.5.3 Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)

Executive Order 11990 says that Federal agencies shall avoid management practices that would 

adversely affect wetlands. Wetlands that occur in the project planning area would be maintained, 

improved, or expanded in spatial extent with improved function. Focusing on riparian vegetation and 

channel condition, it would allow increased water storage in the floodplains and is consistent with 

the Executive Order protecting Wetlands.

3.22.5.4 Potential and Unusual Expenditures of Energy

There are no potential or unusual expenditures of energy expected with this project.
Magone Project

588 of 632

3.22.5.5 Conflicts with Plans, Policies, or Other Jurisdictions

There are no known conflicts with plans or policies of other jurisdictions associated with the 

alternatives.

3.22.6 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The alternatives are consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird 

Executive Order 13186. The action alternatives were designed under current Forest Service policy 

for landbirds. The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern 

Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of 

Conservation Concern (USDI FWS 2008a) were reviewed for effects disclosure. The action 

alternatives were designed to protect or enhance priority habitats for landbird species, including 

neotropical migratory species.

3.22.7 Clean Air Act

All action alternatives would comply with the Clean Air Act and the Oregon State Smoke 

Management Plan. Burning of any kind would not occur unless prior approval is granted by Oregon 

Department of Forestry.

3.22.8 Endangered Species Act

The action alternatives are consistent with the Endangered Species Act. Biological evaluations have 

been completed for all Region 6 sensitive plant and terrestrial wildlife species and candidate species 

for federal listing.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are required 

to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed species. 

Federally listed fish species and their designated critical habitats in the project area subject to 

consultation include Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead and their designated critical habitat. The 

Malheur National Forest has initiated ESA section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on the actions proposed as part of the Magone 

Project, and has provided the regulatory agencies with a biological assessment regarding the effects 

of the project to threatened Mid-Columbia River steelhead and their designated critical habitat. The 

completed biological assessment and consultations will be located in the project record.

3.22.9 National Forest Management Act

Requirements of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), including amendments 

to the Forest and Range Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378) would be met. 

Timber harvest would only occur on soils, slopes, or watershed conditions that would not be 

irreversibly damaged. Protection is provided for streams and streambanks from detrimental changes 

in water temperatures and deposits of sediment that would present serious and adverse effects to 

water conditions or fish habitat (see Aquatic Resources and Watershed sections). No regeneration 

harvest is proposed under any of the action alternatives. No harvest is proposed in Malheur Forest 

Plan management areas that are classified as “unsuitable.”

3.22.10 Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 

develop and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation, and wildlife on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

589 of 632

the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services. The alternatives 

meet the intent of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act by providing timber products and service 

(renewable resources) from the National Forest without impairment of the productivity of the land. 

Proposed management of the lands in the project planning area are consistent with the goals and 

objectives of the Malheur Forest Plan and would continue to provide for the needs of the American 

people to enjoy multiple uses associated with water resources, recreation, and wildlife.

3.22.11 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation 

(Executive Order 13443)

The purpose of this order is to direct federal agencies that have activities that have a measurable 

affect to public land management to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting 

opportunities for the public. With implementation of the action alternatives there would be no effects 

to hunting opportunities or seasons.

3.22.12 Administrative Procedures Act and Grant County Plans

This project is consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act, the Grant County Comprehensive 

Land Use Plan, and other applicable county statutes.

In addition, there are no known RS2477 claims for any roads proposed for access changes in the 

project planning area.

3.22.13 Municipal Watersheds

There are no municipal watersheds affected by the project, therefore, there are no impacts.
Magone Project

590 of 632

Chapter 4. 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:

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members

Table 146. Current interdisciplinary team members

Resource Name Educational degree Years’ experience

Silviculture Amanda Lindsay USDA Forest Service 

Certified Silviculturist; 

Master of Science,

Forest Science /

Silviculture; Bachelor of 

Science, Forest 

Management

8 years as a silviculture 

forester and 7 years as a 

forestry technician.

Fire, Fuels, and Air 

Quality

Tim Boyce Bachelor of Science, 

Forest Engineering

22 years

Wildlife Dustin Hollowell Master of Science, 

Wildlife Management

6 years

Fisheries Daniel Armichardy Master of Science, 

Biology (Emphasis on 

Fish Migration); 

Bachelor of Science, 

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

11 years

Hydrology Mary Lou Welby Master of Science, 

Forestry; Bachelor of 

Arts, Biological Science 

(Botany)

24 years

Soils Robert “Hersh” McNeil Doctor of Philosophy, 

Forestry; Bachelor and 

Master of Science, 

Botany

26 years

Logging Systems Krystal Cates Associates Degree, 

Natural Resource 

Management

12 years

Roads Jonathan Gill Bachelor of Science, 

Civil Engineering

3 years

Inventoried Roadless 

Areas and Other 

Undeveloped Lands

Sasha Fertig Master of Community 

and Regional Planning; 

Bachelor of Science, 

Fisheries and Wildlife 

Science

6 years as a NEPA Planner. 3 

years as a fisheries, 

hydrology, or forestry 

technician.

Archeology Robert Dickenson Master of Arts, 

Anthropology; Bachelor 

of Art, Anthropology

3 years

Range and NonNative Invasive 

Plants

Nick Stiner Bachelor of Science, 

Rangeland Ecology 

and Management, Crop 

Science, Soil Science, 

and Business

16 years
Final Environmental Impact Statement

591 of 632

Resource Name Educational degree Years’ experience

Botany Lisa Van Tieghem Master of Arts, 

Conservation Biology; 

Bachelor of Arts, 

Biology and 

Anthropology

2 years as a Botanist. 3 years 

as a botany or range 

technician. 6 months as a 

Restoration Ecologist.

Recreation Eric Amstad Bachelor of Science, 

Forest Recreation 

Resources

3 years

Recreation Shannon Winegar Bachelor of Science 32 years

Visuals Shannon Winegar Bachelor of Science 32 years

Interdisciplinary 

Team Leader, NEPA

Sasha Fertig Master of Community 

and Regional Planning; 

Bachelor of Science, 

Fisheries and Wildlife 

Science

6 years as a NEPA Planner. 3 

years as a fisheries, 

hydrology, or forestry 

technician.

Writer Editor Laurie Montgomery Bachelor of Arts, 

English

5 years

GIS and Data 

Services

Robin Harris

Table 147. Past interdisciplinary team members

Resource Name Educational degree Years’ experience

Silviculture Teri Corning-Sevey Bachelor of Science, 

Forest Resource 

Management; 

Associates Degree, 

Forest Technology

30 years as a professional 

forester with experience in 

timber, fuels, planning, GIS, 

and silviculture. 6 years as a 

forestry technician with 

experience in fire, fuels, 

timber, and silviculture

Inventoried Roadless 

Areas and Other 

Undeveloped Lands

Randy Kyes Master of Science, 

Environmental Science

15 years (3 years natural 

resources, 12 years 

hydrology)

Botany Paula Brooks Bachelor of Arts, 

General Biology

25 years

Writer Editor Kathy Schnider Master of Science, 

Public Communication; 

Bachelor of Arts, 

Secondary Education 

English

5 years

4.2 Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service is consulting with the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, 

and tribes during the development of this environmental impact statement:

4.2.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

 Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Magone Project

592 of 632

4.2.2 Tribes

 Burns Paiute Tribe

 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

4.3 Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The draft environmental impact statement was distributed to individuals or organizations who 

specifically requested a copy of the document, and to those who submitted scoping comments:

 Dick Artley

 Janine Belleque (Oregon State Marine Board)

 Larry Blasing

 Kenneth and Cecelia Brooks

 Cal Christensen

 Mike and Sophie Cosgrove

 Karen Coulter (Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project)

 Elaine Eisenbrown (North Fork John Day Watershed Council)

 Bobby Grover

 Pam Hardy (Oregon Wild)

 Debi Hueckman

 Paula Hood (Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project)

 Irene Jerome (American Forest Resource Council)

 Jason and Clair Kehrberg

 Bob and Judy Kerr

 Douglas Kile

 Teresa Kubo (US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10)

 Mark Pengelly (Grant County Access Advisory Board)

 Brooks Smith

 Doug Smith (Strawberry Striders)

 Waid Tait

 Ryan Torland (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)

 Bill Wilcox

In addition, copies were sent to the following Federal agencies and federally recognized tribes:

 Burns Paiute Tribe

 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

 Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Additionally, approximately 170 additional individuals or organizations were notified of the 

availability of the draft environmental impacts statement on the Malheur National Forest’s webpage 

and at the Malheur National Forest Supervisor’s Office / Blue Mountain Ranger District Office 

through letter or email.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

593 of 632

4.4 Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to the list of individuals or organizations 

identified above. Additionally, copies have been sent to additional organizations or individuals who

requested a copy of the document, or who submitted comments during the 30 day comment period:

 Laurence Baughman

 Ned Ratterman (Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative)

 Jean Public

 Judy Kerr

 Steve Hill

 Janine Belleque

 Scott Myers (Grant County Court)

 Rick Minster

 George Wuerthner (Lorax Alliance)

 Ranko Balog

 Brooke Downing

 Jason and Clair Kehrberg

 Timothy Swenson

 Bill Richardson (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation)

 Melvin and Harriet Crum

 Frances Preston

 Irene Jerome (American Forest Resource Council)

 Maralee Wernz

 Kirk Handley

 Steven Silva

 Kenneth and Cecelia Brooks

 Dusting Bloomingheart

 King Williams (King, INC.)

 Zach Williams (Iron Triangle)

 Bill Wilcox

 Brian Milchak (Department of Interior)

 Pam Hardy

 Christine Littleton (Environmental Protection Agency)
Magone Project

594 of 632

Glossary

active crown fire – Continuous crown fire that burns the entire canopy fuel complex but depends on 

heat from surface fuel combustion for continued spread.

active management – Planned, intentional actions in an area that are specifically designed to obtain 

a desired objective or result.

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. 

age class – A group of trees that started growing (regenerated) within the same time frame, usually 

20 years. A single age class would have trees that are within 20 years of the same age, such as 1–20

years or 21–40 years.

air pollutant – Any substance in air that could harm humans, animals, vegetation, or material if in 

high enough concentration. 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. 

airshed – A geographic area that, because of topography, meteorology, and climate, shares the same 

air.

allotment (grazing) – Area designated for use by a prescribed number of livestock for a prescribed 

time.

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.

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. 

areas with wilderness characteristics – Areas identified using inventory procedures found in Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, chapter 70, section 71. The inventory is conducted by the Forest 

Service during forest plan revision with the purpose of identifying all lands that may have wilderness 

characteristics.

aspect – The direction a surface faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect.

basal area – The area of the cross-section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 4 1/2 feet above the 

ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The term basal area 

is often used to describe the collective basal area of trees per acre.

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 John Day River Basin. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

595 of 632

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 (Watershed) – A practice or a combination of practices 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. 

big game summer range – A range usually at higher elevations, used by deer and elk during the 

summer. Summer ranges are usually much more extensive than winter ranges.

big game winter range – A range usually at lower elevation used by migratory deer and elk during 

the winter months; usually more clearly defined and smaller than summer range.

biophysical – The combination or grouping of biological and physical components in an ecosystem. 

biophysical environments – Plant association group (PAG) - Vegetation classification using similar 

moisture and temperature environments resulting in similar fire regimes.

biomass – Biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms. In the context of 

biomass as a resource for making energy, biomass can be defined as pieces that are generally not 

large enough to have commercial sawlog value, but meet the minimum requirement of 12 feet long 

to a 3-inch top. This material may be used for pulp chips, co-generation of electricity, commercial 

fuel pellets, post and poles, small sawlogs, and other non-traditional uses.

browse – Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs that animals eat (such as deer and elk).

buffer – A land area designated to block or absorb impacts to the area beyond the buffer. For 

example, a streamside buffer is often retained to reduce impacts of a harvest unit.

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 of the uppermost layer of foliage. It can also be used to describe 

lower layers in a multistoried forest.

canopy cover – The proportion of the forest floor covered by the vertical projection of the tree 

crowns.

canopy base height – The lowest height above the ground at which there is a sufficient amount of 

canopy fuel to propagate fire vertically into the canopy.

canopy closure – The amount of ground surface shaded by tree canopies as seen from above. Used 

to describe how open or dense a stand of trees is, often expressed in 10 percent increments.

canopy fuels – the part of the canopy that can burn in the flaming front of a crown fire. The foliage 

and some branch wood, which is less than 0.25 inches (0.6 centimeters) in size, are usually 
Magone Project

596 of 632

considered available canopy fuel. Larger fuel pieces in the canopy do not burn quickly enough to 

contribute to crown fire spread and are not considered canopy fuels.

carrying capacity – The number of animals or plants that can be maintained over a specific period 

on a specified amount of land without damage to either the organisms or the habitat. 

cavity – A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, roosting, and 

reproduction.

channel (stream) – The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main current of water 

flows. 

channel morphology – The dimension (width and depth), shape and pattern (sinuous, meandering, 

or straight) of a stream channel. 

class 1 airshed – Under the Clean Air Act amendments, this class applies to all international parks, 

national parks larger than 6,000 acres, and national wilderness areas larger than 5,000 acres that 

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 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 debris or material – 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. 

commercial thinning – Any type of thinning producing merchantable material at least equal to the 

value of the direct costs of harvesting (Helms 1998).

conifer – A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir tree.

connectivity – The arrangement of habitats that allow 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. 

consultation – The term refers to a requirement under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for 

federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 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 a transportation or utility right-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) Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish, sometimes referred to as “hiding cover.” Cover 

may be dead or live vegetation, boulders, or undercut stream banks. Animals use cover for protection 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

597 of 632

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.

critical habitat – Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed threatened or 

endangered species.

crown – The part of a tree containing live foliage; treetops.

crown fire – A forest fire that advances through the crown fuel layer normally in direct conjunction 

with a surface fire.

cubic feet per second (cfs) – A rate of flow, in streams and rivers, for example. It is equal to a 

volume of water one foot deep and one foot wide flowing a distance of one foot in one second. One 

cfs is equal to 7.48 gallons of water flowing each second. 

cultural resource – 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 time. Effects and impact are synonymous (40 CFR 1508.7). 

danger tree – A hazard tree is considered any tree that is likely to fail within one and one-half tree 

lengths of an open class 3 or higher system road, any road designated for hauling, developed 

recreation, or administrative site.

decommission (road) – Activity that results in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to 

a more natural state. Decommissioning removes the road segment from the Forest road inventory and 

it is no longer used to calculate maintenance costs for the transportation system. Decommissioning 

can include activities such as closing entrances to roads; scarifying road surfaces or decompacting 

(sub-soiling) to establish vegetation and reduce run-off; seeding road to control erosion; partial to 

full restoration of stream channel by removing culverts and fills; and removing unstable portions of 

embankments.

density (stand) – The number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in terms of trees 

per acre. 

departure – The difference between an existing condition and the desired condition. 

design criteria – Provides the parameters, including guidelines, for how future site-specific 

activities can occur within the context of the plan.

designated critical habitat – Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species at 

the time of listing under Endangered Species Act that contain physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. 

desired future condition – A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are 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 
Magone Project

598 of 632

areas; facilities in these areas might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, 

ski lifts, and buildings. 

diameter at breast height (DBH) – Tree diameter measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. 

direct effects – Impacts on the environment caused by the action, which 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.

diversity – The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species 

within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

dedicated old growth (DOG) – Forested areas managed for old-growth characteristics for oldgrowth dependent species.

duff – Organic matter in various stages of decomposition on the floor of the forest.

early seral species – Early seral refers to plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the 

beginning of a new successional process

Eastside Screens – Regional Foresters’ Forest Plan Amendment establishes riparian, ecosystem, and 

wildlife standards for timber sales on National Forest System lands in eastern Oregon and 

Washington (USDA Forest Service 1994). 

ecosystem function (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.

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.

endangered species – A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

ephemeral – A channel in which streamflow occurs inconsistently, infrequently, or seasonally and, 

except during periods of streamflow, does not intersect the local groundwater table (e.g., streams that 

flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

599 of 632

erosion – The wearing away of the land surface by wind, water, ice, gravity, or other geological 

activities. Erosion can be intensified by human activities (such as road building) that may reduce the 

stability of soils or slopes.

extirpation – Loss of populations from all or part of a species’ range within a specified area. 

federally listed species – Species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

fine fuels – Fast-drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area-to-volume ratio, 

which are less than 1⁄4 -inch in diameter and have a time lag of one hour or less. When dry, these fuels 

readily ignite and are rapidly consumed by fire.

fire behavior – How fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography.

fire-dependent – Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of species that 

evolved with and are maintained by periodic fire.

fire hazard – the potential magnitude of fire behavior and effects as a function of fuel conditions for 

any particular forest stand or landscape.

fire-intolerant – Species of plants that do not grow well or die from the effects of too much fire. 

Generally, these are shade-tolerant species.

fire-tolerant – Species of plants that can withstand certain frequency and intensity of fire. Generally, 

these are shade-intolerant species.

fire regime – A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a 

landscape in the absence of modern human intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal 

burning (Agee 1993). Coarse scale definitions for natural (historical) fire regimes have been 

developed and interpreted for fire and fuels management. The five natural (historical) fire regimes 

are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) 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 defined in the fuels Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality 

section of the EIS.

fire-return interval – The average number of years between successive fires in a designated area.

fire risk – the chance of a fire starting from any ignition source, determined by using the frequency 

of past fire starts.

fire severity or burn severity – Severity describes the aboveground and belowground organic 

matter consumption from fire. Aboveground measures include tree crown canopy scorch, crown 

volume kill, and bole height scorch. Belowground and soil measures include ash deposition, surface 

organic matter, belowground organic matter contributing to soil structures, and heat-induced 

oxidation of minerals. Fire severity ratings (low, moderate, and high) are based on standards in 

Forest Service Handbook 2509.13.

fire suppression – All work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operation, beginning 

with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. 

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.
Magone Project

600 of 632

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 – Vegetation (both woody and non-woody) eaten by animals, especially big game and 

livestock.

foreground – The part of a scene or landscape that is nearest the viewer.

forest health – The condition in which forest ecosystems sustain their complexity, diversity, 

resiliency, and productivity while providing for human needs and values. It is a useful way to 

communicate about the current condition of the forest, especially with regard to resiliency, a part of 

forest health that describes the ability of the ecosystem to respond to disturbances. Forest health and 

resiliency can be described, in part, by species composition, density, and structure.

fragmentation – The breakup of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller patches that are 

isolated from the original area. Fragmentation can occur naturally (as by stand-replacing wildfire) or 

from human activities (such as road building).

fuel ladder – Shrubs, small trees, and low growing branches that allow fire to move from the ground 

to the tree crowns.

fuel(s) – Combustible material that includes vegetation such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants, 

shrubs, and trees. Includes both living plants; dead, woody vegetative materials; and other vegetative 

materials which are capable of burning.

ground fire – A fire that burns along the forest floor and does not affect trees with thick bark or high 

crowns.

ground fuels – All combustible materials below the surface litter layer. These fuels may be partially 

decomposed, such as forest soil organic layers (duff), dead moss and lichen layers, punky wood and 

deep organic layers (peat), or may be living plant material, such as tree and shrub roots.

habitat – The place where a plant or animal finds what it needs to survive, either year-round or 

seasonally.

harvest – (1) Felling and removal of trees from the forest; (2) removal of game animals or fish from 

a population, typically by hunting or fishing.

hiding cover – Vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of an adult elk from a human’s view at a 

distance of 200 feet or less.

historical range of variability (HRV) – A characterization of the natural fluctuation of components 

of healthy ecosystems through time. In this EIS, it refers to the range of conditions and processes that 

are likely to have occurred prior to settlement of the planning area by people of European descent 

(approximately the mid-1800s), which would have varied within certain limits over time.

intensity (fire intensity) – The rate of heat/energy release for an entire fire at a specific time.

intermittent stream – A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water 

from streams or some surface source, such as melting snow.

inventoried roadless area (IRA) – Areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, 

contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

601 of 632

Volume 2, dated November 2000, and any subsequent update or revision of those maps through the 

land management planning process

irretrievable – A category of impacts that applies to losses of production or commitment of 

renewable natural resources.

irreversible – A category of impacts that applies to non-renewable resources, such as minerals. 

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 matter of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management activities or 

land uses. To be considered a “significant” EIS issue, it must be well defined, relevant to the 

proposed action, and within the ability of the agency to address through alternative management 

strategies.

ladder fuels – Fuels that provide vertical continuity between strata. Fire is able to carry from the 

surface fuels by convection into the crowns with relative ease.

landing zone – Any place where cut timber is collected before further transport from the timber sale 

area.

late seral species – Late or old seral refers to plant present during a later stage of plan community 

succession (mature and old-growth forest).

late and old structure – Old forest where large trees are frequent.

maintenance burning – maintenance burns are designed to reduce fuel on the surface: grass, pine 

needles, and dead and down wood to reduce the potential for rapid fire spread. Usually follows 2-3

years after an initial prescribe burn reduces the fuel loading to the desired levels to allow for low 

intensity frequent fires. 

mechanical treatments – Vegetation changes done by mechanical cutting methods instead of by 

other means, such as prescribed burning.

merchantable timber – Timber that can be bought or sold.

middleground – A term used in visual management to describe the portions of a view extending 

from the foreground zone out to 3 to 5 miles from the observer.

management indicator species (MIS) – A wildlife species selected by a land management agency 

to indicate the health of the ecosystem in which it lives and, consequently, the effects of forest 

management activities on that ecosystem.

mitigation – Measures designed to counteract environmental impacts or make impacts less severe.

monitoring – A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives of a project 

and its mitigation activities are being realized.

mortality – The loss of a population due to all lethal causes, often referring to the rate of death of a 

species in a given population or community.

mosaic – A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of plant communities are interspersed 

in patches, such as a meadow between stands of old growth.

multiple-use management – The management of public lands and their various resource values so 

they are used in the combination that best meets the present and future needs of the American people.
Magone Project

602 of 632

non-commercial thinning – Thinning in tree stands where the trees cut are generally not 

merchantable sawlog size material. The objective is to reduce ladder fuels, reduce the amount of live 

and dead fuels, and increase tree growth.

noxious weed – A weed that causes disease or has other adverse effects on man or his environment 

and, therefore, is detrimental to public health and the agriculture and commerce of the United States. 

Noxious weeds are often aggressive and difficult to manage and non-native, new, or not common to 

the United States.

old growth – Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in tree sizes and species, 

decadent old trees, and standing and dead woody material.

open road density – Miles of open road per square mile

overstory – The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory.

PACFISH – Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern 

Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. 

passive crown fire – Fire that kills individual trees or small groups of trees (torching).

perennial stream – A stream that flows throughout the year from its source to mouth.

pile burning – Cut material piled either by hand or mechanical – resulting from logging or fuel 

management activities – are burned during the wetter months to reduce damage to residual stand and 

to confine fire to the size of the pile. Piling allows material to cure, producing less smoke and rapid 

consumption when burned.

plant association groups (PAGS) – Plant associations for the Blue Mountains were grouped into 

plant association groups by Powell et al. (2007) based on a temperature and moisture gradient and 

represent similar ecological environments. Plant association groups are used to differentiate between 

different forest types. Plant association groups within the Magone project planning area include:

Hot Dry forest – Occupies low to mid elevations and mainly south slopes. Stands are composed 

primarily of ponderosa pine. Fire regime is low intensity, high frequency 10 to 15 years) over 

most of the area, with small patches of mortality.

Warm Dry forest – Occupies low to mid elevations and south slopes at higher elevations. Stands 

are composed of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, grand fir, and western larch. Fire 

regime is low intensity, high frequency (10 to15 years) over most of the area, with small patches 

of mortality. 

Warm Moist forest – Similar to Warm Dry, but located in areas of more moisture with more 

shrubs such as ninebark, maples, and oceanspray in the understory. Fire regime is low intensity, 

high frequency (10 to 15 years) over most of the area, with small patches of mortality.

Warm Very Moist forest – Occupies low to mid elevations in draw bottoms and toeslopes. 

Stands are composed of grand fir, western larch, Douglas-fir, and Engelmann spruce, with an 

understory of Rocky Mountain maple, big huckleberry, and other moist shrub and forb species. 

Fire regime is relatively frequent (2 to 120 years) mixed severity. Stand replacement patch size 

would range from 1 to 100 acres.

Cool Moist forest – Occupies mid elevations, northerly aspects and cooler, wetter draw bottoms. 

Stands are composed of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, lodgepole pine, western white 

pine, and western larch. Fire regime is relatively frequent (2 to 120 years) mixed severity. Stand 

replacement patch size would range from 1 to 100 acres.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

603 of 632

Cool Wet forest – Similar to Cool Moist, but slightly more moist with a component of Pacific 

yew. Fire regime is relatively frequent (2 to 120 years) mixed severity. Stand replacement patch 

size would range from 1 to 100 acres.

Cool Dry forest – Occupies northerly aspects, colder, relatively dry areas such as frost pockets, 

and areas of granitic parent material. Stands are composed of primarily Engelmann spruce, 

western larch, and lodgepole pine. Fire regime is relatively frequent (2 to 120 years), mixed 

severity with evidence of susceptibility to torching and crown fires in lodgepole pockets.

Cold Dry forest – Occupies high elevation sites, northerly aspects, and colder, relatively dry 

areas such as frost pockets. Stands are composed of Engelmann spruce, western larch, and 

lodgepole pine. The fire regime is high intensity, low frequency (50 to 275+ years) with 

noticeable susceptibility to torching and crown fires.

juniper woodlands – Occupies dry sites at low to mid elevations, often on south slopes and scab 

environments at high elevations. Stands were historically open ponderosa pine savannahs and 

sparse western juniper that was maintained by frequent fires.

prescribed fire – The intentional use of fire under specified conditions to achieve specific 

management objectives.

prescription – Measurable criteria that define conditions under which a prescribed fire may be 

ignited, guide selection of appropriate management responses, and indicate other required actions. 

Prescription criteria may include safety, economic, public health, and environmental, geographic, 

administrative, social, or legal considerations.

rangeland (range) – Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of native grasses, 

forbs, and shrubs that are valuable as forage for livestock and big game.

redd –Spawning nest made by salmon or steelhead in the gravel bed of a river.

reforestation – The restocking of an area with forest trees by either natural or artificial means such 

as planting.

resident fish – Fish that spend their entire life in freshwater: examples include bull trout and 

westslope cutthroat trout.

resiliency – The capacity of a plant community or ecosystem to maintain or regain normal function 

and development following disturbance.

revegetation – Establishing or reestablishing desirable plants on a site where they are absent or in 

few numbers. Revegetation can be accomplished through natural or artificial reseeding or 

transplanting.

riparian area – The interface between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that is identified by the 

presence of vegetation that requires or tolerates free or unbound water or conditions that are more 

moist than normal.

riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) – Portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent 

resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and 

guidelines. RHCAs include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, 

and other areas where proper ecological functioning is crucial to maintenance of the stream’s water, 

sediment, woody debris and nutrient delivery systems. RHCAs are further defined into four 

categories:

Category 1 – Fish-bearing streams: consist of the stream and the area on either 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 
Magone Project

604 of 632

distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, 

including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Category 2 – Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: consist of the stream and the area 

on either 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, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Category 3 – Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: consist of the body of 

water or wetland and the area to the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the 

seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or to a 

distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of 

the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the 

wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest. 

Category 4 – Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslideprone areas: This category includes features with high variability in size and site-specific

characteristics. 

road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail.

road decommissioning – Road decommissioning would eliminate future use of the road with the 

objective of restoring hydrological function. This can include subsoiling and seeding as necessary.

road maintenance – Road maintenance activities include blading and shaping road surfaces, 

repairing a damaged ditch-relief culvert, rocking existing drain dips and grade sags where needed, 

rocking wet areas of road, brushing, removal of danger trees, and dust abatement.

replacement old-growth (ROG) – Forested area chosen to provide future old-growth habitat if 

current designated stands no longer meet old-growth characteristics.

scoping – The early stages of preparation of an environmental analysis to determine public opinion, 

receive comments and suggestions, and determine issues during the environmental analysis process. 

It may involve public meetings, telephone conversations, or letters.

sensitive species – A sensitive species is one that has been designated by the Regional Forester 

because of concern for population viability. Indications for concern include significant current or 

predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or in habitat capability that would 

reduce an existing species distribution.

seral – Refers to the sequence of transitional plant communities during succession. Early seral refers 

to plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new successional process 

(such as seedling or sapling growth stages in a forest); mid-seral in a forest would refer to pole or 

medium saw timber growth stages; late or old seral refers to plants present during a later stage of 

plant community succession (such as mature or old forest stages).

shade-intolerant species – Species of plants that do not grow well in the shade of others. They are 

species that develop on a site soon after a major disturbance. Ponderosa pine and western larch are 

shade-intolerant tree species.

shade-tolerant species – Species of plants that grow well in the shade of others. Douglas-fir is a 

relatively shade-tolerant tree.

silviculture – The practice of manipulating the establishment, composition, structure, growth, and 

rate of succession of forests to accomplish specific objectives.

skyline – A cableway stretched tautly between two spars and used as a track for log carriers
Final Environmental Impact Statement

605 of 632

slash – The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or after a storm, fire, or other event. Slash 

includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches, bark, etc.

snag – A standing dead tree.

soil compaction – The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy equipment on 

soils can compact the soil, making it hard and dense, and thereby changing it in some ways, such as 

in its ability to absorb water. After compaction, it is difficult for roots to penetrate because the soil 

holds less oxygen and water.

soil productivity – The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop. Productivity depends on

adequate moisture and soil nutrients as well as favorable climate.

stand – A group of trees in a specific area that are sufficiently alike in composition, age, 

arrangement, and condition to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas.

stand density – Refers to the number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed in trees per 

acre.

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 

(multistory).

structural stage – Classification of forest stands by developmental stage and size based on the size 

and vertical and horizontal arrangement of trees. Structural stages include:

stand initiation (SI) – A single canopy stratum of seedlings and saplings established after a 

stand-replacing disturbance.

stem exclusion closed canopy (SECC) – A single canopy stratum of pole to small saw sized 

timber that excludes an understory by shade.

stem exclusion open canopy (SEOC) – A single canopy stratum of pole to small saw sized 

timber that excludes an understory by lack of water.

understory reinitiation (UR) – The overstory has been opened up by natural mortality or 

thinning, allowing an understory to become established.

young forest multi strata (YFMS) – Multiple canopy layers provide vertical and horizontal 

diversity with a mix of tree sizes. Large trees are absent or at low stocking levels.

old forest multi strata (OFMS) – Large trees are frequent, has multiple canopies.

old forest single strata (OFSS) – Large trees are frequent, limited understory and one canopy 

level.

subsoiling – A treatment to loosen compacted soil at the compacted layer without inversion and with 

a minimum of mixing with the tilled zone.

subwatershed – A drainage area of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field hydrologic 

unit code (HUC). Hierarchically, subwatersheds (6th-field HUC) are contained within a watershed 

(5th-field HUC), which in turn is contained within a subbasin (4th-field HUC).

successional stage – The development of forest communities over time. With a lack of disturbance, 

forest development generally consists of early, mid, and late successional communities that tend 

toward a stable climax state.

early successional – Vegetative communities that tend to recolonize a site following a 

disturbance. These communities tend to be comprised of pioneer species that are fast-growing 

and shade intolerant. Some examples of early seral tree species include ponderosa pine, western 

larch, and western white pine. 
Magone Project

606 of 632

late successional – Vegetative communities that tend to follow early and mid-successional 

communities. These communities tend to be comprised of species that are slow growing and 

shade tolerant. Some examples of late seral tree species include grand fir and subalpine fir. 

surface fire – Fire that remains on the ground surface.

sustainability – (1) Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the abilities of future 

generations to meet their needs; emphasizing and maintaining the underlying ecological processes 

that ensure long-term productivity of goods, services, and values without impairing productivity of 

the land. (2) In commodity production, refers to the yield of a natural resource that can be produced 

continually at a given intensity of management.

thinning – An intermediate cutting method designed to reduce stand density in order to improve 

growth of the residual trees, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality resulting from intertree competition.

threatened species – Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a 

specific portion of their range within the foreseeable future as designated by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

tiering – In an environmental impact statement (EIS), refers to incorporating by reference the 

analyses in an EIS of a broader scope. For example, a Forest Service project-level EIS could tier to 

the analysis in a forest plan EIS; a forest plan EIS could tier to a regional guide EIS.

tractor logging – A logging method that uses tractors to carry or drag logs from the stump to a 

landing.

underburn – A burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and ladder fuels.

understory – The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath the overstory.

vegetation management – Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest vegetation 

for multiple-use purposes.

visual quality objective (VQO) - A set of measurable goals for the management of forest visual 

resources.

watershed – The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir). More specifically, 

a watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water to the stream 

flow at that point.

wetlands – Areas that are permanently wet or intermittently covered with water. Wetlands generally 

include swamps, bogs, seeps, wet meadows, and natural ponds.

wildfire – A human or naturally caused wildland fire that does not meet land management objectives.

winter range – That portion of big game's range where animals congregate for the winter.

yarding – Hauling timber from the stump to a collection point.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

607 of 632

References

Abele, S.C., V.A. Saab, and E.O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): a technical 

conservation assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region. Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182072.pdf

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Agee, J.K., B. Bahro, M.A. Finney., P.N. Omi, D.B. Sapsis, C.N. Skinner, J.W. van Wagtendonk, and 

C.P. Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. 

Forest Ecology and Management 127: 55-66.

Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management 211: 83-96.

Ahlenslager, K. and L. Potash. 2007. Conservation assessment for 13 species of moonworts 

(Botrychium Swartz subgenus Botrychium). Internal report. USDA Forest Service Region 6

and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 57 p.

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the northern Rocky Mountains of eastern 

Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy and Oregon-Washington Partners in 

Flight. Available online: http://cain.ice.ucdavis.edu/prbo/orwapif/pdf/northern_rockies.pdf

American Community Survey. 2012. ACS demographic and housing estimates, 2008-2012 American 

Community Survey 5-year estimates. Available online: http://factfinder2.census.gov

Andrews, H. 2010. Johnson’s hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni) (butterfly) species fact sheet. 

Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSS) webpage. USDA Forest 

Service/USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/sfs-iile-callophrys-johnsoni2011-08.doc

Baldwin, E.M. 1964. Geology of Oregon. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Barthlow, K. and R.L. Moore. 1998. The economic impacts and uses of long-distance trails. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Baroudy, E. and J.M. Elliott. 1994. The critical thermal limits for juvenile Arctic charr Salvelinus 

alpinus. Journal of Fish Biology 45: 1041–1053.

Bastian, H.V. 2001. Effects of low intensity prescribed fires on ponderosa pine forests in wilderness 

areas of Zion National Park, Utah. Ponderosa pine ecosystems restoration and conservation: 

steps towards stewardship, conference proceedings. RMRS-P22. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Bear, E.A., T.E. McMahon, and A.V. Zale. 2007. Comparative thermal requirements of westslope 

cutthroat trout and rainbow trout: implications for species interactions and development of 

thermal protection standards. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136(4): 1113-

1121.
Magone Project

608 of 632

Beche, L.A., S.L. Stephens, and V.H. Resh. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada 

(California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management 218: 37-59.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society. Monograph 

6. Bethesda, MD.

Beier, P. and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern 

goshawks. Ecological Applications 7: 564-571.

Boal, C.W. and R.W. Mannan. 1994. Northern goshawk diets in ponderosa pine forests on the 

Kaibab Plateau. In: The northern goshawk: ecology and management. Studies in Avian 

Biology 16. Sacramento, CA: Cooper Ornithology Society. pp. 97-102.

Bock, C.E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). 

University of California Press.

Bradley, G.A. 1996. Forest aesthetics: harvest practices in visually sensitive areas. Olympia, WA:

Washington Forest Protection Association. 21 p.

Brewer, L.T., R. Bush, J.E. Canfield, and A.R. Dohmen. 2007. Northern goshawk Northern Region 

overview: key findings and project considerations. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service.

Boal, C.W., and R.W. Mannan. 1994. Northern goshawk diets in ponderosa pine forests on the 

Kaibab Plateau. In: Block, W.M., M.L. Morrison, and M.H. Reiser Tech. Eds. 1994. The 

northern goshawk: ecology and management. Studies in Avian Biology 16. Cooper 

Ornithology Society. Sacramento CA. 97-102.

Briese, D.T. 1996. Biological control of weeds and fire management in protected natural areas: are 

they compatible strategies? Biological Conservation 77: 135-141.

Bright-Smith, D.J. and R.W. Mannan. 1994. Habitat use by breeding male northern goshawks in 

Northern Arizona. In: The northern goshawk: ecology and management. Studies in Avian 

Biology 16. Sacramento, CA: Cooper Ornithology Society. pp. 58-65.

Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: managing benefits and 

fire hazards in recovering forest. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-105. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Brown, R.T., J.K. Agee, and J.F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context 

of place. Conservation Biology 18: 903-912.

Bull, E.L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 51(2): 472-481.

Bull, E.L. 2000. Seasonal and sexual differences in American marten diet in northeastern Oregon. 

Northwest Science 74: 186-191

Bull, E.L. 2003. Pileated woodpecker. In: Birds of Oregon: a general reference. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Press. pp. 372-374.

Bull, E.L., A.D. Twombly, and T.M. Quigley. 1980. Perpetuating snags in managed mixed-conifer 

forests of the Blue Mountains. In: Workshop proceedings: management of western forests 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

609 of 632

and grasslands for nongame birds. General Technical Report INT-GTR-86. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp. 325-336.

Bull E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 335-345.

Bull, E.L. and J.A. Jackson. 2011. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), The Birds of North 

America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/SpeciesAccount/bna/species/pilwoo/introduction

Bull, E.L. and A.K. Blumton. 1999. Effect of fuels reduction on American martens and their prey. 

Research Note PNW-RN-539. LaGrande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 9 p.

Bull, E.L. and T.W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American martens in northeastern 

Oregon. Northwest Science 74: 179-185

Bull, E.L. and T.W. Heater. 2001a. Survival, causes of mortality, and reproduction in the American 

marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82: 1-6

Bull, E.L. and T.W. Heater. 2001b. Home range and dispersal of the American marten in northeastern 

Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82: 7-11

Bull, E.L. T.W. Heater, and J.F. Shepard. 2005. Habitat selection by the American marten in 

northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 79(1): 37-43.

Bull, E.L., N. Neilsen-Pincus, B.C. Wales, and J.L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of disturbance vents 

on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 243: 

320-329.

Burchsted, M.D., R. Thorson, and J. Vokoun. 2010. The river discontinuum: applying beaver 

modifications to baseline conditions for restoration of forested headwaters. Bioscience 60: 

908-922.

Burtchard, G.C. 1998. Environment, orehistory, and archaeology of the John Day Fossil Beds 

National Monument Blue Mountain Region, North-Central, Oregon. Report 583. Prepared 

for the National Park Service, Columbia Cascades System Support Office and John Day 

Fossil Beds National Monument by the International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., 

Honolulu, HI.

Cade, T.J. 1982. The falcons of the world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Cahall, R.E. and J.P. Hayes. 2009. Influences of postfire salvage logging on forest birds in the 

eastern Cascades, Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 257(3): 1119-1128.

Carlson, G. 1974. Soil resource inventory. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Malheur National Forest.

Central Oregon Trail Alliance [COTA]. 2011. COTA trail standards. Available online:

http://cotamtb.com/about-cota/trail-work/.
Magone Project

610 of 632

Chapman, J. 2011. American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) habitat model v 1.0. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Unpublished Report. On file, Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR.

Clark, R.N. and G.H. Stankey. 1979. The recreation opportunity spectrum: a framework for planning, 

management, and research. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-98. Seattle, WA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station.

Cluer B. and C. Thorne. 2014. A stream evolution model integrating habitat and ecosystem benefits. 

River Research and Applications 30(2): 135-154.

Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of 

Forestry 98(3): 15-21.

Columbia-Blue Mountain Resource Conservation & Development Area [CBMRC&D]. 2005. John 

Day Subbasin Revised Draft Plan: March 15. 321 p.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC]. 2003. COSEWIC 

assessment and status report on the Rocky Mountain ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata) in 

Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. vi+ 29 p. 

Available online: www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm

Countryman, B. and D. Justice. 2010. Analysis of existing versus historic condition for structural 

stages and potential vegetation groups within the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman

National Forests. Unpublished Report. On file, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Baker City, OR.

Couture, M. 1996. Ethnographic survey of the Burns Paiute Indians. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest: Heritage program document.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

Cram, D., T. Baker, and J. Boren. 2006. Wildland fire effects in silviculturally treated vs. untreated 

stands of New Mexico and Arizona. Research Paper RMRS-RP-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Crocker-Bedford, D.C. 1998. The value of demographic and habitat studies in determining the status 

if northern goshawks (A. gentilis) with special reference to Crocker-Bedford (1990) and 

Kennedy (1997). Journal of Raptor Research 32: 329-336.

Csuti B., T.A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and J.C. Hak. 2001. Atlas of Oregon wildlife, 

distribution, habitat and natural history. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Day, K.T., T. Black, C. Clifton, C. Luce, S. McCune, and N. Nelson. 2010. Prioritizing road 

treatments using the geomorphic roads analysis and inventory package (GRAIP) to improve 

watershed conditions in the Wall Creek Watershed, Oregon. American Geophysical Union, 

Fall Meeting 2010, abstract #H43D-1272.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

611 of 632

Drennan, J.E. and P. Beier. 2003. Forest structure and prey abundance in winter habitat in northern 

goshawks. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 177-185.

Dudley, J.G. 2005. Home range size and foraging habitat of black-backed woodpeckers. Boise State 

University, Boise, ID: Masters thesis. 88 p.

Duncan, N. 2008. Pristine springsnail (Pristinicola hemphilli) species fact sheet. Unpublished 

document. On file, Malheur National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District, John Day, OR.

Dunham, J. B., M. K. Young, R. E. Gresswell, and B. E. Rieman. 2003. Effects of fire on fish 

populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish 

invasions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 183-196.

Edge, W.D. 1982. Distribution, habitat use and movements of elk in relation to roads and human 

disturbances in western Montana. University of Montana, Missoula, MT: Masters thesis. 98

Everest, F.H. and R.D. Harr. 1982. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous 

fish habitat in western North America: 6. Silvicultural treatments. General Technical Report

PNW-134. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19 p.

Ferguson, H. and J.M. Azzerad. 2004. Pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus. In: Management 

recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume V: mammals. Olympia, WA: 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available online: 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00027/paba.pdf

Frenzel, R.W. 2004. Nest-site occupancy, nesting success, and turnover rates of white-headed 

woodpeckers in the Oregon Cascade Mountains in 2004. Portland, OR: Audubon Society of 

Portland, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. 

Forest Service. Unpublished report. 35 p.

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1999. Mollusk survey of southwestern Oregon, with emphasis on 

Rogue and Umpqua River drainages. Prepared for Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 

Seattle, WA.

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297-323.

Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides 

albolarvatus). In: The birds of North America, No. 252. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of 

Natural Sciences, and Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Gauthier. 2014. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola). The Birds of North America Online. Available 

online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/067/articles/introduction

Gelbard, J.L. and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in semiarid 

landscape. Conservation Biology 17(2): 420-432.

Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed 

woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Nongame report 87-3-02. Bend, OR: 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Deschutes National Forest. 49 p.
Magone Project

612 of 632

Goheen, E.M. and E.A. Willhite. 2006. Field guide to the common diseases and insect pests of 

Oregon and Washington conifers. R6-NR-FID-PR-01-06. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, T.B. Jain., and J.R. Tonn.1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand 

treatments on fire behavior in western forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Graham, R.T., S. McCaffrey, and T.B Jain (tech. eds.). 2004. Science basis for changing forest 

structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan. 2005. Grant County, OR. Available online: 

http://grantcountycwpp.com/

Greenwald, N.D., D.C. Crocker-Bedford, L. Broberg, K.F. Suckling, and T. Tibbitts. 2005. A review 

of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest 

management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 120-128.

Haggard, M. and W. L. Gaines. 2001. Effects of stand-replacement fire and salvage logging on a 

cavity-nesting bird community in eastern Cascades, Washington. Northwest Science 75(4): 

387-396.

Hanauska-Brown, L.A. and M.C. Bechard. 2003. Northern goshawk breeding ecology and nestling 

growth in mixed coniferous forests of west-central Idaho. Northwest Science 77(4): 331-339.

Hann, W., D. Havlina, and A. Shlisky. 2003. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy fire regime 

condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of 

the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; and Systems for Environmental Management.

Hanson, C., K. Coulter, J. Augustine, and D. Short. 2012. Petition to list the black-backed 

woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act.

Hardy, C.C. and E.D. Reinhardt. 1998. Modeling effects of prescribed fire on wildlife habitat: stand 

structure, snag recruitment and coarse woody debris. In: Fire and wildlife in the Pacific 

Northwest—research, policy and management. Conference proceedings; 1998, Spokane, 

WA. Portland, OR: Northwest Section of the Wildlife Society. pp. 67-74.

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(1): 157-172.

Hayes, G.E. and J.B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington state status report for the peregrine falcon. 

Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 77 p.

Haynes, R.W. and A.L. Horne. 1997. Economic assessment of the Basin. In: An assessment of 

ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and 

Great Basins: volume IV. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

613 of 632

Hays, D.W. and R.L. Milner. 1999. Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus. In: Management 

recommendations for Washington’s priority species. Volume IV: birds. Olympia, WA: 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. pp. 11-1 to 11-4.

Helms, J.A. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: The Society of American Foresters: 210 

Helvey, J.D. and W.B. Fowler. 1995. Effects of timber harvest on the hydrology and climate of four 

small watersheds: Umatilla National Forest barometer watershed program. Pendleton, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest.

Hemmingsen, A.R. 1999. Middle Fork John Day bull trout sampling, 1999 draft summary. 

Unpublished draft report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Henjum, M.G.1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: 

national forests east of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington. Wildlife Society, 

Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel. 94(2): 245 p.

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. Part I. Linking vegetation patterns and 

landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-458. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 357 p.

Heyerdahl, E.K. and J.K. Agee. 1996. Historical fire regimes of four sites in the Blue Mountains, 

Oregon and Washington. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest 

Resources.

Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern 

Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9: 1041-1058.

Hutto, R.L. and S.M. Gallo. 2006. The effects of postfire salvage on cavity-nesting birds. The 

Condor 108(4): 817-831.

Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony. 1987. Abundance, foraging, and roosting of bald eagles wintering in 

the Harney Basin, Oregon. Northwest Science 61: 114-121.

Isaak, D.J., M.K. Young, D.E. Nagel, D.L. Horan, and M.C. Groce. 2015. The cold-water climate 

shield: delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes through the 21st century. Global 

Change Biology 21: 2540–2553.

Jain, T.B., D.S. Pilliod, and R.T. Graham. 2004. Tongue-tied. Wildfire Magazine. July/August: 22-

26.

Columbia-Blue Mountain Resource Conservation. 2005. John Day Subbasin Revised Draft Plan 

(JDSRDP). Portland, OR: Prepared for Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America: biology and natural history. 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Johnson, L.S. 2004. Factors influencing stream temperatures in small streams: substrate effects and a 

shading experiment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61: 913-923.
Magone Project

614 of 632

Johnson, J.D. 2016. Forest successional and disturbance dynamics in the Southern Blue Mountains 

of Oregon. Dissertation. Oregon State University.

Jones, J.R. and N.V. Debyle. 1985. Fire. In: Aspen: ecology and management in the Western United 

States. RM-119. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Justice, N.D. 2002. Stone age spear and arrow points of California and the Great Basin.

Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online: 

www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf

Kerns, B.K., W.G. Thies, and C.G. Niwa. 2006. Season and severity of prescribed burn in ponderosa 

forests: implications for understory native and exotic plants. Ecoscience 13(1): 44-55.

King,T.G., M.A. Howell, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, and R.A. Schorr. 1998. Comparisons of 

wintering bird communities in mature pine stands managed by prescribed burning. Wilson 

Bulletin 110: 570-574.

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. General Technical Report PSWGTR-181. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station.

Kostow, K. (ed.). 1995. Biennial report on the status of wild fish in Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Krieger, D.J. 2001. Economic value of forest ecosystem services: a review. Washington, DC: The 

Wilderness Society.

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural range of variability 

concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1179-1188.

Larson, A.J. and D. Churchill. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of western North 

America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for designing fuel 

reduction and restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 267: 74–92.

Lieb, J.W. 1981. Activity, heart rate, and associated energy expenditure of elk in western Montana. 

Dissertation abstracts international. B, the sciences and engineering. 42 (3): 848.

Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D.L. Peterson, and A.L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area 

burned in Western U.S. Ecoprovinces, 1919-2003. Ecological Applications 19(4): 1003–

1021.

Marcot, B.G., J.L. Ohmann, K. Mellen-McLean, and K.L. Waddell. 2010. Synthesis of regional 

wildlife and vegetation field studies to guide management of standing and down dead trees. 

Forest Science 56(4): 391-404.

Maret, M.P. and M.V. Wilson. 2000. Fire and seedling population dynamics in western Oregon 

prairies. Journal of Vegetation Science 11(2): 307-314.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

615 of 632

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, eds. 2006. Birds of Oregon: a general reference. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 704 p.

Mattson, D. 2012. Managing scenery in dynamic landscapes: scenic stability. Presentation at 

National Association of Environmental Professionals Conference, Portland, Oregon.

Matz, F.A. 1927. Descriptive report: Malheur River timber survey project, Malheur National Forest. 

Available from personal files of Larry Amell. USDA Forest Service. Region 5 Reinvention 

Lab. TEAMS enterprise.

McGrath, M.T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Irwin, and G.J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit 

influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife 

Monograph 154: 1-63.

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and 

conservation. Conservation Biology 18(4): 890-902.

McNeil, R.C. 1996. Effects of a feller-buncher operation on soil bulk density. Available from the 

Malheur soil specialist.

McNeil, R.C. 1999. Overland transport distances of sediment from roads, Swamp planning area. 

John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest.

Mellen-McLean. 2011. Comparison of historical range of variability for dead wood: DecAID vs. 

other published estimates. USDA Forest Service. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid-guide/hrv-dead-wood-comparison.shtml

Mellen-McLean, K. 2012a. MIS information sheets: primary cavity excavators. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Mellen-McLean, K. 2012b. MIS information sheet. American marten (Martes americana). On file:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Mellen-McLean, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Willhite, B.B. 

Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for 

managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of 

Washington and Oregon. Version 2.20. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Mellen-McLean, K. 2013. MIS information sheet. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). 

Unpublished Report. On file U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Mellen-McLean, K., B. Wales, and B. Bresson. 2013. A conservation assessment for the whiteheaded woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Region 6; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and 

Washington.

Meredith, C., B. Roper, and A. Archer. 2014. Reductions in instream wood in streams near roads in 

the Interior Columbia Basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34(3): 493-

506.
Magone Project

616 of 632

Meyer, K.A., J.A. Lamansky Jr., and D.J. Schill. 2010. Biotic and abiotic factors related to redband 

trout occurrence and abundance in desert and montane streams. Western North American 

Naturalist 70: 77–91.

Miller, J.C. and P.C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and moths of Pacific Northwest forests and 

woodlands: rare, endangered, and management-sensitive species. FHTET-2006-07. Forest 

Health Technology Enterprise Team. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 234 p.

Minshall, G.W. 2003. Responses of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. Forest Ecology and

Management 178: 155-161.

Mosgrove, J.L. 1980. The Malheur National Forest: an ethnographic history. John Day, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 253 p.

Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz [MBOSC]. 2007. Economic Benefits of Mountain Bike Tourism for 

Santa Cruz County.

Muhlfeld, C.C. 2002. Spawning characteristics of redband trout in a headwater stream in Montana. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1314–1320.

Muhlfeld, C.C., D.H. Bennett, and B. Marotz. 2001a. Fall and winter habitat use and movement by 

Columbia River redband trout in a small stream in Montana. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 21: 170–177.

Muhlfeld, C.C., D.H. Bennett, and B. Marotz. 2001b. Summer habitat use by Columbia River 

redband trout in the Kootenai River drainage, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 21: 223–235.

Muhlfeld, C.C., S.E. Albeke, S.L. Gunckle, B.J. Writer, B.B. Shepard, and B.E. May. 2015. Status 

and conservation of interior redband trout in the Western United States. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 35(1): 31-53.

Mussehl, T.W. 1963. Blue grouse brood cover selection and land-use implications. The Journal of 

Wildlife Management 27: 546-555.

National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. 2008. Supplemental comprehensive analysis of the 

federal Columbia River power system and mainstem effects of the Upper Snake and other 

tributary actions. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Natureserve. [Accessed 2010, 2012, and 2014]. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life 

(web application). NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at 

http://explorer.natureserve.org

Nedeau, E., A.K. Smith, and J. Stone. 2005. Freshwater mussels of the Pacific Northwest. 

Vancouver, WA: Pacific Northwest Native Freshwater Mussel Workgroup. 45 p.

Nielsen-Pincus, N. and E.O. Garton. 2007. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to changes in available 

habitat reveal underlying determinants of nest selection. Northwest Naturalist 88: 135-146.

Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory [NROSL]. 2015. NROSL Map Library. Available 

online [accessed May 2015]: http://www.obsidianlab.com/
Final Environmental Impact Statement

617 of 632

O’Hara, K.L., A. Youngblood, and K.M. Waring. 2010. Maturity selection versus improvement 

selection: lessons learned from a mid-20th century controversy in the silviculture of 

ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry 108(8): 397-407.

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, USA. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 32(4): 725-741.

Ohmann J.L. and K.L. Waddell. 2002. Regional patterns of dead wood in forested habitats of Oregon 

and Washington. In: Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead 

wodd in western forests. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. pp. 535-560.

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. University of 

Washington. Masters thesis.

Omi, P.N. and E.L. Martinson. 2002. Final report: effect of fuel treatment on wildfire severity. Fort 

Collins, CO: Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University.

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. 2010. Rare, threatened and endangered species of Oregon. 

Portland, OR: Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality [ODEQ]. 2010. John Day River Basin Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

[ODEQ and USDA Forest Service]. 2014. Oregon DEQ and U.S. Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Region Water Quality Memorandum of Understanding. Available online: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/docs/FinalDraftMOU_rv3-14-13.pdf

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW]. 2014. Oregon wolf conservation and 

management 2013 annual report. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Oregon Employment Department. 2016. August 2016 employment and unemployment in Oregon’s 

counties. Available online: http://www.qualityinfo.org/ed

Oregon State University [OSU]. 2005. Scouler’s willow Salix scouleriana Barratt ex Hook. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Rangeland Ecology and Management. Available 

online: http://anrs.oregonstate.edu/system/files/u3084/ScoulersWillow.pdf.

Osei, N.A., A.M. Gurnell, and G.L. Harvey. 2015. The role of large wood in retaining fine sediment, 

organic matter and plant propagules in a small, single-thread forest river. Geomorphology

235: 77-87.

Parker, P.L. and T.F. King. 1998. Guidelines for evaluating and documenting traditional cultural 

properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Washington, DC: National Park Service, National 

Register of Historic Places.

Peterson, D.L. 2004. Role of silviculture in fuel treatments. Fuels planning: science synthesis and 

integration, fact sheet 43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Magone Project

618 of 632

Peterson, D.L., M.C. Johnson, J.K Agee, T.B. Jain, D. McKenzie, and E.D. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest 

structure and fire hazard in dry forests of the Western United States. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-628. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

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. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-173. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 1999. Effects of thinning and prescribed burning on wildfire severity in 

ponderosa forests. Proceedings from the Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop. 

Moscow, ID: University of Idaho.

Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in 

ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11: 1-10.

Polvi, L.E. and E. Wohl. 2013. Biotic drivers of stream planform: implications for understanding the 

past and restoring the future. Bioscience 63: 439-452.

Powell, D.C. 1998. Historical percentages for use with HRV analyses. Pendleton, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest.

Powell, D.C. 1999. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and 

southeastern Washington: an implementation guide for the Umatilla National Forest. F14-

SO-TP-03-99. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Umatilla National Forest.

Powell, D.C. 2012. Range of variation recommendations for dry, moist, and cold forests. F14-SOWP-Silv-3. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Umatilla National Forest.

Powell, D.C., C.G. Johnson, Jr., E.A. Crowe, A. Wells, and D.K. Swanson. 2007. Potential 

vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, southeastern 

Washington, and west-central Idaho. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-709. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 87.

Pyle, R.M. 2002. The butterflies of Cascadia: a field guide to all the species of Washington, Oregon, 

and surrounding territories. Seattle, WA: Seattle Audobon Society. 420 p.

Quigley, T.M., R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham (tech. eds.). 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for 

ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and 

Great Basins. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 310 p.

Quigley, T.M. and H. Bigler Cole. 1997. Highlighted scientific findings of the Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-404. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 34 p.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

619 of 632

Raphael, M.G. and L.L. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American 

martens in central Oregon and western Washington. In: Martes: taxonomy, ecology, 

techniques and management. Edmonton, AB: Provincial Museum of Alberta. pp. 146-165.

Reid, K.C., J.A. Draper, and P.E. Wigand. 1989. Prehistory and Paleoenvironments of the Silvies 

Plateau, Harney Basin, Southwest Oregon. Pullman, WA: Center for Northwestern 

Anthropology, Washington State University.

Reinhardt, E.D. and N.L. Crookston (tech. eds.). 2003. The fire and fuels extension to the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G.Goodwin, 

R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in 

the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 90 p.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, and D.A. Boyce, Jr. 2008. Northern goshawk habitat: an intersection 

of science, management, and conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(4): 1047-

1055.

Rinne J.N. 1996. Short-term effects of wildfire on fishes and aquatic macroinvertebrates: 

Southwestern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 653-658.

Rose, C.L., B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, J.L. Ohmann, K.L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 

2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat 

management. In: Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis OR: 

Oregon State University Press. pp. 580-623.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology.

Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. INT-143.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Ruggiero, L.F., S.W. Buskirk, K.B. Aubry, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis 

for conserving forest carnivores in the western United States: American marten, fisher, lynx, 

and wolverine. General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Ryan, R.L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aesthetics 

and fuels management. General Technical Report NC-261. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station.

Saab, V.A. and K. Vierling. 2001. Reproductive success of Lewis’s woodpecker in burned pine and 

cottonwood riparian forests. The Condor 103: 491–501

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation to 

postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire. The Condor 109(1): 97-108.

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2009. Nest-site selection by cavity-nesting birds in 

relation to postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 151-159.
Magone Project

620 of 632

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(4): 986-

999.

Sanderson, H.R., T.M. Quigley, E.E. Swan, and L.R. Spink. 1990. Specifications for structural range 

improvements. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-250. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 126 p.

Sauer, J. R. and W. A. Link. 2011. Analysis of the North American Breeding Bird Survey using 

heirarchical models. The Auk 126(1): 87-98. 

Schmitt, C.L. 2001. Root diseases in conifer forested communities in the Blue Mountains of 

northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington—detection and management, values and 

impacts. BMPMSC-02-01. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center.

Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report

RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Schonberg, L. 2010. Freshwater mussels: California floater (Anodonta californiensis). Available 

online [accessed June 2010]: http://www.xerces.org/california-floater/

Scott, D. and C. Schmitt. 2012. Amanda Lindsay silviculture prescription stand 

(06040153220000366) insect and disease review, Blue Mountain Ranger District, Malheur 

National Forest. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue 

Mountains Pest Management Service Center.

Shepard, B.B., B.E. May, and W. Urie. 2003. Status of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki lewisi) in the United States: 2002. Bozeman, MT: multi-state assessment. Report to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Shepard, B.B., B.E. May, and W. Urie. 2005. Status and conservation of westslope cutthroat trout 

within the western United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 

1426–1440.

Silveri, A., P.W. Dunwiddie, and H.J. Michaels. 2001. Logging and edaphic factors in the invasion of 

an Asian woody vine in a mesic North American forest. Biological Invasions 3(4): 379-389.

Smith, J. K. (ed.). 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Spiegel, L.H. 2014. Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly (Callophrys johnsoni) in the Blue Mountains. 

BMPMSC-14-01. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Blue Mountains Forest 

Insects and Disease Service Center.

Spiegel, L.H., M. Johnson, M.G. McWilliams, and M. Jennings. 2014. Insect and disease review of 

Magone Project area. Blue Mountain Ranger District. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

621 of 632

Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Forest Insect and Disease Center, Forest Health 

Protection. Unpublished report. On file, Malheur National Forest. 16 p.

Stensland, J. 2013. Economic impact analysis outdoor recreation. Rutherford County Tourism

Development Authority.

Suring, L.H., W.L. Gaines, B.C. Wales, K. Mellen-McLean, J.S. Begley, and S. Mohoric. 2011. 

Maintaining populations of terrestrial wildlife through land management planning: a case 

study. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(4): 945-658.

Swanson D.K., C.L. Schmitt, D.M. Shirley, V. Erickson, K.J. Schuetz, M.L. Tatum, and D.C. Powell. 

2010. Aspen biology, community classification, and management in the Blue Mountains. 

PNW-GTR-806, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Sweeney, B.W. and J.D. Newbold. 2014. Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream

water quality, habitat, and organisms: a literature review. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association (JAWRA) 50(3): 560-584.

Thomas, J.W., D.A. Leckenby, M. Henjum, R.J. Pedersen, and L.D. Bryant. 1988. Habitateffectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain winter range. General Technical Report PNWGTR-218. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station.

Tuttle, M.D.. 1997. America’s neighborhood bats. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

United States Census Bureau. 2014. American fact finder [Electronic database]. Available online: 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

USDA Forest Service. 1974. U.S. Forest Service visual management system, Agricultural Handbook:

462.

USDA Forest Service. 1982. ROS users guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. A background document on the development and review of minimum 

management requirements for forest planning on the National Forests of the Pacific 

Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1990a. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. John 

Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 

Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_033814

USDA Forest Service 1990b. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Malheur National Forest. Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_033816

USDA Forest Service. 1990c. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Record 

of Decision. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur 
Magone Project

622 of 632

National Forest. Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_033815

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Magone Visual Corridor Plan. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact and Forest Plan 

Amendment for Incorporation of the Columbia River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat 

Management Policy and Implementation Guide into the Malheur National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. (Amendment 29). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Decision Notice for the Revised Continuation of Interim Management 

Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales. 

(Eastside Screens). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 6: Colville, 

Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and 

Winema National Forests in Oregon and Washington. Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of Interim 

Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho and Portions of California (PACFISH). Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1995c. Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management. 

Agriculture Handbook 701.

USDA Forest Service. 1995c. Environment Assessment for the Inland Native Fish Strategy; Interim 

Strategies for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, 

Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada. (INFISH). Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Upper Silvies ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. John Day, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Protecting people and sustaining resources in fire-adapted 

ecosystems—a cohesive strategy. Available online: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/2000/cohesive_strategy10132000.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Post-fire grazing interim guidelines, Malheur National Forest. 

Unpublished Report. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. The Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis Report. John Day, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant habitat management. Forest Service 

Manual 2600, section 2670 Amend. 2600-2005-1. Washington, DC.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

623 of 632

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Elk, deer, and cattle: the Starkey Project. Science update, issue 13. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Appendix J – Recommended SMS Refinements, Appendix to 

Landscape Aesthetics, Handbook for Scenery Management, USDA Handbook 701.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a (update). Forest Service Handbook 7709.59 – Road systems operations 

and maintenance handbook.

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. National visitor use monitoring program—national summary report. 

Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Climate change considerations in project-level NEPA analysis. USDA 

Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Malheur National Forest review of areas with wilderness potential.

Unpublished report. On file at: Malheur National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District, 

John Day, OR. 47 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results. USDA Forest Service, 

Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011 (December 9). Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species 

List. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide (FS-990a).

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Malheur National Forest Fire Management Plan. John Day, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment. John Day, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 203 p. Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3817700.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Decision Notice for Aquatic Restoration Project. John Day, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 47 p. Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=STELPRD3817723

USDA Forest Service. 2014c. Malheur National Forest Vegetation GIS Layer analyzed with FSVEG 

Spatial Data Analyzer. Prepared by L. Amell and K. Mellen-McLean. John Day, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Malheur National Forest Site-Specific Invasive Plants Treatment 

Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Record of Decision for the Malheur National Forest Site-Specific 

Invasive Plants Treatment Project. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Malheur National Forest.
Magone Project

624 of 632

USDA Forest Service. 2015c. Field guide to sensitive plants of the Malheur National Forest. 

Unpublished book developed using publically available information and photos. On file at: 

Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR.

USDA Forest Service [Accessed 2015]. Natural Resource Manager (NRM). Corporate database for 

documenting sensitive plant surveys and occurrences. Queried on 01-08-2015.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. A collaborative approach for 

reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment, 10-year comprehensive 

strategy. Available online: 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/7-19-en.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2002. A collaborative approach for 

reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment, 10-year comprehensive 

strategy, implementation plan. Available online: 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/11-23-en.pdf

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2006. A collaborative approach for 

reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment, 10-year strategy 

implementation plan. Available online: 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/10-

yearstrategyfinal_dec2006.pdf

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 160 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 1994. The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to 

Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Helena, MT: U.S. Department of the Interior. 414 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2006. Memorandum: Canada lynx conservation 

agreement with the Forest Service. Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2008a. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United 

States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 p. Available online: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2008b. Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened 

Widlife and Plants; Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as 

Distinct Population Segment and Removing this Distinct Population Segment from the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 73 No. 39.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2013a. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic

Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington and portions of California, Idaho 

and Nevada (ARBO II). [FWS reference: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0090]. Portland, OR: Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Office. 465 p.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

625 of 632

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2013b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Two Populations of Black-Backed Woodpecker 

as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 68.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2014. Federally listed, proposed, candidates species, 

and species of concern within Grant County, OR. Available online: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=41023

Valley, S. 2010. Founder: Oregon dragonfly survey, Insect Imaging Specialist, Oregon Department of 

Agriculture- Plant Division.

Vannote, R.L. and G.W., Minshall. 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling 

abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Science, USA 79: 4103-4107.

Van Pelt, R. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests in Eastern Washington. Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 166 pages.

Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. In: 

Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada ecosystem final report to Congress, volume II. 

Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis: 

1155-1165.

Vaux, H.J., Jr., P.D. Gardner, and T.J. Mills. 1984. Methods for assessing the impact of fire on forest 

recreation. General Technical Report PSW-79. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, 

Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. 668 p.

Wales, B.C., K. Mellen-McLean, W.L. Gaines, and L. Suring. 2011. Focal species assessment of 

current condition and the proposed action for the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision

(Draft). Unpublished paper on file at: Baker City, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman Natinoal Forest, Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision 

Team.

Wemple, B. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, 

western Cascades, Oregon. 88 p.

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.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales [et al.]. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates 

of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wisdom, M.J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2005. Effects of off-road 

recreation on mule deer and elk. In: The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of 

elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. 

pp. 67-80.
Magone Project

626 of 632

Woodruff, K. and H. Ferguson. 2005. Townsend’s big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii. In: 

Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, volume V: mammals. 

Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Xerces freshwater mussel database. Available online [accessed 2009]: 

http://www.xerces.org/western-freshwater-mussels/

Youngblood, A., T. Max, and K. Coe. 2004. Stand structure in eastside old-growth ponderosa pine 

forests of Oregon and northern California. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 191-217.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

627 of 632

Index

Table 148. Index of terms

A

Affected environment 5, 28, 123-124, 210, 213, 312, 316, 318, 320, 390-391, 561

Air quality 5, 7, 52-53, 100-101, 120, 123, 199, 206, 213, 216-217, 222-251, 255, 

276, 280, 282, 324, 326, 328, 413, 431, 440-441, 445, 547, 557, 559-561, 

570-571, 590, 594, 599

Allotment 9, 38, 69, 84, 126, 329, 517-520, 522, 524-525, 528, 531, 533, 594

Alternative 1 3, 10, 16, 18-26, 54, 85-122, 141, 143-146, 149-150, 152, 156-158, 163, 

169, 174, 182, 204, 206, 212, 214, 216, 219, 233, 255, 278-285, 288-289, 

291-292, 295, 326-329, 331, 369, 374, 391, 393-395, 403, 407, 410, 413, 

416, 419, 421-423, 431-432, 439, 446, 452-453, 459, 464, 470, 475, 481, 

485, 487, 506, 515, 520-521, 530, 535-536, 549-550, 558, 565, 571

Alternative 2 3, 6-11, 16-26, 47, 54-55, 59, 61, 65, 68-72, 75-79, 85-122, 148-154, 160-

161, 167, 175-176, 184-196, 204-205, 208-209, 212-220, 236-241, 244-

250, 257, 283-285, 288-294, 332-343, 345-346, 349-375, 377-381, 383, 

393, 396, 404, 410, 413, 416, 422-423, 440, 449-456, 470-472, 476, 478. 

506-509, 521, 523, 525, 536, 538-541, 552, 559, 566, 573, 576, 580-582

Alternative 3 3, 6-9, 11, 17-26, 69-72, 74-77, 85-122, 155-161, 175-177, 190-193, 204-

205, 208-209, 212-213, 215, 218-220, 245-247, 257, 284-285, 287-288, 

352-369, 371-373, 384, 387, 391-393, 396, 404, 422-423, 433, 440, 443, 

448, 450-456, 460, 465, 471-473, 477-478, 488, 508-509, 521, 523-524, 

536, 540, 551-552, 559, 573, 576, 580-582

Alternative 4 3, 6-9, 11, 17-26, 45, 76-79, 83, 85-122, 162-169, 175-177, 193-196, 204-

206, 208-210, 213, 215, 218, 220, 247-250, 257, 284-285, 291-292, 369-

381, 385, 391, 393, 404-405, 420, 422-423, 440, 450-453, 459, 464-465, 

471-472, 488, 493, 509, 521-523, 536, 540-541, 551-552, 559, 563, 571

American peregrine falcon 108, 206, 399-400, 408-409, 423, 491, 513, 612-613

American pine marten 10, 45-46, 68, 112, 122, 398, 424, 441, 456-458, 461, 466-467, 470-473, 

476-478, 565-566, 568, 608-609, 612, 615, 619

aquatic habitat 34, 47, 103-104, 128, 201, 295-297, 306, 321-329, 331-332, 390-391, 

394-395, 499-500, 538, 598

Aspen restoration 332-333, 339-340, 342-343, 345, 350, 352, 358-359, 361, 363, 367, 369, 

374, 376, 378, 380, 383-385

B

Bald eagle 108, 206-207, 399-400, 409-412, 423, 491, 493, 513, 613, 624

Bike trail 63, 113, 285, 289, 291-292, 294, 455, 477, 483-485

Black-backed woodpecker 110-111, 207, 399, 424-425, 429-431, 433-443, 470, 611-612, 615, 625

Black rosy-finch 491

Black swift 491

Blue (dusky) grouse 38, 45, 113, 202, 207, 398, 420, 459, 479, 484-489, 594, 616

Bolander’s spikerush 501

Botany 80, 495-513, 590-591

Brewer’s sparrow 491

Bufflehead 108, 206, 399-400, 407-408, 422, 611

Bull thistle 514

Bull trout 309, 386, 603, 613
Magone Project

628 of 632

C

California wolverine 400

Calliope hummingbird 114, 491, 493

Canada lynx 399-400, 624

Canada thistle 514

Cassin’s finch 115, 494, 491

Cavity excavator See Primary cavity excavator

Cheatgrass 498, 514

Clean Water Act 14, 50, 102, 274, 287, 290, 294-295, 395, 587

Climate change 5, 53, 58, 121, 141, 168, 317, 323, 327, 437, 439, 507, 547, 562-564, 566, 

570, 572, 623

Cold Dry upland forest 6-7, 10-11, 20-21, 30, 32, 36, 92, 112, 131-132, 135, 145-146, 152, 154, 

158-159, 161, 165-166, 227, 438, 470, 474-476, 496, 584, 603

Common mullein 514

Cool Moist upland forest 6-7, 10-11, 20-21, 24, 30, 32, 36, 91-92, 97, 112, 131-132, 134-135, 140, 

145, 147, 151, 153, 157-158, 160-161, 164-165, 167, 200, 214-215, 227, 

239, 448, 470, 475-476, 496-497, 518, 582, 584, 602-603

Crenulate moonwort 501, 510

Crown fire potential 7, 25, 36, 52, 97, 100, 201, 210, 217-218, 229-231, 234, 240-241, 243, 

246, 249-250

D

Dalmatian toadflax 514

DecAID 12-14, 398, 424, 426-427, 429-430, 432, 442, 463, 468-470, 474, 615

Decision framework 5, 27, 50

Dedicated old growth 6, 14, 17, 29, 43-46, 49, 56, 68, 70, 75-77, 79-80, 85, 89, 111-112, 122, 

405, 424, 433, 439, 456-462, 465, 472, 476, 484, 564-570, 598

Diffuse knapweed 514

Downy woodpecker 110, 423, 425, 431, 435, 440-441, 443

E

Economics 7, 58, 123, 170-178, 542

Elk See Rocky Mountain elk

Endangered species 14, 35-36, 38-40, 52-53, 107-110, 120, 199, 203, 206-207, 211-213, 220, 

295, 308-309, 312, 315, 322, 393, 395-401, 422, 425, 466, 490-491, 493-

495, 500, 512-513, 557, 559, 561, 588, 595-599, 606, 610, 612, 616-617, 

624-625

Endangered Species Act 35, 50, 308, 312, 315, 325, 332, 347-348, 365, 387, 395-396, 399, 401, 

437, 490, 495, 504, 512-513, 588, 595-599, 606, 612

Environmental justice 170, 172, 585

Essential fish habitat 332

F

Ferruginous hawk 491

Flammulated owl 114, 491, 493

Fire risk 22, 33, 37, 47, 84, 93, 184, 190, 194, 202, 225, 240, 410, 432, 446, 488, 

579, 599

Fire regime 7, 15, 31-32, 34, 52, 83, 100, 130, 225-228, 231, 234-235, 237-239, 243, 

246, 249, 253, 279, 353, 406, 521, 547, 570, 575, 595, 599, 602-603, 612-

613
Final Environmental Impact Statement

629 of 632

Fringed myotis 108, 206, 399-400, 402-406, 422, 614

G

Grant County 3, 10, 15, 29, 31, 34, 40, 62, 130, 170-172, 174-175, 177, 183, 185-186, 

188, 192, 195, 223-224, 231, 237, 242, 251, 399, 401, 515, 584, 582, 589, 

592-593, 612, 625

Grasshopper sparrow 400

Gray wolf 107, 206, 399-402, 422, 624

Grazing 9, 15, 38, 57, 67, 84, 104, 126, 142, 171, 209-210, 213, 216-217, 226-228, 

231-232, 235-236, 239, 243, 261, 267, 270, 273, 280, 282-283, 287, 291, 

394, 296, 304, 306, 321, 323, 328-329, 333, 340, 391-392, 405, 411, 414, 

417, 420-422, 447, 455, 476, 488-489, 597, 501, 503-505, 517-525, 528-

529, 553, 561, 573, 622

Greater sage grouse 399-400, 479

H

Hairy woodpecker 110, 423, 425, 429-431, 434-435, 442

Hardheads 514

Heritage 5, 18, 52-53, 66-67, 88, 118, 123, 309, 513, 525-532, 586, 589, 597, 610-

611

Historical range of variability 6-7, 9, 12-14, 20, 24, 31-32, 35-39, 46, 51, 84, 91-92, 96, 110, 112-114, 

121, 131, 133-136, 140-141, 143-147, 149-168, 200, 202, 207, 211, 214-

215, 238, 246, 405-406, 411, 413-414, 416-417, 420, 424, 426, 429-430, 

432, 437-443, 446, 454, 458, 464-466, 470-477, 479, 484, 486, 488, 493, 

521, 543, 548, 552, 563, 570, 572, 575, 579, 600, 615, 618

Hot Dry upland forest 6-7, 10-11, 20-21, 24, 30, 32, 36-38, 46-47, 91-92, 96-97, 132-134, 136, 

144, 147, 150, 153-154, 156-157, 160-161, 163-164, 167, 202, 214-215, 

227, 239, 243, 446, 496-498, 570, 575, 579-580, 582, 584, 602

I

Inventoried roadless area 3, 14-18, 23-25, 28-31, 36-39, 41, 46, 51, 53-57, 61-64, 69-70, 73, 76-77, 

81, 83, 85-86, 90, 93-99, 109, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129-130, 132-133, 147, 

153, 160, 167, 178-180, 186-187, 190-191, 194, 196-221, 231-232, 247-

248, 250, 252, 260, 264-265, 270, 275, 278, 282, 284, 287-288, 290, 292, 

294, 300, 302-305, 326, 328, 338, 345, 352, 357-359, 366-367, 370, 374-

375, 378, 403-405, 409, 433, 437, 450-452, 454, 460, 462, 465, 470-472, 

484, 497, 547, 554-561, 582-584, 590-591, 600

Invasive plants 47-48, 52-53, 117, 120, 123, 126, 199, 206, 213, 259, 326, 332, 415, 418, 

487, 505, 507, 513-517, 519, 521, 525, 532, 535, 553-554, 557, 559, 561, 

590

Irreversible and irretrievable 396, 585

J

Johnson’s hairstreak 109, 206-207, 399-400, 418-420, 423

K

Key issues 16-17, 19, 51-52, 130, 178, 196

L

Least phacelia 502-503, 511

Lewis’s woodpecker 109-110, 206-207, 399-400, 412-415, 423, 425, 429-431, 434-435, 441-

442, 491, 493

Loggerhead shrike 491

Long-billed curlew 491

M
Magone Project

630 of 632

Management indicator 

species

14, 35, 38, 52, 105-107, 110, 202, 207-208, 295, 308-309, 312, 316, 322, 

330, 389-390, 393, 398, 402-404, 410, 412-413, 416-417, 423-479, 493, 

565, 569, 583-584, 601

McCown’s longspur 491

Mid-Columbia River 

steelhead

35, 37-40, 62, 103, 105-107, 201-202, 208, 211-214, 221, 297, 308-396, 

523-524, 584, 588, 594, 603

Migratory birds 50, 52, 114, 207, 396, 398-399, 409, 489-494

N

National Environmental 

Policy Act

14, 16, 28, 42-43, 50, 53, 60, 80, 123-124, 128, 148, 170, 232, 244, 247, 

250, 489-490, 505, 512, 526, 531, 533-534, 539, 562, 585-586, 590-591, 

596

National Historic 

Preservation Act

50, 53, 526-531

North Africa grass 498, 514

Northern flicker 110, 407-408, 424-425, 429-435, 442

Northern goshawk 113, 207, 397-398, 479-484, 487-488

O

Old growth See Dedicated old growth or Replacement old growth

Olive-sided flycatcher 114, 491, 493

Open road density 119, 416, 444-445, 452-453

osprey 114, 207, 398, 479, 486-489

Oxeye daisy 514

P

PACFISH 34-35, 37, 47, 269, 276, 280, 294-295, 297, 301, 308, 323, 333, 346, 352, 

364, 378, 392-396, 519, 602

Pallid bat 108, 206, 399-406, 422

Peregrine falcon 108, 206, 399-400, 408-409, 423, 491, 513, 612-613

Pileated woodpecker 45-46, 68-69, 89, 110, 112, 122, 398, 407-408, 424-431, 456-466, 470, 

472, 476-477, 564-568

Pileated woodpecker feeding 

areas

14, 89, 111-112, 433, 439, 457-462, 476

Pine marten 10, 45-46, 68, 112, 122, 398, 424, 441, 456-458, 461, 466-467, 470-473, 

476-478, 565-566, 568, 608-609, 612, 615, 619

Primary cavity excavator 14, 110, 398, 431-443

Public involvement 16, 50, 197

Purpose and need 15-16, 27-28, 31, 43, 50, 52, 69, 76, 80, 83-84, 172, 410, 413, 416, 419, 

448, 575, 579-580

Pygmy nuthatch 458

Pygmy rabbit 400

R

Rangeland 49-50, 118, 223, 517-525, 546, 586-587, 590, 603

Redband trout 35, 103, 106, 208, 297, 309, 312, 316-318, 321, 327, 330, 386-396, 584

Red-naped sapsucker 38, 110, 202, 423, 425, 431, 435, 440, 443, 584

Replacement old growth 14, 29, 43-46, 49, 56-57, 68-70, 76, 85, 89-90, 111-112, 122, 204, 213, 

424, 433, 439, 456-462, 465, 472, 476, 478, 564-570, 604
Final Environmental Impact Statement

631 of 632

Riparian habitat conservation 

area

14, 49, 52, 57-58, 90, 126, 141, 143, 205-206, 239, 267-271, 275, 279-

282, 284-296, 323, 326, 328-329, 336-381, 358, 372-374, 388, 394-395, 

403, 412, 465, 546, 587, 603

Rocky Mountain elk 25, 38-39, 47, 49, 56, 98-99, 111, 179, 202, 207, 211, 221, 296, 398, 402, 

424, 443-456, 520, 555, 571, 573, 577, 578, 582, 584, 595, 600

S

Sage grouse 399-400, 479

Sage sparrow 491

Sage thrasher 491

Scoping 16, 28, 50-51, 123, 502, 525, 569, 592, 604

Scotch thistle 514

Shortface lanx 309-310

Silver-bordered fritillary 110, 206, 399-400, 420-423

Spotted knapweed 326, 514

St. Johnswart 514

Stinking willie 514

Sulphur cinquefoil 514

Summer range 17, 38, 46-47, 69, 75, 79, 89, 122, 444-445, 450, 452-454, 541, 570-576, 

579-581, 595

Swainson's Hawk 491

T

Three-toed woodpecker 110, 112, 398, 424-425, 431, 440, 456, 470, 473-479, 565-566

Timber volume 18, 22, 86, 93, 171-177

Townsend’s big-eared bat 108, 206, 399-400, 402-406, 422

Tree density 131, 483, 520, 550, 570

U

Unplanned ignitions 25, 58-59, 70-71, 77, 86, 97, 210, 218, 236-237, 245, 247-249, 257, 472

Upland sandpiper 398, 400, 479-480, 491

V

Visuals 29, 49, 53, 119, 123, 184, 185, 541-555, 561, 565, 591

W

Wallowa rosy finch 400

Warm Dry upland forest 20-21, 24, 30, 32, 36-38, 46-47, 55-56, 91-92, 96, 115, 130, 132, 134, 

141, 143-144, 147, 149-150, 153, 156, 160-163, 167, 202, 214-215, 227, 

234, 239, 243, 405, 413, 437, 446, 475, 481, 494, 496, 570, 575, 579-580, 

582, 584, 602

Warm Moist upland forest 20-21, 30, 32, 36, 92, 132, 135-136, 146-147, 152-153, 159-161, 166-167, 

227, 239, 496, 582, 584, 602

Water temperature 35, 37-38, 52, 103-104, 202, 211, 274, 282, 297, 301-302, 308, 312, 316-

317, 319, 322-324, 326-327, 329-331, 339-342, 358-361, 374-376, 382-

385, 389-391, 394-395, 588

White bark pine 115, 496, 500-501, 506

White-headed woodpecker 109-110, 206-207, 399-400, 415-418, 423-425, 427, 429-431, 456, 458, 

466, 476-477, 491, 493, 567

Wildlife emphasis area 17, 25-26, 37-38, 46-47, 49, 54, 63, 69, 75-76, 79, 83, 89, 98-99, 122, 

179, 186, 189, 191, 193, 196, 202, 219-220, 405, 444-446, 450-455, 460, 

546, 570-572, 582-584
Magone Project

632 of 632

Williamson’s sapsucker 110, 423, 425, 427, 429-431, 433-435, 442, 491, 493

Willow flycatcher 115, 491, 494

Winter range 10, 17, 37-38, 46-47, 49, 69, 75, 79, 89, 122, 189, 193, 196, 202, 443-454, 

484, 541, 546, 555-556, 570-573, 577-582, 595, 606

Y

Yellow-billed cuckoo 491