United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

PNW 

Research

Station

March 2010

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

EXF Thinning, Fuels Reduction, and 

Research Project

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest

Deschutes County, Oregon

T. 20 S., R 9 E., Sections 28-33; T. 21 S., R. 9 E., Sections 4-6

Willamette Meridian

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

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

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

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

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

equal opportunity provider and employer.
i

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Deschutes National Forest 

Deschutes County, Oregon

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Officials: John Allen, Supervisor, Deschutes National Forest

Bov Eav, Station Director, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

For Information Contact: Beth Peer, Environmental Coordinator

 1230 N.E. 3rd St., Suite A-262

 Bend, OR 97701

 (541) 383-4769

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) contains the Forest Service’s proposal for 

vegetation management across approximately 2,554 acres of the Lookout Mountain Unit of the Pringle 

Falls Experimental Forest. The proposed action integrates the research goals of the Pacific Northwest 

Research Station with the need to reduce stand densities to lower susceptibility to insects and disease 

and reduce hazardous fuels to lower risk of uncharacteristic fire. Treatments are proposed in such a way 

that pertinent research questions regarding long-term sustainability of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

forests in the changing climate can be answered.

Three alternatives were analyzed in this FEIS:

1. Alternative 1, No Action.

2. Alternative 2 (preferred), the Proposed Action.

3. Alternative 3, developed to respond to the issue of maintaining spotted owl habitat.
ii

Reader’s Guide

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) contains information about a project proposal

that will address forest health issues in the Lookout Mountain Unit of the Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest.

The information in this FEIS is organized to facilitate consideration of the environmental effects 

by the public, and by the Forest Supervisor of the Deschutes National Forest, who is responsible 

for deciding whether or not to implement the Proposed Action or alternatives to this proposal.

Understanding the structure of this document is important to an overall understanding of the 

information required in an EIS. The following provides an overview of the components of this 

document.

Executive Summary: The summary of the Final EIS provides a concise overview of the 

Purpose and Need for action, the Key Issues studied herein, and a comparison of the three 

alternatives.

Table of Contents: A table of contents is presented at the beginning of the document. Lists 

of tables and figures are also included.

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need: Chapter 1 describes the Purpose and Need for the 

proposal, and the Proposed Action. It includes Management Direction for the project, and the 

Decision Framework. Public Involvement and the Issues generated by public comments are 

explained here.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives: Chapter 2 includes a description of the alternative development 

process, and discussions on alternatives and actions considered but eliminated from detailed 

analysis. The focus of this chapter is Alternatives Considered in Detail, including the No Action 

(Alternative 1), the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), developed by the Forest Service that drove 

analysis for this project, and one additional alternative developed by the Forest Service, 

Alternative 3, which responds to the issue of northern spotted owl habitat. The potential 

mitigation measures to reduce impacts are documented in this chapter. The final section of this 

chapter includes a summary of data and a comparison of alternatives considered in detail, in a 

table format.

Chapter 3 – The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Chapter 

3 describes current physical, biological, and social and economic environments within the area of 

influence of the Proposed Action (termed the Project Area Units). This information provides the 

baseline for assessing and comparing the potential impacts of the action alternatives. In addition, 

this chapter provides a comprehensive scientific and analytical comparison of the potential 

environmental impacts of the action alternatives to the No Action Alternative. In order to 

facilitate comparison of information provided, this chapter is organized and subdivided into 

resource areas/disciplines in a manner appropriate to the affected environment for this area.

Chapter 4 – List of Preparers and Coordination: Chapter 4 lists the individuals, Federal, 

State and local agencies and tribes that the Forest Service consulted during the development of 

this FEIS. It also discloses the distribution of the document including Federal Agencies, 

federally recognized tribes, State and local governments and organizations representing a wide 

range of views. The references, glossary, and index are in the last part of this chapter.
 

iii

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

presented in the EIS.

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

found in the project planning record located at Deschutes National Forest Headquarters in Bend, 

Oregon.

Appendix A – Past & Ongoing Research within the Experimental Forest; Past 

Vegetation Management within the Experimental Forest

Appendix B – Study Plan 

Appendix C – Consistency with Current Laws and Management Direction

Appendix D – Data used in Fire Behavior Analysis

Appendix E – Spotted Owl NRF Habitat Field Verification

Appendix F – Consideration of Public Comment on Draft EIS

Acronyms used in this Document:

BA Biological Assessment

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BE Biological Evaluation

BMP Best Management Practices

BO Biological Opinion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CHU Critical Habitat Unit

DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FS Forest Service

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator

HRV Historic Range of Variability

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy

LAA Likely to Adversely Affect

LOS Late and Old Structure

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

LSOG Late Successional/Old Growth

LSR Late Successional Reserve

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

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSA Management Strategy Area

MSL Mean Sea Level

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NLAA May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect
iv

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NRF Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat (Spotted Owl)

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Association

PAG Plant Association Group

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

PNWRS Pacific Northwest Research Station

RNA Research Natural Area

SDI Stand Density Index

STOC Northern Spotted Owl

UMZ Upper Management Zone

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
 

v

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. ES-1

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................................................0

1.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................................1

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED............................................................................................................................................4

1.4 PROPOSED ACTION..............................................................................................................................................5

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT........................................................................................................................................7

1.6 PLANNING ISSUES ...............................................................................................................................................8

Key Issues.............................................................................................................................................................8

Analysis Issues .....................................................................................................................................................9

1.7 PLANNING FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................................10

Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan...................................................................11

Amendments to the Deschutes LRMP.................................................................................................................11

1.8 DECISION TO BE MADE......................................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................................17

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ..............................................................................................18

2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................18

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL...........................................................................................................18

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) .........................................................................................................................18

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action; Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................................18

Description of Activities Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ................................................................................20

Forest Plan Amendments...................................................................................................................................22

2.2.3 Alternative 3.............................................................................................................................................24

2.2.4 Resource Protection Measures Common to Both Action Alternatives.....................................................27

2.2.5 Monitoring Common to Both Action Alternatives....................................................................................32

2.3 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................................................................34

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL..........................................................................36

2.5 SALE AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS...............................................................................................................39

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........................40

3.1 BASIS FOR EFFECTS ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................41

3.1.2 Project Record ..........................................................................................................................................41

3.1.3 Role of Science ..........................................................................................................................................41

3.1.4 Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................................42

3.2 DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS – KEY ISSUE ..............................................................................................................47

Key Issue #1 – Northern Spotted Owl Habitat...................................................................................................47

3.3 DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS – ANALYSIS ISSUES....................................................................................................76

3.3.1 Forested Vegetation .................................................................................................................................76

3.3.2 Fuels and Fire Hazard ...........................................................................................................................100

3.3.3 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................................126

3.3.4 Soil Quality ............................................................................................................................................202

3.3.5 Hydrology and Fisheries........................................................................................................................226

3.3.6 Air Quality..............................................................................................................................................232

3.3.7 Botanical Resources...............................................................................................................................233

3.3.8 Invasive Plants / Noxious Weeds............................................................................................................241

3.3.9 Economic Analysis.................................................................................................................................242

3.3.10 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................................244

3.3.11 Long-term Climate change...................................................................................................................245

3.3.12 Human Health & Safety .......................................................................................................................247
vi

3.3.13 Forest Plan Amendments .....................................................................................................................248

3.3.14 Other Disclosures.................................................................................................................................251

4.1 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION & PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................255

Public Participation.........................................................................................................................................255

Distribution of the EIS .....................................................................................................................................255

4.2 CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES .........................................................................................................257

4.3 PREPARERS / INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM.........................................................................................................258

Table of Tables

Table 1. Treatments Considered in the Proposed Action..............................................................................................6

Table 2. Acres of Spotted Owl NRF Habitat by Northwest Forest Plan Allocation.....................................................8

Table 3. Acres of Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocation in Project Area. ...............................................................12

Table 4. Alternative 2 Units with Silviculture and Fuels Prescriptions and Forest Plan Management Area..............19

Table 5. Summary of Actions for Alternative 2 .........................................................................................................20

Table 6. Alternative 3 Units with Silviculture and Fuels Prescription, Deschutes Forest Plan Management Area, and 

Northwest Forest Plan allocation.................................................................................................................................24

Table 7. Summary of Actions for Alternative 3. ........................................................................................................25

Table 8. Comparison of the alternatives.....................................................................................................................34

Table 9. Comparison of how the alternatives meet the purpose and need ..................................................................34

Table 10. Comparison of how the alternatives address the Key Issue – Spotted Owl Habitat ...................................35

Table 11. Past actions and events that have contributed to the current conditions in the project area........................44

Table 12. Ongoing or Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area and in the Crane Prairie (25,285 

acres) and Fall River (39,516 acres) 6th field watersheds (see Figure 9) that may contribute to cumulative effects. ..45

Table 13. Spotted Owl NRF Habitat by Allocation....................................................................................................47

Table 14. Spotted Owl Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat by Unit..................................................................50

Table 15. Dispersal habitat definitions (items in bold are PAGs found within the EXF Project Area)......................52

Table 16. Plant Association Groups ...........................................................................................................................52

Table 17. Percent canopy cover..................................................................................................................................53

Table 18. Average dbh................................................................................................................................................53

Table 19. Summary of reconciled Programmatic data................................................................................................53

Table 20. The amount of dispersal habitat by plant association group using 2004 satellite imagery data .................54

Table 21. LSRA Indicator Species (ref. page III-15, Table III-4) Habitat Representation in the Project Area*........59

Table 22. LSR Portion of the Lookout Mt Unit Summary: ........................................................................................59

Table 23. Snag and log plot data summary for the Lookout Mt portion of the LSR (9 plots fell within this portion)60

Table 24. Unit Specific Effects to Dispersal Habitat, Alternative 2 ...........................................................................67

Table 25. Changes in Spotted Owl Baseline Habitat since May 2006, Deschutes National Forest............................70

Table 26. Unit specific effects to dispersal habitat, Alternative 3 ..............................................................................72

Table 27. Changes in Spotted Owl Baseline Habitat since May 2006, Deschutes National Forest............................74

Table 28. Comparison of Alternatives for Spotted Owl NRF and Dispersal Habitat .................................................76

Table 29. Forested Acres by PAG (Plant Association Group) in the Fall River and Crane Prairie 6th Field 

Subwatersheds. ............................................................................................................................................................79

Table 30. Historic Disturbance Regimes Fall River Watershed .................................................................................82

Table 31. Definition of Structural Stages ...................................................................................................................82

Table 32. Current Condition for Lodgepole PAG in the Fall Subwatershed Compared to HRV. ..............................83

Table 33. Current Condition for Ponderosa Dry PAG in the Fall Subwatershed Compared to HRV. .......................84

Table 34. Current Condition for Mixed Conifer Wet PAG in the Fall Subwatershed Compared to HRV. .................84

Table 35. Comparison of Existing SDI to Upper Management Zone SDI by Block ..................................................88

Table 36. SDI: Existing (No Action) and Post-treatment (Alternatives 2 and 3) Comparison ...................................91

Table 37. Basal Area: Existing and Post-treatment Comparison................................................................................91

Table 38. Total Trees/Acre: Existing and Post-treatment Comparison ......................................................................92

Table 39. Tree Diameter: Existing and Post-treatment Comparison .........................................................................92

Table 40. Large Trees/Acre: Existing and Post-treatment Comparison......................................................................93
 

vii

Table 41. Alternative acres listed by the time required for stands to reach the UMZ ................................................94

Table 42. Alternative Acres and Acreage Differences by Percent of Upper Management Zone Stand Density Index 

(%UMZ SDI) Retained................................................................................................................................................95

Table 43. PAG Acres Treated by Structural Stage Alternatives 2 and 3 East of the Owl Line ..................................96

Table 44. Alternatives 2 and 3 LOS acres east of the NSO line proposed for treatment*..........................................97

Table 45. Fire Regime/Condition Class Summary for EXF Project Area. ...............................................................102

Table 46. Fire behavior condition ratings and the associated parameters by indicator.............................................104

Table 47. Existing condition predicted fire behavior................................................................................................105

Table 48. Burn probability within the existing condition of the EXF project area...................................................107

Table 49. Estimated smoke emissions from a wildfire under extreme conditions compared to prescribed fire 

conditions. .................................................................................................................................................................113

Table 50. Alternative 2 predicted fire behavior. .......................................................................................................114

Table 51. Burn probability within Alternative 2 of the EXF project area ................................................................116

Table 52. Estimated smoke emissions from Alternative 2 prescribed fire treatments compared to the same amount 

of acres consumed under wildfire conditions without treatment. ..............................................................................118

Table 53. Alternative 3 predicted fire behavior. .......................................................................................................120

Table 54. Burn probability within Alternative 3 of the EXF project area. ...............................................................122

Table 55. Estimated smoke emissions from Alternative 3 prescribed fire treatments compared to the same amount 

of acres consumed under wildfire conditions without treatment. ..............................................................................125

Table 56. Threatened and Endangered Species Summary........................................................................................127

Table 57. Summary of Conclusion of Effects, Threatened, Endangered, Species....................................................127

Table 58. Regional Forester’s Sensitive animal species that are either known to occur or may potentially occur on 

the Bend-Ft Rock Ranger District. ............................................................................................................................127

Table 59. Summary of Conclusion of Effects, Region 6 Sensitive Species..............................................................129

Table 60. Fisher habitat within the subwatersheds and project area.........................................................................134

Table 61. Comparison of the Alternatives’ effects to pacific fisher habitat .............................................................137

Table 62. Wildlife species considered in this document. Those in bold receive further consideration *

.................147

Table 63. Marten habitat in the subwatersheds and project area (acres)...................................................................159

Table 64. Hiding cover within the Implementation Unit and subwatersheds...........................................................162

Table 65. Priority habitat features and associated focal species for conservation in selected habitats in the EastSlope Cascades Landbird Conservation Planning Region and found within the proposed action areas....................165

Table 66. Summary of Effects to Hermit Thrush Habitat.........................................................................................172

Table 67. Summary of Effects to Hermit Thrush Habitat.........................................................................................173

Table 68. Summary of Effects to Pileated Woodpecker Habitat ..............................................................................185

Table 69. Summary of Effects to Pileated Woodpecker Habitat ..............................................................................185

Table 70. Comparison of Impacts by Alternative to Selected Wildlife Species* .....................................................186

Table 71. Acres of Wildlife Habitat and Structural Types in the Crane Prairie and Fall River 6th field Watersheds. 

Figures in Parentheses Show the Percentage within a Proposed Unit and the Relative Potential for Dead Wood 

Influenced by Fire Regime and Topographic Position ..............................................................................................187

Table 72. Snag densities for wildlife species at 30, 50, 80 percent tolerance level for snags > 10”DBH based on 

wildlife data in DecAID (Table references included)................................................................................................188

Table 73. Comparison of Existing CWM and Directed Levels. Estimates of Percent Cover are Given in Order to 

Compare with Information in DecAID Advisor........................................................................................................189

Table 74. LSRA Snag and Log Recommendations (from Table IV-1 pg. IV-3 of LSRA).......................................190

Table 75. Snag and log plot data summary for the Lookout Mt portion of the LSR (9 plots fell within this portion)

...................................................................................................................................................................................190

Table 76. Estimated GTRs (trees per acre or “tpa”) required to meet current direction...........................................192

Table 77. Acres of LOS Habitat in the Watershed Area by Structural Stage, Plant Association Group, and LOS 

Associated Wildlife Species. .....................................................................................................................................195

Table 78. Unit specific effects to corridors (excluding controls and units west of owl range line).........................199

Table 79. Alternative 2: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest and Soil 

Restoration Treatments by Activity Areas.................................................................................................................219

Table 80. Alternative 3: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest and Soil 

Restoration Treatments by Activity Areas.................................................................................................................219

Table 81. Summary1 of Net Change in Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical harvest and Soil 

Restoration (Subsoiling) Treatments proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3...............................................................220
viii

Table 82. Sensitive species considered in the biological evaluation.........................................................................228

Table 83. Alternative 2 ECA ....................................................................................................................................228

Table 84. Alternative 3 ECA ....................................................................................................................................229

Table 85. Relevant information concerning Sensitive Plant Species documented or suspected to occur on Deschutes 

National Forest. Codes: "VP = vascular plant; "B" = bryophyte; "L" = lichen; "F" = fungus. The five in bold are 

assessed for effects because of potential habitat within the project area. ..................................................................234

Table 86. Relevant information concerning rare or uncommon plant species on Deschutes National Forest. "VP" = 

vascular plant.............................................................................................................................................................239

Table 87. Summary of the EXF Project Outputs......................................................................................................244

Table 88. How the Existing LOS in the Watershed is Affected by Thinning...........................................................249

Table 89. Proposed Thinning in Units East of the Owl Line. ...................................................................................250

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Project Area Vicinity.....................................................................................................................................x

Figure 2. The Pringle Falls Experimental Forest is divided into two units: Lookout Mountain (location of the 

current project) and Pringle Falls. The Experimental Forest also includes a Research Natural Area that is divided 

into two units. ................................................................................................................................................................3

Figure 3. Treatment unit in the EXF project area. ........................................................................................................6

Figure 4. Deschutes National Forest LRMP Management Areas...............................................................................15

Figure 5. Northwest Forest Plan Allocations..............................................................................................................16

Figure 6. Map of Alternative 2. ..................................................................................................................................23

Figure 7. EXF Project Unit 32....................................................................................................................................25

Figure 8. Map of Alternative 3. ..................................................................................................................................26

Figure 9. Location of the EXF Project in the Crane Prairie and Fall River 5th and 6th Field Watersheds...................46

Figure 10. Project Area with Late Successional Reserves and Spotted Owl NRF Habitat.........................................51

Figure 11. Dispersal habitat across the Bend Portion of the Ranger District using 2004 satellite imagery data. .......55

Figure 12. Dispersal habitat and connectivity through the EXF project area and larger subwatersheds....................56

Figure 13. Project level dispersal habitat....................................................................................................................57

Figure 14. Spatial distribution of tree size classes within the Sheridan Mt. LSR portion that is adjacent to the EXF 

project area. .................................................................................................................................................................60

Figure 15. Spatial distribution of crown closures within the Sheridan Mt. LSR portion that is adjacent to the EXF 

project area. .................................................................................................................................................................61

Figure 16. Spatial distribution of plant association groups within the Sheridan Mt. LSR portion that is adjacent to 

the EXF project area....................................................................................................................................................62

Figure 17. Plant Associations and Plant Association Groups.....................................................................................80

Figure 18. Aerial photo image of Lookout Mountain Unit showing units and delineation of the four treatment blocks 

(quadrants)...................................................................................................................................................................89

Figure 19. Flame Length Potential, Existing Condition ...........................................................................................106

Figure 20. Burn Probability across Project Area. .....................................................................................................107

Figure 21. Existing Crown Fire Potential in EXF Planning Area.............................................................................112

Figure 22. Flame Length Potential following Alternative 2 Treatments. .................................................................115

Figure 23. Spatial representation of Alternative 2 Burn Probability across analysis area ........................................117

Figure 24. Crown Fire Potential Under Alternative 2...............................................................................................118

Figure 25. Flame Length Potential Following Alternative 3 Treatments. ................................................................121

Figure 26. Spatial representation of Alternative 3 Burn Probability across analysis area ........................................123

Figure 27. Crown Fire Potential Under Alternative 3...............................................................................................124

Figure 28. Pacific fisher habitat distribution in subwatersheds................................................................................134

Figure 29. Northern goshawk habitat distribution in subwatersheds........................................................................153

Figure 30. American marten habitat distribution in subwatersheds..........................................................................160

Figure 31. Williamson’s sapsucker habitat distribution in subwatersheds ...............................................................177

Figure 32. Connectivity corridors crossing the proposed action areas. ....................................................................198

Figure 33. Areas where sensitive soils can occur overlain with project units. .........................................................222
 

ix

Appendices

Appendix A Past and Ongoing Research in the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest; Past 

Vegetation Management within the Experimental Forest

Appendix B Study Plan: Forest Dynamics After Thinning and Fuels Reduction in Dry Forests

Appendix C Management Direction

Appendix D Data used in Fire Behavior Analysis

Appendix E Spotted Owl NRF Habitat Field Verification

Appendix F Consideration of Public Comments on Draft EIS
x

Figure 1. Project Area Vicinity
 

ES-1

Executive Summary

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discloses the effects of implementing vegetation 

management and fuels reduction within the Lookout Mountain Unit of the Pringle Falls Experimental 

Forest. The layout of thinning, mowing, and underburning is based on the design of a research study 

plan written by the Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Because this area was specifically established for silvicultural research in ponderosa pine, the need for 

forest management and the need to conduct research coincide, providing a unique opportunity to address 

pertinent questions about forest management. Stands in this area of the experimental forest are 

overstocked and need to be thinned to prevent major disturbance from wildfire or insects and disease. 

The proposed action responds to two needs: 1) to address the risk of severe insect epidemic or 

catastrophic fire; and 2) to provide operational scale research opportunities through a series of thinning 

and fuel reduction treatments applied across the landscape. The final approved Study Plan entitled 

“Forest Dynamics after Thinning and Fuels Reduction in Dry Forests” (Appendix B) provided the 

design of the proposed action. The proposed action involves thinning and fuels reduction on 2,554 acres 

in order to reduce stand density to at or below the upper management zone (UMZ), lower flame lengths 

and crown fire potential, and address the research questions posed in the study plan.

There are three alternatives analyzed: 1) the No Action alternative ; 2) Alternative 2, the Proposed 

Action which treats across 2,554 acres; and 3) Alternative 3, that avoids activities within spotted owl 

habitat and Late Successional Reserve, treating across 2,182 acres. The third alternative responds to the 

key issue of treating within spotted owl habitat and within the reserve system delineated in the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative.

Table ES-1. Comparison of the alternatives.

Actions

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Thin to UMZ* 0 714 acres 701 acres

Thin to 75% UMZ 0 806 acres 543 acres

Thin to 50% UMZ 0 681 acres 588 acres

Thin to 75% UMZ and 

Create Small Openings 0 353 acres 350 acres

Total Thinning 0 2,554 acres 2,182 acres

Mow and Underburn 0 2,554 acres 2,182 acres

Control – No Treat 

Areas 0 342 acres 342 acres

Temp Roads 0 1 mile 0.5 mile

*Upper Management Zone (UMZ) is the level of density in a stand at which trees exhibit reduced vigor and bark 

beetle activity can be expected to increase dramatically. Where stands are denser than the UMZ, there is imminent 

risk of catastrophic loss of overstory trees to bark beetles.

Each action alternative includes project design features and mitigation to reduce or eliminate unwanted 

effects. Each action alternative also includes two Forest Plan amendments: the first amends the 

Eastside Screens because a small amount of the area east of the owl line that will be harvested is within 
ES-2

an LOS type that is below the historic range of variability trees; the second one amends the Eastside 

Screens because trees over 21” DBH will need to be removed in order to meet target basal area. 

The analysis in Chapter 3 discloses the existing conditions and anticipated effects of the alternatives to 

forest vegetation and forest health, fuels and fire behavior, wildlife, soils, cultural resources, and the 

economy. The following summarizes basic conclusions related to the key issue and elements of the 

purpose and need.

Spotted Owls: The No Action alternative results in the least amount of nesting, roosting, foraging 

habitat (NRF) acres impacted as opposed to the Action Alternatives. Alternative 2 will reduce NRF 

habitat on 211 acres through thinning, mowing, and underburning. The NRF habitat available in the 

project area lacks nesting structure and there are no spotted owl nests within activity units. Alternative 

3 does not treat within NRF habitat, but stands treated around the NRF may influence the suitability or 

utilization (either increasing or decreasing) of the NRF. A 161-acre portion of the Sheridan Mt. Late 

Successional Reserve is treated under Alternative 2, which follows recommendations in the LSR 

Assessment. This area is deferred from treatment under Alternative 3, which leaves those stands at risk 

to insect or wildfire disturbance.

Forested Vegetation and Research: Under the No Action alternative, the entire project area remains 

at risk of loss from density-related insect, disease, or fire. Under A2ternative 2, stand density is reduced

to levels at or below the Upper Management Zone (UMZ) on 2,554 acres. This reduces the risk of bark 

beetle-caused mortality to large trees. The area treated is about 372 acres less under Alternative 3. 

These untreated areas remain at risk. Beetle-related tree mortality at or above the UMZ stand density 

index on the treated acres will not be a concern for at least 30 years (the time it will take stands to return 

to that density) . Density reduction through thinning retains the largest trees on site. Compared to the 

No Action alternative, the action alternatives increase the average size of trees in the project area. Tree 

vigor will improve in the treated stands, which will result in accelerated diameter growth and the 

number of large trees will increase sooner over time than the no action.

No new research would be conducted under Alternative 1. The Study Plan (Appendix B) can be 

effectively implemented under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, some of the treatment blocks are not 

sufficiently represented which compromises the study results.

Fire/Fuels: The project area is currently at risk because a wildfire would produce moderate to high 

flame lengths, torching, and spotting over at least half of the area. The action alternatives increase the 

area where flame lengths would be low – a condition that makes direct attack of a wildfire possible. 

The potential for crown fire is reduced under the action alternatives. The difference between 

Alternative 2 and 3 are the amount of acres over which treatments reduce flame lengths and crown fire 

potential. Both action alternatives substantially change fire behavior so that direct attack of a wildfire 

with hand crews is possible over most of the area. Both action alternatives would also reduce the crown 

fire potential on all acres treated.

Table ES-2: Comparison of how the alternatives meet the purpose and need.

Purpose and Need

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Reduce risk of loss 

due to insects and 

disease and fire; 

protect existing and 

future research

No density reduction, 

no fuels treatment. 

Risk of loss remains 

high across 

experimental forest 

because stand density 

remains above UMZ.

Reduces beetle risk on 

2,554 acres (72% of the 

Lookout Mountain Unit) 

by reducing stand density 

to levels at or below UMZ 

and treating fuels. 

Highest degree of risk 

Reduces beetle risk on 

2,182 acres (62% of the 

Lookout Mountain Unit) 

by reducing stand density 

to levels at or below UMZ 

and treating fuels. 

Intermediate degree of 
 

ES-3

Purpose and Need

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Low flame lengths 

predicted on 50% of 

project area.

47% of area would 

support a passive 

crown fire, increasing 

over time.

reduction among 

alternatives considered.

Low flame lengths 

predicted on 85% of 

project area.

577 acres (16 %) would 

support a passive crown 

fire.

risk reduction among 

alternatives considered.

Low flame lengths 

predicted on 81% of 

area.

733 acres (20 %) would 

support a passive crown 

fire.

Provide operationalscale research and 

address research 

questions in study 

plan “Forest 

Dynamics after 

Thinning and Fuel 

Reduction in Dry 

Forests”

No new research would 

be conducted. Existing 

research would remain 

at risk.

Provides new research 

opportunities on 2,554 

acres. Enables full and 

proper implementation of 

peer-reviewed/approved 

research design; full 

pursuit of research 

objectives; and 

attainment of 

scientifically-valid 

research results.

Provides new research 

opportunities on 2,182 

acres. Prevents full and 

proper implementation of 

research design; 

compromises full pursuit 

of research objectives 

and attainment of 

scientifically valid 

research results. 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

EXF Final EIS  1

1.1 Introduction

The Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Deschutes National Forest are proposing to thin, mow,

and underburn about 2,554 acres of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer within the Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest, located about 25 miles southwest of Bend (Figure 1, p. x). The project is 

designed to reduce stand density and fuels in a forest that is currently susceptible to uncharacteristic 

wildfire and insect and disease attacks, while addressing questions about vegetation dynamics and 

improving our understanding of fuels management and fire risk, forest insect and disease issues, and the

impacts of climate change on forest sustainability.

The Pringle Falls Experimental Forest is a diverse field laboratory within the Deschutes National Forest. 

It was the first experimental forest to be established in the Pacific Northwest in 1931, as a center for 

silviculture, forest management, and insect and disease research in ponderosa pine forests east of the 

Oregon Cascade Range. It is divided into two units: Lookout Mountain Unit and Pringle Falls Unit. 

The Lookout Mountain unit, where the current project is located, was added to the Experimental Forest 

in 1937 (Figure 2, p. 2).

This chapter describes the purpose and need for action, planning issues that are addressed in the 

alternatives, and the Forest Plan management direction that guides project design features.

Changes Between Draft and Final EIS

This final EIS includes corrections, clarifications, and improvement over the Draft EIS. There are no 

changes in the proposed action. Information on the public comment period was added to section 1.5 

Public Involvement. The Key Issue discussion in section 1.6 has been improved by clarifying where 

and how much the spotted owl habitat would be impacted. A table has been added to section 1.7 to 

display acres within each management allocation. Maps of the management areas were improved and 

acre discrepancies have been addressed. Information on forest health was brought in from the Forested 

Vegetation Existing Condition to the purpose and need discussion. Other minor editing has occurred 

throughout this chapter. 

1.2 Background

Experimental Forests

Experimental forests have a rich legacy of providing information to guide forest management activities. 

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, located in central Oregon within the Deschutes National Forest, is 

one of 81 experimental areas in a national network 

of experimental forests and ranges. These areas 

represent important forest and range types and 

provide opportunities for short- and long-term 

field research and education in ecosystem structure 

and function, and demonstration of forest 

management techniques. Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest was formally established in 

1931 as a center for silviculture, forest 

management, and insect and disease research in 

ponderosa pine forests east of the Oregon Cascade 

Range. The site was the first experimental forest 

to be officially established in the Pacific Northwest and was home to some of the earliest forest 

 “A tract of 3,536 acres of young, evenaged ponderosa pine, named the Lookout 

Mountain Unit, was added to the Pringle 

Falls Experimental Forest. This area...is 

especially well-suited for experiments in 

thinning and pruning and for studies of 

growth and site factors.”

-1938 Annual Report of the Pacific Northwest 

Forest Experiment Station for the year 1937.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

2  EXF Final EIS

management and silviculture research in the region. The 3,615-acre Lookout Mountain Unit, site of the 

EXF Project, was added to the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest in 1937 (USFS 1937)1

. The Pringle 

Falls Experimental Forest is maintained and administered by the Pacific Northwest Research Station in 

cooperation with the Deschutes National Forest. Figure 2 displays the entire Pringle Falls Experimental 

Forest.

 1 The Lookout Mountain Unit is calculated to be 3,615 acres according to the Deschutes National Forest 

Geographic Information System (slightly more than the establishment record estimated). 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

EXF Final EIS  3

Figure 2. The Pringle Falls Experimental Forest is divided into two units: Lookout Mountain (location 

of the current project) and Pringle Falls. The Experimental Forest also includes a Research Natural 

Area that is divided into two units.

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Research Act of 1978 (16 USC 1643, as amended) 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to designate experimental forests and ranges. The responsibility 

for establishment and administration is delegated to the Chief of the Forest Service under regulations (7 

CFR 2.60(a)). The McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928 was further implemented by Regulation L-20 in 

1930, directing the Chief to define experimental forests as dedicated to and used for research, and to 

make them permanently available. Research use was reaffirmed under the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978.

Past and Ongoing Research Activities at Pringle Falls Experimental Forest

Much of the knowledge on which current eastside ponderosa pine silviculture is based was developed at 

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. For example, the Lookout Mountain Levels-of-Growing-Stock Study

has demonstrated long-term stand development in single-cohort ponderosa pine and provides numerous 

implications for current resource management objectives. See Chapter 3.3.1 for more discussion of past 

research findings. Appendix A of this FEIS lists the publications that have resulted from past and 

ongoing research activities in the Lookout Mountain Unit and displays the location of long-term 

research plots that need protection from wildfire and insect outbreaks. Current research is designed to 

increase understanding of the processes that influence healthy and productive forest ecosystems. 

Existing Condition of the Lookout Mountain Unit

Within the Lookout Mountain Unit is a relatively large block of closed-canopy forest that has undergone 

only minor disturbance since about 1845 when a single stand-replacement fire resulted in the 

establishment of dense ponderosa pine at lower elevations and Douglas-fir, grand fir, sugar pine, 

western white pine, and mountain hemlock at higher elevations. The 165-year old cohort of ponderosa 

pine has grown exceptionally well and it is known that within this portion of the western distribution of 

ponderosa pine, individual trees could survive for 600 years (Youngblood et al. 2004). However, the 

trees here have declined in radial growth over the past decade, and have structural characteristics that 

indicate they are at imminent risk of catastrophic loss to bark beetles and high risk of loss to wildfire.

There have been management activities within the experimental forest, including vegetation 

management, since the road system was built in the 1960s. Forest records show that much of the 

Lookout Mountain unit was thinned in the 1970s and 80s. In the last century, one large wildfire has 

occurred within the unit: the 1914 Lookout Mountain Eastside Fire covered 323 acres. Fire exclusion 

has contributed to high stand density and allowed elevated fuel accumulation. Management activities, 

research activities, wildfires, and fire suppression have resulted in the current condition of the Lookout 

Mountain Unit (see Tables 11 and 12 in Chapter 3, and Appendix A).

The forest is at risk of major disturbance from multiple threats, including wildfire and insects. Because 

of stand density, average diameter, and availability of host species and fuels, there is a high and 

increasing probability that ponderosa pine across the Lookout Mountain unit will support a landscapescale western pine or mountain pine beetle outbreak, or a large stand-replacing event. This important 

site could be lost if stand densities are not reduced. Such disturbance would mean the loss of existing 

high-value, long-term studies and eliminate most future research opportunities. See the Forested 

Vegetation section in Chapter 3 for more details on the existing conditions. 

Research Study Plan

The Pacific Northwest Research Station’s proposal to conduct operational-scale research in the Lookout 

Mountain unit is documented in a study plan titled “Forest Dynamics after Thinning and Fuels 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

4  EXF Final EIS

Reduction in Dry Forests” (SP-PNW-4577-X). Preparation of the study plan followed Forest Service 

Manual direction at FSM 4072.3. It has been peer-reviewed for experimental and statistical rigor and 

for appropriateness and compliance with Station direction by Pacific Northwest Research Station 

personnel. It was also the subject of a double-blind review process with seven reviewers external to the 

Research Station. The study plan was approved on March 3, 2009 and is included in this document as 

Appendix B.

The Proposed Action described in Chapter 2.3 will establish the new stand structure within which 

specific measurements will be made over time to assess the six specific research questions from the 

study plan. The broad goal of the research project is to refine management options for restoring 

resiliency in forest ecosystems. The Forest Service needs to use scientific findings in managing forests 

and this work is expected to have wide applicability in stands of similar structure throughout the 

Deschutes and Fremont-Winema National Forests. 

1.3 Purpose and Need

The primary purpose of the proposed project is to reduce risk to the site by reducing stand densities, 

and lowering susceptibility to catastrophic loss to insects, disease, and fire. By integrating the need to 

reduce risk to the site with the research goals of the PNW Research Station, treatments would be 

implemented in such a way that pertinent research questions regarding long-term sustainability of 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests in a changing climate can be answered. 

There is a need to address the risk of a severe insect epidemic or catastrophic fire. The purpose of 

the project is to reduce stand densities and surface fuels in stands of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

plant associations dominated by ponderosa pine to maintain high growth rates and reduce susceptibility 

to catastrophic loss to insects, disease, or fire. Reducing risk of loss will protect long-term studies and 

keep large blocks of homogenous structure to maintain options for future research opportunities.

Bark beetle hazard is gauged by tree stocking density. Cochran et al. (1994) used the stand density 

index concept to set stocking guidelines and an Upper Management Zone (UMZ) for sustaining healthy 

stand conditions. UMZs defined for plant associations on the Deschutes National Forest represent the 

level of stocking or relative density beyond which there is imminent risk of catastrophic loss of 

overstory trees to bark beetle. Tree density within the EXF project area is currently at a point where 

stands are from about 132 to 224% of the Upper Management Zone (UMZ) in stand density index.

Stand health and bark beetle hazard can also be gauged from tree radial growth rates. Radial growth 

rates slower than 13 rings per inch indicate declining tree vigor and increasing susceptibility to 

successful insect attack. Growth rates sampled in the project area ranged from 14 to 38 rings per inch, 

averaging 27 rings per inch. This indicates trees are growing slower and are more susceptible to insectcaused mortality. Additionally, tree vigor is shown to be low in the project area by measurements of the

live crown ratio (the percent of a tree’s height occupied by green branches). High stand densities

coupled with low tree vigor and ongoing beetle-caused mortality are indicative of stands that are not 

sustainable. The purpose of thinning to the UMZ or below is to address this risk and improve or 

maintain the health and vigor of the overstory.

In addition to the risk of bark beetle mortality, fuels pose a risk to losing the stand to a wildfire. Fuels in 

the project area would support moderate flame lengths on 21% of the area and high flame lengths on 

29% of the area. In the event of a wildfire there is potential for a passive crown fire to occur under 

current fuel and stand conditions over about 46% of the project area. Passive crown fire can make 

suppression difficult, cause short and long-range spotting, and lead to crown fires. The purpose of 

reducing surface and ladder fuels, decreasing crown density, and maintaining the largest trees, is to 

address this risk and improve fire resilience across the project area. 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

EXF Final EIS  5

There is a need to provide operational scale research opportunities through a series of thinning 

and fuel reduction treatments applied across the landscape. This need comes generally from the 

establishment record for the Experimental Forest, and specifically from the study plan. The project will 

provide a platform for research addressed in the Pacific Northwest Research Station’s study plan titled 

“Vegetation Dynamics after Thinning and Fuels Reduction in Dry Forests.” The project is designed to 

address the following specific research questions:

1. What set of fuel reduction treatments best accelerates the development of large trees while over 

the long-term reintroduces natural disturbance processes that provide greater ecosystem 

resiliency?

2. What is the long-term influence of climate change interacting with a set of fuel reduction 

treatments on vegetation dynamics and forest structure?

3. Can single cohort stands be readily converted to multi-cohort stands?

4. Do multi-cohort stands share the same risks of multiple, interacting stresses as single-cohort 

stands?

5. How does the dominant shrub, giant chinquapin, respond in the near term to a set of fuel reduction 

treatments?

6. How does the residual stand structure resulting from a set of fuel reduction treatments interact 

locally and in the near-term with wind to cause additional structural changes?

Some of these research questions can be answered quickly. For example, research on giant chinquapin 

and post-treatment blowdown can be addressed within about five years. Questions about development 

of large trees and resiliency will require several decades (Appendix B p. 28). The resulting information 

from this study will be directly applicable to local forest management issues. For example, results of 

this research will provide mangers with scientifically sound data showing the effects of a range of tree 

densities on growth rates, mortality, and windthrow or how to restructure single-cohort stands to multicohort stands – information that can be directly applied to all or a portion of the 200,000 + acres of 

blackbark ponderosa pine stands on the Deschutes National Forest.

This project will also serve as a foundation for additional studies. For example, there is interest in 

studies involving pine-associated wildlife.

The proposed action will also further the mission of the Managing Disturbance Regimes Research, 

Development, and Application Program2

1.4 Proposed Action

which is: to provide new insights and scientific knowledge 

about the role of natural and human-caused disturbances as agents of change in ecosystems, and the 

degree to which they can be effectively managed to achieve or sustain desired ecologic conditions, 

functions, and socioeconomic values of forest and rangeland ecosystems. 

The research to be conducted was the basis for the Study Plan; the final approved Study Plan is the 

origin of the proposed action. The Forest Service proposes to address the purpose and need by treating 

approximately 2,554 acres as shown in Table 1 on the following page. 

While addressing the significant threat of insects, disease, and fire in the experimental forest, the

proposed activities will also provide a platform for a suite of new studies that address the Pacific 

Northwest (PNW) Research Station’s goals for climate change and vegetation dynamics research. 

Scientists at the PNW Research Station have identified numerous research goals with this proposal. The 

study plan is included in this document as Appendix B. The proposed work also establishes a 

 2 Research at the Pacific Northwest Research Station is divided into seven Research Programs, each with a program mission. 

See http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/index.shtml for more information on these programs.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

6  EXF Final EIS

framework for other studies that may be conducted concurrently or subsequently that use treatments 

established by the study plan. The proposed action requires two Forest Plan amendments in order to be 

implemented: to allow removal of trees > 21” DBH east of the owl line, and to harvest within late-old 

structure stands that are below the Historic Range of Variability (HRV).

Since the scoping period in April 2008, the proposed action was adjusted by removing a small portion of 

Unit 33 that went around a small cinder butte east of the 4240 road. Refer to Chapter 2.2.2 for more 

details on this proposal and Figure 6 for locations of Alternative 2 units. 

Table 1. Treatments Considered in the Proposed Action.

Thinning Type Surface Fuel Reduction Acres

1. Thin to UMZ* Mow & Underburn 714

2. Thin to 75% UMZ Mow & Underburn 806

3. Thin to 50% UMZ Mow & Underburn 681

4. Thin to 75% UMZ & 

 Create small openings Mow & Underburn 353

Total Active Treatment 2,554

5. Control – no treat Control – no treat 342

Total in Study Area 2,896

*UMZ – Upper Management Zone – See definition page 15. 

 Figure 3. Treatment unit in the EXF project area. 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

EXF Final EIS  7

1.5 Public Involvement

Scoping

The EXF project was announced in the Fall 2007 issue of the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the

Deschutes & Ochoco National Forests and Prineville District BLM. A Notice of Intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2008 (Vol. 73, No. 

71, p. 19805). The proposed action was presented in a letter April 4, 2008 to 112 individuals, 

organizations, agencies, and Tribes. The NOI and scoping letter were also posted to the Forest Service 

web site.

The scoping letter resulted in responses from 11 individuals, organizations, and agencies. All comments 

were considered and categorized as either a key issue, analysis issue, or a non-significant issue that will 

not be considered further. This categorization is located in the project file.

A field trip was held on August 

19, 2008 for some conservation 

groups who were interested in 

discussing the proposed project 

with the project proponents 

from the Pacific Northwest 

Research Station (PNW). 

Representatives of the League 

of Wilderness Defenders-Blue 

Mountains Biodiversity Project, 

Oregon Wild, and Sierra Club 

joined Deschutes National 

Forest and Pacific Northwest 

Research Station employees in 

the field to tour and discuss the 

various treatments proposed as 

well as the research objectives.

An additional scoping effort 

was made in March 2009, when more details of the project were developed. A mailing went out to an 

updated mailing list of 118 individuals, agencies, and organizations, describing the project and the 

alternatives that were being considered for analyzing in the EIS. 

A second field trip was held on July 1, 2009. Representatives of the PNW Research Station and the 

Deschutes National Forest hosted several individuals interested in the research. 

Coordination has also occurred with federal, state, and local government officials. Coordination with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began on April 29, 2008. The Environmental Protection Agency 

provided comments listing their concerns for air and water quality and habitat impacts and provided a 

list of elements that should be analyzed in the EIS.

Public Comment Period

A comment period was offered on the Draft EIS from September 18, 2009 to November 2, 2009

pursuant to 36 CFR 215.6. Comments were received from individuals, conservation groups, federal 

agencies, and scientists. Comments were reviewed by the interdisciplinary team and responsible 

officials and used in preparing this Final EIS pursuant to 40 CFR 1503.4. See Chapter 4.1 and 4.2 for 

more information. Details of the comments received and the Forest Service response are located in

Appendix F of this FEIS. 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

8  EXF Final EIS

1.6 Planning Issues

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.

Key Issue #1 – Northern spotted owl: The EXF project area is on the easternmost edge of the range of 

the spotted owl (see Figure 5). The project proposes to thin stands and reduce surface fuels across about 

2,784 acres within the range of the northern spotted owl (2,623 acres Administratively Withdrawn land 

allocation; 161 acres Late Successional Reserve allocation). About 211 acres of spotted owl NRF 

habitat (defined in Chapter 3.2) within the Administratively Withdrawn land allocation would be 

impacted by proposed treatments (Table 2). There is no Critical Habitat in the project area. 

Table 2. Acres of Spotted Owl NRF Habitat by Northwest Forest Plan Allocation.

Northwest Forest 

Plan Allocation

Acres of 

Allocation 

within the 

Project Area

Acres of 

Allocation within 

the Proposed 

Action Units

Amount of 

Spotted Owl NRF 

Habitat within 

Proposed Action 

Units

Amount of 

Spotted Owl 

Home Range 

within 

Proposed 

Action Units

Spotted Owl 

Critical Habitat 

within 

Proposed 

Action Units

Sheridan Late 

Successional 

Reserve

210 161 0 0 0

Administratively 

Withdrawn 3,035 2,623 211 0 0

The silvicultural and fuels treatments proposed would reduce stem density, reduce overall canopy cover, 

and may reduce the amount of down wood that provides prey base habitat. These activities may reduce 

the quality, effectiveness, and the distribution of habitat available to the northern spotted owl in the 

Administratively Withdrawn land allocation (outside of Late Successional Reserve). Because 

consequences of active management may have a negative effect on the northern spotted owl and its 

ability to establish and maintain breeding territories, provide sufficient prey base habitat, and disperse 

across the landscape, it is analyzed in this EIS as Key Issue (Chapter 3.2).

Based on this issue, an alternative was developed that excludes the NRF habitat from treatment and 

defers the Late Successional Reserve area from treatment. The effects of these two action alternatives 

are then analyzed in detail and compared to the No Action so that the relative impacts and trade-offs are 

clear to the decision maker. The effects to the northern spotted owl are measured using the following 

attributes and measures:

• Acres of Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging (NRF) habitat treated by alternative, as compared to 

the existing condition.

• Acres of northern spotted owl dispersal habitat actively managed in the project area by 

alternative.

• Acres of the Sheridan LSR treated.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

EXF Final EIS  9

Analysis Issues

In addition to the key issue, other environmental components will be considered in the Effects section in 

Chapter 3 as a way to compare the alternatives, though they did not result in differing design elements 

between alternatives. These issues are important for providing the Responsible Official with complete 

information about the effects of the project.

Forest Vegetation – The proposed actions are expected to make the treated stands less susceptible to 

loss from insects, disease, or wildfire. The threat of losing a large portion of the experimental forest to 

insect and disease is a primary purpose for thinning. The alternatives will be assessed for the amount of 

high-risk stands that are put into more sustainable conditions and how well they meet the purpose and 

need described earlier in this chapter. The alternatives will also be compared for their ability to 

implement the study plan and answer the specific research questions.

Fuels and Fire Behavior – Part of the purpose of the proposed action is to reduce the amount of surface 

and ladder fuels, reduce high stocking levels, which is expected to lower the project area’s susceptibility 

to higher severity fires. Attributes used for displaying effects and comparing the alternatives will be the 

expected fire behavior, the crown fire potential, the amount of area on which fire hazard is effectively 

lowered, and production of particulate matter. 

Wildlife – In addition to the key issue related to the northern spotted owl, the following were analyzed 

and compared by alternative: Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species; Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive Species; Deschutes Forest Plan Management Indicator Species; Landbird Focal 

Species; Snags & Down Wood Habitat.

Soil Quality – The proposed use of ground-based equipment can potentially increase the amount and 

distribution of detrimental soil conditions within the areas proposed for mechanical thinning, mowing, 

and piling. The removal of trees can also potentially cause adverse changes in organic matter levels. 

Alternatives are compared by analyzing changes in soil productivity, measured in extent of detrimental 

soil conditions and amount of coarse woody debris and surface organic matter to be retained.

Water Quality and Watershed Condition– There is no surface water in the EXF project area. The 

closest waterbody, or riparian area is over 2 miles from the project area boundary. The project’s 

relationship to Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan is discussed in 

Chapter 3.3.5.

Fisheries – There will be no effect to Essential Fish Habitat, and no effect to any threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or candidate fish species. A Biological Evaluation has been prepared and is 

summarized in Chapter 3.

Air Quality – The emissions expected and compliance with air quality standards during burning 

operations is assessed for each alternative. 

Botanical Resources – Potential effects to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) 

plant species were considered and no PETS plants were found in the project area. The EIS includes the 

conclusions of the biological evaluation completed for the project area.

Invasive Species – There are no known invasive plant sites within the project area. Proposed 

management activities have the potential to spread invasive plants or create disturbed ground that could 

allow the introduction of invasive plants. For that reason, the project is designed to comply with Forest 

Plan standards and guides for preventing the introduction and spread of invasive plants. A noxious 

weed risk assessment was completed for the project and is discussed in Chapter 3.

Cultural Resources – Project activities have the potential to impact cultural resources. The project area 

has been assessed for the presence of cultural resources; any known sites will be avoided.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

10  EXF Final EIS

Economics – Consideration must be given to the financial efficiency of the proposed action and 

alternatives. Alternatives will be compared by their benefit/cost ratio and effects on local economy, 

such as jobs created or maintained and timber volume produced. A timber sale that accomplishes the 

objectives outlined for the project while being as economically efficient as possible and avoiding 

excessive damage to the area is desirable.

Climate Change - The climate change discussion, including carbon storage are discussed as well as the 

implications of the current study plan. 

Other Issues Addressed during Alternative Development

Some issues and concerns raised by the public were used by the interdisciplinary (ID) team when 

considering potential alternatives. For example, some public comments expressed opposition to 

conducting commercial harvest within the Experimental Forest. These are discussed under Chapter 2.6

Alternatives Not Considered in Detail.

Resources Not Carried Forward in Analysis

Recreation – There are no designated trails or developed recreation sites within the EXF project area. 

The closest recreation sites are about three miles to the west at Crane Prairie Reservoir, or one mile to 

the southeast at Fall River. Recreation was not an issue raised during scoping. Concerns about quiet 

recreation were raised during the comment period and are addressed in Appendix F.

Scenery Management – There are no Scenic Views Management Areas within the EXF project area. 

Project design features were incorporated into the action alternatives that address the scenic views 

allocation adjacent to Units 21 and 22. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness – There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas or Wilderness

within or near the project area. The Lookout Mountain Unit does not lie adjacent to any Inventoried 

Roadless Areas or Wilderness. The nearest Wilderness is approximately seven miles to the northwest; 

the nearest IRA is approximately six miles to the north. Because of the distance from the project area, 

there will be no effects to Wilderness or IRAs. The project area has been reviewed following Forest 

Service Manual direction for potential wilderness (FSM 1909.12). The area does not meet the inventory 

criteria identified in Chapter 71.1. In particular, there are no areas over 5,000 acres; the largest area 

without roads or evidence of past harvest is approximately 500 acres, the second largest is about 150 

acres; neither area is self-contained, and neither has physical terrain that would allow natural conditions 

to be preserved (Potential Wilderness Identification, Project File).

1.7 Planning Framework

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 is the statutory authority for 

planning and conducting forestry research. The Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to conduct, 

support, and cooperate in investigations, experiments, tests, and other activities the Secretary deems 

necessary to obtain, analyze, develop, demonstrate, and disseminate scientific information about 

protecting, managing, and utilizing forest and rangeland renewable resources in rural, suburban, and 

urban areas.” [16 U.S.C. 1642]

Development of this Environmental Impact Statement follows implementing regulations of the National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA); Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 219 (36 CFR 219); Title 

36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 220 (36 CFR 220); Council of Environmental Quality, Title 40; 

CFR, Parts 1500-1508, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

EXF Final EIS  11

Many federal and state laws, including the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act (RPA), 

Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act also guide the planning and analysis. 

Appendix C has a brief explanation of each of these laws and their relation to the current project 

planning effort, as well as discussion of compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and management 

direction.

Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

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

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

Deschutes National Forest. The project area is entirely within the Experimental Forest (MA-16)

(See Figure 4) where field research activities are the primary goal. See Appendix C for standards 

and guidelines that were used in the project design. The goal in this management area is:

“To provide an area where field research activities are conducted while considering other 

resource values. Administrative coordination between the National Forest System and 

Research within the Forest Service will provide for long-term protection of the Forest 

Environment to assure future research needs are met.” (LRMP 4-152). 

The allocation is unique for land management, as this section of National Forest land does not have a 

management objective that drives the need for a certain kind of recreational use, habitat type, visual 

quality, or commodity. The goal of providing for long-term research needs is so that knowledge can 

then be applied in other areas where it can inform management options depending on the area’s 

objectives. 

Amendments to the Deschutes LRMP

Northwest Forest Plan

The Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning

Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl was signed in 1994. Commonly known as 

the Northwest Forest Plan, it provides standards and guidelines for management of lands within the 

range of the northern spotted owl. 

NWFP standard and guide C-4 of the NWFP (common to all allocations) states: A variety of wildlife 

and other research activities may be ongoing and proposed in all land allocations. These activities may 

be assessed to determine if they are consistent with the objectives of these standards and guidelines. 

Some activities (including those within experimental forests) not otherwise consistent with the 

objectives may be appropriate, particularly if the activities will test critical assumptions of these 

standards and guidelines, will produce results important for habitat development, or if the activities 

represent continuation of long-term research. Every effort should be made to locate non-conforming 

activities in land allocations where they will have the least adverse effect upon the objectives of these 

standards and guidelines.

There are seven land allocations under the Northwest Forest Plan. The EXF project area falls within 

two of these allocations: Administratively Withdrawn and Late Successional Reserve (Table 3). The 

project area is not within a Key Watershed, and there are no Riparian Reserves.

Figure 5 displays these allocations and the owl range line (which is synonymous with the Northwest 

Forest Plan boundary). Descriptions of these allocations follow the table.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

12  EXF Final EIS

Table 3. Acres of Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocation in Project Area.

Northwest Forest Plan 

Allocation In Project Area

Acres in 

Project Area

Acres in Proposed Action (not 

including control units)

Administratively Withdrawn 3,035 2,127

Late Successional Reserve 210 161

Outside NWFP Boundary 370 266

Total 3,615 2,554

Administratively Withdrawn 

Administratively Withdrawn Areas (AWAs) are areas where existing Forest Plan direction would 

preclude scheduled timber harvest (i.e. that portion of the land base was not used to develop the Forest 

Plan’s allowable/probably timber sale quantity; it does not prohibit timber harvest). Deschutes Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines for the Experimental Forests Management Area (MA-16) apply where 

they are more restrictive or provide greater benefits to late-successional forest related species than other 

provisions of the NWFP standards and guidelines (NWFP C-2). 

Late Successional Reserve

The northeast corner of the project area (210 acres) falls within the Sheridan Mountain Late 

Successional Reserve (LSR). The Cultus Mountain / Sheridan Mountain Late Successional Reserve 

Assessment (LSRA), completed in 1996 provides a description of these two LSRs and identifies 

important conditions and processes, disturbance regimes, historic and current uses, and their 

implications for management. Plant and animal species of interest or concern and connectivity within 

and between LSRs are also addressed. The LSRA provides sideboards for treatment in specific 

vegetation conditions; treatments are then further refined by the goals and objectives of Management 

Strategy Areas. 

The LSRA was reviewed by the Regional Ecosystem Office on January 27, 2007. They found that the 

LSRA provides a sufficient framework and context for future projects and activities within the LSR. 

Unit 33 of the EXF project falls partially within what the LSRA has defined as Management Strategy 

Areas B, C, and J. According to the LSRA, thinning and fuels reduction are immediate (0-10 yrs) old 

growth protection strategies for these MSAs. Similarly, commercial thinning is an acceptable strategy 

for late-successional old growth habitat acceleration in these types of MSAs. Thinning and fuels 

reduction within the LSR will not enter any spotted owl NRF habitat. The proposed treatments are 

consistent with the management recommendations in the LSR Assessment and with standards and 

guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan. There is no Critical Habitat Unit within the project area.

Watershed Analysis

The western edge of the project area falls within the Crane Prairie Watershed that is addressed in the 

1995 Cascade Lakes Watershed Analysis (WA). The WA addressed conditions at the fifth field 

watershed scale and identified key trends. The Snow Lakes Watershed Analysis updated watershed 

information in 2005. Neither the Cascade Lakes nor Snow Lakes WA specifically addresses the 

Experimental Forest. Key trends that were identified for the watershed and that are pertinent to the 
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

EXF Final EIS  13

project area include: increasing risk of vegetation loss to wildfire, increasing use of the watershed for 

recreation.

Travel Analysis

A Forest-wide roads analysis was completed in 2003 which focused on the main road system. That 

process addressed the arterial and collector roads that intersect the EXF project area. In addition, a

travel analysis was undertaken by the interdisciplinary team to identify a minimum road system in 

Experimental Forest. The analysis did not identify a need for any additional permanent road 

construction. Opportunities for reducing road miles or reducing access were identified. Proposals for 

road closure or decommissioning will be untaken in a separate NEPA process, for which no timeframe 

has been determined.

Revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, 

Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (Eastside Screens) 

In 1995 the Regional Forester amended Forest Plans east of the spotted owl range. Approximately 370 

acres in the southeast corner of the project area lies east of the spotted owl range, and is subject to this 

amendment, also known as the Eastside Screens (owl range line shown on Figures 4 and 5). The 

Eastside Screens amendment was the result of a large-scale planning effort to determine the best 

approach for maintaining future options concerning wildlife habitat associated with late and old 

structural stages, fish habitat, and old forest abundance. 

The Eastside Screens contain guidelines for management of timber sales in late-old structure (LOS)

relative to the Historic Range of Variability (HRV), wildlife corridors, snags, coarse woody debris, and 

goshawk management. Although intended as interim direction in 1995, it remains an applicable 

amendment to our LRMP. The Regional Forester has encouraged the consideration of Forest Plan 

amendments in cases where the proposed treatments would move landscape conditions towards HRV. 

1.8 Decision to be Made

The Director of the Pacific Northwest Research Station and Forest Supervisor of the Deschutes National 

Forest are the officials responsible for deciding the type and extent of management activities in the EXF 

project area. The responsible officials can decide on several courses of action ranging from no action, 

to one of the action alternatives or combinations of treatment options. The responsible officials will 

also determine whether Forest Plan amendments are implemented for the area east of the owl line and 

will identify which mitigation measures will apply to project implementation.

The responsible official will consider the following factors in making his decision:

How well the alternative meets the project’s purpose and need.

Will the density of stands be reduced enough to improve health and vigor of the residual forest 

and decrease susceptibility to epidemic outbreaks of insect and disease?

Will the density of stands be modified enough to decrease susceptibility to stand-replacing 

wildfire?

Can the Study Plan be successfully implemented so that the goals and objectives for research of 

the Pacific Northwest Research Station are met?
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

14  EXF Final EIS

2. How well does the alternative respond to the issues; and have public comments been considered 

during the analysis?

3. What are the likely environmental effects of the proposed actions, and in particular, the short and 

long-term effects and benefits to the habitat of federally-listed threatened and endangered species?
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

EXF Final EIS  15

 

Figure 4. Deschutes National Forest LRMP Management Areas.
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 

16  EXF Final EIS

 Figure 5. Northwest Forest Plan Allocations. 
Chapter 2

Alternatives
Chapter 2 Alternatives

18  EXF Final EIS

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered 

for the EXF 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 in order to provide a clear basis for choice by the 

decision maker. Some of the information used to compare the 

alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of 

the information is based upon the environmental effects of 

implementing each alternative.

Changes Between Draft and Final

This final EIS includes corrections, clarifications, and improvement over the Draft EIS. There are no 

changes in the proposed action. Target basal area has been added for each unit in Tables 4 and 6. Some 

of the activity descriptions have been clarified and minor acre figures corrected. Figures 6 and 8, which 

show the alternatives, have been updated to show the proposed gate location and recent road closures in 

the vicinity. The discussion of alternatives not considered in detail (section 2.4) has been updated. An 

invasive plant monitoring item has been added to the alternatives.

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed one alternative to the Proposed Action, for a total of two action 

alternatives plus the No Action alternative. The No Action Alternative is used as a baseline to display 

consequences of a passive management scenario. Other alternatives were considered, but eliminated 

from detailed analysis (see Chapter 2.4).

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the 

project area. No thinning or fuels treatments would be implemented to accomplish project goals. The 

Study Plan would not be implemented; the proposed research would not be undertaken. Ongoing 

research activities would continue. Custodial activity would continue, such as routine maintenance of 

roads. Response to environmental emergencies, such as suppressing a wildfire, would continue.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action; Preferred Alternative)

The proposed action is the Study Plan as designed by the Pacific Northwest Research Station (see 

Appendix B). Four treatment blocks with relatively homogeneous elevation, aspect, and plant 

association were delineated using, where possible, existing roads. Treatment units were then delineated 

within each block, also based on topography and roads. Each unit was randomly assigned one of four 

levels of treatment or no treatment (i.e. control). Any future entry into the control units would require 

additional NEPA analysis. See Appendix B for more information on the experimental design.

The intensity of proposed thinning uses the Stand Density Index (SDI), which is a relative tree density 

measurement of each stand. At a certain SDI the trees in a stand exhibit reduced vigor due to excessive 

density and bark beetle activity can be expected to increase dramatically. This is called the upper 

“Much of the knowledge on 

which current eastside 

ponderosa pine silviculture 

is based was developed at 

Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest.”

-Experimental Ranges and 

Forests of the USDA Forest 

Service, GTR NE-321
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  19

management zone (UMZ). Below the upper management zone bark beetle activity still occurs but at 

endemic levels. Where stands are more dense than the UMZ, there is imminent risk of catastrophic loss 

of overstory trees to bark beetles. Treatments closer to UMZ (e.g. 75% of UMZ) are less intensive 

treatments; those further from UMZ (e.g. 50% of UMZ) are more intensive treatments.

The following change was made to the proposed action since it was first made public: an area of about 

49 acres surrounding the small cinder butte in the northeast section of the project area was removed 

from Unit 33 east of the 4240 road. This change resulted from discussions in the field on August 18, 

2008.

The proposed action includes vegetation management activities across approximately 2,554 acres, and 

would result in the harvest of approximately 27 to 29 million board feet of timber. About 1 mile of 

temporary road construction would be needed for access to units 11, 14, 21, and 23. Refer to Figure 6

for locations of Alternative 2 units. This alternative includes amending two standards and guidelines of 

the Forest Plan for the units east of the owl range line. The forest plan amendments are described on 

page 21.

Table 4. Alternative 2 Units with Silviculture and Fuels Prescriptions and Forest Plan Management 

Area.

Unit Acres Silviculture 

Prescription

Target 

Basal Area 

(feet2 / 

acre)

Fuels 

Prescription

LRMP 

Mgmt. Area NWFP Allocation

11 118 Thin to 75% UMZ 76 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest Administratively 

Withdrawn (AWD)

12 192 Thin to 50% UMZ 51 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

13 83 Thin to 75% UMZ 

w/ small openings 76 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

14 194 Thin to UMZ 101 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

15 64 No Treat 138 No Treat Exp. Forest AWD

21 106 Thin to 75% UMZ 

w/ small openings 83 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

22 206 Thin to 75% UMZ 83 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

23 225 Thin to 50% UMZ 56 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

24 196 Thin to UMZ 111 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

25 108 No Treat 174 No Treat Exp. Forest AWD

31 148 Thin to 50% UMZ 70 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD (145 ac)

Outside NWFP (3 ac)

32 164 Thin to UMZ 140 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

33 335 Thin to 75% UMZ 105 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD (174 ac)

LSR (161 ac)

34 94 Thin to 75% UMZ 

w/ small openings 105 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD (77 ac)

Outside NWFP (17 ac)

35 109 No Treat 184 No Treat Exp. Forest AWD (67 ac)

Outside NWFP (42 ac)

41 116 Thin to 50% UMZ 35 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

42 160 Thin to UMZ 70 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD (131 ac)

Outside NWFP (29 ac)
Chapter 2 Alternatives

20  EXF Final EIS

43 70 Thin to 75% UMZ 

w/ small openings 53 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest Outside NWFP

44 147 Thin to 75% UMZ 53 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest Outside NWFP

45 61 No Treat 154 No Treat Exp. Forest Outside NWFP

Acres are approximate. Actual acres treated would be slightly reduced to account for such things as avoidance of 

sensitive areas (e.g. where slopes exceed 30%). The control units (No Treatment) are included in the table because 

they are an important component of the research design, and the acres of no treatment will be tracked through 

analysis. Any future entry into the control units would require additional NEPA analysis.

Table 5. Summary of Actions for Alternative 2

Thinning Type Acres

1- Thin to UMZ 714

2- Thin to 75% UMZ 806

3- Thin to 50% UMZ 681

4- Thin to 75% UMZ & Create 

small openings

353

Total 2,554

5- No Treat (Control Units) 342

 

Description of Activities Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Thinning 

Thinning will be conducted with ground-based machinery. For treatment types 1, 2, and 3 thinning is 

from below: to reduce stand density by removing trees from the lower crown classes or smaller 

diameters to improve growth and overall forest health of trees in the upper crown classes or the larger 

trees. Larger trees are retained. Treatment type 4 (thin to 75% UMZ with small openings up to about 1⁄4 

acre in size) will be a free thin across the entire diameter distribution to begin transition to an all-aged 

stand structure (i.e. multi-cohort3

For all treatment types, species preference for cutting is as follows: 1) lodgepole pine, 2) grand/white 

fir, 3) small-diameter ponderosa pine, 4) small-diameter mountain hemlock, 5) small diameter Douglasfir. This preference is intended to be flexible, with the intent of moving towards greater resilience. As 

diameters increase, retention of trees having more vigor will be emphasized.

). Target basal area and trees per acre are applied as an average across 

a unit. Table 2 shows the target basal area by unit, which is based on the predominant plant association.

Slash and Smaller Material Treatment

Trees with commercial value (usually greater than 7” or 8” DBH) will be whole-tree yarded, with limbs 

and tops attached to the landings, thereby reducing the need for slash piling within the units. Tops and 

limbs will be utilized as biomass as market conditions allow, otherwise they will be burned at the 

landings. Smaller material (generally < 7” DBH) will be felled by hand and will also be utilized as 

biomass as market conditions allow. The material would be brought out to the landings on the existing 

skid trails and temporary roads. If it cannot be utilized, the lighter concentrations will be lopped and 

scattered and heavier concentrations grapple piled and burned. Assuming no market for smaller 

 3 Multi-cohort refers to a stand with two or more age classes (cohorts). This is distinguished from the term multistrata, which refers to a stand with multiple layers of vegetation. 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  21

material, approximately 50 percent of the unit acres will have heavier concentrations of small material 

grapple piled and burned. This assumption is used in the analysis.

Mechanical Shrub Treatment (Mowing)

Thinning and slash treatment will be followed by mechanical shrub treatment, also known as mowing. 

This involves the use of mechanized equipment to mow, cut, chop, grind or otherwise reduce shrub or 

ground fuel vertical structure to a height of about 8 inches. All units are planned for mowing and it is 

estimated that between 70 to 90 percent of each unit will actually be mowed because of the distribution 

of shrubs.

Underburning

Following thinning, slash treatment, and mowing, prescribed fire is planned for most areas. This is 

considered a landscape-scale burning operation where fire will be applied when conditions are 

conducive to meeting the burning objectives. 

Fire lines are used to control the fire during prescribed burning operations. Existing roads will be used 

as much as possible. Line construction will be necessary at the project perimeter, around control units, 

and around the plantation in the middle of the project area. Lines will be built with an ASV (a rubber 

tracked “All Surface Vehicle” commonly used to place fireline on slopes of less than 30%), and will be 

approximately 3 to 4 feet wide. Handline will be constructed where necessary, such as with steeper 

slopes and would be 1.5 to 2 feet wide. Approximately 12 miles of fireline will be created with the 

proposed action. Displaced topsoil and unburned woody debris would be redistributed over the firelines 

following prescribed burning activities.

Maintenance of desired structure may be needed as early as 40 years on some treatment blocks. Any 

future maintenance work will be assessed under a new NEPA process.

Connected Actions Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Temporary road construction: Harvest operations are expected to require approximately 1 mile of 

temporary road to be developed for access to units 11, 14, 21, and 23. Temporary roads are built to 

facilitate ground-based harvest systems for the purpose of removing forest products from a treated 

stand. These roads are short, averaging less than 0.2 miles. Temporary roads will be built to low 

specifications that would allow equipment access to landing sites. These temporary roads will be built 

on slopes less than 10 percent and will be constructed to the lowest possible standard capable of 

supporting log haul in order to minimize ground disturbance. These temp roads will be restored after 

use.

Road maintenance: Approximately 35 miles of existing roads in the project area will require 

maintenance prior to use for timber haul. Maintenance is blading and shaping of the roadbed and brush 

removal. A road condition report for the area documents the status of local, arterial, and collector roads 

in the project area. 

Gating: A Forest Service gate will be placed on the 4245 road at the intersection of the 4240 and 4245

roads (see Figures 6 & 8). This will prevent public vehicle access on the main road through the 

Experimental Forest. The gate will be closed year-round. Access for administrative use and for 

research purposes will be provided.

Danger tree removal: Federal and State of Oregon safety regulations require that danger trees along 

project area travel routes be felled prior to activities taking place. Roadside danger trees will be felled 

along these travel routes and where activity units border the road system.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

22  EXF Final EIS

Forest Plan Amendments

The Interdisciplinary team evaluated the proposed action against current management direction 

contained in the Deschutes Forest Plan and its amendments (see pp. 11-13). The team determined that 

two Forest Plan amendments are necessary to proceed with either action alternative. The amendments 

are specific to the Interim Wildlife standard from the Revised Continuation of Interim Management 

Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (the Eastside 

Screens), and therefore apply only to the portion of the project area east of the owl range line and 

outside the boundary of the Northwest Forest Plan (approximately 370 acres; see Figure 5, p. 15).

Although the area addressed with these amendments is small relative to the project or watersheds, these 

amendments are necessary so that the project can be implemented without imposing a bias on the results 

of the research. That is, the prescriptions can be applied across the units in a manner that preserves the 

integrity of the research.

Amendment #1 - Harvest in LOS under Scenario A of the Eastside Screens 

Reason for Amendment #1: The HRV analysis was conducted using satellite data, which was the best 

data available for the watershed scale. LOS structure was identified where pixels met the criteria of 

having large trees per acre > 21” DBH and 25” canopy cover. The results of the HRV analysis (see 

Chapter 3.3.1) show that some LOS types fall within Scenario A of the Eastside Screens; i.e. one or 

both of the LOS stages is below HRV. Therefore, east of the owl line (units 31, 34, 42, 43, and 44), the 

Interim Wildlife Standard would not apply to the implementation of the EXF project: 6.d. “...there 

should be no net loss of LOS from that biophysical environment. Do not allow timber sale harvest 

activities to occur within LOS stages that are below HRV.” Approximately 22 acres of LOS will be 

harvested under this amendment; with 16 acres still meeting the LOS criteria following thinning. See 

Chapter 3.3.1 for HRV analysis and 3.3.13 for forest plan amendment analysis.

Amendment #2 - Harvest of trees > 21” DBH

Reason for Amendment #2: The average size of trees in the project area is about 17” DBH; and the the 

number of trees > 21” DBH averages 26 per acre in the block east of the owl line (see Chapter 3.3.1). 

In order to reach the residual target densities, trees over 21 inches would need to be removed across the 

five units east of the owl line. Therefore, east of the owl line (units 31, 34, 42, 43, and 44), the 

following Interim Wildlife Standard (p. 10 of the Screens) would not apply to the implementation of 

the EXF project: 6.d.2.a. “Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees ≥ 21” 

DBH that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities.” The largest trees are 

maintained within the stand to supply the desired basal area. On average, the trees to be retained are 

more than 6 inches larger than the current stand average, which has the effect of making the resulting 

average tree size go from 17.7” DBH to 24.3” DBH under either action alternative. See Chapter 3.3.13 

for the forest plan amendment analysis.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  23

 

Figure 6. Map of Alternative 2.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

24  EXF Final EIS

2.2.3 Alternative 3

This alternative was developed to address the issue of northern spotted owl habitat. Portions of the

project area totaling about 221 acres are mapped and field-verified as suitable Nesting, Roosting, and 

Foraging (NRF) habitat for the northern spotted owl (10 acres within control units, 211 acres within 

proposed action units). Refer to the issue description in Chapter 1.6, page 8. Under Alternative 3, the 

areas of NRF habitat are removed from the units and deferred from treatment. This affects units 11, 22, 

23, 32. 

The design of Alternative 3 also eliminates the portion of unit 33 that lies within the Sheridan Late 

Successional Reserve (161 acres of unit 33 east of the 4240 road). The spotted owl issue includes the 

LSR because of its role under the Northwest Forest Plan to provide the dispersal network for spotted 

owls. The exclusion of NRF and the LSR portion totals 372 fewer acres to be treated under Alternative 

3 (about 15% of the treatment proposed in Alternative 2). These 372 acres are not part of the study 

design’s control units.

Because the NRF will be excluded from underburning, more fireline will be needed around the 

perimeter of it. Approximately 0.5 mile of temporary road will be needed for accessing Units 11.1, 

11.2, 14, 21, and 23. All other activities are the same as described for Alternative 2 including two 

Forest Plan amendments for the units east of the owl range line (Units 31, 34, 43, 44, 45) described on 

page 21. This alternative would result in harvest of approximately 23-25 million board feet of timber.

Table 6. Alternative 3 Units with Silviculture and Fuels Prescription, Deschutes Forest Plan 

Management Area, and Northwest Forest Plan allocation.

Unit Acres Silviculture 

Prescription

Target 

Basal Area 

(feet2 / 

acre)

Fuels 

Prescription

LRMP Mgmt. 

Area NWFP Allocation

11.1 22 Thin to 75% UMZ 76 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest Administratively 

Withdrawn (AWD)

11.2 27 Thin to 75% UMZ 76 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

12 155 Thin to 50% UMZ 51 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

13 81 Thin to 75% UMZ 

w/ small openings 76 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

14 194 Thin to UMZ 101 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

15 64 No Treat 138 No Treat Exp. Forest AWD

21 106 Thin to 75% UMZ 

w/ small openings 83 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

22 173 Thin to 75% UMZ 83 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

23 169 Thin to 50% UMZ 56 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

24 196 Thin to UMZ 111 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

25 108 No Treat 174 No Treat Exp. Forest AWD

31 148 Thin to 50% UMZ 70 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD (145 ac)

Outside NWFP (3 ac)

32 151 Thin to UMZ 140 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

33 174 Thin to 75% UMZ 105 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

34 94 Thin to 75% UMZ 

w/ small openings 105 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD (77 ac)

Outside NWFP (17 ac)

35 109 No Treat 184 No Treat Exp. Forest AWD
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  25

41 116 Thin to 50% UMZ 35 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

42 160 Thin to UMZ 70 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest AWD

43 70 Thin to 75% UMZ 

w/ small openings 53 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest Outside NWFP

44 147 Thin to 75% UMZ 53 Mow/Underburn Exp. Forest Outside NWFP

45 61 No Treat 154 No Treat Exp. Forest Outside NWFP

Acres are approximate. Actual acres treated would be reduced slightly to account for such things as avoidance of sensitive 

areas (e.g. where slopes exceed 30%). The control units (No Treatment) are included in the table because they are an 

important component of the research design, and the acres of no treatment will be tracked through the analysis. Any future 

entry into the control units would require additional NEPA analysis.

 Table 7. Summary of Actions for Alternative 3.

Thinning Type Acres

1 - Thin to UMZ 701

2 - Thin to 75% UMZ 543

3 - Thin to 50% UMZ 588

4 - Thin to 75% UMZ & Create Small Openings 350

Total 2,182

5 – No Treat (Control Units) 342

Figure 7. EXF Project Unit 32.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

26  EXF Final EIS

 Figure 8. Map of Alternative 3. 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  27

2.2.4 Resource Protection Measures Common to Both Action Alternatives

All of the Alternatives would meet direction in relevant laws and policies, and the standards and 

guidelines in the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the 

Northwest Forest Plan, except where noted on page 21 (Forest Plan Amendments). In addition, the 

Alternatives either comply with the project design criteria for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests 

Programmatic Biological Assessment (2006 – 2009), or, if there are proposed deviations from the 

Biological Assessment, were consulted on by US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The difference between the project design features (PDFs) and mitigation measures is that PDFs are 

considered routine, have been used on numerous similar projects, and are either incorporated into contract

provisions or accomplished between appropriate resource specialists, and have proven to be effective. 

Mitigation measures are site-specific, are usually assigned to specific units, and are used to avoid, 

minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate an impact (40 CFR 1508.20). For example, a PDF may include 

a seasonal closure for unknown nest sites (to be applied if discovered); a mitigation measure would place 

a seasonal closure on a known nest site specific to a unit. PDFs and mitigation measures are used as a 

basis for determining and disclosing effects in the Environmental Consequences discussions.

The sources of the PDFs and mitigation measures include but are not limited to: Forest Plan goals, 

objectives, or standards & guidelines; Project Design Criteria from the Programmatic BA; Best 

Management Practices; conservation strategies; Invasive Plant Prevention Practices.

Purpose Comments

To protect existing research installations from project activities 

1. No direct ignition of prescribed fire within a 120-foot buffer around plots 

within the Levels of Growing Stock study area. Areas to avoid will be 

flagged. Units: 24, 41, 42 

Tree height buffer 

used in previous 

projects.

To ensure prescribed fire activities are implemented appropriately

2. Conduct prescribed fire in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulations and 

restrictions, and under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan regulations and 

restrictions.

Federal and state 

regulation.

3. Prescribed burning will be conducted under favorable smoke dispersal 

conditions, to avoid impacts to urban areas and Class I airsheds. Inversion 

conditions, which would increase the potential for smoke pooling in valleys 

and drainages, would be avoided during burning operations.

Federal and state 

regulation.

To protect soil

4. In all proposed activity areas, locations for new yarding and transportation 

systems would be designated prior to logging operations. This includes all 

log landings, and primary (main) skid trail networks. 

LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; 

Timber Management 

BMP T-11, T-14 & 

T-16 

5. Surface Drainage on Temporary Roads – minimize the erosive effects of 

concentrated water through the proper design and construction of temporary 

roads.

Road BMP R-7
Chapter 2 Alternatives

28  EXF Final EIS

6. Road Maintenance – conduct regular preventive maintenance to avoid 

deterioration of the road surface and minimize the effects of soil.

Road BMP R-18, R19

Prescribed Burn Operations

7. A burn plan addressing compliance with all applicable LRMP standards and 

guidelines and Best Management Practices will be completed before the 

initiation of prescribed fire treatments in planned activity areas. Prescribed 

burn plans need to include soil moisture guidelines to minimize the risk of 

intense fire and adverse impacts to the soil resource.

LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; 

Timber BMP T-2, T3 & T-13; 

Fuels Management 

BMP F-2, F-3

Coarse Woody Debris/Down Wood

8. Retain adequate supplies of coarse woody debris (greater than 3-inches in 

diameter) to provide organic matter reservoirs for nutrient cycling following 

the completion of all project activities. It is recommended that a minimum 

of 5 to 10 tons per acre of CWD be retained on Ponderosa Pine sites, and 10 

to 15 tons of CWD per acre should be retained on mixed conifer and 

lodgepole pine sites to help maintain long-term site productivity. These 

amounts are less than the recommended levels for wildlife habitat objectives.

LRMP SL-1 

Maintaining Duff Layer

9. Strive to maintain fine organic matter (organic materials less than 3-inches in 

diameter; commonly referred to as the duff layer) over at least 65 percent of 

an activity area (pertains to both harvesting and post-harvest operations). If 

the potential natural plant community (i.e., site) is not capable of producing 

fine organic matter over 65 percent of the area, adjust minimum amounts to 

reflect potential vegetation site capabilities.

LRMP SL-6; 

Fuels Management 

BMP F-2; 

Timber Management 

BMP T-13

Minimize the extent of new soil disturbance from mechanical treatments

10. Implement appropriate design elements for avoiding or reducing detrimental 

soil impacts from project activities. Options include using some or all of 

the following: 

 Use existing log landings and skid trail networks (whenever 

possible) or designate locations for new skid trails and log landings.

 Maintain spacing of 100 to 150 feet for all primary (main) skid trail 

routes, except where converging at landings. Closer spacing due to 

complex terrain must be approved in advance by the Timber Sale 

Administrator. Main skid trails spaced an average of 100 feet apart 

limit soil impacts to 11 % of the unit area. For the larger activity 

areas (greater than 40 acres) that can accommodate wider spacing 

distances, it is recommended that distance between main skid trials 

be increased to an average of 150 feet to reduce the amount of 

detrimentally disturbed soil to 7 percent of the unit area (Froehlich, 

1981, Garland, 1983). This would reduce the amount of surface area 

where restoration treatments, such as subsoiling, would be required 

to mitigate impacts to achieve soil management objectives. 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  29

 Restrict grapple skidders to designated areas (i.e., roads, landings, 

designated skid trails) at all times, and limit the amount of traffic 

from other specialized equipment off designated areas. The use of 

harvester machines will be authorized to make no more than two 

equipment passes on any site-specific area to accumulate materials.

 Avoid equipment operations during times of the year when soils are 

extremely dry and subject to excessive soil displacement.

 Avoid equipment operations during periods of high soil moisture, as 

evidenced by equipment tracks that sink deeper than during dry or 

frozen conditions.

 Operate equipment over frozen ground or a sufficient amount of 

compacted snow to protect mineral soil. Equipment operations 

should be discontinued when frozen ground begins to thaw or when 

there is too little compacted snow and equipment begins to cause 

soil puddling damage (rutting).

11. Prevent additional soil impacts in random locations of activity areas, 

between skid trails and away from landings, by machine piling and burning 

logging slash on existing roads and logging facilities that already have 

detrimental soil conditions.

12. Restrict mechanical disturbance to existing roads and skid trails at all times 

on portions of activity areas that contain slopes greater than 30 percent. 

Prohibit any new development of temporary roads and/or designated skid 

trails on sensitive soils with steep slopes. Require operators to winch logs to 

skidders with at least 75 feet of bull line. Hand felled trees shall be 

directionally felled toward pre-approved skid trails, and the leading end of 

logs shall be suspended while skidding. Exceptions for areas that make up 

less than 10 percent of an activity area would be subject to Forest Service 

approval. On slopes steeper than 30 percent, existing skid trails (used by the 

purchaser) shall be reclaimed by applying appropriate rehabilitation 

treatments (see Mitigation below).

The following activity areas are proposed for mechanical treatment and 

contain slopes over 30 percent:

Alternative 2: Units 11, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 32, and 41. 

Alternative 3: Units 11.1, 14, 22, 23, 24, 32, and 41. 

Sustained slopes longer than 200 feet within these EA units would be 

excluded from mechanized harvest and mowing activities.

13. Reclaim all temporary roads and some of the log landings and primary 

(main) skid trails by applying appropriate rehabilitation treatments in activity 

areas where detrimental soil conditions are expected to exceed the Regional 

Policy guidelines. Decommission (obliterate) logging facilities that will not 

be needed for future management. Options for mitigating the effects of 

project activities include the use of subsoiling equipment to loosen 

compacted soils on log landings and designated skid trails, redistributing 

humus-enriched topsoil in areas of soil displacement damage, and pulling 

available slash and woody materials over the treated surface to establish 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

30  EXF Final EIS

effective ground cover protection. 

Reclaim all temporary roads and some of the logging facilities in portions of 

the following activity areas:

Alternative 2 Units: 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, and 44.

Alternative 3 Units: 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, and 44.

14. Under both action alternatives, reclaim all machine-built fire lines by 

redistributing displaced topsoil and unburned woody debris over the 

disturbed surface. 

Wildlife

Spotted Owl

To prevent disturbance to nesting birds during breeding season

15. Should a new spotted owl nest site or activity center be discovered during 

project implementation, disruptive work activities will not take place, and

consultation would be re-initiated.

Programmatic BA 

Project Design Criteria

16. Prescribed fire managers need to use smoke management forecasts in order 

to minimize smoke entering into the Three Trappers Butte home range and 

to ensure that dissipation would be adequate.

Programmatic BA 

Project Design Criteria

Raptors

To prevent disturbance to nesting birds during breeding season

17. Any active raptor nest stands found during management activities will be 

protected from disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of the nest by 

restricting site disturbing operations during the following periods:

Sharp-shinned hawk April 15 – August 31

Northern goshawk March 1 – August 31

Red-tailed hawk March 1 – August 31

Osprey April 1 – August 31

Great-grey owl March 1 – June 30

LRMP WL-3, WL-33, 

WL-28.

18. The goshawk nest site in Unit 15 will require a seasonal restriction on 

disturbing operations during the period of March 1 – August 31. 

Units 12, 13, 14, 15.

Snags

19. All existing snags would remain except where snags must be felled for 

roads, log landings, or occupational safety (including safety during logging 

and burning operations). Timber Sale Administrators would design 

harvest operations to avoid snags by locating skid trails and landings away 

from them, where possible. If snags need to be felled, they are to be 

retained for down wood. Felled snags may be moved off roads and 

landings, but not removed from the site.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  31

To Prevent the Introduction and Spread of Invasive Plants

20. Use clean-equipment contract clauses (local and regional) to minimize risk 

of introduction and spread of invasive plant species by contractors, for 

actions that operate outside the limits of the road prism (i.e. bulldozers, 

skidders, other logging equipment) prior to entering National Forest 

System Lands.

LRMP standard 

(Invasive Plant ROD 

2005)

21. Any fill materials should be gathered only at weed-free quarries or other 

weed-free source sites.

LRMP standard 

(Invasive Plant ROD 

2005)

22. Minimize soil disturbance and retain native vegetation, in and around 

project activity areas, to the extent possible consistent with project 

objectives.

Standard prevention 

practice

To Preserve Visual Quality 

The following design features apply to Units 21 and 22, which lie adjacent to the Scenic Views Management Area 

(Partial Retention Foreground), just to the west of the EXF project boundary.

23. Design fuel and vegetation units to minimize ground disturbance and 

damage to vegetation in units adjacent to partial retention foreground areas 

(first 150 feet of western boundary).

These measures will 

ensure the scenery 

management 

objectives for views 

from nearby 

recreation sites, such 

as Crane Prairie 

Reservoir are met by 

minimizing visual 

changes at the 

boundary.

24. Flush cut stumps to less than 6 inches in height within the first 150 feet of 

western boundary in units adjacent to partial retention foreground areas.

25. Clean-up activities in units adjacent to partial retention foreground areas, 

including landings, skid trails, and slash piles, should be completed within 

two years post-treatment.

26. Locate slash piles for burning in units that will minimize scorching 

adjacent to partial retention foreground areas. Limit live crown scorch to 

< 1/3 tree height. Locate grapple piles on logging facilities.

27. Remove visible flagging when unit activities are completed.

To Protect Cultural Resources

28. Coordinate with District Archaeologist during implementation so that 

project activities avoid the known cultural resource site.

Avoidance per Regional 

Programmatic 

Agreement

29. In the event that previously unknown sites or artifacts are found during 

project implementation, they will be flagged and operations in the area 

avoided until an archaeologist is consulted
Chapter 2 Alternatives

32  EXF Final EIS

2.2.5 Monitoring Common to Both Action Alternatives

Large Tree/ Snag/ Log Retention

This monitoring is proposed in order to assess the validity of some assumptions made about effects of 

prescribed fire on large live ponderosa pine, snag, and logs. There has been considerable discussions as 

to the effects of thinning, prescribed burning and the combination on the ultimate creation or removal of 

these stand elements; most recently in Harrod et al. (2009) showing large tree mortality (snag creation), 

and loss of existing snags (falling over to become logs) occurring most often in a combination thinning 

and prescribed burning (spring burning) treatment.

Although past local practices have not shown this type of direct correlation, there is the opportunity under 

this project to gather local data on this topic. In 2007, pre-treatment plots were established that recorded 

the number, species, and size (diameter) of the live trees, snags and logs within the project area. These 

same plots would be examined post-treatments to determine large tree, snag and log retention.

Monitoring Element: Number, species, and size of individual trees, snags, and logs on tenth of an acres 

plots established within the various treatment blocks.

Type of Monitoring: Implementation Monitoring/Validation Monitoring 

Methods/Thresholds: Stand exam procedures used during the establishment and data gathering pretreatment. Comparisons of data would then be made.

Frequency/Duration/Required action: Once after the completion of all treatments.

Responsibility: Silviculturist, Wildlife Biologist, Fuels Planner

Unintended OHV Use

This monitoring is proposed in order to assess the potential that creation of firelines and temporary roads 

would attract OHV use post-project implementation. Although the temporary roads would be obliterated, 

and fire lines will be somewhat disguised by pulling brush over them, the “footprint” of these roads, as 

well as the ASV-created firelines would remain possibly attracting OHV use in the particular area that it

is not currently occurring.

Monitoring Element: Presence/absence of OHV evidence (e.g. tire tracks, newly churned soil)

Type of Monitoring: Implementation Monitoring

Methods/Thresholds: Visual examination of firelines and temporary roads post-project implementation. 

Evidence of use may warrant signage and patrol to ensure compliance with Access and Travel 

Management Plan, and Experimental Forest goals and objectives.

Frequency/Duration/Required action: Two to three years after the completion of all treatments.

Responsibility: Roads Manager, Recreation/OHV specialist, Wildlife Biologist, Fuels Planner.

Soils

Monitoring is proposed to ensure the selected alternative, including mitigation measures, are properly 

implemented on the ground as designed and achieve the desired results. 

Soil Quality Objective: To determine if post-project subsoiling mitigation was effectively accomplished 

and reduced the extent of detrimentally compacted soil in a representative sample of EIS Units. 

Monitoring Elements: Surface area treated on temporary roads and primary logging facilities. 

Area of Consideration: Individual activity areas (EIS Units).

Suggested Methodology: Combination of visual survey and shovel probing. 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  33

Invasive Plants / Noxious Weeds

Monitoring is proposed to ensure the selected alternative, including mitigation measures are properly 

implemented on the ground for the prevention of invasive plant introduction into an area that currently 

has none. To determine if prevention measures have effectively prevented introduction of invasive plant 

species during project implementation.

Monitoring Elements: Presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds.

Area of Consideration: Individual activity area (EIS units), landings, roads used for hauling or equipment 

movement.

Suggested Methodology: Visual survey. Inspect activity areas and travel routes annually during field 

season.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

34  EXF Final EIS

2.3 Comparison of the Alternatives

This section provides a comparison of the three alternatives. Table 8 displays the number of acres of each 

action to occur by alternative. Alternative 2 allows for more thinning, mowing, and underburning to 

occur because it does not avoid spotted owl habitat. Alternative 2 includes approximately 0.5 mile more 

of temporary road construction than alternative 3. Because Alternative 3 avoids treatments in spotted owl 

habitat and LSR, it requires the construction of more fire line to protect those areas during underburning.

Table 9 displays a comparison of how each alternative meets elements of the purpose and need.

Table 8. Comparison of the alternatives

Table 9. Comparison of how the alternatives meet the purpose and need

Purpose and Need

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Reduce risk of loss 

due to insects and 

disease and fire; 

protect existing and 

future research

No density reduction, 

no fuels treatment. 

Risk of loss remains 

high across 

experimental forest 

because stand density 

remains above UMZ.

Low flame lengths 

predicted on 50% of 

project area.

47% of area would 

support a passive 

crown fire, increasing 

over time.

Reduces beetle risk on 

2,554 acres (72% of the 

Lookout Mountain Unit) 

by reducing stand density 

to levels at or below UMZ 

and treating fuels. 

Highest degree of risk 

reduction among 

alternatives considered.

Low flame lengths 

predicted on 85% of 

project area.

577 acres (16 %) would 

support a passive crown 

fire.

Reduces beetle risk on 

2,182 acres (62% of the 

Lookout Mountain Unit) 

by reducing stand density 

to levels at or below UMZ 

and treating fuels. 

Intermediate degree of 

risk reduction among 

alternatives considered.

Low flame lengths 

predicted on 81% of 

area.

733 acres (20 %) would 

support a passive crown 

fire.

Actions

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Thin to UMZ 0 714 acres 701 acres

Thin to 75% UMZ 0 806 acres 543 acres

Thin to 50% UMZ 0 681 acres 588 acres

Thin to 75% UMZ and 

Create Small Openings 0 353 acres 350 acres

Total Thinning 0 2,554 acres 2,182 acres

Mow and Underburn 0 2,554 acres 2,182 acres

Control – No Treat Areas 0 342 acres 342 acres

Temp Roads 0 1 mile 0.5 mile
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  35

Purpose and Need

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Provide operationalscale research and 

address research 

questions in study 

plan “Forest 

Dynamics after 

Thinning and Fuel 

Reduction in Dry 

Forests”

No new research would 

be conducted. Existing 

research would remain 

at risk.

Provides new research 

opportunities on 2,554 

acres. Enables full and 

proper implementation of 

peer-reviewed/approved 

research design; full 

pursuit of research 

objectives; and 

attainment of 

scientifically-valid 

research results.

Provides new research 

opportunities on 2,182

acres. Prevents full and 

proper implementation of 

research design; 

compromises full pursuit 

of research objectives 

and attainment of 

scientifically valid 

research results. 

Table 10. Comparison of how the alternatives address the Key Issue – Spotted Owl Habitat

Element of Key Issue

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

Spotted Owl Critical

Habitat No impact to 

Critical Habitat

No impact to Critical 

Habitat

No impact to Critical 

Habitat

Spotted owl Nesting, 

Roosting, and Foraging 

(NRF) habitat 

0 acres treated

Approximately 211 acres 

NRF removed through 

thinning and fuel treatments 

(0.25% of NRF on 

Deschutes NF).

0 acres of NRF treated. 

Spotted owl dispersal 

habitat 0 acres treated

1,935 acres dispersal 

treated; 1,594 acres 

degraded and 533 acres

removed.

1,731 acres dispersal 

treated; 438 acres 

removed.

Treatment within Late 

Successional Reserve

0 acres treated. 

Current risk to 

wildfire remains 

high.

Best addresses the 

objectives of the LSR 

Assessment by thinning 

and treating fuels on 161

acres, promoting habitat 

conditions for the focal 

species.

0 acres treated. Current 

risk to wildfire remains 

high.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

36  EXF Final EIS

2.4 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail

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 expressed 

concerns they had with the proposed action and in some cases provided suggestions for a different course 

of action. Some of these alternatives may have duplicated the alternatives considered in detail or were 

determined to be unable to meet the project’s Purpose and Need. Alternatives that were considered but 

dismissed from detailed consideration are summarized below.

Conduct a different kind of research

Wouldn’t it be more valuable to study natural processes in the Lookout Mountain Unit rather 

than manipulated forest?4

Some members of the public feel that the Lookout Mountain unit of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest 

is more valuable for studying natural processes because it provides a natural, landscape-scale area to 

observe. However, the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest was established for the express purpose of 

silviculture, forest management, and insect and disease research in ponderosa pine forests east of the 

Oregon Cascade Range. The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct renewable resources research activities on national 

forest and rangelands. Additionally, research at the Lookout Mountain Unit is not limited to the current 

study. A variety of research opportunities could be overlaid on the research platform created with the 

study plan of “Forest Dynamics after Thinning and Fuel Reduction in Dry Forests.”

Natural processes are better studied at Research Natural Areas. Within the National Forest System and 

the Bureau of Land Management, RNAs are managed to maintain the natural features for which they were 

established, and to maintain natural processes. Non-manipulative research and monitoring activities are 

encouraged in RNAs and can be compared with manipulative studies conducted in other similar 

ecoregions. There are five RNAs on the Deschutes National Forest, including one within the Pringle 

Falls Experimental Forest (see Figure 2, page 2). Environmental Assessments are currently being 

prepared for the establishment of four additional RNAs on the Deschutes National Forest. These are 

scheduled for completion in 2010.

Conduct needed thinning and fuels reduction without the research component

Why not treat the forest health and fuels issues without following a study plan?

The interdisciplinary team considered how forest health and fuels issues would be addressed if there was 

no research objective. Based on what has been done in recent vegetation management projects in 

ponderosa pine forest types, the stands dominated by ponderosa pine would be prescribed to be thinned at 

the 67% UMZ level. Thinning would not be prescribed at the 100% UMZ level because based on current 

knowledge, leaving it at 100% UMZ would leave the area at risk to density-induced stress and bark 

beetles. Fuels treatments would be similar with thinning followed by mowing and underburning. There 

would not be “control” units, but a typical vegetation management project incorporates retention areas. 

The ID Team would have considered whether or not the Eastside Screens would be amended to allow 

harvest of trees > 21” east of the owl line or harvest within LOS that falls within Scenario A of the 

 4 As stated on p. 3, the current study plan was prepared according to the Forest Service Manual 4072.3. Alternative 

research designs were considered during the peer-review process of the study plan. The Pacific Northwest Research

Station determined that the study plan “Forest Dynamics after Thinning and Fuel Reduction in Dry Forests” was 

appropriate and incompliant with Station direction, would address important research questions and was therefore 

approved for the Station director.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  37

Eastside Screens (see p. 246). When comparing this kind of entry to the alternatives analyzed in detail, 

the thinning prescription would still be from below, leaving the largest and healthiest trees on site, 

number of residual trees per acre would be near the midpoint of the results for the action alternatives, and 

one prescription would be applied more uniformly across all units, rather than with the variation seen in 

Alternatives 2 or 3 that is based on the research design.

This was not analyzed in detail. Although it would reduce stand density and fuels it would not meet the 

goal of the Experimental Forest outlined in the Deschutes Forest Plan which is to “provide an area where 

field research activities are conducted while considering other resource values.” (LRMP p. 4-152) It also 

would not contribute to the mission of the Research and Development Program of the Forest Service by 

providing an operational-scale research opportunity. The Forest Service needs the kinds of information 

provided by research and the Experimental Forest is the appropriate place for conducting research.

Conduct the research in another area of the Forest

Can the research questions be addressed by collecting data in other areas of the Forest that are 

undergoing active management?

It was suggested by some members of the public that the proposed research could be conducted in other 

areas of the Forest, such as where there is ongoing thinning that is similar to that proposed here. This 

alternative was not considered in detail in the EIS because: 1) the Experimental Forest is the appropriate 

place to conduct research because it allows for long-term data collection, and for us to learn how forests 

change over time as climate and other factors change; and because the Experimental Forest was 

established for the purpose of conducting research; and 2) there is a need to thin the area due to overlydense stands within the Lookout Mountain unit, making it reasonable to conduct the research there.

Limit the Treatments to what is needed to protect existing research

Can the fuels reduction be scaled down and focused around protecting the existing research?

Some commenters felt that the proposed action exceeds what is necessary to meet the objective of 

protecting existing research and want to see an alternative that reduces the area treated to just that 

necessary to protect existing research plots from fire.

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) conducted a preliminary analysis to determine the placement of 

treatments in strategic locations (according to the Treatment Optimization Model) to determine if those 

locations would be sufficient to meet the stated purpose and need of density reduction and research.5

This alternative was not developed in detail because it would essentially result in an alternative that would 

not meet the purpose and need of implementing the study plan, and would not meet the purpose and need 

 The 

model identifies major fire travel routes and attempts to block them efficiently with fuel treatments. The 

IDT considered the initial results of the strategic placement of treatments analysis. The results show 

about 1,500 acres (assuming the maximum benefit of 30% of the area treated) of treatment would be 

placed primarily along the perimeter of the Experimental Forest boundary, including the northwest 

section that does not fall into the study area. The forest type in the northwest corner of the Experimental 

Forest is mountain hemlock and lodgepole pine; these species do not lend themselves to the study 

objectives, which are focused on ponderosa pine. The current project, however, does not preclude future 

proposals to reduce fuels in that part of the Forest.

 5 The Treatment Optimization Model (TOM) and use of the SPOTS process is intended place treatments to disrupt 

large wildfire growth by breaking up contiguous fuels. It is only appropriate in areas where treatment opportunities 

are limited to a relatively low percent of the landscape and does not mimic natural processes (COFMS white paper 

September 3, 2009). 
Chapter 2 Alternatives

38  EXF Final EIS

of density reduction across the experimental forest. Alternative 3, which foregoes treating within certain 

habitat components (spotted owl NRF and Late Successional Reserve), treats 2,182 acres of the 

Experimental Forest, which is roughly 700 acres more than the treatment optimization model initially 

predicts is necessary for full protection from fire alone. The treatment optimization alternative would be 

similar in scale to Alternative 3, but would include some of the NRF and the LSR and the units would not 

be situated on the landscape as needed for the experimental design which ensures homogeneity in 

elevation and aspect. To treat fuels just around research plots would also not meet the purpose and need 

for the same reasons: there is a need to reduce stand density and fuels throughout the Experimental 

Forest, not just in those locations.

Some individuals also pointed out their concerns that the scale of the EXF project is much larger than 

previous research that has occurred in the Lookout Mountain Unit.6

www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/lsse/index.shtml

It is not uncommon for silvicultural 

experiments to occur at operational scale (i.e. units are large enough that the results can be directly related 

to management information needs without having to scale up research results from smaller experimental 

plots). For examples of other large-scale silvicultural experiments, see 

http:// . The scale of treatments proposed in this project, 

however, is due to the need for thinning across a large area to reduce the risk of beetle attack. It is also 

important for the size of blocks to remain large because larger blocks of relatively homogenous forest will 

best maintain options for future research.

No timber harvest in the Experimental Forest 

As discussed earlier in this section, the opinion that the Experimental Forest should be maintained in a 

natural condition without manipulation was also brought forward. Some members of the public are 

opposed to harvest operations in the Experimental Forest. To address this concern, the IDT considered an 

alternative that would involve only ground fuel reduction without any thinning. This alternative would 

have treated fuels through mowing and underburning to provide short-term fire risk reduction; no thinning 

would occur. The no-harvest alternative would respond to public concerns about timber harvesting in the 

experimental forest while allowing some limited fuels reduction treatments. This alternative was not 

analyzed in detail because it would not meet the purpose and need for action which is to reduce stand 

density to maintain high growth rates and reduce susceptibility to catastrophic loss to insects, disease, or 

fire, and to implement the research study plan. The modification of fire behavior would be short-term; 

and the fuel treatments do not address overly-dense stands or the research objectives. The long-term 

effects of not thinning the project area will be displayed under the No Action alternative analysis.

Diameter Limits

Some commenters suggested that diameter limits should be applied to the project design because it is less 

controversial and improves the ability to achieve project goals. An alternative was considered that 

involved only thinning trees < 21” DBH and smaller. 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because modeling of the vegetation indicated that by 

only thinning trees smaller than 21” DBH, the stands would not reach the target basal area and therefore 

would not achieve project objectives. Retaining all trees 21” and larger does not reduce the tree density 

to residual levels called for in the study plan on 2,078 acres under Alternative 2 and 1,784 acres under 

Alternative 3. The thinning prescriptions call for thinning from below, which means that the largest trees 

in any given area will be retained.

 6 Appendix A lists past and ongoing research in the Lookout Mountain Unit. In addition to the research treatments, 

there have also been past treatments within the Lookout Mtn. Unit that were not specifically designed for 

experiments. Both of these kinds of past activities are listed at the beginning of Chapter 3, under Basis for 

Cumulative Effects Analysis and displayed in Appendix A.
Chapter 2 Alternatives

 

EXF Final EIS  39

2.5 Sale Area Improvement Projects

Money may be collected from the timber sales to complete certain projects such as required mitigation, 

and enhancement and restoration projects in the vicinity of the timber sale areas. Required mitigation 

measures (M) have the highest priority for funding, but may be funded by other means such as 

appropriated funds to insure that requirements are accomplished. Items marked with an (E) are 

considered enhancement.

This list is intended to serve as an overall guide for the project area. As timber sales are defined, specific 

priorities may be adjusted to meet the needs for each sale area. This priority setting should be 

documented briefly in the implementation file for each timber sale.

Projects included in the analysis in this FEIS are subsoiling and road gating. Other projects were not 

considered in this analysis and would require documentation through a separate NEPA process.

1. Subsoiling (M)

2. Subsoiling (E)

3. Road gating (E)

4. Repair of existing gates (E)

5. Experimental Forest Boundary signing (E)

6. Flagging removal (E)

7. ATV damage repair (E)

8. Trash removal (E)

9. Road closures and signing (E)
40

Chapter 3

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  41

Affected Environment and

Environmental Consequences

This section of the environmental assessment considers the environmental consequences of 

implementation of the various alternatives. The following discussion of effects follows CEQ guidance 

for scope (40 CFR 1508.25(c)) by categorizing the effects as direct, indirect, and cumulative. The focus 

is on cause and consequences. For this analysis, in general, direct and indirect effects have been 

discussed in the context that most readers are accustomed to: those consequences which are caused by 

the action and either occur at the same time and place, or are later in time or farther removed in distance 

but are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8). Cumulative effects are discussed where there is an 

effect to the environment which results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other 

past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7).

Measures to mitigate or reduce adverse effects caused by the implementation of any of the actions 

proposed are addressed in Chapter 2, Resource Protection Measures. Effective mitigation avoids, 

minimizes, rectifies, reduces, or compensates for potential effects of actions. After mitigation is 

applied, any unavoidable adverse effect to each resource area is addressed in the section titled “Other 

Disclosures” in this chapter of the EIS. The temporal and spatial scale of the analysis is variable 

depending upon the resource concern being evaluated, particularly for cumulative effects. The 

landscape within the EXF project area boundary is the focus of this EIS, but adjacent lands are 

considered in portions of this analysis process.

Changes Between Draft and Final

This final EIS includes corrections, clarifications, and improvement over the Draft EIS. There have 

been no substantial changes to the analysis or conclusions. Table 11 (past actions and events in the 

project area) has been updated to include more specific information on past management. Figure 9, 

which shows the project area within the watersheds, has been improved to also show other ownership. 

The spotted owl Biological Assessment was updated and more information brought into the EIS. 

Clarifications and general edits have been made in response to public comment on the Draft EIS (see 

Appendix F).

3.1 Basis for Effects Analysis

3.1.2 Project Record

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) includes Forest specialists for each discipline (see Chapter 4.3 for team 

members and their qualifications). Specialists on the IDT prepared technical reports to address the 

affected environment and environmental consequences of the EXF project. All reports are maintained 

in the project file, located at the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District office in Bend, Oregon. In some cases, 

this chapter provides a summary of the report and may only reference technical data upon which 

conclusions were based. Specialist reports are incorporated by reference into this FEIS (40 CFR 

1502.41).

3.1.3 Role of Science 

Science information improves the ability to estimate consequences and risks of decision alternatives. 

The effects of each alternative are predicted based on science literature and the professional experience 

of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) specialists. The conclusions of the IDT specialists are based on the 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42  EXF Final EIS

best available science and current understanding. Relevant and available scientific information is 

incorporated by reference and a complete bibliography is included at the end of this FEIS. Referenced 

material is a consideration of the best available science.

Data Gaps and Uncertainty

This project will improve and expand our knowledge 

concerning forest management. In addition to improving 

understanding of forest vegetation dynamics, the research 

will also produce information pertinent to fuels 

management/fire risk and forest insect/disease issues and 

may indirectly and over the longer term address herbivory 

and wildlife habitat and climate change issues.

The current body of science does not include any research 

that provides recommendations contrary to the need for 

density reduction to avoid widespread beetle infestation. All treatment units (except control units) in the 

EXF project are subject to and will benefit from thinning and fuels reduction; however, there will be 

variation in the relative benefits between the thinning types. These variations are the subject of the 

research to be conducted. For example, the study plan hypothesizes that removing more small trees 

should allow the residual trees to grow to larger diameters faster, so the trees left in units thinned to 50% 

UMZ should grow more each year and/or for a longer period o time than in units that are thinned to 75 

or 100% UMZ. This hypothesis has only been tested on smaller pole-size stands of ponderosa pine. 

The research will lead to a more precise answer to what are appropriate stocking levels for highly 

productive stands because there is currently a gap in available science as to the precise effects of leaving 

different densities. 

Climate change is also a source of uncertainty. What is an appropriate basal area or stocking level for 

sustainability today may not be the same answer decades from now. The study plan will address the 

research question “What is the long-term influence of climate change interacting with a set of fuel 

reduction treatments on vegetation dynamics and forest structure?” 

Scientific Citations Submitted during Public Comment Period

During the 45-day public comment period (see Chapter 4 and Appendix F), the Forest Service received 

copies of documents that some felt showed scientific opposition to elements of the purpose and need, 

proposed action, and effects analysis. These documents were reviewed by the interdisciplinary team 

and scientists at the Pacific Northwest Research Station for their applicability to the analysis in the 

FEIS. The final assessment is included in Appendix F, Response to Comments. 

Scientific Controversy is a phrase used repeatedly. A scientific controversy occurs when there are 

differing opinions within a body of science. Claims of scientific controversy regarding the need for 

action are not substantiated. Commenters provided no peer-reviewed scientific literature that disputes 

the evidence that the stands within the project area are at risk to widespread mortality from bark beetles. 

Where there are acknowledged difference of scientific opinion, these are addressed within this chapter 

of the FEIS and in Appendix F, Response to Comments.

3.1.4 Cumulative Effects 

The Environmental Consequences disclosures in this FEIS include discussion of cumulative effects. 

Where there is an overlapping zone of influence, or an additive effect, this information is disclosed. In 

order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and 

alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past 

actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and 

The research and development 

(R&D) arm of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) Forest 

Service works at the forefront of 

science to improve the health and 

use of our Nation's forests and 

grasslands. Research has been 

part of the Forest Service mission 

since the agency's inception in 

1905.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  43

natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Most of 

these actions and natural events are displayed in Table 11.

The cumulative effects analysis in this FEIS does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human 

actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not 

taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile 

and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the 

last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual 

impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis 

would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, 

focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there 

is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot

reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current 

conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important 

residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as 

human actions. 

By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions 

and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Finally, the 

Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding 

analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by 

focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of 

individual past actions.” 

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part:

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to 

determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of 

past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the 

proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final 

analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered 

(including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. 

With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, 

the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the 

required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the 

direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to 

predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require 

agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because 

information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean 

that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7) 

The following table lists the groups of actions that have contributed to the existing conditions within the 

project area. The effects analysis throughout this Chapter considers these past actions as contributing to 

the current condition. For example, the discussion of existing soil conditions (p. 246) and table 79

which shows existing detrimental soil conditions are based on GIS data and the information in Table 11. 

Appendix A contains maps and data on past actions in the project area. Table 12 provides information 

on ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects that may be considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Specialists reviewed the information in Table 12 for applicability to their analysis, and included those 

projects that were pertinent to the resource and area of cumulative effect.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44  EXF Final EIS

Table 11. Past actions and events that have contributed to the current conditions in the project area.

Type of Action General Description Status / Timing

Past Veg. Mgmt., Including for Research

PNW-sponsored 

silviculture studies

Various pruning, burning, thinning or regeneration harvests

within the experimental forest boundary. Some geographic 

overlap of units where research plots will be protected. 

Some contribution to the vegetation conditions. Studies 

listed in Appendix A.

Completed 1950s 

through 1990s; 

some ongoing

Fire Salvage

Salvage cutting in 1985 Lookout Mtn. Fire area. About 1 

acres within the project area. Very minor contribution to 

current stand structure.

Completed 24 

years ago

Thinning

Low thinning across approximately 2,534 acres. Most 

treatments were in conjunction with studies relative to 

ponderosa pine silviculture. 

1,801 acres have been entered once; 1,676 of these acres 

entered for commercial size density reduction. 676 acres 

entered twice (primarily precommercial thinning). 57 acres 

have been entered three times, primarily for regeneration 

activities after overstory treatments and removal.

These actions have contributed to the current vegetative 

structure in the area. See Appendix A for a map of past 

vegetation management and dates of their occurrence.

1970s and 80s.

EXF Biomass Study Approx. 10 acres in project area. About 29 trees were 

removed from along the major roads in project area. Completed 2008

Road Construction

The road network was 

established within the 

experimental Forest.

About 35 miles of road were built in the Lookout Mtn. unit. 

Contributes to current road density and provides access.

Completed 40 

years ago in the 

1960s

Wildfires 

1845 Wildfire

Stand replacement wildfire covering much of the project 

area, followed by establishment of current stand structure, 

density and species composition in the Fall and Crane 

Prairie watersheds.

165 years ago

1914 Lookout Mtn. 

Eastside Fire

321 acre fire in the central eastern portion of EXF. 

Contributed to current vegetation in the project area and Fall 

watershed. See map Appendix A for location.

95 years ago

1985 Lookout Mtn. Fire

533 acre fire to west of EXF boundary; 1 acres overlap with 

project area; contributed to current veg. condition in Crane 

Prairie watershed.

14 years ago

Other

Communication Site

Forest Service Communication site installed at top of 

Lookout Mountain. Within project area; covers 

approximately 1 acre. 

Ongoing
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  45

Table 12. Ongoing or Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area and in the Crane Prairie 

(25,285 acres) and Fall River (39,516 acres) 6th field watersheds (see Figure 9) that may contribute to 

cumulative effects.

Type of Action General Description Status / Timing

Programmatic 

Travel Management Rule

& Deschutes Travel Management EIS

Motorized travel in central Oregon will be restricted to 

designated trails, only. Off-road or cross-country 

travel will not be permitted within the EXF project 

area. Current off-road use will be subject to 

enforcement. Motorized access for dispersed 

camping is limited to existing, designated, and 

defined sites only. There are no existing, designated 

or defined sites in the Lookout Mtn. Unit of the 

Experimental Forest.

Planning; 

implementation 

expected in 2010

PNW Invasive Plant Program, 

Preventing and Managing Invasive 

Plants Record of Decision (2005)

The ROD provides Standards and Guidelines for 

treatment and prevention of invasive plant species. 

Currently, there are no known invasive plant sites in 

the project area. Measures to prevent invasive plant 

introduction and spread are included in the EXF 

project design. 

Implementation

Ongoing

Silviculture/Fuels Reduction

Long-Term Research Projects

Some studies listed in Appendix A are long-term 

ongoing studies that may involve rethinning in small 

plots and data collection.

Ongoing / 

Recurring

Snow Fuels Reduction Not in project area; Approx. 3,000 acres in Crane 

Prairie watershed. 

Currently 

Implementing 

Timber Sales 

SIBUN Commercial Firewood Not in project area; Approx. 20 acres in watershed Implementing

Charlie Brown Project

Not in project area; Approx. 11,492 acres in 

watershed. Prescribed burning and precommercial 

thinning; contributes to conditions in the Crane 

Prairie Watershed.

Post-sale work 

ongoing

Fall Project Not in project area; Approx. 3,169 acres in Fall 

watershed. Prescribed burning.

Post-sale work 

ongoing

Transportation System

Highway 42 Reconstruction Not in project area; Approx. 5 miles in watershed Ongoing

County Roads ROW maintenance Not in project area; Approx. 20 miles in watershed Ongoing / 

Recurring

MISC.

Midstate Electric Powerline 

Maintenance

Not in project area; Approx. 1 acre of vegetation 

clearing along powerline in watershed.

Ongoing / 

Recurring

Crane Prairie Resort and developed 

recreation site maintenance Not in project area; Approx. 10 acres in watershed. Ongoing / Recurring

Irrigation District Improvements and 

Reservoir level maintenance

Not in project area; Located at Crane Prairie 

Reservoir in watershed.

Ongoing / 

Recurring
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46  EXF Final EIS

Figure 9. Location of the EXF Project in the Crane Prairie and Fall River 5th and 6th Field Watersheds.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  47

3.2 Discussion of Effects – Key Issue

Key Issue #1 – Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Federal Threatened, MIS

Introduction

During initial scoping for this project, some members of the public wanted to see that northern spotted 

owl habitat is protected from the thinning activities. Some expressed concerns that the proposed 

activities would be in conflict with recovery plan objectives. The Lookout Mountain unit of the 

experimental forest contains 250 acres of nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat within the 

Administratively Withdrawn allocation. Alternative 3 was developed to address the issue of treating in

this kind of habitat. The 221 acres of NRF within the project area (hereinafter defined as the proposed 

treatment units under each Alternative, including control units unless otherwise specified) would not be 

treated and would be protected from underburning by fire line under Alternative 3. There is also 161

acres of dispersal habitat within the Sheridan Late Successional Reserve overlapping the project area

that are deferred from treatment under Alternative 3. This section compares the alternatives’ effects to 

the spotted owl issue; see Table 13.

Table 13. Spotted Owl NRF Habitat by Allocation.

Allocation

Acres within 

the Lookout Mt 

Unit 

Experimental 

Forest

Acres within a 

proposed unit 

excluding 

Control Units

NRF Acres 

within the 

Lookout 

Mt Unit

NRF Acres

Within EXF 

Project Area 

(excluding 

Control 

Units)**

Percent of total 

NRF Acres in the 

Lookout Mt. Unit 

within a proposed 

unit

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Late 

Successional 

Reserve

210 161 0 0* 0 0 0% 0

Matrix 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0

Administratively 

Withdrawn 3035 2,127 1916 250 211 0 88% 0

Private Land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eastside 

Screens 370 266 266 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 3,615 2,554 2,182 250 211 0 88% 0%

*There is no mapped NRF within the LSR portion of the Lookout Mt Unit

**There are 10 acres of mapped NRF within “Control” units that are not proposed for treatment

There are no Critical Habitat Units (CHU) within or adjacent to the Lookout Mt. unit of the 

experimental forest or the project area.

Affected Environment

The USFWS listed the northern spotted owl (NSO) as a threatened species in Washington, Oregon, and 

California on June 26, 1990 (55 Federal Register [FR] 26114). A final draft recovery plan was released 

in January 1992 but was not finalized. A new draft recovery plan was released in April 2007 (72 FR 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48  EXF Final EIS

20865) and the final recovery plan was released on May 16, 2008 (USFWS 2008). Critical habitat 

primary constituent elements include forested lands that are used or potentially used for nesting, 

roosting, foraging, and dispersing. Critical habitat on 6,887,000 acres was designated on January 15, 

1992 (57 FR 1796) and revised on August 12, 2008 to include 5,312,300 acres (73 FR 47325). None of 

the critical habitat occurs within the project area; the nearest critical habitat unit is 7 air miles from the 

project area. Current threats to NSO include previous and ongoing loss of suitable habitat and 

competition with barred owls (Strix varia) (55 FR 26114).

A majority (3,245 ac of 3,615 ac Lookout Mt. Unit) of the project area lies within the range of the 

northern spotted owl and under management of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). Approximately 210

acres of the 31,004 acre Sheridan Mountain Late Successional Reserve (LSR) are within the project 

area; the remaining area within the owl range is within the Administratively Withdrawn allocation. 

Another 370 acres of the project area lies east of the range of the northern spotted owl and under 

management of the Interim Management Direction – Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 or 

“Eastside Screens.” There are no Critical Habitat Units within the project area.

The northern spotted owl inhabits mature to old-growth mixed coniferous habitats (USFWS 1990). 

They will occupy second-growth forests if key components of mature forests are present; however, 

population density and reproductive success are usually lower than in old-growth forests (USFWS 

1989). Major roosting and nesting areas are generally dispersed throughout a territory and their use 

varies seasonally (Forsman et al. 1984).

Roost sites selected by spotted owls have more complex vegetation structure than forests generally 

available to them (Barrows and Barrows 1978, p.3; Forsman et al. 1984, pp. 29-30; Solis and Gutiérrez 

1990, pp.742-743 in USFWS Biological Opinion, Jan. 2010). These habitats are usually multi-layered 

forests having high canopy closure and large diameter trees in the overstory. Spotted owls nest almost 

exclusively in trees. Like roosts, nest sites are found in forests having complex structure dominated by 

large diameter trees (Forsman et al. 1984, p.30; Hershey et al. 1998, p.1402 in USFWS Biological 

Opinion, Jan. 2010). Even in forests that have been previously logged, spotted owls select forests

having a structure (i.e., larger trees, greater canopy closure) different than forests generally available to 

them (Folliard 1993, p. 40; Buchanan et al. 1995, p.1402; Hershey et al. 1998 p. 1404 in USFWS 

Biological Opinion, Jan. 2010).

Foraging habitat is the most variable of all habitats used by territorial spotted owls (USDI FWS 1992b, 

p. 20). Descriptions of foraging habitat have ranged from complex structure (Solis and Gutiérrez 1990, 

pp. 742-744 in USFWS Biological Opinion, Jan. 2010) to forests with lower canopy closure and smaller 

trees than forests containing nests or roosts (Gutiérrez 1996, p.5 in USFWS Biological Opinion, Jan. 

2010).

As stated within the Programmatic BA (pages 14 & 15; October 2009), “spotted owls generally require 

mature or old-growth coniferous forest with complex structure including multiple canopy layers, large 

green trees and snags, heavy canopy habitat, and coarse woody material on the forest floor. A wide 

variety of forest types are utilized. Nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat for the northern 

spotted owl on the Deschutes NF includes stands of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine with white fir 

understories, and mountain hemlock with subalpine fir. Suitable habitat on the east side of the Cascade 

Mountains is naturally confined to a narrow forested band below the high-elevation subalpine forests 

and above the low-elevation lodgepole (Pinus contorta)/ponderosa pine forests (USDI 1992a). Neither 

of these forest types is considered spotted owl habitat. In some areas within the province, suitable 

habitat is naturally fragmented by intrusions of lava and other forest types, as well as by recent harvest 

or wildfires. Suitable habitat is not usually found in large patches but usually occurs as inclusions 

within a larger stand. Therefore, habitat conditions are patchy within stands and across the landscape.” 

Prey species on the drier East Cascades forests include a mix of arboreal and terrestrial rodents 

including northern flying squirrels, bushy-tailed woodrats, voles, and deer mice, with birds and insects 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  49

as secondary prey. Northern flying squirrels typically use old woodpecker holes or other cavities in 

large trees and snags; and some dwarf mistletoe clumps. They are a fairly large rodent thus requiring 

the larger trees with cavities. Northern flying squirrels eat truffles (Natureserve 2009, Smith 2007, 

Weigl 2007). Fungi (e.g. truffles) usually require moist conditions to proliferate. In the forest, these 

can be soft, rotten logs, underneath ground litter, and shaded plant associations (Lehmkuhl 2004). 

Bushy-tailed woodrats reach their highest densities in stands with soft logs, dwarf mistletoe, and large 

snags; rocky dens are also an important component of woodrat habitat (Lehmkuhl et al 2006). The 

Experimental Forest, more specifically, the EXF project area currently provides some of these habitat 

components. There are areas with soft logs in proximity to rocky clusters. Other areas provide some 

large snags or large dying trees that will soon be snags. There are no expansive areas with dwarf 

mistletoe, although there are trees with it within the project area. Mixed conifer stands provide the best 

habitat for northern flying squirrel while lodgepole pine stands provide habitat for woodrats and deer 

mice.

Spotted owls primarily use cavities in the boles of dead or live trees for nesting structure. They will 

sometimes build platform nests in abandoned raptor nests, broken treetops, mistletoe brooms, and 

squirrel nests. Large diameter trees with the ability to produce large limb structure or epicormic 

branching also provide good nesting structure. Relatively heavy canopy habitat with a semi-open 

understory is essential for effective hunting and movement. Nest trees on the Forest are predominately 

Douglas-fir, with ponderosa pine and white fir used less often.

Courtship behavior usually begins in February or March, and females typically lay eggs in late March or 

April. After they leave the nest in late May or June, juvenile spotted owls depend on their parents until 

they are able to hunt on their own. By late summer, the adults are rarely found roosting with their 

young and usually only visit the juveniles to feed them at night (Forsman et al. 1984). Parental feeding 

may continue into September after chicks fledge (Forsman et al. 1984). Natal dispersal of spotted owls 

typically begins in September and October with a few individuals dispersing in November and 

December (Miller et al. 1997, Forsman et al. 2002). Known or suspected causes of mortality during 

dispersal include starvation, predation, and accidents (Forsman et al. 2002).

Activities involving chainsaws, heavy equipment, aircraft, or blasting within specified distances during 

the breeding season (March 1 to September 30) have the potential to disrupt breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering which may lead spotted owls to flush from the nest, abort a feeding, or postpone a feeding 

(Damiami et al. 2007, USFWS 2003, Delaney et al. 1999). The sensitivity of an individual owl to 

disturbance is likely related to the baseline level of disturbance to which the individual is accustomed, 

the level and proximity of the disturbance, and the timing of the disturbance in the nesting cycle and 

nightly activity period. Spotted owls are likely most sensitive to disturbance during the earlier months 

of their breeding season (March-early July). 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

As stated within the Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment for Federal 

Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s Administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco 

National Forests (Programmatic BA) (USDA Forest Service 2006), 

“spotted owls generally require mature or old-growth coniferous forest with complex structure 

including multiple canopy layers, large green trees and snags, heavy canopy habitat, and coarse 

woody material on the forest floor. A wide variety of forest types are utilized. Nesting, roosting, 

and foraging (NRF) habitat for the northern spotted owl on the Deschutes NF includes stands of 

mixed conifer, ponderosa pine with white fir understories, and mountain hemlock with subalpine 

fir. Suitable habitat on the east side of the Cascade Mountains is naturally confined to a narrow 

forested band below the high-elevation subalpine forests and above the low-elevation lodgepole 

(Pinus contorta)/ponderosa pine forests (USDI 1992a). Neither of these forest types is considered 

spotted owl habitat. In some areas within the province, suitable habitat is naturally fragmented by 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50  EXF Final EIS

intrusions of lava and other forest types, as well as by recent harvest or wildfires. Suitable habitat 

is not usually found in large patches but usually occurs as inclusions within a larger stand. 

Therefore, habitat conditions are patchy within stands and across the landscape.” 

Mapped suitable NRF habitat was field verified in 2007 and 2008 and the Forest’s baseline data updated

(see EXF Biological Assessment pp. 9-10 and Appendix E of this FEIS). The amount of NRF within 

the lookout Mountain unit and the project area units is displayed in Table 14. There is a total of 211 

acres of NRF within proposed treatment units (Table 14 and Figure 10), and 10 acres within control 

units. The total amount of NRF present on the entire Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District is 24,145 acres and 

on the Deschutes National Forest 78,110 acres; thus the amount of NRF habitat within the project area 

(i.e. proposed treatment areas, excluding control units) represents 0.9% and 0.3% of all the NRF habitat 

on either the district or forest, respectively.

Field-verified NRF within the project area has few potential nest trees, but has the structural 

characteristics that would allow for roosting and foraging (dispersal is provided for as well as discussed 

in a later section). Current conventions do not separate out nesting, roosting, and foraging into different 

habitat classifications (e.g. nesting, roosting, and foraging). The stands within the project area that met 

better foraging and dispersal habitat (i.e. higher canopy closure but lacking large trees), but lacked 

immediate nest tree availability, were retained as NRF in the baseline data because it is anticipated that 

nest trees (e.g. large Douglas-fir or true firs with large cavities) could develop within these stand types. 

Appendix E (updated with the November 13, 2009 Biological Assessment) of this FEIS contains field 

verification methodology and photos to illustrate the different habitat variables within the NRF patches. 

See Appendix A of the Biological Assessment for more details and maps.

Table 14. Spotted Owl Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat by Unit.

Unit No. NRF Acres Proposed Action

32 13 Light thin, mow shrubs, prescribed burn

13 3 Thin across all age cohorts, mow shrubs, prescribe burn

12 37 Heavy thin, mow shrubs, prescribed burn

11 69 Moderate thin, mow shrubs, prescribed burn

22 33 Moderate thin, mow shrubs, prescribed burn

23 56 Heavy thin, mow shrubs, prescribed burn

Total NRF 

Treatment Acres 211

25 10 Control – No treatments

Total 221
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  51

 Figure 10. Project Area with Late Successional Reserves and Spotted Owl NRF Habitat.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52  EXF Final EIS

Dispersal Habitat and Connectivity

Dispersal habitat is important for spotted owl young to move from one territory to another, away from 

natal areas, or away from adults. The Programmatic BA defines dispersal habitat as a minimum of 30% 

canopy closure regardless of plant association, and a minimum average diameter of 7 inch DBH for 

lodgepole pine stands, and 11 inch DBH for mountain hemlock, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

stands (Table 15).

Table 15. Dispersal habitat definitions (items in bold are PAGs found within the EXF Project Area)

Plant Association Group (PAG) Stand Criteria

Average DBH, Percent Canopy Cover

Mixed Conifer Wet 11” DBH, 40% CC

Mixed Conifer Dry 11” DBH, 30% CC

Ponderosa Pine 11” DBH, 30% CC

Lodgepole Pine 7” DBH, 30% CC

Mountain Hemlock 7” DBH, 30% CC

In mapping dispersal habitat over the project area and comparing it to the larger subwatersheds, LSR, 

and district, a two-tiered process was used. 

First, the definition of dispersal habitat detailed in the Programmatic BA was used (see above 

discussion). In trying to query existing ArcGIS databases to spatially display dispersal habitat the 2004 

satellite imagery data was used. The advantage is this database can be queried at various levels (e.g. 

district, project, and watershed boundaries), contains the vegetation data pertinent to defining habitat 

(e.g. tree diameter and canopy closure) and gives a more recent “snapshot in time” or existing condition 

than other vegetation databases, thereby eliminating the need to update features due to activities prior to 

2004. 

Secondly, in order to query the satellite data, the definition of dispersal habitat in the Programmatic BA 

needed to be reconciled with the data format (see Table 19). For example instead of using a 30% 

canopy closure level (as defined for the dry mixed conifer and ponderosa pine habitats), the database 

used a 25-40% minimum. The query then added another level whereby the tree size needed to meet at 

least “pole” size. This equated to 5-9” in database; whereas in the Programmatic BA the tree range is 7-

11” dbh. 

The following tables show the reconciling of the Programmatic definitions with the satellite data:

Table 16. Plant Association Groups

Programmatic BA Satellite Imagery Percent of Dispersal Habitat 

used in analysis

Mixed Conifer Wet Mix true firs & hemlock 0.5

Mixed Conifer Dry Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir; 

White fir/Douglas-fir 50.7

Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa pine; Ponderosa 

Pine/Lodgepole pine 45.1

Lodgepole Pine Lodgepole pine 2.1

Mountain Hemlock Mountain hemlock; Mt. 

Hemlock/Sub-alpine fir 1.6
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  53

Table 17. Percent canopy cover

Programmatic BA Satellite Imagery Percent of Dispersal Habitat

used in analysis

30% 25-40% 60.4

40% 40-55% 3.4

55-70% 35.9

70-100% 0.3

Table 18. Average dbh

Programmatic BA Satellite Imagery* Percent of Dispersal Habitat used in 

analysis

7” Pole (5-9”dbh) 0.0

11” Small (9-15” dbh) 6.1

Medium (15-20”dbh) 48.7

Large & X-Large (20+”dbh) 45.2

*The satellite Imagery data also breaks the size class into multi-story (MS) and single-story (SS); dispersal habitat 

used both. 

The following table summarizes the reconciled data in order to show the analysis used when defining 

dispersal habitat as compared to the Programmatic BA.

Table 19. Summary of reconciled Programmatic data

Where the 

Programmatic BA 

defined Dispersal 

Habitat in...

As...

The satellite 

imagery analysis 

used...

Representing... With a break down of...

Mixed Conifer Wet 11” dbh and 40% 

Canopy Closure 

(CC)

Mixed true firs & 

hemlock

89.75 ac All >40% CC

9.1 ac = 9-15”dbh

80.65 ac = 15+” dbh

Mixed Conifer Dry 11” dbh and 30% 

Canopy Closure

Ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir; 

White fir/Douglas-fir

9325.8 ac 4781.9 ac = 15+” dbh and 

>40% CC;

Of the areas 9-15”dbh, 

1958.5 ac are >40% CC; 

835.2 ac are 25-40% CC 

and >15” dbh

Ponderosa Pine 11” dbh and 30% 

Canopy Closure

Ponderosa pine; 

Ponderosa 

Pine/Lodgepole pine

8291.2 ac 90.6 ac = 15+” dbh and 

>40% CC;

Of the areas 9-15”dbh, 

44.02 ac are >40% CC; 

3937.6 ac are 25-40% CC 

and >15” dbh

Lodgepole Pine 7” dbh and 30% 

Canopy Closure

Lodgepole pine 386.1ac All >9” dbh

289.4 = 25-40% CC

Mountain Hemlock 7” dbh and 30% 

Canopy Closure

Mountain hemlock; 

Mt. Hemlock/Subalpine fir

299.5 ac All >9” dbh

26.2 acres = 25-40% CC

Total 18,392 ac

Approximately 18,392 acres of the 6th field watersheds are NSO dispersal habitat using the above 

criteria. There are approximately 2,107 proposed unit acres with dispersal habitat within the project 

area and it is well-distributed (~ 11% of dispersal habitat in the watersheds; Figures 11-13). 

Approximately 172 acres of this dispersal habitat within the project area is within no-treat control units. 

This amount (within the project area) is inflated from the method used for the larger 6th field watersheds 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54  EXF Final EIS

and LSR, however, because it counts the whole unit as dispersal habitat, whereas more refined analysis 

shows that dispersal habitat is actually patchy within the units (740 acres Figures 11-13; Table 20); with 

the largest patches within control units. This approach to the project area was more efficient in 

analyzing the action-specific effects.

The project area provides dispersal habitat in all directions. The Browns/Wickiup Watershed Analysis 

and Browns/Round Mountain Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (1997) had designated 

connectivity corridors between LSRs in the Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds. These corridors 

were to be managed for late-seral characteristics and encompassed the best habitat currently meeting 

these characteristics. One of these corridors runs through the EXF Project area and encompasses 

suitable NRF habitat as well as dispersal habitat. The corridor “CC#2” was designated to address 

dispersal and movement needs of a variety of species, past fragmentation between the LSRs and the 

literature then on risks to NSO from predators associated with edges. The goal was to provide 

connected dispersal habitat within a corridor that was a minimum of 1,000 ft. wide, and an average 30% 

canopy closure through time (Charlie Brown Biological Evaluation and associated USFWS Letter of 

concurrence, 2000). The Fall River planning efforts (Bend Ft Rock Ranger District Environmental 

analysis 2004) also designated corridors under the “Eastside Screens” that connect to these other 

corridors from the Charlie Brown Project. These corridors are to be managed for late-seral 

characteristics such as higher canopy closures and larger trees. These corridors ensure dispersal habitat 

is maintained in the watersheds (see Figure 12).

Dispersal habitat is generally available throughout the area. Miller et al. (1997) found dispersing owls 

favored old growth structure for dispersal, but utilized many types of forest. Use of open sapling stands 

during dispersal decreased the probability of mortality, where use of clearcuts increased the probability 

of mortality. Miller et al. (1997) tied the increase of survival in sapling stands to availability of prey. 

The SEI report (Courtney et al. 2004) noted that owls did not disperse across large unforested valleys 

but did disperse between areas through forested foothills. 

Table 20. The amount of dispersal habitat by plant association group using 2004 satellite imagery data

6th field 

Subwatersheds

Sheridan Mt. 

LSR

Sheridan Mt 

LSR portion of 

the 

experimental 

forest

EXF Project 

Area

Percent of total 

Dispersal Acres 

in the Lookout 

Mt. Unit within a 

proposed unit

6th field LSR

Mountain 

Hemlock 299 ac 2574 0 0.3 0.1% <0.1%

Lodgepole 

Pine 386 ac 832 2 1.4 0.3% 0.2%

Mixed Conifer 

Wet 90 ac 258 0 0.2 0.2% 0.1%

Mixed Conifer 

Dry 9326 ac 5743 74 687.1 7% 12%

Ponderosa 

Pine 8291 ac 8764 156 51 1% 0.6%

Total 18,392 ac 18,171 232 ac 740 4%
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  55

Figure 11. Dispersal habitat across the Bend Portion of the Ranger District using 2004 satellite imagery 

data.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56  EXF Final EIS

Figure 12. Dispersal habitat and connectivity through the EXF project area and larger subwatersheds
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  57

Figure 13. Project level dispersal habitat

Critical Habitat and Late Successional Reserve

Critical Habitat Units (CHU) were established by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service because 1) spotted 

owl habitat is continually decreasing and becoming more fragmented, 2) the resultant increased threat of 

isolation of spotted owl populations, and 3) the exacerbation of poor habitat conditions for dispersing 

spotted owls. There are no CHUs within the project area. The closest CHU is approximately 7 air miles 

to the west (Cultus Mountain).

Sheridan Mountain Late Successional Reserve

The Sheridan Mountain LSR is 31,004 acres and approximately 161 acres are within the EXF Project

area. This LSR has 1,393 acres of mapped NRF habitat, none of these acres are within the EXF Project 

area and have not been field verified. A decline in habitat has likely occurred in the LSR due to insects 

and disease, but this also has not been field verified. 

The Northwest Forest Plan established this reserve network designed to protect late-successional forest 

species. The purpose of the Late Successional Reserves (LSR) is to provide distribution, quantity, and 

quality of late successional and old growth forest habitats sufficient to avoid foreclosure of future 

management options. The objective of LSRs is to “protect and enhance the condition of latesuccessional/old growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for dependent or old growth 

associated species including the northern spotted owl.” (USDA 1994a).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58  EXF Final EIS

The Deschutes National Forest Late Successional Reserve Overview (USDA 1995b) recognized that 

late successional reserves east of the Cascade crest function differently as well as identifying the major 

risks to each. “Climatic conditions on the eastern flank of the Cascade Range are much drier then 

conditions west of the crest. These drier climatic conditions in combination with the exclusion of fire 

and past timber harvest activities have created over stocked and stressed stands that are and have been 

susceptible to large scale insect and disease epidemics, and catastrophic fires. Within Region 6, some of 

the Deschutes National Forest LSRs provide habitat for species which rely on late structured stands 

maintained by frequent, low intensity fire regimes. These “fire climax” late successional and old 

growth stands provide habitats and an array of late successional and old growth related species not 

usually associated with the “climatic climax” stands on the Deschutes Forest or Province. Because of 

this mix of “westside” and “eastside” vegetation types and conditions, management efforts should focus 

on maintaining the dynamic balance of all the vegetative series, to include both climatic climax and fire 

climax ecosystems. This will provide opportunities for ecosystem maintenance and restoration for 

existing and potential natural vegetation.”(USDA 1995b).

As required by the NWFP, a Late Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) was completed to 

determine what management activities would be appropriate within the LSR. The LSRA was reviewed 

by the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) and determined to be consistent by letter January 27, 1997. 

The REO found the Sheridan Mountain LSRA provided sufficient framework and context for future 

activities within the LSR and was consistent with the direction found in the Record of Decision for the 

NWFP.

Specifically the objectives of any proposed management within the LSRA are 1) to prevent the loss of 

current late-successional and old-growth habitat due to large scale disturbances; and 2) to accelerate the 

development of late-seral old growth forest characteristics (e.g. snags, logs, large trees, canopy gaps).

Page III-1 of this LSRA states “Cultus and Sheridan LSRs have a variety of plant associations groups 

[PAGs] within them, several of which are not conducive for northern spotted owls but do provide 

habitat for many LSOG [Late Seral Old Growth] wildlife species....indicator species were selected ...to 

represent habitat characteristics for each of the PAGs.” Table 21 illustrates these indicator species, a 

summary of their habitat characteristics and its presence within the LSR and, more specifically, the 

portion of the LSR overlapping with this project.

The LSRA defined Management Strategy Areas (MSA) throughout the LSR based on plant association 

groups and recommended treatments to reduce the risk of insect, disease, and fire. The LSRA included 

management options in which to reduce these risks and identified priority areas. The intent of the 

LSRA was to take a proactive approach before a stand-replacing event could occur. Therefore, it was 

intended that treatments would have occurred to reduce the effect of a wildfire or forego this type of 

event all together. 

The portion of the Sheridan Mt LSR that overlaps the EXF project area contains MSAs B, C, and J. 

According to the LSRA, within these management strategy areas thinning and fuels reduction needs are 

immediate and projects that address these needs were recommended within the first decade of the 

assessment. Similarly, commercial thinning is an acceptable strategy for late-successional old growth 

habitat acceleration in these types of MSAs. Common wildlife indicator species across these three 

MSAs include pileated woodpecker, northern goshawk, and flammulated owl. Other indicator species 

for the MSAs in this portion of the LSR include northern spotted owl, black-backed woodpecker, and 

white-headed woodpecker (see Table 21). Many of these species have been observed in the watershed.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  59

Table 21. LSRA Indicator Species (ref. page III-15, Table III-4) Habitat Representation in the Project 

Area*

PAG Indicator 

Species

Habitat 

Description 

Summary 

from LSRA

Acres of LSR 

overlapping with 

Lookout Mt Unit 

of Experimental 

Forest

Acres of LSR

overlapping with 

Lookout Mt Unit of 

Experimental Forest 

that are also within 

the EXF project area

Representative

Percentage within 

entire Sheridan Mt 

LSR

MH

American 

marten

>20”dbh; 

>40% CC; 

multi-story

0 0

0%

~23 ac total in LSR

Boreal Owl

>15” dbh; 

>40%; 

multi-story

0 0

0%

~2435 ac total in LSR

MCW

Pileated 

Woodpecker

>15” dbh; 

>55% CC; 

multi-story

0 0

0%

~267 ac total in LSR

Spotted Owl

>15” dbh; 

>55% CC; 

multi-story

0 0

0%

~267 ac total in LSR

MCD

Flammulated 

Owl

>15” dbh; 

>40% CC; 

multi-story

31 0

1.1%

~2,795 ac total in LSR

Blackbacked 

Woodpecker

>15” dbh; 

>40% CC 31 0

1.1%

~2,827 ac total in LSR

Northern 

Goshawk

>15” dbh; 

>40% CC; 

multi-story

31 0

1.1%

~2,795 ac total in LSR

PP

Whiteheaded 

Woodpecker

>20” dbh; 

>25% CC 4 0

0.5%

~848 ac total in LSR

LP

Blackbacked 

Woodpecker

>9”dbh; 

>25% CC 2 0

0.2%

~969 ac total in LSR

According to Tables III-4 and IV-1 in the LSRA; these numbers reflect the minimum characteristics. For example 

Table IV-1 lists a canopy closure of 70% for marten in MH. In the Sheridan Mt LSR there are 1.5 acres of habitat that 

meets this canopy closure and tree size.

Table 22. LSR Portion of the Lookout Mt Unit Summary:

Acres of LSR 

overlapping with 

Lookout Mt Unit of 

Experimental Forest

Acres of LSR overlapping 

with Lookout Mt Unit of 

Experimental Forest that are 

also within the EXF project 

area

Representative

Percentage within 

entire Sheridan Mt 

LSR

Total 210 161 31,004 ac total

0.5-0.7%

Spotted Owl mapped 

Nesting, Roosting, 

Foraging 0 0 0%

Spotted Owl Dispersal*

(>40% CC and >9”dbh) 49 39 ~6761 ac total0.6-0.7%

Areas with avg tree 

diameters >=20” dbh 4 3 ~930 ac total

0.3-0.4%

Areas meeting average 

tree diameters of >=15” 

dbh & >40% Canopy 

closure

32 22 ~4961 ac total

0.4-0.6%
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60  EXF Final EIS

*This lumps all plant associations into the same dispersal criteria (e.g. the Programmatic BA uses 30% 

CC for some PAGs), for a more refined breakdown of dispersal habitat by plant association see the 

discussion on pp. 51-53

Table 23. Snag and log plot data summary for the Lookout Mt portion of the LSR (9 plots fell within 

this portion)

Density estimate 

(#/ac)*

Total for all plots Size range

Snags 12 11 6.3-19 in. dbh

Logs 15 14 7-24 in dbh

*calculated by taking the total for all plots, dividing by 9 (the number of plots within LSR portion) to get the # per 

plot, and then dividing by 0.1 (each plot is a one-tenth acre plot)

The following figures (Fig 14-16) illustrate the spatial relationship among the stand and habitat 

characteristics discussed in the above tables. Both the tables and figures show that not only is the LSR 

portion overlapping the project area minimally providing any spotted owl habitat (no NRF, and 39 acres 

of dispersal habitat: Table 22 and Figure 13), but also this portion is minimally providing habitat for 

other LSR indicator species (Table 22 and Figures 14-16). 

Figure 14. Spatial distribution of tree size classes within the Sheridan Mt. LSR portion that is adjacent 

to the EXF project area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  61

Figure 15. Spatial distribution of crown closures within the Sheridan Mt. LSR portion that is adjacent to 

the EXF project area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62  EXF Final EIS

Figure 16. Spatial distribution of plant association groups within the Sheridan Mt. LSR portion that is 

adjacent to the EXF project area.

Hessburg et al. (1994 in Courtney et al. 2004) concluded that a century of fire protection has promoted a 

steady shift away from open ponderosa pine forests toward denser late-seral fir forests. These changes 

in the mixed conifer community resulted in habitat conducive to the spotted owl but have also resulted 

in a shift toward greater instability (Maffei and Tandy 2002). Much of this newly developed spotted 

owl habitat is relatively short-lived as habitat because replacement Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine nest 

trees are unlikely to develop given successional pathways. This was the case with most suitable habitat 

within the Sheridan Mt. LSR and eastern portion of the Crane Prairie/western portion of the Fall River 

watershed. 

The NWFP allows research activities to occur within LSRs following an assessment of consistency with 

LSR objectives (C-18). Research activities that are not consistent with the objectives (including those 

within experimental forests) may even be appropriate, “particularly if the activities will test critical 

assumptions of these standards and guidelines, will produce results important for habitat development, 

or if the activities represent continuation of long-term research.” It is only when the activities are not 

consistent with LSR objectives that equivalent opportunities be sought outside the LSR. In this case, as 

discussed above, the proposed activities are consistent with the objectives of the LSR, so there is no 

requirement to show that there are no equivalent opportunities outside of it (C-18). 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  63

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS 2008)

The final recovery plan devotes an entire appendix (Appendix E) to managing sustainable spotted owl 

habitat in dry eastern Cascades forests, of which the EXF project is a part. In this section of the 

recovery plan, it is recognized in the dry eastside forest environments large, old, widely-spaced 

ponderosa pine, western larch, or Douglas-fir dominated the overstory. These large, fire-tolerant trees 

could survive low and mixed severity fire but large snags and logs were generally sparse. This is 

different than spotted owl habitat on the west-side of the Cascades that have infrequent fire return 

intervals, supporting higher densities of large snags and logs. Spotted owl habitat in eastside forests 

generally occur in Douglas-fir, white fir and grand fir vegetation series embedded in larger landscapes 

of forest vegetation series that are more indicative of high fire return intervals (e.g. ponderosa pine, dry 

mixed conifer). This picture of a landscape of dry and moist mixed conifer patches in a landscape of 

more fire-tolerant ponderosa pine closely describes the spotted owl habitat in the EXF project area and 

the adjacent portions of the Crane Prairie and Fall River Watersheds (especially the Sheridan Mt. LSR). 

Specifically, Recovery Actions #6 and #7 include: “Identify, maintain, and restore dry forest (ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir, and dry grand fir plant association group) moist forests (moist grand fir, western 

hemlock, and Pacific silver fir) habitat-capable areas as spatially dynamic high-quality spotted owl 

habitat patches.” “Manage lands outside of high-quality habitat patches to restore ecological processes 

and functions and to reduce the potential for significant losses by stand replacement fires, insects, and 

disease.” Therefore, there is a need to balance the management for the spotted owl with other habitat 

conditions on the landscape. Where development of suitable spotted owl habitat best fits the landscape, 

additional measures will be incorporated to ensure that components of habitat are being managed for 

(i.e. prey species habitat requirements, dispersal, large trees, etc.). The proposed treatments are focused 

within plant associations not likely to produce high quality habitat and placing treatments that will help 

reduce the risk to existing patches of habitat outside of the experimental forest.

Northern Spotted Owl Presence in Project Area

Surveys according to Region 6 protocol within the Experimental Forest have occurred in 2007, 2008, 

and 2009. Detections of spotted owls occurred in 2007 and 2008 (see Biological Assessment for 

details). In 2007, the survey efforts were able to locate a pair of spotted owls; reproduction was 

unconfirmed because mousing efforts (i.e. offering the owls live mice in the hopes an adult would take 

it and give it to an offspring) were inconclusive. A nest tree was not found. A home range diameter 

was mapped around this pair location and given the name “Three Trappers Buttes.” 

A majority of the Three Trappers Buttes home range lies outside of the Experimental Forest. The EXF 

Project area was surveyed again in 2008 and 2009. All suitable habitat, in addition to this new activity 

center, has been surveyed to determine occupancy and use. In 2008, there were two auditory detections 

of a male calling; one from inside the project area and the other detection from outside the project area 

close to the previous year’s sightings. The owl(s) were not visually located and did not respond again 

on any further location attempts. The pair detected in 2007 has not been relocated to date. There were 

no spotted owl detections (visual or auditory) during the 2009 field season. None of the survey efforts 

have detected or observed barred owls (see Appendix B of the Biological Assessment for other owl 

species detected).

Approximately 5 miles to the north is the home range circle for the Sheridan Mt. Pair (1005). This site 

was first found to be active in 1989 with only a resident male observed until 1995. In 2006 a single 

female was heard, and this was the last observation made of any spotted owls in this home range. 

Reproduction for this pair was never confirmed nor inferred (i.e. no young seen). During the LSR 

Assessment, the Sheridan Mt. Pair was the only known spotted owl pair. According to the LSRA this 

pair was already in a “take” situation because < 50% and <40% of the 0.7 and 1.2 mile radii, 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64  EXF Final EIS

respectively, was characterized as NRF habitat. This NRF habitat included dry mixed conifer, wet 

mixed conifer, and mountain hemlock associations. The project area does not enter the home range 

radius for this pair. The Three Trappers pair is in a similar situation, with < 50% and < 40% of the 0.7 

and 1.2 mile radii being classified as NRF currently; the proposed action does not enter this home range. 

Because the project does not enter either home range, the proposed actions would not contribute in the 

reduction of suitable habitat (i.e. NRF habitat) within this home range. 

Environmental Consequences

Effects to spotted owls are assessed based on the amount of nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) 

habitat and dispersal habitat for connectivity; therefore the following evaluation criteria will be used to 

assess the effects of planned activities:

• NRF Habitat: Acres of suitable habitat treated. 

• Dispersal Habitat: Acres of current dispersal habitat treated, and acres of dispersal habitat 

treated within established corridors. 

In addition, snag and down wood levels will be discussed as they relate to spotted owl habitat. 

However, a more in-depth discussion on snags and down wood can be found in the Wildlife Section 

3.3.3.

Effects Common to All Alternatives, Including No Action

CHU

There will be no effects to any CHUs. The closest CHU lies seven air miles to the west on the border of 

the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, whereas the EXF project area lies on the eastern edge of the spotted 

owl’s range. Spotted owl dispersal to the CHU via the LSRs is discussed under dispersal habitat.

Dispersal Habitat

Considering dispersal habitat, an action common to all alternatives will be to monitor and fall trees that 

pose a danger to public safety on open roads or within harvest units when identified as an imminent 

hazard. These typically occur outside suitable habitat or areas managed for the development of suitable 

habitat. However, where danger trees are identified in suitable habitat, trees are to be cut and left to 

provide additional downed wood. Danger trees within NRF habitat in the EXF area should be rare since 

these stands are still green. Falling of danger trees outside of NRF habitat will reduce snag and down 

wood levels, however this will be minor in scope and will be contained to the road prism and area 

immediately adjacent. Otherwise, all other snags and downed wood are intended to stay on site (see 

Dead Wood Analysis).

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects (Ecological Trends)

NRF Habitat

This alternative allows for processes to follow natural succession. There would be no removal of wood 

other than the falling of danger trees. Large portions of the project area would remain a mix of 

ponderosa pine stands and mixed conifer stands where large ponderosa pine are co-dominant with 

Douglas-fir, with white fir in the understory. Existing habitat would be at risk to insect and wildfire 

mortality due to fuel loadings within and adjacent to the stand.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  65

In the short-term, the current levels of NRF habitat (i.e. 221 acres within the project area which includes 

the 10 acres within control units) would remain, but in the long-term there would be little to no 

development of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests across the area because these are early seral 

species that would die out as true firs develop into the understory (see Silvicultural Report). The habitat 

currently used by the Three Trappers Butte owls is an inclusion of large diameter Douglas-fir and true 

fir surrounded by lodgepole pine. It is apparent that the stand is a remnant that survived wildfires in the 

past. With current fuel loadings in the area, it is uncertain whether a stand such as this would survive a 

future wildfire with the possibility that future spotted owl habitat may become even more limited. This 

has been illustrated on the Deschutes National Forest in 2003 with a loss of nearly 15,000 acres of 

suitable habitat (i.e. NRF habitat) across the forest (Programmatic BA; USFWS Biological Opinion Jan 

2010).

Dispersal 

The current dispersal habitat would remain. The current function of the established corridors would 

remain intact. However, the same risks to NRF habitat would be risks to dispersal habitat. A large, 

high-severity wildfire would eliminate dispersal habitat as it is defined in this analysis and the 

Programmatic BA. Newer research has shown that spotted owls may still use a burned area for 

dispersing and foraging (Bond et al 2009); however there is scientific controversy as to how valuable 

this type of habitat is to spotted owls, or to what extent the species will use the habitat and be successful 

(i.e. survive and reproduce; Ager et al 2007, Hanson et al 2009, Spies et al 2009, Hanson 2010). 

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

NRF Habitat

This alternative would result in the removal of 211 acres of NRF habitat out of the LSR. Light thinning 

would likely degrade the NRF habitat (13 ac), whereas heavier thinning and thinning across all age 

cohorts, in combination with fuels treatments, will likely remove NRF habitat (198 acres). Light 

thinning may remove some canopy components, but not necessarily the dominant canopy. The stand is 

expected to have large trees but less than 40% canopy closure; thinning from below will reduce the 

multi-storied aspect of the stand that is conducive as spotted owl habitat and prey habitat. Thus this 

portion of the stand (13 acres) may still function as foraging and dispersal habitat but not nesting and 

roosting. Heavy thinning and thinning across all age cohorts have these same effects but the effects are 

more exaggerated. In these treatments (198 acres), canopy closure, multi-storied structure and larger 

trees (in the case of thinning across age cohorts) would be reduced and cause the entire stand to no 

longer function as NRF (e.g. reduce average tree DBH in the stand and reduce the canopy closure below 

40%).

Prescribed burning and mowing can limit the sustainability of existing down large woody debris and 

snags that are habitat for spotted owl prey. This effect is less precise because many factors determine 

the amount of dead consumed and created. A prescribed fire can consume large logs and snags. 

However, it can also create large snags and logs by causing existing snags to fall (creating large logs), or 

by killing large trees (creating large snags). It is assumed within the study plan (Youngblood 2009) that 

in order to attain research objectives, mortality of live trees would be prevented by mowing to reduce 

fuel loads, and burning under spring-like conditions. Because the prescribed burning is to be designed 

to result in small fuel consumption, and it has been shown in the Pringle Falls Unit of this Experimental 

Forest that prescribed burning can retain snags and logs, it is not expected that this action would 

contribute to the degradation of spotted owl habitat or its prey habitat that utilizes snags and logs. 

Monitoring will occur before prescribed fire in order to determine if any protection measures for large 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66  EXF Final EIS

trees, snags, or logs is warranted. Monitoring after the burn will also take place to determine the 

effectiveness of any protection measures.

Although prescribed burning and mowing may not reduce the actual number of larger (>10” dbh) snags 

and logs on the landscape, Lehmkuhl (2004), Meyer et al (2007) and Weigl (2007) have eluded to the 

fact that fuels reductions and thinning can create more open, drier microhabitats that can reduce fungi 

growth thereby decreasing the food on which the spotted owl’s prey eat. The proposed actions would 

create more open stands of ponderosa pine. It is likely that within the treated portions of the 

Experimental Forest, there would be reduced foraging opportunities for the prey of northern spotted 

owls because the fuels reduction treatments may create more open, drier microhabitats not conducive to 

fungi growth than are currently present.

The effects of these activities within NRF habitat (i.e. degradation and removal of habitat) will 

adversely affect northern spotted owls by further limiting available habitat within the watersheds. Owl 

habitat on the eastern edge of the species’ range adds to the diversity of the species and its ability to 

persist (McCullough 1996). The objective of the research is to investigate treatments for ponderosa pine 

growth and protect existing research. There is not a spotted owl research component to the proposal, 

and ponderosa pine types are generally not managed for spotted owl habitat. The beneficial effects to 

spotted owl habitat from the reduced fuel loadings and thinning that retains Douglas-fir are secondary to 

the proposed research within the project area. The treatments may eventually promote better foraging

and dispersal opportunities rather than nesting due to the increased health and spacing of the trees within 

the stand. Because of the proposed treatments to NRF habitat, there would be no need and therefore no 

effects from the connected action of building fireline around these patches (see discussion for alternative 

3).

One temporary road will be constructed through existing, unoccupied NRF habitat. It will be 

approximately 0.5 miles in length and will be closed (the roadbed will be subsoiled) after thinning is 

complete. The construction of this temporary road will contribute to the loss of NRF habitat already 

anticipated by the thinning. The closing of this temporary road may reduce future disturbance.

The falling of danger trees from the haul routes is expected to have minimal effects to NRF habitat. 

Generally these trees would be close to the roads and not favorable for spotted owl nesting, roosting, 

foraging because of noise disturbances from vehicles passing. Any effects of this aspect of the proposed 

action would act in conjunction with the thinning, mowing, and burning.

Dispersal Habitat

1,935 acres (of the 2,107 acres in the project area including control units based on entire unit acreages)

of dispersal habitat will be treated (including dispersal habitat within the unit overlapping the LSR). Of 

these acres, 533 acres will not meet dispersal guidelines outlined in the Programmatic BA or the 

Sheridan LSRA after treatment, although none of the 533 affected acres are within the LSR portion of 

the project area (Unit 33; see Table 16). This 533 acres of affected dispersal acres occur within mixed 

conifer vegetation types and would receive the heavy thin prescription; specifically Units 12, 41 and 23 

which occur within the connectivity corridors analyzed under the Charlie Brown analysis effort (2000) 

and established under the Browns/Wickiup Watershed Analysis and Browns/Round Mountain LateSuccessional Reserve Assessment (1997). The corridor “CC#2” was designated to address dispersal and 

movement needs of a variety of species, past fragmentation between the LSRs and the literature then on 

risks to NSO from predators associated with edges. The goal was to provide connected dispersal habitat 

within a corridor that was a minimum of 1,000 ft. wide, and an average 30% canopy closure through 

time (Charlie Brown Biological Evaluation and associated USFWS Letter of concurrence, 2000). 

Treatments within Units 12, 41 and 23 would narrow this corridor to the minimum 1,000 ft. width. 

The 533 acres removed represents approximately 25% of the current dispersal habitat in the project area 

and 3% of the dispersal habitat in the watersheds. It is unlikely that the loss of 533 acres of dispersal 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  67

habitat will form a barrier to movement; especially since other stands of habitat are still distributed 

throughout the area (e.g. control units, and other non-treated portions of the experimental forest). The 

proposed actions narrow the suitable areas for dispersal and can increase the risk of predation as an owl 

moves through the area. The loss of these 533 acres of dispersal habitat can adversely affect spotted 

owls because it may limit the ability of young to successfully move throughout the landscape and 

establish a new territory due to the increased risks of predation. Loss of these 533 acres of dispersal in 

conjunction with a loss of 211 acres of NRF habitat can prevent new pairs of owls from becoming 

established and being able to rear young, thus recovering the population. 

The one mile of temporary road construction in three segments would take place within “CC#2.” This 

construction contributes to the degradation and loss of dispersal habitat because it would require the 

removal of trees and brush within the road bed. Because the temporary roads would be built within the 

proposed units, the dispersal habitat degraded and removed has already been accounted for in the 

discussion of the effects of thinning.

Table 24. Unit Specific Effects to Dispersal Habitat, Alternative 2

Unit Trt

mt PAG

% 

Canopy 

Cover –

LSRA*

Current 

BA**

Tar

get -

BA

Dispers

al BA*

Current

TPA**

Disper

sal 

TPA*

Currentl

y 

Dispers

al?

Will 

Meet 

Dispers

al 

After?

In 

Corridor?

Acre

s

11 2 MCD 40 138 76 70 103 95 Y Y Y 118

12 3 MCD 40 138 51 70 103 95 Y No Y 192

13 4 MCD 40 138 76 70 103 95 Y Y Y 83

14 1 MCD 40 138 101 70 103 95 Y Y Y 194

15 5 MCD 40 138 138 70 103 95 Y Y Y 64

21 4 MCD 40 174 83 70 85 95 Y Y Y 106

22 2 MCD 40 174 83 70 85 95 Y Y Y 206

23 3 MCD 40 174 56 70 85 95 Y No Y 225

24 1 MCD 40 174 111 70 85 95 Y Y Y 196

25 5 MCD 40 174 174 70 85 95 Y Y Y 108

32 1

MCD/

MCW 40 184 140 70 101 95-100 Y Y Y 164

33 2 MCD 40 184 105 70 101 95 Y Y N 335

41 3 MCD 40 154 35 70 99 95 Y No Y 116

* Information from LSR Assessment, pages III-37 and IV-25.

** Current stand measurements from the Study Plan (Appendix B).

Late Successional Reserve

Treatments are proposed within the Sheridan Mt. LSR but as shown in Figure 10, no NRF within the 

LSR will be treated. The treated portion of the LSR is part of proposed Unit 33 of the EXF Project. 

Unit 33 is proposed to be treated with a “moderate thinning” strategy whereby the stand will be thinned 

from below to within 75% of the Upper Management Zone (UMZ) for ponderosa pine. This means that 

understory and co-dominant trees will be removed from the stand (i.e. unit) resulting in a less dense 

stand (e.g. a stand density index or SDI that is currently 267 trees per acre will be 152 trees per acre, see 

Study Plan). The thinning will target lodgepole pine first, then grand fir/white fir, small diameter 

ponderosa pine, and lastly small diameter Douglas-fir. Unit 33 is made up of mature ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, and white fir with some inclusions of lodgepole pine (see Figure 14-16). The largest trees 

are ponderosa pine and the desired condition is to reduce the existing tree density per acre while 

retaining these larger ponderosa pine and having a co-dominant canopy of Douglas-fir.

The Sheridan Mt. LSRA defined Management Strategy Areas (MSA) throughout the LSR based on 

plant association groups. Unit 33 contains MSAs B, C, and J. According to the LSRA, thinning and 

fuels reduction needs are immediate and should occur within the first decade after the assessment was 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68  EXF Final EIS

written and adopted (1997) in order to help protect old growth habitat. Similarly, according to the 

LSRA, commercial thinning is an acceptable strategy or treatment in order to develop late-successional 

old growth habitat in these types of MSAs. Common wildlife indicator species for these three MSAs 

include pileated woodpecker, northern goshawk, white-headed woodpecker, and flammulated owl. The 

proposed actions for Unit 33 would likely promote habitat conditions, specifically larger trees, for these 

species. For other wildlife indicator species within MSAs B and C (northern spotted owl and blackbacked woodpeckers) the activities would not provide habitat for these species because the thinning 

would reduce the multi-storied/structural diversity in the stands that often are a component of spotted 

owl habitat; and would improve the health of the stand and make it less susceptible to the insect attacks 

upon which black-backed woodpeckers often capitalize. 

To summarize, the proposed actions within the 161 acres of LSR are compatible with the LSRA 

completed and approved by the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) in 1997. These proposed actions are 

clearly needed as evidenced by the LSRA recommendations for action to take place within one decade

following the LSRA approval, and will help protect existing habitat as well as aid in the development of 

new habitat for the focal species: pileated woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, northern goshawk, 

and flammulated owl. By treating to 75% UMZ in Unit 33, the stand will not reach UMZ (and risk of 

large-scale disturbance) for 30 to 55 years. Although the proposed actions may help protect habitat for 

the spotted owl and black-backed woodpeckers (both focal species) elsewhere in the LSR, and no NRF 

is removed or degraded from the LSR, they will not help in the development of new habitat for those 

species. The effects of connectivity between LSRs, especially in relation to the effects of other latesuccessional species dispersing, are similar to the spotted owl. Because this project will follow 

recommendations within the LSRA, is clearly needed to reduce risks, and provides for better habitat 

protection for 30 to 55 years, it will not prevent the LSR from playing an effective role in maintaining 

the objectives for which it was established.

The NWFP allows research activities to occur within LSRs following an assessment of consistency with 

LSR objectives (C-18). Research activities that are not consistent with the objectives (including those 

within experimental forests) may even be appropriate, “particularly if the activities will test critical 

assumptions of these standards and guidelines, will produce results important for habitat development, 

or if the activities represent continuation of long-term research.” It is only when the activities are not 

consistent with LSR objectives that equivalent opportunities be sought outside the LSR. In this case, 

however, the proposed activities are found to be consistent with the objectives of the LSR.

Critical Habitat Units (CHU)

The proposed actions would have no effect to any CHUs. The closest CHU is approximately 7 air miles 

to the west of the experimental forest. Connectivity to this CHU as it relates to LSRs has been analyzed 

under the LSR discussion.

Disturbance-related Effects

Because the proposed actions have the likelihood of occurring during the spotted owl nesting season and 

there is evidence that spotted owls use the project area (albeit most likely for foraging and dispersal 

habitat based on habitat quality), disturbance to spotted owls may occur (e.g. flushing of an adult from a 

tree during the day). There are no proposed actions within the 1.2 mile home range of a known pair; 

and noise disturbance is not likely to occur within 0.25 mile of an individual or nest, therefore there 

would be no disturbance effects to owls within known home ranges. There are proposed activities 

within 0.25 miles of NRF habitat that is otherwise outside of a unit. The amount of these NRF patches 

within 0.25 miles are small (<10 acres) with foraging quality being the predominant component and 

likely activity as documented by previous surveys (based on time of detections). Potential for 

disturbance in these patches is low. Due to the amount of dispersal habitat within the project area, and 

the likelihood that project activities would be conducted in the late summer and fall, disturbance to 

dispersing owls is also a possibility.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  69

Cumulative Effects

Activities identified in Table 12 in Chapter 3.1.2 and Table A-1 in Appendix A were reviewed to assess 

whether in combination with the likely impacts of the EXF Project, there would be any cumulative 

effects to spotted owls. Table A-1 in Appendix A lists the types of research that has occurred within the 

EXF project area, the type of activity that was used for the research, author, and the papers published. 

For a complete description of the study and its methods, one can refer to the publication listed. Table 12

lists the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects occurring in the 6th field watersheds. Effects of 

past actions will not be discounted, but to the contrary, are analyzed in the description of the existing 

conditions. It is assumed the effects of past actions are best put into proper context when considered in 

the existing conditions (e.g. habitat conditions).

Cumulative effects to spotted owls will be addressed at the 6th field watershed scale –the Crane Prairie 

and Fall River watersheds (see Figure 9) because it is a large area that can cover a variety of spotted owl 

habitat conditions and the connectivity of the habitats. 

Crane Prairie 6th Field Watershed

There are no spotted owl home ranges within this 6th field watershed. The majority of NRF habitat

within the watershed is located within the mixed conifer plant association groups (PAGs). The dry 

mixed conifer PAGs often have an overstory of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir that have survived past 

fire events, with a co-dominant overstory formed by white fir that has developed within more recent 

times with aggressive fire suppression. This condition most likely had the greatest influence on spotted 

owl habitat across the district due to the development of nesting, roosting, foraging stand characteristics, 

but in areas where climatically the climax association would be more open stands. This is to say,

spotted owl habitat developed in areas where it is difficult to sustain such habitat due to the existing fire 

regimes and climate. 

Activities proposed under the Snow Fuels Reduction project did not impact spotted owl habitat since 

suitable NRF habitat was avoided. Measures were incorporated to retain suitable nesting habitat, 

strategically place units to protect suitable habitat as well as reduce the risk of fire in mixed conifer 

stands by reducing ladder fuels. Under the remaining Charlie Brown treatment units, fuels treatments 

(e.g. piling and burning slash, underburning) will further provide areas that may slow a wildfire’s 

progression towards spotted owl habitat in the EXF project area. Overall, treatments proposed will 

improve spotted owl habitat conditions by promoting the development of large structure and reducing 

the risk of loss of existing habitat to the east from other large-scale disturbances. Similar effects can be 

anticipated for dispersal habitat. Rather than linear corridors of continuous habitat between LSRs, as 

projects are implemented dispersal habitat will likely resemble more of a stepping stone pattern of 

smaller retention patches connecting the larger LSRs and suitable habitat.

Danger trees were removed from within the Cultus Mt LSR and CHU. Although some of the trees 

removed were of the size of spotted owl nest trees, they were within ~150 ft. of the road where there is 

increased disturbance. This makes it unlikely they would ever be used for nest trees. This project 

would not have interrelated and interdependent effects with the EXF project.

Maintenance activities within developed recreation sites will have no cumulative effects in association 

with the proposed action and no action alternatives because they are not located in suitable habitat.

Fall River 6th Field Watershed

Most of this watershed lies east of spotted owl’s range. There are two home ranges (Sheridan Mt and 

Three Trapper’s Butte) within the western half and these occur within mixed conifer PAGs. Mixed 

conifer PAGs form a relatively thin band of potential and suitable spotted owl habitat within this 

watershed, as it quickly becomes ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine PAGs (not potential or suitable 

spotted owl habitat).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70  EXF Final EIS

NRF habitat in this watershed has experienced some of the same ecological effects as habitat in the 

Crane Prairie Watershed. The habitat in the Fall River watershed is at greater risk to wildfire because it 

lies east of the majority of the insect mortality and high fuel concentrations that exist in the adjacent 

Crane Prairie watershed (e.g. Mt. Bachelor Roadless Area) and fires tend start in the Three Sisters 

Wilderness and move in a east/southeasterly direction (pers. communication. T. Bisby, former Assistant 

Fire Management Officer, Cascade Division, Bend-Ft Rock RD, 2008).

NRF habitat in this watershed closely resembles “late-successional forest structure embedded in a 

matrix of more fire-tolerant forest structures” described in the 2008 Recovery Plan (Appendix E page 

105). That is, the NRF habitat tends to be relatively small stands of large Douglas-fir and white fir 

embedded in larger areas of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine stands. 

Because this watershed largely lies east of spotted owl’s range, dispersal habitat is focused within the 

western portion of the watershed and distributed in a more north-south direction. Effects to dispersal 

habitat in the western portion of the watershed are the same as discussed for the Crane Prairie 

watershed. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within the Sheridan Mt LSR with 

which the proposed activities would have cumulative effects.

Deschutes National Forest

Data from Appendix B of the programmatic Biological Assessment was updated in October 2009 and is 

shown here in Table 25. This table also accounts for all previous losses of NRF habitat from other 

activities as well (e.g. timber harvest).

Table 25. Changes in Spotted Owl Baseline Habitat since May 2006, Deschutes National Forest

Ranger District May 2006 Baseline

NRF Lost

(Field Verification, 

Harvest, Fire or <2 

ac slivers)

October 2009

Baseline

Acres of NRF 

Habitat Removed

by the EXF Project

Crescent 26,441 60 26,381 0

Sisters 33,075 5,491 27,584 0

Bend-Ft. Rock 24,231 86 24,145 211

Forest Total 83,747 78,110 77,899

Implementation of Alternative 2 will have further additive effects to spotted owls by removing 211

acres of NRF habitat in the AWD allocation. As maintenance of treatments and protection of research 

plots continues, degraded habitat will likely stay marginal for the long-term, and removed habitat will 

likely not return in the short or long-term. Over the Deschutes National Forest, this project represents 

an approximate 0.25% decline in the amount of NRF habitat.

Conclusion

Alternative 2 will directly reduce 211 acres of NRF habitat. Based on current detections and field 

verification within mapped NRF habitat, this existing habitat appears to have greater foraging and 

dispersal quality, with evidence of perhaps nesting outside of the project area. The project is not 

designed to develop future spotted owl NRF habitat. The founding objectives for the Lookout Mountain 

Unit of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest were silvicultural and focused on ponderosa pine 

development and maintenance. The project is designed to protect current research and provide a 

platform for new research along these silvicultural objectives. Treatments however may provide spotted 

owl dispersal habitat in the long-term, and a measure of protection for NRF habitat immediately 

surrounding the Lookout Mt Unit.

Prior to the late 1980s, loss of suitable habitat was limited to timber harvest. Recent harvest activities 

within the 6th field watersheds are aimed at reducing risk to existing habitat and promoting desired 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  71

species composition to develop and maintain habitat. The effect of these more recent treatments have 

yet to be realized in the form of spotted owl occupancy. Barred owls, an identified threat to spotted use 

a wider range of habitat conditions, may be able to more rapidly occupy the treated stands within the 

EXF project area. There have been no observations of barred owls within or near the Lookout Mt. Unit, 

although barred owls have been observed in the western portion of the Crane Prairie watershed.

There are limited plant associations that can produce NRF habitat on the eastern edge of the owl’s 

range. Within the eastern portion of the Crane Prairie watershed and the western portion of the Fall 

River watershed there are the largest blocks of dry mixed conifer associations (similarly wet ponderosa 

pine associations) that may be able to develop large Douglas-fir trees and subsequent NRF habitat. All 

of the stands classified as NRF or that have had historical or recent spotted owl observations in these 

portions of the watershed all have contained elements of large Douglas-fir. The Experimental Forest 

was not established to provide for large Douglas-fir, although the thinning prescriptions proposed favor 

retaining Douglas-fir with the result of improving growing conditions for this species. There is a 

possibility that the area may support limited NRF habitat in the future, although the emphasis within the 

Experimental Forest will be Douglas-fir only as it is co-dominant with ponderosa pine.

Proposed actions will impact spotted owl habitat by reducing the amount of both NRF and dispersal 

habitat. Specifically the proposed activities will reduce the multi-storied, high canopy closure stands 

that currently exist. In the long term, NRF habitat would continue to be relatively scarce within this 

landscape on the eastern edge of the species’ range. In the short term, current habitat outside of the 

Experimental Forest would be better protected from a wildlife perspective by the strategic placement of 

units. Dispersal habitat will remain throughout the watersheds; however, the proposed action will 

remove some dispersal and degrade the connectivity corridor established to facilitate the movement of 

old-growth dependent species between LSRs by minimizing the width of the corridor. Removal of 

dispersal habitat in the proposed action will not cause a barrier to movement. The stands will appear 

more open due to the thinning and may also provide better access for spotted owl predators (e.g. other 

birds of prey).

Implementation of Alternative 2 (the Proposed Action), May Effect, and is likely to Adversely 

Affect spotted owls because of actions proposed that will further reduce available NRF habitat by 211 

acres and dispersal habitat by 533 acres.

There will be No Effect to Critical Habitat Units as a result of the proposed actions. 

Alternative 3

This alternative would treat approximately 2,182 acres (~62% of the Lookout Mt unit); none of which is 

within NRF habitat or LSR.

Direct and Indirect Effects

NRF Habitat

There are no direct effects with the implementation of this alternative. There will be no treatment 

within any of the NRF habitat. Indirectly, treatments around the NRF may help protect these NRF 

patches from wildfire, similar to what is described in the 2008 Recovery Plan (Recovery Action #10). 

Sustaining these NRF stands would provide habitat for dispersing owls. Treatments would occur within 

1⁄4 mile of these stands, unless it has been determined that there are currently nesting owls during the 

time of actual treatment. Treatment adjacent to the NRF stands vary from light to heavy thinning. Two 

of the NRF stands are over 100 acres (large enough to provide a nesting territory) and another two are 

<12 acres (i.e. not likely large enough to provide a nesting territory by themselves; nor are the adjacent 

stands). It is uncertain if thinning around these stands would hinder potential future spotted owl nesting. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72  EXF Final EIS

Fireline would need to be created around these stands in order to protect them from the prescribed 

burning proposed in the adjacent stands. These firelines would be approximately 3-4 feet wide; and it is 

anticipated that approximately a total 12 miles of fireline would need to be built. A majority of this type 

of fireline would need to be built around the existing NRF habitat. The result may be the unintentional 

creation of corridors for more disturbance by humans or occupation by other species that can utilize 

more isolated habitat (e.g. barred owls).

Dispersal

1,731 acres of dispersal habitat will be treated. Of these acres, 438 acres will not meet dispersal 

guidelines outlined in the Programmatic BA or the Sheridan LSRA after treatment (Table 26). The 

affected dispersal acres occur within mixed conifer vegetation types and would receive the heavy thin 

prescription; specifically Units 12, 41, and 23 which occur within the connectivity corridors analyzed 

under the Charlie Brown analysis effort (2000) and established under the Browns/Wickiup Watershed 

Analysis and Browns/Round Mountain Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (1997). Treatments 

within Units 12, 41, and 23 would narrow this corridor to the minimum 1,000 ft. width. Similar to the 

discussion for Alternative 2.

The 483 acres removed represents approximately 25% of the current dispersal habitat in the project area 

and 3% of the dispersal habitat in the watersheds. It is unlikely that the loss of 483 acres of dispersal 

habitat will form a barrier to movement; especially since other stands of habitat are still distributed 

throughout the area (e.g. control units, and other non-treated portions of the experimental forest). The 

proposed actions narrow the suitable areas for dispersal and can increase the risk of predation as an owl 

moves through the area. The loss of these 483 acres of dispersal habitat can adversely affect spotted 

owls because it may limit the ability of young to successfully move throughout the landscape and 

establish a new territory due to the increased risks of predation.

The one mile of temporary road construction in three segments would take place within “CC#2.” This 

construction contributes to the degradation and loss of dispersal habitat because it would require the 

removal of trees and brush within the road bed. Because the temporary roads would be built within the 

proposed units, the dispersal habitat degraded and removed has already been accounted for in the 

discussion of the effects of thinning. 

Table 26. Unit specific effects to dispersal habitat, Alternative 3

Unit

Trt

mt PAG

% Canopy 

Cover -

LSRA

Current -

BA

Targ

et -

BA

Dispersa

l BA

Current 

- TPA

Dispersa

l TPA

Currently 

Dispersal

Will Meet 

Dispersa

l After?

In 

Connectivity 

Corridor?

Acre

s

11 2 MCD 40 138 76 70 103 95 Y Y Y 49

12 3 MCD 40 138 51 70 103 95 Y No Y 155

13 4 MCD 40 138 76 70 103 95 Y Y Y 81

14 1 MCD 40 138 101 70 103 95 Y Y Y 194

15 5 MCD 40 138 138 70 103 95 Y Y Y 64

21 4 MCD 40 174 83 70 85 95 Y Y Y 106

22 2 MCD 40 174 83 70 85 95 Y Y Y 170

23 3 MCD 40 174 56 70 85 95 Y No Y 167

24 1 MCD 40 174 111 70 85 95 Y Y Y 196

25 5 MCD 40 174 174 70 85 95 Y Y Y 108

32 1

MCD/

MCW 40 184 140 70 101 95-100 Y Y Y 151

33 2 MCD 40 184 105 70 101 95 Y Y N 174

41 3 MCD 40 154 35 70 99 95 Y No Y 116
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  73

Late Successional Reserve

Alternative 3 would have no direct effects to the Sheridan Mt. LSR because there would be no 

treatments within it. Indirectly, this SE portion of the LSR would be better protected from a fire outside 

of it that may start in the west and move towards the LSR due to the thinning and fuels reduction 

treatments planned.

This alternative would not directly address the recommended activities for the MSAs represented in this 

part of the Sheridan Mt. LSRA. In the short-term this may protect habitat for the various wildlife 

indicator species, but in the long-term habitat for white-headed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, 

northern goshawk, and flammulated owl may decrease due to a lack of new source and cohort of large 

trees (especially ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir). Similarly, spotted owl dispersal habitat in this part of 

the LSR may be maintained, but there would be little recruitment of new Douglas-fir trees or increased 

growth in currently present Douglas-fir, while the current risk to wildfire remains high.

Cumulative Effects

A list of activities (see Table 12 in Chapter 3.1.2 and Table A-1 in Appendix A) were reviewed to assess

if in combination with the likely impacts of the EXF Project, there would be any cumulative effects to 

spotted owls. Cumulative effects to spotted owls will be addressed at the 6th field watershed scale for 

both the Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds. Based on that review, the potential cumulative effects 

are discussed below.

Crane Prairie 6th Field Watershed

There are no spotted owl home ranges within this 6th field watershed. The majority of NRF habitat

within the watershed is located within the mixed conifer plant association groups (PAGs). The dry 

mixed conifer PAGs often have an overstory of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir that have survived past 

fire events, with a co-dominant overstory formed by white fir that has developed within more recent 

times with aggressive fire suppression. This condition most likely had the greatest influence on spotted 

owl habitat across the district due to the development of nesting, roosting, foraging stand characteristics, 

but in areas where climatically the climax association would be more open stands. This is to say, 

spotted owl habitat developed in areas where it is difficult to sustain such habitat due to the existing fire 

regimes and climate. 

Activities proposed under the Snow Fuels Reduction project did not impact spotted owl habitat since 

suitable NRF habitat was avoided. Measures were incorporated to retain suitable nesting habitat, 

strategically place units to protect suitable habitat as well as reduce the risk of fire in mixed conifer 

stands by reducing ladder fuels. Under the remaining Charlie Brown treatment units, fuels treatments 

(e.g. piling and burning slash, underburning) will further provide areas that may slow a wildfire’s 

progression towards spotted owl habitat in the EXF project area. Overall, treatments proposed will 

improve spotted owl habitat conditions by promoting the development of large structure and reducing 

the risk of loss of existing habitat to the east from other large-scale disturbances. Similar effects can be 

anticipated for dispersal habitat. Rather than linear corridors of continuous habitat between LSRs, as 

projects are implemented dispersal habitat will likely resemble more of a stepping stone pattern of 

smaller retention patches connecting the larger LSRs and suitable habitat.

Danger trees were removed from within the Cultus Mt LSR and CHU. Although some of the trees 

removed were of the size of spotted owl nest trees, they were within ~150 ft. of the road where there is 

increased disturbance. This makes it unlikely they would ever be used for nest trees. This project 

would not have interrelated and interdependent effects with the EXF project.

Maintenance activities within developed recreation sites will have no cumulative effects in association 

with the proposed action and no action alternatives because they are not located in suitable habitat.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74  EXF Final EIS

There are no private or tribal lands within the watershed.

Fall River 6th Field Watershed

Most of this watershed lies east of spotted owl’s range. There are two home ranges (Sheridan Mt and 

Three Trapper’s Butte) within the western half and these occur within mixed conifer PAGs. Mixed 

conifer PAGs form a relatively thin band of potential and suitable spotted owl habitat within this 

watershed, as it quickly becomes ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine PAGs (not potential or suitable 

spotted owl habitat).

NRF habitat in this watershed has experienced some of the same ecological effects as habitat in the 

Crane Prairie Watershed. The habitat in the Fall River watershed is at greater risk to wildfire because it 

lies east of the majority of the insect mortality and high fuel concentrations that exist in the adjacent 

Crane Prairie watershed (e.g. Mt. Bachelor Roadless Area) and fires tend start in the Three Sisters 

Wilderness and move in a east/southeasterly direction (pers. communication. T. Bisby, former Assistant 

Fire Management Officer, Cascade Division, Bend-Ft Rock RD, 2008).

NRF habitat in this watershed closely resembles “late-successional forest structure embedded in a 

matrix of more fire-tolerant forest structures” described in the 2008 Recovery Plan (Appendix E page 

105). That is, the NRF habitat tends to be relatively small stands of large Douglas-fir and white fir 

embedded in larger areas of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine stands. 

Because this watershed largely lies east of spotted owl’s range, dispersal habitat is focused within the 

western portion of the watershed and distributed in a more north-south direction. Effects to dispersal 

habitat in the western portion of the watershed are the same as discussed for the Crane Prairie 

watershed. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable activities within the Sheridan Mt LSR with 

which the proposed activities would have cumulative effects.

For the spotted owl habitat that is present in the watershed, much of it (55%) lies within the Sheridan 

Mtn. LSR or the Experimental Forest. This project would not have additive effects to any other ongoing 

or reasonably foreseeable actions because there aren’t any other projects impacting spotted owl habitat 

in the Fall River watershed.

Deschutes National Forest

Data from Appendix B of the programmatic Biological Assessment was updated in October 2009 and is 

shown here in Table 27. This table also accounts for all previous losses of NRF habitat from other 

activities as well (e.g. timber harvest).

Table 27. Changes in Spotted Owl Baseline Habitat since May 2006, Deschutes National Forest

Ranger District May 2006 Baseline

NRF Lost

(Field Verification, 

Harvest, Fire or <2 

ac slivers)

October 2009 

Baseline

Acres of NRF 

Habitat Removed 

by the EXF Project

Crescent 26,441 60 26,381 0

Sisters 33,075 5,491 27,584 0

Bend-Ft. Rock 24,231 86 24,145 0

Forest Total 83,747 78,110 78,110

Implementation of Alternative 3 will not have further additive effects to spotted owls.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  75

Conclusion

Alternative 3 will directly reduce 438 acres of dispersal habitat. The founding objectives for the 

Lookout Mountain Unit of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest were silvicultural and focused on 

ponderosa pine development and maintenance. The project is designed to protect current research and 

provide a platform for new research along these silvicultural objectives. Treatments however may not 

only provide spotted owl dispersal habitat in the long-term as retained trees grow and stand densities 

increase, but also a measure of protection for NRF habitat immediately surrounding the Lookout Mt 

Unit.

Prior to the late 1980s, loss of suitable habitat was limited to timber harvest. Recent harvest activities

within the 6th field watersheds (e.g. Charlie Brown, Snow) are aimed at reducing risk to existing habitat 

and promoting desired species composition to develop and maintain habitat. The effect of these more 

recent treatments have yet to be realized in the form of spotted owl occupancy. Barred owls, an 

identified threat to spotted owls and use a wider range of habitat conditions, may be able to more rapidly 

occupy the treated stands within the EXF project area. There have been no observations of barred owls 

within or near the Lookout Mt. Unit, although barred owls have been observed in the western portion of 

the Crane Prairie watershed.

Proposed actions will impact spotted owl habitat by reducing the amount of dispersal habitat. 

Specifically the proposed activities will reduce the multi-storied, high canopy closure stands that 

currently exist and are most conducive to hiding a spotted owl as it moves through the landscape. 

Dispersal habitat will remain throughout the watersheds; however, the proposed action will remove 

some dispersal and degrade the connectivity corridor established to facilitate the movement of oldgrowth dependent species between LSRs by minimizing the width of the corridor. Removal of dispersal 

habitat in the proposed action will not cause a barrier to movement. The stands will appear more open 

due to the thinning and may also provide better access for spotted owl predators (e.g. other birds of 

prey).

Implementation of Alternative 3 May Effect, not likely to Adversely Affect spotted owls because it 

retains the current amount of NRF habitat and minimizes the loss of dispersal habitat.

There will be No Effect to Critical Habitat Units as a result of this alternative. 

Comparison of the Alternatives

The No Action alternative results in the least amount of NRF acres impacted as opposed to the Action 

Alternatives. Alternative 2 will directly reduce NRF habitat by 211. Alternative 3 does not treat within 

NRF habitat, but stands treated around the NRF may influence the suitability or utilization (either 

increasing or decreasing) of the NRF (see Table 28). Alternative 3 best meets the Recovery Plan 

management intent to provide spotted owl habitat in dry forests landscapes. Alternative 3 protects 

existing habitat, while reducing risks around NRF habitat.

The treatments in Alternative 2 that remove dispersal habitat are the same as those treatments in 

Alternative 3. This is to say, both alternatives propose the same actions in Units 12, 23, and 41 that 

result in the loss of dispersal habitat. Alternative 3, however, removes fewer acres of dispersal habitat 

because the NRF habitat is also dispersal habitat (see Figure 13). Because Alternative 3 retains all NRF, 

it also retains more dispersal habitat (approximately 0.5% more dispersal habitat in the watersheds 

retained). 

The project is designed to protect current research and provide a platform for new research along these 

silvicultural objectives. Treatments however may provide spotted owl dispersal habitat in the longterm, and a measure of protection for NRF habitat immediately surrounding the Lookout Mt Unit.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76  EXF Final EIS

Table 28. Comparison of Alternatives for Spotted Owl NRF and Dispersal Habitat

3.3 Discussion of Effects – Analysis Issues

3.3.1 Forested Vegetation

Background

Pre-Euro-American low elevation dry conifer forests of the western United States were fundamentally 

shaped by frequent low- or mixed-severity disturbances such as wildfires (Agee 1993, Taylor and 

Skinner 1998, Everett et al. 2000, Ottmar and Sandberg 2001, Wright and Agee 2004, Youngblood et al. 

2004, Hessburg et al. 2005, Arabas et al. 2006) and insect attacks (McCullough et al. 1998, Hayes and 

Daterman 2001) mediated by diverse environmental gradients of topography, soils, and weather. 

Surface fires, ignited predominantly by lightning during the time of year when moisture content of fine 

fuels was lowest (Agee 1993, Rorig and Ferguson 1999), controlled regeneration of fire-intolerant 

species, reduced density of small-diameter stems, consumed litter and down wood, opened the stands to 

increased sunlight, led to vertical stratification of fuels by eliminating fuel ladders between the forest 

floor and the overstory canopy, and maintained relatively stable plant associations. Consequently, the 

structure of these low elevation dry forests generally consisted of open, predominantly widely spaced 

medium to large and old live trees, scattered dead trees, low levels of ground fuels, and continuous low 

herbaceous understory vegetation (Wickman 1992, Agee 1994, Youngblood et al. 2004, Arabas et al. 

2006).

Insects are major components of forest ecosystems, representing most of the biological diversity and 

affecting virtually all processes and uses. Bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytidae) heavily 

influence the structure and function of low elevation dry conifer forests by regulating certain aspects of 

primary production, nutrient cycling, ecological succession and the size, distribution and abundance of 

forest trees (Fettig et al. 2007). While we know little about pre-Euro-American arthropod abundance 

and their inter-specific relationships (Short and Negrón 2003), these forests likely supported many 

indigenous phytophagous insect species that killed trees. Phloem-boring bark beetles and cambium and 

wood boring beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae and Cerambycidae) were especially prevalent, with some 

preferring large, old, slow growing trees, some attacking lower boles and roots exposed after fires, some 

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action Alternative 3

Acres of NRF Habitat 

Removed 0 211 0

Acres of Dispersal 

Habitat degraded 0 1,402 1,121

Acres of Dispersal 

Habitat removed 0 533 438

Acres of LSR affected 0 160 0

Home Range Affected 0 0 0

Determination No Effect May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not 

Likely to Adversely 

Affect
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  77

attacking the tops of trees weakened by fire, and others attacking trees with growth rates slowed by 

density dependent competition, drought stress, or other localized disturbances that enabled the beetles to

circumvent tree defenses (de Groot and Turgeon 1998, McCullough et al. 1998). Attacks often led to 

mortality of individual and small groups of trees, created snags, altered the accumulation of fuels and 

vegetation, and created canopy gaps that provided opportunities for new seedling cohorts (Hessburg et 

al. 1994, Hayes and Daterman 2001).

Today, many of these same dry forests have characteristics that place them at greater risk of 

uncharacteristic disturbances. These features include an accumulated mass of down woody debris and 

continuity of the fuels mosaic at landscape scales, more small trees and fewer large trees, greater 

amounts of young multi-storied forests with fire-intolerant conifers in both understory and overstory 

strata, increased fuel ladders that contribute to greater flame lengths during fires, and new or altered 

forcing of regional climate on plant community structure and organization (Agee 1993, Covington and 

Moore 1994, Arno et al. 1997, Taylor and Skinner 1998, Harrod et al. 1999, Youngblood et al. 2004, 

Hessburg et al. 2005, Stephens and Gill 2005, Youngblood et al. 2006, McKenney et al. 2007). In many

dry forests of the Pacific Northwest, the altered fuelbeds and shifts in forest structure and composition 

resulted from fire exclusion and suppression, livestock grazing, timber management activities, and 

changes in climate (Bergoffen 1976, Steele et al. 1986, Dolph et al. 1995, Arno et al. 1997, Richardson 

et al. 2007).

Increases in overall stand density over the past century have led to increased competition among trees 

for below-ground nutrients, water, and growing space. Increased competition among trees and reduced 

tree vigor increases susceptibility to attack from bark beetles and other forest insects and diseases 

(Mitchell 1990, Hessburg et al. 1994, Oliver 1995, Fettig et al. 2007). Mortality in ponderosa pine 

attributed to mountain pine beetle is positively correlated with high stand density (Sartwell and Dolph 

1976, Fettig et al. 2007). Thinning has been shown to reduce the amount of ponderosa pine mortality 

caused by mountain pine beetle unless surrounding areas are allowed to develop epidemic population 

levels (Fettig et al. 2007). The mountain pine beetle often kills extensively when contiguous stands or 

landscapes become vulnerable. These changes have occurred more recently against a backdrop of 

natural and human-caused climate change that may first be manifest in the distribution of herbaceous 

species and woody shrubs, and may eventually result in a redistribution of tree species (McKenney et al. 

2007, Richardson et al. 2007). Collectively, these altered structural conditions contribute to increased 

probability of multiple, interacting stresses and may lead to altered or new disturbance regimes.

Affected Environment

The EXF study area in the Lookout Mountain Unit lies in an ancient shield volcano and has an elevation 

ranging from 4,390 feet in the southeast corner of the planning area to 6,223 feet at the top of Lookout 

Mountain. Slopes are flat in the eastern portion of the planning area to greater than 30% on steeper 

areas. A majority of the aspects are east and south with approximately 25% of the planning area on the 

north side of Lookout Mountain having a north aspect. Precipitation averages 20” per year and occurs 

mainly as snow during the winter. 

Approximately 300 acres on the upper slopes of Lookout Mountain are a complex soil type consisting of 

soil mapping units 84 and 85. Soil mapping units 65, 67, and 69 are the soil mapping units on the 

remaining 90% of the planning area. These soils are all susceptible in varying degrees to soil 

displacement. (See Soils Chapter 3.3.4 for additional details).

Currently, this relatively large block of closed-canopy forest has undergone little major disturbance. 

The major disturbances consist of two wildfires: A single stand-replacement fire in the mid nineteenth 

century resulted in the establishment of dense ponderosa pine at lower elevations and Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), white fir (Abies concolor), sugar pine (Pinus
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78  EXF Final EIS

lambertiana), western white pine (Pinus monticola), and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) at 

higher elevations. A second fire in 1914 burned 321 acres in the eastern part of the planning area. 

These closed-canopy stands have grown exceptionally well, and may represent some of the most 

productive ponderosa pine sites in central Oregon. However, the stands have reached a high density 

which slows tree growth and increases susceptibility to insect-caused mortality. Limited low thinning 

throughout the planning area occurred about 40 years ago when the road network was established (see 

Appendix A for more details on past vegetation management within the experimental forest).

The Lookout Mountain Unit of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest lies within portions of two 6th field 

sub-watersheds (see Figure 9, page 45). Crane Prairie subwatershed contains 25,285 acres; the Fall 

River subwatershed contains 39,516 acres. Forty-three acres of the project area are in the Crane Prairie 

subwatershed and 2,853 acres of the project area are in the 39,516 acre Fall River subwatershed.

Plant Associations and Plant Association Groups (PAGs)

The Deschutes National Forest uses a system of vegetation plant associations to group similar parts of 

environmental gradients. Plant association classification is based on the climax vegetation which would 

potentially occupy a site in the absence of any disturbance. Plant associations represent units of land 

that respond similarly to management activities and support similar plant communities throughout 

different stages of development (Volland 1985). Plant associations within the Lookout Mountain Unit 

strongly reflect both elevation and aspect influences. Two Pinus ponderosa/Purshia tridentateCeanothus velutinus plant associations (CPS-312 and CPS-311) represent the warmest and driest plant 

associations in the Lookout Mountain Unit; they occur on toe slopes and undulating slopes with east 

aspects at elevations up to about 4,500 feet (see Figure 11). From about 4,500 feet upslope to about 

4,900 feet on east to southeast aspects is the Mixed conifer/Ceanothus velutinus-Arctostaphylos patula

plant association (CWS-113). Ponderosa pine is the sole dominant tree species on more southerly 

aspects, while grand or white fir increases in prevalence on east to northeast aspects. On more southern 

and eastern aspects up to about 5,300 feet in elevation is the Mixed conifer/Ceanothus velutinus/Carex 

plant association (CWS-115). This plant association supports predominantly ponderosa pine and 

lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) as major seral tree species, and small amounts of white/grand fir (Abies 

concolor), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), and Shasta red fir (Abies magnifica shastensis) as advance 

regeneration. The tall shrub Chrysolepis chrysophylla (giant chinquapin) occurs throughout both these 

plant associations. Two other plant associations occur at higher elevations of the Lookout Mountain 

Unit but are not part of the project area. These are the Mixed conifer/Arctostaphylos patula plant 

association (CRS-111) that supports white-grand fir, Shasta red fir, western white pine, and Douglas-fir, 

the Mixed Conifer/snowbrush-chinkapin (CWH-111) plant association that supposed ponderosa pine, 

sugar pine and white fir and Douglas-fir, and the Pinus contorta/Ceanothus velutinus-Arctostaphylos 

patula (CLS-911) plant association that supports primarily lodgepole pine on cold sites. These plant 

associations and the Plant Association Groups (PAGs) are displayed in Table 29 and Figure 17. 

Plant communities (or plant associations) can be classified by a variety of factors such as vegetation 

structure, site moisture, and overstory and understory plant species composition. Similar plant 

associations are aggregated and grouped by their climax species, site potential, and moisture similarities 

into Plant Association Groups (PAGs). Grouping plant associations helps us predict, compare, and 

analyze potential disturbance patterns and how the vegetation will respond to these disturbances.

(Grenier unpublished paper)

Table 29 lists the PAGs and corresponding plant associations within the Fall River and Crane Prairie 

subwatersheds. There are approximately 2,500 acres of non-forested land within the two subwatersheds

(cinder, meadow, riparian, rock, mesic shrub, and other ownership). No management activities are 

proposed on these non-forested areas. Analysis for the EXF project is based on the remaining 62,162 

forested acres as shown in Table 25.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  79

Table 29. Forested Acres by PAG (Plant Association Group) in the Fall River and Crane Prairie 6th 

Field Subwatersheds.

PAG Code PAG Plant Associations within Project Area Acres of PAG 

in Watersheds

LPD Lodgepole Pine Dry CLS911 20,295

LPW Lodgepole Pine Wet 4,464

MCD Mixed Conifer Dry CWS115, CRS111, CWH111 18,668

MCW Mixed Conifer Wet CWS113 2,646

MHD Mountain Hemlock Dry 52

PPD Ponderosa Pine Dry CPS312, CPS213 10,609

PPW Ponderosa Pine Wet CPS311 5,427

 Total 62,162
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80  EXF Final EIS

 

 

Figure 17. Plant Associations and Plant Association Groups.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  81

Management Direction Specific to Northwest Forest Plan Area (west of the spotted owl range line

shown on Figure 5)

Approximately 3,245 acres of the project area lie within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl and 

under direction in the Northwest Forest Plan.

C-44 of the Northwest Forest Plan requires an assessment of the proportion of late successional-old 

growth (LSOG) across the landscape to determine if little remains. The Northwest Forest Plan defines 

this threshold as 15% of the landscape. “Landscape areas where little late-successional forest persists 

should be managed to retain late successional patches. This standard and guideline will be applied in 

fifth field watersheds (20 to 200 square miles) in which federal forest lands are currently comprised of 

15 percent or less late successional forest.”

The EXF project area lies within two fifth field watersheds: Crane Prairie and Fall River (see Figure 9). 

Crane Prairie watershed lies entirely west of the spotted owl range line. An analysis of the proportion of 

LSOG present within the Crane Prairie watershed shows that older forest types are present across about 

40% of the forested area. With 40% of the watershed in late-successional conditions, the minimum 

level (15%) requiring protection of all remaining late-successional stands is exceeded. The majority of 

the Fall River watershed lies east of the range of the spotted owl. An assessment of the latesuccessional forest for the Eastside Screens area is in the section that follows. 

In addition to the analysis of the Crane Prairie 5th field Watershed, the interidisciplinary team also 

determined the proportion of late-successional forest for the EXF landscape, which is the two affected 

6th field watersheds (Crane Prairie 6th field and Fall River 6th field - see Figure 9). This additional 

analysis was undertaken because at about 97 square miles (62,162 acres), the area is well within the

appropriate scale identified in the Northwest Forest Plan (20-200 square miles) and also incorporates 

habitat more similar to the project area than extending the analysis further west or east as with analysis 

of the fifth field watersheds.

The presence of late successional-old growth forest (LSOG) for the 62,162-acre area was determined 

using 2004 satellite imagery data. LSOG is determined by PAG (Table 29) as determined from the

Deschutes Geographic Information System PAG layer. For any given 30 meter square pixel to be 

considered LSOG, the following conditions need to be satisfied:

1. Large trees are a minimum of 21” DBH; 12” DBH for lodgepole pine

2. A minimum of 25% canopy cover is in large trees

Within the 62,162-acre landscape, 2,589 acres meet lodgepole pine LSOG criteria and 16,330 acres 

meet mixed conifer LSOG criteria. Total LSOG within the two subwatersheds is shown to be 

approximately 18,919 acres (30%) of the forested acres. At 30% of the landscape in late-successional 

conditions, the minimum level requiring protection of all remaining late-successional stands is 

exceeded.

Management Direction Specific to Eastside Screens Area (east of spotted owl range line shown on 

Figure 5)

For 369 acres of the project area east of the spotted owl range, the Interim Management Direction 

Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales” applies (also called 

Regional Forester’s Amendment #2 and commonly referred to as the Eastside Screens). 

Interim Ecosystem Standard of the Eastside Screens gives direction to characterize the watershed for 

patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment and compare to the Historic Range of Variability 

(HRV). Typically historic disturbance regimes are used to describe the biophysical environment.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82  EXF Final EIS

Disturbance Regimes

The project area has 370 acres of land east of the owl line in the Fall River subwatershed. The 

following table (Table 30) documents the historic disturbance regimes that were dominant within the 

Fall River subwatershed. It is more feasible to document disturbance regimes across larger landscapes 

at the subwatershed level rather than try and scale them down to the project level.

Table 30. Historic Disturbance Regimes Fall River Watershed

Biophysical

Environment

Dominant

Disturbance

Factors

Disturbance

Regimes *

(Agee, 

1990)

Average

Disturbance 

Patch Size

Acres

Typical

Landform

Setting

Typical

Elevati

on

Aspect

Non-Forest

Meadow na na na na na Level

Lodgepole

Pine

1) Fire

2) I & D

Moderate

Moderate

80 – 150

10 – 1,000 Level, Rolling 4,200 Flat,Various

Ponderosa

Pine

1) Fire

2) I &D

Low

Low 80 – 150

1 – 20

Level, Elevated

Sites 4,300 Flat,

Various

Mixed Conifer 1) Fire

2) I & D

High

Moderate

100 – 500

100 – 500

Elevated Sites,

Buttes 5,000 NW-NE,Various

*Low severity regimes: 1-25 year return interval, 0-20% trees kill

Moderate severity regimes: 26-100 year return interval, 26-70% tree kill

High severity regimes: > 100 year return interval, 70% + tree kill

Structural Stages and Historic Range of Variability (HRV) 

The following table lists and defines the structural stage classifications set out in the Eastside Screens.

Table 31. Definition of Structural Stages

Regional Forester’s 

Amendment 

# 2, Structural 

Stage

Classification

Definition Description

Old Structural

Stage

Classification

Stand Initiation

SS 1

Growing space is reoccupied 

following a stand replacing 

disturbance, fire, harvest etc, 

typically by early seral species.

Grass, forb, seedling/saplings. 

Scattered overstory may be present as 

in seed tree/open shelterwood. Early

Stem Exclusion Open 

Canopy

SS 2

Crowns are open growing, canopy 

is broken, may be a moisture 

limiting area or maintained by 

frequent underburning, density 

mgmt, or high water tables.

Poles to small saw logs, < 21” DBH. 

Crown closure of 25% or less. 

Scattered overstory may be present as 

in stage 1.

Early/Mid

Stem Exclusion

Closed Canopy

SS 3

Occurrence of new tree stems is 

mostly limited by light, stand 

density. Canopy is closed.

Same as stage 2 except that crown 

closure is 26% or greater. Mid

Understory 

Re-initiation

SS 4

Understory establishing under an 

overstory. Mortality in overstory 

creates growing space for new 

trees in the understory.

Broken overstory canopy, 2+ canopy 

layers. Overstory is poles, small or 

medium size trees. Understory is 

seedlings/saplings or poles.

Mid

Multi stratum w/o Large 

Trees

(young forest multistory)

SS 5

Several canopy layers established 

due to influence of management, 

fires, insect & disease group 

killings. Large trees generally 

absent as a result of harvest or 

other disturbance. Large tree 

defined > 21” DBH.

Broken overstory canopy, 2+ layers. 

Large trees absent in overstory. Stands 

characterized by diverse distributions of 

trees and trees sizes. Seedlings, 

saplings, poles, small and medium trees 

present.

Mid

LOS for Lodgepole 

Pine only

Multi stratum w/Large 

Trees

(old forest multistory)

SS 6

Multi canopy layers, multi strata 

stands with large, old trees.

Broken overstory canopy, 2+ canopy 

layers. Large trees dominant in the 

overstory. Stands characterized by 

diverse distributions of trees and tree Late/Old
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  83

sizes. All tree sizes maybe present.

Single Stratum w/Large 

Trees 

(old forest single story)

SS 7

Single canopy of large, old trees. Broken or continuous canopy of large 

old trees, 1 canopy layer with codominants. Large trees dominant in 

overstory. Understory absent or made 

up of seeds/saps, grass, forbs or 

shrubs.

Late/Old

East of the owl line, the existing condition of structure stages, including late and old structure (LOS) is 

based on interpretation of 2004 satellite imagery using the Deschutes Viable Ecosystems Model. The 

successional stage component of the Viable Ecosystems Model is not used for the EXF analysis. The 

Viable Ecosystem Model structure stage categories and their relationship to the Old Structural Stage 

Classification (SS) shown in Table 20 are:

1. Grass, forb, shrub (Early SS)

2. Seedlings and saplings, 1” to 4.9” DBH, (Early SS)

3. Pole size, 5” to 8.9” DBH, (Mid SS)

4. Small, 9” to 20.9” DBH, (Mid SS)

5.a) Medium and Large, 21+” DBH, (Late SS Multi-strata)

5.b) Medium and Large, 21+” DBH, (Late SS Single strata)

The portion of the EXF project east of the owl line and subject to the Eastside Screens, is located within 

the Fall River subwatershed. There are 39,535 acres (61.7 sq. miles) within the Fall River subwatershed 

with 39,033 of these acres classified as forested. The presence of LOS as assessed for the 39,033 

forested acres within the Fall River subwatershed currently totals 7,075 acres (18% of the watershed). 

For the EXF project area itself, the analysis area used to determine current structural stage levels is 

based on only the 370 acres within the EXF project which are located east of the owl line and that are 

proposed for treatment.

The term historic range of variability (HRV) is used by ecologists to describe the natural fluctuation of 

ecosystems over time. In this project, the term refers to the range of conditions and processes likely to 

have occurred prior to settlement by Americans of European ancestry (mid-late 1800s). The HRV 

serves as a reference point from which change can be measured. The HRV assumes minimal 

disturbance by human activities and is often used as a baseline for conditions that are assumed to have 

existed on the landscape more than 100 years ago. The HRV is not used to recreate precise percentages 

of each structural stage. 

In the following three tables (Tables 32-34), the source of the HRV is the Eastside Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). The 

source of the current condition is satellite imagery.

Table 32. Current Condition for Lodgepole PAG in the Fall Subwatershed Compared to HRV. 

Structural Stage (see Table 18 

for definitions)

Current 

Acres

Historic Range of 

Variability

Current % of the 

PAG area

Relation to 

the HRV

Early (1, 2) 6,161 20-30% 35% Above

Mid (3, 4) 6,051 50-60% 35% Below

LOS: Late Multi-Strata 5(a) 434 10-20% 2% Below

LOS: Late Single Strata 5(b) 4,732 5-15% 27% Above

total 17,378
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84  EXF Final EIS

Table 33. Current Condition for Ponderosa Dry PAG in the Fall Subwatershed Compared to HRV. 

Structural Stage (see Table 18 

for definitions)

Current 

Acres

Historic Range of 

Variability

Current % of the 

PAG area

Relation to 

the HRV

Early (1, 2) 2,857 10-20% 20% Within

Mid (3, 4) 10,435 30-40% 74% Above 

LOS: Late Multi-Strata 5(a) 644 10-20% 5% Below 

LOS: Late Single Strata 5(b) 205 20-30% 1% Below 

total 14,141

Table 34. Current Condition for Mixed Conifer Wet PAG in the Fall Subwatershed Compared to HRV. 

Structural Stage (see Table 18 

for definitions)

Current 

Acres

Historic Range 

of Variability

Current % of the 

PAG area

Relation to 

the HRV

Early (1, 2) 585 25-35% 8% Below

Mid (3, 4) 5,869 40-50% 78% Above 

LOS: Late Multi-Strata 5(a) 285 25-35% 4% Below 

LOS: Late Single Strata 5(b) 775 5-10% 10% Within

total 7,514

As shown in the previous tables, the largest departures from HRV are in the mid-seral structural stages 

which are considerably above the HRV range in the ponderosa dry and mixed conifer wet PAGs. 

There is a total of 7,075 acres of LOS in the Fall Watershed (Tables 32-35). In the ponderosa pine dry 

PAG, both types of LOS are below HRV. In the mixed conifer wet PAG, multi-strata LOS is below 

HRV and single-strata LOS is within HRV. For lodgepole pine, multi-strata LOS is below, and singlestrata LOS is above HRV. All three PAGs are therefore under Scenario A of the Eastside Screens. 

Condition of Late Successional Reserve (Unit 33)

Unit 33 east of Forest Road 4240 is primarily in the mixed conifer wet PAG; the southern 1⁄4 is within 

ponderosa pine dry PAG. Plots taken within the southern portion shows the stand comprised of nearly 

100% ponderosa pine, with several trees > 21” DBH present. Plots in the northern portion vary from 

pure ponderosa pine to a heavy white fir/lodgepole pine component. Large ponderosa pine trees, though 

present on most plots, are not as common. Large white fir are absent on all plots in the northern portion. 

Large ponderosa pine are generally scattered throughout this portion of the LSR and the understory is 

comprised of primarily small (< 15” DBH) white fir with some smaller lodgepole pine. The current 

density of the stands in Unit 33 are not sustainable. There is a low probability of large white fir tree 

development occurring before mortality caused by wildfire or insects is likely to occur on this relatively 

dry site.

Previous Research Findings from the Experimental Forest 

Formally established in 1931, Pringle Falls Experimental Forest is the oldest Experimental Forest in the 

Forest Service system. It is a center for silviculture, forest management, and insect and disease research 

in ponderosa pine forests east of the Cascade Range. Between 1930 and 1993, more than 100 studies 

have been conducted to advance knowledge in these areas. The research studies cited in this section 

have been compiled in “Research Publications of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, Central Oregon 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  85

Cascade Range, 1930 to 1993” (Youngblood 1995) and illustrate some of the relevant results obtained 

from these on-site studies. While not all of the studies have been conducted on the Lookout Mountain 

block, they are referenced in this section to illustrate the range and types of research conducted on the 

Experimental Forest. Several silvicultural studies, such as the Lookout Mountain installation of the 

Levels of Growing Stock (LOGS) study, continue as long term work having both regional and national 

significance.

Insects

The primary insect species of concern with ponderosa pine are: mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

ponderosae Hopkins), western pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevicomis), and the pine engraver (Ips pini). 

These have been documented and/or studied in the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest (Alosi and 

Robertson 1992; Barrett 1983; Barrett and Newman 1974; Greene 1992; Keen 1936; Larsson and others 

1983; Sartwell 1971).

All three insect species cause ponderosa pine mortality. Although western pine beetle and pine engraver 

mortality can be extensive, the species capable to cause the most damage is the mountain pine beetle. 

Some of the research findings in the EXF project area pertinent to mountain pine beetle are:

• Vigor decreased as basal areas and leaf area index increased. Low vigor trees were more often 

attacked by (mountain pine) beetles than were high vigor trees (Larsson and others 1983).

• Mortality associated with mountain pine beetle attacks was greatest in the higher growing stock 

levels; attacks occurring at the lower growing stock levels were on trees of low vigor only 

(Barrett 1983).

• The pattern of mortality during the 30 years of observation in small merchantable trees, caused 

by mountain pine beetle, suggests the potential to use light and frequent thinning from below to 

maintain the productive capacity of the stand (Barrett and Newman 1974).

Although most of the insect studies conducted in the Experimental Forest have involved the mountain 

pine beetle, the recommended treatment to reduce beetle caused mortality by all three species of concern 

is the same. Density reduction to levels below the UMZ increases tree vigor and reduces residual tree

mortality caused by insects.

Root Rot

Armillaria (Armillaria mellea) root disease is found within the EXF project area and has been 

documented and/or studied in the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest (Howard, 1972, 1974; Reaves, 

1985; Reaves, and others 1984, 1988, 1990). 

Armillaria takes advantage of decreased host vigor when it periodically occurs from drought, 

defoliation, or other pest attack. Thinning may mitigate tree stress and thus, in some way, prevent 

infections on residual trees, should they occur, from becoming lethal. If thinning increases tree vigor 

and impedes fungal colonization of lateral roots and, especially the root collar or taproot, then perhaps 

tree mortality is delayed until other stressors occur. Also, if root or tree mortality is prevented or 

delayed, then disease spread to adjacent healthy trees may be further retarded as a result of confined 

inoculum in occluded lesions on living roots. As a general recommendation, thinning with published 

guidelines (Emmingham et al. 2005) for pure ponderosa pine stands in central Oregon will also prevent 

mortality from Armillaria root disease (Filip, Gregory M., et al. 2008).

Dwarf Mistletoe

Ponderosa pine dwarf Mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum has been documented and/or studied in 

the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest (Barrett and Roth 1985, Beckman and Roth 1968, Knutson 1975, 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86  EXF Final EIS

Koonce 1981, Koonce and Roth 1980, Roth 1953, 1966, 1971, 1974a, 1974b, Roth and Barrett 1985, 

Roth and Strand 1971, Scharpf and Roth 1992, Strand 1973). Reducing stand density by thinning to a 

relatively wide spacing is likely to slow the horizontal spread of dwarf mistletoe from infected trees to 

healthy trees.

Needle blight fungus

Needle blight fungus (Elytroderma deformans) of Ponderosa pine has been documented and/or studied 

in the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest (Roth 1959; Sikorowski 1960; Sikorowski and Roth 1962). 

The effects of increasing tree vigor through density reduction on the occurrence/spread of needle blight 

fungus are not documented. Reducing the inoculum source by removal of infected trees is likely to 

reduce the spread of the fungus from infected trees to healthy.

Wind

Some wind-caused blowdown as well as trees with broken out tops caused by wind are scattered 

throughout the project area. Although no research on wind effects has been conducted in the Pringle 

Falls Experimental Forest, the current study plan proposes to study the interaction of the thinning and 

fuels treatments and wind on structural changes.

Previous Activity

Over the last 35 years, vegetation treatment has occurred on 2,534 of the 3,615 acres within the Lookout 

Mountain portion of the Experimental Forest. Many of the treatments were implemented in conjunction 

with studies relative to ponderosa pine silviculture. Most treatments (> 90%) consisted of commercial 

and/or non-commercial density reduction. Reforestation activities were prescribed on approximately 

120 acres while salvage of dead material occurred on less than 1% of the acres. 

1,801 acres have been entered only once. Commercial size density reduction was the treatment on 

1,676 (96%) of these acres. 676 acres have been entered twice with most (594 acres) of these treatments 

involving precommercial thinning as a follow up to commercial thinning. 57 acres have been entered 

three times, primarily for regeneration activities after overstory treatments and removal. See Appendix 

A for a map of these activities and the year in which they occurred. These activities have contributed to 

the current stand structure. 

Current Forest Health Conditions

Forest stand conditions throughout the EXF planning area can best be described as being overly dense 

and at risk of beetle-caused mortality. Beetle-killed trees occur both individually and in groups within 

the planning area. As the following discussion explains, the beetle risk is based on three measurements: 

1) tree stocking levels in the project area exceed stocking density guidelines developed for Central 

Oregon; 2) tree radial growth rates in the project area are slower than 13 rings per inch; and 3) low tree 

vigor as evidenced by live crown ratio within the project area. 

Stand density index (SDI) (Reineke 1933) is a relative density measure based on the relationship 

between mean tree size and number of trees per unit area in a stand, and has proved useful for 

quantifying relative density across a wide variety of stand conditions because it is independent of site 

quality and stand age (Long and Daniel 1990). While originally developed for single-cohort stands, it is 

equally relevant for multi-cohort stands (Shaw 2000), and can be applied to mixed species stands with 

consideration of individual species characteristics. Cochran and Barrett (1995) followed the 

development of young ponderosa pine stands in the Blue Mountains under 6 stocking levels for 24 years 

and determined that mean annual cubic volume growth was greatest when SDI was about 210, and high 

mortality from mountain pine beetle occurred when SDI was greater than 140. As part of the West-
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  87

Wide Levels of Growing Stock study, Cochran and Barrett (1999) reported on the growth and 

development over 30 years for stands thinned to six levels, and showed that continued mortality from 

mountain pine beetle occurred when the SDI was above 240. Cochran et al. (1994) used the concepts 

underpinning SDI to set an upper management zone (UMZ) for SDI to sustain healthy stand conditions 

for forest stands throughout the Blue Mountains based on the dominant plant association. The same 

procedure was used to set UMZs for the Deschutes National Forest in central Oregon (Booser and 

White). Upper management zones defined specifically for the Deschutes National Forest represent the 

level of stocking or relative density beyond which there is imminent risk of catastrophic loss of 

overstory trees to bark beetles.

In central Oregon, the most widely used standard for gauging bark beetle hazard is derived from the 

work of P. H. Cochran (1992, 1994). Cochran (1992) and Cochran and others (1994) have developed 

stocking density guidelines from which we can generally predict the risk of bark beetle attack for a 

number of tree species in Central Oregon. The guidelines are adjusted for each plant association so that 

site potential (carrying capacity) can be factored into the equation, and higher stand densities can be 

accommodated on the better sites. Cochran describes an “Upper Management Zone” which is equal to a 

stocking density that allows for radial growth of 13 annual rings per inch and represents the threshold 

beyond which tree mortality begins to occur. The comparison of existing stocking levels and growth 

rates with the levels recommended by Cochran and others (1994) provides a useful index to describe the 

relative stability of a stand of trees with regard to infestation by bark beetles. The upper management 

zone (UMZ) radial growth rate of 13 annual rings per inch is often used as an indicator of tree vigor and 

susceptibility to insect caused mortality.

The slower a tree grows, the greater the number of rings per inch and the more susceptible the tree 

becomes to insect-caused mortality. Radial growth of 13 rings per inch is indicative of a healthy, 

vigorous tree that often can successfully withstand insect attacks (Eglitis, personal communication). A 

radial growth rate slower than 13 rings per inch indicates declining tree vigor with an increasing 

susceptibility to successful insect attack. 

Tree radial growth rates samples in each of the potential vegetation types (PAG) represented within the 

EXF Project Area give an indication of relative susceptibility of the trees to bark beetles. Growth rates 

of 9 live trees and 5 dead trees were sampled at four locations in the EXF planning area. The trees 

selected for sampling were ones that appeared to be the best available for the site, ones that would likely 

be favored (left) after stand thinning treatments are carried out, or recent dead trees. Due to high stand 

densities, none of the sampled trees had been growing at the rate of 13 rings per inch. Radial growth 

ranged from 14 to 38 rings/inch with an average growth rate of 27 rings/inch. Ironically, two of the 

sample trees that had been growing the best were ones that were killed by the mountain pine beetle. 

Both of these ponderosa pines were very close to a lodgepole pine that had been attacked by MPB and 

were probably killed by spillover attacks created by the odor plume from that attack. At one of the sites 

three dead pines that had been killed by bark beetles were sampled in order to determine how their 

growth rates prior to death compared to those of living trees. The growth rings in the last inch for these 

trees ranged from 23 to 29, fairly comparable to other trees sampled and clearly too densely spaced for 

healthy growth and survival. As such, there is reason to believe that any of the remaining trees could be 

infested with bark beetles and additional mortality would not be surprising (Eglitis, personal 

communication). 

The recent dramatic effects of the mountain pine beetle within the lodgepole pine host have created 

concerns about the potential losses in the ponderosa host type. In lodgepole, a bark beetle infestation 

typically persists in a stand until all of the large-diameter trees are killed. Such is not the case in 

ponderosa pine, although large patches of mortality can occur. These relatively less dramatic effects in 

ponderosa pine can be attributed somewhat to the nature of ponderosa stands which tend to be more 

diverse in age structure than lodgepole stands. However, when ponderosa pine occurs in large 

contiguous even-aged blocks, its overall stand vulnerability might be greater than in the natural uneven-
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88  EXF Final EIS

aged condition. We would nonetheless expect bark beetle-caused mortality in ponderosa pine to be less 

dramatic than in lodgepole pine. One issue that arises when bark beetles affect ponderosa pine stands is 

that a “thinning from above” is a common occurrence. The largest trees in a stand are often killed along 

with surrounding smaller ones in the group, and the progression to a stand dominated by large trees is 

delayed, not accelerated (Eglitis, personal communication). 

The ponderosa pine stands in EXF could all benefit from the thinning treatments and will experience 

some level of tree loss to bark beetles if thinning is not done. The expected level of this mortality is 

difficult to predict, given the unique nature of this advanced second-growth nature of the stands in this 

area. A likely outcome from bark beetle infestation would be larger-than-normal patches of tree 

mortality and loss of some of the larger-diameter trees in the stand. (Eglitis, personal communication)

All stands in the EXF project area exceed the upper management zone SDI for the appropriate plant 

association and are at risk of beetle-caused mortality (Table 35). Each quadrant exceeds the upper 

management zone UMZ SDI by values that range from 41% to 54% with the arithmetic average value 

being 47%. 

Table 35. Comparison of Existing SDI to Upper Management Zone SDI by Block

Quadrant

Total 

Acres 

(Includes 

Controls)

Management 

Plant 

Association

Current SDI

/ % above 

UMZ SDi

UMZ 

SDI

Alternative 

2 

Treatment 

Acres

Alternative 

3 

Treatment 

Acres

1NW 651 CWS115 212 / 36% 156 587 479

2SW 841 CWS115 245 / 57% 156 733 639

3NE 850 CWS113 266 / 32% 202 741 567

4SE 554 CPS312 229 / 125% 102 493 493

 Totals 2,896 2,554 2,178

Another estimate of tree vigor is live crown ratio (LCR). It is relatively straightforward, and is easy to 

obtain. It is a measure in percent of a tree’s total height occupied by green branches. Barrett 1968 data 

suggests that a 45% live crown ratio in ponderosa pine appears to be necessary for a prompt response 

following thinning (Hall 1987). In several locations of the EXF project area the dominant trees which 

would be selected for leave in a residual stand have LCRs between 30% and 40%. The short LCRs and 

the high SDIs, coupled with ongoing beetle-caused mortality are all indicative of over stocked, low 

vigor stands. Stands growing under such overstocked conditions are not sustainable. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  89

The project area is divided into treatments blocks (quadrants) of relatively homogenous elevation, 

aspect, and plant association. These blocks are displayed in the following Figure 18.

Figure 18. Aerial photo image of Lookout Mountain Unit showing units and delineation of the four 

treatment blocks (quadrants).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects (Ecological Trends)

In the short term (< 10 years), both overstory and understory vegetation density will most likely be 

unchanged on the Lookout Mountain unit of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. Without stand 

density reduction, tree growth rates will remain low or continue to decrease. Tree vigor will remain 

poor and continue to decline. The risk of insect and disease caused mortality will remain high. Because 

the low vigor trees are at a relatively high susceptibility to insects, there is an increasing probability that 

the level of pine beetle-caused mortality will become more prevalent even in the short term. In the long 

term, beyond 10 years, increased levels of beetle-caused mortality will occur, and can be expected to 

reach epidemic levels.

Tree density, as measured by both SDI and basal area, will continue to increase and density-caused tree 

mortality can also be expected to increase above current levels. Tree vigor as measured by live crown 

ratios will continue to decrease. Lower branches will self prune and trees will be further stressed as the 

relative amounts of photosynthate-producing needles in tree crowns decrease over time. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90  EXF Final EIS

Tree vigor as measured by diameter growth will also decline. Diameter growth will continue to stagnate 

and not increase. Development of small and medium-sized tree into larger trees will continue to be 

retarded. Large tree numbers will increase slowly and can be expected to decrease as a result of 

indiscriminate mortality caused by pine beetles in all size classes. More rapid large tree growth and 

accelerated development of the vegetative structure which serve as habitat species associated with latesuccessional species would not occur. 

Existing research plots would not be protected; the opportunity to continue future research under 

existing studies will be lost. The opportunity to design and implement new studies at Lookout 

Mountain would be greatly reduced. The ability to conduct research on the management of ponderosa 

pine would be negatively impacted.

In Tables 36-40, the “Existing” value corresponds to the Alternative 1 value, as there are no treatments 

proposed that would change the existing value.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The types of proposed treatments under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are identical. Under alternative 

3, 161 acres of LSR and 211 acres of NRF are not considered for treatment. Outside the LSR and NRF 

areas, impacts on each treated acre will be identical in both alternatives. Alternative 2 would treat 2,554 

acres and alternative 3 would treat 2,182 acres. The silvicultural difference is that 372 more acres of 

LSR and NRF are proposed for density reduction under alternative 2. Trees on these additional 372

treated acres will be more resistant to insects, disease, and fire under Alternative 2. 

Unless otherwise noted, the effects discussed in this section apply to both alternative 2 and alternative 3. 

Under alternatives 2 and 3, firelines would need to be constructed on the ground to better manage fire 

and protect resources during implementation of prescribed fire operations; more fireline is required for 

Alternative 3. This involves the removal of ladder fuels near ground level (i.e. up to 8 feet) and surface 

fuels only. Fireline construction removes duff and litter to mineral soil, ground level vegetation, and 

seedling or sapling size trees and would not be so deep that residual tree roots would be seriously 

damaged. Fireline construction would not negatively affect the residual vegetation.

Under both alternatives 2 and 3, twelve 1⁄2 acre plots (3 acres each including buffers) are within the 

project area. These are part of the western U.S. wide “Lookout Mountain Levels-of-Growing-Stock 

Study established in 1965. These 12 buffered plots will have densities reduced consistent with levels 

established for each plot under the 1965 study plan. Given the relatively small area involved, and the 

fact that densities will be reduced on the 36 acres involved, treatments effects are assumed to be similar 

to those of the two action alternatives.

In the short term (within 10 years), both overstory and understory vegetation density will begin to 

undergo changes. The changes in tree growth will extend beyond a short term period of 10 years. With 

the implementation of stand density reduction under both action alternatives, live crown ratios (LCRs) 

and diameter growth will improve to well above current levels. The amount of improvement in LCRs 

and diameter growth is difficult to measure but will be positive based on tree responses to density 

reduction on other projects. LCRs of residual trees will gradually increase as the trees grow in height. 

A positive result following density reduction is that trees will retain their lower limbs longer than they 

would under the existing overly dense conditions, thus increasing their live crown ratios. 

With the exception of free thinning across all diameter classes (treatment type 4), all thinning is from 

below to retain the largest trees. Treatment type 4 occurs on 353 acres (or ~14% of the treated area) 

under Alternative 2 and 350 acres (or ~16% of the treated area) under Alternative 3. This type of 

thinning will reduce density to 75% of the UMZ, and by removing some of the dominant and co-
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  91

dominant trees, create small openings of up to 1⁄4 acre in size where resulting regeneration will begin a 

transition to an all-aged stand structure (i.e. multi-cohort). 

SDI Retention

Tree vigor as measured by SDI will also improve under the action alternatives; SDI is readily calculated 

based on tree sizes and amounts. Table 36 shows the predicted SDI response by treatment block and 

alternative compared to the No Action alternative.

Table 36. SDI: Existing (No Action) and Post-treatment (Alternatives 2 and 3) Comparison

Block

Treatment Acres* Existing 

Average SDI by 

Block

(Alt. 1 – No 

Action)

Post-Treatment Average SDI 

by Block*

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

1NW 587 479 221 117 120

2SW 733 639 253 115 119

3NE 741 567 274 153 152

4SE 493 493 227 79 79

Average 2,554 2,178 247 120 119

*Does not include control acres

Table 36 shows very similar block weighted averages for residual SDI in each action alternative. The 

main difference is that more acres are treated in alternative 2 than in alternative 3.

Basal Areas Retained

Basal areas are more easily obtained and can be readily summarized in the field using relatively simple 

forest measurement tools. The lower the basal area, the smaller the area occupied by trees. When 

comparing trees of similar sizes, a lower basal area indicates a lower stocking level of trees on an acre. 

This translates to more nutrient and water availability for residual trees and tree vigor would be 

expected to improve. Table 37 shows similar residual basal areas for the action alternatives. Again, the 

only measurable difference between the action alternatives is in the amount of acres treated.

Table 37. Basal Area: Existing and Post-treatment Comparison

Block

Treatment Acres* Existing 

Average Basal 

Area by Block

(Alt. 1 – No 

Action)

Post-Treatment Average 

Basal Area by Block*

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

1NW 587 479 146 88 89

2SW 733 639 181 92 94

3NE 741 567 192 120 119

4SE 493 493 155 61 61

Average 2,554 2,178 170 93 92

*Does not include control acres

Total Number of Trees Retained

The risk of insect and disease-caused mortality will be reduced to below current levels. During endemic 

infestations there is a tendency for the beetles to select the weaker, less vigorous trees for attack, but no 

such selection is evident during epidemic conditions (Furniss and Carolin, 1992). Thinning from below 

removes lower vigor trees that are most susceptible to pine beetles under endemic conditions. Once 

removed, these low vigor trees can no longer serve as a brood source or infection center that would 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92  EXF Final EIS

increase beetle caused mortality in adjacent, larger residual trees. Removing suppressed, overtopped 

trees of low vigor will reduce the likelihood of beetle caused tree mortality in larger residual, more 

vigorous trees during epidemic outbreaks. While trees per acre varies by individual treatment block 

(and treatment unit), the overall average number of trees per acre for the project area will be reduced 

from nearly 100 trees per acre to approximately 30 trees per acre in each action alternative. Table 38

shows total existing trees per acre before and after treatment.

 Table 38. Total Trees/Acre: Existing and Post-treatment Comparison

Block

Treatment Acres* Existing 

Average 

Trees/acre (6”+ 

DBH) by Block

Post-Treatment Average 

Trees/acre (6”+ DBH) by 

Block*

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

1NW 587 479 103 34 36

2SW 733 639 85 25 27

3NE 741 567 101 35 36

4SE 493 493 99 20 20

Average 2,554 2,178 96 29 30

 *Does not include control acres

Fewer trees per acre indicate more water and nutrient availability for residual trees. This translates to 

improved residual tree vigor so that residual trees are better able to withstand and survive beetle attacks. 

The average trees per acre following thinning is about 1⁄3 of the existing trees per acre for either 

alternative.

Average Tree Size Retained

Density reduction by thinning from below retains the largest trees on site while removing smaller, lower 

vigor trees. Larger trees have larger root systems than smaller trees. As a result of having larger root 

systems, larger residual trees are better able and quicker to respond than smaller trees to the increased 

availability of nutrients and water following density reduction.

Table 39 shows the size of residual trees for each alternative as compared to the existing average 

diameter.

Table 39. Tree Diameter: Existing and Post-treatment Comparison

Block

Treatment Acres* Existing Average 

Quadratic Mean 

Diameter by Block

Post-Treatment Average 

Quadratic Mean Diameter by 

Block*

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

1NW 587 479 16.2 22.9 22.5

2SW 733 639 19.2 26.3 26.1

3NE 741 567 18.8 25.6 25.3

4SE 493 493 17.7 24.3 24.3

Average 2,554 2,178 18.3 24.9 24.7

*Does not include control acres

On average, trees to be retained are more than 6 inches larger than the current stand average. The main 

difference between alternatives is that alternative 2 treats 372 more acres than does alternative 3. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  93

Large Tree Retention

In order to reach the residual target densities identified in the study plan, large trees (21”+) will be 

removed under either action alternative7

Table 40. Large Trees/Acre: Existing and Post-treatment Comparison

. Thinning from below removes some large trees while 

retaining the largest trees on site. Table 40 shows reductions in large tree numbers per acre by block. 

Block

Treatment Acres* Existing Ave.

Trees/acre 

(21”+) by Block

Post-Treatment Average 

Trees/acre (21”+) by Block*

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

1NW 587 479 20 16 16

2SW 733 639 32 20 20

3NE 741 567 32 25 24

4SE 493 493 26 14 14

Average 2,554 2,178 28 19 19

*Does not include control acres

The block averages for the number of large trees removed range from 4 to 12 per acre with an overall 

project average of 9 large trees per acre. Alternative 1 retains all large trees on site and also means the 

proposed study could not be implemented. Alternative 2 retains the fewest large trees since it treats the 

most acres and removes an average of 9 trees on those acres. At the project level, alternative 3 retains 

3,384 more large trees than alternative 2. This amount is between the levels retained under alternatives 

1 and 2. 

East of the owl range line, units are primarily within treatment block 4. Using the block 4 average,

existing and post-treatment large trees per acre amounts yields and estimate of the number of large trees 

removed under both action alternatives. Table 40 shows that 12 large trees per acre in block 4 will be 

removed. Twelve trees per acre multiplied by 266 acres totals 3,192. Thus approximately 3,200 large

trees per acre will be removed east of the owl line; conversely, approximately 3,724 large trees would 

remain within block 4 east of the owl line. 

Applied to the entire treatment area, the number of large trees in proportion to all trees before and after 

treatment by block can be roughly estimated as shown in the following diagram:

 7 This analysis uses 21” because Region 6 Interim Old Growth Definitions for the Ponderosa Pine Series and for the Grand 

Fir/White Fir Series (USFS 1993b) uses 21” DBH as the minimum required diameter to define old growth for these potential 

vegetation series. The Status and Trend of Late Successional and Old-Growth Forest (Moeur et al. 2005) also cites a 21” 

minimum quadratic mean diameter in reference to “older forest with size indexed to vegetation zone” for the Oregon Easter 

Cascades. Additionally, the Eastside Screens use 21” as a diameter size class boundary for management purposes. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94  EXF Final EIS

Chart 1. Average trees per acre before and after thinning by block; does not include control units

To change the number of large trees retained by leaving all, or more, of the larger trees than is proposed 

in the study plan would provide biased results that would be considered questionable. Implementation 

of alternative 3 would also prevent adequate study block replication without a complete re-design of the 

study plan. Without such unbiased replication, the scientific validity of the proposed study is 

compromised. 

Time before the Next Entry to Reduce Densities

The time period before the threat of large amounts or widespread pine beetle-caused mortality becomes 

likely depends on the residual stocking levels achieved this entry. This time period varies from 0 years 

where untreated areas continue to remain at risk on up to at least 150 years where, in general, the 

greatest density reduction is achieved. Table 41 shows by alternative the number of acres and the length 

of time before the stands again become at risk of density-related, beetle-caused tree mortality under the 

assumption that density reduction and fuels treatments will continue as needed in the future to protect 

the stands from epidemic insect outbreaks and high severity wildfires.

Table 41. Alternative acres listed by the time required for stands to reach the UMZ

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Reaches UMZ & Again at Risk in 150+ years 0 1,016 760

Reaches UMZ & Again at Risk in 70-120 years 0 471 366

Reaches UMZ & Again at Risk in 30-55 years 0 353 351

Treated to UMZ; Wide-Spread Mortality Possible 

in the Short Term (< 5 Years) 0 714 701

 Total Acres Treated 0 2,554 2,178

Remains Both Above UMZ and at Imminent Risk 

of Wide-Spread Mortality within Study Area 2,896 342 (Controls) 342 (Controls)376 (NRF/LSR)

Acres Outside Study Area 719 719 719

 Total Project Area Acres 3,615 3,615 3,615

Densities are effectively reduced on 372 more acres under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 3. 

Beetle-related tree mortality at or above the UMZ SDI on these acres will not be a concern for at least 

30 years.

The density of residual trees, as measured by both SDI and basal area, can be expected to increase at 

relatively slow levels following treatment. Density-caused tree mortality would no longer be imminent 

on the acres treated to less than the UMZ by each alternative. Tree vigor as measured by live crown 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  95

ratios will improve as trees grow in height and retain their lower branches longer than under current 

conditions. Trees will become more vigorous as live crown ratios increase and the relative amounts of 

photosynthate-producing needles in tree crowns increase over time. 

Tree vigor as measured by diameter growth will also improve. Diameter growth will increase within 5 

years and the residual trees will continue to grow more rapidly than prior to treatment. Development of 

small and medium sized tree into larger trees will be accelerated. As a result of thinning from below, 

the average tree diameter will be larger after treatment to the proposed density levels than before 

treatment. As a result of accelerated diameter growth, the number of large trees will also increase 

sooner over time than if treatment is foregone.

Brush height will be reduced through mowing and underburning this entry. The reduction in brush 

evapotranspiration due to reduced brush canopy cover will make available more water and nutrients to 

improve tree growth until sometime in the future when brush again reaches its present level of site 

occupancy. With no additional treatments after this entry, it is estimated that this will take 8 to 10 years. 

Compared to the no action alternative, as a result of density reduction, tree diameters will continue to 

grow at an increased rate even after brush again reaches its current level of site occupancy. 

Table 42. Alternative Acres and Acreage Differences by Percent of Upper Management Zone Stand 

Density Index (%UMZ SDI) Retained.

% UMZ SDI Block Unit Alt. 2 Acres Alt. 3 Acres Acreage

Difference

50% UMZ 1NW 12 192 155 37

50% UMZ 2SW 23 225 169 56

50% UMZ 3NE 31 148 148 0

50% UMZ 4SE 41 116 116 0

50% UMZ Total Acres 681 588 93

75% UMZ 1NW 11 118 49 69

75% UMZ 2SW 22 206 173 33

75% UMZ 3NE 33 335 174 161

75% UMZ 4SE 44 147 147 0

75% UMZ Total Acres 806 543 263

75% UMZ 

Free Thin 1NW 13 83 80 3

75% UMZ 

Free Thin 2SW 21 106 106 0

75% UMZ 

Free Thin 3NE 34 94 94 0

75% UMZ 

Free Thin 4SE 43 70 70 0

75% UMZ Free Thin Total Acres 353 350 3

100% UMZ 1NW 14 194 194 0

100% UMZ 2SW 24 196 196 0

100% UMZ 3NE 32 164 151 13

100% UMZ 4SE 42 160 160 0

100% UMZ Total Acres 714 701 13

Subtotal Treatment Acres 2,554 2,182 372

Control 1NW 15 64 64 0

Control 2SW 25 108 108 0

Control 3NE 35 109 109 0

Control 4SE 45 61 61 0
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96  EXF Final EIS

% UMZ SDI Block Unit Alt. 2 Acres Alt. 3 Acres Acreage

Difference

Control Total Acres 342 342 0

Total Acres by 

Alternative 2,896 2,524 372

As shown in Table 42 above, there is a difference of 372 acres treated between action alternatives 2 and 

3. The difference is largely accounted for by reductions under Alternative 3 of approximately 70% (263 

acres) in the 75% UMZ treatment and 25% (93 acres) in the 50% UMZ treatment. Under action 

Alternative 2, these acres are treated and are part of a replicated study. As such, the impacts to these 

treatments will be monitored and quantified as part of a scientifically valid study. Under Alternative 3, 

since the study design is compromised, the evaluation of the impacts would not be scientifically 

defensible.

The 342 acres of control (no treatment) represents approximately 12% of the project analysis area. 

Under Alternative 2, these untreated control acres are part of the replicated study. As such, the impacts 

to untreated stands can be monitored and quantified to evaluate impacts to other, similar stands. 

Although the impacts of the No Action alternative may be similar to those of the control blocks, similar 

analysis and quantification is not a part of the No Action alternative. While the impacts could be 

quantified and evaluated under Alternative 3, the results obtained would not be part of a replicated 

design and the evaluation would not be scientifically defensible.

LOS East of the NSO Line

Of the 370 acres east of the spotted owl range line in the EXF project area, approximately 266 acres are 

proposed for treatment. Table 43 shows acres by structural stage proposed for treatment in both action 

alternatives. The majority (90%) of the acres to be treated are in the mid seral structural stage category, 

which as shown in Tables 32-34 is the structural stage the most departed from HRV. Removing the 

smaller trees by thinning from below will promote more rapid development of large trees in the residual 

stand. While it’s only one component of old growth, large tree size requires the longest time to develop. 

The reduced densities proposed in the action alternatives will promote more rapid development of the 

large trees and will move the residual stands from mid seral to late seral stages sooner. 

Table 43. PAG Acres Treated by Structural Stage Alternatives 2 and 3 East of the Owl Line

Structure 

Stage

Lodgepole 

PAG

Ponderosa Pine 

PAG

Mixed Conifer 

PAG

Total by Structure 

Stage

Early (SS1) 0 3 0 3

Mid (SS2, 3, 

4,5) 1 155 82 238

LOS (SS6) 0 11 7 18

LOS (SS7) 1 3 0 4

Total by PAG 2 172 89 263

For both alternatives 2 and 3, the analysis area used to determine acres of LOS structural stages treated are based 

on only those LOS acres that are proposed for treatment within the EXF project which are located east of the NSO 

line. Treatment acres do not include the 103 acres within control blocks.

Of the 266 acres proposed for treatment east of the NSO line, 22 acres (8%) are categorized as LOS

because of the number of trees over 21” DBH present (as determined through satellite imagery). 

Table 44 shows acres of LOS to be treated by unit for areas east of the NSO line.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  97

Table 44. Alternatives 2 and 3 LOS acres east of the NSO line proposed for treatment*

Ponderosa pine LOS Mixed Conifer LOS

Unit Multi strata 

acres

Single strata 

acres

Multi strata 

acres

Single strata 

acres

31 - - - -

34 0.77 - - 0.15

42 - - - 1.71

43 1.08 - - 4.94

44 9.26 3.09 - 0.15

Totals 11.11 3.09 - 6.95

*Approximately 1 acre of lodgepole pine single strata LOS is not included above. 

Single strata lodgepole pine is above HRV as is single strata mixed conifer. Harvest in LOS that is 

above HRV is permissible under Forest Plan Amendment 2. 

Harvest in LOS that is below HRV is in conflict with Forest Plan Amendment 2 which states: “DO NOT 

allow timber sale harvest activities to occur within LOS stages that are BELOW HRV.” An amendment 

to the LRMP is required so that harvest can take place in ponderosa pine single strata and ponderosa 

pine multi strata acres. 

Plot data for the area east of the NSO line indicate 26 large (21”+) trees per acre. Harvest to 50% UMZ 

SDI on unit 43 will reduce the large trees to 9 per acre. This is less than the R6 Old Growth criteria of 

10 large trees per acre. Since the proposed activity will reduce the amount of LOS in the Fall River 

subshed by 7 acres, a Forest Plan Amendment will also be required to implement either of the action 

alternatives. The large tree component for the remaining units east of the NSO line will not be reduced 

to less than the required 10 trees per acre minimum. See Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.3.13 for more 

discussion of the amendments. 

Late Successional Old Growth

Alternative 2 will treat 2,011 acres of late-successional / old growth (LSOG). This is broken out by 1 

acre of lodgepole pine LSOG and 2,010 acres of mixed conifer LSOG. The control units, which will 

not be treated, contain an additional 243 acres of LSOG. Following treatment, approximately 695 

treated acres will still meet LSOG criteria of a minimum of 25% canopy cover in large trees. While the 

remaining 1,316 treated acres of LSOG will meet the large tree criteria, canopy cover will be reduced to 

less than 25%. Alternative 2 reduces LSOG within the two subwatersheds from 18,919 acres (30%) to 

17,603 acres (28.3%).

Alternative 3 will treat 1,716 acres of LSOG. This is broken out by 1 acre of lodgepole pine LSOG and 

1,715 acres of mixed conifer LSOG. The control units, which will not be treated, contain an additional 

243 acres of LSOG. Following treatment, approximately 695 treated acres will still meet LSOG criteria 

of a minimum of 25% canopy cover in large trees. While the remaining 1,021 treated acres of LSOG 

will meet the large tree criteria, canopy cover will be reduced to less than 25%. Alternative 3 reduces 

LSOG within the two subwatersheds from 18,919 acres (30%) to 17,898 acres (28.7%).

Thinning will occur by removing the smallest trees first to reduce loss of the largest trees and making 

the larger trees less susceptible to disturbance. Protection and enhancement of future research 

opportunities that focus on ponderosa pine can best be realized by ensuring that existing canopy cover 

of the largest trees in the ponderosa pine is maintained and allowed to develop old-growth 

characteristics. Within this portion of the west-wide distribution of ponderosa pine, individual trees can 

survive 600 years – but loss of the existing cohort (relatively young at 165 years) would reset the clock 

and the process of stand development would begin again. Because the large tree structure requires the 

longest time to replace, reducing stand density under either alternative provides some assurance that the 

largest trees will be maintained.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98  EXF Final EIS

Within the LSR, 120 acres meet the criteria for LSOG; the proposed thinning under Alternative 2 

would accelerate development of structural conditions found in late-successional forests; thinning will 

promote development of: large bole trees by reducing densities and improving residual tree diameter 

growth; multi-layered canopies by retaining the largest trees of the dominant cohort in any given area. 

Thinning will improve or maintain the growth and health of young stands while reducing the likelihood 

of older tree mortality caused by insects or high intensity wildfire. Thinning will also promote retention 

of snags and logs by reducing potential high intensity wildfire. Because Alternative 3 defers the LSR 

from treatment, the benefits and protections within the LSR described for Alternative 2 would not occur 

under Alternative 3. Also see pp. 67-68 for an analysis of how these treatments effect wildlife habitat 

within the LSR.

Wind firmness

Future wind damage such as snapouts or blowdown is difficult to predict. Winds can be expected to be 

greater in exposed areas such as saddles and ridges. As previously noted, evidence of scattered 

blowdown and snapped out tops is present throughout the EXF project area. An indeterminate amount 

of wind damage following treatment can be expected to continue mainly in the more exposed, upper 

elevation areas. Larger, taller trees that will be retained have been more exposed to the wind than most 

of the smaller, shorter trees which are targeted for removal under all treatments except for the free 

thinning treatment which thins across all diameter classes. Due to their past wind exposure, these larger 

trees are expected to be more wind firm than are the smaller trees. By retaining the larger trees, wind 

damage will be minimized. In the free thinning treatment areas where trees are thinned across all 

diameter classes, the likelihood of wind damage is assumed to remain the same both before and after 

treatment. 

Implementation of the Study Plan

Because the EXF project is driven by research described in the study plan “Vegetation Dynamics after 

Thinning and Fuels Reduction in Dry Forests,” changes to the proposed action (such as Alternative 3) 

could affect the reliability of the research.

The study plan was developed with special care to ensure a block effect of elevation and aspect, with 

similar unit size across all four blocks except for treatments 4 and 5, which were intentionally smaller in 

size. Alternative 3 eliminates from treatment the spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat as 

and the portion of LSR that overlap the project area. The areas affected include portions of three of the 

four blocks and three of the four thinning types. Units affected are: 11, 12, 22, 23, 32, and 33. Most of 

unit 11, proposed for treatment 2 (thin to 75% UMZ) would be left untreated under Alternative 3. The 

area outside of NRF is small and disjunct stands on the perimeter of the unit. These disjunct stands are 

insufficient in size to meet the demands addressed in the six research questions. Under Alternative 3, 

treatment 2 would not be represented in one block, and the study design becomes unbalanced, is not 

aligned with the approved study plan, and would require a much different and more complex statistical 

approach. To reallocate the treatment to another block would invalidate the random selection process 

used to assign treatments to units, which would call into question any results from any of the component 

studies.

Cumulative Effects Alternatives 2 and 3

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of 

past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions

and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by 

adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  99

approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly 

costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century 

(and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would 

be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be 

useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited 

information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify 

each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, 

focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past 

natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking 

at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural 

events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping 

for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past 

actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 

2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative 

effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the 

historical details of individual past actions.

The existing conditions in the watershed are a result of past activities. These consist of natural events 

such as wildfires, insects, and diseases. Past activities also include vegetative management treatments, 

primarily natural fuels reduction and both commercial and non commercial density reduction treatments

(see Table 11). The effects of past activities diminish with the passage of time. More recent events 

have a more immediate impact. Certainly, major events such as the stand replacing fire 165 years ago 

that initiated the present stand have played a major role in the current conditions within the planning 

area. However, the Lookout Mountain block has undergone relatively few, if any, recent major 

disturbances. Within the planning area, approximately 2,350 acres that have been previously treated 

(see Appendix A for a map) within the last 30 years are proposed for treating again this entry. The 

proposed treatments will prolong the density reduction benefits of these past activities. The cumulative 

impacts of 2,347 acres of past activities within the EXF project area has had a minor effect on 

conditions in the 64,724 acres within the combined Fall Creek and Crane Prairie subwatersheds as a 

whole. The proposed activities will result in increased tree vigor and a reduction in the likelihood of 

widespread forest pest-caused mortality occurring. Through the use of appropriate project design 

criteria and any necessary mitigation measures, the cumulative effects on these areas of previous 

reductions in stand densities are consistent with Forest Plan standards and guides. For the EXF analysis, 

activities more than 30 years in the past are assumed to have a negligible effect on current conditions. 

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental 

conditions. The effects within the affected subwatersheds have been displayed previously and accounts 

for past actions across those watersheds.

Ongoing vegetation management (Table 12) within the two 6th field subwatersheds primarily involves 

post-sale thinning of < 10” DBH trees or thinning from below to retain the largest trees. These activities 

generally do not shift either the structural stage or the successional stage of the stands to younger stages. 

There are no clearcuts proposed that would change the structural stage within the subwatersheds. 

Proposed activities within the Snow project area, located in the Crane Prairie watershed have been 

analyzed under the Snow Fuels Reduction EA which concluded that there would be no change in the 

proportion of the watershed in size and structure classes that approximate older forest conditions for 

mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and mountain hemlock PAGs; and there would be a net decrease of 2 % 

in lodgepole pine older forest conditions. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects to latesuccessional-old growth forest from the EXF project except a 1% decrease in lodgepole which does not 

add appreciably to the 2% reduction from the Snow project across the watershed.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100  EXF Final EIS

With the exception of long-term research projects, all of the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (listed in Table 12) will have no effect on the vegetation within the EXF project area. Longterm research projects have the possibility of contributing to cumulative effects within the project area; 

however, since this possible activity involves only re-thinning in small plots and data collection, it 

would have a negligible effect on vegetation either within the subwatersheds or within the project area.

Consistency with the Eastside Screens

The Fall watershed falls within Scenario A of the Eastside Screens because two types of LOS fall below 

the HRV: multi-story with large trees (PPD, MCW), and single-story with large trees (PPD); see Tables 

32-34. Under Scenario A, the Screens state that timber harvest is not allowed in the LOS stages that are 

below HRV. Because the EXF project would thin within 22 acres of LOS stages that are covered by 

Scenario A of the Screens, a Forest Plan Amendment is required (See page 21). A Forest Plan 

Amendment is also required for harvesting trees larger than 21” DBH east of the owl line. See Chapter 

3.3.13.

Achievement of Purpose and Need

Two purpose and needs were identified at the outset of the EXF project. They are: 1) to address the 

risk of severe insect epidemic or catastrophic fire; 2) To provide operational scale research opportunities 

through a series of fuel reduction treatments applied across the landscape. 

As displayed in the table, alternative 2 fully best meets the risk of insect epidemic and catastrophic fire 

as well as provides on the greatest number of acres. Alternative 3 fully meets the risk of insect epidemic 

and catastrophic fire although on fewer acres. Alternative 3 does not meet the need to provide 

operational scale research opportunities. Alternative 1 does not meet either of the purpose and needs 

identified for the EXF project.

3.3.2 Fuels and Fire Hazard

Introduction

This fire and fuels analysis addresses the effects to fuels and fire behavior as a result of the no action 

and two action alternatives. This analysis does not address the need for research and whether or not a 

particular alternative meets the research objectives more than another. Analysis results are presented for 

the EXF project area. In cases where the analysis was conducted on a larger area, such as a watershed 

(in order to encompass natural disturbance events such as fire or insect outbreaks) it will be noted. The 

attributes used to evaluate the analysis where Fire Behavior, Burn Probability and Air Quality. The 

following measures were used for the analysis:

Measure 1: Acres of project area rated as low for fire behavior potential; acres of project area rated as 

low for burn probability

Measure 2: Reduction in crown fire potential

Measure 3: Production of Particulate Matter (PM) 10 and 2.5

The scope of the analysis for this project is focused on the area bound by the EXF project. Only fire and 

fuels reduction activities that occurred within the project area during the preceding 15 years were 

considered in the analysis of cumulative effects for fire and fuels hazard reduction. District experience 

and field reviews have shown that vegetation management activities such as thinning followed by 

mowing and prescribed fire have the beneficial effect of reducing fire intensity and fire behavior for an 

average of 15 years, perhaps longer depending on location and treatment intensity. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  101

Affected Environment

Condition Class and Fire Regime

This analysis considers the two 6th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) which the project area overlaps, 

totaling 64,834 acres (see Figure 79). The Fall River 6th field HUC is 39,535 acres and includes all but 

387 acres of the EXF planning area. The Crane Prairie 6th field HUC is 25,299 acres and encompasses 

the remaining 387 acres of the project area. The vegetation condition analysis is part of the analysis 

conducted by the Upper Deschutes Basin Fire Learning Network (2007).

About 76% (2,746 acres) of the EXF planning area is made up of the ponderosa pine Plant Association 

Groups (PAG). Ponderosa pine PAGs develop over an extremely long period covering centuries and is 

dominated by ponderosa pine, with a presence of lodgepole pine and white fir in areas ecotonal to the 

lodgepole pine or mixed conifer plant associations. Generally, in these PAGs, low-severity fires occur 

replacing less than 25% of the dominant overstory vegetation. However, mixed severity fires that 

replace up to 75% of the overstory can occur on occasion. Large stand-replacing events (such as the 

1845 event on Lookout Mountain) are rare events (200+ years). These PAGs are categorized into what 

is considered Fire Regime I. 

The low-severity fires that typify Fire Regime I happen most frequently (0-35 years; see Table 45 and 

Fire-Fuels Report Appendix). Many scientists cite similar frequent fire frequencies (Weaver 1951, 

Dieterich 1980, Savage & Swetnam 1990, Weaver 1959, Soeriaatmadja 1966, Morrow 1985). This 

short interval fire cycle would indicate that most of the Fire Regime I area would have burned more than 

three times without human influence and intervention since the early 1900s. An analysis of the 

historical large fire record that dates back to about 1904 for the Deschutes National Forest indicates that 

about 17% (5,851 acres) of Fire Regime I within the two subwatersheds has burned since the beginning 

of record. This would indicate that more than three quarters of the area has missed three or more entries 

of fire over the course of the last century. More definitions of Fire Regimes may be found in the 

Appendix to the Fire/Fuels Report. 

Twenty one percent (778 acres) of the EXF planning area is made up of the dry and wet mixed conifer 

PAGs. These stands can be dominated by ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine and white fir. Western white 

pine, historically, would have been associated with these plant associations however white pine blister 

rust has greatly reduced tree numbers of this species. These stands were established and maintained, 

again assuming no human influence or intervention, with a fire return interval of about 35-100 years. 

Fire in these areas tends to be of mixed severity which results in heterogeneous landscapes. Within 

these landscapes a mix of stand ages and size classes are important characteristics; generally the 

landscape is not dominated by one or two age classes. Large stand replacing fires occur, but are usually 

rare events. Such stand-replacing fire may “reset” large areas (10,000-100,000 acres). These PAGs are 

categorized into what is considered Fire Regime III.

The 35-100 year fire cycle would indicate that most of the Fire Regime III area would have burned at 

least once, possibly up to three times, without human influence and intervention since the early 1900s. 

An analysis of the historical large fire record that dates back to about 1904 for the Deschutes National 

Forest indicates that about 22% (1579 acres) of Fire Regime III within the two HUCs has burned since 

the beginning of record. This would indicate that more than three quarters of the area has missed one or 

more entries of fire over the course of the last century. 

About 33 acres (1%) of the EXF planning area is typified by the Lodgepole pine PAG. Lodgepole pine 

PAGs are seral communities that arise from and/or are maintained by stand-replacement fires. The 

small stand of Lodgepole pine lies immediately above the shorter fire return interval Ponderosa pine 

PAG. This is important because natural ignitions within Lodgepole pine that result in large fires may be 

relatively rare, so most often the fire originates lower on the slopes in the Ponderosa pine and burns 

uphill into the Lodgepole pine. Fires are of stand-replacing severity, since Lodgepole pine is not fire 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102  EXF Final EIS

resilient, and typical fire return intervals are 35-100+ years. These PAGs are categorized into what is 

considered Fire Regime IV.

The 35-100 year fire cycle would indicate that most of the Fire Regime IV area would have burned at 

least once, possibly up to three times, without human influence and intervention since the early 1900s. 

An analysis of the historical large fire record that dates back to about 1904 for the Deschutes National 

Forest indicates that about 27% (5,468 acres) of Fire Regime III within the two HUCs has burned once 

since the beginning of record. This would indicate that just less than three quarters of the area has 

missed one or more entries of fire over the course of the last century. 

The three fire regimes can be put into condition classes based on the amount of departure from the 

natural regime of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern and 

other disturbances. This departure is due to fire exclusion, as well as timber harvesting, introduction 

and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or native), or other past 

management activities. This departure has resulted in alterations of key ecosystem components such as 

species composition, structural stage and canopy closure. Condition class 1 represents areas that fall 

most within their natural or historical regime of characteristics. Condition class 2 and 3 represent areas 

that have moderate and high departures from the natural or historical regime of characteristics. The 

specifics for each condition class can be found in the Appendix to the Fuels Report. Because of the

controversy and simplicity of using FRCC (Morrison and Smith 2005; Veblen 2003), FRCC was not 

used for prescribing treatment alternatives. It also was not used as an indicator of alternative outcomes; 

only predicted fire behavior measurements were used. 

In order to simplify the concepts behind condition classes within each fire regime, the three condition 

classes have been grouped into two descriptive categories of acres; restoration acres and maintenance 

acres. Restoration acres are those acres that fall into condition class 2 and 3. These acres are at an 

elevated risk of loss of components that define those systems as unique. Maintenance acres are assumed 

to be functioning within expected parameters with respect to overstory condition. Often, maintenance 

acres are still in need of treatment due to their surface conditions, i.e. a well developed shrub layer 

presenting high flame lengths and the potential for crown fire initiation. Treating these surface fuels, 

although they are not a factor taken into consideration when determining Condition Classes of areas, is 

important to decreasing fire suppression resistance and the potential for crown fire initiation. Refer to 

Table 45 for the summary of acres for each of the Fire Regimes now specific to the EXF project area 

and their current condition: maintenance or restoration.

Table 45. Fire Regime/Condition Class Summary for EXF Project Area.

PAG/Fire

Regime Description

Mainten-ance

Condition

Acres

% of 

Regime

Restoration

Acres

% of 

Regime

Total

Acres in 

Regime

Ponderosa Pine –

Fire Regime I

0-35 yr return, low 

intensity 1,070 39 1,676 61 2,746

Mixed Conifer –

Fire Regime III

35-100+ yr return, 

mixed severity 358 46 420 54 778

Lodgepole Pine –

Fire Regime IV

35-100+ yr return, 

stand replacing 

severity 30 91 3 9 33

TOTAL 1,458 41 2,099 59 3,557*

*The entire EXF project area totals 3,615 acres, 58 acres are considered in the analysis as missing values or having 

no Fire Regime/Condition Class data.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  103

Stand and Fire Suppression History

In 1845, an unnamed stand replacement fire across the project area resulted in the establishment of 

dense ponderosa pine at lower elevations and Douglas-fir, grand fir, white fir, sugar pine, western white 

pine and mountain hemlock at higher elevations. It is not unusual for closed-canopy forest to develop 

after a stand-replacement fire. In ponderosa pine systems east of the crest of the Cascades, it probably 

occurred whenever a stand-replacement fire occurred. It is less than usual, however for large pinedominated landscape to be replaced by stand replacing fire; it did occur, but not as frequently as at 

higher elevations in other forest types. In 1914, the Lookout Mtn. Eastside fire burned 321 acres on the 

eastside of Lookout Mtn. It is not known whether suppression was taken on this 1914 fire. A small 

portion (only 1 acre) of the Lookout Mtn. fire of 1985, which was actively suppressed, made its way 

into the project area on the western boundary. Since the establishment of the Experimental Forest in 

1931, there have been commercial and non-commercial thinning treatments across the project area. 

Some of these treatments were research-specific, others were salvage sales from the 1970s. 

Pre-Euro-American low elevation dry conifer forests of the western United States were fundamentally 

shaped by frequent low- or mixed severity disturbances such as wildfires (Bork 1984; Agee 1993; 

Taylor & Skinner 1998; Everett et al. 2000; Ottmar & Sandberg 2001; Wright & Agee 2004; 

Youngblood et al. 2004; Hessburg et al. 2005; Arabas et al. 2006) and insect attacks (McCullough et al. 

1998; Hayes & Daterman 2001) mediated by diverse environmental gradients of topography, soils, and 

weather. Surface fires, ignited predominantly by lightning during the time of year when moisture 

content of fine fuels was lowest (Agee 1993; Rorig & Ferguson 1999), controlled regeneration of fireintolerant species, reduced density of small-diameter stems consumed litter and down wood, opened the 

stands to increased sunlight, led to vertical stratification of fuels by eliminating fuel ladders between the 

forest floor and the overstory canopy, and maintained relatively stable plant associations. Consequently, 

the structure of these low elevation dry forests generally consisted of open, predominantly widely 

spaced medium to large and old live trees, scattered dead trees, low levels of surface fuels, and 

continuous low herbaceous understory vegetation (Wickman 1992; Agee 1994; Youngblood et al. 2004; 

Arabas et al. 2006).

Many of these dry forests today have characteristics that place them at greater risk of uncharacteristic 

disturbances. These features include an accumulated mass of down woody debris and continuity of the 

fuels mosaic at landscape scales, more small trees and fewer large trees, greater amounts of young 

multi-storied forest with fire-intolerant conifers in both understory and overstory strata, increased fuel 

ladders that contribute to greater flame lengths during fires, and new or altered forcing of regional 

climate on plant community structure and organization (Agee 1993; Covington & Moore 1994; Arno et 

al. 1997; Taylor & Skinner 1998; Harrod et al. 1999; Youngblood et al. 2004; Fitzgerald 2005; 

Hessburg et al. 2005; Stephens & Gill 2005; Youngblood et al. 2006; McKenney et al. 2007). In many 

dry forests of the Pacific Northwest, the altered fuelbeds and shifts in forest structure and composition 

resulted from fire exclusion and suppression, livestock grazing, timber management activities, and 

changes in climate (Bergoffen 1976; Steele et al. 1986; Dolph et al. 1995; Arno et al. 1997; Fitzgerald 

2005; Richardson et al. 2007). 

Increases in overall stand density over the past century have led to increased competition among trees

for below-ground nutrients, water, and growing space. Increased competition among trees and reduced

tree vigor increases susceptibility to attack from bark beetles and other forest insects and diseases

(Mitchell, 1990, Hessburg et al. 1994; Oliver 1995; Fettig et al. 2007). Mortality in ponderosa pine

attributed to mountain pine beetle is positively correlated with high stand density (Sartwell & Dolph

1976; Fettig et al. 2007). Thinning has been shown to reduce the amount of ponderosa pine mortality 

caused by mountain pine beetle unless surrounding areas are allowed to develop epidemic population

levels (Fettig et al. 2007). The mountain pine beetle often kills extensively when contiguous stands or 

landscapes become vulnerable. These changes have occurred more recently against a backdrop of

natural and human-caused climate change that may first be manifest in the distribution of herbaceous
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104  EXF Final EIS

species and woody shrubs, and may eventually result in a redistribution of tree species (McKenney et al.

2007; Richardson et al. 2007). Collectively, these altered structural conditions contribute to increased

probability of multiple, interacting stresses and may lead to altered or new disturbance regimes.

Expected Fire Behavior

Fire behavior for the existing conditions of the EXF Planning area has been predicted by using a number 

of state of the art tools. Remote sensing satellite imagery from 2004 was analyzed in the computer 

model FlamMap under specific weather conditions8

Table 46. Fire behavior condition ratings and the associated parameters by indicator

. The satellite data that represents trees of any DBH 

better reflects on-the-ground conditions than on-site stand exams because the on-site stand exams do not 

measure any trees under 7 inches DBH. Trees under 7 inches DBH are a critical component of ladder 

fuel conditions and need to be considered in the modeling. FlamMap, a fire behavior mapping and 

analysis program that computes fire behavior characteristics (rates of spread, flame length, crown fire 

potential, etc.) over an entire landscape, was used to determine the existing stand condition’s potential 

fire behavior. FlamMap is a state of the art tool used by many researchers and modelers (Finney 2006; 

Stratton 2004; Ager, Finney and McMahon 2006; Gercke & Stewart 2006; Opperman et al. 2006; Ager 

et al. 2006; Yohay et al. 2009; Krasnow et al. 2009; Arca et al. 2007; Stratton 2006; Knight & Coleman 

1993). FlamMap output lends itself well to landscape comparisons (e.g. pre- and post-treatment 

effectiveness) and for identifying hazardous fuel and topographic combinations, thus aiding in 

prioritization and assessments (Stratton 2004). Although the (modeling) approach has limitations, 

model outputs yield useful information for planning, assessing, and prioritizing fuel treatments (Stratton 

2004). The data inputs necessary for FlamMap include aspect, slope, elevation, fuel model, canopy 

height, canopy base height, crown bulk density, and crown class. The fuel and weather conditions used 

were those representing the 97th percentile weather from the Round Mountain Remote Access Weather 

station (RAWS). The Round Mountain RAWS is the weather station that best represents summer 

weather and fuel conditions for the project area, since it is within very close range of Lookout Mountain 

and the EXF planning area (only 2 to 3 miles). The 97th percentile fuel moisture conditions and wind 

conditions used can be referenced in Figure 2 of the Appendix. More information on 97th percentile 

weather can also be found later in the General Assumptions section. The model assumes constant 

weather and fuel moisture conditions for each scenario. Table 46 shows the conditions/parameters 

under which fire behavior would be rated low, moderate and high for flame length and fire type.

Fire Behavior Conditions LOW MODERATE HIGH

Flame Length 0-4 ft 4-8 ft 8 ft +

Fire Type Surface Passive Crown Fire Active Crown Fire

The fire behavior condition ratings shown in Table 46 for flame length are determined based on Fire 

Behavior Characteristics Charts found in Appendix B of the NWCG Fireline Handbook (2006). Fire 

Behavior Characteristics Charts are charts used by firefighters to determine a fire’s resistance to control 

and spread rates. Condition ratings for fire type correspond with the potential for a crown fire. A low 

rating is for areas where a surface fire potential exists with no potential for either type of crown fire. A 

moderate rating is for areas where a passive crown fire (a surface fire with individual tree torching) may 

exist. A high rating is for areas where the potential for an active crown fire (a fire involving the crowns 

of trees with support from a surface fire) exists. 

Table 47 shows the predicted fire behavior of existing conditions in acres for the EXF Planning Area 

using the parameters and indicators shown in Table 46.

 8 Note that although the maps in this section 3.3.2 do not reflect changes in vegetation since 2004, recent 

treatments are accounted for in the cumulative effects analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  105

Table 47. Existing condition predicted fire behavior.

Fire Behavior Existing Condition

Fire Behavior Conditions Low Moderate High

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Flame Length (ft) 1769 50 742 21 1057 29

Fire Type 1887 53 1677 47 2 <1

*The entire EXF project area totals 3,615 acres, 47 acres are considered in this analysis as missing 

values or having no fuel model/tree data.

Table 47 shows that the current condition within the EXF planning area varies. Under 97th percentile 

weather and fuel conditions, the model predicts that a wildfire would produce moderate to high flame 

lengths across about half the area (1,799 acres; see Figure 19). Moderate flame lengths (4-8 feet) may 

make direct attack of a wildfire under the stated conditions possible with a bulldozer, although the 

damage that bulldozers can make while fighting a fire is particularly critical in a research rich area, such 

as the Experimental Forest. Flame lengths of over 8 feet (High fire behavior) cannot be safely 

suppressed by direct attack of ground resources. Other forms of suppression, like indirect attack, would 

have to be considered, and could also increase the amount of damage to the Experimental Forest.

There is a potential for a passive crown fire to occur under current fuel and stand conditions and under 

97th percentile weather and fuel conditions during a wildfire for just less than half the area within EXF 

(1,677 acres). There are two stages to the crown-fire process: the first is torching, or movement of fire 

into the crown (passive crown fire), the second is active spread of the crown fire where fire moves from 

tree crown to tree crown through the canopy (active crown fire) (Fitzgerald 2005). Passive crown fires, 

although not as intense as an active crown fire, can make suppression difficult due to high flame lengths 

and short and long range spotting. Damage to individual trees, to include mortality, can also be 

devastating in an Experimental Forest where research is dependent on particular plots and particular 

trees within that plot. The remaining half the area is predicted under the modeled wildfire to support a 

surface fire. Surface fires can still be difficult to suppress, again depending on other fire behavior 

conditions such as flame lengths and rates of spread.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106  EXF Final EIS

Figure 19. Flame Length Potential, Existing Condition 

Burn probability is an additional output to FlamMap and is a part of the minimum travel time fire 

growth model. Burn probability is used as an indicator of potential fire spread rates, i.e. landscape 

attributes, like fuel conditions, that contribute to higher spread rates and result in a higher burn 

probability. High burn probabilities can be related to the sizes of fires that occur on a given landscape. 

So under the same conditions, large fires produce higher probabilities than small fires. Since fire size is 

a function of the gross spread rate and duration of the fire, treatments or conditions that reduce the 

spread rate will lower the burn probability (Finney et al. 2006).

Burn probability was calculated within the model using the same 97th percentile weather and fuel 

conditions from Round Mountain RAWS, as well as with 1000 random ignitions and a 12 hour burn 

duration across the entire analysis area, which is approximately a 1 1⁄2 mile buffered area surrounding 

EXF project area. A larger analysis area for the purpose of burn probability allows the model to 

consider ignitions from outside the EXF area and model that potential without bias. Burn probability is 

output as a decimal number between 0 and 1 for every 120 meter pixel within the project area. Those 

decimals were classified into 5 equal divisions and reclassified into a number from 1 to 5, with 1 

representing acreage with the lowest burn probability and 5 representing the highest, so that any 

increases or decreases in burn probability due to proposed treatments could be shown easily. Then, the 

outputs specific to the EXF project area were clipped from the rest of the analysis area. This is done to 

better show effect of any proposed treatments to burn probability within the project area. Table 48

shows the existing condition burn probability within the project area. Figure 20 displays the existing 

burn probability spatially across the project area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  107

Table 48. Burn probability within the existing condition of the EXF project area

Burn probability 

classification Amount of Acres*

1 (low) 117

2 (moderate) 1,359

3 (moderate) 2,074

4 (high) 43

5 (highest) 0

*The entire EXF project area totals 3,615 acres, 21 acres are considered in this analysis as missing 

values or having not enough data to complete analysis.

Table 48 shows that relative to the entire analysis area (an area that includes approximately a mile and a 

half around EXF), the project area itself is predicted to have moderate chances (classification of 2 or 3) 

for large fires across the majority of the area (3,433 acres). This is also shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20. Burn Probability across Project Area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108  EXF Final EIS

Summary Affected Environment

In the EXF project area there has been only one major fire entry since the beginning of the 1900s, and 

that was the Lookout Mtn. Eastside fire of 1914 that totaled about 314 acres. For the rest of the area, 

lack of fire and/or limited treatment has resulted in denser stands, which adds to the ladder fuels already 

present in tall shrub layers and low canopy base heights that allow for the potential for passive crown 

fire. Analysis using FlamMap shows this potential to exist for just less than half the EXF project area. 

High flame lengths that would make direct attack by hand crews impossible, is also a concern in about 

half the project area according to FlamMap. The majority of the project area has a moderate chance for 

large fires, according to the analysis done in FlamMap.

Across the three fire regimes present in EXF, condition class shows that 59% of the ground is in a state 

of need for restoration and 41% of the ground is in a condition where maintenance is needed in order for 

stands to remain functioning within their more natural parameters. Maintenance could include reducing 

tree densities to encourage health and vigor of remaining trees and treating shrub densities mechanically 

and/or with prescribed fire in order to reduce wildfires potential within the stands. This is displayed iin 

Table 45.

Principles of Fire Resilient Forests

The management issues identified in the Study Plan, to be addressed in concert with the planned 

research includes: Restoring tree vigor and reducing the risk of landscape-scale stand-replacement 

disturbance; protecting and enhancing future research opportunities; protecting the Lookout Mountain 

installations of the West-Wide Levels-of-Growing-Stock Study and the Ponderosa Pine-Grand Fir 

Spacing study from wildfire.

Desired conditions and strategies that would achieve these objectives have been defined and 

documented in current science. Treatments should be based on the Principles of Fire Resilient Forests 

(Agee 2002; Hessburg & Agee 2003), as shown below. These principles are designed to reduce fire 

behavior potential, aid in suppression of wildland fire, and increase protection to valuable resources on 

forest land. As incorporated into the EXF project design, these principles can improve fire-resilience 

by: reducing surface fuels, removing ladder fuels, leaving large fire-resistant trees, and spacing tree 

crowns.

Principle Effects Advantage Concerns

Reduce surface fuels Reduce potential flame 

lengths

Control easier, less 

torching (initiation of 

crown fire)

Surface disturbance, less 

with fire than other 

techniques

Increase height to 

live crown

Requires longer flame 

length to begin torching

Less torching Opens understory, may 

allow surface wind to 

increase9

Decrease crown 

density

Makes tree-to-tree 

crown fire less probable

Reduces crown fire 

potential

Surface wind may increase 

and surface fuels may be 

drier5

Keep larger trees Thicker bark and taller 

crowns

Increases 

survivability of trees

Removing smaller trees is 

economically less profitable

 9 Where thinning is followed by sufficient treatment of surface fuels, the overall reduction in expected fire 

behavior and fire severity usually outweigh the changes in fire weather factors such as wind speed and fuel 

moisture (Weatherspoon, 1996; Peterson et al. 2003).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  109

Where managed for reduced fire behavior potential, the desired conditions include:

• Crown bulk density and continuity of the forest canopy could not sustain a crown fire;

• Trees would have a canopy base height well enough above shrub cover in order to reduce 

potential for crown fire initiation;

• Shrub layer is at a height that would lower flame lengths to below the four-foot agency standard 

for direct attack by handline and reduce potential for crown fire initiation.

• Fuel model 161 (Scott & Burgan 2005) is a timbered fuel model that most exemplifies the fuel 

characteristics conductive to low fire behavior and successful suppression by direct attack of 

hand crews. This fuel model would be considered the desired condition for the area.

Environmental Consequences

Elements used to Describe Effects of the Alternatives

Fire Behavior

Fire behavior is the manner in which fire reacts to topography, weather, and fuels (DeBano et al. 1998; 

NWCG, 1998). These three elements comprise the fire environment – the surrounding conditions, 

influences, and modifying forces that determine fire behavior. Modifying any one of these elements has 

a direct result on fire behavior, which is described by flame length and rate of spread. Favorable 

conditions for crown fires include heavy accumulations of dead and down wood and litter, conifer 

reproduction and other ladder fuels like shrubs, and a continuous conifer tree forest (Rothermel 1991).

The greater the fuel loading, the more intense a fire is likely to burn (DeBano et al. 1998). Conversely, 

a reduction in fuel loading can limit a fire’s intensity. Fuel characteristics affecting fire behavior are 

vegetative density, species composition, amount of surface fuel, arrangement of fuels and moisture 

content (Rothermel 1983). Fuels contribute to the rate of spread of a fire, the intensity/flame length of 

the fire, how long a fire is held over in an area, and the size of the burned area (Rothermel 1983).

Favorable conditions for crown fires include heavy accumulations of dead and down wood and litter, 

conifer reproduction and other ladder fuels like shrubs, and a continuous conifer tree forest (Rothermel

1991).

Treatments that reduce surface fuel loads have been shown to decrease fire behavior and severity 

(Graham et al., 1999; Pollet and Omi 1999). 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. 

Intensive forest management that involves the creation of activity fuels (slash) can indeed increase fire 

behavior conditions such as rate of spread and flame length. However, treatment of slash (i.e. burning, 

chipping, removal, isolation) will reduce fire behavior and fire intensity (Omi and Martinson 2002). 

Graham et al, (1999) reports that thinning from below and intermediate tree harvest can effectively alter 

fire behavior by reducing crown bulk density and ladder fuels, but will not reduce crown fire potential 

unless tree densities are substantially reduced. The same scientific document also states that all 

intermediate treatments should be accompanied by surface fuel modification, and the most success is 

achieved when using prescribed fire for such treatments. A study by Ritchie et al (2007) provides 

additional evidence that thinning followed by prescribed fire can improve tree survival after wildfire 

better than thinning alone or no treatment.

There are three types of fuels that affect fire behavior; fine fuels such as grass or forbs, small woody 

fuels less than three inches in diameter and large woody fuels greater than three inches in diameter. 

Fine fuels are the major contributors to fire spread, carrying the ignition and flaming front of a fire
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110  EXF Final EIS

(Rothermel 1983). They are especially influential to fire’s rate of spread and intensity because they lose 

their moisture faster, therefore igniting easier and burning more readily (Agee 1993). Without these 

fine fuels, many fires will not get large, although there are exceptions. However, eliminating fine fuels 

entirely from the landscape is neither possible nor desirable. Fine fuels are constantly being produced 

from needlecast or deciduous leaf fall and dying and falling branches. Under a frequent fire regime it 

will be more possible to maintain fine fuels at lower levels and various patch sizes than under a less 

frequent fire regime, decreasing fire intensities and decreasing the area’s resistance to control.

In order to analyze and compare the effects of alternatives as they relate to fuels management, the fire 

behavior conditions of flame length and potential fire type will be used. Burn probability will also be 

analyzed as an indicator of potential fire spread rates, i.e. landscape attributes, like fuel conditions, that 

contribute to higher spread rates result in a higher burn probability. 

In addition to the professional judgment of fuels specialists and the latest scientific data available, state 

of the art modeling was used to facilitate a more specific comparison of alternatives as the comparison 

relates to actual acres on the ground. FlamMap, a fire behavior mapping and analysis program that 

computes fire behavior characteristics (rates of spread, flame length, crown fire potential, burn 

probability, etc.), was used to determine the existing stand condition’s potential fire behavior. Remote 

sensing satellite imagery from 2004 was analyzed in the computer model under specific fuel moisture 

conditions. The data inputs necessary for FlamMap include aspect, slope, elevation, fuel model, canopy 

height, canopy base height, crown bulk density, and crown class. The fuel moisture conditions used 

were those representing the 97th percentile fuel moistures for summer conditions from the Round 

Mountain Remote Access Weather Station (RAWS). Round Mountain RAWS is the closest weather 

station to the EXF planning area and is on the butte just directly south and west of Lookout Mountain. 

See Appendix D for the 97th percentile fuel moisture conditions and wind conditions used.

General assumptions made in effects analysis

Alternative development and environmental effects are based on the following assumptions:

• Lightning will remain a source of potential ignitions.

• An increase in average tree diameter of the stand reduces fire severity. Larger trees have 

thicker bark and are more resistant to flame scorch from surface fuels. The more acres thinned 

from below, the greater the average diameter of remaining trees.

• Treatment of natural surface fuels will reduce fire severity.

• Wildland fire will not be eradicated in these ecosystems. A successful strategy will be built 

upon designing a vegetative environment, including species and structural characteristics that 

will produce desired, safely manageable fire behavior in the event of an unplanned ignition.

• There are no ecosystems that are completely “fire safe.” Certain combinations of ignition, fuel 

moisture in the live and dead vegetation, wind, and relative humidity can combine under 

extreme circumstances to threaten any vegetated ecosystem.

• Public and firefighter safety is the top priority in fuels and fire management. Treatments in the 

forest will focus on creating a safe working environment for fire suppression forces.

• Ground suppression forces can operate safely adjacent to flames that are 4 feet in length and 

less. Extreme fire behavior, including crown fire, rapid surface spread and long range spotting, 

create an unsafe environment for the public and firefighters.

• The Experimental Forest is valued for a variety of reasons, including wildlife habitat, unique 

vegetative communities, visual quality and current and future research, among others. Any 

management done in the name of hazardous fuels reduction in that zone must also consider the 

other objectives.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  111

• Weather conditions at the 97th percentile for FlamMap analysis are defined as the combination 

of temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed on a summer day that is warmer, drier, and 

windier than 97% of all other recorded summer days. “Fire season” is defined as the 92 day 

period between July 1st and September 30th, during which most fires and acres burn. Under 97th

percentile conditions, there will be about 3 days on average that are hotter, drier, and windier 

than those 97th percentile conditions.

• For the analysis in this document, the effects of treatments are assumed to cover 100% of the 

treatment area. There is currently no way to spatially analyze untreated areas within treatment 

units (e.g. some small existing research plots will not be treated). Leaving certain areas of units 

untreated would likely reduce the effectiveness of hazard fuel reduction indicated in the 

analysis, but to what extent is unknown.

• There are 12 plots of 1⁄2 acre each that fall within the EXF planning area where fuels will remain 

untreated following density reduction. For the purpose of analysis, these small plots have been 

considered as a part of treated acreage. It is assumed that these plots will be surrounded in 

treated areas that will produce desired, safely manageable fire behavior in the event of an 

unplanned ignition and allow for protecting the plots from unplanned ignitions occurring 

outside of the plots. Treatments will not protect from unplanned ignitions occurring inside the 

plots.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Measure 1: Acres of project area rated as low for fire behavior potential; acres of project area rated as 

low for burn probability

With no management activities occurring, more acres would transition from low and moderate fire 

behavior potential towards high and extreme fire behavior potential. Currently an estimated 1,769 acres 

(50%) exhibiting low flame length potential would naturally transition over the next 20 years, due to 

tree and shrub growth to either a moderate or high fire behavior category. The remaining 50% of acres 

within EXF planning area are predicted to exhibit moderate and high flame lengths. Moderate flame 

lengths (4-8 feet) may make direct attack of a wildfire under the stated conditions possible with a 

bulldozer, although the damage that bulldozers can make while fighting a fire is particularly critical in a 

research-rich area, such as the experimental forest. Flame lengths of over 8 feet (high fire behavior) 

cannot be safely suppressed by direct attack of ground resources. Other forms of suppression, like 

indirect attack, would have to be considered, and could also increase the amount of damage to the 

experimental forest. These fuel conditions that would support moderate and high fire behavior would 

also continue to transition; fuel loadings would further increase and shrub heights would increase. 

Increased fuel loadings and shrub heights translate to higher burn probabilities. Higher burn 

probabilities predict larger fires on the landscape over time.

The only way that fuels reduction would occur is with a wildfire that under the no action alternative 

would be intense with high flame lengths, torching and spotting over at least half the area, making 

suppression difficult and possibly terminating any of the ongoing research within the area. Potential for 

adverse impacts to forest values would continue to increase.

Measure 2: Reduction in crown fire potential

Under current conditions, the FlamMap model shows that 47% of the project area would support a 

passive crown fire. Refer to Figure 21 for the predicted existing crown fire potential across the entire 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112  EXF Final EIS

project area. High stand densities would eventually lead to disease and insect infestations (See Forested 

Vegetation), which would then lead to red-needled pine, adding to crown fire susceptibility. Incoming 

reproduction has added to the ladder fuels and would continue to add to the ladder fuels, increasing the 

potential of initiation of a crown fire. With an increase in ladder fuel development and canopy closure, 

the 53% of acres currently exhibiting surface fire potential would transition over time to the potential for 

passive crown fire. In the same vein, the 47% of acres currently exhibiting passive crown fire potential 

would transition over time to the potential for more active crown fire, due to the same conditions.

Figure 21. Existing Crown Fire Potential in EXF Planning Area

Measure 3: Production of Particulate Matter (PM) 10 and 2.5

The effects on air quality would occur when higher quantities of PM10 and PM2.5 are released when 

inevitable wildfire comes through the project area. These quantities of particulate matter are much 

higher than what would be released under prescribed fire conditions. This can be attributed to the fact 

that weather conditions are usually, windier, hotter and drier in the summer and in the case of a wildfire 

a greater amount of surface and canopy fuels are consumed. In order to determine the differences in 

particulate matter released during wildfire compared to prescribed fire, an analysis was first done in the 

computer model FOFEM (First Order Fire Effects Model). FOFEM is a computer program that was 

developed to meet needs of planners in predicting and planning for fire effects, including smoke 

impacts. The assumptions made with FOFEM are as follows:
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  113

• Prescribed underburning and wildfires occur in Interior Ponderosa Pine (SAF 237) under natural 

fuel conditions.

• Prescribed underburning is conducted under spring and moderate fuel moisture default 

conditions; wildfires occur under summer and very dry fuel moisture default conditions with an 

adjustment of the 10 hour fuels to 4%, and 1000 hour fuels to 9% (97th percentile conditions; 

see Appendix D).

• Prescribed underburning would be conducted with light 3+ inch diameter fuels and sparse 

herbaceous, shrub, foliage, and branch conditions; wildfires occur under typical conditions for 

all fuel types.

During high intensity wildfire, smoke emissions of both PM10 and PM2.5 is in the range of 624 

pounds/acre. As shown in Table 49, this is about one and a half times the result of mowing and 

prescribed underburning on the same acre. Where down woody fuels have accumulated or stands are 

particularly dense; particulate matter production of PM10 and PM2.5 would exceed these estimates.

Table 49. Estimated smoke emissions from a wildfire under extreme conditions compared to prescribed 

fire conditions.

Fire condition Pounds PM10/1 Acre 

Fuel Consumed

Pounds PM2.5/1 Acre 

Fuel Consumed

Wildfire 338 286

Prescribed Fire 223 189

Under wildfire conditions, smoke from within the project area would impact the communities of LaPine, 

Sunriver and Bend because the smoke would be a result of a wildfire that most likely would not be 

occurring under conducive smoke dispersion conditions. It is possible that the air quality within the 

Three Sisters Wilderness, a Class 1 Airshed would be adversely affected. Recreational sites near and 

around the EXF area, like Fall River, Twin Lakes, Crane Prairie and the Deschutes River could also be 

adversely impacted by smoke when tourism and recreation are at their highest.

Particulate matter can be hazardous to human health, create poor visibility conditions and, in general, be 

a nuisance. The health effects to people of smoke can range from irritation of the eyes and respiratory 

tract to more serious disorders that include asthma, bronchitis, reduced lung function, and premature 

death. Airborne particles are respiratory irritants, high concentrations can cause persistent cough, 

phlegm, wheezing, and physical discomfort when breathing. Particulate matter can also alter the body’s 

immune system and affect removal of foreign materials from the lung like pollen and bacteria (NWCG

2001). Haze caused by wildfire can also add to other sources of haze and affect scenic visibility. 

Nuisance smoke is defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency as the amount of smoke in the 

ambient air that interferes with a right or privilege common to members of the public, including the use 

or enjoyment of public or private resources (US EPA 1990). Nuisance smoke includes complaints of 

loss of visibility, odors, collisions on highways due to lack of visibility, and eye and nose irritation. 

Although the vast majority of prescribed burns occur without negative smoke impact, wildland fire 

smoke can be a problem anywhere in the country (NWCG 2001). 

Cumulative Effects

Since there would be no new proposed activities, there would be no cumulative effects. However, there 

would be the direct and indirect effects noted above from the continued suppression of fire starts and 

ongoing vegetative growth and recreational use, including continuing to place areas outside of EXF at 

risk from fire.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114  EXF Final EIS

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Measure 1: Acres of project area rated as low for fire behavior potential; acres of project area rated as 

low for burn probability

The resulting predicted fire behavior for Alternative 2 was analyzed using the same technique as the 

analysis for the existing condition. The remote sensing satellite imagery data from 2004 was changed to 

reflect the proposed treatments on the ground, as per the professional judgment of Paul Brna, 

silviculturist and Deana Wall, fuels specialist. The change in data can be referenced in Appendix 

Section 5. Once the data was changed using ArcGIS, the data was analyzed in FlamMap under the same 

97th percentile extreme summer weather conditions from Round Mountain weather station that were 

used for the existing condition. The resulting predicted fire behavior is shown in Table 50. 

Table 50. Alternative 2 predicted fire behavior.

Fire Behavior Alternative 2 Condition Acres*

Low Moderate High

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Flame Length (ft) 3,037 85 173 5 356 10

Fire Type 2,990 84 577 16 0 0

*The entire EXF project area totals 3,615 acres, 47 acres are considered in this analysis as missing 

values or having not enough data to complete analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  115

Figure 22. Flame Length Potential following Alternative 2 Treatments.

Treatments proposed in Alternative 2 would result in 1,268 more acres with low flame lengths relative 

to the existing condition. Seven hundred one acres of predicted high flame lengths within the existing 

condition would be reduced to low flame lengths with proposed Alternative 2 treatments. This is a 

substantial change in fire behavior. This change would allow direct attack with hand crews of a wildfire 

under 97th percentile conditions on 3037 acres of the EXF project area. Direct attack on these low flame 

length acres allows unwanted fires to be contained at small fire sizes, thereby protecting valuable 

research on those acres. 

Burn probability for Alternative 2 was calculated in the same fashion as the burn probability for the 

existing condition (No Action Alternative). Table 51 compares the burn probability for Alternative 2

with the burn probability for existing condition. Figure 23 is a map of the burn probability for 

Alternative 2 spatially across the analysis area.

Because the project employs whole-tree yarding, there will be very little activity slash to clean up. 

Smaller trees (generally < 7” DBH) will be felled by hand and utilized as market conditions allow. If it 

cannot be utilized, the lighter concentrations will be lopped and scattered and heavier concentrations 

grapple piled and burned. There may be a period of time where there may be an elevated level of fine 

fuels in the short term (typically ranging from 3 to 12 months) between small tree thinning and fuel 

treatments where fuels are allowed to cure in order for maximum potential consumption. During this 

short period of time, potentially increased fuel loading may result in an increased fuel hazard. Upon 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116  EXF Final EIS

consumption of the resultant fuels, the fuel hazard would be decreased to a fuel hazard equal to or 

reduced to that of pre non-commercial thin conditions.

Thinned stands of trees can have a shortened time lag for drying fuels and potential increases in surface 

winds relative to more closed stands. This effect becomes less of a factor for fire behavior as 

summertime weather progresses. Although closed stands take longer to reach low fuel moistures than 

open sites, as less moisture recovery occurs in July, August, and September, fuel moistures in closed 

stands reach equilibrium with open sites relatively quickly. When this occurs, crown-driven wildfires 

are much easier initiated. The closed sites have more available flammable fuel due to higher levels of 

biomass across the fuels strata and live tree fuel moisture at its lowest level. Where thinning is followed 

by sufficient treatment of surface fuels, the overall reduction in expected fire behavior and fire severity 

usually outweigh the changes in fire weather factors such as wind speed and fuel moisture 

(Weatherspoon 1996).

Table 51. Burn probability within Alternative 2 of the EXF project area

Burn probability 

classification Alternative 2 Acres* Existing condition Acres*

1 (low) 2,487 117

2 (moderate) 954 1,359

3 (moderate) 153 2,074

4 (high) 0 43

5 (highest) 0 0

*The entire EXF project area totals 3615 acres, 21 acres are considered in this analysis as missing

values or having not enough data to complete analysis.

When comparing burn probability resulting from Alternative 2 with the burn probability for the existing 

condition, it can be seen that treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would lower the burn probability 

considerably across the treatment area. All 43 acres of the project area with the highest classification of 

4 were reduced to a burn probability classification of 1 after treatment. Nineteen hundred twenty one 

acres of the area classified as a 3 for burn probability before treatment was reduced to a burn probability 

of 1 after treatment. An additional 405 acres of burn probability classification 2 were also reduced to a 

classification of 1 post-treatment (see Figure 23). The result is a reduction in burn probability across the 

planning area by 2,369 acres. Considering that 117 acres of the project area started out with a 

classification of 1, and only 2,554 acres were modeled to be treated, a reduction in burn probability from 

all classifications down to a 1 for 2,369 acres is a substantial reduction.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  117

Figure 23. Spatial representation of Alternative 2 Burn Probability across analysis area

Measure 2: Reduction in crown fire potential

The proposed treatments of Alternative 2 would affect all areas being treated by lowering any potential 

for a passive or active crown fire to a surface fire (refer to Table 50). This results in 1,103 additional 

acres to the existing condition burning as a surface fire under 97th percentile conditions, for a total of 

2,990 acres of the project area. The 577 remaining acres of passive crown fire potential are areas that 

would remain untreated under Alternative 2 (see Figure 24).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118  EXF Final EIS

Figure 24. Crown Fire Potential Under Alternative 2.

Measure 3: Production of Particulate Matter (PM) 10 and 2.5

The amount of particulate matter emitted due to underburning and pile burning within Alternative 2 are 

shown in Table 52. The total tons of particulate matter shown in Table 52 were calculated by 

multiplying the smoke emissions per acre for a prescribed fire for both PM10 and PM2.5 (predicted in 

FOFEM) by the number of net acres that would be prescribed underburned (2,554 acres). For 

comparison, to calculate the tons of PM10 and PM2.5 emitted from a wildfire, the smoke emissions per 

acre for a wildfire (predicted in FOFEM) were multiplied by the largest acreage represented by the 

action alternatives (2,554 acres). Table 52 shows that an average wildfire would produce one and a half 

times as much emissions for both PM10 and PM2.5 as the proposed treatments in Alternative 2. The 

emissions from Alternative 2 could be less than what is shown here, if any of the material produced 

during treatment can be utilized for biomass.

Table 52. Estimated smoke emissions from Alternative 2 prescribed fire treatments compared to the 

same amount of acres consumed under wildfire conditions without treatment.

Fire condition Tons PM10 Tons PM2.5

Alternative 2- 2554 ac. 

prescribed underburn 285 241

Wildfire- 2554 total acres 432 365
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  119

Burning would be conducted in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards and under the 

Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Burning would only be conducted when prevailing and predicted 

wind patterns would result in negligible effects to LaPine, Sunriver, Bend, and the Three Sisters 

Wilderness Class 1 Airshed. Implementation of the action alternative, based on the measures included 

to reduce emissions and to disperse smoke during favorable conditions, is expected to protect air quality 

to adjacent communities while having no visible effects to the Class 1 Airshed (Three Sisters 

Wilderness). This is because the Three Sisters Wilderness area is higher in elevation and located eight

to ten miles west/northwest of the EXF project area. The prevailing wind patterns reflect a northwest to 

westerly flow and would result in minimal potential for impacts to the airshed.

On burn days, persons responsible for burning operations modify ignitions patterns and mop-up 

procedures to consider the effects to the Class 1 Airshed and smoke sensitive areas. Monitoring is done 

by the State Forester to ensure compliance with the smoke management program to determine 

effectiveness of smoke management procedures. Other monitoring techniques include posting 

personnel as lookouts (Lava Butte Lookout) on burn days. If a certain threshold is reached where 

additional particulate release is undesired, firing operations are ceased and immediate mop-up 

procedures initiated. However, given the location and layout of the project area, some smoke into 

adjacent communities may be temporarily inevitable, but would not be at a level to cause air quality 

concerns and would not persist.

In contrast to Alternative 1, fuel treatments under Alternative 2 would reduce potential wildfire size per 

occurrence and emissions produced in the treated units of the project area. Under extreme fire behavior 

conditions, the remaining untreated dense stands and areas of excessive fuel loading could burn 

intensely and produce unwanted amounts of smoke in addition to the predicted amounts of smoke for 

Alternative 2. There would be some dust created from the proposed mechanical operations under this 

alternative, mainly from logging operations within project units. The amount of dust actually created 

would be minimal due to dust abatement which includes watering dirt roads identified for hauling.

Cumulative Effects

Measure 1: Acres of project area rated as low for fire behavior potential; acres of project area rated as 

low for burn probability

Past activities of the last 15 years, not including ongoing activities of the Snow, Fall, and Charlie Brown 

EAs, across the 6th field Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds total 6,631 acres. Ongoing activities 

include Snow (2,777 acres), Fall (1,926 acres), and Charlie Brown (3,188 acres) EAs. The total amount 

of treated acres for both 6th field watersheds including proposed treatments under Alternative 2 within 

EXF would be 17,076 acres. This total includes any area where there may have been pre-commercial 

thinning, commercial harvest and/or fuels treatment, like mowing or underburning. Experience with fire 

suppression in Central Oregon shows that unless treated acres are in the immediate vicinity (< 1⁄4 mile) 

they would have no effect on fire behavior within the project area. Any fire behavior effect from treated 

acres of these recent activities within 1⁄4 mile of the EXF project are accounted for in the simulation 

modeling of predicted fire behavior for the alternative, and are therefore accounted for in the data 

analysis and report of direct and indirect fire behavior effects for Alternative 2. Past and ongoing 

treatments in the areas outside 1⁄4 mile of EXF may or may not reduce fire behavior to a low rating, but 

any work that treats/reduces surface fuels will lower the susceptibility across the landscape for 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

Table 12 was reviewed for ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. There are no known ongoing 

activities within or adjacent to the EXF project area that would contribute to effects on fuels loading,

and therefore no short-term or long-term cumulative effects on fuel loadings from the combination of 

Alternative 2 and any other activities within the planning area. 

Measure 2: Reduction in crown fire potential
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120  EXF Final EIS

Table 12 was reviewed for reasonably foreseeable actions or projects within or adjacent to the EXF 

planning area that would impact crown fire potential. There are no known ongoing activities within the 

EXF project area that affect crown fire potential. 

Past activities of the last 15 years, not including ongoing activities of the Snow, Fall, and Charlie Brown 

EAs, across the 6th field Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds total 6,631 acres. Ongoing activities 

include Snow (2,777 acres), Fall (1,926 acres), and Charlie Brown (3,188 acres) EAs. The total amount 

of treated acres for both 6th field watersheds including proposed treatments under Alternative 2 within 

EXF would be 17,076 acres. This total includes any area where there may have been pre-commercial 

thinning, commercial harvest and/or fuels treatment, like mowing or underburning. These past and 

ongoing treatments in the areas outside EXF may or may not reduce fire behavior to a low rating, but 

any work that reduces ladder fuels, reduces crown bulk density/cover, raises canopy base heights and/or 

treats/reduces surface fuels will lower the potential for crown fire potential and the susceptibility of 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

Measure 3: Production of Particulate Matter (PM) 10 and 2.5

All burning activity would be conducted in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulations and restrictions to ensure that there 

would be no cumulative effects on air quality. Burning activity on Federal lands near, but not within, 

the EXF project area (such as pile burning in the LaPine State Forest in adjacent watershed) is also 

subject to the same restrictions, requirements, and regulations, so would not have any additive effect on 

air quality within Central Oregon.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Measure 1: Acres of project area rated as low for fire behavior potential; acres of project area rated as 

low for burn probability.

The resulting predicted fire behavior for Alternative 3 was analyzed using the same technique as the 

analysis for the existing condition (No Action Alternative) and Alternative 2. The remote sensing 

satellite imagery data from 2004 was changed to reflect the proposed treatments on the ground, as per 

the professional judgment of Paul Brna, silviculturist and Deana Wall, fuels specialist. The change in 

data can be referenced in Fuels Report Appendix Section 5. Once the data was changed using ArcGIS,

the data was analyzed in FlamMap under the same 97th percentile extreme summer weather conditions 

from Round Mountain weather station that were used for the existing condition. The resulting predicted 

fire behavior is shown in Table 53. 

Table 53. Alternative 3 predicted fire behavior.

Fire Behavior Alternative 3 Condition Acres*

Low Moderate High

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Flame Length (ft) 2,877 81 214 6 477 13

Fire Type 2,834 79 733 21 0 0

*The entire EXF project area totals 3615 acres, 47 acres are considered in this analysis as missing 

values or having not enough data to complete analysis.

Treatments proposed in Alternative 3 would result in 1,108 more acres with low flame lengths relative 

to the existing condition. Five hundred eighty acres of predicted high flame lengths within the existing 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  121

condition would be reduced to low flame lengths with proposed Alternative 3 treatments. This is a 

slightly less considerable change in fire behavior than Alternative 2. This difference would mean that

direct attack with hand crews of a wildfire under 97th percentile conditions is possible on 2,877 acres of 

the EXF project area – 160 fewer acres than Alternative 3,037 acres possible under Alternative 2 (see 

Figure 25). Direct attack on these acres of low flame length acres would allow unwanted fires to be 

contained while still small, thereby protecting valuable research on those acres.

Figure 25. Flame Length Potential Following Alternative 3 Treatments.

Burn probability for Alternative 3 was calculated in the same fashion as the burn probability for the 

existing condition (No Action Alternative). Table 54 compares the burn probability for Alternative 3 

with the burn probability for Existing condition. Figure 26 is a map of the burn probability for 

Alternative 3 spatially across the existing condition.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122  EXF Final EIS

Table 54. Burn probability within Alternative 3 of the EXF project area.

Burn probability classification Alternative 3 Acres* Existing condition 

Acres*

1 (low) 2270 117

2 (moderate) 1000 1359

3 (moderate) 324 2074

4 (high) 0 43

5 (highest) 0 0

*The entire EXF project area totals 3615 acres, 21 acres are considered in this analysis as missing 

values or having not enough data to complete analysis.

When comparing the burn probability of Alternative 3 with the burn probability for the existing 

condition, it can be seen that treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would lower the burn probability 

substantially across the treatment area. All 43 acres of the project area with the highest classification of 

4 were reduced to a burn probability classification of 1 after treatment. Seventeen hundred fifty acres of 

the area classified as a 3 for burn probability before treatment was reduced to a burn probability of 1 

after treatment. An additional 359 acres of burn probability classification 2 were also reduced to a 

classification of 1 post-treatment. The result is a reduction in burn probability across the planning area, 

by 2,152 acres. Considering that 117 acres of the project area started out with a classification of 1, and 

only 2,178 acres were modeled to be treated, a reduction in burn probability from all classifications 

down to a 1 for 2,152 acres is a considerable reduction relative to the existing condition. It is a slightly 

less substantial reduction relative to Alternative 2 when strictly considering acres. However, when 

considering the effectiveness of acres treated; there is a 99% reduction in burn probability with 

proposed treatments under Alternative 3, and only a 93% reduction in burn probability with proposed 

treatments under Alternative 2.

As described for Alternative 2, there may be a period of time (3 to 12 months) when activity fuels are 

allowed to cure prior to burning. There is a potential for increased fuel hazard during this time. 

Following activity fuel treatment, the fuel hazard would be returned to equal to or reduced to that of pre 

non-commercial thin conditions.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  123

Figure 26. Spatial representation of Alternative 3 Burn Probability across analysis area

Measure 2: Reduction in crown fire potential

The proposed treatments of Alternative 3 would affect all areas being treated by lowering any potential 

for a passive or active crown fire to a surface fire (refer to Table 53). This results in 947 additional 

acres to the existing condition burning as a surface fire under 97th percentile conditions, for a total of 

2,834 acres of the project area. The 733 remaining acres of passive crown fire potential are areas that 

would remain untreated under Alternative 3 (Figure 27). 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124  EXF Final EIS

Figure 27. Crown Fire Potential Under Alternative 3.

Measure 3: Production of Particulate Matter (PM) 10 and 2.5

The amount of particulate matter emitted due to underburning and pile burning within Alternative 3 is 

shown in Table 55. The total tons of particulate matter shown in the table were calculated by 

multiplying the average smoke emissions per acre for a prescribed fire for both PM10 and PM2.5

(predicted in FOFEM) by the number of net acres that would be prescribed underburned (2,369 acres). 

For comparison, to calculate the tons of PM10 and PM2.5 emitted from a wildfire, the average smoke 

emissions per acre for a wildfire (predicted in FOFEM) were multiplied by the largest acreage 

represented by the action alternatives (2,554 acres). Table 44 shows that an average wildfire would 

produce more than one and a half times as much emissions for both PM10 and PM2.5 as the proposed 

treatments in Alternative 3. Due to the 186 fewer acres treated, the amount of emissions predicted to be 

emitted from Alternative 3 is less than those that would potentially be emitted from Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 would emit approximately 21 tons less PM10 and 17 tons less PM2.5 than Alternative 2. 

The emissions from Alternative 2 could be less than what is shown here, if any of the material produced 

during treatment can be utilized for biomass.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  125

Table 55. Estimated smoke emissions from Alternative 3 prescribed fire treatments compared to the 

same amount of acres consumed under wildfire conditions without treatment.

Fire condition Tons 

PM10 Tons PM2.5

Alternative 3- 2369 ac. prescribed underburn 264 224

Wildfire- 2554 total acres 432 365

Burning would be conducted in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards and under the 

Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Burning would only be conducted when prevailing and predicted 

wind patterns would result in negligible effects to LaPine, Sunriver, Bend, and the Three Sisters 

Wilderness Class 1 Airshed. Implementation of the action alternative, based on the measures included 

to reduce emissions and to disperse smoke during favorable conditions, is expected to protect air quality 

to adjacent communities while having no visible effects to the Class 1 Airshed (Three Sisters 

Wilderness). This is because the Three Sisters Wilderness area is higher in elevation and located eight 

to ten miles west/northwest of the EXF project area. The prevailing wind patterns reflect a northwest to 

westerly flow and would result in minimal potential for impacts to the airshed. 

On burn days, persons responsible for burning operations modify ignitions patterns and mop-up 

procedures to consider the effects to the Class 1 Airshed and smoke sensitive areas. Monitoring is done 

by the State Forester to ensure compliance with the smoke management program to determine 

effectiveness of smoke management procedures. Other monitoring techniques include posting 

personnel as lookouts (Lava Butte Lookout) on burn days. If a certain threshold is reached where 

additional particulate release is undesired, firing operations are ceased and immediate mop-up 

procedures initiated. However, given the location and layout of the project area, some smoke into 

adjacent communities may be temporarily inevitable, but would not be at a level to cause air quality 

concerns and would not persist.

In contrast to Alternative 1, fuel treatments under Alternative 3 would reduce potential wildfire size per 

occurrence and emissions produced in the treated units of the project area. Under extreme fire behavior 

conditions, the remaining untreated dense stands and areas of excessive fuel loading could burn 

intensely and produce unwanted amounts of smoke in addition to the predicted amounts of smoke for 

Alternative 3. There would be some dust created from the proposed mechanical operations under this 

alternative, mainly from logging operations within project units. The amount of dust actually created 

would be minimal due to dust abatement which includes watering dirt roads identified for hauling.

Cumulative Effects

Measure 1: Acres of project area rated as low for fire behavior potential; acres of project area rated as 

low for burn probability.

Past activities of the last 15 years, not including ongoing activities of the Snow, Fall, and Charlie Brown 

EAs, across the 6th field Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds total 6,631 acres. Ongoing activities 

within Snow, Fall, and Charlie Brown EAs total 2,777, 1,926 and 3,188 acres respectively. The total 

amount of treated acres for both 6th field watersheds including proposed treatments under Alternative 3 

within EXF would be 16,891 acres. This total includes any area where there may have been precommercial thinning, commercial harvest and/or fuels treatment, like mowing or underburning. 

Experience with fire suppression in Central Oregon shows that unless treated acres are in the immediate 

vicinity (1/4 mile) they would have no effect on fire behavior within the project area. Any fire behavior 

effect from treated acres of recent activities within 1⁄4 mile of the EXF project area are accounted for in 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126  EXF Final EIS

the simulation modeling of predicted fire behavior for the alternative, and are therefore accounted for in 

the data analysis and reporting of direct and indirect fire behavior effects for Alternative 3. 

Table 12 was reviewed for a list of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions. There are no other 

ongoing activities within or adjacent to the EXF project area and therefore no short-term or long-term 

cumulative effects on fuel loadings from the combination of Alternative 3 and any other activities 

within the planning area.

Measure 2: Reduction in crown fire potential

There are no other known reasonably foreseeable actions or projects within or adjacent to the EXF 

planning area that would impact crown fire potential.

Past activities of the last 15 years, not including ongoing activities of the Snow, Fall, and Charlie Brown 

EAs, across the 6th field Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds total 6,631 acres. Ongoing activities 

within Snow, Fall, and Charlie Brown EAs total 2,777, 1,926 and 3,188 acres respectively. The total 

amount of treated acres for both 6th field watersheds including proposed treatments under Alternative 2 

within EXF would be 16,891 acres. This total includes any area where there may have been precommercial thinning, commercial harvest and/or fuels treatment, like mowing or underburning. These 

past and ongoing treatments in the areas outside EXF may or may not reduce fire behavior to a low 

rating, but any work that reduces ladder fuels, reduces crown bulk density/cover, raises canopy base 

heights and/or treats/reduces surface fuels will lower the potential for crown fire potential and the 

susceptibility of uncharacteristic wildfire.

Measure 3: Production of Particulate Matter (PM) 10 and 2.5

All burning activity would be conducted in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulations and restrictions to ensure that there 

would be no cumulative effects on air quality. Burning activity on Federal lands near, but not within, 

the EXF project area is also subject to the same restrictions, requirements, and regulations, so would not 

have any additive effect on air quality within Central Oregon.

3.3.3 Wildlife 

Introduction

This section of the EIS will address the following wildlife species and habitat categories:

• Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

• Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

• Management Indicator Species

• Birds of Conservation Concern

• Snags and Coarse Woody Material

• LOS Habitat and Connectivity

Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

A Biological Evaluation has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service 

Manual (FSM) 2630.3, FSM 2670-2671, FSM W.O. Amendments 2600-95-7, and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) of 1973. A Biological Assessment (BA) will be prepared in compliance with the 

requirements of FSM 2630.3, FSM 2672.4 and the ESA (Subpart B: 402.12, Section 7 Consultation, as 

amended) on actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service to assess 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  127

their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing (FSM 

2670.1)

Those species thought to occur presently or historically on the Deschutes National Forest and analyzed 

in the Biological Evaluation include the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). Effects to the 

northern spotted owl are documented in this EIS in Chapter 3.2 Key Issue #1 (page 46). 

Table 56. Threatened and Endangered Species Summary

Species Status Habitat Presence on the 

Deschutes NF

Northern spotted owl Federal threatened, 

MIS

Old Growth Mixed 

Conifer Forests Documented

Table 57. Summary of Conclusion of Effects, Threatened, Endangered, Species

Species / Habitat Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Northern spotted owl No Effect May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Northern spotted owl 

critical habitat No Effect No Effect No Effect

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Species classified as sensitive by the Forest Service are to be considered by conducting biological 

evaluations (BE) to determine potential effects of all programs and activities on these species (FSM

2670.32). The BE is a documented review of Forest Service activities in sufficient detail to determine 

how a proposed action may affect sensitive wildlife species, and to comply with the requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act.

The Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Animal List (USDA 2008) and the Update to the Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA 2008) were reviewed for species that may be present on the 

Deschutes National Forest (Table 58). After a review of records, habitat requirements, and existing 

habitat components, it was determined that the following sensitive animal species have habitat or are 

known to occur in the project area and will be included in this analysis:

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti)

California Wolverine (Gulo gulo leuteus)

White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus)

Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)

Johnson’s Hairstreak (Callophyrs johnsoni)

Table 58. Regional Forester’s Sensitive animal species that are either known to occur or may 

potentially occur on the Bend-Ft Rock Ranger District.

SPECIES

FEDERAL and 

FOREST 

CLASSIFICATION

HABITAT NATURESERVE 

RANKING

PRESENCE IN 

PROJECT AREA

Birds

Northern Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) S, MIS

Lakeside or 

riverside with 

large trees

S4B, S4N No habitat
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128  EXF Final EIS

SPECIES

FEDERAL and 

FOREST 

CLASSIFICATION

HABITAT NATURESERVE 

RANKING

PRESENCE IN 

PROJECT AREA

American Peregrine Falcon

(Falco peregrinus anatum) S, MIS∗ Riparian, cliffs S2B No habitat

Bufflehead

(Bucephala albeola) S Lakes, snags S2B, S5N No habitat

Harlequin Duck

(Histrionocus histrionicus S Rapid streams, large trees S2B, S3N No habitat

Greater Sage Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus) S∗ Sagebrush flats S3 No habitat

Horned Grebe

(Podiceps auratus) S Lakes, emergent vegetation S2B, S5N No habitat

Yellow Rail

(Coturnicops noveboracensis) S∗ Marshes S1B No habitat

Tricolored Blackbird

(Agelaius tricolor) S∗ Lakeside, bullrush S2B No habitat

White-headed Woodpecker

(Picoides albolarvatus)

S*, MIS, Landbird focal 

species

Mature 

ponderosa pine 

forests; weak 

excavator

S2 Yes, habitat 

available

Lewis Woodpecker

(Melanerpes lewis)

S*, MIS, Landbird focal 

species

Ponderosa pine 

forests, burned 

forests

S2 Yes, habitat 

available

Northern Waterthrush

(Seiurus noveboracensis) S Riparian vegetation S2 No habitat

Mammals

Pacific Fisher

(Martes pennanti) P, S

Mixed conifer 

forest, complex 

forest structure

S2 Yes, habitat 

available

California Wolverine

(Gulo gulo luteus) S, MIS Mixed conifer, high elevation S1 Yes, habitat available

Pygmy Rabbit

(Sylvilagus idahoensis) S Sagebrush flats S2 No habitat

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii) S, MIS Caves S2 No habitat

Amphibian

Oregon spotted frog C, S Stream, Marsh No Habitat

Invertebrates

Crater Lake tightcoil

(Pristiloma arcticum crateris) S Riparian and wet areas S1 No habitat

Silver-bordered fritillary

(Boloria selene) S

Open riparian 

bogs and 

marshes

S2 No habitat

Johnson’s hairstreak

(Callophrys johnsoni) S

Conifer (western 

hemlock, red 

firs, and gray or 

digger pines) 

forests with the 

mistletoe 

Arceuthobium

S2 Yes, habitat 

available

Key to abbreviations: T=Threatened, E=Endangered, P=Proposed for Federal listing, S=USFS Region 6 Sensitive, 

C=USFWS Candidate species, ∗Birds of Conservation Concern

Oregon Sensitive Species determined from the Natureserve database for Oregon: S1, critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3

= vulnerable, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = secure, B = breeding, N = non-breeding
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  129

Summary of Conclusions for Sensitive Species

1. After a review of records, habitat requirements, and existing habitat components, it was 

determined that the following sensitive species do not occur and have no habitat in the project 

area and will not be included in any further analysis: Oregon spotted frog, bald eagle, harlequin 

duck, bufflehead, horned grebe, tri-colored blackbird, yellow rail, greater sage grouse, American 

peregrine falcon, Townsend’s big-eared bat, silver-bordered fritillary, Crater Lake tightcoil, 

northern waterthrush, and pygmy rabbit. All alternatives analyzed for the EXF project would 

have No Impact to these species.

2. The No Action Alternative is not expected to have any impacts on California wolverine, Pacific 

fishers, white-headed woodpeckers, Johnson’s hairstreak, or Lewis’ woodpeckers and their 

associated habitats.

3. The Action Alternatives “May Impact Individuals or Habitat” but will not likely contribute to a 

trend toward Federal listing for the California wolverine, Pacific fishers, Johnson’s hairstreak, 

white-headed woodpeckers, or Lewis woodpeckers due to the removal of potential nesting habitat 

(snags),reduction in downed logs and multi-layered stands, and improved health of stands and 

reduction of mistletoe (for the hairstreak). The action alternatives will have beneficial impacts to 

Lewis woodpeckers and white-headed woodpeckers in the long-term, through the selection for

large ponderosa pine stands.

Table 59. Summary of Conclusion of Effects, Region 6 Sensitive Species

Species Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Northern Bald Eagle NI NI NI

Horned Grebe NI NI NI

Bufflehead NI NI NI

Harlequin Duck NI NI NI

American Peregrine Falcon NI NI NI

Western Sage Grouse NI NI NI

Yellow Rail NI NI NI

Tri-colored Blackbird NI NI NI

White-headed Woodpecker NI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Lewis Woodpecker NI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI

Northern Waterthrush NI NI NI

California Wolverine NI NI NI

Pacific Fisher NI MIIH MIIH

Pygmy Rabbit NI NI NI

Oregon Spotted Frog NI NI NI

Crater Lake Tightcoil NI NI NI

Silver-bordered fritillary NI NI NI

Johnson’s hairstreak NI MIIH MIIH

NI = No Impact; MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely to contribute a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability to the population or species; BI = Beneficial Impact
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130  EXF Final EIS

Analysis by Species

Rationale for Sensitive Species not Further Analyzed

Essential habitat elements for the continued recovery of the northern bald eagle are nest sites, communal 

night roosts, foraging areas, and perch sites. On the Deschutes National Forest, ponderosa pine and 

Douglas-fir trees averaging 32 inch+ DBH with live large, open limb structure are preferred for nesting. 

Nests consist of bulky stick platforms built in the super-canopy of such trees, or less frequently on cliffs. 

They are typically constructed within one mile of appropriate foraging habitat, which includes rivers 

and large lakes and reservoirs. Bald eagles are sit-and-wait predators, which predominantly capture 

prey from perches over water; ideal perches are large trees and snags within 330 ft. (100 m) of water 

(Anthony et al. 1995). Prey items include fish, waterfowl and other birds, small mammals, and carrion 

(Stalmaster 1987). There are no territories within the EXF Project area. The project area is not within 1 

mile of foraging habitat, therefore there is no bald eagle habitat within the project area. For these 

reasons, implementation of the No Action or any Action Alternative proposed in the EXF Project area 

would have “No Impact” on the bald eagle or their habitat.

Harlequin ducks winter in rough coastal waters, especially along rocky shores or reefs; summering nonbreeders also occur in this habitat. Harlequins also nest along fast-moving rivers and mountain streams 

on rocks or banks. (NatureServe 2009). On the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District, the Deschutes River 

may provide the best potential suitable breeding habitat. Habitat for the harlequin duck does not occur 

within the project area. Implementation of any of the alternatives would have no impact on harlequin 

ducks.

Horned grebes utilize marshes, ponds, lakes, and occasionally occur along sluggish streams for 

breeding. They nest among tall vegetation in shallow water on small and large lakes and ponds 

(approximately 1⁄4 acre or larger), in calm waters of marshes, along rivers and streams. The highest 

breeding densities occur in pothole marshes of aspen woodlands. Outside the breeding season, horned 

grebes are found on bays, estuaries and seacoasts, and in migration commonly in inland freshwater 

habitats, especially lakes and rivers (NatureServe 2009). Habitat for the harlequin duck does not occur 

within the project area. Implementation of any of the alternatives would have no impact on horned 

grebes.

Buffleheads utilize lakes, ponds, rivers, and seacoasts. The birds nest in natural cavities or abandoned 

northern flicker holes in mixed coniferous-deciduous woodlands near lakes and ponds. Females often 

nest in the same site in successive years (NatureServe 2009). This duck eats both animal and plant 

material. However, during the breeding season, aquatic insects and larvae are the most important item 

in their diet. They also eat seeds of pondweeds and bulrushes (Csuti et al. 1997 p. 100). Buffleheads 

winter on sheltered bays and estuaries as well as freshwater environments (NatureServe 2009). 

Bufflehead population numbers are generally low in Oregon and a shortage of natural cavities has 

brought attention to the breeding segment of the population (Csuti et al. 1997 p. 100). Habitat for the 

harlequin duck does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any of the alternatives would 

have no impact on buffleheads.

Tri-colored blackbird breeding takes place in freshwater marshes of cattails, tules, bulrushes, and 

sedges. In migration and winter they are found in open cultivated lands and pastures. (NatureServe 

2009). Nesting habitat does not occur on the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District due to the lack of cattails, 

tules, etc. in large quantities. Implementation of any of the alternatives would have no impact on tricolored blackbirds.

Yellow rail breeding takes place in emergent wetlands, grass or sedge and wet meadows in freshwater 

situations. From information gathered over the last six years, nesting habitat of the yellow rail in 

Oregon has been described as marshes or wet meadows which have an abundance of thin-leaved sedges, 

a layer of senescent (old) vegetation to conceal their nests, and an average water depth of 7 cm (Popper 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  131

2001). This specific habitat type does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any of the 

alternatives would have no impact on yellow rails.

Greater sage grouse are found in foothills, plains, and mountain slopes where sagebrush is present and 

the habitat contains a mixture of sagebrush, meadows, and aspen in close proximity. Winter habitat 

(palatable sagebrush) is probably the most limited seasonal habitat in some areas (NatureServe 2009). 

This habitat type does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any of the alternatives 

would have no impact on Greater sage grouse.

American peregrine falcons often nest on ledges or holes on the face of rocky cliffs or crags. They are 

commonly situated on ledges of vertical cliffs, commonly with a sheltering overhang. This habitat type 

does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any of the alternatives would have no impact

on peregrine falcons.

The northern waterthrush inhabits riparian habitat. As stated in other discussions for riparian species, 

this specific habitat type does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any of the 

alternatives would have no impact on northern waterthrushes.

Pygmy rabbits typically occur in dense stands of big sagebrush growing in deep loose soils 

(NatureServe 2009). This habitat type does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any of 

the alternatives would have no impact on pygmy rabbits.

Townsend’s big-eared bats inhabit caves and occasionally old buildings, and often feed over open areas 

and water sources. This specific habitat type does not occur within the project area. Implementation of 

any of the alternatives would have no impact on Townsend’s big-eared bats.

The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is currently listed as a candidate species by USFWS. Spotted 

frogs have a historic distribution that covers a small part of western North America, from southern 

British Columbia to northeastern California, and from the west side of the Willamette Valley to the east 

side of the Oregon Klamath basin. They have been extirpated in much of their range by introduction of 

the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), habitat alteration and loss through intensified agriculture, grazing, and 

urbanization (USGS 2003). Oregon spotted frogs are marsh specialists tied to permanent water in marsh 

type habitats with abundant floating vegetation and good hiding areas. Egg masses are typically 

deposited communally, attached to vegetation in shallow water (Hayes et al 1997). Often found in the 

flooded upland adjacent to permanent water, the diet of spotted frogs consist mainly of insect material 

including moths, water striders, hoverflies, grasshoppers, spiders, beetles, and caddisflies. There are no 

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Oregon spotted frogs or their habitat. Implementation of any of 

the alternatives would have no impact to the Oregon spotted frog.

“The Crater Lake Tightcoil may be found in perennially wet situations in mature conifer forests, among 

rushes, mosses and other surface vegetation or under rocks and woody debris within 10 m. of open 

water in wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas, generally in areas which remain under snow for 

long periods during the winter. Riparian habitats in the Eastern Oregon Cascades may be limited to the 

extent of permanent surface moisture, which is often less than 10 m. from open water” (Duncan et al. 

2003). This habitat type does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any of the 

alternatives would have no impact on Crater Lake tightcoil.

The silver-bordered fritillary ranges from Central Washington south along the Rocky Mountains to 

northern New Mexico and east to Illinois, Virginia and Maryland. They inhabit wet meadows, bogs, 

and marshes as well as forest openings in mountainous areas, and spring-fed meadows in dry prairies 

(NatureServe 2009). Two primary colonies exist in Oregon: one at Big Summit Prairie on the Ochoco 

National Forest and one in the Strawberry Mountains in the Malheur National Forest (Miller and 

Hammond 2007). Threats to this species include livestock overgrazing, wetland loss, and woody 

vegetation encroachment of willows and hawthorns from fire suppression (Miller and Hammond 2007). 

Adults lay eggs singly near host plants of the violet family including Viola glabella and V. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132  EXF Final EIS

nephrophylla. Caterpillars that develop from the eggs feed on these host plants and overwinter by 

hibernating, emerging as adults in the spring. Favored nectar sources for adults are composite flowers 

including goldenrod and black-eyed susans. Adults fly May to July with a second generation flying 

from August into September. This specific habitat type does not occur within the project area. 

Implementation of any of the alternatives would have no impact on silver-bordered fritillary.

Discussion for Species Further Analyzed

Field Reviews

Field reviews to assess habitat conditions for the species considered have been ongoing since 2007 by a 

variety of field personnel (e.g. Wildlife Biologists, Biological Technicians, Silviculturists, and Forest 

Technicians). Habitat information has been gathered formally and informally. Formal habitat 

information has been gathered using stand exams, systematic plots for dead wood (snags and logs), 

transects for multi-layered canopy cover, and spotted owl habitat assessment. Also there have been 

formal surveys for northern spotted owls and northern goshawks in the project area since 2007. Often 

during these surveys, other species will respond. Any wildlife observations were always noted during 

any formal effort. Informal habitat assessments have been ongoing during project and alternative 

development.

Assumptions

In the absence of scientifically rigorous surveys for all species listed within the different tables, a 

species was presumed present unless proven absent. The assumption is if appropriate habitat 

components are available, then that species occupies or could occupy the habitat. Analysis focused on 

the habitat components. Examples of specific habitat components analyzed include: snag/coarse woody 

material (CWM), green tree replacements (GTRs), late/old structural habitat (LOS). Conclusions as to 

whether the proposed actions would or would not cause a trend towards federal listing were determined 

by assessing how the alternatives impact the structure and function of the vegetation (i.e. habitat

components) relative to the current and historic habitat availability in conjunction with state 

conservation status information and ranking for the species in the Natureserve (2009) database 

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer). 

In addition to field reconnaissance information, current analysis tools, and best available science, 

Geographical Information System databases provided additional information. 

Some wildlife habitats required a more detailed analysis and discussion. Level of analysis depended on 

the existing habitat conditions (i.e. limited habitat availability versus widespread habitat availability), 

the magnitude and intensity of the effects of the proposed actions (i.e. would the proposed actions cause 

a loss, no change, or increase in habitat), the risk to the resources (sustainability and availability of the 

habitat), and the issues identified during the formulation of the alternatives (see Chapter 1). These 

factors were used to form conclusions as to how the information, in regards to the effects, would be 

useful and relevant in the process of making an informed decision. 

Cumulative Effects Bounding: For a majority of species, potential cumulative effects are bounded by 

the Crane Prairie and Fall River 6th field watersheds (64,802 acres). The proposed activities would 

occur on 2,554 acres (Alt. 2) and 2,178 acres (Alt. 3), approximately 4% of the combined 6th field 

watersheds. This scale sets a logical ecological boundary (subwatershed), while also taking in a larger 

scale perspective of the habitat and stand types found within the project area. This boundary takes in 

multiple territories of a majority of wildlife species and gives a landscape perspective in regards to 

management and human uses. Cumulative effects are generally considered within 20 years, because it 

not only can represent multiple generations of a species, but also tree growth can alter the classification 

of habitat structure within this timeframe. Similarly, new management policies are often in place after 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  133

20 years. Table 12 at the beginning of Chapter 3 lists the present and reasonably foreseeable actions 

that are considered in the cumulative effects analysis. Any effects from past actions are 

indistinguishable from each other and combined have been considered as part of the existing condition 

and the suitability or quality of the habitat.

Pacific Fisher, Region 6 Sensitive

Affected Environment

The Pacific fisher primarily uses mature, closed-canopy coniferous forests with some deciduous 

component, frequently along riparian corridors (Csuti et al. 2001). In Ruggiero et al. (1994), it is 

suggested fishers prefer closed-canopy (greater than 60%), late-successional forests with large physical 

structures (live trees, snags, and logs), especially if associated with riparian areas. A 2004 Species 

Assessment by the US Fish and Wildlife Service documents key aspects of fisher habitat as those

associated with late-successional forests (i.e. high canopy closure, large trees and snags, large logs, 

hardwoods, and multiple canopy layers). Distribution of fishers is limited by elevation and snow depth 

(Krohn et al. 1997 in US Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment). Fishers generally avoid areas 

of high human disturbance, primarily high road density or recreational developments. Fishers are fairly 

large, weighing 3 to 13 lbs and 29 to 47 inches long. This may suggest a need of larger log sizes for 

dens than other animals with similar needs (e.g. marten). Aubry and Raley (2006) found in 

southwestern Oregon, fishers were found denning and resting at 4,000 feet elevation, more than 80% 

canopy closure, and more than 16 snags and 67 logs at least 20” DBH per acre; supporting the 

suggestion that this species utilizes large to very large structure. Denning and resting sites were also 

observed in large live trees (mostly Douglas-fir) with mistletoe brooms, limb clumping, rodent nests, or 

some other deformity. They also found fishers were preying upon woodpeckers, jays, grouse, quail, 

squirrels, hare, porcupine, and skunks. Most of these prey species can be found in the watershed.

There are no known fishers in the area. Fishers have been historically documented in the Crane Prairie 

watershed, although always rare, in the Three Sisters area, Mt Bachelor, Elk and Hosmer Lakes, and 

west of little Cultus Lake (Deibert et al. 1970s). More recently (2005) an unconfirmed sighting of an 

immature fisher was reported in the Wickiup Reservoir area. Based on habitat descriptions in the 

literature and using the 2004 Satellite Imagery vegetation data, there is approximately 4,218 acres of 

quality habitat (greater than 20” average stand DBH; and greater than 55% canopy closure) in the Crane 

Prairie and Fall River watersheds combined. A total 6,576 acres of potential habitat exists by including 

multi-storied, high canopy closure (greater than 55%) stands with at least 15” average DBH. Fishers 

generally have large territories (a minimum of 10 square km or 2,500 acres). Within the project area 

there are approximately 1,580 acres of potential habitat with 703 acres of this being what may be

considered quality habitat; this includes habitat in the control units.

In regards to other habitat attributes, there is a wide range of log densities present throughout the

watershed. Sampling within the project area found a range of 118 lineal feet of logs >16” diameter per 

acre. Most logs were lodgepole or ponderosa pine generally ranging from 7-29” DBH with 12 in. 

average diameter, which may be on the smaller end for fisher utilization. There was an average of 8

snags per acre greater than 10” DBH, with an average of approximately one snag larger than 20” DBH

per acre. Most snags were ponderosa pine, but there were large fir snags present. Not recorded as part 

of this sampling effort but noted, was the prevalence of trees larger than 20” DBH that were not dead, 

but mostly dead or with decay and/or defects. Species such as the fisher, or its prey, could utilize these 

for habitat. In the DecAID advisor (Mellen et al 2006), information on fisher use of dead wood is 

provided in the montane mixed conifer habitat type. In studies cited in this tool, 50% of the areas with a 

fisher population had 5.6 % downed wood cover and 13 snags per acre larger than 10” DBH. Existing 

estimates within the EXF project area are <2% downed log cover and an average of 8 snags per acre. 

This would suggest that fisher habitat within the project area, from the perspective of the snag and log 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134  EXF Final EIS

components, is at the lower tolerance level or does not match well with habitat known to have fisher 

populations according to research. 

Over 30% of the entire Crane Prairie watershed and 13% of the entire Fall River watershed are LSR or

Old Growth Management Areas (i.e. in allocations with no scheduled timber harvest). These are areas 

where it may be more prudent to manage for high dead wood levels. Of these areas a majority are 

within habitat types used by fishers, although it has not been determined how much quality or potential 

habitat is within each allocation. Approximately, 703 acres in the EXF Project Area (17% of all quality 

habitat within the 6th field watersheds) meets the definition of quality fisher habitat (Table 60 and Figure 

28). 

Table 60. Fisher habitat within the subwatersheds and project area

Fisher Habitat Definition Project Area Subwatersheds

Multi-storied stands with >15” dbh and 

>55% canopy closure 1580 ac 6576 ac

Multi-storied stands with >20” dbh and 

>55% canopy closure (“high quality”) 703 ac 4218 ac

Figure 28. Pacific fisher habitat distribution in subwatersheds
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  135

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no direct or indirect impacts to fishers or their habitat with the implementation of this 

alternative. There would be continued risks to the fisher habitat within the project area due to a 

catastrophic wildfire start within the Lookout Mt. Unit. Other projects within the watersheds, when 

implemented, will have helped to reduce the risks of fisher habitat to catastrophic fire in the project area 

if the fire starts outside of the Lookout Mt. Unit. In other words, other projects within the watersheds 

have been planned to address and reduce wildfire affects outside of the project area.

Because there is no proposed action under this alternative that would add incrementally to the ongoing 

or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

This alternative proposes varying amounts of thinning within the 1,352 acres of potential fisher habitat 

found in the project area. Thinning, including thinning from below (thinning of understory and/or small 

diameter trees), reduces the multi-storied characteristic of a stand and its overall canopy closure. 

Prescribed burning reduces the density of downed logs, although the potential for destroying large logs 

is low under this alternative because the proposed mowing of shrubs will reduce fuel amounts and flame 

intensities. This outcome was observed within the Pringle Falls Unit of the Experimental forest where 

shrubs were treated and left untreated and then prescribed burned. Although small diameter logs were 

consumed where shrubs were not treated the larger logs, although charred, still retained a majority of 

their size and length. Prescribed burning may also reduce snag numbers by burning the base of the 

snags and causing them to fall. In other project areas and in the Pringle Falls Unit this was observed to 

happen more frequently with the smaller diameter (<15” DBH) snags, but during the same treatment 

similar sized snags were created. As demonstrated in the Pringle Falls Unit, the mowing and thinning 

associated with this alternative would help protect many of the existing snags in the project area.

Heavy thinning and thinning across all age classes (i.e. removing some of the upper canopy trees) in 

potential fisher habitat would most notably remove habitat components important to fishers. These 

types of treatments would reduce canopy closure and multi-storied characteristics, in addition to the 

potential of reducing log densities. This alternative proposes 1,034 acres of these types of treatments, of 

which approximately 550 acres are potential fisher habitat.

For the areas treated with lighter thinning prescriptions, the reduction of habitat is more temporary, as 

stands respond to the thinning and fuels reduction, and tree growth increases. However, with an 

element of maintenance implied with the proposed action, the quality habitat (i.e. higher log densities 

and multi-storied stands) will not likely return for the long-term. The objective of the experimental 

forest is to provide an area for silvicultural research focused on ponderosa pine. This founding 

objective of the project area is generally not conducive to maintaining fisher habitat. That is to say, the 

area (i.e. this portion of the experimental forest) would get little use from this species. 

Gating the 4245 road will reduce human disturbance impacts that result from vehicular use. The project 

area does not receive a lot of recreation use, compared to other parts of the watersheds, likely because of 

the lack of water and developments. The proposed actions may result in increased opportunities for 

OHV (off-highway vehicles) travel through the area by opening up the stands through thinning and 

creation of 3-4 ft. wide firelines (which closely resemble the designs for OHV trails) ), this could deter 

fisher use of the area because of their avoidance of areas with high human disturbance. This potential 

effect is mitigated, however through the implementation of the Access and Travel Management Plan.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136  EXF Final EIS

Cumulative Impacts

The reduction in habitat (short or long-term) described in the above section amounts to approximately 

20% of the entire estimated fisher habitat in the Crane Prairie and Fall River subwatersheds. This 

project is incremental with the anticipated effects to fisher habitat of the Snow Fuels Reduction project. 

Other ongoing or foreseeable projects are not expected to add incremental effects to fisher habitat 

because they are either 1) not within fisher habitat or potential habitat (e.g. developed recreation site 

maintenance, road way maintenance, SIBUN post/pole sale) or 2) they would affect individual trees but 

not add up to whole stand effects (e.g. EXF Biomass study removes <30 understory trees of three 

different species each, negligibly affecting multi-layered canopy, and personal use firewood removal 

would remove individual snags mostly near roads affecting the future downed wood component). The 

additive or cumulative effects of degraded or removed habitat with the Snow Fuels Reduction project 

amounts to approximately 21% (20% from this alternative and 1% from the Snow Fuels Reduction) of 

the total potential fisher habitat within the watersheds.

Continued reduction of fisher habitat along the easternmost portions of the Crane Prairie watershed 

would restrict fisher use of the watershed to the west. It is not likely that fishers would disperse further 

east of the Crane Prairie watershed. Dispersal and movement is more likely in a north/south or westerly 

direction because that is where there is more contiguous habitat. For these reasons, the cumulative 

effect of this reduction in habitat by this alternative is likely minimal, with the least amount of reduction 

overall in comparison to the other alternatives.

Fishers are not known to utilize the area. Based on habitat descriptions within recent literature, there is 

potential habitat within the project area although much of it is not in contiguous blocks that would best

meet fisher’s territory size.

Although each of the alternatives has different amounts or risks of habitat reduction, they each reduce 

some habitat. The amount of habitat reduction ranges from 14-20 % which is approximately 15-21% of 

the available habitat in the Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds (Alternatives 3 and 2, respectively). 

This is a total percentage, and as described in the analysis there are short-term and long-term impacts. 

Because there is some disparity between the longevity of the effects, selection of any of the alternatives 

May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but would not likely Contribute To a Trend Towards Federal 

Listing.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

This alternative would have the least amount of habitat reduction and therefore fewer effects to fishers 

than Alternative 2 because the areas not entered can also be described as fisher habitat. Stand 

characteristics that define spotted owl NRF habitat closely match those described for fishers. Fishers 

can also be described as using late-successional habitat, which is the habitat purpose and goal of LSRs 

(that is, to provide habitat for species that utilize late-successional and old-growth stands). This 

alternative does not treat within LSR or spotted owl habitat and thereby retains the most fisher habitat in 

the project area. However the benefits of retaining these areas are somewhat reduced because in order 

to not have these areas be part of the prescribed burning aspect, more fireline would have to be built. 

The building of fireline would create strips of disturbed habitat around these areas as well as add to the 

opportunity for OHV travel, this could deter fisher use of the area because of their avoidance of areas 

with high human disturbance. This potential effect is mitigated, however through the implementation of 

the Access and Travel Management Plan. 

This alternative would still remove approximately 514 acres of habitat in the shorter term (allowing for 

increased tree growth) and approximately 405 acres for the longer term (the heavier thinned stands). 

Risks and benefits from mowing and prescribed burning would be similar as those described under 

Alternative 2. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  137

Cumulative Impacts

The reduction in habitat described in the above section amounts to approximately 14% of the entire 

estimated fisher habitat in the Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds. Similar to the discussion under 

Alternative 2, this project is incremental with the anticipated effects to fisher habitat of the Snow Fuels 

Reduction project. The additive or cumulative effects of degraded or removed habitat with the Snow 

Fuels Reduction project amounts to approximately 15% of the total potential fisher habitat within the 

watersheds.

Continued reduction of fisher habitat along the easternmost portions of the watershed would restrict 

fisher use of the watershed to the west. It is not likely that fishers would disperse further east of the 

Crane Prairie watershed. Dispersal and movement is more likely in a north/south or westerly direction 

because that is where there is more contiguous habitat. For these reasons, the cumulative effect of this 

reduction in habitat by this alternative is likely minimal, with the least amount of reduction overall in 

comparison to the other alternatives.

Because there is some disparity between the longevity of the effects, selection of any of the alternatives

may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute towards a trend for further 

listing.

Table 61. Comparison of the Alternatives’ effects to pacific fisher habitat

Alternative 1 (No 

Action/Existing 

Condition)

Alternative 2 

(Proposed 

Action)

Alternative 3

# ac potential fisher habitat impacted for long 

term (heavy thin & thin across cohorts) 0 550 405

#ac potential fisher habitat impacted for shortterm (light to moderate thinning) 0 802 514

% of total potential fisher habitat in 6th field 

watersheds N/A 20 14

Fishers are not known to utilize the area. Based on habitat descriptions within recent literature, there is 

potential habitat within the project area although much of it is marginal (i.e. it does not meet the 

definitions for high quality) according to the habitat definitions in recent research.

Although each of the alternatives has different amounts or risks of habitat reduction, they each reduce 

habitat (Table 61). The amount of habitat reduction ranges from 14-20 % which is approximately 15-

21% of the available habitat in the Crane Prairie and Fall River watersheds. This percentage is small, 

but because there is some habitat reduction selection of either action alternative May Impact 

Individuals or Habitat, but would not likely Contribute Towards a Trend for Further Listing.

---------------

California Wolverine, Region 6 Sensitive, MIS

Affected Environment

The wolverine is the largest member of the weasel family (weasels, martens and fishers), and is known 

to be a solitary and wide-ranging species. Wolverines utilize downed logs and rock crevices or talus for 

denning. Prey is not a limiting factor for wolverines because they are opportunistic carnivores that also 

eat a variety of berries and roots (Natureserve 2009). They utilize high elevation (7,000 to 9,000 feet), 

alpine habitat where snow coverage remains well into the denning season (spring) with only slight 

variations in habitat use between summer and winter (Copeland et al. 2007; Aubry et al. 2007). They 

have a large home range, averaging 422 square km (104,000 acres) and, even with the best habitat, are 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138  EXF Final EIS

found in low densities. Wolverines tend to avoid areas of high human population or road densities 

(Krebs et al. 2007). It has been suggested timber harvesting, backcountry skiing, snowmobiling, roads 

and other forms of human disturbance can have a negative association with wolverine occurrence in 

research cited by Ruggiero et al. (2007). Hornocker and Hash (1981) concluded that wolverine 

populations should be treated as regional rather than local. However, Edelman and Copeland (1999) 

suggest that wolverine populations move along corridors of mountainous habitats and that features such 

as the Columbia River Gorge and shrub-steppe habitats serve as barriers to dispersal. They also 

conclude that sightings occurring across the arid mountains of Central Oregon may suggest a movement 

corridor from the Cascade Mountains to the Wallowa Mountains.

Diebert et al. (1970s) recorded wolverine observations in the area of Three-Fingered Jack (1965), 

Broken Top (1969), Many Lakes Basin (1972), and Willamette Pass (1973). More recently, wolverine 

tracks were found in the Deschutes Bridge area during winter track surveys by the Oregon Dept. Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW; Glen Ardt, personal communication, 4/20/2007). Aubry et al. (2007) shows the 

last verifiable and documented wolverine sighting in Oregon was in 1992. This paper also shows that in 

breakdowns of decades going back to 1900, there have been 0 to 2 records of sightings per decade for 

Oregon.

Although there is wolverine habitat within the Crane Prairie watershed, habitat within the project area is 

of very low potential for denning; even for the portion of the Sheridan Mt LSR in the project area. 

There are no talus slopes, cirque basins, or large areas without roads within the project area. In fact the 

project is heavily roaded, although use of the roads is sporadic since the roads do not lead to any 

developed or dispersed recreation sites, and there is no water (i.e. little to attract most users of the 

forest).

For this project analysis it was assumed the Montane Mixed Conifer and alpine non-forest types 

adequately represent potential wolverine habitat (this representation would encompass the cirque basins 

that are most often described as habitat). There are 438 acres of potential wolverine habitat in the 

combined watersheds (Crane Prairie and Fall River). A small cluster of these acres are at the top of 

Lookout Mountain (outside of the treatment areas), while a majority of these acres are more than 6 air 

miles outside of the experimental forest. 

Because the wolverine has an extremely large range, it is reasonable to assume that an individual may 

travel through the project area as it disperses across the Cascades and Oregon. Effects of the project 

largely concern this aspect of wolverine use since there is not denning habitat.

Environmental Consequences

All Alternatives 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

There would be no direct impact to wolverine or their habitat with the implementation of any 

alternative. It is estimated that there are only 19 acres of potential wolverine habitat (i.e. Montane 

Mixed Conifer) within the project area.

Harvest of trees would not alter the use of the area by wolverine. Prey availability would not be reduced 

by activities nor would they inhibit the wolverine’s ability to travel across the landscape. Proposed 

activities would not take place within or adjacent to potential denning habitat. 

Fuel treatments in the action alternatives would reduce down woody material levels allowing for more 

big game use. Heavy fuel densities have been shown to impede big game travel (Lyon and Jensen 

1980). Studies have shown the importance of large mammal carrion to wolverine and the availability of 

large mammals underlies the distribution, survival, and reproductive success of wolverines (Ruggerio et 

al. 1994). This may increase potential foraging opportunities for wolverine, especially within snow-free 

periods.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  139

Major travel routes by humans (roads) will not change. During peak use times, these may function as 

barriers to dispersal. This effect can be reduced by the placement of a gate, under the action 

alternatives, at the 4245/4240 junction that would restrict travel on a majority of roads within the project 

area. The effect of the increased opportunity for OHV use due to the construction of fireline and 

opening of the stands on wolverines would be similar for both action alternatives. This could deter 

wolverine use of the area because of their avoidance of areas with high human disturbance. This 

potential effect is mitigated, however through the implementation of the Access and Travel 

Management Plan. 

Cumulative Impacts

Several recent projects in the Crane Prairie watershed, where there is the greater amount of habitat, and 

similar proposed actions have proposed road closures (Charlie Brown: decommission 53.3 miles of 

road, and Fall: reduce road density by 0.63 mi/sq. mi.). These proposals will aid in reducing overall 

road densities in the watershed over time.

There will be no additive cumulative impact to wolverine with the implementation of any action 

alternative. Cumulatively, these alternatives would not likely cause a trend toward Federal listing. 

Determination

Wolverines are thought to be infrequent visitors to the project area. Activities proposed in any of the 

action alternatives would not alter prey availability or use of the area by wolverine. Implementation of 

any of the alternatives would have No Impact the wolverine.

---------------

White-headed Woodpecker, Region 6 Sensitive, MIS

Affected Environment

White-headed woodpeckers utilize both live and dead ponderosa pines. They will forage on both live 

and dead pines often selecting the large diameter pines because they have more seeds and contain more 

suitable nesting habitat. Having large ponderosa pine does not assure this species’ presence. 

Indications have been made that a well-developed understory of trees and shrubs may encourage 

mammalian predation on nests (Marshall 1997). White-headed woodpeckers are absent from early seral 

ponderosa pine stands. These woodpeckers are poor excavators and generally select for a more 

moderately decayed or softer snag in which to nest (Dixon 1995).

Habitat for white-headed woodpeckers is limited within the Crane Prairie watershed but more common 

in the Fall River watershed, and more importantly, in the project area. There are stands with large 

ponderosa pines (live and dead) in the project area, thus potential habitat is present (approximately 804 

acres in the project area and 6,087 acres in the watersheds combined). There have been no known 

observations of white-headed woodpeckers in the project area.

Mellen-McLean et al (2009) show that for this species the 30% tolerance level is 0.3 snags >10” DBH

per acre and the 50% level is 2 snags >10” DBH per acre and 4 snags >10” DBH per acre at the 80% 

tolerance level (Figure PPDF_PF.sp20). Using the 1/10th acre plot data gathered within the project area 

in 2008, the current ponderosa pine snag (> 10” DBH) density is 4.2/acre. This currently meets the 80% 

tolerance level. However of these, 0.5 snags/acre are >20”DBH and this currently meets the 30% 

tolerance level. In summary, the project area has a high likelihood of white-headed woodpeckers 

utilizing the area based on the overall ponderosa pine snag density, but the likelihood of nesting is less 

because of the low density of ponderosa pine snags >20” DBH. 

According to Altman (2000), this is a focal species of large patches of old ponderosa pine forest with 

large snags. Conservation issues for this species include: loss of large diameter ponderosa pine trees to 

logging; lack of recruitment of young ponderosa pine due to fire suppression that has allowed 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140  EXF Final EIS

understory encroachment of firs; increased fuel loads that predisposes ponderosa pine stands to standreplacement fires; loss of snags and downed wood; and fragmented habitat increases energy expenditure 

and risk of predation to individual woodpeckers. 

The project is somewhat unique for the watershed because of its status as an Experimental Forest and 

past research that favored ponderosa pine. Stands of ponderosa pine >15” DBH are relatively common 

and almost all of the stands within the experimental forest have some component of large ponderosa 

pine. Areas where white-headed woodpecker habitat would be limited are those that contain a heavy 

and tall shrub component. Most of the shrubs found within the experimental forest are ceanothus and 

chinquapin. This shrub understory contributes to the fuel loadings that are part of the conservation 

issues for this species. 

Conservation strategies relevant to the proposed actions include: inventory to identify stands meeting 

desired conditions and stands that can be managed to meet desired conditions; conduct thinning, partial 

cuts, group selection cuts, shelterwood, planting, snag creation, or prescribed burning as appropriate to 

meet desired conditions but not clear cuts or overstory removal; manage for large diameter trees through 

wider tree spacing and longer rotation periods; retain all snags and high cut stumps >10” DBH, soft 

snags, broken-topped snags, leaning logs, high stumps, downed logs, and all ponderosa pine trees >17” 

DBH (Altman 2000).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no direct or indirect impacts to white-headed woodpeckers or their habitat with the 

implementation of this alternative. The existing habitat within the project area would remain at risk to a 

catastrophic wildfire, especially if one were to start within the Lookout Mountain unit itself; other 

projects within the watersheds have been planned to reduce the risks from wildfire starts outside of the 

project area.

Because there is no proposed action under this alternative that would add incrementally to the ongoing 

or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

This alternative proposes varying amounts of thinning within 804 acres of potential white-headed 

woodpecker habitat. The thinning prescriptions are based on the ponderosa pine stand type and thinning 

densities would favor species such as ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. Prescribed burning and mowing 

would reduce the shrub cover that may inhibit white-headed woodpecker use. Prescribed burning poses 

a risk of consuming snags, however because of the size of snags favored by this species (>15-20” DBH) 

and with mowing to reduce ground fuel loadings, the risk to large snags is low.

Part of the proposed treatments, however, would include the ability to remove ponderosa pine greater 

than 21” trees if necessary to achieve the desired basal area. It is estimated that in Units 41 and 43 the 

density of large ponderosa pine would be reduced from approximately 26 trees per acre >21” DBH to 8-

9 trees per acre>21”DBH; in Units 42 and 44 the density would be reduced from 26 trees per acres to 

14-20 trees per acre. Similar treatments occur in ponderosa pine dominated Units 31 and 34. Because 

the white-headed woodpecker heavily utilizes large ponderosa pine, the removal of large ponderosa pine 

would negatively impact this species. Removal of ponderosa pine would occur within the heavily 

thinned units and the units that remove some overstory component. A majority of all the thinning 

proposed within white-headed woodpecker habitat would fall into the units proposed for heavy thinning 

or thinning across all age cohorts (a total 428 acres of the 804 total acres of potential habitat). The 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  141

removal of larger pines would be removing immediate food sources, and potential nest snags, assuming 

the large pine are under stress and would die in the short-term. Foraging habitat does not appear to be 

limiting in the watersheds because seed-production is a recurring event in the ponderosa pine. Nesting 

structure may be more limiting because of this species utilization of large, fairly well-decayed 

ponderosa pine snags. Existing estimates within the project area show a low density of large ponderosa 

pine snags, but it is likely that with increased stress due to tree density, more ponderosa pine snags 

could be created. Based on the 1/10th acre plot data, there are up to 28 ponderosa pine > 20” DBH per 

acre large, live ponderosa pine. The proposed thinning would reduce the amount of new large snags 

being created by improving the health of the remaining trees. According to the Deschutes Wildlife Tree 

and Log Implementation Strategy (USDA 1994), the density of large diameter ponderosa pine retained 

under all thinning option would provide enough green tree replacements per acre to provide for the 

100% population potential. Although this population potential measure is outdated (Rose et al 2001 and 

Mellen-McLean et al 2009) it is still used a determination of meeting the LRMP.

Over time, habitat will improve as stands respond to the thinning and fuels reduction, and tree growth 

increases. With an element of maintenance implied with the proposed action, the amount of shrub cover 

will be reduced and the quality of the habitat will likely increase in the long-term. This improvement in 

habitat would benefit the species. The proposed actions meet the intent of the conservation strategies to 

conduct thinning, or prescribed burning as appropriate to meet desired conditions; manage for large 

diameter trees through wider tree spacing and longer rotation periods. The proposed actions would not 

meet the strategy to retain all ponderosa pine trees > 17” DBH.

Recent literature has raised concerns over the potential for loss of large ponderosa pine due to 

prescribed burning (Kolb, et al 2007; Fire Science Brief, 2009; Fontaine, 2005; Tyler, 2006). The 

different articles, discussions, and research do not agree on one set of mitigations or conditions by 

which to prevent inadvertent loss of large pine due to prescribed fire. However, there is a concern 

within this project area that because some of the treatment areas focusing on ponderosa pine 

development are within the mixed conifer associations and wildfire has not occurred within the project 

area for decades, that there is potential for high fuel levels at the base of some of the large pines, which 

could result in tree mortality due to the prescribed fire aspect of the proposed actions. There is no data 

on the Bend Ft. Rock Ranger District that shows this is actually occurring and prescribed burning within 

the Pringle Falls portion of the experimental forest had mixed results. Monitoring of fuel levels around 

the retained large ponderosa pines within the proposed units and mortality (or the lack thereof) will 

validate the assumption that the proposed burning will not kill the retained large ponderosa pine. This 

monitoring will help reconcile the conflicting recent science regarding prescribed burning and 

ponderosa pine mortality.

Cumulative Impacts

As a result of this proposed action, 13% of the white-headed woodpecker habitat in the combined

watersheds would be treated; this is cumulative to the 3% of habitat treated in the Crane Prairie 

watershed by the Snow Fuels Reduction Project (16% of available habitat within the watersheds 

cumulatively impacts). Over time, white-headed woodpecker habitat would actually increase within the 

watersheds because of the emphasis on large ponderosa pine habitat and fuels reduction efforts; 

especially within this project area. This would be a beneficial cumulative effect. Although the 

treatments are proposed largely within mixed conifer stands, the actions would favor conditions for lateseral ponderosa pine in the long-term. A monitoring item to determine retention of large ponderosa pine 

trees and snags post-treatment will aid in validating this assumption of short-term negative effects for 

long-term positive ones.

Because of the amount of habitat reduced and in the long-term habitat may be improved, Alternative 2 

may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute towards a trend for further

listing.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142  EXF Final EIS

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

This alternative would treat 146 fewer acres of white-headed woodpecker habitat than Alternative 2; 

however the treatments in Units 31, 34, 41 and 43 would remain the same (heavy thinning or thinning of 

overstory included). Effects to white-headed woodpecker habitat would be similar to those described 

under Alternative 2. The reduced amount of white-headed woodpecker affected would have only 

minimal reductions in effects.

Cumulative Impacts

The reduction in habitat described in the above section amounts to approximately 11% of the estimated 

white-headed woodpecker habitat in the combined watersheds (14% of all of the available habitat 

cumulatively impacted). 

Because of the amount of habitat reduced and in the long-term habitat may be improved, this alternative 

may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute towards a trend for further 

listing.

-----------------

Lewis’ Woodpecker, Region 6 Sensitive, MIS

Affected Environment

This species utilizes dead wood (large snags) in open forests (ponderosa pine and in some cases 

riparian) that may have been logged or burned (Winkler et al. 1995; Natureserve, 2009; Saab et al. 

2002). Marshall et al. (2003) reports that this species is associated with open woodland habitat near 

water. It primarily breeds in Oregon white oak, ponderosa pine, and riparian cottonwood communities. 

Important components of breeding habitat include an open woodland canopy and large-diameter dead or 

dying trees. Potential habitat, as described in the literature, is found within the watershed, and may be 

found within some of the proposed treatment areas. Because of the lack of riparian areas the 

subwatersheds and especially the project area, analysis will focus on the ponderosa pine habitat.

For this project analysis, the Lewis’ woodpecker habitat is the same as the habitat described for the 

white-headed woodpecker. Lewis’ woodpeckers may tolerate more open stand conditions than whiteheaded woodpeckers. Habitat for white-headed woodpeckers is limited within the Crane Prairie 

watershed but more common in the Fall River watershed, and more importantly, in the project area. 

There are stands with large ponderosa pines (live and dead) in the project area, thus potential habitat is 

present (approximately 804 acres in the project area and 6,087 acres in the watersheds combined). 

There have been no known observations of Lewis’ woodpeckers in the project area. Mellen-McLean 35 

al (2009) show that for this species the 30% tolerance level is 24 snags >10” DBH per acre and the 80% 

level is 63 snags >10” DBH per acre and 16 snags >20” DBH per acre (Figure PPDF_PF.sp20). Current 

snag densities estimated within and adjacent to the proposed units does not meet the snag densities at 

the 30% tolerance level. Because the DecAID densities were taken from research in a post-fire 

landscape and there has not been a major wildfire within the ponderosa pine habitat in the watershed, 

habitat is naturally limited in the watershed.

According to Altman (2000), this species is a focal species for patches of burned old ponderosa pine 

forest, and conservation issues for this species relevant to the proposed actions include: fire suppression,

salvage logging of burned ponderosa pine trees, alteration of old ponderosa pine forest to young forest 

due to logging or fire suppression, increased competition with European starlings for nest sites, and lack 

of advanced decay snags or ones with cavities already present.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  143

Conservation strategies relevant to the proposed actions include: increase levels of acceptable 

opportunities to allow wildfires to burn; use prescribed burning and understory thinning to maintain 

existing old forest ponderosa pine stands and accelerate development of mid-successional stages to old 

forest; prohibit or limit salvage logging to retain both hard and soft snags in clumps; close roads where 

large ponderosa pine snags are present; retain standing dead or diseased trees where they occur; promote 

a shrubby understory; thin young pines in dense stands ; and retain large living and dead trees (Altman 

2000).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no direct or indirect impacts to Lewis’ woodpecker or their habitat with the 

implementation of this alternative. Although currently there may be limited habitat opportunities, this 

species may benefit from a large wildfire moving through the area. A fire could create the open 

conditions and kill the current large ponderosa pine to provide habitat into the future.

Because there is no proposed action under this alternative that would add incrementally to the ongoing 

or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Impacts

Impacts to Lewis’ woodpecker habitat as a result of this alternative would be similar to those described 

for white-headed woodpeckers because within the project area the two species share the same habitat 

type. This species may be more impacted by the increased vigor and health of the ponderosa pine as a 

result of thinning because they utilize well-decayed, large ponderosa for nesting. Because this species 

utilizes more open ponderosa pine habitat, the risk of losing some large ponderosa pine to prescribed 

fire may benefit habitat conditions; and negative impacts due to the thinning of some large ponderosa 

pine may not be as notable as those for white-headed woodpecker. Creation of new, large diameter 

ponderosa pine in a more open stand will create favorable habitat conditions for this species sooner.

The proposed actions would not likely add to the conservation issues associated with this species. 

Similarly, many of the conservation strategies for this species are addressed: use of prescribed burning, 

accelerate development to old forest, and maintain existing old forest ponderosa pine. The latter 

strategy would occur through the control units and the lighter thinned areas. 

Conservation strategies relevant to the proposed actions include: increase levels of acceptable 

opportunities to allow wildfires to burn; use prescribed burning and understory thinning to maintain 

existing old forest ponderosa pine stands and accelerate development of mid-successional stages to old 

forest; prohibit or limit salvage logging to retain both hard and soft snags in clumps; close roads where 

large ponderosa pine snags are present; retain standing dead or diseased trees where they occur; promote 

a shrubby understory; thin young pines in dense stands ; and retain large living and dead trees. This 

alternative would address the first three conservation strategies for this species. Being within the 

Administratively Withdrawn and LSR allocations may also aid in achieving the conservation strategy to 

limit salvage logging.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts, as a result of this alternative, would be the same as those described for whiteheaded woodpeckers. As a result of this proposed action, 13% of the habitat in the combined 

watersheds would be treated; this is cumulative to the 3% of habitat treated in the Crane Prairie 

watershed by the Snow Fuels Reduction Project (16% of available habitat within the watersheds 

cumulatively impacted). Over time, habitat would actually increase within the watersheds because of 

the emphasis on large ponderosa pine habitat and fuels reduction efforts; especially within this project 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144  EXF Final EIS

area. This would be a beneficial cumulative effect. Although the treatments are proposed largely within 

mixed conifer stands, the actions would favor conditions for late-seral ponderosa pine in the long-term. 

A monitoring item to determine retention of large ponderosa pine trees and snags post-treatment will aid 

in validating this assumption of short-term negative effects for long-term positive ones.

Because of the amount of habitat reduced, and the potential for some beneficial effects, this alternative

may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute towards a trend for further 

listing.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

This alternative would treat 146 fewer acres of Lewis’ woodpecker habitat (i.e. white-headed 

woodpecker habitat) than Alternative 2. Otherwise, effects to woodpecker habitat would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Impacts

The reduction in habitat described in the above section amounts to approximately 11% of the estimated 

woodpecker habitat in the combined watersheds (14% of all of the available habitat cumulatively 

impacted). 

Because of the amount of habitat reduced, and the potential for some beneficial effects, this alternative 

may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute towards a trend for further listing.

------------------

Johnson’s Hairstreak, Region 6 Sensitive

Affected Environment

The Johnson’s hairstreak is a small, three-quarter inch uncommon butterfly that ranges from southern 

British Columbia, south through eastern and western Washington, and western Oregon, to central and 

south California. Isolated populations exist in northeastern Oregon to central Idaho. In Oregon, it has 

been found sparsely in the Cascades, Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Blue Mountains and Wallowa 

Mountains (Pyle 2002). Elevations range from sea level to 6,000 feet. Most of the 52 records for 

Oregon are above 2,000 feet (Hinchliff 1994). This butterfly species depends on coniferous forests that 

contain dwarf mistletoes (genus Arceuthobium) found in western hemlock, red fir, and Jeffrey pine 

(Natureserve, 2008). Miller and Hammond (2007) report this species as utilizing moist old-growth 

stands in the Pacific Northwest on the westslope of the Cascades Mountains. Peak conditions for this 

butterfly exist in old-growth and late successional forests although younger forests that contain dwarf 

mistletoe may also support Johnson’s hairstreak populations. This species typically spends much of its 

time in the top of the forest canopy which may contribute to the rarity of sightings (Scott 1986, Pyle 

2002). Males typically perch in the tops of mistletoe-infested conifers to await females but have been 

observed perching on hilltops in California (Scott 1986). The larvae feed on and mimic the aerial shoots 

of mistletoes, making observation very difficult. Two closely related hairstreaks with overlapping 

ranges—C. nelsoni and C. spinetorum—can be confused with C. johnsoni. 

Red fir has been documented in the upper NW portion of the experimental forest based on the location 

of the Seidel 1977 study listed in Appendix B p. 10. It likely also exists as scattered individuals in the 

higher elevation mixed conifer stands on Lookout Mountain and possibly in the upper elevation project 

units (e.g. Unit 12). These are also areas that may contain more of the cool, moist features suggested as 

habitat by Miller and Hammond (2007). It is assumed that some of the red fir trees could have mistletoe 

in them, since other mistletoe trees have been documented within the experimental forest. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  145

Environmental consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no direct or indirect impacts to Johnson’s hairstreaks or their habitat with the 

implementation of this alternative. Habitat would continue to cycle through the area as trees affected by 

mistletoe infect trees around it, with the exception that should a catastrophic wildfire occur, these host 

trees would not survive.

Because there is no proposed action under this alternative that would add incrementally to the ongoing 

or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2 and 3 

Direct and Indirect Impacts

The proposed actions do not directly target trees with mistletoe. Red fir or moist mixed conifer with 

mistletoe are rare within the proposed units and will not likely be impacted; most of the units contain 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and white fir. Individual trees that provide a host for this species may be 

removed but is expected to be a small portion of what is currently there. The area where the 1977 study 

was conducted and other parts of the NW corner of the Lookout Mt. Unit are not part of the proposed 

treatment areas. Therefore, habitat will remain for this species within the area.

Cumulative Effects

This species is more associated with moist, mixed conifer, old-growth habitat. Most of the Lookout Mt. 

Unit is of the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer types, suggesting a general lack of habitat. There is 

red fir present as scattered individuals in the higher elevation stands of the Lookout Mt. Unit of the 

experimental forest. Also, these areas and the NW portion of the experimental forest tend to have more 

moist plant associations. This portion is not part of the proposed actions.

Because of the general lack of habitat and the limited amount of potential habitat that may be treated 

and removed this alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute 

towards a trend for further listing.

Deschutes Forest Plan Management Indicator Species, Landbird Focal Species, and Birds of 

Conservation Concern

A Wildlife Report has been prepared to address the project’s effects upon Management Indicator 

Species [LRMP, (MIS)], ecological indicators (FSM, species and/or habitats), and Species of Concern 

[Fish and Wildlife Service designation, (SOC)] and the components of these species’ habitats. This 

report has considered and applied the best science available; including papers, reports, literature 

reviews, review citations, peer reviews, science consistency reviews, and results of ground-based 

observations. The best available science was used to determine species or habitat presence and effects. 

A complete list of the science used can be found within the species discussions and in the Literature 

Cited section of this document. Generally three documents provide guidance or species lists for 

consideration in the management of federal lands. Management actions should minimize negative 

impacts, promote habitat development or provide habitat protection to some degree for those species 

that occur within the habitats of federally managed land. The three documents and associated species 

lists include the Deschutes National Forest LRMP – Management Indicator Species, the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern, and a Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the EastSlope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Species listed in these documents overlap 

with each other as well as the federal threatened, endangered and sensitive species lists.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146  EXF Final EIS

Neotropical migratory birds have become species of interest recently, due to the downward trend of 

landbirds in the western United States. The decline of these populations are a result of many complex 

issues, but factors believed to be responsible include; loss, fragmentation, and alteration of historic 

vegetation communities. Other probable causes to the decline include predation from feral species, nest 

parasitism, and use of pesticides associated with agriculture areas. There is currently an Executive 

Order (13186) that provides for enhanced cooperation between the Forest Service and USFWS in 

regards to addressing impacts to neotropical migratory birds in conjunction with the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act. Specific activities are identified where cooperation between the parties will substantially 

contribute to conservation and management of migratory birds, their habitat, and associated values, and 

thereby advances many of the purposes of the Executive Order. 

In response to this Executive Order and subsequent compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the 

Deschutes National Forest is currently following guidelines from the “Conservation Strategy for 

Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington” (Altman 2000). 

This conservation strategy addresses key habitat types as well as biological objectives and conservation 

strategies for these habitat types found in the East Slope of the Cascades, and the focal species that are 

associated with these habitats. The conservation strategy lists priority habitats: 1) Ponderosa Pine 2) 

Mixed Conifer (Late Successional) 3) Oak-Pine Woodland 4) Unique Habitats (Lodgepole Pine, White 

Bark Pine, Meadows, Aspen, and Subalpine Fir). There is no Oak-Pine Woodland, White Bark Pine, 

Meadows, or Subalpine Fir habitat within the proposed treatment areas.

Another publication became available in 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entitled “Birds of 

Conservation Concern 2002” and updated in 2008 (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and 

populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to 

become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Bird species 

considered for inclusion on lists in this report include nongame birds, gamebirds without hunting 

seasons, subsistence-hunted nongame species in Alaska, and Endangered Species Act candidate, 

proposed endangered or threatened, and recently delisted species. While all of the bird species included 

in BCC 2008 are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they 

warrant consideration for ESA listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA 

bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservations actions (USFWS 2008).

From this publication, Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) were developed based on similar geographic 

parameters. The BCR encompassing the project area is BCR 9, Great Basin. See “Landbird” discussion 

for a list of the bird species of concern for each area, the preferred habitat for each species, and whether 

there is potential habitat for each species within the proposed treatment areas. Species on these lists are 

discussed within this document if they were known to or potentially could occur within the proposed 

treatment areas.

Table 62 contains the name, status, a brief habitat description, and the presence of habitat relative to this 

project of each of the wildlife species considered in this document. Following this table is a brief 

review of the rationale for the “No habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas” conclusion 

for each of the species for which this was made, and no further analysis was done. Those species with 

any other conclusion, are further analyzed in this document.

Habitat manipulation affects species differently. An action that may increase habitat for one species 

may decrease habitat for another species. Federal threatened, endangered, and regionally sensitive 

species lists are always consulted first (analysis for these species can be found in the project’s 

Biological Assessment and Evaluation). Species that do not appear on these lists but show up as a 

management indicator species, focal species, or species of concern may have persistence issues at a 

regional or national level but may not have persistence issues at the state or local level. This list also 

shows the connection between the species and its different habitat components analyzed, particularly 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  147

those components seen as being limiting factors for the species. For example, the pygmy nuthatch is not 

only listed with its status, but is also shown to be associated with ponderosa pine habitat and snags.

Table 62. Wildlife species considered in this document. Those in bold receive further consideration *

Species Status Habitat Presence

Northern 

goshawk MIS

Mature and old-growth forests; 

especially high canopy closure and 

large trees

Potential habitat in proposed treatment 

areas

Cooper’s hawk MIS

Similar to goshawk, can also use 

mature forests with high canopy 

closure/tree density

Potential habitat in proposed treatment 

areas

Sharp-shinned 

hawk MIS Similar to goshawk in addition to 

young, dense, even-aged stands

Potential habitat in proposed treatment 

areas

Great gray owl MIS

Mature and old growth forests 

associated with openings and 

meadows

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Great blue heron MIS Riparian edge habitats including lakes, 

streams, marshes and estuaries

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Golden eagle MIS, BCC Large open areas with cliffs and rock 

outcrops

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Red-tailed hawk MIS Large snags, open country 

interspersed with forests

Potential habitat in proposed treatment 

areas

Osprey MIS Large snags associated with fish 

bearing water bodies

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Townsend’s bigeared bat MIS Caves and old dwellings No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Elk MIS Mixed habitats Habitat in proposed treatment areas

American 

marten MIS

Mixed conifer or high elevation latesuccessional forests with abundant 

down woody material

Potential Habitat within or adjacent to 

proposed treatment areas

Mule deer MIS Mixed habitats Habitat in proposed treatment areas

Snags and 

Downed Wood 

associated 

species and 

habitat

MIS Snags and down woody material Habitat in proposed treatment areas

Pygmy nuthatch Landbird 

focal species

Mature ponderosa pine forests and 

snags Habitat in proposed treatment areas

Chipping 

sparrow

Landbird 

focal species

Open understory ponderosa pine 

forests with regeneration Habitat in proposed treatment areas

Brown creeper Landbird 

focal species Large trees in mixed conifer forests Potential habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Flammulated owl

Landbird 

focal 

species, 

BCC

Interspersed grassy openings and 

dense thickets in mixed conifer forests

Potential habitat within or adjacent to 

proposed treatment areas

Hermit thrush Landbird 

focal species

Multi-layered/dense canopy in mixed 

conifer forests

Potential habitat within or adjacent to 

proposed treatment areas

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Landbird 

focal species

Edges and openings created by 

wildfire in mixed conifer forests

Potential habitat within or adjacent to 

proposed treatment areas

Waterfowl 

Species:

Common loon MIS Edges of remote freshwater ponds and 

lakes

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Pied-billed grebe MIS

Edge of open water in freshwater 

lakes, ponds, sluggish rivers and 

marshes

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Horned grebe MIS Open water with emergent vegetation No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148  EXF Final EIS

Species Status Habitat Presence

Red-necked 

grebe MIS Lakes and ponds in forested areas No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Eared grebe MIS Open water with emergent vegetation No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Western grebe MIS

Marches with open water and lakes 

and reservoirs with emergent 

vegetation

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Canada goose MIS

Variety of habitat: shores of lakes, 

rivers, and reservoirs especially with 

cattails and bulrushes

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Wood duck MIS Cavity nester No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Gadwall MIS Concealed clumps of grasses in 

meadows and tall grasslands

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

American 

widgeon MIS Clumps of grasses in meadows or tall grasslands

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Mallard MIS Open water with emergent vegetation No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Blue-winged teal MIS Marshes, lakes, ponds, slow-moving 

streams

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Cinnamon teal MIS Cover of vegetation near shoreline No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Northern shoveler MIS Grassy areas near water No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Northern pintail MIS Open areas near water No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Green-winged 

teal MIS Freshwater marshes with emergent vegetation

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Canvasback MIS Emergent vegetation No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Redhead MIS Freshwater marshes and lakes 

concealed in vegetation

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Ring-necked duck MIS Thick emergent vegetation on 

shorelines

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Lesser scaup MIS Dry grassy areas near lakes at least 

10 ft. deep

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Common 

goldeneye MIS Cavity nester No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Barrow’s 

goldeneye MIS Cavity nester No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Hooded 

merganser

MIS Cavity nester No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Common 

merganser

MIS Cavity nester No Habitat or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Ruddy duck MIS Freshwater marshes, lakes, ponds in 

dense vegetation

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Woodpecker 

Species

Williamson’s 

sapsucker

MIS, 

Landbird 

Focal 

species, 

BCC

Mature or old growth conifer forests 

with open canopy cover; weak 

excavator

Potential habitat within or adjacent to 

proposed treatment areas

Red-naped 

sapsucker MIS Riparian hardwood forests No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Downy 

woodpecker MIS Riparian hardwood forest No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Hairy 

woodpecker MIS Mixed conifer and ponderosa pine 

forests Habitat in proposed treatment areas
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  149

Species Status Habitat Presence

Three-toed 

woodpecker MIS High elevation and lodgepole pine 

forests

Potential habitat within or adjacent to 

proposed treatment areas

Black-backed 

woodpecker

MIS, 

Landbird 

focal species

Lodgepole pine forests, burned forests Habitat in proposed treatment areas

Northern flicker MIS Variety of forest types but more 

associated with forest edges Habitat in proposed treatment areas

Pileated 

woodpecker MIS Mature to old-growth mixed conifer 

forests

Potential habitat within or adjacent to 

proposed treatment areas

Other

Species

Swainson’s hawk BCC Open country

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Ferruginous hawk BCC Open sagebrush flats; open country No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Prairie falcon BCC Rimrock, cliffs in open country No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Greater sage 

grouse

BCC Sagebrush flats No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

American golden 

plover

BCC, 

Shorebird

Upland tundra, rare in OR in dry 

mudflats, fields and pastures

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Snowy plover BCC, 

Shorebird Sandy beaches No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

American avocet BCC Shallow water No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Solitary sandpiper BCC, 

Shorebird Small, freshwater mudflats No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Whimbrel BCC, 

Shorebirds Grassy marshes and tidal flats No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Long-billed curlew BCC, 

Shorebird Dry grasslands No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Marbled godwit BCC Expansive mudflats and sandflats on 

beaches

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Sanderling BCC, 

Shorebird Sandy beaches with wave action No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Wilson’s 

phalarope

BCC, 

Shorebird Shallow ponds within grassy marshes No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo BCC Riparian hardwoods No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Burrowing owl BCC Open grassland or agricultural land No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Black swift BCC Damp coastal cliffs No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Loggerhead 

shrike BCC Open habitat with scattered trees and shrubs

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Gray vireo BCC Rocky, dry hillsides with scattered 

trees

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Virginia’s warbler BCC Mountain mahoghany No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Brewer’s sparrow BCC Sagebrush habitats No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Sage sparrow BCC Sagebrush habitats No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Piping plover Shorebird Rare in OR on sandy beaches No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Mountain plover Shorebird Shortgrass prairies No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Buff-breasted 

sandpiper Shorebird Nests in tundra, forages on shortgrass prairie

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150  EXF Final EIS

Species Status Habitat Presence

Black 

oystercatcher Shorebird Coastal rocks No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Upland sandpiper Shorebird Grassy fields (4-8” tall) with open 

patches

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Bristle-thighed 

curlew Shorebird Rare in OR in marshes or beaches. Nests in Alaska tundra

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Hudsonian godwit Shorebird Mudflats and shallow water; nests 

around spruce woods

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Marbled godwit Shorebird Prairie ponds, mudflats and sandflats No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Black turnstone Shorebird Tundra, winters on rocky, coastal 

shores

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Surfbird Shorebird Nests on barren gravel hilltops, winters 

on rocky shorelines

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Western 

sandpiper Shorebird Mudflats and sandy beaches No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Rock sandpiper Shorebird Rocky shorelines No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Short-billed 

dowitcher Shorebird Mudflats and shallow muddy ponds along coast

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

American 

woodcock Shorebird Damp, brushy woods No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Wilson’s plover Shorebird

Rare in OR on sandy beaches, 

sandflats or mudflats away from 

shoreline

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

American 

oystercatcher Shorebird Rare in OR on rocky coasts No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Bar-tailed godwit Shorebird Low tundra in western Alaska No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Ruddy turnstone Shorebird Rocky and sandy shorelines No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Red Knot Shorebird Sandy beaches No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Dunlin Shorebird Sandy beaches and mudflats No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Calliope 

hummingbird BCC Open montane forest, mountain meadows, and willow thickets

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Sage thrasher BCC Juniper, sagebrush shrublands. Mt. 

mahogany and aspen

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Nashville warbler BCC

Open deciduous and coniferous 

woodland, forest edge and 

undergrowth

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Black-chinned 

sparrow

BCC Desert, shrubland/chapparal No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Willow flycatcher BCC Brushy areas with willow and riparian 

shrubs

No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Pinyon jay BCC Pinyon/juniper woodland No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Green-tailed 

towhee BCC Sagebrush shrublands No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed treatment areas

Black rosy-finch BCC Alpine rocky, grassy areas No Habitat within or adjacent to proposed 

treatment areas

Landbird focal species come from the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and 

Washington (Altman 2000); Management Indicator Species come from the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Plan 

(LRMP)[1990]; Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) come from the US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern – BCR 9 

(Great Basin) [2008]; and Shorebirds come from the 2004 US Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  151

Rationale for Species not considered in detail

The Wildlife Report provides more specific rationale and clarification to the previous table (Table 62)

for species that are not considered in detail, including conclusions about the presence or absence of the 

species based on habitat availability and suitability. Those species that have suitable habitat within or in 

the vicinity of the proposed treatment areas will be further analyzed/discussed (those in bold in Table 

62) in the following sections.

Analysis Methodology (for those species receiving further consideration)

Species populations and distributions were not discussed in depth. Rather, effects on habitats and 

habitat components were discussed with the assumption that if appropriate habitat is available for a 

species, then that species occupies or could occupy the habitat. Examples of specific habitat 

components analyzed include: snag/coarse woody material (CWM), habitat/green tree replacements 

(GTRs), and late/old structural habitat (LOS). Population trends were determined by assessing how the 

alternatives impact the structure and function of the vegetation (i.e. habitat) relative to the current and 

historic habitat availability in conjunction with state conservation status information for the species in 

the Natureserve (2009) an online encyclopedia of life, available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

Rankings are given for global, national, and state levels. Only the state rankings will be used in this 

analysis. 

Inferences regarding species diversity and relative population levels were made based upon habitat 

quality, condition, and quantity. Where needed and applicable, professional judgment, supported by the 

available information and field visits, were used to assess habitat conditions and quality. The project’s 

Silvicultural Report (2009 Paul Brna, Silviculturist) details the historical patterns and structure within 

the planning area. Field reconnaissance information, current analysis tools, recent literature, and 

Geographical Information System databases provided additional information. 

Some wildlife habitats required a more detailed analysis and discussion. Level of analysis depended on 

the existing habitat conditions (i.e. limited habitat availability versus widespread habitat availability), 

the magnitude and intensity of the effects of the proposed actions (i.e. would the proposed actions cause 

a loss, no change, or increase in habitat), the risk to the resources (sustainability and availability of the 

habitat), and the significant issues identified. These factors were used to form conclusions as to how the 

information in regards to the effects would be useful and relevant in the process of making an informed 

decision. 

Tables 11 and 12 (Chapter 3.1.2) list the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that were used 

for the analysis of cumulative effects. The effects of past projects prior to those listed have been 

included in the existing condition discussion under each subject heading and do not appear as separate 

projects. These past actions are either no longer having effects that would overlap the effects of the 

proposed action in time and space, or if their effects are ongoing, these effects have been incorporated 

into the existing habitat conditions and it is not useful nor relevant to the decision making process to 

analyze them separately. Any other past projects that overlap in time and space with the proposed 

actions do contribute effects that are additive to the proposed actions and may be useful and relevant to 

the decision-making process are listed. 

Because the effects deal with forest development which inherently involve multiple decades, short-term

impacts are addressed over a 20-30 year time span while long-term impacts are addressed for over a 

time span > 30 years. Similarly, the timeframes used to address cumulative effects may vary by species 

but will generally include a time span of 20 years, which would roughly equate to more than one 

generation of the species. Spatially, cumulative effects will generally start at the proposed treatment 

area level (approximately 2,000 acres) and then, dependent upon potential impacts, may include 

adjacent and nearby planning areas. The spatial boundary for cumulative effects is dependent on the 

species or wildlife habitat discussion and potential additive effects with the proposed action(s). These 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152  EXF Final EIS

cumulative effects boundaries will provide for a range of habitat conditions that occur on the landscape 

that generally encompass at least a few home ranges of a species.

Effects on wildlife will be evaluated in terms of both amount and quality of habitat and of animal 

population trends (36 CFR 219.19 9(a)(2)). The following evaluation criteria have been developed in 

order to measure and compare effects as a result of the no action and the action alternative. 

Northern Goshawk: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S3 Vulnerable

In Oregon, goshawks tend to select mature or old-growth stands of conifers for nesting, typically those 

having a multi-layered canopy with vegetation extending from a few meters above ground to more than 

40 meters high. Generally nesting sites are chosen that are near a water source and are on moderate 

slopes, usually having northerly aspects. This habitat type is quite similar to that used by the Cooper’s 

hawk, but the trees tend to be older and taller and have a better-developed understory of coniferous 

vegetation (Reynolds, Meslow, and Wight, 1982 in Csuti et al. 2001). Foraging generally occurs within 

these mature stands where small openings occur. These birds generally forage on passerines (e.g. 

songbirds), but often utilize small mammals such as rodents as well as the occasional snowshoe hare. 

Some gallinaceous bird species are also preyed upon such as blue and ruffed grouse. Species and 

abundance of gallinaceous prey varies in the range of the goshawk depending on elevation and latitude. 

Within “Scenario A of the Eastside Screens Standard and Guides” as it amends the Deschutes LRMP 

east of the range of the northern spotted owl, the direction for management is as follows:

Protect every known active and historically used goshawk nest-site from disturbance. “Historically” 

refers to known nesting activity occurring at the site in the last 5 years. Seasonal disturbance 

restrictions may be implemented at sites.

Thirty acres of the most suitable nesting habitat surrounding all active and historical nest tree(s) will be 

deferred from harvest. A 400 acre “Post Fledging Area” (PFA) will be established around every known 

active nest site. While harvest activities can occur within this area, retain the LOS stands and enhance 

younger stands toward LOS condition, as possible. 

Surveys have been conducted within the proposed treatment areas in 2007 and 2008, using the method 

outlined in Woodbridge and Hargis (2005). A goshawk nest was found in 2008 within a proposed 

control unit. This nest was found active again in 2009. The location of the nest is within land managed 

under the Northwest Forest Plan (i.e. west of the spotted owl range line). The Northwest Forest Plan 

does not contain specific standards and guidelines for goshawks, instead relying on standards and 

guidelines for late-seral species and habitat. The Eastside Screens amended Forest Plans (LRMPs) that 

were east of the owl line. This project area is unique in that both amendments apply in different 

portions of the project area.

The proposed treatment areas overlap approximately 2,118 acres of potential habitat, defined as stands 

with a mean canopy cover of 40% or greater, and stands with an average tree diameter of more than 15” 

DBH. This amounts to approximately 41% of potential habitat in the watershed (a total of 5,183 acres 

meeting this definition within the two 6th field watersheds) (Figure 29). 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative is not likely to have any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to goshawks. Stands 

currently providing habitat would continue to do so until the event of a stand replacing wildfire, 

whereby there would not be habitat.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  153

The Lookout Mt. Unit of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest represents a large portion of the 

available goshawk habitat in the watersheds. This is likely due to the following: 1) many of the stands 

within this Experimental Unit have not been included in past scheduled harvest activities; 2) past 

research has focused on smaller areas; 3) the average stand diameter in the area is higher than many of 

the other stands outside of the experimental forest and; 4) a wildfire has not burned through the area for 

decades.

Generally, the minimal canopy closure needed to meet goshawk habitat matches that for spotted owl 

dispersal habitat (i.e. 40%). In fact, many of the characteristics of spotted owl nesting habitat would 

also meet goshawk habitat. Ironically, goshawks will prey upon spotted owls and to manage habitat 

levels for both species within the same area would seem counterproductive.

Approximately 381 acres of potential nesting, fledging and foraging habitat as defined above, would be 

removed within proposed treatment units. These acres are within mixed confer vegetation types, meet 

the characteristics for potential habitat, and would receive the heavy thin prescriptions (thin to 50% 

UMZ or Thin to 75% UMZ and create small openings). Of the different habitat uses, goshawks are 

most tolerant of a variety of foraging conditions but will first utilize stands that are similar to their nest 

stand. Approximately 275 acres of goshawk habitat proposed to be removed are adjacent to the nest 

stand. The nest stand itself is approximately 64 acres. The removal of 275 acres of habitat adjacent to 

the current nest stand may result in the goshawks abandoning this nest site after treatment, or altering 

their foraging based on the changed habitat conditions for prey. As shown in the figure below there are 

alternate large patches of habitat within the experimental forest.

 Figure 29. Northern goshawk habitat distribution in subwatersheds.

The underburning and mowing portions of the proposed actions are not expected to have impacts to 

potential goshawk nesting habitat. As the remaining trees in the lighter thinned units respond to 

thinning with diameter growth, more suitable nesting habitat than presently available is expected to 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154  EXF Final EIS

develop; especially within the moist mixed conifer associations. Goshawks are not typically associated 

with late-seral ponderosa pine, therefore development and maintenance of less dense, single story and 

late-seral ponderosa pine stands are not expected to provide goshawk nesting habitat, but may provide 

foraging and fledging habitat. In the future, goshawks may utilize the control units as nest stands and 

the remaining areas utilized as fledging and foraging habitat.

Cumulative Effects

The 381 acres of habitat removed represents 18% of the available habitat within the Lookout Mt. Unit of 

the Experimental Forest and 7% of the available habitat within the two 6th field watersheds. The loss of 

275 acres in proximity to a known nest could ultimately result in abandonment of this territory posttreatment despite a mitigation measure to reduce disturbance during the nesting season. 

Alternative 3

This alternative would have similar effects to goshawks as Alternative 2. The treatments proposed 

under Alternative 3 are the same as the proposed action but with fewer acres (a total of 342 acres of 

habitat within proposed treatment units). The acres dropped from treatment under this alternative 

include 39 acres of goshawk habitat in proximity to the current nest stand. The cumulative difference of 

39 acres of habitat is minor: 16% habitat reduction within the project area due to the proposed 

treatments and a 6.6% reduction of habitat over the two 6th field watersheds.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

As mentioned earlier, the Screens that amended the Deschutes LRMP with specific guidelines for

goshawks do not apply to the current nest because it is west of the spotted owl range line and falls under 

the Northwest Forest Plan. Therefore, no new PFAs or 30-acre nest cores need to be established. 

Alternative 3 best meets the intent of this guideline by limiting the amount of harvest closest to the nest 

stand.

In accordance with the LRMP, a goshawk nest site is to be protected from disturbance. The LRMP 

outlines a disturbance distance of 1⁄4 mile for non-blasting activities. Mitigation measures address this 

circumstance.

WL-6: “nesting habitat for at least 40 goshawk pairs will be provided in mixed conifer, mountain 

hemlock, and ponderosa pine forests...Habitat for an additional 30 pairs in lodgepole pine forest...” 

The proposed treatments impact one nest stand. Nesting habitat may develop, in the long-term, within 

the proposed units especially within the wet mixed conifer associations (those with a heavier fir 

component). Mitigation measures will ensure that any nests discovered receive protection.

WL-7: “Nesting habitat is available in ...old growth (MA15)...” there are no MA15 areas within or 

adjacent to the treatment units. The proposed actions will likely create late seral habitat in the future, 

but with the emphasis on late-seral ponderosa pine. This creation may have limited use by goshawks 

because they tend to utilize more dense multi-storied stands.

WL-9: “Nest sites will be selected on the basis of present or past use whenever possible...” The 

proposed treatment areas and an adjacent larger area have been surveyed.

Cooper’s Hawk Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S4 Apparently Secure

The Cooper’s hawk prefers coniferous, mixed and deciduous forests, as well as riparian, juniper, and 

oak woodlands. Vegetative profile around nests are trees 30-60 and 50-70 years old in northwest and 

eastern Oregon, respectively with tree density of 265/ac. and 469/ac. Coopers hawks commonly nest in 

deformed trees infected with mistletoe. (Marshall et al. 2003). There are no known Cooper’s hawks 

nests within or adjacent to the proposed treatment areas. Surveys for goshawks, often can disclose 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  155

Cooper’s hawk territories, and any Cooper’s hawk responses were noted during goshawk surveys. No 

Cooper’s hawks were observed and no evidence of Cooper’s hawk nesting was found. 

In considering the vegetative conditions within proposed units, potential habitat for this species is 

similar as the goshawk. Within the larger 6th field subwatersheds, however, there are approximately 

6,655 acres of potential Cooper’s hawk habitat (2,331 acres of this within proposed units) when using 

the LRMP definition of a stand has a “mean canopy cover of 60% or greater, tree density of at least 365 

trees per acre, stand age of 50-80 years (LRMP WL-17). A Cooper’s hawk territory can be 200-1700 ac 

in size; with ranking in Oregon being “apparently secure” (Natureserve, 2009). This information would 

suggest that the larger area may have up to 4 pairs of Cooper’s hawks when using the larger territory 

size. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative is not likely to have any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to Cooper’s hawks. 

Stands currently providing habitat would continue to do so until the event of a stand replacing wildfire.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Similar to the effects to goshawks, heavier commercial thinning (thin to 50% UMZ or Thin to 75% 

UMZ and create small openings) would remove nesting habitat, in the short-term. Where treatment 

units overlap potential Cooper’s hawk habitat, 937 acres would be thinned/degraded (40% of the habitat 

within the project area and 14% of the potential habitat in the watersheds). Underburning or mowing, is 

not expected to have impacts to potential nesting habitat because the goal of the mowing and 

underburning is to retain the trees remaining after thinning. As the remaining trees respond with 

diameter growth, more suitable nesting habitat than presently available is expected. 

The proposed actions are not expected to impact Cooper’s hawk foraging. Juxtaposition of nontreatment areas both within the units and adjacent to the units would provide for a diversity of prey. 

This juxtaposition would also minimize any impacts to any fledged Cooper’s hawks from the larger 

area.

Cumulative Effects

The incremental effect that the proposed treatments have on potential Cooper’s hawk nesting habitat in 

conjunction with other present or reasonably foreseeable projects is minimal. The clump sizes of the 

habitat being impacted by the proposed actions are not large enough to constitute an entire nest core.

Alternative 3

This alternative would have similar effects to Cooper’s hawks as Alternative 2. The treatments 

proposed under Alternative 3 are the same as the proposed action but with fewer acres (509 acres of 

habitat within proposed units). The acres dropped from treatment under this alternative include 428 

acres of Cooper’s hawk habitat. The cumulative difference of these 428 acres of habitat is: 22% habitat 

reduction within the project area due to the proposed treatments and an 8% reduction of habitat over the 

two 6th field watersheds.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

WL-13: “Nesting habitat for at least 60 pairs of Cooper’s hawk will be provided in mixed conifer and 

ponderosa pine forests outside of wilderness and the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area.” 

Approximately 509-937 acres of potential Cooper’s hawk nesting habitat will be removed. This acreage 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156  EXF Final EIS

is scattered into various sized parcels from 3-30 acres. Because these affected acres are scattered, the 

cumulative effect is diluted and not concentrated on one territory. Overall nesting habitat is still being 

provided.

Pairs of Cooper’s hawks in eastern Oregon have been found at a density of one for every 4,589 acres 

(Henny, 2003). Considering the potential habitat present within the proposed treatment areas with the 

larger area (6th field watersheds), there could be upwards of 2 pairs of Cooper’s hawks based on the 

territory size reported by Henny (2003). Currently there are no known Cooper’s hawk nests within this 

larger area. 

WL-16: “Prospective sites with appropriate vegetative structure...will be identified before they have 

been precommercially or commercially thinned...” Potential habitat was identified and it has been 

acknowledged that commercial thinning would affect habitat. Mitigation measures will ensure that any 

nests discovered receive protection.

Sharp-Shinned Hawk: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S4 Apparently Secure

Sharp-shinned hawks, in Oregon, breed in a variety of forest types that have a wide range of tree 

species, though most are dominated by conifers. Nests have been located at elevations that range from 

roughly 300 to 6000 feet. Vegetative characteristics found at nest sites, include high tree density and 

high canopy cover, which produce cool, shady conditions. Nest stands preferred by sharp-shinned 

hawks are younger than those preferred by Coopers’ and goshawk, usually 25-50 yr old, even-aged 

stands. In eastern Oregon all nest sites found by Reynolds et al. (1982) were in even-aged stands of 

white fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, or aspen, with ground vegetation limited to grasses and creeping 

barberry (Marshall et al. 2003). Natureserve reports that the sharp-shinned hawk has a ranking of 

“apparently secure” in Oregon. The Deschutes LRMP defines sharp-shinned hawk habitat as stands 

with a mean canopy cover of 65% or greater, tree density of at least 475 trees per acre, stand age 40-60 

years (LRMP WL-25). Using the 2004 satellite data for the EXF project area and subwatersheds, sharpshinned nesting habitat was defined as areas with >55%, and an average tree diameter of >5”. Sharpshinned hawks have similar home range sizes to Cooper’s hawks (i.e. 1700 acres; Natureserve 2009). 

There are approximately 525 acres of potential habitat within the project area and a total of 1,756 acres 

of sharp-shinned habitat within the watersheds. The high canopy closure appears to be the limiting 

factor for sharp-shinned hawk habitat in the watersheds. The largest blocks of habitat in proximity to 

the project area are on the northwest flank of Lookout Mountain. Within the project area itself, habitat 

exists in small patches with the larger parcels being in Units 21, 22, 15 (A No Treat unit), 13, and 32.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative is not likely to have any direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to sharp-shinned hawks. 

Stands currently providing habitat would continue to do so until the event of a stand replacing wildfire.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Because of this species utilization of stands with high canopy closure, any thinning proposed under this 

alternative would likely remove habitat. Where treatment units overlap potential sharp-shinned hawk 

habitat, 461 acres would be thinned/degraded (88% of the habitat within the project area and 26% of the 

potential habitat in the watersheds). Underburning or mowing, is not expected to have impacts to 

potential nesting habitat because the goal of the mowing and underburning is to retain the trees 

remaining after thinning. As the remaining trees respond with diameter growth, more suitable nesting 

habitat than presently available is expected. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  157

The proposed actions are not expected to impact sharp-shinned hawk foraging. Juxtaposition of nontreatment areas both within the units and adjacent to the units would provide for a diversity of prey. 

This juxtaposition would also minimize any impacts to any fledged sharp-shinned hawks from the larger 

area.

The incremental effect that the proposed treatments have on potential sharp-shinned hawk nesting 

habitat in conjunction with other present or reasonably foreseeable projects is minimal. The largest 

patches of habitat are found outside of the project area and not within any ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable projects. The study design would not support the creation of new habitat for this species. 

The study design focuses on creation of ponderosa pine dominated stands that generally do not develop 

the high canopy closure characteristics used by this species. No sharp-shinned hawks were observed 

during any other raptor surveys, and it is unlikely that and new territories would be established after 

project implementation. 

Alternative 3

This alternative would have similar effects to sharp-shinned hawks as Alternative 2. The treatments 

proposed under Alternative 3 are the same as the proposed action but with fewer acres (410 acres within 

proposed units). The acres dropped from treatment under this alternative include 51 acres of habitat. 

The cumulative difference of these acres of habitat is minor: 78% habitat reduction within the project 

area due to the proposed treatments and a 23% reduction of habitat over the two 6th field watersheds.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

WL-21-25: “Nesting habitat for at least 60 pairs of sharp-shinned hawk will be provided in mixed 

conifer and ponderosa pine forests outside of wilderness and the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area.” 

The will remove 410-461 acres of potential sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat. There are no known 

sharp-shinned hawks in the project area. Based on habitat requirements, the project area would not 

likely support a pair of sharp-shinned hawk post treatment. 

WL-26-28: “Prospective sites with appropriate vegetative structure...will be identified before they have 

been precommercially or commercially thinned...” Potential habitat was identified and it has been 

acknowledged that thinning would affect habitat. Mitigation measures will ensure that any nests 

discovered receive protection.

Red-tailed Hawk: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S5 Secure

Red-tailed hawks have an extremely wide tolerance for habitat variation. Red-tails are largely perch 

hunters. Red-tailed hawks typically utilize habitat types that provide suitable perches (trees, utility 

poles, outcrops, etc.) and are open enough to permit the detection of ground-dwelling prey. Red-tails 

frequent woodlands, agricultural land, clearcuts, grasslands, sagebrush plains, alpine environments, and 

urban areas. They construct nests in a variety of situations including tree, utility poles cliffs, and place 

their nests higher than other broad-winged hawks (Marshal et al. 2003). The planning area provides 

nesting and foraging habitat, although there are no known nest sites. Natureserve (2009) ranks this 

species as “secure” in most of continental United States, including Oregon.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 – No Action

No action would have no direct or indirect effect to this species. Because of this species generalist 

nature, it is expected that habitat and populations will be stable in the long-term.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158  EXF Final EIS

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action & Alternative 3

Because of the red-tailed hawk’s tolerance for a wide variety of habitats, the fact that there are tens of 

thousands of acres of potential habitat within the watershed, and the proposed actions under each 

alternative are similar in the change in habitat that would result, these alternatives are analyzed together.

Removal of commercial sized trees (those trees that contribute to the upper canopy), and especially trees 

>21” DBH, removes potential nest habitat for red-tailed hawks. Red-tailed hawks, however, can use a 

variety of habitats and often hunt over more open areas. This habitat would still be available in the 

watershed. It is unlikely that the proposed actions under either alternative would have measurable

effects to red-tail hawk populations within the watershed.

Prey habitat will improve under the action alternative. The thinning treatments, in conjunction with the 

mowing and burning, would create more open stand conditions, allowing greater maneuverability and 

greater visibility and access to prey. The mechanical shrub treatment and prescribed underburning, 

specifically, would promote greater plant diversity, providing habitat for a wide variety of small 

mammals, the primary prey of the red-tailed hawk. 

It is unlikely that the proposed actions would have additive effects to the ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable actions because of the limited direct and indirect effects to red-tailed hawks.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

WL-2 “Active nest sites will be protected by maintaining the forest character of an area at least 300 feet 

in radius around the nest....”

WL-3 “Active nest sites should be protected from disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile ...March 1 –

August 31...”

The action alternatives comply with current direction for this species. Potential habitat was analyzed for 

effects, and mitigation measures are proposed to protect any active nests from disturbance.

American Marten: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S3 Vulnerable

There are no known sightings of marten within the project area. American martens occupy a narrow 

range of habitat types, living in or near coniferous forest (Allen 1987). More specifically, they associate 

closely with late-successional stands of mesic (moist or wet) conifers, especially those with complex 

physical structure near the ground (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Natureserve (2009) states that fallen logs 

and debris are special habitat features, and that an average territory size is approximately 10 sq. km (4 

sq. mi or 2,560 acres) with densities as high as 1-2 per sq. kilometer (approx. 250-500ac) in the fall. 

Complex physical structure addresses important life needs. It provides protection from predators, 

access to the subnivean (below snow) space where most prey are captured in winter, and provides 

protective thermal microenvironments (Buskirk and Powell 1994). In the western U.S. in winter, most 

prey are captured beneath the snow surface. In these areas, structure near the ground is important in 

providing access to subnivean spaces (Corn and Raphael 1992 in Ruggiero et al. 1994). Desirable forest 

types of the marten are large, somewhat dense, stands of lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, and mountain 

hemlock. Abundant coarse woody material in these stands is important to support a rodent prey base 

(LRMP WL-61). Natureserve (2009) ranks this species as being “vulnerable” in Oregon.

The literature and the LRMP describe potential marten habitat slightly differently. As stated above, the 

LRMP includes lodgepole pine habitat (e.g. average stand tree diameter > 9” with > 55% canopy 

closure) and the literature focuses on moist mixed conifer habitat and the use of logs and snags for dens 

(e.g. > 20” average tree diameter and > 40% canopy closure). Because marten are relatively large 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  159

mammals (approximately the size of an average house cat); the dead wood material used for denning 

would be relatively large. Lodgepole pine generally does not grow very large. As Table 63 below 

illustrates, the project area contains more marten habitat as defined in the literature. This stands to 

reason as there is little of the lodgepole pine plant associations within the project area. There are

approximately 807 acres of habitat in the project area, and 4390 acres of habitat in the watersheds

(Figure 30). Potential habitat is well-distributed throughout the project area except for the extreme SE 

portion which is heavier to the dry ponderosa pine habitat types as opposed to the mixed conifer dry and 

wet types to the northwest.

Table 63. Marten habitat in the subwatersheds and project area (acres)

Marten Habitat 

Definition Project Area Subwatersheds

>9” dbh and >55% 

canopy closure 2,121 6,655 *canopy closure is 

limiting factor

>20” dbh and >40% 

canopy closure 807 4,390 *size class is limiting 

factor

>20” dbh and >55% 

canopy closure 710 4,218

Direct, Indirect, Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 – No Action

Because there are no proposed actions with this alternative, there would be no change from the existing 

condition and therefore no effects resulting from this alternative. However, a wildfire through the area 

would have the potential to have serious effects to marten habitat by removing canopy closure; and 

while creating an initial pulse of large logs and snags for denning and prey habitat, there would 

eventually be a gap in the availability of such habitat for decades.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed actions will treat marten habitat. Units with proposed thinning and containing larger, 

more contiguous patches of marten habitat (larger [>20”] average stand diameters and >40% canopy 

closure) are 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, and 32 (Figure 30). Each of the proposed thinning methods would 

simply the existing stand structure (i.e. fewer canopy layers, and reduced canopy closure) and thereby 

negatively impact marten habitat. In addition, mowing and prescribed burning may reduce downed log 

numbers. Marten will use a variety of log sizes for foraging and larger logs and snags for denning. 

Although prescribed burning has shown that it can create downed wood and the loss of large logs will 

likely be low (i.e. little consumption of large wood), it is reasonable to assume that some smaller logs 

will be consumed by the prescribed burning as demonstrated in prescribed burns completed in the 

Pringle Falls Unit of the experimental forest.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160  EXF Final EIS

Figure 30. American marten habitat distribution in subwatersheds

Because of the proposed emphasis on ponderosa pine and the combined effects of thinning and 

prescribed burning, potential marten habitat would likely remain as a larger contiguous patch only in the 

control or ‘No Treat” unit 15. There would be a reduction of at least 477 acres of marten habitat. 

Maintenance of this ponderosa pine dominated habitat would likely limit marten presence and use in 

this portion of the Lookout Mt Unit of the Experimental Forest but habitat would be available in the 

portions of the experimental forest not part of the current proposal and elsewhere in the adjacent 

subwatersheds (see Figure 30).

Cumulative Effects

This reduction of 477 acres of marten habitat represents approximately 11% of the habitat available in 

the two 6th field watersheds. A majority of the marten habitat is within the Crane Prairie 6th field 

watershed and LSRs. Approximately half of the 1,068 acres of marten habitat degraded or removed 

under the Snow Fuels Reduction Project lies within the Crane Prairie 6th field watershed. Prescribed 

burning planned in the Fall River watershed would further reduce downed log densities. This additive 

reduction of 477 more acres would further limit the best marten habitat to the wet mixed conifer and 

montane mixed conifer stands that are more prevalent in the western most portion and the upper 

elevations of the Crane Prairie watershed. There would be an overall cumulative reduction of 19% of 

the habitat in the watersheds (11% from EXF and 8% from Snow). 

The marten is a management indicator species under the LRMP for dense lodgepole, mixed conifer, and 

mountain hemlock habitat, with abundant downed woody debris. The LRMP did not assume that 

habitat for this species would be managed within Experimental Forests, and the NWFP does not make 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  161

any specific standard and guidelines for martens (their habitat features tend to fall under coarse woody 

debris, LSR, and old-growth fragments). Although vulnerable in Oregon, the marten is considered 

secure across its range (Natureserve, 2009). Some habitat would remain within the project area (no treat 

units) and within the larger (5th field) watersheds.

Alternative 3

The effects of treatements proposed under this alternative would be similar to those discussed for 

Alternative 2 because the prescription and fuels treatments remain the same. The difference between 

the two alternatives is that the effects of these treatments under Alternative 3 would be less intense than 

Alternative 2 because this alternative treats fewer acres; notably in Units 12, 13, 22, 23, and 32. This 

alternative would impact 436 acres of marten habitat (a difference of 41 acres of habitat from alternative 

2). 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of this alternative would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. The 436 

acres of habitat impacted by this alternative represents approximately 10% of the habitat in the 

subwatersheds. This is 1% difference than Alternative 2 and is not likely to make the cumulative effects 

any less intense or noticeably different.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

WL-61 “Pine marten prefer extensive stands of relatively dense lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, or 

mountain hemlock forest containing abundant dead woody material as habitat for rodent prey”

These habitat types were analyzed as potential marten habitat and the effects disclosed. Lodgepole pine 

and mountain hemlock forest represented a very small amount of habitat, thus the analysis focused on 

the mixed conifer forest.

WL-63 “In preferred forest types, concentrations of down woody material (logging slash, cull logs, 

fallen trees, etc.) will be left at an average rate of approximately one per acre after any timber harvest. 

Concentrations incorporating high tree stumps, logs, or snags are especially desirable. This structure 

will simulate naturally-occurring leaning trees, large fallen logs, and other debris protruding above 

winter snow in an uncut forest...”

Compliance with downed wood standards and guidelines can be found in the Dead Wood section of this 

report. 

Elk: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S5 Secure

Mule Deer: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S5 Secure

Elk use the proposed treatment areas for hiding cover and foraging largely in the summer and fall

months. 

Mule deer are known to use the proposed treatment areas for hiding cover, and foraging. The proposed 

treatment areas are within summer range. 

For the purposes of this analysis, effects to these species will be addressed concurrently and focused on 

habitat uses (i.e. hiding cover, foraging habitat) since many similarities in habitat requirements exist. 

Because the LRMP more directly addresses elk and deer habitat under a variety of topics, the format for 

addressing effects is different than that used for other species.

Hiding Cover
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162  EXF Final EIS

Hiding cover is defined as vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult deer or elk from 

view of a human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet (Thomas, 1979, LRMP WL-54). Hiding 

cover provides security to big game and protection from predators. Hiding cover is especially important 

for reducing vulnerability to hunting and poaching pressure by providing concealment in areas that have 

high open road densities and easy access by hunters (e.g., the proposed treatment areas). Hiding cover 

is evaluated in deer summer range (the entire Forest outside the Deer Habitat management allocation)

on an Implementation Unit basis, per LRMP direction. The NWFP does not speak directly to the 

management of big game habitat but does give direction that any underlying LRMP standard and 

guidelines that are more restrictive than in the NWFP then the LRMP shall prevail. This is the case with 

deer and elk hiding cover. 

Estimates of the amount of hiding cover within the proposed action areas and the watershed were 

derived from satellite imagery data and then a sampling was field verified or modified. For the purposes 

of querying the vegetation data, hiding cover was defined as stands with an average tree diameter of <=9 

inches. Based on the field verification, younger lodgepole pine stands and the shrub stands also serve as 

hiding cover. It is estimated that 69% of the total 6th field watersheds, and 44% of the Implementation 

Unit (#23; 22, 080 acres) is hiding cover or has hiding cover value (see Table 64).

 Table 64. Hiding cover within the Implementation Unit and subwatersheds

Total acres of hiding cover Total acres

% of total 

meeting 

hiding cover

Project area 639 2896 22

Implementation Unit #23 9787 22,080 44

Subwatersheds (Fall & Crane 

Prairie) 41,384 64,802 69

The EXF project area itself has 639 acres of hiding cover, based on the previous definitions. Field 

observations would suggest a higher level of hiding cover due to the existing shrub layer in many 

stands. Many of the current stands, however, are even-aged and the satellite data would not necessarily 

pick out the shrub layer.

Because of its slope and lack of water, deer and elk use of the area is minimal when compared to other 

areas within the watersheds and Implementation Unit. In general, big game are likely to be found 

bedding, calving, and/or fawning in relatively flat areas closer to water. The project area received 

greatest use as foraging areas as big game travel to and from wintering and summering areas.

Road Density

Current LRMP standards and guidelines call for a further evaluation of road density/management in 

order to make a final judgment in compliance with the LRMP. Currently the LRMP WL-53 states that 

“Target open road densities are 2.5 miles per square mile to achieve deer summer range habitat 

effectiveness targets unless impacts on deer can be avoided or the proposed project would result in a net 

benefit to deer habitat. The density will be applied as an average for an implementation unit and will be 

used as a threshold requiring further evaluation.” The current open road density in the EXF project area 

is 2.72 miles per sq. mile. The current open road densities for the Implementation Unit and the larger 

watersheds average 4-5 miles per sq. mile.

An additional total of 1 mile (in 0.2 mile segments) of temporary road will be built in order to access 

Units 11, 14, 21, and 23; 0.5 miles in Alternative 3. Temporary roads do not relate to open road 

densities because they are temporary in nature and would be subsoiled upon completion of the project.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  163

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 - No Action 

This alternative would not remove hiding cover, not build any temporary roads, and would have no 

fireline construction. 

The catastrophic fire risk would remain, especially the risk posed by the high shrub densities throughout 

the project area.

Because there is no proposed action under this alternative, there would be no additive effects of this 

alternative with other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable project in the watersheds.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The proposed thinning, mowing, and prescribed burning would effectively remove the hiding cover 

currently found within the units. The synergistic effect of all three of these treatments means that 

despite the varying levels of thinning, the added mowing and burning would remove the hiding cover. 

Cover would remain in the No Treat control units (342 acres) and in the portions of the Experimental 

Forest not part of this project. Construction of 12 miles of 3-4 ft wide fireline could compromise any 

remaining hiding cover by attracting OHV use. This potential effect is mitigated, however, through the 

implementation of the Access and Travel Management Plan that would discourage OHV use in the area.

Conversely, a synergistic benefit of the proposed treatments to big game would be the potential increase 

in grasses and forbs that would offer a variety of forage within the area. 

Although no roads would be closed as a result of this alternative (except the temporary roads), a gate 

restricting use to administrative purposes in conjunction with the implementation of the Access and 

Travel Management Rule would reduce the use on a majority of the roads within the project area. 

This alternative would cumulatively add a reduction of at least 639 acres of hiding cover across the 

watersheds and the Implementation Units. Overall hiding cover density would be reduced by an added 

1% over the two 6th field watersheds and an added 3% reduction over the Implementation Unit. 

Although hiding cover would still be available across these larger areas (Implementation units and 

subwatersheds), within the project area little would remain, implementation of the Access and Travel 

Management Plan in conjunction with the proposed gate would mitigate this loss of cover. 

Alterative 3 -

The effects from this alternative are similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. Under this alternative, 

however, there would be approximately 15 miles of fireline built in order to protect the spotted owl 

habitat and LSR from prescribed burning (3 miles more than the proposed action). On the other hand, 

this alternative would have more untreated areas throughout the project area that would further create 

areas of cover and forage diversity.

The 3 mile difference in fireline construction is not expected to have a noticeable increase in the 

additive or cumulative effects discussed under Alternative 2. These effects would be similar.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines

Hiding Cover
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164  EXF Final EIS

WL-54 “Hiding areas must be present over at least 30% of National Forest land in each implementation 

unit. Generally, this will result in 70% of each implementation unit existing either as a hiding area or 

within 600 ft. of a hiding area...”

It is projected that hiding cover would occur on over 40% of the implementation unit post-treatment.

WL-55 “Hiding areas will be dispersed throughout the implementation unit...”

The project area itself contains the No Treat or control units that would provide hiding cover as well as 

other part s of the Experimental Forest that are not part of the proposed project area. Within the 

implementation unit there are hiding cover patches scattered throughout.

WL-56 “Travel corridors will be provided where needed by linking stands of hiding cover”

This standard and guideline is addressed under the “corridors” in this report.

WL-58 “If possible, a narrow strip of trees should be left along roads to reduce view distances.”

This standard and guideline would not be possible due to proposed study design and the connected 

action to improve haul routes and remove danger trees.

Although the action alternatives do not propose any new permanent roads, road densities would be 

above the desired density as suggested within the LRMP. The Deschutes LRMP contains direction that 

specifies when this situation occurs that the project biologist is to perform a further evaluation (standard 

and guidelines: TS-13 and 14, WL-53). This section of the analysis serves as the further evaluation of 

road densities. To summarize, seasonal and permanent road closures combine to help achieve the 

standard and guidelines and improve the existing condition. However, disturbance and harassment to 

wildlife as a function of the open road densities throughout the Implementation Unit continue to 

contribute to a cumulative negative effect on big game because the road densities remain at the higher 

end or exceed these thresholds. These road densities in conjunction with other effects contribute to 

declining habitat and a decline in big game numbers. 

The project proposes to help alleviate the high road densities by gating the 4245/4240 junction. This 

will effectively reduce the travel on upwards of 15 miles of road within the project area. OHV travel is 

not calculated into the open road density but the effects can be similar. However, it is difficult to say if, 

when, and how much OHV travel may occur on these firelines. This situation will be monitored after 

project implementation, and if necessary, the firelines will be disguised to prevent use. Implementation 

of the Access and Travel Management Plan will mitigate disturbance due to open roads and OHV use. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds

The Deschutes NF is currently following guidelines from the “Conservation Strategy For Landbirds Of 

the East-Slope Of The Cascade Mountains In Oregon And Washington” (Altman 2000). This 

conservation strategy addresses key habitat types as well as biological objectives and conservation 

strategies for these habitat types found in the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains, and the focal species 

that are associated with these habitats. The conservation strategy lists priority habitats: 1. Ponderosa 

Pine, 2. Mixed Conifer (Late Successional), 3. Oak-Pine Woodland, and 4. Unique Habitats (Table 65). 

There is no Oak-Pine Woodland habitat within the proposed actions areas. Unique habitats listed in the 

Conservation Strategy include lodgepole pine, whitebark pine, meadows, aspen, and subalpine fir. Only 

lodgepole pine occurs in the proposed actions areas. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  165

Table 65. Priority habitat features and associated focal species for conservation in selected habitats in 

the East-Slope Cascades Landbird Conservation Planning Region and found within the proposed action 

areas. 

Habitat Habitat Feature/

Conservation Focus

Focal Species by Subprovince

Central Oregon/Klamath Basin

Ponderosa Pine

large patches of old forest with 

large snags 

white-headed woodpecker

large trees pygmy nuthatch

open understory with 

regeneration pines

chipping sparrow

Mixed Conifer large trees brown creeper

large snags William’s sapsucker

interspersion grassy openings 

and dense thickets

flammulated owl

multi-layered/dense canopy hermit thrush

edges and openings created by 

wildfire 

olive-sided flycatcher

Lodgepole Pine old growth black-backed woodpecker

Effects to habitat for the white-headed woodpecker have been discussed earlier under Sensitive species.

Pygmy Nuthatch: Landbird Focal Species, S4 Apparently Secure

Chipping Sparrow: Landbird Focal Species, S4 Apparently Secure

Pygmy nuthatches are a focal species for large trees in the ponderosa pine stand types. It is likely that 

they can be found in the proposed treatments. Most of the units are of the ponderosa pine plant 

associations and pygmy nuthatches have been observed in similar habitats.

Chipping sparrows are a focal species of more open ponderosa pine stands with active regeneration. 

They are a species that will nest relatively close to the ground in young pine trees (e.g. 4-8 ft. tall). This 

kind of habitat can be found in small pockets within the Experimental Forest. Their habitat is limited by 

the more even-aged, tall, and high density of the proposed treatment units.

According to the Conservation Strategy, the desired condition in ponderosa pine forest is a large tree, 

single layered canopy with an open, park-like understory dominated by herbaceous cover with scattered 

shrub cover and pine regeneration. Ponderosa pine forest within the East-Slope Cascades Landbird 

Conservation planning unit occurs extensively at low elevations in all the subprovinces except 

Columbia Foothills where it is a minor component. The proposed units fall into the range of this 

strategy.

There is an estimated 28,449 acres of habitat for pygmy nuthatch in the 6th field watersheds; 2,666 acres 

of habitat within the project area. Habitat definitions used were ponderosa pine habitat types with 

average stand diameters >9 inches. Amount of habitat for chipping sparrows was more difficult to 

assess with the 2004 satellite data because this species utilizes more of an understory component that 

does not show up well within the data. Depending upon how the data is queried (i.e. selecting for 

seedling/sapling cover or multi-storied stands) the amount of habitat can either be extremely small 

(<100 ac) or cover the entire area. Because it was difficult to query the satellite data to give a 

reasonable portrayal of habitat amounts, and chipping sparrows are apparently secure within Oregon, 

effects to habitat will be made more on a qualitative rather than quantitative basis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166  EXF Final EIS

Landbird conservation in ponderosa pine forests emphasizes maintaining healthy ecosystems through 

representative focal species for three habitat conditions mentioned above (i.e. large trees, large snags, 

and open understory). The lower slopes of Lookout Mt are characterized by stands of ponderosa pine 

(>12” DBH), large ponderosa pine snags are present, but canopy densities are such that ponderosa pine 

has little representation in the understory; currently more shade tolerant shrubs and trees dominate. 

Conservation strategies for management of this habitat include: use of prescribed burning and/or 

thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral 

conditions; retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >20” DBH; initiate snag creation and 

recruitment where necessary; retain all existing snags and broken-topped trees in units; implement road 

closures (obliteration); and minimize invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and soil erosion.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 - No Action 

This alternative does not address the conservation strategies recommended by Altman, (2000). There is 

the potential effect of further loss of these habitats by retaining the existing condition. In the event of a 

catastrophic wildfire, it would take decades for late seral habitat to develop. The current 160 yr old 

stands are a result of such a stand-replacing fire. 

Currently the existing condition provides habitat for the focal species (pygmy nuthatch and chipping 

sparrow). However, maintaining the current level of risk to beetle-induced mortality and/or wildfire in 

these stands would contribute to an overall reduction of habitat for these focal species (pygmy nuthatch 

and chipping sparrow) over time.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Both action alternatives address the management strategies for these habitat types (e.g. prescribed 

burning and thinning), although some trees over 21” DBH will be harvested. No snags are proposed for 

harvest. The construction of 12 miles of fireline will need to be monitored to prevent invasive weed 

introduction as an unintended side effect of possible OHV use on the lines. Invasive weeds negatively 

impact sparrow and nuthatch habitat by competing with native vegetation and providing fuel source. 

This potential effect is mitigated by the implementation of the Access and Travel Management Plan.

The design of the study plan will favor habitat conditions for pygmy nuthatches rather than chipping 

sparrows considering that large ponderosa pine trees are selected for retention. Mowing and burning 

after thinning will reduce the amount of understory and tree regeneration in the short-term (<20 yrs) that 

chipping sparrows utilize. The proposed treatments will encourage the diameter growth of the 

remaining ponderosa pines. Prescribed burning may result in the loss of some ponderosa pine snags, but 

it may also create some. It is difficult to predict the extent of this effect because of the variables in 

weather the day of the burning, and the varying duff layer amount around the large trees and snags. The 

latter is a proposed monitoring item with this project to determine the potential loss or gain of ponderosa 

pine snags.

The thinning and burning will open the stands and increase the trees’ resiliency to insect and disease. 

This may result in a short or small scale gap in snag creation by these agents. New snags would develop 

in the control/no treat units and areas outside of the project. Other than the potential for the prescribed 

burning to create snags within the thinning units, snags would not develop in these areas for many years. 

This may result in small reductions in local pygmy nuthatch populations.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  167

Habitat for the chipping sparrow is most likely to occur in the stands thinned across all age groups 

which will create open pockets for ponderosa pines to naturally regenerate. This would likely occur 

after all mowing and burning is accomplished and results are monitored.

The effects of this alternative would be additive to other effects on chipping sparrow and pygmy 

nuthatch habitat from ongoing and foreseeable actions throughout the watersheds. The projects listed in 

Tables 11 and 12 are generally small scale and have effects that would favor the health and resistance of 

ponderosa pine. This may limit the recruitment of new habitat (specifically snags and open regeneration 

stands), but because both these species are considered apparently secure in Oregon, this additive effect 

is not likely to have lasting effects to the population.

Alternative 3

This alternative would have similar effects to those described for Alternative 2, except for the fact that 

by not treating the LSR and spotted owl NRF habitat, there would be more opportunity for understory 

development that favors the chipping sparrow. As insects continue to infest and kill the trees (including 

ponderosa pine), snag habitat for pygmy nuthatches would exist. 

As stated in the analysis for Alternative 2, thinning in the other areas would provide larger snags into 

the future, but it would take many years since the thinning would actually improve the trees’ resiliency 

to insect and disease. This effect is over a smaller area, under this alternative because of the fewer acres 

thinned.

This alternative would require an additional 3 miles of fireline to be built (a total of 15 miles); thus 

extending the effects mentioned within Alternative 2. Similarly, implementation of the Access and 

Travel Management Plan would mitigate this potential effect.

This alternative has the same benefits to pygmy nuthatch habitat and limits the negative impacts to 

chipping sparrows while also meeting the conservation strategies.

Cumulative effects of this alternative would be the same as those described for Alternative 2 because the 

difference between the two alternatives in amount of habitat treated and the effects are small scale on 

the watershed level.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

Although pygmy nuthatches and chipping sparrows are not Management Indicator Species under the 

LRMP, they are considered a focal species under the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the EastSlope of the Cascade Mts. in Oregon and Washington. This Conservation Strategy is used to address 

the recommendations to assess the impacts to neotropical migratory birds under Executive Order 

131186. The Conservation strategies have been addressed under the proposed actions. Habitat 

provisions for many of the MIS species also provides habitat for various landbirds and meets the intent 

of the Conservation Strategy.

Brown Creeper: Landbird Focal Species, S4 Apparently Secure

Brown creepers are a focal species for large trees within mixed conifer (i.e. white or Douglas-fir) plant 

associations. Brown creepers have been observed in adjacent watersheds with similar habitat diversity. 

Marshall et al. (2003) cites literature that suggests creeper numbers are reduced by clear cutting and 

thinning, but will utilize closed canopied stands. To determine potential habitat, white or Douglas-fir 

associations with some larger trees (greater than 15” DBH) and at least 40% canopy closure were 

considered. Information in Mellen-McLean et al. (2009) suggests that brown creepers will utilize snags 

9 to 20” DBH (Figure EMC_L.sp17), but there was no information in regards to densities. There is an 

estimated 2,091 acres of habitat found within the project area, and 4,962 acres of habitat within the 6th
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168  EXF Final EIS

field watersheds. The project area contains the largest block of habitat within the Fall River 6th field 

watershed. This is not unexpected considering this watershed is lower elevation and more eastern with 

a heavy preponderance of ponderosa pine dominated habitat types. According to snag survey data in the

project area, there are at least 8 snags/acre greater than 10” DBH with at least one of these per acre

being greater than 20” DBH. This would fit habitat descriptions for brown creepers.

According to Altman (2000), conservation issues for this species include: loss of large diameter trees 

(especially Douglas-fir) to logging; and indications that it may be a forest interior species (i.e. avoids 

edges to openings). 

Conservation strategies discussed in Altman (2000) include: maintaining stands in the largest tracts 

possible to reduce the amount of edge and fragmentation; designate areas of unmanaged latesuccessional forest likely to provide the most suitable nesting habitat; managing for large diameter trees 

through longer rotation periods; and in harvest units retained trees should be clumped rather than 

dispersed and should be primarily Douglas-fir.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 - No Action 

This alternative does not address the conservation strategies recommended by Altman (2000), except 

from the standpoint that the large trees present would remain through longer rotation since the 

Experimental Forest is not part of a regulated harvest allocation. There is the potential effect of further 

loss of these habitats by retaining the existing condition. In the event of a catastrophic wildfire, it would 

take decades for large tree habitat to develop. The current 160 yr old stands are a result of such a standreplacing fire. 

Currently the existing condition provides habitat for brown creepers. However, maintaining the current 

level of risk to beetle-induced mortality and/or wildfire in these stands may contribute to an overall 

reduction of habitat for this species.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Thinning will remove trees potentially used by brown creepers. This species tends to utilize larger trees 

(especially firs), and Douglas-fir is the last choice of tree to be cut (ponderosa pine is the favored tree to 

leave). Heavier thinning and thinning across all diameters are more likely to have negative impacts and 

alter creeper habitat than the light to moderate thinning. This species nests with the crevices and 

sloughing bark of trees, and only the older and larger trees have these characteristics. Although there 

will be habitat remaining within the project area it will be altered and different after the thinning with a 

reduction in nest tree densities and perhaps foraging; especially with the reduction of true firs since 

ponderosa pine is favored.

Mowing and burning is expected to have little effect to brown creeper habitat other than to reduce some 

of the risk of losing the larger trees with the bark characteristics this species uses for nesting. This 

species is not associated with the understory and shrub cover that these actions will affect. However, 

with the building of temporary roads and fireline, there is the indirect effect of creating edge effects. 

This species is suspected to avoid openings and edges; and it is uncertain if the width of a temporary 

road or 3-4 ft wide fireline would constitute enough edge to discourage creeper use of the stand. This 

may add to further degradation of the habitat in the project area.

Removal of danger trees along the haul routes for this project could also remove potential nesting and 

foraging trees for this species. The use of these trees may be limited though, based on the earlier 

discussion about brown creeper’s avoidance of edges.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  169

This alternative does not address many of the conservation strategies for this focal species. Proposed 

actions including the LSR portion of the project area do not meet the strategy to designate areas of 

unmanaged late-successional forest likely to provide the most suitable nesting habitat; managing for 

large diameter trees through longer rotation periods. Ponderosa pine is being favored over Douglas-fir 

and does not meet the strategy that retained trees should be clumped rather than dispersed and should be 

primarily Douglas-fir. Although the thinning across all age cohorts would result in a more clumped 

appearance, ponderosa pine would still be favored. The connected actions to maintain the roads, 

remove hazard trees, and building fireline will not necessarily meet the strategy to maintain stands in 

largest tracts possible to reduce the amount of edge and fragmentation.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, this project would remove or degrade an additional 1,076 acres of brown creeper habitat 

in the watershed. This is additive to the 4 acres removed by the Snow Fuels Reduction project. The 

1,076 acres is limited to the Experimental Forest, but also represents a large portion within the 

watersheds (22%); especially the Fall River 6th field watershed. This species is “apparently secure” in 

the state of Oregon, although localized population effects would occur.

Alternative 3

This alternative would have similar effects to those described for Alternative 2, except for the fact that 

by not treating the LSR and spotted owl NRF habitat, there would be more habitat patches retained 

within the project area and the watersheds for brown creepers. This alternative would affect 128 fewer 

acres than Alternative 2 (i.e. a total of 948 acres)

This alternative would require an additional 3 miles of fireline to be built (a total of 15 miles); thus 

extending the effects mentioned within Alternative 2.

This alternative better meets the conservation strategies, specifically by not treating the LSR which 

meets the strategies: 1) to maintain stands in largest tracts possible to reduce the amount of edge and 

fragmentation; 2) to designate areas of unmanaged late-successional forest likely to provide the most 

suitable nesting habitat; and 3) to manage for large diameter trees through longer rotation periods.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, this project would remove or degrade an additional 948 acres of brown creeper habitat in 

the watershed. This is additive to the 4 acres removed by the Snow Fuels Reduction project. The 948

acres is limited to the Experimental Forest, but also represents a large portion within the watersheds 

(20%); especially the Fall River 6th field watershed. This species is “apparently secure” in the state of 

Oregon, although localized population effects would occur.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

Although brown creepers are not Management Indicator Species under the LRMP, they are considered a 

focal species under the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mts. in 

Oregon and Washington. This Conservation Strategy is used to address the recommendations to assess 

the impacts to neotropical migratory birds under Executive Order 131186. The Conservation strategies 

have been addressed under the proposed actions. Habitat provisions for many of the MIS species also 

provides habitat for various landbirds and meets the intent of the Conservation Strategy.

Flammulated Owl: Landbird Focal Species, S4 Apparently Secure

Flammulated owls are a focal species of grassy openings and dense thickets within late-successional 

mixed conifer plant associations. Flammulated owls were heard in the project area and within the 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170  EXF Final EIS

watersheds during surveys for other owl species. There was no confirmed nesting, although it is 

suspected because observations (calls heard) were made during the breeding season and consistent from 

particular area(s) (.e. calls heard from the same stations on multiple visits.

There is an estimated 28,600 acres of potential habitat (as defined as ponderosa pine component, large 

to medium sized trees, and at least 10% canopy closure to represent openings) within the 6th field 

watersheds and 2,732 acres of habitat in the project area. Snag densities within this habitat type are the 

same as those detailed under the Brown Creeper.

According to Altman (2000), conservation issues for this species include: loss of mature and old-growth 

trees and snags for nest and roost sites; loss of open understory because of invasion of exotics and fire 

intolerant species; requires small patches of dense thickets for roosting; creation of large areas of evenaged stands is detrimental; fuelwood collection reduces the densities of snags. 

Some of the conservation strategies relevant to the proposed actions include: target conservation efforts 

near grassland or dry meadow openings; leave patches of dense sapling thickets to function as roost 

sites; retain large snags (greater than 12 “ DBH); create snags or use nest boxes as a short-term 

supplement; and maintain grassy openings. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 - No Action 

This alternative does not address the conservation strategies recommended by Altman, (2000). There is 

the potential effect of further loss of these habitats by retaining the existing condition. In the event of a 

catastrophic wildfire, it would take decades for late seral habitat to develop; although such a fire may 

also create the mosaic of openings and thickets that this species appears to utilize. 

Currently the existing condition provides habitat for the flammulated owl. However, maintaining the 

current level of risk to beetle-induced mortality and/or wildfire in these stands may contribute to an 

overall conversion of habitat from a majority of large but less of a mosaic pattern, to more of a mosaic 

but with fewer large trees.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

The proposed project does not directly address the conservation strategies for this species. There are 

currently no grassy openings or dry meadow openings within the experimental forest, and the heavy 

thinning, mowing, and burning may create some of this habitat. Sapling thickets would be discouraged, 

at least for the short-term (0-20 yrs), because of the fuels treatments proposed (2,554 acres). Attempts 

will be made to retain large snags (see monitoring section of EIS); however recruitment of new large 

ponderosa pine snags may slow due to the reduced competition and increased health of the trees in the 

stand from the thinning. The proposed actions will not only have some benefits to flammulated owl 

habitat by creating some openings but also some negative impacts through the fuels treatments 

discouraging the development of dense thickets used for roosting.

The proposed actions would address the conservation issues (i.e. loss of open understory because of 

invasion of exotics and fire intolerant species; and creation of large areas of even-aged stands is 

detrimental). The proposed actions will create open understories, at least for the short-term, over the 

entire project area. The invasion of exotics may still be a risk from the creation of temp roads and 

fireline that result in soil disturbance that facilitate the invasion. The proposed action to thin to 75% 

UMZ and create openings, effectively would create a multi-aged stand whereas now most of the stands 

are of a single age cohort (1159 acres). Overall habitat effects for flammulated owls may be neutral 

because of the positive and negative impacts resulting from different aspects of the proposed actions.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  171

The timing of these actions may have the greatest impact to this species. Proposed actions would occur 

during the nesting season. Although nesting by flammulated owls has not been confirmed; the 

consistency of responses over the years of survey in the same general area would suggest that there may 

be some nesting activity. A majority of the responses have come from the north/northeast portions of 

the experimental forest. Units 33, 11, and 12 have also contained responses. Actions during the 

breeding season have the potential to disrupt feeding or incubating activities exposing the nest or young 

to predators.

Flammulated owls are expected to continue to use the area after all proposed actions are completed. 

Because the actions focus on ponderosa pine habitat and its resiliency it is expected overall habitat 

conditions would improve for this species.

Cumulative Effects

Because the project area as a whole is habitat for the flammulated, and the actions will both negatively 

and positively affect habitat; cumulative impacts of the proposed actions are neutral over the 

subwatersheds. This species is considered “apparently secure” in the state of Oregon and this project is 

unlikely to change that standing.

Alternative 3

This alternative would have similar effects to those described for Alternative 2, except for the fact that 

by not treating the LSR and spotted owl NRF habitat, there would be more current habitat maintained. 

Given the evidence that flammulated owls are already using the area, this alternative would likely have 

less intense effects than the proposed action. The effects of fuels treatments (2,182 acres) are over a 

proportionately greater area than the potential benefits of the heavier thinning and thinning with small 

openings (891 acres). This alternative would have fewer disturbance issues because of the fewer acres 

treated.

This alternative would require an additional 3 miles of fireline to be built (a total of 15 miles); thus 

extending the effects and potential for invasive species mentioned within Alternative 2.

This alternative has the same cumulative effects as Alternative 2. 

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

Although flammulated owls are not a Management Indicator Species under the LRMP, they are 

considered a focal species under the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the 

Cascade Mts. in Oregon and Washington. This Conservation Strategy is used to address the 

recommendations to assess the impacts to neotropical migratory birds under Executive Order 131186. 

The Conservation strategies have been addressed under the proposed actions. Habitat provisions for 

many of the MIS species also provides habitat for various landbirds and meets the intent of the 

Conservation Strategy.

Hermit Thrush: Landbird Focal Species, S4 Apparently Secure

Hermit thrushes are a focal species of multi-layered, dense mixed conifer stands. Hermit thrushes have 

been observed within the watershed and within the project area. No nesting was confirmed but it is 

assumed because of the presence of suitable habitat and the observations of adults in suitable habitat

during the breeding season.

Potential habitat for this species was defined as multi-layered habitat in montane, eastside, and 

ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir mixed conifer stands. Only areas in these associations with greater than 

40% canopy closure and medium to large sized trees were considered in order to fully account for a 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172  EXF Final EIS

multi-layered stand. Using this definition, there are 8,421 acres of potential habitat in the watershed and 

2,690 acres within the project area.

Conservation issues associated with this species include the loss or alteration of habitats (loss of 

understory and structural complexity) from fire, grazing, and winter recreational activities. 

The conservation strategy listed to address the issues for this species is to retain tracts of forest as 

unmanaged or lightly managed to ensure structural diversity. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 - No Action 

This alternative does address the conservation strategies recommended by Altman, (2000). However, 

the conservation issues are not addressed because there is the potential effect of further loss of habitat

by retaining the existing condition. In the event of a catastrophic wildfire, it would take decades for late 

seral habitat to develop. The current 160 yr old stands are a result of such a stand-replacing fire. 

Currently the existing condition provides habitat for the hermit thrush. However, maintaining the 

current level of risk to beetle-induced mortality and/or wildfire in these stands would contribute to an 

overall reduction of habitat.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

The proposed action will not address the conservation strategy for this focal species, and would likely 

contribute to the conservation issues. Thinning, burning, and mowing would synergistically reduce the 

multi-storied stands within the project area. The No Treat or control units would continue to provide 

habitat. Units that receive a light thin (thin to UMZ) may retain some characteristics of a multi-storied 

stand; but the other treatment levels would reduce canopy cover and the multi-storied feature of the 

stands. Although over time the shrub layer would grow back and provide for some vertical structure, 

hermit thrushes are not shrub nesting birds and this would be of little benefit. The connected actions of 

fireline building, temp road building, hazard tree reduction, etc. would not have additive impacts to the 

thinning, burning and mowing on hermit thrush habitat.

Based on the 2004 satellite data, the best habitat (large trees, multi-story, and high canopy closure) 

exists within Units 11-14, 21-24, 32, 33, and 44. The following table summarizes the effects of the 

proposed actions on the habitat in these units.

Table 66. Summary of Effects to Hermit Thrush Habitat

Treatment 

Type Units Acres Degraded

Acres 

Eliminated

Thin to UMZ 24, 14, 32 554

Thin to 75% 

UMZ 22, 44, 11, 33 806

Thin to 50% 

UMZ 23, 12 417

Thin to 75% 

UMZ w/ 

openings

21, 13 189

TOTAL 554 1412
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  173

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would cumulatively degrade or reduce hermit thrush habitat by 23% over the 6th field 

watersheds. Approximately 73% of the habitat within the project area would be impacted. Although 

this species is apparently secure in Oregon, and there is less threat to species over the watersheds, the 

proposed actions would likely restrict hermit thrush use of the Experimental Forest noticeably.

Alternative 3

This alternative would have similar effects to those described for Alternative 2, except for the fact that 

by not treating the LSR and spotted owl NRF habitat, the conservation issues and strategies are better 

addressed. More habitat is retained under this alternative (a difference of 372 acres).

Table 67. Summary of Effects to Hermit Thrush Habitat

Treatment Type Units Acres Degraded Acres Eliminated

Thin to UMZ 24, 14, 32 541

Thin to 75% 

UMZ

22, 44, 11.1 

&11.2, 33

540

Thin to 50% 

UMZ

23, 12 322

Thin to 75% 

UMZ w/ 

openings

21, 13 187

TOTAL 541 1049

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would cumulatively degrade or reduce hermit thrush habitat by 19% over the 6th field 

watersheds. Approximately 59% of the habitat within the project area would be impacted. Although 

this species is apparently secure in Oregon, and there is less threat to species over the watersheds, the 

proposed actions would likely restrict hermit thrush use of the Experimental Forest noticeably.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

Although hermit thrushes are not a Management Indicator Species under the LRMP, they are considered 

a focal species under the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mts. in 

Oregon and Washington. This Conservation Strategy is used to address the recommendations to assess 

the impacts to neotropical migratory birds under Executive Order 131186. The Conservation strategies 

have been addressed under the proposed actions. Habitat provisions for many of the MIS species also 

provides habitat for various landbirds and meets the intent of the Conservation Strategy.

Olive-sided Flycatcher: Landbird Focal Species, S4 Apparently Secure

This species will perch and hunt from dead trees within an open area and usually nest within the forest 

surrounding the opening (Natureserve, 2007). There are no areas within the watersheds that have been 

burned recently outside of prescribed burns for other projects. These prescribed burns do not necessarily 

create the open, burned conditions this species utilizes. Olive-sided flycatchers have been observed 

within the watershed and within some of the proposed treatment areas. 

Olive-sided flycatchers are a focal species of edges and openings created by wildfires (Altman, 2000). 

Conservation issues associated with this species include: changes in fire regimes that have resulted in 

fewer but larger fires that reduce amount of edge between early and late seral forest; and brush control 

limits understory growth that provides insect productivity. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174  EXF Final EIS

Some of the Conservation Strategies in Altman (2000) for this focal species and relevant to the proposed 

actions include: 1) using prescribed fire with manual understory clearing where appropriate to create a 

patchy mosaic of burned forest; 2) increase the level of acceptable opportunities to allow wildfires to 

burn or ignite fires when conditions and opportunities exist; 3) where possible, prohibit salvage logging 

to occur in post-fire habitat; 4) for protection of snags, close roads or restrict fuelwood permits in areas 

where large snags are present; 5) retain standing dead or diseased trees where they occur; 6) If snags are 

limiting, create suitable snags through girdling, topping, etc.;7) minimize brush control; 8) selective 

logging can be used to increase suitability of habitat as long as sufficient large living and dead trees are 

retained; and 9) eliminate or minimize pesticide spraying near nesting pairs which may reduce insect 

prey base. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 - No Action 

This alternative does not address the conservation strategies recommended by Altman, (2000). There is 

the potential effect to create habitat for this species by retaining the existing condition. In the event of a 

catastrophic wildfire; the current 160 yr old stands are a result of such a stand-replacing fire. 

Currently the existing condition provides limited habitat for this focal species. However, maintaining 

the current level of risk to beetle-induced mortality and/or wildfire in these stands would contribute to 

an overall increase in habitat for this focal species.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

The proposed actions may create more edge. The varying levels of thinning and associated prescribed 

burning will open the stands to create conditions favored by olive-sided flycatchers. The area would not 

be open to woodcutting and there are no proposals to remove any snags unless posing a safety hazard 

along the roads.

This alternative addresses most of the conservation strategies for this species (e.g., using prescribed fire 

with manual understory clearing where appropriate to create a patchy mosaic of burned forest; increase 

the level of acceptable opportunities to allow wildfires to burn or ignite fires when conditions and 

opportunities exist; where possible, prohibit salvage logging to occur in post-fire habitat; for protection 

of snags, close roads or restrict fuelwood permits in areas where large snags are present; and retain 

standing dead or diseased trees where they occur; and dead trees are retained). This alternative would 

not meet the strategy to limit brush control, for this is a connected action with the prescribed burning. 

The construction of 12 miles of fireline will need to be monitored to prevent invasive weed introduction 

as an unintended side effect of possible OHV use on the lines. However, the side effect of OHV use is 

mitigated by implementation of the Access and Travel Management Rule. 

The design of the study plan will favor habitat conditions for olive-sided flycatchers by creating a more 

open stand. However, mowing and burning after thinning will reduce the amount of shrub growth in the 

short-term (<20 yrs), which may reduce prey habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects

There may be additive benefits to this species throughout the watersheds, as more edge will likely be 

created through the implementation of more prescribed burning (Fall) and this project’s fuels treatments 

are completed.

Alternative 3
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  175

This alternative would have similar effects to those described for Alternative 2, except for the fact that 

by not treating the LSR and spotted owl NRF habitat, there would be more opportunity for understory 

that favors prey species (more retention of diseased trees and less brush control); and more edge created 

by firelines built around the no treatment stands and to protect the LSR and NRF habitat. 

This alternative would require an additional 3 miles of fireline to be built (a total of 15 miles); thus 

extending the effects mentioned within Alternative 2.

This alternative has very similar benefits (direct, indirect, and cumulative) to olive-sided flycatchers as 

Alternative 2 while also meeting many of the conservation strategies.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

Although olive-sided flycatchers are not a Management Indicator Species under the LRMP, they are 

considered a focal species under the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the 

Cascade Mts. in Oregon and Washington. This Conservation Strategy is used to address the 

recommendations to assess the impacts to neotropical migratory birds under Executive Order 131186. 

The Conservation strategies have been addressed under the proposed actions. Habitat provisions for 

many of the MIS species also provides habitat for various landbirds and meets the intent of the 

Conservation Strategy.

Williamson’s Sapsucker: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, Landbird Focal Species, S4 

Apparently Secure

Williamson’s sapsuckers are a focal species for large snags in mixed conifer habitat. They will often 

utilize ponderosa pine habitat, specifically dead and live trees for foraging and select for large (greater 

than 20” DBH) snags for nesting (Bull et al. 1986). Williamson’s sapsuckers have been observed within 

the watershed and in proximity to the project area. 

To determine potential habitat, the 2004 satellite Imagery data was queried for areas with ponderosa 

pine and large tree components and greater than 40% canopy closure. There are 4,971 acres of potential 

habitat for Williamson’s sapsuckers within the watersheds and 1,845 acres within the project area

(Figure 31). Similar to the discussion for brown creepers, there are at least 8 snags/acre greater than 10” 

DBH with at least one of these being greater than 20” DBH. Mellen-McLean et al. (2009) show this 

species utilizes large diameter snags at high densities (nesting in snags 20 to 34” DBH). The 30% 

tolerance level for this species is 14 snags 10” DBH per acre and 3 snags greater than 20” per acre; and 

at the 80% tolerance level 50 snags greater than 10” DBH per acre and 17 snags greater than 20” DBH

per acre (PPDF_S/L.sp17). Although there is snag habitat at the 80% level within the watershed; the 

project area does not meet the 30% tolerance level.

According to Altman (2000), conservation issues for this species relevant to the proposed actions 

include: loss of large diameter snags to logging; snag management policies on managed lands are often 

deficient in large snags required by this species unless recruitment snags are maintained through the 

rotation; and fire suppression has resulted in closed understories which inhibit growth of large trees.

Conservation strategies include: extend rotation ages to retain snags; retain largest live trees, particularly 

dying or defective trees in harvest units retain known or suitable nesting and roosting snags and restrict 

access from fuelwood cutters.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

Alternative 1 - No Action 

This alternative does not address the conservation strategies recommended by Altman (2000). There is 

the potential effect of further loss of these habitats by retaining the existing condition. In the event of a 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176  EXF Final EIS

catastrophic wildfire, it would take decades for late seral habitat to develop. The current 160 yr old 

stands are a result of such a stand-replacing fire. 

Currently the existing condition provides habitat for the focal species. However, maintaining the 

current level of risk to beetle-induced mortality and/or wildfire in these stands would contribute to an 

overall reduction of habitat for the focal species.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Thinning will alter habitat for this species in the project area by reducing the canopy closure of the 

stands, removing some large trees, and improving the health of the stands that will decrease snag 

recruitment in the short-term (provided no large tree are killed during the prescribed burn portion of the 

treatment). This alternative will impact approximately 902 acres of habitat in the project area. 

Williamson’s sapsuckers have been seen and heard in the watersheds in more dense stands with large 

trees.

No snags are proposed for harvest, although some trees over 21” DBH will be harvested. The 

construction of 12 miles of fireline will need to be monitored to prevent invasive weed introduction as 

an unintended side effect of possible OHV use on the lines. Implementation of the Access and Travel 

Management Rule would mitigate this effect.

The proposed treatments will encourage the diameter growth of the remaining ponderosa pines. 

Prescribed burning may result in the loss of some ponderosa pine snags, but it may also create some. It 

is difficult to predict the extent of this effect because of the variables in weather the day of the burning, 

and the varying duff layer amount around the large trees and snags. The latter is a proposed monitoring 

item with this project to determine the potential loss or gain of ponderosa pine snags.

The thinning and burning will open the stands and increase the trees’ resiliency to insect and disease. 

This may result in a short or small scale gap in snag creation by these agents. New snags would develop 

in the control/no treat units and areas outside of the project. Other than the potential for the prescribed 

burning to create snags within the thinning units, snags would not develop in these areas for many years. 

This may result in small reductions in local Williamson sapsucker populations.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  177

 

Figure 31. Williamson’s sapsucker habitat distribution in subwatersheds

Cumulative Effects

The proposed actions would reduce the current available habitat in the 6th field watersheds by 

approximately 18%. This is additive to the 84 acres of habitat impacted by the Snow Fuels Reduction 

project. The proposed actions, in absence of snags created by prescribed burning, would also contribute 

to a snag recruitment gap in the short –term, although new ones created would be larger than if they 

were recruited immediately. By impacting the habitat that is currently available within the project area, 

the proposed actions may limit future Williamson sapsucker use of the project area. Although this will 

have local impacts to the species, it is “apparently secure” in the state of Oregon.

Being within an experimental forest, the stands are placed on a longer rotation and firewood cutting is 

not allowed. These are the conservation strategies that are addressed by the proposed project.

Alternative 3

This alternative would have similar effects to those described for Alternative 2, except fewer acres: 830 

acres of habitat impacted. This alternative proposes the same types of treatments within sapsucker 

habitat. 

As stated in the analysis for Alternative 2, thinning would provide larger snags into the future, but it 

would take many years since the thinning would actually improve the trees’ resiliency to insect and 

disease. This effect is over a smaller area, under this alternative because of the fewer acres thinned.

This alternative would require an additional 3 miles of fireline to be built (a total of 15 miles); thus 

extending the effects mentioned within Alternative 2.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178  EXF Final EIS

This alternative has the same impacts to the conservation strategies as Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

As insects continue to infest and kill the trees (including ponderosa pine), snag habitat would be 

recruited. Approximately 17% of the currently available habitat in the watersheds would be impacted 

by the proposed actions in this alternative. This is additive to the 84 acres of habitat impacted by the 

Snow Fuels Reduction project. 

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines:

Williamson’s sapsuckers are a Management Indicator Species under the LRMP (cavity nesters), as well 

as considered a focal species under the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the 

Cascade Mts. in Oregon and Washington. This Conservation Strategy is used to address the 

recommendations to assess the impacts to neotropical migratory birds under Executive Order 131186. 

The Conservation strategies have been addressed under the proposed actions. Habitat provisions for 

many of the MIS species also provides habitat for various landbirds and meets the intent of the 

Conservation Strategy.

Williamson sapsuckers are a management indicator of snag habitat. In the LRMP, compliance with 

WL-37 relies on discussions and guidance provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan. This document is analyzed in the Dead Wood section of this report.

WL-37 “...In all other management areas, at least 60% of cavity nesting species potential population 

needs will be provided. Compliance will be based on the harvest unit area...”

The Eastside Screens revised this standard and guideline to reflect the 100% potential population level. 

This standard as been addressed under the Snag discussion.

WL-38 “Specific guidance will be provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan.”

Black-backed Woodpecker: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, Landbird Focal Species, S3 

Vulnerable

According to Goggans (1988) and Bull et al. (1986), the black-backed woodpecker uses mature 

ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine habitat types at relatively low elevations (less than 4,500 feet), but 

can be found at higher elevations. Altman (2000) designates black-backed woodpeckers as a focal 

species for old-growth lodgepole pine. The black-backed woodpecker will use smaller snags for nesting 

as well as foraging. Bull et al. (1986) suggested the use of smaller diameter snags for nesting is a way 

of competing with other woodpecker species in the same habitat (e.g. white-headed woodpecker, 

northern flickers, etc.). The planning area and adjacent areas have snags of this size class that can serve 

as potential habitat. Saab and Dudley (1998) found black-backed woodpeckers selecting for clumps of 

snags and unlogged control plots in their study on fire and salvage logging. As mentioned under the 

discussion for three-toed woodpeckers, the Goggans et al. 1988 study was conducted on the Bend/Ft. 

Rock RD with one of the study areas for black-backed woodpeckers being within the Crane Prairie 

Watershed. Black-backed woodpeckers have continued to be observed within the watershed since this 

1988 study. Similar to the three-toed woodpecker, the black-backed woodpecker “key in” on stands 

currently undergoing mountain pine beetle infestations, and will either nest in these areas or in areas 

adjacent to where the infestation has already moved through but snags exist. The black-backed 

woodpecker co-exists with the three-toed woodpecker by being able to utilize habitats at lower 

elevations.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  179

Habitat for black-backed woodpeckers is more extensive in the watershed than habitat for three-toed 

woodpeckers because they can use a wider range of habitat types and elevations. There are 

approximately 26,779 acres of potential black-backed woodpecker habitat within the subwatershed, and 

1,890 acres of habitat within the project area. Similar to the three-toed woodpecker, this species may 

only be limited by the number of standing snags, although this species has been observed utilizing other 

species of snags than just lodgepole pine. Mellen-McLean et al. (2009) reports that snag densities for 

species range from 2.5 to 29 snags greater than 10” DBH per acre for the 30 to 80 tolerance levels, and 

0 to 6 snags greater than 20” DBH per acre for the 30 to 80% tolerance level. Current snags levels 

within the proposed action areas appear to be meeting the 30 to 50% tolerance level for this species (8

snags greater than 10” DBH per acre with 1 snag greater than 20” DBH per acre). Downed log densities 

were <2% cover of logs greater than 5” diameter at the large end. Current direction provides log 

densities at less than the 30% tolerance level as does estimates of current log densities averaged over the 

project area. Similarly, based on these figures and using the inventory data for unharvested plots 

(Mellen-McLean et al. 2009), most of the project area could provide habitat at the 30-50% tolerance 

level for snags, while log densities are at less than the 30% tolerance level. Goggans et al. (1988) 

reported the percent cover of downed logs at black-backed and three-toed woodpecker nest sites solely 

as a site characteristic. Therefore, the downed log density may not be a critical component of blackbacked woodpeckers. 

According to Altman (2000), conservation issues for this species include: reduction in mature and oldgrowth lodgepole pine trees due to logging, insect outbreaks, fire suppression, overstocked stands; and 

salvage logging.

Conservation strategies detailed in Altman (2000) include: in burns and bug-killed forest, leave 

unsalvaged or if salvaging, maintain greater than 40% as unsalvaged; exempt areas from commercial or 

salvage timber management, and manage these areas to retain late-successional characteristics as long as 

possible. These conservation strategies mirror the recommendations set forth in Goggans et al. (1988) 

to exempt areas (956 acres in size) from salvage and commercial logging 

Using the recommended exempt acreage size to reflect one pair of black-backed woodpeckers, there is 

habitat available for an estimated 28 pairs of woodpeckers within the watershed, and 1-2 pairs within 

the project area.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

No Action 

This alternative would retain the lodgepole stands and the other stands in their current condition. The 

lodgepole pine habitats within the project area are relatively small. However, black-backed 

woodpeckers can also be found in mixed conifer habitat. A beetle-outbreak or wildfire event would 

initially increase habitat (especially foraging), however, in the long-term it may take decades for new 

habitat to develop within the project area. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

The proposed actions would result in the stands becoming healthier and more resilient, as well as 

favoring ponderosa pine dominance impacting 1,874 acres of current habitat. This would not create 

new black-backed habitat nor sustain the current levels of habitat. The thinning, mowing, and burning 

proposed would degrade the habitat currently available. Thinning would reduce the density of the trees 

and target the removal of lodgepole pine. Mowing and burning could influence the current snag and log 

densities, as well as increase the resiliency of the remaining stands to wildfire. This species utilizes 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180  EXF Final EIS

stands that are currently stressed or recently burned. This alternative proposes to prevent this in the 

project area.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, this alternative would degrade 7% (1,874 acres) of the black-backed woodpecker habitat 

in the watersheds. This is additive to the 4% of the habitat affected by the Snow Fuels Reduction 

project. It was estimated that there was habitat for 28 pairs of woodpeckers (one pair for each territory) 

in the 6th field watersheds. Using this rationale, this alternative, may reduce that to 26 pairs. However, 

the proposed project uses a variety of thinning densities interspersed with control units. This may still 

provide some habitat opportunity for this species. Although there would be very localized effects to the 

black-backed woodpecker populations, there may not be noticeable effects to populations from the 

proposed actions on the 6th field watershed or larger scales.

The proposed actions do not address, nor do they add to, the conservation issues and strategies discussed 

in the Landbird Strategy (Altman 2000). The strategies and issues focus on salvage and lodgepole pine 

habitat. As stated, there are very few stands dominated by lodgepole pine in the project area. Latesuccessional characteristics are being managed for under this alternative, however it is for ponderosa 

pine old growth and black-backed woodpeckers are not a focal species for this type of old-growth.

Alternative 3

This alternative has similar effects as those discussed under Alternative 2, but the effects would be less 

intense because fewer acres are treated (1,498 acres impacted). Alternative 3 treats 376 fewer acres, 

notably those acres within the LSR and the NRF. Both of these areas currently provide some blackbacked woodpecker habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, this reduces the amount of habitat impacted in the watersheds by 1% (7% in Alternative 2 

and 6% in this alternative). This is not much different than Alternative 2, although the location of the 

acres retained may help maintain a territory or reduce the effect on local populations.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines

Black-backed woodpeckers are a Management Indicator Species under the LRMP (cavity nesters), as 

well as considered a focal species under the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of 

the Cascade Mts. in Oregon and Washington. This Conservation Strategy is used to address the 

recommendations to assess the impacts to neotropical migratory birds under Executive Order 131186. 

The Conservation strategies have been addressed under the proposed actions. Habitat provisions for 

many of the MIS species also provides habitat for various landbirds and meets the intent of the 

Conservation Strategy.

Black-backed woodpeckers are a management indicator of snag habitat. In the LRMP, compliance with 

WL-37 relies on discussions and guidance provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan. This document is analyzed in the Dead Wood section of this report.

WL-37 “...In all other management areas, at least 60% of cavity nesting species potential population 

needs will be provided.. Compliance will be based on the harvest unit area...”

The Eastside Screens revised this standard and guideline to reflect the 100% potential population level. 

This standard as been addressed under the Snag discussion.

WL-38 “Specific guidance will be provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan.”
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  181

Hairy Woodpeckers: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S4 Apparently Secure

Bull et al (1986) reported hairy woodpeckers using both lodgepole and ponderosa pine habitats and a 

variety of snags sizes. This species would be in mature stands and utilize (i.e. nest and forage) snags 

greater than 10 inches in diameter. There is habitat for this species within the project area. Hairy 

woodpeckers have been observed within the watershed and in the project area. Because of its wide use 

of plant associations, in general, habitat is not limited for this species within the watershed (42,838 acres

which is more than half of the entire 6th field watershed areas). There are approximately 2,815 acres of 

habitat within the project area. There are at least 8 snags per acre within the project area; based on dead 

wood surveys in 2007. This supports the assumption that hairy woodpecker habitat is not limiting in the 

watershed.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

No Action 

The No Action alternative will not likely have any direct or short-term indirect effects to hairy 

woodpeckers. Development of larger snags for nesting may be delayed as a result of stagnating, dense 

stands; although recruitment of new, smaller snags (<20” DBH) would continue.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The proposed actions will not have any direct effects to hairy woodpecker habitat because no snags are 

proposed for harvest. Short-term indirect effects to hairy woodpecker habitat would include removal of 

potential nest trees (i.e. trees greater than 16”DBH) through thinning. In the long-term, better habitat 

may develop more quickly as retention trees respond to the thinning, individuals die, and more large 

snags are created; although this would not occur without a gap in snag recruitment due to the increased 

health of the trees. Snags would still develop but not at the rate at which they would under the No 

Action alternative. 

New snags may develop during the prescribed burning phase of the project. It is difficult to determine 

how this may impact hairy woodpeckers and their habitat, because the intention is not to kill any trees 

with the burning.

Cumulative Effects

Hairy woodpecker habitat would remain on the landscape. Populations of hairy woodpeckers will likely 

remain stable.

Alternative 3 

Effects to hairy woodpeckers as a result of actions proposed under this alternative would be the similar 

to those described under Alternative 2. The exception is that this alternative treats fewer acres, therefore 

the rate of snag recruitment may not be noticeably changed. Cumulative effects as a result of this 

alternative would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 2.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines

Hairy woodpeckers are a management indicator of snag habitat. In the LRMP, compliance with WL-37 

relies on discussions and guidance provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan. This document is analyzed in the Dead Wood section of this report.

WL-37 “...In all other management areas, at least 60% of cavity nesting species potential population 

needs will be provided... Compliance will be based on the harvest unit area...”

The Eastside Screens revised this standard and guideline to reflect the 100% potential population level. 

This standard is addressed under the Snag discussion.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182  EXF Final EIS

WL-38 “Specific guidance will be provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan.”

Three-toed Woodpecker: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, Landbird Focal Species, S3 

Vulnerable

Three-toed woodpeckers use higher elevation (greater than 4500 feet) habitats of mature lodgepole pine 

stands or stands with a lodgepole component (Goggans et al, 1988; Bull et al 1986). Habitat for this 

species (19 acres) is found within one of the proposed treatment areas. The three-toed woodpecker is 

often associated with the black-backed woodpecker. Both species utilize smaller diameter snags for 

foraging and nesting. One way this woodpecker competes with other woodpecker species, specifically 

the black-backed woodpecker, is by utilizing higher elevation habitat (Bull et al 1986). When using 

Goggans et al (1988) to compare this species habitat with the black-backed woodpecker, it appears that 

the three-toed woodpecker does not generally occupy a wide range of habitat conditions. Therefore, 

areas considered as marginal black-backed woodpecker habitat, would not likely be three-toed 

woodpecker habitat. There is approximately 14,238 acres of habitat within the watersheds. However, 

almost half of this may actually be unsuitable because it is not above 4500 feet in elevation.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

No Action 

The No Action alternative will not likely have any direct or short-term indirect effects to three-toed 

woodpeckers. The amount of habitat within the project area is of such a small amount and an isolated 

patch use by this species is low. Similar to the black-backed woodpecker, this species can capitalize on 

insect outbreaks, no action may provide a foraging patch for this species as it disperses through the 

watersheds.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action and Alternative 3

Suitable habitat (i.e. lodgepole pine dominated stands) is found in Unit 12 of the proposed project area. 

Unit 12 is 192 acres, but only 19 acres is estimated to be suitable habitat. Unit 12 is proposed for heavy 

thinning (50% of UMZ), and lodgepole is one of the first trees targeted to be cut. Lodgepole also does 

not survive prescribed burning very well. It is likely that this unit will not provide habitat for this 

species post-project.

Effects to three-toed woodpeckers as a result of actions proposed under Alternative 3 would be the 

similar to those described under Alternative 2. Although Unit 12 under this alternative is smaller than 

Alternative 2, the same patch of habitat is being treated.

Cumulative Effects

The result of this project, in conjunction with other project in the watersheds, would continue to limit 

this species to the upper elevations west of the Experimental Forest. Similar to the black-backed 

woodpecker, this species can capitalize on insect outbreaks. Both proposed alternatives will remove this 

small patch of potential foraging habitat and decrease the likelihood of insect outbreaks from occurring 

within the project area.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines

Three-toed woodpeckers are a management indicator of snag habitat. In the LRMP, compliance with 

WL-37 relies on discussions and guidance provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan. This document is analyzed in the Dead Wood section of this report.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  183

WL-37 “...In all other management areas, at least 60% of cavity nesting species potential population 

needs will be provided... Compliance will be based on the harvest unit area...”

The Eastside Screens revised this standard and guideline to reflect the 100% potential population level. 

This standard is addressed under the Snag discussion.

WL-38 “Specific guidance will be provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan.”

Northern Flicker: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S5 Secure

Northern flickers are perhaps the most common woodpecker resident in Oregon. They can be found in a 

range of terrestrial habitat but are generally abundant in open forests and forest edges adjacent to open 

country (Marshall et al. 2003). Being a large cavity nester (12.5” long according to Sibley 2005); they 

require large snags or large trees with decay in order to build their nests. 

Northern flickers have been observed within the watershed and within proximity to proposed treatment 

areas. Potential habitat for this species is considered any plant association with large trees (average 

>20”DBH). Using this as a definition for habitat, there are approximately 6,225 acres of habitat in the 

6th field watersheds and 904 acres within the project area.

The northern flicker is a relatively common species that can utilize a variety of habitat types from 

wilderness to back yards. Marshall et al. (2003) report that flickers require open space. It is a relatively 

large bird, thereby requiring large snags in which to nest. The requirement of large snags may limit 

flicker populations. Mellen-McLean et al. (2009) recorded data for this species in the mixed conifer 

types utilizing snags from 17-29” DBH. There are approximately 2 snags >17” per acre within the 

project area.

Discussion of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: 

Alternative 1 No Action

The No Action alternative will not likely have any direct or short-term indirect effects to flickers. This 

species can occupy a wide habitat range, and may only be limited by the availability of larger snags. 

This alternative would encourage the creation of larger snags in a relatively small area by retention of 

the current densities that increase the risk of wildfire and maintain the active insect activity.

The alternatives (2 and 3) will impact 189 and 187 acres, respectively, of the best potential flicker 

habitat. These acres reflect the units with large trees and the proposal to thin across all diameters (i.e. 

some large trees will be removed). Under both alternatives, the more open habitat that flickers utilize 

will be created and there would still be large snags available in the control units and untreated portions 

of the Experimental Forest. Alternative 3 would retain more areas by not treating the spotted owl 

habitat or the LSR. 

Effects Common to Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3

Cumulative Effects

Hazard tree falling as a part of other projects within the watershed would act additively with the 

proposed alternatives in the falling of snags for foraging. These additive effects resulting from the 

proposed actions would be minimal because of the small amount of effects (3% of the habitat in the 

watersheds) the actions would have, and the ability of this species to use a variety of habitats.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184  EXF Final EIS

Northern flickers are a management indicator of snag habitat. In the LRMP, compliance with WL-37 

relies on discussions and guidance provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan. This document is analyzed in the Dead Wood section of this EIS.

WL-37 “...In all other management areas, at least 60% of cavity nesting species potential population 

needs will be provided... Compliance will be based on the harvest unit area...”

The Eastside Screens revised this standard and guideline to reflect the 100% potential population level. 

This standard is addressed under the Snag discussion.

WL-38 “Specific guidance will be provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan.”

Pileated Woodpecker: Deschutes Management Indicator Species, S4 Apparently Secure

The pileated woodpecker is associated with forest habitats that have large trees, especially snags, for 

nesting and foraging. It is most common in old-growth ponderosa pine/mixed conifer forests in eastern 

Oregon (Csuti et al. 2001). Although there is a lack of observations of the actual bird, there are 

observations of pileated foraging on some of the white fir and Douglas-fir within proposed units and in 

adjacent no treatment areas revealing their presence within the watershed. 

Using habitat information in Bull and Holthausen (1993) and the 2004 satellite imagery data, there are 

approximately 4,718 acres of potential habitat in the watershed and 1,709 acres of habitat in the project 

area. Mellen-McLean et al. (2009) report that for this species, that snags densities for the 30 to 80% 

tolerance level would be 15 to 49 snags greater than 10” DBH per acre and 3.5 to 18 snags greater than 

20” DBH per acre; pileated woodpeckers nest in trees 26 to 37” DBH. Current snags estimates in 

proximity to the proposed action acres suggest that current dead wood levels are less than the 30% 

tolerance level for this species. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: 

Alternative 1 - No Action

A high severity wildfire burning through the area would reduce the canopy closure, simplify the stand 

structure, and remove large dead and decaying trees from the watershed. This would remove pileated 

woodpecker habitat.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed actions will degrade the habitat by reducing canopy closure below the levels described by 

Bull and Holthausen (1993) as being used by pileated woodpeckers (Table 68). Because the actions are 

in mixed conifer stands and the tree species favored to be retained (often Douglas-fir and ponderosa 

pine) are known nest tree species of pileated woodpeckers, the effect to pileated woodpecker 

populations will be reduced. The heaviest thinning (thinning to 50% of UMZ) and thinning across all 

sizes, would remove pileated habitat through the loss of large trees, and the opening of the canopy. The 

lighter thinning proposals (to UMZ or to 75% of UMZ) would degrade habitat because the trees utilized 

by pileateds for nesting would be retained, although the species often used for foraging (white fir) will 

be targeted. The thinning, mowing, and prescribed burning may also create a delay in the recruitment of 

large snags by improving the resiliency of the stands. This effect is off-set by the habitat remaining in 

the control units and possible creation of snags through burning.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  185

Table 68. Summary of Effects to Pileated Woodpecker Habitat

Treatment Type Units Acres Degraded Acres Eliminated

Thin to UMZ or 75% of UMZ 24, 14, 32, 

11, 33, 22 1165

Thin to 50% UMZ or 

Thin to 75% UMZ w/ 

openings

23, 12

21, 13 430

TOTAL 1165 430

The proposed thinning would be additive to the hazard tree falling; which may fall trees that could be 

used by pileateds for foraging and, rarely, nesting.

Cumulative Effects

Many of the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects are not treating pileated woodpecker habitat. 

The proposed actions under this Alternative would contribute to the alteration of 34% of the current 

available habitat in the 6th field watersheds. This would have impacts to local populations of pileated 

woodpeckers but would likely have limited impact populations on a larger scale because it is considered 

“apparently secure” in Oregon.

The direct and indirect effects of the proposed actions under this alternative are similar to those under 

the discussion for Alternative 2, with the difference being the amount of habitat affected (see Tables 68

and 69).

Alternative 3

Table 69. Summary of Effects to Pileated Woodpecker Habitat

Treatment 

Type 

Units Acres 

Degraded

Acres 

Eliminated

Thin to UMZ or 

75% of UMZ

24, 14, 32, 

11, 33, 22 886

Thin to 50% 

UMZ or 

Thin to 75% 

UMZ w/ 

openings

23, 12

21, 13 333

TOTAL 886 333

Cumulative Effects

Many of the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable projects are not treating pileated woodpecker habitat. 

The proposed actions under this Alternative would contribute to the alteration of 26% of the current 

available habitat in the 6th field watersheds. This would have impacts to local populations of pileated 

woodpeckers but would likely have limited impact populations on a larger scale because it is considered 

“apparently secure” in Oregon.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines

Pileated woodpeckers are a management indicator of snag habitat. In the LRMP, compliance with WL37 relies on discussions and guidance provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan. This document is analyzed in the Dead Wood section of the EIS.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186  EXF Final EIS

WL-37 “...In all other management areas, at least 60% of cavity nesting species potential population 

needs will be provided... Compliance will be based on the harvest unit area...”

The Eastside Screens revised this standard and guideline to reflect the 100% potential population level. 

This standard is addressed under the Snag discussion.

WL-38 “Specific guidance will be provided by the Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree 

Implementation Plan.”

Table 70. Comparison of Impacts by Alternative to Selected Wildlife Species*

Species

Existing 

Condition/Altern

ative 1 (acres of 

habitat)

Proposed Action/ 

Alternative 2

(acres of habitat 

impacted)

Alternative 3

(acres of habitat 

impacted)

Fisher 1580 1302 919

White-headed woodpecker & 

Lewis’ woodpecker 804 428 282

Northern goshawk 2118 381 342

Cooper’s hawk 2331 937 509

Sharp-shinned hawk 525 461 410

American marten 807 477 436

Brown creeper 2091 1076 948

Hermit thrush 2690 1966 1590

Williamson’s sapsucker 1845 902 830

Black-backed woodpecker 1890 1874 1498

Northern flicker 904 189 187

Pileated woodpecker 1709 1595 1219

*Species selected based on measurable existing habitat and quantifiable differences between action alternatives

Snags/Coarse Woody material and Green Tree Replacement

Snags 

Numerous species of animals use snags and coarse woody material (CWM) for foraging, nesting, 

denning, roosting and resting. A snag is defined as a dead tree that is over 10 inches DBH and taller 

than 10 feet. Coarse woody material is considered to be dead and down material that is greater than 5 

inches in diameter (Ohmann and Waddell 2002; Mellen-McLean et al. 2009). The most notable species 

using snags and CWM are the primary cavity nesters (e.g. woodpeckers and nuthatches) that excavate 

nest cavities in decayed wood in standing trees. Vacated cavities are subsequently used by many other 

birds and small mammals (i.e. secondary cavity users such as marten, bats, and owls). Selected wildlife 

species known or suspected to occur in the proposed action areas that utilize these habitats are listed in 

the various tables and can be found in the earlier discussions under each species (e.g. hairy woodpecker, 

three-toed woodpecker, flammulated owl, etc.).

Snag and CWM habitat conditions were analyzed and compared using current direction and newer 

research, including the DecAID Advisory tool (Mellen-McLean, et al 2009). The DecAID Advisor is a 

planning tool intended to help specialists manage snag and log levels best suited for their management 

area’s habitat types and associated wildlife species. This tool uses the best available science and most 

recent research for species dependent on snags and coarse woody material. Densities are given in the 

form of wildlife species tolerance levels at the 30%, 50%, and 80% levels. For example, assuming 

normally distributed data, if 20% of a species’ nests were in areas with greater than 18 snags per acre, 

then 80% of the nests were found in areas with 0 to 18 snags per acre, and 18 snags per acre is the 80% 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  187

tolerance level. Information in regards to existing snag and log densities and sizes were gathered 

through field sampling and aerial insect and disease maps.

Table 71 details the proportions of the different plant association groups and structural stages within the 

watershed (the scale appropriate for DecAID comparisons and the collective-proposed project areas):

Table 71. Acres of Wildlife Habitat and Structural Types in the Crane Prairie and Fall River 6th field 

Watersheds. Figures in Parentheses Show the Percentage within a Proposed Unit and the Relative 

Potential for Dead Wood Influenced by Fire Regime and Topographic Position

Habitat Type Potential Dead 

Wood Levels

Structural Type

Large

(>20”dbh)

Small/Medium

(>9”<20”dbh)

Open

(<9”)

Lodgepole (LP) High N/A 13, 804 (1%) 6,891 (0.03%)

Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir

(PPDF) Low-High 6,076 (14%) 23,373 (9%) 5, 728 (10%)

Eastside Mixed Conifer –

East Cascades Blue Mts 

(EMC_EB)

Low-Moderate 63 (0.3%) 88 (3%) 6 (0%)

Montane Mixed Conifer 

(MMC) High 67 (<1%) 368 (3%) 4 (0%)

*Types are those categories used in the DecAid Advisor; acres come from 2004 Satellite Imagery data; Potential 

Dead Levels come from the DecAID Implementation Guide, with the exception of the LP type which is an 

assumption

The wildlife and inventory data within the specific habitat types displayed in DecAID were used to 

analyze the current condition within the planning area in its relation to providing habitat for the various 

species. In characterizing the landscape, several links within the DecAID advisor were used including 

“Relative potential for dead wood within wildlife habitat types as influenced by fire regime, sub-series, 

and topographic position” found in the DecAID Implementation Guide. 

The habitat types found within the proposed action areas and adjacent planning areas are within a 

moderate to high frequency fire regime. Topography is generally moderate slopes, and north and east 

aspects. This suggests that the relative potential levels of dead wood would be low to high. The higher 

potential levels would be in the more mesic or moist habitat types, higher elevation types, and the north 

and east aspects. It also suggests that the project area would have variable densities of downed wood; 

some areas meeting the lower 30% tolerance level for wildlife and other areas capable of meeting the 

higher 80% tolerance level.

Results of the snag survey, in comparison with the wildlife data in DecAID, show that in the EXF 

Project Area current snag densities (an average of 7 snags per acre 10-19.9” DBH and 1 snag per acre 

>20”DBH) are providing snags for white-headed woodpeckers at the 80% tolerance level; at the 50-80% 

level for pygmy nuthatches and general cavity nesters; at the 30% tolerance level for black-backed 

woodpeckers; and at less than the 30% tolerance level for the marten, fishers, pileated woodpecker, and 

Williamson’s sapsucker. The current level of snags is meeting the LRMP and NWFP direction.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188  EXF Final EIS

Table 72. Snag densities for wildlife species at 30, 50, 80 percent tolerance level for snags > 10”DBH

based on wildlife data in DecAID (Table references included).

30% Tolerance level 

(#snags/acre)

50% Tolerance level 

(#snags/acre)

80% Tolerance 

level (#snags/acre)

>10”DBH >10”DBH >10”DBH

LP_S/L (reference Table LP_S/L.sp22)

American marten (AMMA) 12 13 14

Current Direction for LP 1.9-2.4

N/A

PPDF_S/L (reference Table 

PPDF_S/L.sp-22)

Black-backed woodpecker (BBWO) 2.5 14 29

Cavity-nesting Birds (CNB) 1 5 10

Pileated woodpecker (PIWO) 15 30 49

Pygmy nuthatch (PYNU) 1 6 12

White-headed woodpecker (WHWO) 0.3 2 4

Williamson’s sapsucker (WISA) 14 28 50

Current Direction for the Ponderosa 

Pine1 

3.4-4.2

EMC_ECB_S/L (reference Table 

EMC_ECB_S/L.sp.22)

Black-backed woodpecker (BBWO) 2.5 14 29

Pileated woodpecker (PIWO) 15 30 49

Pygmy nuthatch (PYNU) 1 6 12

White-headed woodpecker (WHWO) 0.3 2 4

Williamson’s sapsucker (WISA) 14 28 50

American marten (AMMA) 12 13 14

Current Direction for Mixed Conifer 3.5-4.3

MMC_S/L (reference Table 

MMC_S/L.sp-22)

American marten (AMMA) 12 13 14

Pacific fisher (FISH) ? 13 ?

Current Direction for Mixed Conifer 3.5-4.3

1 Current Direction (LRMP & NWFP) is provided by habitat type and densities >10”. It is not broken down into tolerance levels but rather 

represents a biological potential which has been determined to be a flawed technique (Rose et al. 2001 in Johnson and O’ Neil 2001)

The existing low density of snags coupled with the importance of large diameter snags to many of the 

MIS species, emphasizes the need to retain all existing snags as possible in the planning area, as well as 

creating conditions that will favor the recruitment of large snags.

The EXF project area is relatively unique in the watershed because it contains higher snags densities and 

larger snags than other areas of the subwatersheds. Using the studies and information within DecAID, it 

is entirely expected and realized within this analysis area that distribution of snags will be clumpy (i.e. 

some areas have no snags while others have many snags). Since most of the planning area falls within 

the small/medium tree types, the clumps of snags would be expected to be small (2-5/acre) with the 

majority of these snags being less than 20” DBH. The 2008 Insect and Disease maps show outbreaks of 

mountain pine beetle in ponderosa and lodgepole pines occurring within some of the proposed units. 

These areas may provide the higher density clump of snags utilized by some species (e.g. BBWO), and 

immediate recruitment of larger snags.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  189

In considering the distribution of snags for those habitat types within proposed treatment areas, the 

DecAID data show that for the PPDF small/medium habitat type 54 % of the area had no snags 

(PPDF_S.inv-14, 15). Over 80% of area had less than 4 snags/acre greater than 10” DBH and less than 

2 snags per acre >20” DBH. When looking at the inventory data for the PPDF large tree habitat; there 

are similar results: only about 8% of all of the plots had more snags >10” DBH per acre than the current 

estimates in the project area (7.9 snags >10” DBH, PPDF_L.inv-18) and 12% had more snags >20” 

DBH per acre (0.6 >20” DBH, PPDF_L.inv-19). This reflects the relative uniqueness of the area to 

provide large diameter snags and snags at higher densities; thus providing a patch of higher quality 

habitat for some species in the watershed.

In summary, there is snag habitat being provided albeit at lower levels than may be optimal for many 

MIS species (see previous discussions for specific MIS species earlier in this section). The planning 

area may be capable of providing more habitat than is currently present but with current land allocation 

as a silvicultural research forest and the current study plan, is not likely to sustain habitat at more than 

the 50% tolerance level. Populations may remain limited due to the current availability of habitat. As 

past management within the watersheds trends towards the historic range of variability and an increase 

in large ponderosa pine habitat more of this type of habitat may develop without relying on the present 

condition of an experimental forest.

Coarse Woody Materials (CWM)

In order to analyze downed log habitat (CWM), two sources were used. DecAID was used to compare 

the distribution of CWM material over an area. Screens direction specifies pieces per acre of certain 

sizes to be retained according to habitat type. The NWFP directs a certain lineal feet of downed wood 

be retained. The following tables compare the existing levels with these two measurements. Table 73

displays the comparison of current LRMP and NWFP direction (with a reconciling of terms) and the 

existing levels with the best science available in the DecAID advisor.

Table 73. Comparison of Existing CWM and Directed Levels. Estimates of Percent Cover are Given in 

Order to Compare with Information in DecAID Advisor

Lineal Feet/ac Pieces/ac % Cover/ac

Current 

Direction

LRMP/Eastside 

Screens

PP:20-40 ft

Mix Con: 100-140 

ft.

LP: 120-160 ft

PP: 3-6

Mix Con.: 15-

20

LP: 15-20

NWFP

(See LSR 

Table 74)

DecAID

Wildlife Level*

4.2-32% : black-backed & 

three-toed woodpeckers

0.8-5%: golden-mantled 

ground squirrel

Inventory Level

(PPDF as the 

dominant type 

in EXF)

0-2% cover on 87-91% of 

area

>2% cover on 9-13% of 

area

Existing 118 11 0.4-0.9
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190  EXF Final EIS

*The information for % cover levels from DecAID was taken from the wildlife and inventory data. The wildlife 

data source either had limited sources (PPDF – one species); or source was from within a active beetle outbreak 

(LP). The ranges given reflect the 30-80% tolerance levels for all the structural stages.

Table 74. LSRA Snag and Log Recommendations (from Table IV-1 pg. IV-3 of LSRA)

Plant Association Group Recommended Snag Density Recommended Log Density

Mountain Hemlock 2-3/ac 15-21”dbh

6-15/ac >21” dbh

25-40 tons/ac

7-24 pieces/ ac >31” diam.

Mixed Conifer Wet

9-17/ac 9-16” dbh

1-2/ac 16-25” dbh

1-2/ac >25” dbh

25-35 tons/acre

7-16 logs/ac 16-25” diam.

3-6 logs/ac >25” diam

Mixed Conifer Dry

3-9/ac 12-20”dbh

1-2/ac >20”dbh

1-5/ac >25” dbh

12-24 tons/ac

5-14 logs/ac >15” diam.

1-5 logs/ac >25” diam.

Ponderosa Pine 3.5-7.5/ac 10-20” dbh

0.5-2/ac >20” dbh

10-15 tons/acre

7-15 logs/ac >25” diam.

Lodgepole Pine 13-27/ac >=11” dbh 8-12 tons /acre

34-72 logs/ac >=11” diam.

Table 75. Snag and log plot data summary for the Lookout Mt portion of the LSR (9 plots fell within 

this portion)

Density estimate 

(#/ac)*

Total for all 

plots Size range

LSRA recommended

(Mixed Conifer Dry and 

Ponderosa Pine)

Snags 5.4 (10-19.9” dbh)

0.5 (>=20” dbh)

66

6 6.3-35.5 in. dbh 3-9/ac (10-19.9” dbh)1-7/ac (>=20” dbh)

Logs 2.2/ac >15” diam.

0.4/ac >25” diam.

27

5 4-29 in dbh 5-16 logs/ac >15” diam.1-6 logs/ac >25” diam.

*calculated by taking the total for all plots, dividing by 9 (the number of plots within LSR portion) to get the # per 

plot, and then dividing by 0.1 (each plot is a one-tenth acre plot)

Based on the above table, the project area is currently meeting CWM guidelines for the Eastside Screens 

or close to it. However, in considering the DecAID information, for many wildlife species this density 

of downed wood is not meeting the 30% tolerance level; the exception is the golden-mantled ground 

squirrel with existing conditions at the 30% tolerance level. There is also a lack of downed logs within 

the LSR portion of the Lookout Mt. Unit.

Research by Brown et al. (2003) suggests that the optimum quantity of coarse woody debris for fuel 

loading and wildlife habitat needs is 5 to 10 tons per acre for warm, dry ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir 

types (PPDF); 10 to 20 tons per acre for cool Douglas-fir types (EMC_EB); and 8-24 tons/ac for cool 

lodgepole pine and lower subalpine fir types (LP and MMC). Using the plot data and bole weight 

conversion table (Table 2 in Brown et al 2003), it is estimated the EXF Project Area has 5 tons per acre 

averaged over all of its habitat types. These are estimates because the conversion of differing units of 

measure can limit the precision. This does suggest that current fuel loadings, as averaged over the 

project area and using the driest habitat type, are at the optimum quantity.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects:

Alternative 1 - No Action
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  191

Because there are no proposed actions associated with this alternative there would be no change from 

the existing conditions, and therefore no direct, indirect or cumulative effects.

Insect mortality would continue to occur, ensuring steady recruitment of new snags and logs. A wildfire 

that will eventually burn through the area would create more dead wood as well as consume the existing 

dead wood. This would create pulses of dead wood (initially snags after a wildfire and then logs when 

those snags fall). After the pulse, however, there would be gap of dead habitat until the residual stand 

matures and the snag creation process starts again. More large snags would likely be available as the 

large green trees are killed by a fire throughout the watershed.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

It is not the intention of any of the proposed actions to remove snags or downed logs. The exception is 

the connected action: hazard tree falling, which will likely result in some snags next to roads being 

felled.

Removal of dead wood (i.e. snags and logs) would occur as an indirect effect of prescribed burning, 

falling of trees posing a safety risk to workers, and the breakup of logs as firelines are built and 

harvested trees removed. Although the project area is currently meeting directed levels, indirect effects 

may put dead wood levels below the lowest displayed tolerance level in DecAID. This conclusion is 

more speculative because prescribed burning can consume as well as create dead wood, and log break 

up and falling of snags for safety reasons can be avoided through careful project layout and equipment 

use.

Past anecdotal evidence from prescribed burns in the Pringle Falls unit has shown that with the thinning 

and mowing prescribed, the burning does not consume the large logs and snags but can consume some 

of the smaller logs and snags. This observation is also supported in the literature (e.g. see Russell et al. 

2009).

Because the effects of the proposed treatments on snags and logs can be variable, using the plots 

established to gather existing information, monitoring after the different project phases (thinning, 

mowing, and burning) can provide data as to whether or not dead wood is being retained as directed.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively, this alternative’s potential effects are additive to other ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects. The Snow Fuels Reduction Project plans to remove downed logs and snags in 

lodgepole pine habitat, there is continued prescribed burning being implemented in the Fall and Charlie 

Brown project areas. The additive effect is the continued reliance on land allocations outside of 

regulated timber harvest, and may be in this case outside of silvicultural research, to provide the highest 

dead wood levels for myriad wildlife species.

Alternative 3

This alternative may have a greater risk of removing more dead wood because of the need to build more 

line and the potential that the building fireline may break up downed logs. However, this alternative 

also treats fewer acres with prescribed burning and thinning that would: 1) reduce the exposure of 

workers to hazard trees (reduce the need to fall hazard trees), 2) reduce the risk of equipment (mowers 

or harvesters) from breaking up logs (less fireline built and less logging), and 3) reduce the risk of a 

prescribed fire from consuming any dead wood (fewer acres burned).

Cumulative effects, in regards to the ongoing actions and the reliance on land allocations outside of 

regulated timber harvest, would be similar to those described under Alternative 2.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192  EXF Final EIS

Green Tree Replacements (GTRs) 

Green tree replacements are trees retained, or managed through time, to provide snag or CWM habitat at 

some point in the future. The treatment unit is the area of accountability for meeting GTR objectives 

(Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy [WLTL] 1994). The 

objective for treatment units is to provide patches of habitat, or GTRs in a distribution pattern suitable 

for home range needs of primary cavity excavators (WLTL 1994). According to the WLTL, green tree 

replacements do not need to be provided on every acre in the forested ecosystem. A mosaic distribution 

across the landscape maintaining viable populations and ecological functions is the desired condition. 

The desired condition is based on the assumptions that: 1) deficits or surpluses, whether natural or 

related to past management activities, will continue to be part of the landscape; 2) treatment units will 

be designed to meet WLTL objectives each entry or treatment; and 3) that some treatment units will not 

provide WLTLs due to preference given to other resource issues. 

The Eastside Screens direction requires all sale activities (including intermediate in both even-age and 

uneven-age systems) to maintain GTRs of >21 inches DBH, or the representative DBH of the overstory 

layer if less than 21 inches, at 100 percent maximum potential population levels (MPP) of primary 

cavity excavators. As shown in Table 58, this 100% MPP is estimated to be 4 snags/acre for ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer habitat types and 6 snags/acre for lodgepole pine habitat types. Table 76

illustrates the number of GTRs per acre that would be needed to meet current direction assuming the 

average diameter of the stands after is at least 13 inches. Although the MPP concept has recently been 

identified as a flawed technique (Rose et al, 2001 and Mellen-McLean et al 2009), it was an accepted 

measurement technique at the time the Eastside Screens amended the LRMP, and remains the current 

direction.

Table 76. Estimated GTRs (trees per acre or “tpa”) required to meet current direction.

Habitat Type

Ponderosa Pine Mixed Conifer Lodgepole Pine

Current Direction 

(100% MPP based on more 

recent research) 4 snags/acre 4 snags/acre 6 snags/acre

GTRs

@ 13-19” dbh residual stand for 

PP & MC; 20-11” dbh residual 

stand for LP

10 tpa 10 tpa 9 tpa

* The WLTL guide used initial snag levels portrayed in Thomas et al (1979) and Nietro et al (1985). 

GTRs presented here reflect the more current guideline densities.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

No Action 

The No Action alternative would maintain green tree replacements in the current condition during the 

short-term (<20 years). However, natural disturbances such wildfire, wind events, insect and disease 

pathogens, and lightning would recruit snag and CWM habitat through time in the project area. High 

tree density in some of the ponderosa pine stands would not only retard the development of large 

diameter (>21”) ponderosa pine trees and future snags but also may hasten the development of smaller 

diameter snags and CWM as a result of mortality from bark beetles or fire. 

Because there are no additive effects as a result of this alternative, there are no cumulative effects 

anticipated to green tree replacement habitat.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  193

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

In the short-term, thinning would directly affect green tree replacements (GTR) by reducing the number 

of trees in treatment units. However the units would retain enough GTRs to exceed currently directed 

levels (Table 58). 

Indirect effects of the proposed actions include prolonging the recruitment of snags and CWM by 

removing trees, thereby reducing the risk of wildfire and increasing the resiliency of the remaining 

green trees (i.e. the GTRs) to bark beetles. Although the recruitment of dead wood habitats would slow, 

thinning would provide beneficial long-term, indirect effects by promoting faster growth of GTRs, 

ultimately providing larger diameter snags and CWM when these trees do die. There would still be 

some recruitment of snags within the project area and Lookout Mt. Unit as a result of beetle activity in 

the control units and areas within the Lookout Mt. Unit not part of the project area.

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of the proposed, current, past, and foreseeable actions on GTRs, would be a 

reduction in the amount and recruitment of snags and CWM over the landscape due to harvest 

prescriptions that would improve the health of the stands and make them less susceptible to beetleinduced, mortality and the reduction in fuel loadings and fuel continuity that also makes stands less 

susceptible to wildfire mortality. A beneficial effect over the watersheds is that in the long-term (>30 

years), reduced tree competition would allow for accelerated tree growth resulting in larger diameter 

(20” or more) snags and CWM, as trees grow, die, and fall. This effect may substantially improve the 

density of large snags and log available over the larger 6th field watersheds. It is this large size structure 

that is currently the most lacking.

Effects common to all Alternatives 

An effort was made to determine the amount of time it would take to recruit snags >20” dbh using the 

existing plot data for the project area. This effort was undertaken in order to compare the effects of no 

action and the anticipated mortality from bark beetles (i.e. short-term recruitment) with the action 

alternatives and the anticipated effects on tree growth (i.e. long-term recruitment of larger snags); to 

analyze the effects of a “snag gap” due to the proposed actions. This was in support of the research by 

Klenner and Arsenault (2009) showing that within the first 5 years of a beetle disturbance there is a 

pulse of large snags due to mortality and then for the next 4 decades there is a decreasing to stable trend 

in large snag creation.

The effort quickly proved questionable, however, because in order to try anticipate how many snags 

>20” dbh would be created many assumptions would have to be made. Under the No Action 

alternative, in order to determine the density of recruited snags, one would have to make assumptions 

that the death of the live trees would not play a role in the survivability of another tree. This seemed 

unreasonable because 1) further assumptions would have to be made as to which sized trees died first; 

and 2) that the resulting release from nutrient competition of the surrounding trees would not influence 

the surviving trees resistance to further attack. Under the action alternatives, the assumptions made 

included 1) a annual growth rate of 2 inches per decade; and 2) no confounding influence of weather or 

wildfire that may kill otherwise healthy trees. These assumptions also seemed unreasonable.

Such an analysis quickly proved to need a considerably larger effort. The scope of this project (i.e. no 

snags being harvested; less than 2,600 acres of treatments proposed; too many variables to consider; and 

dead wood still present on the landscape) did not seem to warrant such an effort whereas some of the 

assumptions as the effects to snags and logs can be tested and monitored through this project.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194  EXF Final EIS

Snags

Eastside Screens, 6. Interim Wildlife Standard, d. Scenario A, 4) a) Snags, Green Tree Replacements 

and Downed Logs: (1) “All sale activities...will maintain snags and green tree replacement trees of > 

21” DBH, (or whatever is the representative DBH of the overstory layer if it is less than 21 inches), at 

100% potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. This should be determined using the 

best available science on species requirements as applied through current snag models or other 

documented procedures. NOTE: for Scenario A, the live remnant trees (> 21” DBH) left can be 

considered for part of the green replacement tree requirement.”

CWM

WL-72 “...An average of at least 3 cull logs-per-acre, plus 3 additional logs-per-acre...will be retained 

after timber management activities. Minimum qualifying sizes are 10 inches in diameter at the small 

end and 15 feet long...”

WL-73 “Where logs...are not available, and average of 1 slash pile...or concentration...per acre will be 

retained to supplement qualifying logs.”

The Screens (6. Interim wildlife standard; d. Scenario A, 4) Snags, Green Tree Replacements and Down 

Logs; [2]) revised these standards to read: “ Pre-activity (currently existing) downed logs may be 

removed only when they exceed the quantities listed below...It is not the intention of this direction to 

leave standing trees for future logs in addition to the required snag numbers...” 

Quantities of logs: 3-6 pieces greater than 6 ft long and 12” in diameter or greater be maintained in 

ponderosa pine types (15-20 in mixed conifer), and 15-20 pieces greater than 8 feet long and 8” in 

diameter be maintained in lodgepole pine types. 

GTRs

Eastside Screens, 6. Interim Wildlife Standard, d. Scenario A, 4) a) Snags, Green Tree Replacements 

and Downed Logs: (1) “All sale activities...will maintain snags and green tree replacement trees of > 

21” DBH, (or whatever is the representative DBH of the overstory layer if it is less than 21 inches), at 

100% potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. This should be determined using the 

best available science on species requirements as applied through current snag models or other 

documented procedures. NOTE: for Scenario A, the live remnant trees (> 21” DBH) left can be 

considered for part of the green replacement tree requirement.”

LRMP direction refers to Deschutes DWTL for GTR numbers. This document gives figures based on 

Thomas 1979. In Bull et al (1997) it is suggested that Thomas figures were not high enough to cover all 

habitat needs. Using Screens direction to use most recent research, the GTR figures given in the DWTL 

were recalculated to reflect the updated 100% potential population levels based on newer research.

10

 10 During public scoping and comment period, the Rose et al, (2001) was mentioned. This literature refers the 

“current” controversy of using the concept of a “biological potential” level for maintaining dead wood habitat for 

species that utilize such habitat. This literature has been incorporated into the analysis for dead wood as well as 

the various species discussions. In fact, the analysis uses the most recent version of the DecAID tool (MellenMcLean et al, 2009), and represents the best available science for dead wood habitat. The governing land 

management documents (e.g. LRMP and NWFP) however, have not been updated to address this controversy, thus 

in order to determine compliance with these documents analysis on the biological potential is included.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  195

Rose et al (2001) and Mellen-McLean et al (2009) determined that the “potential population level” is a 

flawed technique. Mellen-McLean et al (2009) uses statistical “tolerance levels” in the DecAID tool. 

DecAID is not part of the Screens direction, therefore its use was for comparison purposes.

As illustrated in Table 76 GTR levels after project implementation are expected to be met. Proposed 

treatments are expected to retain at least 30-90 trees per acre, and will meet the directed levels for the 

habitat types. These levels exceed the baseline GTR levels given in the Screens direction and WLTL 

that were based on Thomas (1979).

No snags or logs are planned to be removed under any alternative, and the remaining stands would 

retain GTRs at the directed densities. Monitoring will be required to accurately determine the effects of 

the proposed actions on the possible, unintended removal, or even creation of snags and logs.

LOS Habitat/Connectivity

Late and Old Structure Forest Habitat (LOS) – East of Owl Range Line 

Late and old structure forest habitat is defined by the Eastside Screens as multi-strata stands with large 

trees and single strata stands with large trees. A large tree is defined as being greater than or equal to 21 

inches in DBH. Multi-stratum stands are comprised of two or more tree canopy layers and two or more 

size cohorts of trees. Medium and large sized trees dominate the overstory but trees of all size classes 

may be present. Stand structure and tree sizes are diverse. Single stratum LOS stands are comprised of 

a single dominant canopy stratum consisting of medium or large sized trees. Large trees are common. 

Young trees are absent or few in the understory. The stand may appear “park-like.” 

There are no Old-Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) within or proximate (within 5,000 acres) of the 

project area. There are 22 acres of classified LOS within the project area; and 7,075 acres in the Fall 

River watershed. Multi-storied LOS habitat is below the Historical Range of Variability (HRV) in the 

watershed; single-storied LOS habitat is below the HRV in the dry ponderosa pine plant association 

group. Low amounts of this habitat limit the abundance of LOS-associated wildlife species in the area, 

such as the northern goshawk, flammulated owl, white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, whitebreasted nuthatch, and brown creeper. Table 77 displays the amount of LOS habitat around the project 

area. For further discussion of the HRV refer to the project silviculturist's report (Paul Brna, Bend-Ft. 

Rock Ranger District Silviculturist, July 2009). 

Table 77. Acres of LOS Habitat in the Watershed Area by Structural Stage, Plant Association Group, 

and LOS Associated Wildlife Species.

Structural Stage (Eastside 

Screens)

Plant Association Group 

(PAG) Acres HRV

Selected LOS 

Associated Wildlife 

Species

Medium & Large , 21”+ DBH

(Late, multi-storied)

Lodgepole Pine 434 Below Northern Goshawk, 

Northern Pygmy Owl, 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker, 

American Marten

Ponderosa Pine Dry 644 Below Cooper’s Hawk, 

Northern Goshawk, 

Sharp-shinned Hawk, 

Flammulated Owl, 

Williamson’s 

Sapsucker, Pygmy 

Nuthatch, Brown 

Creeper, WhiteMixed Conifer Wet 285 Below
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196  EXF Final EIS

breasted Nuthatch, 

Hermit Thrush, 

Golden-crowned 

Kinglet

Medium & Large , 21”+ DBH

(Late, single-storied)

Lodgepole 4,732 Above Northern Goshawk, 

Northern Pygmy Owl, 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker, 

American Marten

Ponderosa Pine Dry 205 Below Flammulated Owl, 

Lewis’s Woodpecker, 

White-headed 

Woodpecker, Pygmy 

Nuthatch, Whitebreasted Nuthatch

Mixed Conifer Wet 775 Within

Total 7,075

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

No Action -

Late and old structure (LOS) forest habitats would continue to age and mature, developing LOS 

characteristics (large diameter trees, large lateral limbs, snags, CWM). Earlier structural stage stands 

(structural stages 1 through 5) would also mature, moving these stands towards LOS habitat. High tree 

densities in many of the ponderosa pine stands would retard tree growth, increasing the amount of time 

to attain large diameter trees, and also place these stands at risk to insects, disease, and wildfire and may 

result in loss of LOS habitats. 

In the long-term (40 years for lodgepole and 70-90 years for ponderosa pine), assuming there are no 

large-scale disturbances (e.g. fires or beetle outbreaks), a growth rate of 1 inch DBH per decade and that 

there are a number of large trees existing within the stands, LOS may develop from existing Understory 

Reinitiation and Multi-story without Large Trees stands. As stated earlier this would take many 

decades, which would also be many generations of LOS species. Current LOS may remain LOS in the 

long-term. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

This alternative proposes thinning, mowing, and burning within 18 acres of multi-storied LOS and 4 

acres within single-storied LOS. These acres are scattered over 4 units (Units 34, 42, 43, and 44) and 

the largest LOS patch size is approximately 9 acres (in Unit 44; patch size range 0.15 ac - 9.26 ac). The 

proposed thinning in each of the units covers the variety of thinning density (i.e. thin to UMZ to thin to 

50% of UMZ, and thin across all age cohorts). Any of the thinning prescriptions would result in the 

stand no longer meeting the definition of LOS (see Silvicultural Report).

Thinning within LOS further reduces the levels in the watershed by 7 acres. This further reduces the 

habitat for the species listed in Table 77. Specific effects to these species have been discussed earlier. 

Further reduction in LOS habitat within the watershed limits these species’, although to a small degree 

because of the small patch sizes, the dispersal and ability to create new territories.

There are no other ongoing or reasonable foreseeable projects within the watershed that propose to 

remove LOS habitat. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects of this action.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  197

Alternative 3

Because this alternative proposes the same treatments within the same LOS habitat as Alternative 2, the 

effects are the same as those described.

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines

Eastside Screens, 6. Interim wildlife standard, d. Scenario A “DO NOT allow timber sale harvest 

activities to occur within LOS stages that are BELOW HRV.” 2) (a) “maintain all...live trees >21” 

DBH that currently exist. b) manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet late and old structural 

conditions...in a manner that moves it towards these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV.”

The proposed alternatives are not consistent with this standard. The proposed actions would harvest 

timber in LOS where the LOS levels are below HRV, and some trees >21” DBH would be removed. A 

Forest Plan Amendment has been developed for this scenario (see page 21).

Connectivity

Maintaining connectivity between habitats, particularly late and old structured habitat, is believed to be 

important for numerous wildlife species. Connectivity of habitats is believed to allow free movement, 

interaction of adults, and dispersal of young. Although there is current controversy regarding the value 

of corridors (Weldon 2006 found in her study an increase in nest predation largely attributable to edge 

effects incurred through the addition of a corridor), management direction pertaining to maintaining 

connectivity between late and old structured stands, in addition to designated old growth management 

areas, is provided by the Eastside Screens. The Browns/Wickiup Watershed Analysis and 

Browns/Round Mountain Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (1997) also addressed connectivity 

within NWFP lands in the project by designating corridors. The effects to these corridors have been 

analyzed within the Biological Assessment for this project. The following analysis specifically refers to 

connectivity as it relates to the Eastside Screens portion of the project area. 

Eastside Screen direction is to maintain or enhance the current level of connectivity between LOS 

stands and between all LRMP designated old growth (OGMA) habitats by maintaining stands between 

them. LOS stands and old growth (OGMA) habitats need to be connected to each other inside the 

project area, as well as, to adjacent project areas, by at least two directions. Connectivity corridor 

stands should be those in which medium diameter or larger trees are common, and canopy closures are 

within the top one-third of site potential. Stand widths should be at least 400 feet wide at their 

narrowest point. If stands meeting this description are not available then the next best stands should be 

used for connections. The length of corridors between LOS stands and old growth management areas 

should be as short as possible.

Connectivity corridors, meeting Eastside Screens direction, were identified within the overall project 

area through previous planning efforts (Charlie Brown and Fall). The corridors connect all Forest Plan 

Old Growth management areas to stands classified as LOS, and to old growth management areas and 

LOS stands in adjacent project areas. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Discussion

No Action -
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198  EXF Final EIS

Similar to the discussion for LOS and old growth habitat, connections to these stands would also be at 

risk to wildfires and beetle infestation. However, these linkages may provide for dispersal and 

movement until the surrounding treated areas develop LOS characteristics (taking many decades). The 

current levels of connectivity in the project area would be maintained given no major disturbance events 

occur. Some of the acres within LOS corridors are at high risk of beetle-caused mortality. These acres 

are dispersed over a number of linkages. If beetle-caused mortality were to occur, connectivity could 

then be disrupted across the landscape.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Currently mapped corridors east of the spotted owl range line, overlap six proposed units (four with 

proposed thinning, mowing, and burning; two control units; see Figure 32). Using the same dispersal 

definitions and analysis used for the Biological Assessment (for consistency within the project area and 

because similar species would use both corridors), one proposed unit that overlaps a current 

connectivity corridor would not meet definitions after treatment (Unit 44) (Table 78). The mapped 

corridor does not entirely overlap this 147 ac unit; but mainly falls within Unit 35, a control unit. 

Because it is only a small piece that overlaps this unit, the corridor will likely still function. The 

corridor that wildlife will actually use will probably involve more of the control unit, and look less 

linear. 

Figure 32. Connectivity corridors crossing the proposed action areas.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  199

Some current roads do cut across the corridors; and it is likely that some of the firelines will be built 

through the corridors. Ideally, a corridor would not have roads or a 3-4 ft wide fireline so as to 

eliminate any barrier to movement. Roads going through corridors, although narrow, may limit 

movement of small, ground-dwelling species. Forest roads that cross corridors are not expected to have 

measurable impacts to birds (e.g. forest hawks) or large mammals (e.g. wolverine). 

The proposed actions under this alternative are additive to other actions in the watershed that impact 

these corridors. The Charlie Brown and Fall projects have continuing fuels treatments (prescribed 

burning) planned; some within the corridors. The result of these actions, combined with this project’s 

actions, would be the shifting of the actual corridor to the most suitable habitat adjacent to it. It is 

unlikely that wildlife move in such a smooth linear fashion, but more likely use a “stepping stone” 

approach, moving from suitable patch to suitable patch. The proposed actions contribute to a narrowing 

of the corridors to the minimal standard and guideline levels.

Table 78. Unit specific effects to corridors (excluding controls and units west of owl range line)

Unit Trtmt PAG Current -

BA

Target -

BA

In 

Corridor?

Will 

Function as 

a corridor 

After?

Acres

31 thin to 

50% MCD 184 70 N Y 148

34

thin to 

75% with 

openings

MCD 184 105 Y Y 94

42 thin to 

umz MCD/MCW 154 70 Y Y 160

43

thin to 

75% with 

openings

MCW/PPD 154 53 N No 70

44 thin to 

75% umz PPW/PPD 154 53 Y No 147

Assumes top 1/3 site potential is analogous to within 66% (2/3) of UMZ

Some current roads do cut across the corridors; and it is likely that some of the firelines will be built 

through the corridors. Ideally, a corridor would not have roads or a 3-4 ft wide fireline so as to 

eliminate any barrier to movement. Roads going through corridors, although narrow, may limit 

movement of small, ground-dwelling species. Forest roads that cross corridors are not expected to have 

measurable impacts to birds (e.g. forest hawks) or large mammals (e.g. wolverine). 

Cumulative Effects

The proposed actions under this alternative are additive to other actions in the watershed that impact 

these corridors. The Charlie Brown and Fall projects have continuing fuels treatments (prescribed 

burning) planned; some within the corridors. The result of these actions, combined with this project’s 

actions, would be the shifting of the actual corridor to the most suitable habitat adjacent to it. It is 

unlikely that wildlife move in such a smooth linear fashion, but more likely use a “stepping stone” 

approach, moving from suitable patch to suitable patch. The proposed actions contribute to a narrowing 

of the corridors to the minimal standard and guideline levels.

Alternative 3

Because this alternative proposes the same treatments within the same LOS habitat as Alternative 2, the 

effects are the same as those described.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200  EXF Final EIS

Consistency with LRMP standards and guidelines

Eastside Screens, #6 Interim wildlife standard, d. Scenario A, 3) “Maintain connectivity and reduce 

fragmentation of LOS stands by adhering to the following standards...(1) ...a contiguous network 

pattern by at least 2 different directions...(2) canopy closures are within the top one-third of site 

potential. Stand widths should be at least 400 ft. wide...(4) Harvesting within connectivity corridors is 

permitted if all the criteria in (2) above can be met, and if some of understory...is left in patches or 

scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover. Some understory removal, stocking control, or 

salvage may be possible activities, depending on the site.” 

The proposed actions would maintain the minimal levels outlined in these standard and guidelines.

Sheridan Mt Late-Successional Reserve (LSR)

This compliments the LSR analysis under the Northern Spotted Owl, Chapter 3.2. 

Consistency with Northwest Forest Plan

“The objective of Late-Successional Reserves is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional 

and old-growth related species including the northern spotted owl.”(C-9)

As illustrated in the analysis, the portion of the LSR overlapping with the project area provides an 

extremely small amount of spotted owl dispersal habitat and no NRF habitat in proportion to the rest of 

the LSR. Only the proposed action (Alternative 2) proposes any treatments within the LSR. The 

proposed action with this Unit 33 (portion of LSR overlapping with project area) is thin to 75% of the 

UMZ which would contribute to a more single story structure, lower canopy closures, and heavier 

representation of ponderosa pine rather than true firs. This would enhance conditions for white-headed 

woodpeckers , and LSRA indicator species of ponderosa pine habitat.

Alternatives 1 (No Action) and Alternative 3, which do not propose actions within the LSR, would 

protect conditions for flammulated owls and northern goshawk. These two species were listed as 

indicators of mixed conifer dry habitat in the LSRA, and this habitat type is the largest amount of 

habitat currently within this portion of the LSR.

“Thinning and other silvicultural treatments inside reserves are subject to review by the Regional 

Ecosystem Office to ensure that the treatments are beneficial to the creation of late-successional forest 

conditions.” (C-12)

The Regional Ecosystem Office reviewed the LSRA and found it consistent with the Northwest Forest 

Plan. The proposed actions under Alternative 2 meet the “Enhancement Treatments” outlined in the 

LSRA for each of the plant association groups. 

Alternatives 1 and 3 do not treat the LSR, and therefore this does not apply.

“East of the Cascades and in the Oregon and California Klamath Provinces – Given the increased risk 

of fire in these areas due to lower moisture conditions and the rapid accumulation of fuels in the 

aftermath of insect outbreaks and drought, additional management activities are allowed in LateSuccessional Reserves.” (C-12)

The proposed actions under Alternative 2 would achieve a level of fuels reduction within the LSR. 

Alternatives 1 and 3 do not treat the LSR, and therefore this does not apply.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  201

“Guidelines to Reduce Risks of Large-Scale Disturbance – Large-scale disturbances are natural events, 

such as fire, that can eliminate spotted owl habitat on hundreds or thousands of acres. Certain risk 

management activities, if properly planned and implemented, may reduce the probability of these major 

stand-replacing events...Elevated risk levels are attributed to changes in the characteristics and 

distribution of the mixed-conifer forests resulting from the past fire protection...Risk reduction efforts 

are encouraged where they are consistent with the overall recommendations in these guidelines.” (C12) See previous discussions.

“Silvicultural activities aimed at reducing risk shall focus on younger stands in Late-Successional 

Reserves...While risk-reduction efforts should generally be focused on young stands, activities in older 

stands may be appropriate if : 1) the proposed management activities will clearly result in greater 

assurance of long-term maintenance of habitat, 2) the activities are clearly needed to reduce risks, and 

3) the activities will not prevent the Late-Successional reserves from playing an effective role in the 

objectives for which they were established.” (C-13)

The NWFP does not define “younger stands.” As shown in the analysis, the portion of the LSR that 

overlaps the project area is largely made up of stands with trees averaging 9-20” dbh; whereas there are 

areas within the LSR as a whole that have stands with trees averaging >20” dbh (Figure 14).

The proposed actions do add a level of fuel reduction that may protect other portions of the LSR; this 

would support the intention of (1) in the above standard and guideline. The proposed actions would also 

support the intention (3) in the above standard and guideline specific to LSR indicator species that 

utilize ponderosa pine habitats.

Alternatives 1 and 3 do not treat the LSR, and therefore this does not apply.

Summary & Cumulative Effects

The effects of the proposed actions in Unit 33 of Alternative 2 are additive to other fuels reduction and 

commercial thinning operations within the two subwatersheds. Since the designation of the Sheridan 

Mt LSR there has not been any commercial logging within it; nor have there been any major wildfires. 

There are recreational trails and roads through the LSR and these have received maintenance over the 

years. These activities (e.g. danger tree falling along roads, trails, shelters [2], and sno-park [Edison]) 

have been in accordance with the standard and guidelines with the NWFP and LSRA. The proposed 

actions would be additive to these maintenance activities.

The additive, or cumulative, effects of these activities are minimal because: 1) the amount of habitat 

impacted is minimal (see Table 21 and Figures 14-16); and 2) while there are minimal losses of habitat 

such as multi-storied stands with components of white fir; there are also minimal gains of habitat such 

as single-storied ponderosa pine. There are LSR indicator species utilizing each of these habitats. As a 

result of the proposed actions, this portion of the LSR would resemble more single-story, ponderosa 

pine habitat with lower average canopy closures (25-40%), but higher average stand diameters (>15” 

dbh) because the larger trees would be selected to retain and the smaller understory trees would be 

removed.

Because there are no proposed actions within the LSR, there are no cumulative effects as a result of 

Alternatives 1 or 3.

Survey and Manage Species – Northwest Forest Plan Area

Compliance with the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey 

and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (Forest 

Service et al. 2001 “2001 ROD”)
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202  EXF Final EIS

This project complies with the applicable species survey requirements and management provisions in 

the 2001 ROD; specifically:

• No habitat for Pristiloma arcticum crateris, Crater Lake tightcoil, Cypripedium montanum 

(vascular plant) or Great gray owl occurs in the project area, so no surveys are required per the 

direction in the 2001 ROD (pg. 22, Standards and Guidelines)

• Surveys were conducted to protocol for Leptogium cyanescens (lichen) and Schistostega 

pennata (bryophyte) – no specimens were found.

• For those flora species that did not require pre-disturbance surveys, but do require management 

of known sites, no species sites are known within the project area.

3.3.4 Soil Quality

Introduction

The long-term sustainability of forest ecosystems depends on the productivity and hydrologic 

functioning of soils. Ground-disturbing management activities directly affect soil properties, which may 

adversely change the natural capability of soils and their potential responses to use and management. A 

detrimental soil condition often occurs where heavy equipment or logs displace surface organic layers or 

reduce soil porosity through compaction. Detrimental disturbances reduce the soils ability to supply 

nutrients, moisture, and air that support soil microorganisms and the growth of vegetation. The 

biological productivity of soils relates to the amount of surface organic matter and coarse woody debris 

retained or removed from affected sites. Maintenance or enhancement of soil productivity is an integral 

part of National Forest management. Therefore, an evaluation of the potential effects on soil 

productivity is essential for integrated management of forest resources. 

Soil productivity was not identified as a key issue and it was not used to formulate any of the 

alternatives for this project. However, plans for projects must include provisions for mitigation of 

ground disturbances where activities are expected to cause resource damage that exceeds Regional and 

LRMP standards and guidelines. The proposed use of ground-based equipment can potentially increase 

the amount and distribution of detrimental soil conditions within the individual activity areas proposed 

for mechanical treatments. The removal of trees from activity areas can potentially cause adverse 

changes in organic matter levels. 

Soil productivity measures that track how each of the alternatives address these management concerns 

are provided below: 

• Change in extent of detrimental soil conditions following proposed harvest and mitigation

treatments within the individual activity areas proposed for mechanical treatments. Predicted 

amounts of soil impacts are analyzed quantitatively in both acres and percentages within each 

activity area (EIS Unit). 

• Amount of coarse woody debris (CWD) and surface organic matter that would likely be 

retained to protect mineral soil from erosion and provide both short and long-term nutrient 

supplies for maintaining soil productivity on treated sites. Professional judgment is used to 

evaluate the probable success of implementing recommended guidelines for meeting soil 

productivity and wildlife habitat objectives. 

Scope of the Analysis

The soil resource may be directly, indirectly, and cumulatively affected within each of the activity areas 

proposed within the project area. An activity area is defined as “the total area of ground impacted 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  203

activity, and is a feasible unit for sampling and evaluating” (FSM 2520 and Forest Plan, page 4-71). For 

this project proposal, activity area boundaries are considered to be the smallest identified area where the 

potential effects of different management practices would occur. Thus, the discussion of soil effects and 

soil quality standards will be focused on the EIS units (activity areas) proposed for silvicultural and fuel 

reduction treatments. These activity areas range in size from approximately 22 acres to 335 acres. 

Quantitative analyses and professional judgment were used to evaluate the issue measures by comparing 

existing conditions to the anticipated conditions which would result from implementing the proposed 

management activities. The Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to assess disturbed areas 

associated with the transportation system and logging facilities. 

The temporal scope of the analysis is defined as short-term effects being changes to soil properties that 

would generally revert to pre-existing conditions within 5 years or less, and long-term effects as those 

that would substantially remain for 5 years or longer. This analysis also considered the effectiveness 

and probable success in project design and implementation of the management requirements, mitigation 

measures, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) which are designed to avoid, minimize or reduce 

potentially adverse impacts to soil productivity.

Affected Environment

Landscape Characteristics

The EXF planning area covers approximately 3,615 acres within the Bachelor Butte-Lookout Mountain 

physiographic area, where essentially all landforms, rocks, and soil are products of volcanic events. 

Approximately 84 percent of the planning area is characterized by gently sloping plains, uneven lava 

flows, toe-slopes and benches which lie below and surround cinder cones, buttes and a shield volcano 

that account for the remaining 16 percent of the total acreage. Dominant landforms have slope gradients 

that range from 0 to 30 percent. Steeper slopes (25 to 80 percent) are associated with smooth-tomoderately dissected side slopes of Lookout Mountain, escarpments of buttes and ridges, and a few 

scattered cinder cones. Except for localized areas of broken lava flows, the majority of the planning 

area (over 95 percent) has been covered by a moderately thick layer of volcanic ash and pumice deposits 

that consist mainly of non-cohesive (loose), sand-sized soil particles with little or no structural 

development. Elevation ranges from approximately 4,380 feet in the southeastern corner of the 

planning area to 6,215 feet on the summit of Lookout Mountain. Mean annual precipitation generally 

ranges from about 18 to 25 inches. 

Most of the water yielded from these lands is delivered to streams as deep and subsurface flows at lower 

elevations (see Section 3.3.5). The sandy textures of the ash-influenced soils have high infiltration and 

percolation rates that readily drain excess moisture and account for low amounts of overland flow. 

There are no perennial or intermittent stream channels, wetlands, riparian areas, Riparian Reserves, or 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas within the planning area (Walker 2008). Any channeled surface 

flows within ephemeral channels are discontinuous and of short duration. Consequently, there would be 

no effects to any Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 303(d) listed water bodies or essential 

fish habitat.

The project area contains eight landtype units based on similarities in landforms, geology, and climatic 

conditions that influence defined patterns of soil and vegetation (Soil Resource Inventory, Larsen, 

1976). The biophysical characteristics of these landtype units can be interpreted to identify hazards, 

suitabilities, and productivity potentials for natural resource planning and management. 

Two dominant landtype units, Soil Resource Inventory (SRI) mapping units 65 and 67, comprise 

approximately 80 percent of the planning area. These lands consist of gently-sloping lava plains, toeslopes, and benches of buttes with slopes that range from 0 to 30 percent. Dominant soils are 

moderately deep (20 to 40 inches) to deep (greater than 40 inches) with loamy-sand textures and 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204  EXF Final EIS

moderate productivity potential for the growth of vegetation. The more productive soils are commonly 

found on north and east slope aspects and on concave slope positions such as toe slopes, swales and 

depressions. Less than one percent of the planning area is comprised of landtypes that contain localized, 

low-productivity sites on rocky lava flows with shallow soils (less than 20 inches). 

Soils derived from volcanic ash and pumice deposits tend to be non-cohesive (loose) and they have very 

little structural development due to the young geologic age of the volcanic parent materials. These ashinfluenced soils have naturally low bulk densities and low compaction potential. Mechanical 

disturbances can still reduce soil porosity to levels that limit vegetative growth, especially where there is 

a lack of woody debris and surface organic matter to help cushion the weight distribution of groundbased equipment. Due to the absence of rock fragments on the surface and within soil profiles, these 

ash-influenced soils are well suited for soil restoration treatments (subsoiling) that loosen compacted 

soil layers and improve the soils ability to supply nutrients, moisture, and air that support vegetative 

growth and biotic habitat for soil organisms. The dominant sandy-textured soils within the planning 

area are not susceptible to soil puddling damage due to their lack of plasticity and cohesion. 

The sandy-textured surface layers are also easily displaced by equipment operations, especially during 

dry moisture conditions. The maneuvering of equipment is most likely to cause soil displacement 

damage on steep landforms. Approximately 126 acres (3.6 percent) of the planning area contains steep 

slopes (greater than 30 percent) associated with smooth-to-moderately dissected side slopes of Lookout 

Mountain, escarpments of buttes and ridges, and a few scattered cinder cones. 

Surface erosion on undisturbed sites with gentle slopes occurs at naturally low rates because soils are 

protected by vegetation and organic litter layers. Currently, soils in the planning area are adequately 

protected to maintain erosion rates within acceptable limits. Surface erosion by water is generally not a 

concern due to gentle slopes and the low-to-moderate erosion hazard ratings of the dominant landtypes. 

Accelerated rates of surface erosion are usually associated with disturbances or events that reduce 

vegetative cover, displace organic surface layers, or reduce soil porosity through compaction. Due to 

the lack of structural development, soils derived from volcanic ash are easily eroded where water 

becomes channeled on disturbed sites such as road surfaces, recreation trails, and logging facilities. 

Land Suitability and Inherent Soil Productivity 

The suitable lands database for the Deschutes National Forest LRMP identifies areas of land which are 

considered to be suitable for timber production using criteria affecting reforestation potential (FSH 

2409.13). Lands that do not meet these criteria are considered unsuitable or partially suitable for timber 

harvest due to regeneration difficulties or the potential for irreversible damage to resource values from 

management activities. 

Dominant landtypes within the EXF planning area generally have moderate productivity ratings. Less 

than 1 percent of the planning area is comprised of landtypes that contain localized areas of rocky lava 

flows with little or no natural soil. These sparsely vegetated sites have low productivity and typically 

support only scattered non-commercial trees. The locations of the proposed activity areas exclude areas 

which are considered to be unsuitable for timber production. All activity areas proposed for commercial 

timber harvest and/or non-commercial thinning treatments meet the criteria for land suitability that 

would allow them to be regenerated or resist irreversible resource damage. 

Sensitive Soil Types

Based on criteria for identifying sensitive soils to management (Deschutes LRMP (Appendix 14, 

Objective 5), sensitive soils within the EXF planning area include: 

1) soils on slopes greater than 30 percent (slopes range from 25 to 80 percent (see Figure 33)

 * Cinder Cones – Forested: Map Units 80 and 81 (42 acres on south aspects)
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  205

* Escarpments/Side Slopes – Forested: Map Units 68, 69, and HM (81 acres on lava domes, 

ridges, and side slopes of shield volcano)

2) soils that occur in localized areas on rocky lava flows with variable soil depths 

 * Map Unit 76 (29 acres of ponderosa pine, site index 50 to 80) (only occurs in Control Unit 35)

There are no potentially wet soils with seasonally high water tables or sensitive soils with high or severe 

ratings for surface erosion. 

Approximately 152 acres (4 percent) of the planning area contains landtypes with localized areas of 

sensitive soils (Figure 33). It should be emphasized that only portions of these total landtype acres 

actually contain sensitive soils. Areas with sensitive soils are typically confined to specific segments of 

the dominant landform and they are generally too small to delineate on maps. Sensitive soil areas that 

occur within activity areas are discussed under the direct and indirect effects of implementing the 

management activities proposed under Alternative 2, page 220.

Existing Condition of the Soil Resource

Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Natural Events

There is currently no evidence of detrimental soil conditions associated with past wildfires, mass 

movements (landslides) or other natural disturbance events within the EXF planning area. Fire history 

data indicates that the Lookout Mountain Eastside Fire (1914) burned vegetation and natural fuels 

within portions of five proposed activity areas. There is no evidence of severely burned soil. Enough 

time has passed that the recovery of native vegetation and forest litter are providing adequate ground 

cover protection and surface erosion rates have returned to natural levels. 

There are no natural or management-related landslides known to exist within the planning area. 

Dominant landforms do not meet criteria for landslide prone terrain and the high permeability of ashinfluenced soil materials generally precludes the buildup of hydraulic pressures that could trigger 

landslides.

Therefore, natural disturbances are not included as existing sources of detrimental soil conditions within 

any of the activity areas proposed for this project.

Management-Related Disturbances

The existing condition of the soil resource has mainly been influenced by the transportation system and 

ground-based logging facilities which were used for timber harvest and yarding activities between 1973 

and 1988. The EXF planning area was not affected by intensive railroad logging during the early 1900s. 

The Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to assess disturbed areas associated with existing 

roads and past harvest areas within each of the activity areas proposed for this project. There are no 

developed recreation sites, livestock water developments, special use facilities, or other land uses that 

have committed the soil resource to a non-productive condition. 

Based on harvest history and field observations, timber management activities have not been intensive 

within the activity areas proposed for this project. Stand entries that overlap with activity areas 

proposed under Alternative 2 include approximately 1,576 acres of commercial thinning, 292 acres of 

intermediate (partial removal), and 16 acres of regeneration harvest. Past harvest areas that overlap with 

activity areas proposed under Alternative 3 include approximately 1,503 acres of commercial thinning, 

215 acres of intermediate (partial removal), and 16 acres of regeneration harvest. Ground-based logging 

equipment disturbed soils on portions of 15 EIS units proposed for mechanical harvest under Alternative 

2 and Alternative 3. There was no overlap of past harvest within EIS units 11 (Alt. 2), 11.1, and 11.2
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206  EXF Final EIS

(Alt. 3). Temporary roads, log landings, and primary skid trails were constructed and used to access 

individual treatment units. Most project-related impacts to soils occurred on and adjacent to these 

heavy-use areas where mechanical disturbances removed vegetative cover, displaced organic surface 

layers, or compacted soil surface layers. Research studies and local soil monitoring have shown that 

soil compaction and soil displacement account for the majority of detrimental soil conditions resulting 

from ground-based logging operations (Page-Dumroese, 1993; Geist, 1989; Powers, 1999; Deschutes 

Soil Monitoring Reports). Much of the random disturbance between main skid trails and away from 

landings has decreased naturally over time. Visual evidence of old logging facilities is difficult to 

observe due to the abundance of ground cover vegetation and forest litter. Current levels of soil impacts 

would remain unchanged within the four control units (EIS units 15, 25, 35, and 45). 

The extent of detrimentally disturbed soil is dependent on a number of variables including the types of 

silvicultural prescriptions, the intensity of equipment use with each entry, and the spacing distances 

between main skid trails. Local knowledge and experience with past and current harvest practices, 

research references, field investigations, and local monitoring reports were used to make conservative 

estimates of existing soil conditions within each of the activity areas planned for this project. Soil 

monitoring results on local landtypes and similar soils have shown that 15 to 30 percent of the unit area 

can be detrimentally disturbed by ground-based harvest systems depending on harvest prescriptions and 

soil conditions at the time of harvest (Deschutes Soil Monitoring Reports, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999).

Conservative estimates were used to predict how much surface area is currently impacted by existing 

roads, main skid trail systems, and log landings. The spacing distances between main skid trails 

generally average between 75 and 100 feet (approximately 11 to 14 percent of the unit area). Local soil 

monitoring has shown that the use of ground-based equipment for commercial thinning treatments 

generally causes about 3 to 5 percent more soil impacts than disturbed area estimates based solely on 

skid trail spacing distances and the average size of log landings. Seventeen percent (17%) was used to 

calculate existing amounts of detrimental soil conditions in areas where past thinning treatments overlap 

with portions of EA units proposed for mechanical harvest. Activity areas which were previously 

managed with intermediate harvest prescriptions generally have about 23% detrimental soil conditions 

associated with existing skid trails and log landings. Past regeneration treatments (e.g., clear cuts, 

shelterwood, final removal, etc.) generally cause about 6 % more detrimental soil conditions (29 

percent) than thinning and intermediate prescriptions because equipment use is more intensive 

throughout activity areas. Based on the proportionate extent of overlap with the proposed activity areas, 

these percentages were used to calculate existing amounts of detrimental soil conditions. The existing 

amount of detrimentally disturbed soil associated with past logging facilities is included in the estimated 

percentages displayed in Table 79 (Alternative 2) and Table 80 (Alternative 3) of the Environmental

Consequences section.

Much of the random disturbance between main skid trails and away from landings has decreased 

naturally over time. Research has shown that the detrimental effects of soil compaction generally 

require more than 3 to 5 equipment passes over the same piece of ground (McNabb, Froehlich, 1983). 

Where logs were skidded with only 1 or 2 equipment passes, soil compaction was shallow (2 to 4 

inches) and the bulk density increases did not qualify as a detrimental soil condition. Frost heaving and 

freeze-thaw cycles have gradually restored soil porosity in areas with slight to moderately compacted 

layers near the ground surface. Other factors that have helped the recovery process include root 

penetration, rodent activity, wetting and drying cycles, and surface organic matter. The establishment of 

vegetative ground cover and the accumulation of litter and organic matter has also been improving areas 

of past soil displacement. 

There is no evidence that post-harvest broadcast burn treatments caused any severely burned soil in 

random locations off designated logging facilities in previously managed areas.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  207

There have been no restoration treatments, such as subsoiling, which have rehabilitated compacted soil 

on existing skid trails and log landings in any of the activity areas proposed for mechanical harvest. The 

long-term effects of deep compaction still persist where multiple equipment passes were made in 

previously harvested areas. Impacted soils will remain in a detrimental condition until such time that 

reclamation treatments are implemented to improve the hydrologic function and productivity on 

disturbed sites.

Roads detrimentally disturb soil properties and convert the soil resource to a non-productive condition.

Most of the precipitation that falls on compacted road surfaces is transmitted as surface runoff, and 

roads are primary sources of accelerated surface erosion. The planning area contains approximately 32

miles of classified system roads. This equates to approximately 50 acres or 1.4 percent of the planning 

area. Segments of these existing roads, ranging from 0.1 to 2.9 miles (0.2 to 4.4 acres), cross through 

portions of all 16 EA units proposed for mechanical treatments under both action alternatives. Some 

local system roads are currently closed to public use, but segments of these roads may be re-opened to 

provide necessary access. Road surveys will be conducted to identify where maintenance may be 

necessary to correct drainage problems on existing system roads that would be used as haul routes for 

this project. The estimated amount of detrimentally disturbed soil committed to existing system roads is 

included in acres and percentages in Tables 79 and 80.

The planning area contains a cinder borrow pit and surrounding steep slopes that are excluded from 

mechanical vegetation treatments within EIS Unit 33. The activity area boundaries have been adjusted 

and approximately 49 acres have been removed from the proposed treatment area. 

Soil impacts from dispersed recreation activities are usually found along existing roads, trails and other 

management facilities where vegetation has been cleared and soils have been previously disturbed by 

other land use activities. Many of these disturbances often occur on or adjacent to existing roads and 

old skid trail networks of past harvest areas. Conservative estimates were used to account for soil 

disturbances from existing roads and logging facilities. Due to the size of the EIS units, the minor 

extent of soil disturbances from dispersed camping and other incidental recreation uses would not be 

expected to have a measurable effect on site productivity. Therefore, soil disturbances from dispersed 

recreation activities were not included as existing sources of detrimental soil conditions within any of 

the individual activity areas proposed for this project.

Summary of Existing Detrimental Soil Disturbances: 

The primary sources of detrimental soil conditions are associated with the transportation system and 

existing logging facilities which were used for past timber harvest activities. The extent of detrimentally 

disturbed soil associated with dispersed recreation use is relatively minor in comparison. For activity 

areas that have already been impacted by previous management, project plans need to include options 

for avoiding, reducing, and mitigating cumulative levels of existing and predicted amounts of new soil 

disturbance from project activities. 

Previous harvest entries consisted of commercial thinning treatments, intermediate (partial removal), 

and regeneration harvest using ground based equipment. Segments of existing roads, ranging from 0.1 

to 2.9 miles (0.2 to 4.4 acres), cross through portions of all activity areas proposed under each of the 

action alternatives. Most project-related impacts to soils occurred on and adjacent to heavy-use areas 

such as skid trail systems, log landings and roads that were used for access in past timber sale units.

Based on the extent of overlap with past harvest areas, it was concluded that one activity area (EIS Unit 

21) proposed under both action alternatives currently has detrimental soil conditions that exceed 20 

percent of the unit area. The remaining EIS units (15 units in Alternative 2 and 16 units in Alternative 

3) have existing detrimental soil conditions that range from less than one to 20 percent and average 14 

percent.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208  EXF Final EIS

Table 79 and Table 80 display quantitative, unit-specific information that shows the predicted amounts 

of detrimental soil conditions before and after implementation of project activities. The extent of soil 

impacts associated with existing roads and logging facilities is included in the estimated acres and 

percentages shown in Column 3 of these tables. 

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter

The effects of management activities on soil productivity also depend on the amount of coarse woody 

debris and surface organic matter retained or removed on affected sites. Decaying wood on the forest 

floor is critical for maintaining the soils ability to retain moisture and provide both short and long-term 

nutrient supplies and biotic habitat for microorganism populations. Mycorrhizal fungi and other soil 

organisms depend upon the continuing input of woody debris and fine organic matter. A balance 

between fuel management objectives and ensuring adequate amounts of CWD is an important goal for 

maintaining long-term soil productivity. Using mycorrhizal fungi as a bio-indicator of productive forest 

soils, research studies were used to develop conservative recommendations for leaving sufficient CWD 

following management activities (Graham et al. 1994, Brown et al. 2003). A minimum of 5 to 10 tons 

per acre of coarse woody debris (greater than 3 inches in diameter) should be retained on dry, ponderosa 

pine sites and 10 to 15 tons of CWD per acre on mixed conifer and lodgepole pine sites to maintain soil 

productivity. A sufficient number of standing dead snags and/or live trees should also be retained for 

future recruitment of organic matter. 

Conserving surface litter (i.e., organic materials such as leaves, twigs and branches less than 3 inches in 

diameter) is also important for protecting mineral soil from erosion, buffering the effects of soil 

compaction, and supplying nutrients that support the growth of vegetation and native populations of soil 

organisms. Surface litter also provides on-site moisture retention. 

Current levels of coarse woody debris and surface litter are not known for site-specific locations 

throughout the planning area. However, it is expected that adequate amounts of each currently exist to 

protect mineral soil from erosion and provide nutrients for maintaining soil productivity within the 

majority of previously managed areas. Since past vegetation management activities were implemented 

20 to 35 years ago, levels of CWD and surface litter have been improving towards optimum conditions. 

Coarse woody materials have accumulated through natural mortality, windfall, and recruitment of fallen 

snags over time. Annual leaf/needle fall, small diameter branches, twigs and other forest litter have 

increased organic matter levels for short-term nutrient cycling and humus development in the mineral 

soil. In some portions of the planning area, fire exclusion has resulted in vegetation conditions that have 

fuel loadings in excess of historic pre-settlement conditions.

Management Direction

The Pacific Northwest Region developed soil quality standards and guidelines that limit detrimental soil 

disturbances associated with management activities (FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1). This 

Regional guidance supplements the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) standards 

and guidelines and provides policy for planning and implementing management practices which 

maintain or improve soil quality. It is consistent with LRMP interpretations for standards and 

guidelines SL-3 and SL-4 that limit the extent of detrimental soil conditions within activity areas. 

Standard and Guideline (SL-4) directs the use of rehabilitation measures when the cumulative impacts 

of management activities are expected to cause damage exceeding soil quality standards and guidelines 

on more than 20 percent of an activity area. Standard and Guideline (SL-5) limits the use of mechanical 

equipment in sensitive soil areas. 

Management direction requires that when initiating new activities; 

1. Design new activities that do not exceed detrimental soil conditions on more than 20 percent of 

an activity area, including the permanent transportation system; 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  209

2. In activity areas where less than 20 percent detrimental soil impacts exist from prior activities, 

the cumulative amount of detrimentally disturbed soil must not exceed the 20 percent limit 

following project implementation and restoration; and

3. In activity areas where more than 20 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior 

activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration must, 

at a minimum, not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move 

conditions toward a net improvement in soil quality.

Detrimental soil conditions are those that meet the following criteria:

• Detrimental Compaction in volcanic ash/pumice soils is an increase in soil bulk density of 20 

percent, or more, over the undisturbed level.

• Detrimental Puddling occurs when the depth of ruts or imprints is six inches or more.

• Detrimental Displacement is the removal of more than 50 percent of the A horizon from an 

area greater than 100 square feet, which is at least 5 feet in width.

• Severely Burned soils are considered to be detrimentally disturbed when the mineral soil 

surface has been significantly changed in color, oxidized to a reddish color, and the next onehalf inch blackened from organic matter charring by heat conducted through the top layer on an 

area 100 square feet or greater with a width of at least five feet.

Environmental Consequences

The magnitude and duration of potential effects, both physical and biological changes in soil 

productivity, depend on the intensity of site disturbance, the timing and location of activities, and the 

inherent properties of the volcanic ash-influenced soils within affected activity areas. Direct effects 

occur at essentially the same time and place as the actions that cause soil disturbance, such as soil 

displacement and compaction from equipment operations. Indirect effects occur sometime after or some 

distance away from the initial disturbance, such as increased runoff and surface erosion from previously 

compacted areas. Cumulative effects include all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that 

cause soil disturbance within the same activity areas proposed with this project.

The potential for detrimental changes to soil physical properties was quantitatively analyzed by the 

extent (surface area) of temporary roads, log landings, and designated skid-trail systems that would 

likely be used to facilitate yarding activities within each of the proposed activity areas. Professional 

judgment was used to evaluate changes in the amount and composition of coarse woody debris and 

surface organic matter. This analysis also considered the effectiveness and probable success of 

implementing the soil mitigation and resource protection measures which are designed to avoid, 

minimize or reduce potentially adverse impacts to soil productivity. 

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Detrimental Soil Disturbance

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the management activities proposed in this document would not take 

place. The extent of detrimental soil conditions would not increase above existing levels because no 

additional land would be removed from production to build temporary roads and logging facilities. 

Implementation of project design criteria and mitigation measures would not be necessary. The existing 

amount of detrimentally disturbed soil associated with system roads and existing logging facilities is 

included in the unit-specific information displayed in Table 79 and Table 80 and the summarized 

information in Table 81.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210  EXF Final EIS

Although disturbed soils would continue to recover naturally from the effects of past management, the 

current percentages of detrimental soil conditions would likely remain unchanged for an extended 

period of time. This alternative would defer opportunities for soil restoration treatments that reduce 

existing impacts and help move conditions toward a net improvement in soil quality. 

Soil productivity would not change appreciably unless future stand-replacing wildfires create intense 

ground-level heating that results in severely burned soils. Detrimental changes to soil properties 

typically result from extreme surface temperatures of long duration, such as the consumption of large 

diameter logs on the forest floor. Although hazardous fuels have been reduced in some previously 

managed areas, fire exclusion has resulted in undesirable vegetation conditions and excessive fuel 

loadings in other portions of the planning area (see Fire/Fuels Section). Alternative 1 would defer fuel 

reduction opportunities at this time. 

If a large amount of fuel is present in timber stands, soil temperatures during an intense ground-level 

fire can remain high for an extended period of time and excessive soil heating would be expected to 

produce detrimental changes in soil chemical, physical, and biological properties. Severely burned soil 

would mainly be confined to localized microsites beneath downed logs, stumps, or around the root 

crowns of individual trees. Severe burning may cause soils to repel water, thereby increasing surface 

runoff and subsequent erosion. The loss of protective ground cover would also increase the risk for 

accelerated wind erosion on the loose, sandy textured soils which are widespread throughout the 

planning area. The loss of soil nutrients from fire volatilization would likely have the greatest impact on 

soil productivity during the fire recovery period. Recent research studies within experimental plots 

burned by the 2002 Biscuit Fire showed that losses of carbon and nitrogen from intense soil heating 

were much higher than most previous estimates (Bormann et al. 2008). 

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter

In the short term, the amount of coarse woody debris and surface litter would continue to be maintained 

or gradually increase if they are not consumed by fire. In forested areas, coarse woody materials will 

accumulate through natural mortality, windfall, and recruitment of fallen trees and snags over time. 

Short-term nutrient sources will also increase through the accumulation of small woody material from 

shrub and tree branches, annual leaf and needle fall, and decomposition of grass and forb plant 

materials. 

In the long term, fuel loadings will continue to increase thereby increasing the potential for an 

uncharacteristic, high intensity wildfire. Existing and projected high fuel loadings would be expected to 

support a future wildfire that is capable of killing and/or consuming large areas of vegetation, coarse 

woody material, and surface organic matter. Potential productivity reductions would be greatest in areas 

where CWD and surface litter are completely consumed by fire. Intense ground-level fire would likely 

create areas of severely burned soil and increase the potential for accelerated wind and water erosion. 

The loss of surface organic matter would adversely affect ground cover conditions, the nutrient supply 

and water storage capability on affected sites. Over time, at least some of the CWD losses in timber 

stands would be replaced as fire killed trees are recruited to the forest floor. 

Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Important Interactions

The proposed management activities include mechanical harvest of commercial size trees, noncommercial thinning and a combination of various fuel reduction treatments to reduce stand densities, 

lower the susceptibility to insect infestations, and reduce the risk for stand replacement wildfires. The 

same types of treatment would be used for each action alternative (EIS, Alternative Descriptions), but 

the overall extent and locations of some activity areas would be somewhat different. The action 

alternatives are similar because the same types and locations of soil disturbance would occur on the 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  211

same landtypes and existing soil conditions. There is little difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 in 

terms of the number of activity areas and treatment acres proposed for mechanical harvest (Alternative 

2: 16 activity areas in four treatment blocks totaling 2,554 acres and Alternative 3: 17 activity areas in 

four treatment blocks totaling 2,182 acres). Four untreated control units would retain current structure 

without any manipulation for each action alternative. The primary difference is Alternative 3 would 

exclude portions of seven activity areas (approximately 372 acres) where wildlife concerns (NRF) 

and/or Late Successional Reserve (LSR) plant communities overlap with the EIS Units. The nature of 

the effects to the soil resource is similar for project activities that use mechanical harvest equipment to 

accomplish management objectives. 

The development and use of temporary roads, log landings, and skid trail systems are the primary 

sources of physical disturbance that would result in adverse changes to soil productivity. Soil condition 

assessments for similar soils and the same types of ground-based harvest systems, research references,

local monitoring reports (including the effectiveness of subsoiling treatments), EXF field investigations, 

and personal communications with local, sale administration and soil scientist personnel were used to 

predict the potential extent of detrimental soil disturbance within proposed activity areas. Research 

studies and local soil monitoring have shown that soil compaction and soil displacement account for the 

majority of detrimental soil conditions resulting from ground-based logging operations (PageDumroese, 1993; Geist, 1989; Powers, 1999; Deschutes N.F., Soil Monitoring Reports). For the 

commercial harvest prescriptions proposed with Alternatives 2 and 3, conservative estimates were used 

to predict how much surface area would likely be impacted by logging facilities that would be needed to 

accommodate the harvest and yarding activities.

No new roads would be constructed and retained as part of the transportation system. Some currently 

closed roads may be opened to provide necessary access, but these roads would be re-closed following 

harvest activities. No additional road closures or road decommissioning treatments are proposed under 

either action alternative.

Under Alternative 2, approximately 1.0 mile (total) of temporary road segments would be established to 

allow access to four activity areas proposed for commercial harvest. Under Alternative 3, about 0.5 

miles of temporary road would be required to allow access to four activity areas. Temporary roads are 

built to low specification with the amount of surface area limited to the minimum necessary to get 

equipment into log landing areas. The magnitude of soil disturbance associated with temporary roads 

for this project would be essentially the same as the disturbed widths of primary skid trails. None of the 

temporary road locations would require excavation of cut-and-fill slopes because they are located on 

nearly level to gentle slopes. All temporary road segments would be subsoiled (obliterated) following 

their use, so disturbed area estimates are balanced by restoration treatments which are designed to 

improve soil quality by reclaiming and stabilizing compacted road surfaces. 

Mechanical harvest would likely be accomplished using a track-mounted machine equipped with a 

felling head (harvester shear). Commercial material would be whole-tree yarded to main skid trail 

networks and rubber-tired grapple machines would then transport the bunched trees to landings for 

processing and loading. The grapple skidding equipment would be restricted to designated skid trails at 

all times. It is estimated that skid trails would have an average disturbed width of 12 feet and the 

average spacing distance between main trails would be approximately 100 feet. On moderately flat 

ground with small timber, research found that skid trail spacing of 100 feet would account for 

approximately 11 percent of the unit area (Froehlich 1981; Garland 1983). There would be no new 

development of skid trail systems on the steeper portions of the proposed activity areas. Primary skid 

trails are not constructed trails on gentle to moderately sloping terrain. Therefore, surface organic layers 

are not scraped away by equipment blades or removed off site. These organic materials are either 

retained near the top of the skid trail, or through operations fluffed to the edges of the trail. It is not 

mixed deeper into the soil profile, and these organic materials are easily redistributed onto the skid trails 

during rehabilitation treatments. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212  EXF Final EIS

Based on personal communications with timber sale administrators, the Forest average for log landings 

is one landing (100 feet by 100 feet) for 10 acres of harvest (approximately 2 percent of the unit area). 

Disturbed area calculations for log landings are added to the acreage estimates for main skid trails to 

determine the overall soil disturbance from logging facilities. 

The majority of soil impacts would consist of soil compaction on heavy use areas (i.e., roads, log 

landings, and main skid trails) in known locations that can be reclaimed when these facilities are no 

longer needed for future management. In unmanaged portions of the proposed activity areas, the 

development and use of new logging facilities would result in approximately 13 percent of the activity 

area (11 percent in skid trails plus 2 percent in log landings). This amount was used to analyze the 

extent of detrimental soil conditions which are expected to occur in undisturbed portions of activity 

areas proposed for mechanical harvest treatments. 

Past monitoring information was used to predict the extent of new soil disturbance in activity areas that 

overlap with previously managed areas. The estimates of detrimental soil conditions account for the 

expected amount of volume removal, the type of logging equipment, the spacing of skid trails, the 

number of log landings that would be needed to deck accumulated materials, and the fact that not all 

existing logging facilities can be reutilized due to their orientation within units. Although existing skid 

trail networks and log landings would be used wherever possible, soil condition assessments have 

shown that the extent of detrimental soil conditions can be expected to increase by 5 to 10 percent with 

each successive entry into a stand (Craigg 2000). An average increase of 7 percent detrimental soil 

conditions associated with additional logging facilities was used to analyze the proportionate extent of 

overlap for previously managed areas that occur within activity areas proposed for commercial thinning. 

Tables 60 and 61 display acres and percentages of detrimental soil conditions for existing conditions 

and the predicted effects from project implementation, including soil restoration treatments, for each of 

the activity areas proposed for commercial harvest. These estimates assume that mechanical harvest 

operations would occur under dry conditions during the summer/fall operating season. If mechanical 

thinning is implemented during favorable winter logging conditions, the direct and indirect effects to 

soils is greatly reduced or eliminated.

The effects of deep, detrimental compaction can physically reduce or inhibit microbial populations 

through reduced diffusion rates of inorganic nutrients or the respiration of by-product gases, such as 

carbon dioxide, out of macro pores in the rooting zone. Soil compaction on temporary roads, log 

landings and main skid trails may also affect fungal populations through a reduction of ectomycorrhizal 

root tips on disturbed sites. Machine traffic off designated logging facilities would be limited in extent, 

so adverse changes to soil biota would not be expected in random locations of activity areas. Short-term 

reductions in the composition and distribution of biotic populations would be returned toward preimpact conditions following subsoiling treatments on compacted soils (Moldenke et al. 2000). Under 

both action alternatives, all of the proposed activity areas will have percentages of detrimental soil 

conditions that are less than or equal to 20 percent of the unit area (Tables 79, 80, and 81). Therefore, 

mechanical harvest activities would not be expected to inhibit microbial populations and mineralization 

rates to levels of concern for long-term site productivity and sustainability of forest vegetation. 

Machine traffic off designated logging facilities would be limited in extent. Mechanical harvesters 

would only be allowed to make no more than two equipment passes on any site-specific area between 

main skid trails or away from log landings. Physical impacts to the soil resource incurred by off-trail 

machine traffic are generally considered to be detrimental where multiple passes are made by heavy 

equipment. Research has shown that the detrimental effects of soil compaction generally require more 

than 3 to 5 equipment passes over the same piece of ground (McNabb and Froehlich 1983). The direct 

effects of only two equipment passes do not inhibit the growth of vegetative ground cover and natural 

processes (i.e., frost heaving, freeze-thaw and wet-dry cycles) generally offset slight-to-moderately 

compacted soil layers near the ground surface in the short-term. The maneuvering of equipment on 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  213

gentle to moderately sloping terrain generally does not remove soil surface layers in areas that are at 

least 5 feet in width to qualify as detrimental soil displacement (FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement). 

Under both action alternatives, pre-commercial thinning on all acres proposed for commercial harvest 

would be accomplished by hand felling small-diameter trees with chainsaws. These manual thinning 

treatments would not cause cumulative increases in detrimental soil conditions because machinery 

would not be used for yarding activities. Resource protection measures and site-specific mitigation 

would not be necessary for these non-mechanical treatments. Some of these trees would remain on the 

ground to provide surface cover and a source of nutrients as these organic materials gradually 

decompose. This would have beneficial effects to site productivity by improving the soils ability to 

resist surface erosion and providing fine organic matter for humus development in mineral soil.

Fuel Reduction Activities

Recent research findings suggest that forest managers should carefully consider the effects of wildfire 

on soils when planning to reduce and/or change the distribution of fuels across the landscape (Bormann 

et al. 2008). Under both action alternatives, a combination of various fuel reduction treatments would 

be implemented to reduce hazardous fuels and the potential for stand replacement wildfires. Fuel 

treatments include thinning trees, machine piling and burning slash materials, mechanical shrub/slash 

treatments (mowing), and the use of prescribed fire. 

Most of the slash generated from commercial harvest would be machine piled and burned on log 

landings. Burning large concentrations of machine-piled logging slash would cause severely burned soil 

because heat is concentrated in a localized area. However, this slash disposal method would not result 

in a net increase in detrimental soil conditions because burning would occur on previously disturbed 

sites. Therefore, there would be no cumulative increase from the predicted amount of detrimentally 

disturbed soil associated with the mechanical harvest and yarding activities. 

Machine piling from designated logging facilities would also be accomplished within portions of all EIS 

Units proposed for commercial harvest under Alternatives 2 and 3. Machine piling on main skid trails 

would have no effect on the extent of detrimentally disturbed soil because equipment would operate on

the same logging facilities used during yarding operations. The same designated skid trail systems 

would be used as primary travel routes. The use of specialized equipment such as tracked excavators

and small backhoes with grapple arms are capable of accumulating woody materials without moving 

appreciable amounts of topsoil into slash piles. This fuel reduction method would not cause additional 

soil impacts because the piling and burning would occur on previously disturbed sites that already have 

detrimental soil conditions. If material is utilized rather than piled and burned, it will be piled at the 

landing, where later it will either be chipped on-site and removed, or transported off-site to a receiving 

facility. Removal of biomass will use the same road and skid trail network as the harvest system, and 

will not necessitate the use of additional area; and thus would not be expected to cause further ground 

disturbance.

It is expected that the hand pile-and-burn method may also be used to burn small concentrations of slash

materials in localized areas of treatment units that may not meet fuel management objectives. Hand 

piles would be well-distributed within activity areas and this non-mechanical fuels treatment does not 

cause soil displacement or compaction damage. Due to the relatively small-size of hand piles, groundlevel heating is usually not elevated long enough to detrimentally alter soil properties that affect longterm site productivity. These activities are conducted at times and under conditions that reduce the risk 

of resource damage, including impacts to soils and understory vegetation. Soil heating is reduced when 

the soil surface layer is moist, so piles are typically burned following periods of precipitation. Nutrient 

releases may actually benefit site productivity in small localized areas. Conservative estimates were 

used to account for the cumulative amount of surface area that could be potentially impacted from 

harvest and yarding activities. The cumulative effects to soils from this post-harvest treatment would be 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

214  EXF Final EIS

minor in comparison. Therefore, the overall extent of detrimental soil conditions is not expected to 

increase above the predicted levels in any of the proposed activity areas. 

Specialized machinery with attachments for mowing would be used in portions of all EIS Units 

proposed for commercial harvest under Alternatives 2 and 3. It is expected that brush mowing activities 

may occur on as much as 70% to 80% of an activity area. Only brush and light fuels will be mowed to 

reduce the height of tall shrubs and small trees to within six to eight inches of the ground. Any largediameter downed logs would be retained on-site and protected from disturbance to the extent possible. 

Brush mowing does not cause detrimental soil displacement and increases in soil bulk density are 

inconsequential. The primary factors that limit soil compaction are the low ground pressure of the 

tractor and mowing heads, the limited amount of traffic (one equipment pass), and the cushioning effect 

of surface organic matter. These activities have been monitored in the past, and results show that 

increases in soil displacement and compaction do not meet the criteria for detrimental soil conditions 

(Deschutes N.F., Soil Monitoring Reports, 1995 and 1997).

Prescribed fire would be used to reduce ground fuels in portions of all EIS Units following commercial 

harvest, pre-commercial thinning and mowing treatments. Prescribed burning activities are conducted 

at times and under conditions that maximize benefits while reducing the risk of resource damage. 

Prescribed underburns in timber stands would be accomplished under carefully controlled conditions to 

minimize damage to standing trees and remove only a portion of the surface organic matter. Natural 

fuel accumulations consist mainly of fine fuels (i.e., decadent brush, tree branches, and needle cast 

litter) that typically do not burn for long duration and cause excessive soil heating. Ponderosa pine logs 

and existing snags will be retained to meet coarse woody debris requirements for wildlife habitat and 

soil productivity. It is expected that adequate retention of coarse woody debris and fine organic matter 

(duff layer) would still exist for protecting mineral soil from erosion and supplying nutrients that 

support the growth of vegetation and populations of soil organisms.

Prescribed burn plans would comply with all applicable LRMP standards and guidelines and Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) prior to initiation of burn treatments. Soil moisture guidelines would be 

included in burn plans to minimize the risk for intense ground-level heating. Duff moisture levels of 

approximately 50 percent are typical during light intensity underburns (USDA forest Service, RMRSGTR42-Volume 4). Soil heating during spring burns would be negligible because higher moisture 

levels at this time of year generally result in cooler burns with lower potential for causing severely 

burned soil. Ground cover vegetation is expected to recover rapidly, and it is not anticipated that these 

burn treatments would accelerate surface erosion above tolerable limits. Fall burning would be 

conducted following brief periods of precipitation. Fuel reductions achieved through planned ignitions 

usually burn with low-to-moderate intensities that do not result in detrimental changes to soil properties. 

The successful implementation of prescribed underburning would likely result in beneficial effects by 

reducing fuel loadings and wildfire potential as well as increasing nutrient availability in burned areas.

Mechanical and hand lines would be used in conjunction with existing roads to effectively control the 

spread of fire. Fire lines would be needed to keep fire out of the control units, the tree plantation, and 

wildlife sensitive areas (NRF). The extent of disturbed soil would be limited to the minimum necessary 

to achieve fuel management objectives. In locations where mechanical fuel breaks are necessary, a lowground pressure machine would pull a small plow to expose mineral soil in areas approximately 3 feet 

to 4 feet wide. Soil compaction is not a concern because this activity would be accomplished with a 

single equipment pass. No mechanical fire line would be constructed on sensitive soils or steep slopes 

over 30 percent. Hand lines would likely be less than 18 to 24 inches in width. Neither method would 

result in the removal of surface organic layers in large enough areas, at least 5 feet in width as defined in 

FSM 2520, to qualify as detrimental soil displacement. Displaced topsoil and unburned woody debris 

would be redistributed over mechanical fire line following prescribed burning activities. Litter from 

adjacent trees, coupled with the establishment of herbaceous grasses, forbs, shrubs, and tree seedlings 

will provide new sources of fine organic matter for humus development in the mineral soil. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  215

Soil Restoration Treatments on Temporary Roads and Logging Facilities

Subsoiling treatments are designed to promote maintenance or enhancement of soil quality. Subsoiling 

improves the hydrologic function and productivity on disturbed sites by fracturing compacted soil 

layers, thereby reducing soil strength and increasing macro pore space with soil profiles. Subsequently, 

this contributes to increased water infiltration, enhanced vegetative root development, and improves the 

soils ability to supply nutrients, moisture, and air that support vegetative growth and biotic habitat for 

soil organisms. Additional treatment options for improving soil quality on disturbed sites include 

redistributing topsoil in areas of exposed mineral soil and pulling available logging slash and woody 

materials over the treated surface. These conservation practices comply with Regional policy and 

LRMP interpretations for Forest-wide standards and guidelines SL-3 and SL-4 that limit the extent of 

detrimental soil conditions. 

Soil restoration treatments would be applied with a self-drafting winged subsoiler to reduce the 

cumulative amount of detrimentally compacted soil within 14 activity areas proposed under Alternative 

2 and 14 activity areas proposed under Alternative 3 to comply with management direction. This would 

include subsoiling all temporary roads and some of the primary skid trails and log landings following 

post-harvest activities. The majority of existing and new soil impacts would be confined to known 

locations in heavy use areas which facilitates where subsoiling treatments would need to be 

implemented on compacted sites. Table 60 and Table 61 (Column 5) display the number of acres within 

each EIS Unit that would be subsoiled and the percentage of detrimental soil conditions that would 

remain upon completion of the subsoiling treatment. These comply with Regional policy (FSM 2520, 

R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1) by reducing the cumulative levels of detrimental soil conditions 

anticipated from this project proposal. 

As previously described under Affected Environment, extensive areas of the planning area have been 

covered by loose, non-cohesive ash and pumice deposits that consist mostly of sand-sized soil particles. 

These coarse-textured soils have little or no structural development within the principal root 

development zone (4 to 12 inches in depth) where changes in soil compaction (bulk density) are 

assessed according to Regional direction (FSM 2521.03). Dominant soils are well suited for tillage 

treatments due to their naturally low bulk densities, low compaction potential, and absence of rock 

fragments on the surface and within soil profiles. These are the soil properties which are typically 

affected by mechanical forces that either reduce or improve soil porosity in the compaction zone.

Although equipment traffic during harvest operations can decrease soil porosity on these soil materials, 

compacted sites can be mitigated physically by tillage with a winged subsoiler (Powers 1999). 

Monitoring of past subsoiling activities on the Deschutes National Forest has shown that these 

treatments are highly effective in restoring detrimentally compacted soils. The winged subsoiling

equipment used locally has been shown to lift and shatter compacted soil layers in greater than 90 

percent of the compacted zone with one equipment pass (Craigg 2000). Field observations have shown 

that bulk densities return to natural levels after a year or two of physical settling and moisture 

percolation through the soil profile (Deschutes Soil Monitoring 1995). Most of the surface organic 

matter remains in place because the equipment is designed to allow adequate clearance between the tool 

bar and the surface of the ground for allowing smaller logging slash to pass through without building up. 

Any mixing of soil and organic matter does not cause detrimental soil displacement because these 

materials are not removed off site. Since the winged subsoiler produces nearly complete loosening of 

compacted soil layers without causing substantial displacement, subsoiled areas on this forest are 

expected to reach full recovery within the short-term (less than 5 years) through natural recovery 

processes.

Although the biological significance of subsoiling is less certain, these restoration treatments likely

improve subsurface habitat by restoring the soils ability to supply nutrients, moisture, and air that 

support soil microorganisms. Research studies on the Deschutes National Forest have shown that the 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

216  EXF Final EIS

composition and distributions of soil biota populations rebound back toward pre-impact conditions 

following subsoiling treatments on compacted skid trails and log landings (Moldenke et al. 2000). 

The subsoiling specialist and trained crew members work with the equipment operator to identify 

locations of detrimentally compacted soil. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring is then 

conducted on treatment areas to assure that soil restoration objectives have been met. 

Effects of Implementing Sale Area Improvement Activities

Sale area improvement opportunities include road closures, boundary signing, weed monitoring,

stocking surveys, flagging removal, non-commercial thinning and prescribed burning. Road closures 

that use signs or barriers do not reduce the number of acres of detrimentally disturbed soil because the 

road prism remains in place. Manual thinning and prescribed underburn treatments would likely result 

in beneficial effects by reducing fuel loadings and wildfire potential as well as increasing nutrient 

availability in burned areas. None of the remaining activities would increase the extent of detrimental 

soil conditions within any of the proposed activity areas. There would be no cumulative increase in the 

estimated percentages of detrimental soil conditions disclosed in Table 79 and Table 80.

Project Design / Mitigation

Under both action alternatives, project implementation includes the application of management 

requirements, project design elements, and mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or rectify 

potentially adverse impacts to the soil resource (EIS, Chapter 2). Various references and Forest Service 

Manual direction were used as guidance to determine project design and mitigation needs for the EXF

Thinning, Fuels, and Research project. These information sources are based on the best available 

technical data, past monitoring of similar activities on representative soils, Forest Plan direction, and 

nationally and regionally approved soil quality standards and guidelines. 

Operational guidelines for equipment use are included in project design elements to provide options for

limiting the amount of surface area covered by logging facilities and controlling equipment operations 

to minimize the potential for soil impacts in random locations of activity areas. Existing logging 

facilities would be reutilized to the extent possible. Grapple skidders would only be allowed to operate 

on designated skid trails spaced on average of 100 feet apart (11 percent of the unit area). Machine 

traffic off designated logging facilities would be limited in extent. The short-term effects of only two 

passes by mechanical harvesters and other specialized machinery off designated logging facilities are 

not expected to qualify as a detrimental soil condition. Natural processes, such as frost heaving and 

freeze-taw cycles, can generally offset soil compaction near the soil surface. Conventional groundbased logging operations would be avoided in random locations of activity areas that contain sensitive 

soils on steep slopes over 30 percent. Other requirements include avoiding equipment operations during 

periods of high soil moisture and operating equipment over frozen ground or a sufficient amount of 

compacted snow. The successful application of these management practices would help lower the 

estimated percentages of detrimental soil conditions displayed in Table 79 and Table 80 and the 

summarized information in Table 81.

The project area is located on the eastern flanks of the Cascade Mountain Range where ample snowfall 

accumulations typically provide favorable winter logging conditions. The direct and indirect effects to 

soils is greatly reduced or eliminated by skidding over frozen ground or compacted snow. Best results 

are achieved by skidding over frozen ground (at least 6 inches in depth) or on a compacted snow base 

(at least 12 inches in depth) if the soil is not frozen. Skidding over shallower snow packs should only be 

considered during snow accumulation periods and not during melt periods. If the compacted snow base 

begins to melt due to warmer temperatures or rain-on-snow events, skidding operations would be 

discontinued until freezing temperatures and/or additional snowfall allows operations to continue. 

There is no potential for soil puddling damage because the dominant coarse-textured soils lack plasticity 

and cohesion. If project implementation includes the use of winter logging operations, it is anticipated 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  217

that there would be very little or no visual evidence of soil compaction, rutting, displacement, or loss of 

protective plant and litter cover.

All reasonable Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be applied to minimize the effects of road 

systems and timber management activities on the soil resource. A variety of BMPs are available to 

control erosion on roads and logging facilities. The BMPs are tiered to the Soil and Water Conservation 

Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.22), which contains conservation practices that have proven effective in 

protecting and maintaining soil and water resource values. The Oregon Department of Forestry 

evaluated more than 3,000 individual practices and determined a 98 percent compliance rate for BMP 

implementation, with 5 percent of these practices exceeding forest practice rules (National Council for 

Air and Stream Improvement, 1999).

Soil restoration treatments (subsoiling) would be applied with a self-drafting winged subsoiler to rectify 

impacts by reclaiming and stabilizing detrimentally disturbed soils committed to roads, log landings, 

and main skid trails. The majority of existing and new soil impacts would be confined to known 

locations in these heavy use areas which facilitates where soil restoration treatments need to be 

implemented on compacted sites. The predicted amount of detrimental soil conditions was evaluated 

for each activity area proposed for commercial harvest. Individual activity areas that would receive 

subsoiling treatments are identified by unit number in a site-specific mitigation measure (EIS, Chapter 

2). The predicted amount of subsoiled acres within specific activity areas were used for deductions in 

the estimated percentages of detrimental soil conditions in Table 79 and Table 80.

Monitoring of past subsoiling activities on the Deschutes National Forest has shown that these 

treatments are highly effective in restoring detrimentally compacted soils. Restoration treatments, such 

as subsoiling, are designed to promote maintenance or enhancement of soil quality, and they are 

consistent with Regional policy (FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement) and LRMP interpretations of standards 

and guidelines SL-3 and SL-4. 

Soil moisture guidelines would be included in prescribed burn plans to minimize the potential for 

intense ground-level heating and adverse effects to soil properties. Under both action alternatives, 

guidelines for adequate retention of coarse woody debris and fine organic matter are included as 

management requirements to assure both short-term and long-term nutrient cycling on treated sites. 

If the Responsible Official selects an action alternative, the management requirements, project design 

elements and mitigation measures are to be implemented during and following project activities to meet 

the stated objectives for protecting and maintaining soil productivity.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3

Detrimental Soil Disturbance

The use of ground-based equipment for commercial harvest activities would increase the amount and 

distribution of soil impacts within each of the proposed activity areas. The development and use of 

temporary roads, log landings, and skid trail systems are the primary sources of new soil disturbance 

that would result in adverse changes to soil productivity. Most soil impacts would occur on and 

adjacent to these heavy-use areas where multiple equipment passes typically cause detrimental soil 

compaction. Mitigation and resource protection measures would be applied to avoid or minimize the 

extent of soil disturbance in random locations between main skid trails and away from log landings. 

Non-commercial thinning by hand felling small-diameter trees with chainsaws would not cause 

additional soil impacts because machinery would not be used for yarding activities. Under all action 

alternatives, the overall extent of detrimental soils conditions from fuel reduction activities is not 

expected to increase above the predicted levels within any of the proposed activity areas. 

The amount of surface area committed to new logging facilities would be limited to the minimum 

necessary to achieve management objectives. Although existing facilities would be used to the extent 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

218  EXF Final EIS

possible, some additional skid trails and log landings will be needed to accommodate harvest and 

yarding activities in all activity areas proposed for commercial harvest. A total of approximately 1.0 

mile (total) of temporary road segments would be established to allow access in EIS Units 11, 11.1, 

11.2, 12, 14, and 21 (0.5 mile alternative 3). The re-use of existing road prisms would not cause 

additional soil impacts because machinery access would occur on previously disturbed sites. The 

magnitude of soil disturbance associated with new temporary roads would be essentially the same as the 

disturbed widths of primary skid trails. None of the temporary road locations would require excavation 

of cut-and-fill slopes because they are located on nearly level to gentle slopes. All temporary road 

segments would be subsoiled (obliterated) following their use, so the disturbed area estimates are 

balanced by restoration treatments which are designed to improve soil quality by reclaiming and 

stabilizing compacted road surfaces. 

Conservative estimates indicate that a total of approximately 217 acres of soil would be removed from 

production to establish designated skid trail systems and log landings within portions of the 16 activity 

areas proposed for commercial harvest under Alternative 2. Approximately 178 acres in 17 activity 

areas would be detrimentally disturbed by logging facilities under Alternative 3. 

Under both action alternatives, soil restoration treatments would be applied with a self-drafting winged 

subsoiler to reduce the cumulative amount of detrimentally compacted soil within proposed activity 

areas which are expected to exceed the Regional guidance provided in FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 

2500-98-1. Surface area calculations (acres) of designated areas such as roads, main skid trails, and log 

landings determine how much area needs to be reclaimed within individual activity areas of known size. 

Under Alternative 2, portions of 14 activity areas would receive subsoiling treatments to rehabilitate 

approximately 98 acres of compacted soil on all temporary roads and some of the primary skid trails and 

log landings. Under Alternative 3, it is predicted that approximately 94 acres of compacted soil would 

be subsoiled within portions of 14 activity areas to comply with management direction. Since 

commercial thinning is proposed under both action alternatives, the transportation system (including 

main skid trails and log landings) is typically left in place so these facilities can be reused for future 

entries. Activity areas that would receive soil restoration treatments are identified by unit number in a 

site-specific mitigation measure (Chapter 2.2.4). 

Following soil restoration treatments (subsoiling), the analysis indicates that the extent of detrimental 

soil conditions relative to existing conditions would either: 1) remain the same, 2) increase, but remain 

within the LRMP standard of 20 percent, or 3) decrease levels below existing conditions.

Table 79 (Alternative 2) and Table 80 (Alternative 3) display quantitative, unit-specific information that 

shows the predicted amounts of detrimental soil conditions before and after implementation of the 

mechanical harvest and subsoiling mitigation treatments. It does not include any detrimental soil 

disturbances associated with fuel reduction activities. The column for existing detrimental soil 

conditions includes existing roads and past logging facilities if those disturbed sites are located within 

the proposed activity area boundaries.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  219

Table 79. Alternative 2: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest and 

Soil Restoration Treatments by Activity Areas. 

EIS Unit 

Number

Unit 

Acres

Existing Detrimental

Soil Conditions

 

Acres Percent of 

Unit

Estimated Detrimental

Soil Conditions

After Harvest

 

Acres Percent of 

Unit

 Estimated Detrimental

 Soil Conditions 

 After Restoration

Subsoil Acres Percent of 

Unit 

11 118 0.5 < 1 % 15.3 13 % 0.0 13 % 

12 192 8.9 5 % 32.6 17 % 0.0 17 %

13 83 12.7 15 % 19.8 24 % 3.2 20 %

14 194 30.0 16 % 45.7 24 % 6.9 20 %

21 106 23.7 22 % 30.9 29 % 9.7 20 %

22 206 39.1 19 % 55.6 27 % 14.4 20 %

23 225 41.0 18 % 58.5 26 % 13.5 20 %

24 196 29.0 15 % 45.2 23 % 6.0 20 %

31 148 26.2 18 % 37.0 25 % 7.4 20 %

32 164 24.5 15 % 37.7 23 % 4.9 20 %

33 335 48.3 14 % 77.4 23 % 10.4 20 %

34 94 18.2 19 % 24.8 26 % 6.0 20 %

41 116 17.0 15 % 26.7 23 % 3.5 20 %

42 160 19.9 12 % 33.6 21 % 1.6 20 %

43 70 12.8 18 % 17.5 25 % 3.5 20 %

44 147 25.8 18 % 36.8 25 % 7.4 20 %

Table 80. Alternative 3: Estimates of Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical Harvest and 

Soil Restoration Treatments by Activity Areas. 

 EIS Unit

 Number

Unit

Acres

Existing Detrimental

 Soil Conditions 

 

Acres Percent of 

Unit

Estimated Detrimental

 Soil Conditions 

 After Harvest

 

Acres Percent of 

Unit

 Estimated Detrimental

 Soil Conditions 

 After Restoration

Subsoil Acres Percent of 

Unit 

11.1 22 0.5 2 % 3.3 15 % 0.0 15 % 

11.2 27 0.2 1 % 3.8 14 % 0.0 14 %

12 155 8.6 6 % 26.4 17 % 0.0 17 %

13 81 12.7 16 % 19.6 24 % 3.4 20 %

14 194 30.0 16 % 45.7 24 % 6.9 20 %

21 106 23.7 22 % 30.9 29 % 9.7 20 %

22 170 32.4 19 % 45.8 27 % 11.8 20 %

23 167 28.4 17 % 41.9 25 % 8.5 20 %

24 196 29.0 15 % 45.2 23 % 6.0 20 %

31 148 26.2 18 % 37.0 25 % 7.4 20 %

32 151 24.4 16 % 36.3 24 % 6.1 20 %

33 174 35.1 20 % 47.3 27 % 12.5 20 %

34 94 18.2 19 % 24.8 26 % 6.0 20 %

41 116 17.0 15 % 26.7 23 % 3.5 20 %

42 160 19.9 12 % 33.6 21 % 1.6 20 %

43 70 12.8 18 % 17.5 25 % 3.5 20 %
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

220  EXF Final EIS

44 147 25.8 18 % 36.8 25 % 7.4 20 %

Table 81 summarizes current, post-harvest, and post-rehabilitation soil conditions within the proposed 

vegetation treatment units under both Alternatives 2 and 3. This summarized information from Tables 

79 and 80 reflects the net change in detrimental soil conditions for the total area of soil impacts for the 

combined number of activity areas (EIS units) proposed with the action alternatives.

Table 81. Summary1 of Net Change in Detrimental Soil Conditions following Mechanical harvest and 

Soil Restoration (Subsoiling) Treatments proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3.

Net Change in 

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions from 

Existing Condition

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Detrimental Soil Conditions Detrimental Soil Conditions

<=20% >20% Total <=20% >20% Total

Existing Condition 15 units 

354 acres

1 unit 

24 acres

16 units 

378 acres

16 units 

321 acres

1 unit 

24 acres

17 units 

345 acres

Following Harvest 2 units 

48 acres

14 units 

547 acres

16 units 

595 acres 

3 units 

34 acres

14 units 

489 acres

17 units 

523 acres

Post-Project 

Condition Following 

Subsoiling 

Mitigation

16 units 

497 acres

0 units 

0 acres

16 units 

497 acres

17 units 

428 acres

0 units 

0 acres

17 units 

429 acres

1 Summarizes unit specific information found in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the Soil Specialist Report. 

The following conclusions summarize the potential increases in detrimental soil conditions associated 

with additional logging facilities that would be needed to facilitate mechanical thinning and yarding 

operations.

Under Alternative 2, it is anticipated that ground-based equipment would be used in portions of 16

activity areas that total approximately 2,554 acres. An estimated total of approximately 378 acres of 

soil is currently impacted by existing roads, skid trails, and log landings. One of the proposed activity 

areas (EIS Unit 21) has pre-harvest detrimental soil conditions that exceed 20 percent of the unit area. It 

is predicted that the direct effects of the proposed harvest and yarding activities would result in a total

increase of approximately 217 acres of additional soil impacts associated with skid trail systems and log 

landings. Soil compaction would account for the majority of these impacts and the total amount of 

detrimental soil conditions would be approximately 595 acres prior to soil restoration activities. In 

order to comply with management direction, portions of 14 activity areas would receive subsoiling 

treatments to rehabilitate approximately 98 acres of detrimentally compacted soil on all temporary roads 

and some of the primary logging facilities. Following subsoiling mitigation, the total amount of 

detrimentally disturbed soil associated with management facilities is predicted to be approximately 497 

acres.

The analysis concludes that after project implementation, including subsoiling mitigation, all 16 of the 

proposed activity areas will have percentages of detrimental soil conditions that are less than or equal to 

20 percent of the unit area. Commercial harvest activities would increase levels of detrimental soil 

conditions above existing conditions by approximately 1 to 13 percent within all of the proposed 

activity areas. One activity area (EIS Unit 21) would result in a 2 percent net improvement in soil 

quality (less than existing conditions) following subsoiling mitigation. The net change in detrimental 

soil conditions is associated with additional logging facilities that would be retained following postharvest soil restoration treatments. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  221

Under Alternative 3, it is anticipated that ground-based equipment would be used in portions of 17

activity areas that total approximately 2,182 acres. An estimated total of approximately 345 acres of 

soil is currently impacted by existing roads, skid trails, and log landings. One of the proposed activity 

areas (EIS Unit 21) has pre-harvest detrimental soil conditions that exceed 20 percent of the unit area. It 

is predicted that the direct effects of the proposed harvest and yarding activities would result in a total

increase of approximately 178 acres of additional soil impacts associated with skid trail systems and log 

landings. Soil compaction would account for the majority of these impacts and the total amount of 

detrimental soil conditions would be approximately 523 acres prior to soil restoration activities. In 

order to comply with management direction, portions of 14 activity areas would receive subsoiling 

treatments to rehabilitate approximately 94 acres of detrimentally compacted soil on all temporary roads 

and some of the primary logging facilities. Following subsoiling mitigation, the total amount of 

detrimentally disturbed soil associated with management facilities is predicted to be approximately 429 

acres.

The analysis concludes that after project implementation, including subsoiling mitigation, all 17 of the 

proposed activity areas will have percentages of detrimental soil conditions that are less than or equal to 

20 percent of the unit area. Commercial harvest activities would increase levels of detrimental soil 

conditions above existing conditions by approximately 1 to 13 percent within all of the proposed 

activity areas. One activity area (EIS Unit 21) would result in a 2 percent net improvement in soil 

quality (less than existing conditions) following subsoiling mitigation. The net change in detrimental 

soil conditions is associated with additional logging facilities that would be retained following postharvest soil restoration treatments. 

There is little difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 in terms of the percentage of harvested acres with 

detrimental soil impacts following mechanized harvest and soil rehabilitation activities. Implementation 

of Alternative 2 would result in a greater extent of detrimental soil conditions than Alternative 3 

following harvest activities due to more treatment acres (approximately 372 acres). Following 

subsoiling mitigation, the total number of acres with detrimental soil conditions is predicted to be 

approximately 497 acres under Alternative 2 and 429 acres under Alternative 3 or a difference of 68

acres. Compacted soils on main skid trails and log landings would be reclaimed back to a productive 

status because subsoiled areas are expected to reach full recovery within the short-term. 

The harvest and restoration treatments (subsoiling) proposed in both action alternatives are consistent 

with Regional policy (FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement) and LRMP interpretations for Forest-wide standards 

and guidelines SL-3 and SL-4 that limit the extent of detrimental soil conditions (Final Interpretations, 

Document 96-01, Soil Productivity, 1996). In harvest units where less than 20 percent detrimental 

impacts currently exist from prior activities, the cumulative amount detrimentally disturbed soil would 

not exceed the 20 percent limit following project implementation and restoration activities. In EIS Unit 

21 where pre-harvest detrimental soil conditions currently exceed the 20 percent standard, subsoiling 

mitigation would result in a 2 percent net improvement to meet the standard and comply with 

management direction. Both action alternatives balance the goal of maintaining and/or improving soil 

quality following project implementation and soil restoration activities.

Sensitive Soils

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 propose mechanical harvest treatments on landtypes that contain sensitive 

soils in localized areas. Figure 33 shows locations where portions of proposed EIS Units overlap with 

slopes greater than 30 percent or localized areas with rocky lava flows (SRI Soil Code 76) that limit 

regeneration potential.

Under both action alternatives, compliance with LRMP standard and guideline SL-5 is addressed by 

avoiding and/or minimizing the potential for adverse effects in activity areas that contain sensitive soils 

on steep slopes over 30 percent. The planning area contains a cinder borrow pit and surrounding steep 

slopes (approximately 49 acres) that have been removed from the proposed treatment area within EIS
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222  EXF Final EIS

Unit 33. There are seven additional activity areas that contain localized areas with steep slopes (greater 

than 30 percent) which are generally too small to delineate on maps and the total area makes up less 

than 10 percent of the EIS Unit (see Figure 33 next page). These activity areas are identified by unit 

number in a site-specific mitigation measure (EIS Chapter 2). In order to avoid soil displacement 

damage, limitations for equipment use would be enforced to prohibit mechanical disturbances where 

sustained slopes are steeper than 30 percent and longer than 150 feet. There would be no new 

development of temporary roads, designated skid trails, or log landings in portions of activity areas that 

contain slopes steeper than 30 percent. Ground-based equipment would be restricted to existing roads 

and designated skid trails at all times and operators would be required to winch logs to skidders. It is 

expected that many of the steeper portions of harvest units will be left as untreated patches. 

None of the proposed EIS Units overlap landtypes that contain sensitive soils with a high hazard for 

surface erosion or potentially wet soils with high water tables that would require special mitigation. 

Under both action alternatives, all EIS Units proposed for mechanical harvest exclude areas of barren 

lava and rocky lava flows where the potential for successful regeneration is limited by properties such as 

soil depth and low fertility. Dominant soils have moderate productivity ratings and all proposed 

treatment units meet criteria for land suitability that would allow them to be regenerated or resist 

irreversible resource damage. Therefore, there are no reforestation concerns associated with variable 

soil depths on rocky lava flows.

 Figure 33. Areas where sensitive soils can occur overlain with project units.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  223

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter

CWD and surface organic matter were evaluated qualitatively based on the probable success of 

implementing appropriate Best Management Practices and recommended guidelines that address 

adequate retention of these important landscape components to meet soil productivity and wildlife 

habitat objectives (see Wildlife Section and Chapter 2 Mitigation). A minimum amount of 5 to 10 tons 

per acre of CWD on ponderosa pine sites and 10 to 15 tons per acre on mixed conifer or lodgepole pine 

sites is recommended to ensure desirable biological benefits for maintaining soil productivity without 

creating an unacceptable fire hazard (Brown et al. 2003; Graham et al. 1994). Based on guidelines for 

estimating tons per acre of CWD (Brown 1974; and Maxwell, Ward 1980), the levels of CWD retention 

to meet wildlife habitat objectives would also meet these soil resource objectives. 

The proposed harvest activities would reduce potential sources of future CWD, especially where 

mechanized whole-tree yarding is used in activity areas. Harvest activities recruit CWD to the forest 

floor through breakage of limbs and tops during felling and skidding operations. Existing down woody 

debris would be protected from disturbance and retained on site to the extent possible. Understory trees, 

damaged during harvest operations, would also contribute woody materials that provide ground cover 

protection and a source of nutrients on treated sites. It is expected that enough broken branches, 

unusable small-diameter trees, and other woody materials would likely be available after mechanical 

thinning activities to meet recommended guidelines for CWD retention. 

Fuel reduction treatments would also reduce CWD by burning logging slash at the log landings. Some 

of the logging slash generated from commercial harvest may also be machine piled and burned on 

temporary roads, main skid trails or other previously disturbed sites. Burning small concentrations of 

logging slash by the hand-pile-and-burn method would have only a minor effect on the overall amount 

of CWD and surface organic matter within the proposed activity areas.

Post-harvest review by fuel specialists would determine the need for prescribed underburn treatments, 

especially where fine fuel accumulations increase the risk of wildfire to unacceptable levels. If 

prescribed fire is recommended, burning would occur during moist conditions to help ensure adequate 

retention of CWD and surface organic matter following treatment. Fuel reductions achieved through 

planned ignitions usually burn with low-to-moderate intensities that increase nutrient availability in 

burned areas. Low intensity fire does not easily consume material much larger than 3 inches in 

diameter, and charring does not substantially interfere with the decomposition or function of coarse 

woody debris (Graham et al. 1994). Although prescribed burn treatments are not intended to kill 

residual trees, tree mortality in varying amounts will likely occur during project implementation. Any 

dead trees killed from prescribed burn treatments will eventually fall to the ground and become 

additional sources of CWD. Depending on the rate of decay and local wind conditions, many of the 

small-diameter trees (less than 10 inches) would be expected to fall within the short-term (less than 5 

years). Alternative 2 proposes the use of underburn treatments on more acres than Alternative 3. 

Assuming the same or similar burning prescriptions and conditions, the beneficial effects in short-term 

nutrient availability would be somewhat greater under Alternative 2 than Alternative 3. In the long 

term, there is likely to be no measurable difference in the quantity or distribution of CWD associated 

with fuel treatments under either action alternative. 

A cool-temperature prescribed burn would remove some of the surface litter and duff materials without 

exposing extensive areas of bare mineral soil. Some of the direct and indirect beneficial effects to the 

soil resource include: 1) a reduction of fuel loadings and wildfire potential, 2) increased nutrient 

availability in localized areas, and 3) maintenance of organic matter that supports biotic habitat for 

mycorrhizal fungi and microorganism populations. 

Cumulative Effects

Detrimental Soil Disturbance
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

224  EXF Final EIS

Cumulative effects on the soil resource include all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that 

cause soil disturbance within the same activity areas analyzed under the direct and indirect effects of 

implementing the proposed actions. The combined effects of past and current disturbances and those 

anticipated from implementing the proposed actions were previously addressed under existing 

conditions and the discussion of direct and indirect effects. The effects of future management activities 

are addressed in a following subsection entitled Foreseeable Actions Common to All Alternatives.

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the extent of detrimental soil conditions would not increase above 

existing levels because no additional land would be removed from production to build temporary roads 

and logging facilities. The unit-specific information in Table 79 and Table 80 displays existing 

percentages of detrimental soil conditions for each of the activity areas.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would both cause some new soil disturbances where ground-based equipment is

used for mechanical harvest and yarding activities. The primary sources of detrimental soil conditions 

from past management are associated with existing roads and ground-based logging facilities which 

were used for harvest activities between 1973 and 1988. Likewise, the majority of project-related soil 

impacts from this entry would also be confined to known locations in heavy use areas (such as roads, 

log landings, and main skid trails) that can be reclaimed through subsoiling treatments. Table 79 and 

Table 80 display acres and percentages of detrimental soil conditions for existing conditions and the 

predicted effects from project implementation, including soil restoration treatments, for each of the 

activity areas proposed for commercial harvest under the action alternatives. The net change in 

detrimental soil conditions is associated with additional logging facilities that would be retained 

following post-harvest soil restoration treatments. 

As previously described for direct and indirect effects, the combined effects of slash disposal and other 

fuel reduction treatments are not expected to cause cumulative increases in detrimental soil conditions 

beyond the predicted levels displayed for each of the proposed activity areas in Tables 79 and 80. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the cumulative effects from the proposed actions combined with all past and 

current management activities would be within allowable limits set by Regional direction and LRMP 

standards and guidelines for protecting and maintaining soil productivity within each of the proposed 

activity areas. 

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Surface Organic Matter

Under Alternative 1, the amount of coarse woody debris and surface organic matter will gradually 

increase over time. In the long term, the accumulation of CWD and forest litter would increase the risk 

for wild land fires.

As previously described for the direct and indirect effects, it is expected that Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

both comply with the recommended management guidelines that ensure adequate retention of snags, 

coarse woody debris, and fine organic matter for surface cover, biological activity, and nutrient supplies 

for maintaining soil productivity on treated sites. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions – No planned timber sales or fuel reduction projects, including timber 

sales associated with the Snow and Fall EAs are scheduled in areas that would overlap with any of the 

activity areas of EXF project. 

The Invasive Plant Treatment EIS will likely implement various treatments to control invasive plants in 

site-specific areas, but there are currently no invasive plant sites inventoried in the EXF planning area. 

The Invasive Plant EIS will allow for treatment of invasive plants under an Early Detection / Rapid 

Response protocol, but even if future sites are treated in the area, it is unlikely that herbicide treatments 

would cause any adverse effects or indirect effects to soil properties.

The Forest Access Management Plan will address travel management issues across the Forest. The new 

direction will eliminate cross-country motorized travel except on designated routes. Implementing this 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  225

new direction will help to prevent cumulative increases in the extent of detrimental soil conditions in 

random locations off authorized roads and trails.

Other foreseeable future activities include recreation use and standard road maintenance. Effects from 

recreational use would be similar to those described under the Affected Environment. Future soil 

disturbances would be confined mainly to small concentration areas that would have a relatively minor 

effect on overall site productivity. There are no major soil-related concerns associated with the 

combined effects of these future activities.

Road maintenance would reduce accelerated erosion rates where improvements are necessary to correct 

drainage problems on specific segments of existing road. Surface erosion can usually be controlled by 

implementing appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce the potential for indirect 

effects to soils in areas adjacent to roadways. There are no major soil-related concerns associated with 

this activity.

Forest Plan Consistency

LRMP Management Area MA-16 (Experimental Forest) does not contain specific standards and 

guidelines for the soil resource. The Forest-wide standards and guidelines apply to this management 

area when they do not conflict with research objectives. 

Under the action alternatives, equipment operations would cause some new soil disturbances in portions 

of previously managed areas where ground-based logging is proposed for this entry. As previously 

discussed under direct and indirect effects, the project design elements, management requirements, and 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) built into the action alternatives are all designed to avoid or 

minimize potentially adverse impacts to the soil resource. The amount of disturbed soil associated with 

temporary roads and logging facilities would be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve 

management objectives. Compliance with LRMP standard and guideline SL-5 is addressed by avoiding 

or controlling the use of mechanized equipment in activity areas with sensitive soils. Limitations for 

equipment use would be enforced to prohibit mechanical disturbances where sustained slopes are 

steeper than 30 percent and longer than 150 feet. There would be no new development of temporary 

roads, designated skid trails, or log landings in portions of activity areas that contain slopes steeper than 

30 percent. Ground-based equipment would be restricted to existing roads and skid trails at all times 

and operators would be required to winch logs to skidders. None of the proposed activity areas (EIS 

Units) overlap landtypes that contain soils with high erosion hazards or potentially wet soils with 

seasonally high water tables that would require special mitigation. 

All reasonable Best Management Practices for Timber Management and Road Systems would be 

applied to protect the soil surface and control erosion on and adjacent to roads and logging facilities that 

would be used during project implementation. These conservation practices are to be implemented 

during and following project activities to meet the stated objectives for protecting and maintaining soil 

productivity. 

Soil restoration treatments would be applied to rectify impacts by reducing the amount of detrimentally 

compacted soil dedicated to existing roads, all temporary roads, and some of the primary logging 

facilities within specific activity areas. Restoration treatments, such as subsoiling, are designed to 

promote maintenance or enhancement of soil quality. These conservation practices comply with LRMP 

interpretations of Forest-wide standards and guidelines SL-3 and SL-4. Subsoiling mitigation is also 

supported by the Forest Service Manual and Regional direction for planning and implementing 

management activities (FSM 2520, R-6 Supplement No. 2500-98-1). 

Both action alternatives balance the goal of maintaining and/or improving soil quality following project 

implementation and soil restoration activities. There are no violations of Regional policy (FSM 2520, 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

226  EXF Final EIS

R-6 Supplement) or LRMP Standards and Guidelines SL-3 and SL-4 because the project will not cause 

an activity area to move from a detrimental soil condition less than 20 percent to one that is greater than 

20 percent; nor will the project increase detrimental soil conditions in one activity area (EIS Unit 21) 

that currently exceeds 20 percent of the unit area.

The proposed actions are also expected to comply with the recommended management guidelines that 

ensure adequate retention of snags, coarse woody debris, and fine organic matter for surface cover, 

biological activity, and nutrient supplies for maintaining soil productivity on treated sites. 

3.3.5 Hydrology and Fisheries

Affected Environment

Figure 9 (p. 45) displays the position of the EXF project within the watersheds as well as the major 

water bodies and streams. Two fifth field watersheds (Crane Prairie and Fall River) are involved. 

Nearly all of the project area is within the 116,477-acre Fall River watershed, with a minor portion 

within the 164,901-acre Crane Prairie watershed. Most of the project area is within lands managed 

under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) which amended the 1990 Deschutes National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The southeast corner of the project area is east of the 

NWFP boundary and falls within management direction of the1995 Inland Native Fish Strategy

(INFISH), which amended the LRMP. 

There are no perennial or intermittent streams, wetlands, riparian areas, Riparian Reserves, or Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas within the project area. The nearest water resource or riparian area is over 1 

mile away at Fall River, which contains non-native species eastern brook trout, brown trout, rainbow 

trout, and native species mountain whitefish and redband trout. The elevation ranges from 

approximately 4,380 to 6,215 feet with the project. The drainage area for Fall River has been calculated 

at 39.9 square miles, but is difficult to precisely determine due to the very gentle slopes of the watershed 

and the complex nature of the strata. Fall River is within the Upper Deschutes Basin. Groundwater 

flow direction in the basin is influenced by complex, underlying geology, and is not closely associated 

with the surface topography in some areas. Generally, groundwater flow direction in the basin is in a 

southerly to southeasterly direction from the Cascade Range toward the Deschutes River, then becoming 

generally northeast approaching Bend (Gannett et al. 2001).

Fall River has a very stable flow regime due to its spring-fed, groundwater driven nature. The average 

flow for Fall River for the flow period of record 1939 to 2007 was 140 cubic feet/second (cfs), with a 

minimum flow of 77 cfs in 1942 and a maximum flow of 244 cfs in 1951 for the period of record 

(OWRD). Fall River loses flow to the surrounding strata, recharging the groundwater in its lower reach 

downstream of the gauging station near river mile 5 (Gannett et al. 2001). 

A large proportion of the precipitation in the Upper Deschutes Basin falls in the Cascade Range, making 

it the principal groundwater recharge area for the basin. East of the Cascade Range, there is little or no 

recharge from precipitation (Gannett et al. 2001). Precipitation in the EXF project area, primarily 

snowfall, averages 18-25 inches annually, while in the Cascade Range recharge area, approximately 12 

miles west of the project area, annual precipitation may exceed 200 inches in localized areas. 

Evapotranspiration of groundwater is rare in the Upper Deschutes Basin (Gannett et al. 2001). 

Groundwater level fluctuations in the basin are driven primarily by decadal climatic cycles. Individual 

peak flow periods for Fall River are roughly 5 to 14 years apart (Gannett et al. 2001). The range in 

mean monthly flows for Fall River is only 11 % of the mean annual flow, while surface water 

dominated streams exhibit a range of over 200% (Gannett et al, 2001). 

A comparison of the groundwater discharge variations in the Cascade Range with precipitation levels at 

Crater Lake showed that periods of high groundwater discharge generally corresponds with periods of 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  227

high precipitation (Gannett et al. 2001). Runoff is a relatively small component of the total water 

budget in the basin due to the high infiltration rates of the highly permeable volcanic soils (Gannett et 

al, 2001). Ground water constitutes virtually the entire flow of Fall River (Gannett, 2001), the majority 

of which discharges from springs near the headwaters. The source of the discharge is thought to be 

from snowmelt that originated from the Cascade Range to the west (Gannett, et al 2001). Aquifers in 

the Cascade Range consist primarily of quaternary basaltic andesites, and are probably composed of 

many interbedded flows (Manga, 1999). Groundwater that has moved through the highly permeable 

Cascade Range comes in contact with the low permeability sedimentary deposits of the La Pine subbasin, forcing discharge to the surface (Gannett et al. 2001). 

Manga (1999) studied discharge at Fall River for three different timescales. The hydraulic timescale 

related long term changes in discharge to long term changes in recharge. This describes the effect of, 

and the recovery from, droughts. The hydraulic time scale for Fall River was calculated at 6.3 years. 

The time lag, which measures the time lag between groundwater recharge (springtime snowmelt) and 

the time of peak discharge at the spring, was calculated at 112 days. Lastly, Manga estimated that the 

age of groundwater discharged in the Upper Deschutes Basin springs, including Fall River, to be 

approximately 10-30 years. 

Manga (1999) also studied water temperatures at Fall River and other Upper Deschutes Basin springs. 

Little variation in temperature over a 2 year period reflected that the aquifers are large in volume and 

reinforced the age estimate of the groundwater.

An Aquatic Species Biological Evaluation has been prepared for this project and is located in the project 

file. Through the biological evaluation process (FSM 2672.4), actions and programs authorized, funded, 

or carried out by the Forest Service are to be reviewed to determine their potential for effects on 

threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing (FSM 2670.31). Species classified 

as sensitive by the Forest Service are to be considered in the National Environmental Policy Act process 

by conducting biological evaluations to determine their potential effect of all programs and activities on 

these species (FSM 2670.32). Management direction regarding sensitive species is that actions would 

benefit, have no impact, or minimize impacts so that there is no loss of population viability or creation 

of a significant trend toward federal listing. 

There is no current, suspected, or historic bull trout habitat in the project area.

Environmental Consequences (Common to all Alternatives)

Summary of Findings:

There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to water resources, fisheries, or riparian areas 

from any of the three alternatives. There will be no effect to Essential Fish Habitat, and no effect to 

redband trout or any threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate fish species. There would be no 

effects to any Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 303(d) listed water body. There would be 

no effect on the INFISH Riparian Management Objectives, which for a forested system are pool 

frequency, water temperature, large woody debris, and stream width/depth ratio. All alternatives meet 

INFISH standards and guidelines.

The following table displays the species considered in the analysis of the EXF Project. There are no 

threatened or endangered aquatic species or habitat present within the project area. The 

Columbia Basin redband trout is a Forest Service Sensitive species and is present in the Fall River and 

Crane Prairie watersheds.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

228  EXF Final EIS

Table 82. Sensitive species considered in the biological evaluation

Species Scientific Name Status Occurrence

Effects

Determination

Columbia Basin Redband 

Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri S None

Alt. 1 – NI

Alt. 2 – NI

 Alt. 3 - NI

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

There would be no direct or indirect effects to water resources, fisheries, or riparian areas as no 

treatments would occur. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2

Reducing net evapotranspiration by harvest of vegetation, in areas with soils that have high infiltrations 

rates, can lead to increased water yield in ground water systems (Manga 1997). The increased yield in 

groundwater generally takes days to months to “surface” in springs or stream systems, if not stored 

subsurface. Water yield increase due to groundwater flow generally is not a concern as some water is 

either or both stored and redistributed subsurface (Manga 1997). Hibbert, (1967 in Meehan 1991) found 

that when stands are thinned, the residual stand may increase its use of water, therefore the net increase 

in the contribution to groundwater within the EXF project area may be less than anticipated. An 

increase in the stream network can occur from timber harvesting by channeling surface water on roads, 

skid trails, and landings, leading to increases in peak flows of streams. There are no stream channels 

within the project area, therefore there is no potential for an increase in the stream network.

Fall River is the nearest water source to the project area and is groundwater driven. An analysis of the 

hydrograph for Fall River shows that it is very stable despite active road building and vegetation 

management in the Fall River watershed over the past several decades. Flows in Fall River decreased in

the late 1970s and early 1990s, which corresponds with the drought conditions of the time, despite 

active vegetation management in the Fall River basin. Flows increased in the mid 1980s with the 

corresponding increase in precipitation in the early 1980s (See charts in hydrology report). Comparing 

the two figures, there appears to be a lag between changes in precipitation and the corresponding change 

in flows in Fall River, as the aquifer adjusts. As was discussed earlier, Manga determined a hydraulic 

timescale of 6.3 years. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would treat a minor portion of the Fall River watershed (2.2% and 1.9%, 

respectively). Using the Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) methodology, each particular land use area is 

assigned a “clearcut equivalent factor” (CEF), which is multiplied by the area disturbed to arrive at an 

ECA value (Bettinger et al. 1998). For example, clearcuts and roads are generally given a CEF value of 

1.0, and partial cuts are given a CEF from 0.0 to 1.0, depending on the density of residual vegetation. 

The more open the unit is, the more it emulates the snowmelt and evapotranspiration rates of a similar 

stand that is clearcut. The ECA value for Alternatives 2 and 3 were calculated to be 763 and 641 acres 

respectively, therefore the hydrologic disturbance to the Fall River watershed is only 0.66% for 

Alternative 2 and 0.55% for Alternative 3 (See Tables 83 and 84 below). 

Table 83. Alternative 2 ECA

Action Acres ECA Coefficient ECA Acres

Thin to UMZ 714 0.2 143

Thin to 75% UMZ 806 0.3 242
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  229

Thin to 50% UMZ 681 0.4 272

Thin to 75% UMZ and 

Create Small 

Openings

353 0.3 106

Total ECA acres 763

Table 84. Alternative 3 ECA

Action Acres ECA Coefficient ECA Acres

Thin to UMZ 701 0.2 140

Thin to 75% UMZ 540 0.3 162

Thin to 50% UMZ 586 0.4 234

Thin to 75% UMZ 

and Create Small 

Openings

351 0.3 105

Total ECA acres 641

Small portions of units 21 and 22 (approximately 60 acres combined) occur within the Crane Prairie 

watershed but would not result in any measurable changes to groundwater or streamflows within that 

watershed. 

There would be no direct or indirect effect to water resources, or riparian areas from either of the two 

action alternatives. There would be no measurable changes in the flow regime of Fall River, including 

peak flows, for the reasons listed below:

• Source of discharge for springs in the Upper Deschutes River basin, including Fall River, is 

from the Cascades Range recharge area located approximately 12 miles to the west. There is 

little recharge to groundwater from within the project area. There is little precipitation in the 

area compared to the recharge area of the Cascade Range.

• Lack of runoff and surface water in the project area. Highly permeable volcanic soils allowing 

high infiltration of precipitation to underlying aquifers.

• Long term recorded stable flow regime of Fall River due to its groundwater nature. Past 

management in the project area and adjacent lands has not increased the stream drainage 

network, nor resulted in changes to the flow regime of Fall River.

• Aquifer feeding Fall River is large and changes in recharge are attenuated in the discharge. 

Changes in flows in the Upper Deschutes basin have been shown to correlate to changes in 

precipitation driven by decadal climatic cycles.

• Changes in evapotranspiration would have limited hydrologic effect since evapotranspiration 

from groundwater is rare in the Upper Deschutes basin. High infiltration limits volume of 

precipitation that can be evapotranspired as it moves through the soil to the groundwater.

Cumulative Effects: The Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) methodology is a tool used to determine 

where cumulative watershed effects might occur at the 5th field scale. An ECA value was calculated for 

the two action alternatives above but was not determined for the existing conditions. The ECA values 

(0.66% and 0.55%) would add minimally to the existing condition ECA of the Fall River watershed. 

The watershed has received extensive vegetation management activity and road building, but available 

vegetation management records only date back to 1968. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

230  EXF Final EIS

Research by Troendle and Olson (1993), Troendle and King (1985, 1987), and Troendle (1983) found 

that there is no one specific threshold as to how much a watershed can be clearcut before a change in 

peak flow can be documented. ECA thresholds, in relation to changes in peak flow, have been 

documented as low as 25 percent and as high as 40 percent. However, this threshold is highly 

dependent upon the physical characteristics of the watershed. Stream surveys of Fall River have 

documented low rates of streambank erosion. 

Despite ground disturbing activities conducted in the past several decades within the watershed, the 

hydrograph exhibits there has been none to minimal hydrologic effect to Fall River. Many of the timber 

stands have regenerated and achieved varying degrees of hydrologic recovery. There is little correlation 

between activity on the surface and hydrologic effects, because of the highly permeable volcanic 

landscape providing for groundwater dominated hydrology as described previously.

Since there would be no measurable effects to stream flows of Fall River from either action alternative, 

there would be no increase in bank erosion and resultant decrease in water quality. Since water quantity 

and water quality would not be measurably affected, redband trout and its habitat would be No Impact 

(NI) to redband trout from either alternative.

There is no Essential Fish Habitat in the project area and therefore there will be no effect to Essential 

Fish Habitat, and no effect to any threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate fish species. There 

would be no effect to any Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 303(d) listed water body. 

There would be no effect on the INFISH Riparian Management Objectives, which for a forested system 

are pool frequency, water temperature, large woody debris, and stream width/depth ratio. Both action 

alternatives meet INFISH standards and guidelines.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives of the NWFP would be maintained by this project. 

Alternative 1 would not prevent attainment of the objectives, as there would be no activities. Following 

is an assessment of the project’s impact to the objectives for both Alternatives 2 and 3. 

ACS Objective 1: Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and 

communities are uniquely adapted. (USDA, Forest Service, Northwest Forest Plan, 1994)

The action alternatives do not retard the attainment of this objective at the local or watershed scale. 

There are no aquatic systems within the project area but they are found over 1 mile to the southeast (Fall 

River). The project would restore a portion of the landscape to one more fire-resilient within the 

existing diversity.

ACS Objective 2: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between 

watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include flood plains, wetlands, 

upsweep areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide 

chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of 

aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

The project would not affect floodplains, wetlands, upsweep areas, headwater tributaries, and riparian or 

aquatic refugia. Network connections critical to aquatic and riparian-dependent species are not affected. 

The project maintains this objective at the local and watershed scale.

ACS Objective 3: Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including 

shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  231

The project has no affect on shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations as there are no riparian areas 

or streams. This objective is maintained at the local and watershed scale.

ACS Objective 4: Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, 

and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, 

physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and 

migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

The project has no effects on water quality as the nearest stream is more than 1 mile from the project 

area. This objective is maintained at the local and watershed scale.

ACS Objective 5: Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. 

Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, 

storage, and transport.

The project would have no effects on sediment regimes as there are no aquatic systems in the project 

area. This objective is maintained at the local and watershed scale.

ACS Objective 6: Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and restore riparian, 

aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The 

timing, magnitude, duration and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

The project would decrease evapo-transpiration rates by reducing vegetation. The nearest aquatic 

system is Fall River. Based on hydrograph monitoring since the 1970s, no measurable changes in the 

flow regime are anticipated in Fall River, which is a spring-fed, groundwater system. The project would 

maintain this objective at the local and watershed scale.

ACS Objective 7: Maintain and restore timing, variability, and duration of flood plain inundation and 

water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

The project would have no effects to floodplain inundation and water table elevations as there are no 

aquatic systems in the project area, or in Fall River and associated wetlands. The project would 

maintain this objective at the local and watershed scale.

ACS Objective 8: Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant 

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal 

regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration 

and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity 

and stability.

The project would have no effects on riparian plant communities as none exist within or near the project 

area, therefore this objective would be maintained at the local and watershed scale. 

ACS Objective 9: Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, 

invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

The project includes a diversity of vegetation management activities that supports habitat across the 

landscape for native plants, invertebrates, and riparian-dependent species. There are no riparian habitats 

within the project area. The project maintains this objective at the local and watershed scale. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

232  EXF Final EIS

Wetlands and Floodplains

The EXF project does not propose to occupy or modify any floodplains. Therefore, the thinning, 

mowing, and underburning proposed is consistent with Executive Order 11988. The EXF project does 

not propose to destroy or modify any wetlands. Therefore, the project is consistent with Executive 

Order 11990. There are no municipal watersheds within the project area.

3.3.6 Air Quality 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Smoke produced from wildland or prescribed fires can have significant effects on a large urban 

landscape. Over 80,000 people live in the surrounding communities. Many of the residents in the area 

live in the larger cities of Bend and Redmond, or small towns such as Sunriver, La Pine, Crescent, and 

Gilchrist; however, a significant percentage of the populations live in the wildland/urban interface 

surrounding these cities and towns.

The Clean Air Act prescribes air quality to be regulated by each individual state. The Forest Service is 

required by law to follow the directions of the State Forester in conducting prescribed burning in order 

to achieve strict compliance with all aspects of the CAA by working in conjunction with the Oregon 

Department of Forestry (ODF) to adhere to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan.

Areas affected are called “attainment areas.” The EXF analysis area is considered to be in attainment of 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Class II airsheds. Class 2 areas are 

attainment areas that are neither industrialized nor meet the specific requirements for classification as 

Class I areas. They are protected by the PSD program. The EXF analysis area is a Class 2 area.

The Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-043-0043) considers Three Sisters Wilderness as a 

Class 1 airshed. Class 1 areas are protected by the PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) 

program and include national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, 

and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic values. These are 

considered “smoke sensitive” and require restrictions on prescribed burning accordingly during the 

Visibility Protection Period July 1 to September 15.

Designated areas are those areas identified as principal population centers or other areas of requiring 

protection under state or Federal air quality laws or regulations. The EXF analysis area is located 

approximately 30 miles southwest of Bend, Oregon. Bend is classified as a “Designated Area” by the 

Oregon Smoke Management Report. The analysis area is considered to be in attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Class II airsheds.

Production of particulate matter is discussed for each alternative in Chapter 3.3.2 Fuels and Fire Hazard, 

and is summarized here. The First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) is a computer program 

developed to predict and plan for fire effects. Development of FOFEM involved a search of the fire 

effects literature for predictive algorithms. These algorithms were screened to evaluate their predictions 

over a range of conditions. Thus, a major internal component of FOFEM is a decision key that selects 

the best available algorithm for the conditions specified by a user. Analysis of the EXF alternatives

used FOFEM to generate Tables 52 and 55 to summarize fuel consumption and smoke emission 

information. Alternative 1 was modeled under wildfire conditions (see Chapter 3.3.2, page 91, for 

description of model). Alternatives 2 and 3 include emissions from planned prescribed underburning.

Although Alternative 1 would not have any activity-generated smoke emission, it carries the highest 

likelihood for a wildfire with a “Problem Fire” scenario. Table 52 illustrates that emissions and 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  233

subsequent effect to air quality from a wildfire are far greater than through management actions 

prescribed in Alternatives 2 and 3.

Prescribed burning operations associated with both action alternatives would be conducted in 

compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards and under the Oregon Smoke Management 

Plan. Burning would only be conducted when prevailing and predicted wind patterns would result in 

negligible effects to LaPine Sunriver, Bend, and the Three Sisters Wilderness Class 1 airshed. 

Implementation of the action alternatives, based on the measures included to reduce emissions and to 

disperse smoke during favorable conditions, is expected to protect air quality to adjacent communities 

while having no visible effects to the Class 1 Airshed. This is because the Three Sisters Wilderness is 

higher in elevation and located about eight to ten miles west / northwest of the EXF project area. 

Potential effects to human health are displayed in the section titled “Public Health and Safety” in 

Chapter 3.3.12.

3.3.7 Botanical Resources 

Introduction

Direction to conserve plant species on Deschutes National Forest is found in several sources. Direction 

for the conservation of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plant species is found in the Forest 

Service Manual (FSM Sections 2670.5 and 2672.4), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 Subpart B; 

402.12, Section 7, Consultation), and the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (4-60 and 4-61). The FSM states that habitats for all existing native and desired non-native plants, 

fish and wildlife should be managed, at minimum, to maintain viable populations for each species. The 

FSM and the LRMP each direct that habitat for sensitive plant and animal species be managed to ensure 

that these species not trend toward being listed as federal Endangered and Threatened species. 

Affected Environment

Elevations within the approximately 3,615 acre project area range from about 4,400 feet along its 

eastern edge to 6,200 feet at the summit of Lookout Mountain at the area's western edge. Eastern 

aspects prevail in the eastern 3/4s of the project area with northern and southern aspects being most 

common in the area's western 1/4, corresponding to the northern and southern flanks of Lookout 

Mountain. The project area is essentially fully forested. About 10 acres (0.3%) of the project area is 

non-forested cinders. Mixed conifers (with a prevalence of white fir) with an understory of snowbrush 

and/or manzanita, dominate the western 80% of the area. The eastern edge of the project area features a 

mix of ponderosa pine with snowbrush and bitterbrush. Special habitats associated with water sources 

and catchments (moist and wet meadows, pond or lake edges, fens, seeps, springs, intermittent and 

perennial streams) are lacking within the project area. 

Prefield Review

Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) Plants. Most of the rare plants warranting consideration 

in this project are included in Regional Forester's Special Status Species List of January 31, 2008. 

There are no federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species known to exist on the Deschutes 

National Forest. A Deschutes National Forest Sensitive Plant List has been derived from the Regional 

Forester's List. This List includes 58 taxa, either known (26) or suspected (32) to occur on the Forest. 

Relevant information concerning Deschutes National Forest Sensitive Plant Species, and an assessment 

of the probabilities of their occurrence within the EXF Project area, is presented in Table 85. 

There are no Threatened or Endangered plants in or near the project area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

234  EXF Final EIS

Table 85. Relevant information concerning Sensitive Plant Species documented or suspected to occur 

on Deschutes National Forest. Codes: "VP = vascular plant; "B" = bryophyte; "L" = lichen; "F" = 

fungus. The five in bold are assessed for effects because of potential habitat within the project area.

R6 Sensitive Plant 

Species 

Documented or 

Suspected on 

Deschutes 

National Forest

Range within western 

PNW; Physiographic 

Province in Oregon

Habitat

Known 

to Occur 

in 

Project 

Area?/ 

On 

Forest?

Probability of Occurrence in 

Project Area

Agoseris elata

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Western and 

Eastern Cascades in 

Oregon.

Somewhat diverse; typically lower 

elevation forest openings and 

alluvial terraces.

No/Yes

Low; potential habitat lacking; not 

known on DES NF south of the 

Metolius Basin.

Alpova alexsmithii

(F)

Washington, Oregon; 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon.

Coniferous forest, particularly 

including Pacific silver fir, 

lodgepole pine, Engelmann 

spruce and mountain hemlock. 

This is a mycorrhizal species.

No/Yes Moderate; specific habitat 

preferences not well defined.

Arabis 

suffrutescens var. 

horizontalis

(VP)

Oregon, California; 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon.

Alpine to subalpine meadows, 

woods; summits, ridges; steep 

exposed rock outcrops.

No/No

Low; generally at higher and 

moister sites than present in project 

area; project may be north of the 

OR Cascades distribution of this 

taxon.

Arnica viscosa

(VP)

Oregon, California; 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon.

Subalpine or higher scree, talus 

gullies and slopes w/ seasonal 

water runoff; lava flows; may be in 

moraine lake basins or crater lake 

basins.

No/Yes

Low; generally at higher and 

moister sites than present in project 

area.

Astragalus peckii

(VP)

Southern to central 

Oregon; Eastern and 

Western Cascades.

Basins, benches, gentle slopes, 

pumice flats; generally non-forest 

but known from five sites in 

lodgepole pine openings.

No/Yes

Low; tiny portion (2.8 acres) of 

potential habitat (CLS2-11) in 

extreme SE corner of project area.

Barbilophozia 

lycopodioides

(B)

Oregon and Washington; 

Blue Mountains and 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon

On peaty soil on damp ledges of 

rock outcrops and cliffs at elevations 

of 3400-7500 feet.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Brachydontium 

olympicum

(B)

Oregon and Washington; 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon

On subalpine or higher rock or soil 

in boulder fields, moraines, cliff 

ledges, often in areas of late 

snowmelt.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Botrychium 

pumicola

(VP)

Central Oregon

Alpine-subalpine ridges, slopes and 

meadows. Montane forest 

openings, open forest in basins with 

frost pockets, pumice flats.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Calamagrostis 

breweri

(VP)

Oregon, California; 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon.

Subalpine to alpine meadows, open 

slopes, stream banks, lake margins. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area

Carex abrupta

(VP)

Oregon and California; 

Blue Mountains, Western 

Basin and Range and 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon

Subalpine and higher; moist 

meadow, lake shore, dry grassy 

hillside and bare roadside.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Carex capitata

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California

Montane to alpine fens/bogs, wet 

meadows No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  235

R6 Sensitive Plant 

Species 

Documented or 

Suspected on 

Deschutes 

National Forest

Range within western 

PNW; Physiographic 

Province in Oregon

Habitat

Known 

to Occur 

in 

Project 

Area?/ 

On 

Forest?

Probability of Occurrence in 

Project Area

Carex diandra

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Eastern 

Cascades and Western 

Cascades in Oregon.

Floating sphagnum bogs No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Carex lasiocarpa

var. Americana

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Blue 

Mountains, Eastern and 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon.

Fens/bogs No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Carex livida

(VP)

Oregon, Washington, 

California; Klamath 

Mountains, Western 

Cascades and Coast 

Range in Oregon.

All forest types; peatlands, wet 

meadows with still or channeled 

water.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Carex retrorsa

(VP)

Washington, Oregon; Blue 

Mountains, Columbia 

Basin, Willamette Valley in 

Oregon

Wet, swampy, frequently inundated 

areas. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area

Carex vernacula

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Blue 

Mountains, Northern 

Basin and Range, Eastern 

Cascades and Western 

Cascades in Oregon.

Subalpine and higher wet/moist 

meadow complexes, springs, 

terraces, benches, moist/dry slopes 

on rocky, gravelly soils.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Castilleja chlorotica

(VP) Central Oregon

Ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine and 

mixed conifer forest openings; PP at 

lower, LP at middle to upper, mixed 

conifer at highest elevations.

No/Yes

Low; plant associations where this 

species known to occur not present 

within project area.

Cheilanthes feei

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Blue Mountains 

in Oregon.

Seasonally moist crevices on cliffs 

of limestone or basalt with limey 

deposits.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Chiloscphus 

gemmiparus Oregon On rocks, often is splash zones of cold, montane streams. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area

Cicuta bulbifera

(VP)

Eastern Cascades of 

Oregon and Washington; 

California

Shoreline marshes. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Collomia mazama

(VP)

Southern to central 

Cascades, Oregon

Mid- to high elevations,; meadows, 

stream banks and bars, lakeshores 

and vernal pool margins, forest 

edges and openings.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Conostomum 

tetragonum

(B)

Washington, Oregon, 

California

Likely above timberline on soil in 

rock crevices in boulder fields, 

moraines, and ledges of cliffs.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Cyperus 

acuminatus

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California

Low gradient edges of lakes and 

perennial/seasonal pools with 

fluctuating water levels.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area

Cyperus lupulinus 

ssp. lupulinus

(VP)

Washingston, Oregon

Rocky lower slopes and terraces 

along low elevation (= or < 1200 ft.) 

streams in eastern Oregon.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

236  EXF Final EIS

R6 Sensitive Plant 

Species 

Documented or 

Suspected on 

Deschutes 

National Forest

Range within western 

PNW; Physiographic 

Province in Oregon

Habitat

Known 

to Occur 

in 

Project 

Area?/ 

On 

Forest?

Probability of Occurrence in 

Project Area

Dermatocarpon 

meiophyllizum 

(L)

Washington, Oregon On rocks in perennial or nearly 

perennial streams. No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area

Elatine 

brachysperma

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Blue Mountains 

and Northern Basin and 

Range in Oregon.

Muddy shores, shallow pools No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Eucephalus 

gormanii

(VP)

Oregon; Western 

Cascades

Rocky ridges, outcrops, or rocky 

slopes in alpine or subalpine mixed 

conifer forest.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Gastroboletus 

vividus

(F)

Oregon, California; 

Western Cascades and 

Klamath Mountains in 

Oregon.

Higher elevation coniferous 

forest with subalpine fir, Shasta 

red fir and mountain hemlock. 

This is a mycorrhizal species.

No/No

Moderate; potential host (Shasta 

red fir) present on upper slopes 

Lookout Mountain.

Gentiana newberryi

(VP)

Oregon and California; 

Eastern and Western 

Cascades of Oregon

Alpine to subalpine mixed conifer 

openings, wet to dry montane 

meadows, sometimes adjacent to 

springs, streams, or lakes.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Heliotropium 

curassavicum 

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Blue 

Mountains, Northern 

Basin and Range, 

Columbia Basin, Eastern 

Cascades, Willamette 

Valley in Oregon

Alkaline, saline playas, receding 

ponds and clay soils. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.

Helodium blandowii

(B)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Blue 

Mountains, Eastern and 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon

Montane fens No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Helvella 

crassitunicata

(F)

Washington, Oregon; 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon

Montane habitats No/Yes Moderate; specific habitat 

preferences not well defined.

Hygrophorus 

caeruleus

(F)

Eastern and Western 

Cascades in Oregon

Coniferous forests near melting 

snowbanks. This is a mycorrhizal 

species.

No/Yes Moderate; specific habitat 

preferences not well defined.

Leptogium 

cyanescens

(L)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Coast Range in 

Oregon

Generally riparian, but recently 

documented on vine maple, bigleaf 

maple and Oregon white oak

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Leucogaster 

citrinum 

(F)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Coast Range, 

Klamath Mountains, 

West Cascades, 

Willamette Valley

Occurring with Abies concolor, A. 

lasiocarpa, Pinus contorta, P. 

monticola, Pseudotsuga 

menziesii and Tsuga heterophylla 

at elevations of 900-6500 feet. 

This is a mycorrhizal species.

No/Yes Moderate; specific habitat 

preferences not well defined.

Lipocarpha aristula

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Blue 

Mountains, Columbia 

Basin, Eastern Cascades, 

Snake River Plains in 

Oregon

Low elevation (< 2500 feet) 

streamsides and gravel bars No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  237

R6 Sensitive Plant 

Species 

Documented or 

Suspected on 

Deschutes 

National Forest

Range within western 

PNW; Physiographic 

Province in Oregon

Habitat

Known 

to Occur 

in 

Project 

Area?/ 

On 

Forest?

Probability of Occurrence in 

Project Area

Lobelia dortmanna

(VP)

Washington and Oregon; 

Eastern Cascades of 

Oregon

In water of lake, pond, slow river or 

stream, or wet meadow. No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.

Lycopodiella 

inundata

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Coast Range, 

Eastern and Western 

Cascades

Deflation areas in coastal backdunes; montane bogs, less often, 

wet meadows.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Lycopodium 

complanatum

(VP)

Washington, Oregon; Blue 

Mountains, Western 

Cascades in Oregon

Middle elevations; edge of wet 

meadow; dry, forested midslope. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.

Mulenbergia 

minutissima

(VP)

Washington, Oregon; 

Northern Basin and 

Range in Oregon

Thin lava soils; associated with 

cattails, sedges. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.

Ophioglossum 

pusillum

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Coast Range 

and Western Cascades in 

Oregon

Low to mid-elevations in dune 

deflation planes, marsh edges, 

vernal ponds and stream terraces in 

moist meadows.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Penstemon peckii

(VP) Central Oregon

Ponderosa pine or mixed conifer 

with ponderosa pine, in openings or 

in relatively open stands; on 

recovering fluvial terraces and 

shallow intermittent drainages.

No/Yes

Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area; project area well south 

of known range of this endemic 

species.

Pilularia americana

(VP)

Oregon, California; Blue 

Mountains, Northern 

Basin and Range, Eastern 

Cascades and Klamath 

Mountains in Oregon

Alkali and other shallow vernal 

pools; not recently used stock 

ponds; reservoir shores.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Polytrichum 

sphaerothecium

(B)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Western 

Cascades in Oregon

On igneous rocks in subalpine 

parkland to alpine krummholz. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.

Potamogeton 

diversifolius

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Northern Basin 

and Range in Oregon

Ponds, lakes, streams, rivers. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Pseudocalliergon 

trifarium

(B)

Eastern and Western 

Cascades in Oregon Montane fens. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.

Ramaria 

amyloidea

(F)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Western 

Cascades in Oregon

Montane coniferous forests with 

documented elevations of 1800-

5600 feet; associated species 

include white fir, Shasta red fir, 

lodgepole pine and western white 

pine. This is a mycorrhizal 

species.

No/Yes Moderate; specific habitat 

preferences not well defined.

Rhizomnium nudum

(B)

Washington, Oregon; 

Western and Eastern 

Cascades in Oregon

Coniferous forests on moist soil in 

seepages, vernally wet depressions 

or intermittently wet, low-gradient 

channels.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

238  EXF Final EIS

R6 Sensitive Plant 

Species 

Documented or 

Suspected on 

Deschutes 

National Forest

Range within western 

PNW; Physiographic 

Province in Oregon

Habitat

Known 

to Occur 

in 

Project 

Area?/ 

On 

Forest?

Probability of Occurrence in 

Project Area

Rorippa columbiae

(VP)

Oregon, Washington, 

California; Blue 

Mountains, Northern 

Basin and Range, Eastern 

and Western Cascades 

and Willamette Valley in 

Oregon

Low to mid-elevations; wet to 

vernally moist sites; meadows, 

fields, playas, lakeshores, 

intermittent stream beds, banks of 

perennial streams, along irrigation 

ditches, river bars and deltas.

No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Rotala ramosior

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Northern Basin 

and Range, Western 

Cascades and Willamette 

Valley in Oregon

Low elevation, low gradient shores, 

pond edges, river bars. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.

Scheuchzeria 

palustris ssp. 

americana

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Eastern and 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon

Mid-elevations; open-canopied 

bogs, fens, and other wetlands 

where often in shallow water.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Schistostega 

pennata

(B)

Washington, Oregon; 

Coast Range, Western 

Cascades in Oregon

Usually on mineral soil in crevices 

on lower and more sheltered parts 

of root wads of fallen trees. Often 

near streams or other wet areas. 

High local humidity essential.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Schoenoplectus 

subterminalis

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Coast Range, 

Klamath Mountains, 

Western Cascades in 

Oregon

Generally submerged to emergent 

in quiet water 2-8 decimeters deep, 

in peatlands, sedge fens, creeks, 

ditches, ponds and lakes.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Splachnum 

ampullaceum

(B)

Washington, Oregon; 

Eastern Cascades in 

Oregon

Peatlands and other wetlands. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Texosporium santijacobi

(L)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Blue Mountains 

and Columbia Basin in 

Oregon

Late seral, dry shrub/grassland. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Tomentypnum 

nitens

(B)

Washington, Oregon; 

Eastern and Western 

Cascades, Blue 

Mountains in Oregon

Montane fens. No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Trematodon boasii

(B)

Western Cascades in 

Oregon

Bare soil along subalpine streams, 

trail and pond edges. No/No Low; suitable habitat lacking within project area.

Tritomaria 

exsectiformis

(B)

Washington, Oregon; 

Western and Eastern 

Cascades in Oregon

In coniferous forest along lowvolume, low-gradient perennial 

springs and seeps.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Utricularia minor

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Coast Range, 

Western and Eastern 

Cascades, Klamath 

Mountains, Blue 

Mountains in Oregon

Lowland and montane fens, sedge 

meadows, low-nutrient lakes and 

peatbog pools.

No/Yes Low; suitable habitat lacking within 

project area.

Prefield review has indicated that no sensitive plant species are documented to occur in or closely 

adjacent to the project area. Five fungal species are regarded as having a moderate likelihood of 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  239

occurrence within the project area while, for all other taxa, this likelihood is considered to be low. The 

absence of perennially or seasonally available surface water or groundwater is the principal factor 

thought to limit the probability of presence of sensitive plants and sensitive plant habitat within the 

project area. 

Survey and Manage Plant Species. Currently there is one survey and manage plant species requiring 

consideration for pre-disturbance surveys on the Deschutes National Forest. Information concerning 

this species is presented in Table 86. There are no known sites of survey and manage plant species that 

require only site protection within the project area.

Table 86. Relevant information concerning survey and manage plant species requiring consideration for 

pre-disturbance surveys on Deschutes National Forest. "VP" = vascular plant.

R6 Uncommon 

Plant Species 

Documented or 

Suspected on 

Deschutes 

National Forest

Range within western 

PNW; Physiographic 

Province in Oregon

Habitat

Known to 

Occur in 

Project 

Area?/ On 

Forest?

Probability of 

Occurrence in Project 

Area

Cypripedium 

montanum

(VP)

Washington, Oregon, 

California; Western and 

Eastern Cascades, Blue 

Mountains, Klamath 

Mountains and Willamette 

Valley in Oregon.

Wet mixed conifer forests 

with canopy closures of 60-

80%. Often in stands 

dominated by ponderosa pine, 

lodgepole pine or Douglas fir.

No/Yes Low; one habitat 

component (plant assoc. 

CPS213) documented 

within project area

occurs east of owl line; 

species not known on 

DES NF south of the 

Metolius River 

watershed.

As noted in Table 86, the one survey and manage plant species that could trigger pre-disturbance 

surveys, it is considered unlikely to occur within the project area. A small amount (4 acres) of one 

habitat component of this species – plant association CPS213 – is mapped within one project treatment 

unit on the eastern edge of the project area (see Figure 17). This treatment unit is outside the Northwest 

Forest Plan boundary, and therefore survey and manage standards and guidelines are not applicable. 

Further, although this plant association is extremely common on the Forest, distribution of the showy 

Cypripedium montanum on the Forest is not known to extend south of the Metolius Basin. No known 

sites of rare or uncommon plant species requiring only site protection are documented to occur within 

the project area.

Surveys

Surveys by Deschutes National Forest botanists have been conducted within the EXF project area in 

2004, 2007 and 2008. Botanists reported no detections of sensitive or survey and manage species, and 

an absence of promising habitat for documented or suspected non-fungal Deschutes National Forest 

sensitive species. Pre-disturbance surveys for the several fungal species identified to have suitable 

habitat within the project area were not attempted because these are generally neither practical nor 

especially reliable. Possible project-related effects to habitat for these fungi is addressed below.

Environmental Consequences

There is a moderate potential for several Sensitive fungal species to be present within the project area

because there is potential habitat, based on what is known about their habitat (Table 85). Current 

research indicates that fungal biomass and diversity is directly correlated with canopy cover and volume 

of coarse woody debris. The scope of potential effects described below is limited geographically to the 

extent of the project area, and temporally to the next 0-20 years. 

Alternative 1 - The No Action Alternative
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

240  EXF Final EIS

The No Action will result in no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this potential fungal habitat. 

Alternatives 2 & 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There will be No Impact to all non-fungal Sensitive species and the rare and uncommon species. For 

the five fungal Sensitive species, the action alternative May Impact Individuals and Habitat, but will not 

likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species.

As indicated in Table 85, five of the eight sensitive fungi determined to have a moderate probability of 

occurrence within the project area are mycorrhizal. Likely host tree species differ among these four 

fungal species, but collectively, one or more likely host tree species occurs within each of the activity 

units proposed under the Action Alternatives. As noted in Table 85, host conifers for these mycorrhizal 

species are said (Castellano et al., 1999) to include, but not necessarily be limited to, lodgepole pine, 

white fir, mountain hemlock, western white pine, Shasta red fir, Pacific silver fir and subalpine fir. 

Castellano (1999) provides no specific host information for Hygrophorus caeruleus, but the three 

documented sites on the Deschutes National Forest each occur in stands with abundant Douglas fir and 

ponderosa pine. The thinning activity associated with the two Action Alternatives is therefore likely to 

remove some potential host tree species in each activity unit and, in turn, to some non-quantifiable 

degree, reduce potential habitat quality for these fungi. As about 372 fewer acres are proposed for 

thinning under Alternative 3, this alternative is anticipated to result in a somewhat smaller negative 

effect on potential habitat for the five mycorrhizal fungi. The nutritional requirements of the other three 

sensitive fungal species, determined to have a moderate probability of presence within the project area, 

appears to be poorly documented. It is reasonable to anticipate that the loss of canopy cover (through 

thinning, mowing and burning) and a likely consequent reduction in moisture levels in duff and surface 

soil layers will be to some extent unfavorable for the production of this species' epigeous (growing 

aboveground) sporocarps. 

As noted in the soil section, adequate course woody debris and surface organic matter will be retained 

for biological activity and nutrient supplies. Soil compaction on temporary roads, log landings and 

main skid trails may also affect fungal populations through a reduction of ectomycorrhizal root tips on 

disturbed sites. Machine traffic off designated logging facilities would be limited in extent, so adverse 

changes to soil biota would not be expected in random locations of activity areas. Short-term reductions 

in the composition and distribution of biotic populations would be returned toward pre-impact 

conditions following subsoiling treatments on compacted soils (Moldenke et al. 2000). 

Current research suggests that efforts to retain forested patches and associated coarse woody debris will 

help reduce the impact of the Action Alternatives on the quality of potential habitat for the five sensitive 

fungi listed in Table 85 (Cline et al. 2005; Harvey et al. 1981; Kranabetter and Kroeger 2001; Luoma 

and Eberhart 2005; Walters et al 1994). Both alternatives include 342 acres of untreated Control units. 

Alternative 3 has an additional 372 acres untreated within the project area. 

Cumulative Effects

The area of potential cumulative effects is with the project area boundary. The projects and activities 

listed in Table 11 have led to the existing condition within the project area and the amount and type of 

habitat available to the species listed in Table 85. The projects listed in Table 12 at the beginning of this 

chapter were reviewed for the potential to impact the species analyzed for direct and indirect effects. 

No further projects are currently planned within the EXF project area. Accordingly, within the 

boundary of the project and for the reasonably foreseeable future (0-5 years), no cumulative effects 

relating to the EXF project are anticipated. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  241

3.3.8 Invasive Plants / Noxious Weeds

Introduction

Invasive plants are undesirable in forest ecosystems because they tend to displace native plants,

including, potentially, rare and protected species, degrade habitat for animal species, promote soil

erosion, and lessen the value of recreational experiences. As continually disturbed, often open areas,

roadsides are highly suitable habitats for many invasive plants. Many of the weed sites within the

analysis area are located along roadsides. Relating to this, motorized vehicles are most likely the

major vector for the introduction and/or spread of invasive plants within the analysis area. Vehicles 

may include those associated with public recreational use or harvesting of special forest products

(e.g., firewood, mushrooms), or general forest management operations including commercial harvest, 

inventory, monitoring, road maintenance and fire suppression. Vehicles have the potential to transport 

weed seeds included in soil and muck stuck in tire treads or on undercarriages. Also, portions of whole, 

seed-bearing invasive plant species can become wedged in bumpers and within

undercarriages when vehicles drive through patches of weeds. By these means, weed seeds can be 

imported or moved about within the analysis area.

Forest Service Manual direction requires that Noxious Weed Risk Assessments be prepared for all 

projects involving ground-disturbing activities. For projects that have a moderate to high risk of 

introducing or spreading noxious weeds, Forest Service policy requires that decision documents must 

identify noxious weed control measure that will be undertaken during project implementation (FSM 

2081.03.29; November 1995).

Executive Order 13112 implemented on February 3, 1999 requires Federal agencies to use relevant

programs and authorities to prevent the introduction of invasive species and not authorize or carry out 

actions that are likely to cause the introduction or spread of invasive species unless the agency has 

determined, and made public, documentation that shows that the benefits of such actions clearly 

outweigh the potential harm, and all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will need 

to be taken in conjunction with the actions. The USDA Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed

Prevention Practices (July, 2001) supports implementation of Executive Order 13112 on Invasive 

Species.

Region 6 of the Forest Service has prepared an Invasive Plant Environmental Impact Statement 

(hereinafter called R6 IP FEIS). The Final EIS was released in June 2005 and the Record of Decision 

(ROD) was signed in October 2005 (USDA Forest Service R6, 2005); implementation began March 1, 

2006. The R6 FEIS applies to non-native invasive plant species, but not to native competing and 

unwanted vegetation. Standards and Guidelines in the R6 FEIS are incorporated into Forest Plans in the 

region.

Existing Condition

No invasive plant species are documented to occur within or immediately adjacent to the project area. 

No detections of noxious weed species were noted by Deschutes National Forest botanists during 

surveys within the project area in 2005, 2007 and 2008.

Environmental Consequences

The Deschutes National Forest has developed a standardized noxious weed risk assessment process to 

be conducted as a part of the project planning process. Risk rankings are based on the following sets of 

criteria.

High Risk results if each of the following applies:

1. Known weeds in or adjacent to project area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

242  EXF Final EIS

2. Any of vector #s 1-8 in project area.

3. Project operations in or adjacent to weed sites.

Moderate Risk results if:

1. Any of vector #s 1-5 are present in project area.

Low Risk results if:

1. Any of vector #s 6-8 present in project area,

OR

2. Known weeds present in or adjacent to project area, even if vectors lacking.

Vectors ranked in order of weed introduction/spread risk:

1. Heavy equipment (implied ground disturbance).

2. Importing soil/cinders/gravel.

3. Use by OHVs.

4. Grazing (long-term disturbance).

5. Pack animals (short-term disturbance)

6. Plant restoration.

7. Use by recreationists.

8. Presence of USFS project vehicles.

Both alternatives have been given a moderate risk ranking for the introduction and spread of noxious 

weeds because project activities will require the use of heavy equipment. The risk is proportional to the 

area of ground disturbance and miles of roads used in each action alternative; therefore, Alternative 2 

poses a slightly higher risk than Alternative 3 based on the greater number of acres of ground 

disturbance. 

Chapter 2.2.4 specifies the prevention standards and practices that are incorporated into the project 

design to reduce the risk of introducing invasive plants. Both action alternatives will require the use of 

clean-equipment clauses, weed-free fill material, and the minimization of soil disturbance. These 

prevention techniques will minimize the risk of invasive plants becoming established within the project 

area where there currently are none. Monitoring (see p. 32) will ensure proper implementation of the 

prevention measures.

There are no known projects that are ongoing or reasonably foreseeable that would create additional risk 

of weed spread and that overlap the project area; therefore, there is no potential for cumulative effects 

from other federal actions. There is low OHV use in the area which could pose a source of weed 

introduction. However, the implementation of the Travel Management Rule expected in 2009 would 

further reduce this risk by limiting motor vehicles to designated routes with no off-trail travel. 

3.3.9 Economic Analysis

Introduction

Forest Service Handbooks 1909.17 and 2409.18 direct the evaluation of Economic Efficiency for 

proposed projects. To assess economic efficiency of Alternatives 2 and 3, the anticipated timber 

volumes and costs were entered into TEA.ECON, a spreadsheet developed by the Forest Service to 

assess economic efficiency. The analysis can be used to compare alternatives, not to give an absolute 

number for the outputs. Numbers useful for comparing alternatives include a benefit/cost ratio, 

discounted benefits, discounted costs, and present net value. Effects on the local economy include 

estimated number of jobs created or maintained.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  243

This analysis does not place a value on indirect benefits which may occur (such as reduced risk of standreplacing wildfire). Other amenity values, such as dispersed recreation or wildlife habitat were included 

in the discussion but actual values were not developed. Table 87 summarizes this analysis.

Affected Environment 

The EXF project is located in Deschutes County. The Deschutes LRMP (1990) identified agriculture, 

wood products manufacturing, and recreation and tourism as the three most important basic industries in 

the local area.

The downturn in the primary lumber industry, driven by a lack of consistent forest supplies, automation,

and a changing global economy, has affected local forest workers, whose incomes have declined 

because of steep competition for fewer job opportunities. This is especially true in Central Oregon 

where in Deschutes County 84% of the land base is dominated by BLM and Forest Service managed 

lands.

Although the decade from 1990 to 2000 saw a 10% decrease in total forest sector employment in 

Oregon (with a loss of approximately 9,600 jobs statewide), the industry is still an important contributor 

to the local economies of Central Oregon. Also, as jobs in the primary and secondary forest product 

sectors have declined, there has been a reported employment growth in firefighting, ecological 

restoration and other contract services that fall within the forestry services sector.

Forest sector employment has far more impact in Central Oregon than for the State of Oregon as a 

whole. Wood products manufacturing is still the single largest industrial employer in Jefferson County 

and the second largest industry in Crook County. In Deschutes County, according to 2005 Oregon 

Employment Department, 1,798 people were employed in wood products manufacturing. This places it 

a distant third behind tourism (7,772 jobs) and Health and Social Assistance (6,062 jobs), but these jobs 

do represent the seventh highest average paying jobs in the county and 9 percent of primary industrial 

jobs, a far higher average than for Oregon as a whole.

The primary effect on local communities would be in terms of employment provided by preparation,

implementation and administration of thinning and fuels reduction activities. The alternatives provide a 

variety of activities that would require widely varying equipment and skills. The level of benefit to 

local communities would depend on the capacity of existing contractors residing in the area in terms of 

skills and equipment, the labor force available to these contractors, the amount of existing work they 

have under contract, their desire to acquire larger contracts, new contractors seeking opportunities, and 

other contracting requirements such as programs for small businesses. The level would also depend on 

the amount of funding received for activities over the next 5+ years.

Another economic benefit from thinning activities in the EXF Project area is a supply of wood products 

to mills in Eastern and Central Oregon and the Willamette Valley. Secondary benefits to employment 

in the wood products industry could result when this project is implemented.

Environmental Consequences

Assumptions regarding values of possible wood products were based on estimated market value in the 

3rd quarter of 2008 for various sizes for ponderosa pine, the primary species to be removed. If the 

market improves the values would increase, and conversely, if the markets go down, the values would 

be less. Another assumption was that the wood products would be hauled to Gilchrist, Oregon.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No commercial forest products would be provided to the economy. There would be no net sale value, 

and no additional jobs would be created or maintained. There would be no benefit to the local economy. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

244  EXF Final EIS

Although Alternative 1 would generate no current revenues to returns, there is a cost resulting from the 

expenditure of planning funds. 

Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Included in the analysis is an estimate of the value of the logs. The current estimated value of the 

timber is 499,790. This value is affected by the logging cost and hauling costs. For example, if fuel 

prices rise, the price paid for timber would likely decrease. The value of timber is constantly changing 

dependent on local, regional, and international supplies and demands. 

Alternative 3 provides fewer timber products to the economy than Alternative 2, but Alternative 1 

would provide no timber products. Harvesting and manufacturing wood products could create 268 jobs 

under Alternative 2 and 230 jobs under Alternative 3 (15% and 12% respectively of the number of 

people in Deschutes County employed in the wood products industry). The timber work and jobs 

created translate into income as shown in Table 87. Roadwork and fuels treatments with both action 

alternatives would create jobs in addition to the timber jobs.

Table 87. Summary of the EXF Project Outputs

Output Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Timber Volume 0 28 mmbf 24 mmbf

Jobs Maintained or Created1 0 268 230

Estimated Employee Income2 0 $9,145,768 $7,848,980

1 Calculated using figures for the Deschutes National Forest from Appendix B-5 of the FY 1997 Timber Sale 

Program Annual Report; estimated 9.6 jobs per million board feet maintained or created.

2 Derived by multiplying the number of jobs maintained or created by $34,126 the average 2008 salary in Central 

Oregon for lumber and wood products jobs. Source of salary information: Oregon Covered Employment and 

Payrolls by County and Industry, Oregon Employment Dept., and US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

3.3.10 Cultural Resources 

Introduction

Management direction for cultural resources is found in the Deschutes National Forest LRMP, in the 

Forest Service Manual section 2360, in Federal Regulations 36 CFR 64 and 36 CFR 800 (amended May 

1999), and in various federal laws including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as 

amended), the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Forest Management Act.

In general, the existing management direction asks the Forest to consider the effects on cultural

resources when considering projects that fall within the Forest's jurisdiction. Further direction indicates 

that the Forest will determine what cultural resources are present on the forest, evaluate each resource 

for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and protect or mitigate 

effects to resources that are eligible or unevaluated. Specific Standards and Guides that are relevant for 

this project can be found in Chapter 1, Management Direction.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The following were reviewed prior to field investigation: previous survey maps, historic inventory 

maps, Cultural Resource Overview, Township and Range files, Master Title Plats, cadastral survey 

notes, and the District geology and soil inventory maps. The most recent cultural resource inventory 

surveys were conducted in the project area in 2006. One new cultural resource site was identified. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  245

Project activities will avoid this site, and there will therefore be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effect 

to cultural resources under either action alternative.

In accordance with stipulations in the 2003 Regional Programmatic Agreement among USDA-Forest 

Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Office, a finding of Historic Properties Avoided has been determined for this project. 

This finding is based on the knowledge that avoidance is the desired option. The protection of eligible 

or potentially eligible sites from project effects leads to this finding as described in 36CFR800.16(i) 

(Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 239; Tuesday, December 12, 2000; page 77738).

Project design feature #29 requires that if previously unknown sites or artifacts are found during project 

implementation, they will be flagged and operations in the area avoided until an archaeologist is 

consulted. This assures protection by avoidance through all phases of project implementation and 

subsequent management activities.

3.3.11 Long-term Climate change

The impacts on forests of climate change and the effects on climate change of forest management are 

complex and sometimes negated by the different factors involved. The most expected condition in 

Central Oregon is a warming time and possibly less snowfall. 

Although El Nino/Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation comprise the primary factors 

for climate variability in the Pacific Northwest (Climate Impacts Group11

The proposed and approved research addresses climate change as a research question: What is the longterm influence of climate change interacting with a set of fuel reduction treatments on vegetation 

dynamics and forest structure? Climate change is a form of disturbance that has not been adequately 

addressed in thinning and fuel reduction research. This portion of central Oregon has gone through at 

least five distinct periods of warming climate over the past 110 years (NASA Global Climate Change 

Website 

), the influence from global 

climate change is a growing concern. According to the Climate Impacts Group, based out of the 

University of Washington, climate modeling for the Pacific Northwest predicts a future rate of warming 

of approximately 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per decade for the Pacific Northwest through at least 2050, 

relative to the 1970-1999 average temperature. Temperatures are projected to increase across all

seasons, although most models project the largest temperature increases in summer (June-August), and

the average temperatures could increase beyond the year-to-year variability observed in the Pacific

Northwest during the 20th century as early as the 2020s.

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov). In the Western United States and at the continental scale (1 km), 

long-term satellite data show consistently earlier onsets of spring greening and corresponding increases 

in length of growing season associated with projected climate change (Forest Service Climate Change 

Resource Center: http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc). Our ability to downscale current large scale projections to 

specific project-scale sites remains limited, we are forced to operate with relative little confidence in 

most projections. Small changes in growing season duration may result in expansion of species that 

have relatively narrow habitat requirements. 

Lookout Mountain provides a unique opportunity to explore vegetation dynamics under a changing 

climate regime because it is topographically simplistic and contains essentially uniform or homogenous 

soils (deep pumice derived from the explosion of Mt. Mazama). It also contains several relatively clear 

and distinct ecotones (boundaries between easily recognized plant associations). Treatment blocks 

differentiate two elevation zones (above 4,200 feet (1280 m) or below) and two aspect zones (southeast 

 11 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their reports (2007) provide the authoritative scientific 

basis for subsequent Forest Service analysis of the phenomenon. Information specific to the Forest Service can be 

found in the latest Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.4.24.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

246  EXF Final EIS

and south). The working hypothesis under the stated research question is that initial or early indications 

of vegetation dynamics are most likely to become apparent in the shrub and herbaceous strata, and these 

dynamics will be manifest as expansion of species from drier sites to those that are currently more moist 

as conditions become increasingly stressed. This means that shrubs and herbaceous species that 

dominate in plant associations on flat topography outside the treatment area or only on the edges of 

Block 4, such as antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), will expand upward in elevation. Under this 

hypothesis, the niche space of individual species and entire assemblages of species will shift from Block 

4 and Block 2 to Block 1 and eventually to Block 3. Within each block, shifts can be expected where 

disturbance provides access and growing space, and will most likely be manifest under Treatment 2 and 

3 and perhaps 4. This work will provide a validity assessment for current efforts to downscale 

vegetation dynamic projections to 80 m resolution. This will provide insights into the effects of climate 

change at the community scale, and provide managers much needed information on the restructuring of 

plant composition as a result of regional climate interacting with legacies of past management. These 

insights will inform management options to better incorporate these changes. 

Carbon Storage

The Forests play a major role in the carbon cycle. Carbon stored in live biomass, dead plant material, 

and soil represents the balance between CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere and its release through 

respiration, decomposition, and burning. Over longer time periods forests will continue to absorb 

carbon. Numerous papers relating to carbon and climate change were submitted to the Forest Service 

with comments on the Draft EIS. These have been reviewed and their consideration is document in 

Appendix F Response to Comments. 

The Forest Service recognizes that carbon and sequestration are important issues both nationally and 

regionally. Currently, Forest Service national policy and guidance for managing carbon and 

sequestration does not exist. The tools for estimating carbon and sequestration are not fully developed 

at this time. A quantitative analysis and comparison between the alternatives of trade-offs between the 

amount of carbon stored or greenhouse gases emitted is not possible at the current project scale. It 

would be very difficult to determine the effects of this project on greenhouse gases directly, and 

therefore climate change indirectly, as there are currently no Federal statutes, regulatory standards, or 

policy direction on such effects. Until the agency adopts meaningful thresholds against which to weigh 

any project-related green house gas emissions, it will not be possible to determine a specific project’s 

effects on GHGs or climate change. Attempts to place this project in the context of global warming 

would have to focus on portions related to carbon fixing, storing, and releasing. The scale of this action 

will likely be immeasurable when considered at a global scale.

It can be said, though, that thinning of stands under both alternatives, reduce competition for resources 

and favoring drought-tolerant species (ponderosa pine) will reduce the impacts of future drought cycles 

on tree mortality, and increase resistance to insect and fire mortality (Ritchie 2008). 

One public comment suggested that thinning is likely to remove more carbon than will be saved by 

avoiding fire and that we should consider the conclusions of Mitchell, Harmon, O’Connell 2009 before 

attributing carbon benefits to fuel reduction. The interdisciplinary team has reviewed the paper by 

Mitchell and others (2009); it does not support the comment that the EXF project is likely to remove 

more carbon by logging than will be saved by avoiding fire. The paper by Mitchell, Harmon, and 

O’Connell is the result of simulation exercises with three Pacific Northwest forest types: the east 

Cascades ponderosa pine forests, the west Cascades western hemlock-Douglas-fir forests, and the Coast 

Range western hemlock-Sitka spruce forests. Treatments simulated for the east Cascade ponderosa pine 

forests were similar to those proposed for Lookout Mountain (understory removal, prescribed fire, 

understory removal and prescribed fire). Based on a forest ecosystem simulation model, the authors 

suggest that fuel reduction treatments in these ecosystems consistently reduced fire severity. For the 

east Cascade ponderosa pine forests (represented by Pringle Falls Experimental Forest) there was little 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  247

or no trade-off incurred by managing these forests for both fuel reduction and carbon sequestration. The 

authors speculate that the removal of highly flammable understory vegetation led to a reduction in 

overall fire severity that consequently lowered overall biomass combustion, thereby allowing increased 

overall carbon storage.

Published research suggests that management action can have a positive effect on carbon storage. 

Hurteau et al (2008) points out that in forests where fire suppression has caused fuel accumulation (such 

as at Lookout Mountain), forest fuel reduction treatments can diminish the risk of stand-replacing fire, 

thereby promoting carbon storage. The basis for this work is four large recent fires, including the 

Biscuit Fire in southwest Oregon and the Hayman Fire in Colorado. The authors also point out that 

thinning treatments such as those proposed in the EXF project will, by exposing more ground, snow, 

grass, etc. causing an increased surface albedo and thereby increasing surface reflectance leading to a 

net cooling effect. 

3.3.12 Human Health & Safety

Under each action alternative, danger trees would be removed from along all haul routes. The signing 

of project activity areas in addition to notification of additional project-related traffic would promote a 

safe environment for forest visitors during project implementation. Implementation of action 

alternatives would increase the potential for encounters on roadways between forest visitors and 

equipment associated with harvest. This elevated level of risk would be present for the short-term 

(approximately 5 years). Safety measures such as informational signing, flaggers, and road maintenance 

activities, such as brushing roads for increased visibility, would be enforced in the timber sale contract.

The work environment during all phases of logging operations would be physically demanding and 

potentially hazardous; effects to worker health and safety would be possible. Activities with the highest 

potential for serious injury would include tree felling and helicopter operations (helicopter may be used 

for prescribed fire ignition). All project activities carried out by Forest Service and Forest Service 

contract employees would comply with State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) standards. All Forest Service project operations would be consistent with 

Forest Service Handbook 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code)

The Clean Air Act lists 189 hazardous air pollutants to be regulated. Some components of smoke, such 

as polycyclic aromic hydrocarbons (PAH) are known to be carcinogenic. Probably the most 

carcinogenic component is benzo-a-pyrene (BaP). Other components, such as aldehydes, are acute 

irritants. In 1994 and 199712

Particulate matter - Particulates are the most prevalent air pollutant from fires, and are of the most 

concern to regulators. Research indicates a correlation between hospitalizations for respiratory 

problems and high concentrations of fine particulates (PM2.5, fine particles that are 2.5 microns in 

diameter or less). Particulates can carry carcinogens and other toxic compounds. Overexposure to 

particulates can cause irritation of mucous membranes, decreased lung capacity, and impaired lung 

function. Particulate matter is analyzed for each alternative in Chapter 3.3.2.

, air toxins were assessed relative to the exposure of humans to smoke from 

prescribed and wildfires. The five toxins most commonly found in prescribed fire smoke were:

Acrolein - An aldehyde with a piercing, choking odor. Exposure severely irritates the eyes and upper 

respiratory tract.

Formaldehyde - Low-level exposure can cause irritation of the eyes, nose and throat. Long-term 

exposure is associated with nasal cancer.

 12 Results of an April 1997 conference to review the results of health studies and develop a risk management plan for the 

protection of fire crews were published by Missoula Technology Development Center in Health Hazards of Smoke, Technical 

Report 9751-2836-MTDC.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

248  EXF Final EIS

Carbon Monoxide - CO reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, a reversible effect. Low 

exposures can cause loss of time awareness, motor skills, and mental acuity. Also, exposure can lead to 

heart attack, especially for persons with heart disease. High exposures can lead to death due to lack of 

oxygen.

Benzene - Benzene causes headache, dizziness, nausea and breathing difficulties, as well as being a 

potent carcinogen. Long-term exposure can cause anemia, liver and kidney damage, and cancer. The 

closest Designated Area to the analysis area is the city of Bend, Oregon; the communities of Crescent, 

Sunriver, and La Pine are closer to the analysis area but are not as highly populated.

The greatest risk of exposure to airborne toxins from prescribed fires or wildfires would be to 

firefighters and forest workers implementing the prescribed burning. It is unlikely the general public 

would be exposed to toxin levels adverse to human health during implementation of prescribed burning 

operations in the EXF analysis area because of the distance from populated areas and the application of 

prescriptions designed to lessen the release of particulate matter. People who suffer from breathing 

ailments may experience some difficulty during periods of prescribed burning, especially during 

atmospheric conditions that do not favor dispersion of smoke. The Forest Service voluntarily follows 

the guidelines assigned by Oregon Smoke Management to limit state-wide exposure on a cumulative 

basis, in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

Forest workers and firefighters can face unhealthy levels of smoke when patrolling or holding fire lines 

on the downward edge of a wildfire or prescribed fire, or while mopping intense hot spots. In most 

cases, measures such as education on the effects of short and long term exposure, rotation out of the 

smoke, and the use of respirators can reduce exposure levels. OSHA regulates exposure to hazardous 

materials in the workplace. All project activities carried out by Forest Service and Forest Service 

contract employees would comply with State and Federal OSHA standards.

3.3.13 Forest Plan Amendments

Two Forest Plan amendments are required to implement either action alternative. The amendments, 

described on page 21, are specific to Eastside Screens Interim Wildlife Standards that prohibit 

harvesting trees > 21” DBH or harvesting within LOS where one LOS type falls below the HRV.

Amendment #1 – Harvesting in LOS under Scenario A of the Eastside Screens

Of the 266 acres east of the owl line that are proposed for treatment, approximately 22 acres are 

classified as LOS (based on 2004 satellite data). Satellite data was used to determine the structural 

stages present because it was the best data available for the entire watershed, which is the scale at which 

HRV is assessed (see Chapter 3.3.1). Stand exam information was gathered with the project area itself

and shows that potentially more of the stands may meet the LOS classification above what the satellite 

data shows.

Table 88 shows how many acres are involved with the first Forest Plan amendment and what the 

resulting structure is expected to be. Based on the HRV analysis, three LOS types fall within Scenario 

A of the Eastside Screens, i.e. multi-strata with large trees and/or single-strata with large trees is below 

HRV. Under Scenario A, the Eastside Screens state:

If either one or both of the late and old structural (LOS) stages falls BELOW HRV in a particular 

biophysical environment [PAG] within a watershed, then there should be NO NET LOSS OF LOS 

from that biophysical environment [PAG]. DO NOT allow timber sale harvest activities to occur 

within LOS stages that are BELOW HRV.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  249

Table 88. How the Existing LOS in the Watershed is Affected by Thinning.

PAG

LOS Types 

that fall 

within 

Scenario A*

Acres of 

LOS 

within 

Watershed 

LOS 

Acres 

treated 

in EXF

Alt.2 & 3

% of LOS 

Type in 

the 

Watershed

Resulting Structure

Resulting 

Acres LOS in 

Watershed

Ponderosa 

Pine Dry

Late multistrata w/ 

large trees

(currently 

below HRV)

644 11 1%

10 acres of the 

ponderosa pine late 

multi-strata will continue 

to have enough large 

trees per acre to meet 

the single strata LOS 

criteria in Units 34 & 44.

643

(- 1 acre in 

Unit 43, 

where Rx is 

to thin to 50% 

UMZ

Ponderosa 

Pine Dry

Late singlestrata w/ 

large trees

(currently 

below HRV)

205 3 1%

These 3 acres in Unit 44 

will remain single-strata 

with large trees 

following density 

reduction.

205 

No net loss

Mixed 

Conifer 

Wet

Late singlestrata w/ 

large trees

(currently

within HRV)*

775 7 < 1%

Five acres will no longer 

meet the criteria for 

single-strata LOS (Units 

34, 42, 43, & 44)

770

(-5 acres)

Lodgepole 

Cold

Late Single 

strata w/ 

large trees 

(currently 

above 

HRV)**

5,166 1 < 1%

This one acre of 

lodgepole LOS will no

longer meet criteria for 

LOS

5,165

(-1 acre)

*Although the late-single strata type of LOS is within HRV for mixed conifer wet PAG, the late multi-strata

type of LOS is below HRV for the mixed conifer wet PAG (see Table 34 p. 67). This puts the mixed conifer 

wet PAG under Scenario A of the Eastside Screens. Similarly for lodgepole, LSS is above, but LMS is below 

HRV (Table 32).

The study plan design is based on the project area being divided into four blocks of relatively equal 

aspect and elevation. The treatment types were then randomly assigned to units within each block (see 

Appendix B, pp. 15-16). Units or portions of units east of the owl line fall within treatment blocks 3 

and 4 where all treatment types are planned to occur, including control (no treatment). Avoidance of 

patches of the stands that contain sufficient numbers of large trees to qualify as LOS would significantly 

interfere with the ability to answer the research questions posed in the study plan. Of the 22 acres of 

LOS that will be thinned, there will be a net loss of 7 acres, which amounts to about 0.3% of the LOS in 

the watershed. The control unit will continue provide an area where any existing LOS is retained; the 

other treated areas will be put on a trajectory towards resiliency.

Amendment #2 – Harvesting trees > 21” DBH 

The target residual stand density for the area east of the owl line is between 53 and 105 square feet of 

basal area. Region 6 certified cruisers installed forty-two fixed 1/10 acre plots on 217 acres east of the 

NSO line in units 43 and 44 (80% of the area east of owl line). This was done in order to determine if 

trees equal to or larger than 21” DBH would need to be removed to meet the target basal area. 

Analysis of the plot data shows that the area has an existing basal area of 154 square feet per acre. If all 

trees 21” DBH and greater are retained in accordance with the Screens, residual basal areas would 

exceed the target of 53 square feet per acre on 31 of the 42 (73.8%) plots and the overall average 

residual basal area would be approximately 91 square feet per acre in this portion of the Experimental 

Forest. This level is 20 square feet above the recommended UMZ of 70 for this ponderosa pine plant 

association. It is also 38 square feet per acre above the study plan’s target residual basal area.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

250  EXF Final EIS

To meet a residual stand basal area of 53 (plus or minus 5) would require amending the 21 inch 

maximum diameter Eastside Screen direction for this project so that larger trees could be cut and 

removed in the timber sale. The largest trees on site will still be retained to provide the desired residual

basal area. Table 89 displays the units and proposed treatment that fall east of the owl line.

Table 89. Proposed Thinning in Units East of the Owl Line.

Unit Acres 

Affected

Current Basal 

Area Treatment Type Target Basal Area

31 3 184 thin to 50% UMZ 70

34 17 184 thin to 75% UMZ 105

42 29 154 thin to UMZ 70

43 70 151 thin to 75% UMZ 53

44 147 151 thin to 75% UMZ 53

total 266

FSM 1926.51 describes non-significant amendments as:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

and resource management;

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further 

on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals 

and objectives for long-term land and resource management;

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines; and/or

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

management prescriptions.

The goal for the Experimental Forest management area is to provide an area where field research 

activities are conducted while considering other resource values; the objective of the Experimental 

Forest is to serve as a field laboratory for research. Experiments are conducted to evaluate the effects of 

silvicultural practices on growth and yield of ponderosa and lodgepole pine. The amendment will allow 

implementation of a study plan (peer reviewed and approved by the PNW Station Director) that meets 

the goals and objectives of the Pacific Northwest Research Station and specifically the Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest, which was established in 1939 for silviculture, forest management and insect and 

disease research in ponderosa pine forests east of the Oregon Cascade Range. It also provides for 

activities that will contribute to the achievement of the management prescriptions for the area.

The first Forest Plan amendment would allow the study plan to be implemented as designed on 

approximately 22 acres of what qualifies as LOS forest that falls within Scenario A of the Eastside 

Screens. As Table 88 shows, this is a very small fraction of the existing LOS in the watershed for these

PAGs. The resulting structure would remove enough large trees that the stands may no longer meet the 

definition of LOS, but the thinning also follows direction in Interim Wildlife Standard (6. d. 2. c.) to 

encourage the development and maintenance of large diameter, open canopy structure. The thinning 

will also follow direction to “manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet LOS conditions in a 

matter that moves it towards these conditions because thinning in the mid-seral structural stages (that 

are above HRV for both of the PAGs) will move the stands towards LOS.” 

The second Forest Plan amendment would allow thinning of trees over 21” DBH on 266 acres that lie 

east of the owl range line (about 0.6% of the Fall 6th field subwatershed). This is a minor change in one 

interim standard that would not alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and 

resource management. The Eastside Screens were intended to avoid management activities in the 

interim that would move conditions away from the HRV. The proposed thinning, including removing 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  251

trees >21” DBH, will leave the largest trees in any given portion of the stands to meet the target basal 

area (the vast majority of trees that will be removed during thinning are less than 21” DBH; see Tables 

38 and 40). The resulting structure will move the LOS ponderosa pine in the Lookout Mountain Unit 

closer to more resilient conditions that could develop old-growth structural characteristics with trees 

able to survive for centuries.

3.3.14 Other Disclosures

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Predictions of effects were made with the most current information available. The EXF IDT did not 

identify any types of incomplete or unavailable information that meet the criteria described in the CEQ 

Guidelines (Sec. 1502.22 Incomplete or unavailable information). A discussion of data gaps and 

uncertainty can be found in Chapter 3.1.3.

Relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity

NEPA requires consideration of the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, 

this includes using all practicable means and measures to foster and promote the general welfare, to 

create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA 

Section 101).

The Multiple Use – Sustained Yield Act of 1960 requires the Forest Service to manage National Forest 

System lands for multiple uses (including timber, recreation, fish and wildlife, range, and watershed). 

All renewable resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. 

Thinning activities that provide a commercial product, or use of standing timber, can be considered a 

short term use of a renewable resource. As a renewable resource, trees can be re-established and grown 

in again if the productivity of the land is not impaired. Maintaining the productivity of the land is a 

complex, long-term objective. All alternatives protect the long-term objective of the project area 

through the use of specific Forest plan Standards and Guidelines, mitigation measures, and BMPs. 

Long-term productivity could change as a result of the various management activities proposed in the 

alternatives. Timber management activities would have a direct, indirect, and cumulative effect on the 

economic, social, and biological environment. Those effects are disclosed in Chapter 3 of this analysis.

Soil and water are two key factors in ecosystem productivity, and these resources would be protected in 

all alternatives. Sustained yield of timber, wildlife habitat, and other renewable resources all rely on 

maintaining long-term soil productivity. Quality and quantity of water from the analysis area may 

fluctuate as a result of short-term uses, but no long-term effects to water resources are expected to occur 

as a result of timber management activities. All alternatives would provide the fish and wildlife habitat 

necessary to contribute to the maintenance of viable, well distributed populations of existing native and 

non-native vertebrate species. The abundance and diversity of wildlife species depends on the quality, 

quantity, and distribution of habitat, whether for breeding, feeding, or resting. Management Indicator 

Species are used to represent the habitat requirements of all wildlife species found within the project 

area. By managing habitat of indicator species, the other species associated with the same habitat would 

also benefit. The alternatives vary in risk presented in wildlife habitat capability.

None of the alternatives would have an effect on the long-term productivity of timber resources.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

252  EXF Final EIS

Several unavoidable adverse effects, including some that are minimal and/or short term, were identified 

during the analysis. Adverse effects are associated with all alternatives, including the No Action and the

Action alternatives. Resource protection measures or mitigations were identified for each adverse effect

associated with an Action alternative as a means to lessen or eliminate such effects on specific 

resources.

See the section titled “Resource Protection Measures” in Chapter 2.2.4 of this EIS. Resource areas 

determined to have potential adverse effects (resulting from any of the alternatives – including No 

Action and the Action Alternatives) are documented within the appropriate Environmental 

Consequences sections of each resource in Chapter 3.

Soils

Reference the section titled “Soil Quality” in Chapter 3.3.4 of this EIS. Soil restoration by subsoiling is 

proposed in all areas that would exceed 20% detrimental soil conditions.

• Alternative 2 would increase the amount of detrimental soil condition in the project area to 497 

total acres.

• Alternative 3 would increase the amount of detrimental soil condition in the project area to 429 

total acres.

Wildlife

Northern Spotted Owl

Reference the northern spotted owl discussion in the section titled “Threatened and Endangered 

Species” in Chapter 3.2 of this EIS.

• Alternative 2 would directly reduce or degrade approximately 211 acres of spotted owl nesting, 

roosting, and foraging habitat from Administratively Withdrawn land allocation and remove 

533 acres of dispersal habitat (494 acres from Administratively Withdrawn, 39 acres from LSR.

• Alternative 3 would remove 438 acres of dispersal habitat.

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. Both action alternatives include soil restoration activities that 

would improve the hydrologic function and productivity on detrimentally disturbed soils. There would 

be no irretrievable losses of soil productivity associated with these reclamation treatments. 

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland

All Alternatives were consistent with the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 for the 

management of prime farmland. The EXF Project area does not contain any prime farm land or 

rangelands. Prime Forest Land, as defined in the memorandum, is not applicable to lands within the 

National Forest System.

Energy Requirements of the Alternatives
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EXF Final EIS  253

Under the action Alternatives, additional consumption of fossil fuels and human labor would be 

expended for the use of vehicles transporting Forest workers, chainsaws, heavy equipment and trucks. 

Fossil fuel would not be a retrievable resource. There are no irregular energy requirements involved in 

implementing any of the action alternatives.

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice

Civil Rights legislation and Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) direct an analysis of the 

proposed alternatives as they relate to specific subsets of the American population. The subsets of the 

general population include ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, the elderly, and low-income 

groups. Environmental Justice is defined as the pursuit of equal justice and protection under the law for 

all environmental statutes and regulations, without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or 

socioeconomic status. The minority and low income populations groups living in counties surrounding 

the project area work in diverse occupations. Some minorities, low income residents, and Native 

Americans may rely on forest products or related forest activities for their livelihood. This is especially 

true for those individuals that most likely reside in the rural communities adjacent to National Forest 

Lands, such as La Pine, Crescent, and Gilchrist, Oregon.

The no action alternative would continue the local economic situation as described in the section titled 

Economics. Opportunities for employment of minority and low income workers may arise through 

contract activities for various forest work, such as thinning, hand piling, and various small business 

contracts related to work outside the project area, but there are no known disproportionately high effects 

to any ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and low-income groups.

Under both action alternatives there would be no known adverse effects that would be 

disproportionately high to any ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and low-income groups as a 

result of implementation of either action alternative in the EXF project. Within the social context 

presented, the action alternatives developed for this project have the potential to bring in workers from 

the outside to perform logging and post harvest activities such as small tree thinning and hand piling. 

While the outside workforce is more likely to be racially diverse than the local resident population, the 

residents have worked effectively with and supported anticipated fluctuations in the workforce expected 

with the implementation of an action-based alternative. The primary services needed by the workers 

would be food and shelter. Local businesses that can supply food (grocery stores and restaurants) and 

other services would capture most of the money being spent by the workers in the area. Since these 

businesses have supported similar workforces in the past, capitol expansion would probably not be 

required.
Chapter 4

Consultation and Coordination
Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

EXF Final EIS  255

Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Public Notification & Participation

Public Participation

During the initial scoping (see Chapter 1.5), a number of comments and questions were received. 

Responses varied from those who wanted more clarification to specific suggestions for project 

implementation. Comments from scoping were used to help develop the planning issues and 

alternatives (see Chapter 1.6 and 1.7). 

Additional public involvement took place as described in Chapter 1.5. All correspondence is part of the 

Project Record, located at the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District office.

Distribution of the EIS

A public comment period was offered on the Draft EIS per NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1503; 1506.10). 

The Interdisciplinary Team and the responsible officials reviewed and considered the comments and 

used them to make corrections, clarifications, or additions to the Final EIS. Specific responses are 

included in Appendix F to the FEIS per 40 CFR 1503.4.

The following individuals, agencies, and organizations were either notified of the availability of the 

Draft EIS, or sent a copy of the document: 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat 

Conservationists Division

Northwest Region

U.S. Army Engr. Northwestern Division

Northwest Power Planning Council

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

Natural Resources Conservation Service

National Environmental Coordinator, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Susan Jane Brown

Glenn Burleigh

Fred Tanis

Larry McGlocklin

Kate Ramsayer, The Bulletin

Josh Laughlin, Cascadia Wildlands Project

Mr. & Mrs. John Pindar

Kathryn J. Nachand

Franklin Engel

Leonard Houston

Arlie Holm

Scott Odgers

Mr. & Mrs. David Scharfenberg

Ken Wienke, Boise Cascade

Paul Hammerquist

Jon Cain

Larry Ulrich

Ed Duffy

President, Deschutes County 4-Wheelers

Billy Toman

Stan Summers

Rick Bozarth

Bozarth's Offroad Service Specialties

Joani Dufourd, RecConnect LLC

Randy J. Zustiak

Gordon Baker

Robert Mullong

Cynthia West, Assistant Station Director

Stuart Otto, Stewardship Forester, Oregon 

Dept. of Forestry

Bergen Bull

Mr. Scott Turo, Off Reservation Habitat 

Biologist, Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs

Dean Adams, Tribal Chairman, Burns Paiute 

Tribe

Susan Skakel, Deschutes National Forest

Sally Bird, Manager, Cultural Resources, 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs

Ron Suppah, Tribal Chairman, Confederated 

Tribes of the Warm Springs

Mr. Robert Brunoe, General Manager, Natural 

Resources, Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs

Amos Firstraised, Burns Paiute Tribe, Natural 

Resources
Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

256  EXF Final EIS

Wanda Johnson, Chairperson, Tribal Council, 

Burns Paiute Tribe

Will Hatcher, Acting Director, Natural 

Resources Dept., The Klamath Tribes

Clay Penhollow, Dept. of Natural Resources, 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs

Lonny Macy, Natural Resources Policy 

Planner, Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs

Dyarle Sharkey

Patti Gentiluomo

Wade N. Foss

Bruce Cunningham, Moon Country 

Snowmobilers

Lynne Breese, Eastern Oregon Forest 

Protection Association

Mr. & Mrs. Scott O'Neill

June Ramey

Mr. & Mrs. Jon Pyland

Mark Davis

Brigette M. Whipple, Confederated Tribes of 

the Warm Springs

Steve Fitzgerald, Oregon State Universtity 

Extension Service

Scott McCaulou, Deschutes River Conservancy

Ryan Houston, Upper Deschutes Watershed 

Council

Vic Russell

Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Holmes

Northwest Mountain Region, Regional 

Administrator, Federal Aviation 

Administration

L. Ulven

Katie Lighthall, Project Wildfire

Jim Gustafson, La Pine Rural Fire Protection 

District

Rod Boozell

Roger Prowell, City of Bend

Charla Q. Ranch

Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Hart

SROA, Public Affairs Committee Chair

Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Ken Copeland

Unit Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry

Patricia Moore

Mr. and Mrs. John Emerson

Mr. & Mrs. David Jones, East Lake Resort

Joseph Kirk, Chairman, Tribal Council, The 

Klamath Tribes

Wes Pyne

D. Roberson

Jim Wilson, JTS Animal Bedding

Flip Houston, Scott Logging Inc.

Jim Anderson

Ms. Diane Teeman, Staff Specialist, Cultural 

Resources, Burns Paiute Tribe

Edward Kerber

Loren Smith

George Worthner 

Rick Brown, Defenders of Wildlife

Ginny Murtaugh

Mr. and Mrs. Stan Martineau, Deschutes River 

Woods Homeowners

Sandra Swanlund

Rod Bjorvik

Chris Kerber

Kenton Dick, Cultural Programs Specialist, 

Burns Paiute Tribe

Ed Graham

Wildfire

John Zachem

Keith Cloudas

U.S. Department of Energy, Dir. Office of 

NEPA Policy and Compliance

Lydia Garvey

Mr. Perry Chocktoot, Director, Cultural and 

Heritage Department, The Klamath Tribes

Larry Langston, Fire Marshall, City of Bend

Sandra Swanlund

Mr. and Mrs. Frank Pennock

Mr. Scott Walley

Chuck Burley, American Forest Resource 

Council

Robert Speik

Edward J. DePuit, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Wenatchee Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory

Dave Perry

Jim Barrett

Andy Youngblood, Research Forester, 

LaGrande Forestry Science Laboratory

Lisa Clark, Fire Mitigation Specialist, Central 

Oregon Fire Management Service

Asante Riverwind, Eastern Oregon Forest 

Organizer, Oregon Chapter Sierra Club

Shawn Carroll

Alexander Sahonchik, BS F.

Karen Coulter, Blue Mountains Biodiversity 

Project

Tim Lillebo, Oregon Wild

Marilyn Miller, Sierra Club - Juniper Group

Nancy Gilbert, USDI Fish & Wildlife Service

John Morgan, Ochoco Lumber

Glen Ardt, Habitat Biologist, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Jim Larsen, Upper Deschutes River Coalition

Mr. & Mrs. Pat Schatz, Crane Prairie Resort

Joe Stutler, County Forester, Deschutes County

Chandra LaGue, Oregon Wild 

Dan Kruse, Cascadia Wildlands Project

David Pitts

Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild
Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

EXF Final EIS  257

Mr. and Mrs. Donald Kerr

USDA, National Agricultural Library

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

Patrick Griffiths

4.2 Consultation with other Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

An initial consultation meeting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took place April 29, 2008 at the 

Bend Fort Rock Ranger District office. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the purpose and 

need for the project and the preliminary impacts it may have on spotted owls. It was at this meeting that 

this project was determined to potentially have adverse effects to spotted owls.

In June 2008 and on October 2, 2008 meetings in the field were held with the same representative of the 

USFWS to introduce the existing condition of the spotted owl habitat, receive advice/feedback on the 

field verification of the mapped NRF, and discuss the anticipated effects of the proposed treatments 

within spotted owl habitat. It was confirmed that ground-truthing and elimination of stands previously 

mapped as habitat to non-NRF habitat was warranted, and the proposed levels of thinning would affect 

the stands’ abilities to function as NRF habitat. An additional field visit occurred on July 16, 2009 and 

an office meeting with the researcher occurred on July 31, 2009. A Biological Assessment was 

submitted to the USFWS with a request for formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act.

The Service provided a Biological Opinion on January 4, 2010. Following their review of the current 

status of the spotted owl, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed 

action and the cumulative effects, it is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion that the 

EXF Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the spotted owl. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service reached a no jeopardy determination for the EXF Project for the following reasons: 

1) The Northwest Forest Plan provides a well-distributed set of reserves which protect suitable 

habitat across the range of the spotted owl. Suitable spotted owl habitat proposed for removal in 

the EXF project area is within the Administratively Withdrawn land allocation under the NWFP, 

which were intended to provide demographic support for spotted owls and provide for 

connectivity and dispersal between larger blocks of habitat in LSRs. The NWFP recognized the 

need for silvicultural management in the Eastern Oregon Cascades Province for the purpose of 

reducing the risk of stand-replacing fires. The EXF Project is consistent with management 

guidelines within the NWFP in that a key purpose of the project is to improve the forest resiliency 

to large-scale disturbance events such as insect, disease, and fire that will lead to loss of latesuccessional forest across the landscape. The amount and location of the nesting, roosting, 

foraging and dispersal habitat proposed for removal in the EXF project will not significantly 

affect connectivity between LSRs or the ability of reserves to support conservation and recovery 

of the spotted owl as planned through the NWFP.

2) All spotted owl suitable habitat within the project area has been surveyed to protocol and all sites 

of occupation have been documented. No suitable habitat will be removed within spotted owl 

home ranges or core areas within the EXF project area. (Biological Opinion, pp. 51-52).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The initial response from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the scoping phase 

included a list of analysis to include and factors to consider in the EIS. Per Forest Service regulations, 
Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

258  EXF Final EIS

the DEIS was filed with the EPA’s Office of Federal Activities in Washington, DC, who published a 

notice of availability in the Federal Register September 18, 2009. 

The EPA’s Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit reviewed the draft EIS and gave it a 

rating of LO (Lack of Objections). The EPA’s reviewing official stated in a letter: 

“As a participant on the Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC), EPA has had the 

opportunity to survey other ongoing research efforts on the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. 

This forest is an important natural laboratory that is serving to enhance our understanding of the 

role of natural and human-caused disturbances as agents of change in ponderosa pine, 

lodgepole pine and mixed conifer forests, and the degree to which they can be effectively 

managed to achieve or sustain desired ecological conditions. We are supportive of the 

proposed project, both as a means to address the risk of severe insect epidemic or catastrophic 

fire, and as an opportunity to study forest dynamics after thinning and fuels reduction in dry 

forests. Although a small component, we are appreciative that the long-term influence of 

climate change will be considered within the context of the study. As climate changes, so may 

the way in which fuel reduction treatments affect vegetation dynamics and forest structure. 

Research such as this can help to build our understanding and inform future management.” 

4.3 Preparers / Interdisciplinary Team

Paul Brna – USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, 

Certified Silviculturist

Contribution: Forested Vegetation Analysis

Education / Experience: BS Forest Science, Pennsylvania State University; BS Wood Technology, 

Pennsylvania State University; 1 1⁄2 years Forestry Tech for BLMN; 14 years as Forester for Bureau of 

Indian Affairs; 17 years Forester for Forest Service on two National Forests. 

Rod Jorgensen – USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, 

Soils Scientist

Contribution: Soil Resource Analysis

Education / Experience: BS Soil Science, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (1977)

31 years professional experience

Janine McFarland – USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger 

District, Archaeologist

Contribution: Heritage Resources

Education / Experience: MA from Oregon State University, 24 years of FS experience on four National 

Forests; BLM and National Park Service.

Beth Peer, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, 

Environmental Coordinator

Contribution: Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Writer/Editor.
Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

EXF Final EIS  259

Education / Experience: Bachelor of Science University of Oregon, 1990. Forest Service 18 years 

including positions in Heritage Resources, GIS, and Planning.

Rick Dewey – USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Botanist

Contribution: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants analysis; Invasive Plants analysis.

Education / Experience: BS Zoology San Diego State University 1969; BS Natural Resources 

Humboldt State University (1975); MA Biology, Humboldt State University (1979); PhD Botany Texas 

A&M University (1986). 20 years professional experience.

Jim Schlaich, USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, 

Forester

Contribution: Interdisciplinary Team Leader until December 2008. 

Education / Experience: BS Forest Management, Utah State University-1977, 32 years experience

Deana Wall – USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, 

Fuels Specialist

Contribution: Fire & Fuels Effects Analysis

Education / Experience: B.A. Biology, minor Chemistry, Lewis and Clark College; 12 years with USFS 

(Umpqua, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Deschutes NFs), 10 years in Fire and Fuels, 2 years as a Fuels 

Specialist.

Barbara Webb – USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, 

Wildlife Biologist

Contribution: Wildlife Effects Analysis; Biological Assessment

Education / Experience: B. S. Environmental & Forest Biology (Wildlife Emphasis) SUNY College 

Env. Sci. & Forestry magna cum laude; 12 years as a USFS Wildlife Biologist (Wallowa-Whitman, Mt 

Hood, and Deschutes NFs)

Andy Youngblood, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, LaGrande Forestry 

Science Laboratory, Research Forester/Silviculturist 

Contribution: Author of study plan; input on project design and assessment of alternatives against 

implementation of study plan. 

Education / Experience: Ph.D., University of Alaska Fairbanks, Forest Ecology; M.S. and B.S., 

Utah State University, Forest Ecology. Over 30 years Forest Service research experience in ecosystem 

and plant community classification; silviculture practices for regeneration and culture of boreal and 

Pacific Northwest conifers and hardwoods; fire ecology and fire effects; dendrochronology; forest stand 

structure and dynamics; plant competition and competition effects on tree growth; disturbance ecology 

and the role of natural and human-caused disturbances. Previous locations include Bend, OR, 

Fairbanks, AK, and Logan, UT.
Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

INDEX

A

air quality, 99, 111, 123

alternatives, 35

B

Biological Assessment, 26, 124

biological evaluation, 124, 125

C

civil rights, 250

Clean Air Act, 230, 245

Critical Habitat Unit, 47, 56

crown fire, 103, 107, 110, 121, 124

cultural resources, 242

cumulative effects, 41, 42

D

danger tree, 244

DecAID, 131

Douglas-fir, 61, 63, 64, 261

E

Eastside Screens, 13

economic efficiency, 240

Economics, 261

elk, 159

Endangered Species Act, 255

F

Fire, 260

fire behavior, 102, 108, 113, 118, 123

fire regime, 99, 100

forest plan amendment, 21

G

goshawk, 150

H

historic range of variability, 81

I

invasive plant, 239

invasive plants, 9, 239

Inventoried Roadless Area, 10

L

late successional reserve, 66

Late Successional Reserve, 72

late-successional old growth, 80

Lewis' woodpecker, 125, 140, 142

LOS, 95

M

Mitigation, 26

mule deer, 159

N

neotropical birds, 162

northern spotted owl, 8

Northwest Forest Plan, 80

noxious weed, 239

noxious weeds, 239

O

OSHA, 244, 245

P

Pacific fisher, 125, 131

R

recreation, 10

Research Natural Area, 35

S

sensitive soils, 219

sensitive species, 127

Sensitive species, 125

soil disturbance, 203, 205, 215, 221

spotted owl, 8, 23, 46, 255

subsoiling, 212, 213, 215, 216, 218

U

upper management zone, 18

W

white-headed woodpecker, 125, 137

Wilderness, 10, 230

wolverine, 125, 135, 137
Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination
Glossary

262  EXF Final EIS

Glossary

A

Advanced Regeneration - Small trees, usually 

less than 1 inch in diameter, which are growing 

under mature trees prior to planned harvest 

activities.

C

Canopy - The uppermost spreading branchy 

layer of a forest. 

Canopy Base Height – The height above the 

ground of the first canopy layer where the 

density of the crown mass within the layer is 

great enough to support vertical movement of a 

fire. Low canopy base heights have been 

shown to initiate crown fire behavior.

Canopy Bulk Density - Canopy bulk density 

(CBD) describes the density of available 

canopy fuel in a stand. It is defined as the mass 

of available canopy fuel per canopy volume 

unit.

Chain – A standard measurement equal to 66 

feet for the rate of spread of fire. 

Cohort – A group of trees developing after a 

single disturbance, commonly consisting of 

trees of similar age, although it can include a 

considerable range of tree ages of seedling or 

sprout origin and trees that predate the 

disturbance. 

Condition Classes - A function of the degree of 

departure from historical fire regimes. 

Condition class 1 is within or near historical 

conditions; class 3 is significantly altered from 

historical regimes.

Crop Trees -Trees which are considered 

suitable to meet long term management 

objectives for an analysis area. These may also 

be referred to as healthy or manageable trees. 

This may include both the physical make-up of 

the tree as well as the species.

Cryic - Soils in this temperature regime have a 

mean annual temperature higher than 0°C but 

lower than 8°C.

Cycle - As applied to uneven-aged 

management, it is the time interval between 

harvest entries. It should be noted that harvest 

entries in uneven-aged management are to 

leave residual levels of growing stock which 

should not need treatment for at least one cycle 

length.

D

Desirable Species - Any species of plant or 

animal which is considered to be compatible 

with meeting management goals and 

objectives. 

Disturbance - Events that disrupt the stand 

structure and/or change resource availability or 

the physical environment (Oliver, 1996).

Diurnal - Active during the daytime, resting 

during the night.

E

Early Seral - Plants which inhabit a disturbed 

site within the first few years subsequent to the 

disturbance.

Excess Trees - Trees which are considered not 

needed in the stand in order to meet 

management objectives. 

Extended Attack - When a fire has not been 

contained by the initial attack resources 

dispatched to the fire, will not have been 

contained within the management objectives 

that are established for that zone or area, and 

has not been contained within the first 

operational period.

Extirpated - Local extinction.

F

Fire Regime - A function of the historical 

frequency of fire and the degree of severity of 

those fires. 

Fuels - Vegetative matter, dead or alive, that 

burns in a fire. It is broadly characterized by 

the following categories: 
Glossary

EXF Final EIS  263

• Surface or ground fuels are within a 

foot or so of the ground surface.

• Ladder fuels exist when you have a 

continuous vertical arrangement of fuel 

that allows fire to easily go from 

ground level into the tree canopy.

• Crown fuels are the tree limbs and 

leave that can burn with enough heat 

and/or wind.

• Live fuels are the green (live) herbs 

and shrubs.

Fuel Models - Fuel models are a tool used to 

standardize discussion of fuel conditions on a 

landscape. 

G

Group Selection - A stand management 

method in which silviculturists identify groups 

of trees which need to be removed from a stand 

of trees in order to meet management 

objectives. 

I

Individual Tree Selection - A stand 

management method in which silviculturists 

identify individual trees that need to be 

removed from a stand of trees. In this method,

specific types, sizes, or qualities of trees are 

identified for either removing from the stand or 

remaining in the stand. 

Initial Attack – The fire suppression effort that 

takes place as soon as possible following a 

wildland fire report.

L

Ladder Fuels – Fuels that provide vertical 

continuity between the ground and tree crowns, 

thus creating a pathway for a surface fire to 

move into the overstory tree crowns.

M

Mechanical Thinning - Reducing the number 

of trees in a stand using a factor which is 

independent of tree quality. The use of spacing 

for thinning is one type of mechanical 

treatment. For example, the closest tree to the 

points of a 15' by 15' grid would be left, 

regardless of tree quality. 

Multi-Cohort – a stand with two or more age 

classes or cohorts. 

N

Noxious Weeds (Invasive species) - Non-native 

plants listed by the State that generally have 

either economic or ecosystem impacts, or are 

poisonous to wildlife and/or livestock. They 

aggressively invade disturbed areas such as 

fires, road sides, and construction areas.

P

Prescribed Fire - Fire which is planned and 

used as a tool to meet specific management 

objectives. 

Percentile Weather - The weather conditions 

that can be expected of X% of the days during 

a fire season. The standard percents are Low 

(0%-15%), Moderate (16%-89%), High (90%-

96%) and Extreme (97%+). So low percentile 

weather is the average suite of weather 

conditions that would occur less than 15% of 

the time.

Problem Fire - Problem fires are wildfires that, 

because of extreme fire behavior, present a 

high risk to human safety and loss of forest 

resources.

R

Rotation - A pre-determined time frame in 

which an even-aged forest stand will reach 

maturity and be harvested. 

S

Salvage - Activity, usually removal or 

chipping, of material killed by a disturbance 

event such as insects, fire, wind, etc. Where 

possible, this material is used as some form of 

forest product of commercial value, such as 

firewood, pulp, and/or chips.

Seral Stages - Seral stage describes the phase 

of development of a plant community. Early 

seral species are those species you would 

expect to find on a site soon after a major 

disturbance, like fire. These are species such as 

pines, Douglas-fir, snowbrush, fireweed, etc. 

They are generally shade intolerant species. 

Late seral are the species that can come in 
Glossary

264  EXF Final EIS

under a fully developed vegetative canopy, 

such as true firs, prince's pine, lichens, etc. 

Silviculture -The theory and practice of 

directing forest establishment, composition, 

and growth for the production of forest 

resources to meet specific management 

objectives. The word is derived from the 

Latin word silva, which means "forest" and 

from cultura, which means "to develop and 

care for." So, it is the development and caring 

for the forest. 

Silviculturist - One who plans, assists in and 

supervises the implementation of silviculture 

projects. The silviculturist determines 

(prescribes) the vegetative treatments necessary 

to meet the objectives for vegetation on a given 

site.

Site - A specific location where management 

activity is considered, planned, or operating. 

Site Potential - The specific ability of a site to 

grow vegetation. It includes the soil, 

topographic, and climatic conditions that 

determine the resources available for growing 

vegetation.

Site Preparation - The removing or rearranging 

of vegetation or woody debris to meet specific 

management objectives. Most often it is used 

to describe the process(es) used to expose 

mineral soil areas suitable for planting or 

seeding desirable species of plants. 

Stand - A group of trees of similar canopy 

structure, species composition, and/or size 

growing on a continuous area . A stand is 

distinct from neighboring stands in either 

structure, growing conditions, or management 

objectives. 

Stand Density Index – SDI – A relative density 

measure based on the relationship between 

mean tree size and number of trees per unit area 

in a stand (Reineke 1933).

Stand Dynamics - The changes in forest stand 

structure with time, including stand behavior 

during and after disturbances (Oliver, 1996).

Stand Structure - The physical and temporal 

distribution of trees and other plants in a stand 

(Oliver, 1996).

Stratum – A distinct layer of vegetation within 

a forest community; canopy layer. 

Subnivean - Living underneath snow.

T

Trees per Acre - The amount of trees of a 

specific diameter on an acre of land. 

Thinning - Any cutting or removal of 

vegetation (trees, brush, etc.) resulting in a 

reduction of competition for water, light, and/or 

nutrients between individual plants. Thinning 

is commonly referred to as commercial 

thinning and small tree thinning. 

• Commercial thinning refers to removing 

material that has an established dollar value 

on the open market and can be sold with at 

least a minimal net value sufficient to pay 

for the thinning activity. 

• Small tree thinning/Ladder fuel 

reduction may or may not have a dollar 

value and usually includes the need to pay 

someone to accomplish the work. This is 

sometimes called small-tree thinning 

because the trees are smaller than the sizes 

that have a commercial value.

Thrifty trees - Trees which have at least a 40% 

live crown ratio and with little or no evidence 

of disease or insects are called thrifty. They 

should also show evidence of good growth with 

long leaders and a good color, usually dark 

green.

Treatment - A term used to broadly refer to the 

vegetative changes made to meet management 

objectives. It may include thinning, cutting of 

undesirable trees, prescribed fire, salvage, or 

any manipulation of the vegetative conditions. 

Trees per Acre – The number of trees of a 

specific diameter on an acre of land. 

U
Glossary

EXF Final EIS  265

Upper Management Zone – UMZ –The level 

of stocking or relative density beyond which 

there is imminent risk of catastrophic loss of 

overstory trees to bark beetles.

Underburn - Using prescribed fire under the 

canopy of an existing stand of trees. 

Undesirable Species - Any species of plant or 

animal which is NOT considered to be 

compatible with meeting management goals 

and objectives.

Ustic - A soil moisture regime in which 

moisture is limited but is present at a time when 

conditions are suitable for plant growth.

W

Woody Debris - Dead pieces of woody 

vegetation such as stems, limbs, or leaves 

which are on a site.

X

Xeric - A soil moisture regime in which soil is 

dry for 45 or more consecutive days in the 4 

months following the summer solstice, and 

moist for 45 or more consecutive days in the 4 

months following the winter solstice.
Glossary

266  EXF Final EIS
References

EXF Final EIS  267

References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forest. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Agee, J. K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-320. Arabas, K. B., K. S. Hadley, and E. R. Larson. 2006. Fire 

history of a naturally fragmented landscape in central Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:1108-

1120.

Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. Presented at the 17th Annual Forest 

Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA. January 16-18, 1996.

Ager, A., B. Bahro, and K. Barber. 2006. Automating the fireshed assessment process with Arc GIS. Fuels 

Management- How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings, 28-30 March 2006, Portland, OR. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. 

Ager, A., M. Finney, and A. McMahon. 2006. A wildfire risk modeling system for evaluating landscape fuel 

treatment strategies. Fuels Management- How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings, 28-30 March 

2006, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. 

Aldrich, J. W. 1963. Geographic orientation of American Tetraonidae. In Birds of Oregon: A General 

Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

OR. 768 pp.

Allen, A. W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. In: Novak, M.; Baker, J.A.; Obbard, M.E. 

comps. eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. North Bay, Ontario: Ontario 

Trappers Association: 164-179.

Alosi, M. Carol; Robertson, Jacqueline L. 1992. Biochemical indicators of population status of pine bark 

beetles. In: Hayes, Jane L.; Roberson, Jacqueline L., tech. coords. Proceedings of a workshop on bark beetle 

genetics: current status of research; 1992 May 17-18; Berkeley, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-138. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 4 p.

Altman, B. June 2000. Conservation Strategy For Landbirds Of The East-Slope Of The Cascade Mountains In 

Oregon And Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners In Flight. 

Anthony, R.G., R.J. Steidl, and K. McGarigal. 1995. Recreation and bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. IN: 

R.L. Knight and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and 

research. Island Press, Washington D.C. 372 pp.

Arabas, K.B., K.S. Hadley, and E.R. Larson. 2006. Fire History of a Naturally Fragmented Landscape in 

Central Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 1108-1120.

Arca B., Duce P., Laconi M., Pellizzaro G., Salis M., Spano D. 2007. Evaluation of FARSITE simulator in 

Mediterranean maquis. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16: 563-572.

Arno, S. F., H. Y. Smith, and K. A. Krebs. 1997. Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand structures: 

influences of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INTRP-495. 

Aubry, K. and C. Raley. 2006. Update to the study Ecological Characteristics of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in 

the Southern Oregon Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Res. Sta. Olympia , WA. 30 

pages.

Aubry, K. B., K. S. McKelvey, and J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat relations of the 

wolverine in the contiguous United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 71(7): 2147-2158.

Barbour, R. W. and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University of Kentucky Press. Lexington, KY. 286 

pp.

Barrett, James W. 1974. Pruning of ponderosa pine...effect on growth. Res. Pap. PNW-68. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 9 p.
References

268  EXF Final EIS

Barrett, James W.; Newman, Richard P. 1974. High yields from 100-year-old ponderosa pine. Res. Note PNW220. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 12 p.

Barrett, James W. 1983. Growth of ponderosa pine poles thinned to different stocking levels in central Oregon. 

Res. Pap. PNW-311. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 9 p.

Barrett, James W.; Roth, Lewis F. 1985. Response of dwarf mistletoe-infested ponderosa pine thinning: 1. 

Sapling growth. Res. Pap. PNW-330. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 15 p.

Bate, L.J. 1995. Monitoring woodpecker abundance and habitat in the Central Oregon Cascades. Masters Thesis. 

Univ. of Idaho, Moscow. 116pp.

Beckman, Kent M.; Roth, Lewis F. 1968. The influence of temperature on longevity and germination of seed of 

western dwarf mistletoe. Phytopathology. 58(2): 147-150.

Bend-Fort Rock District Project Surveys and Wildlife Sightings Records.

Bergoffen, W. W. 1976. 100 years of Federal forestry. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Information Bulletin 

402.

Bettinger, P., Johnson K. N., and Sessions J. 1998. Evaluating the Association Among Alternative Measures of 

Cumulative Watershed Effects on a Forested Watershed in Eastern Oregon. Journal of Applied Forestry, 13, 

(1): pp. 15-22.

Bond, M. L., D. E. Lee, R. B. Siegel, and J. P. Ward Jr. 2009. Habitat use and selection by California spotted 

owls in a postfire landscape. JWM 73(7):1116-1124.

Booser, J, and J. White. Calculating maximum stand density indexes (SDI) for Deschutes National Forest plant 

associations. Unpublished paper, on file, Deschutes National Forest 

Bork, J. 1984. Fire history in three vegetation types on the east side of the Oregon Cascades. Ph.D. Diss., 

Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Bormann, Bernard T., Homann, P.S., Darbyshire, R.L., Morrissette, B.A. 2008. Intense forest wildfire 

sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 2771-

2783 (2008). 

Brown, James K., E.D. Reinhardt, K.A. Kramer; 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits in the 

Recovering Forest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-105.

Brown, James K. 1974. Handbook for Inventorying Downed Woody Material. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report INT-16. 

Bull, E.L. 1980. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Doctoral thesis. Univ. of 

Idaho, Moscow. 109pp.

Bull, E.L., and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the Great Gray Owl. In Birds of Oregon: A General 

Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

OR. 768 pp.

Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgerson. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia 

River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-39. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

55pp.

Buskirk, S.W., and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat Ecology of Fishers and American Martens. In: Buskirk, S.W., 

A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, comps. eds. Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell 

University Press, Ithaca, NY. p283-296.

Cafferata, Peter H. 1983. The Effects of Compaction on the Hydrologic Properties of Forest Soils in the Sierra 

Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Watershed Management Staff; Earth Resources 

Monograph 7. 
References

EXF Final EIS  269

Castellano, Michael, Jane Smith, Thom O'Dell, Efren Cazares and Susan Nugent. 1999. Handbook to 

Strategy 1 Fungal Species in the Northwest Forest Plant. USDA-USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-476.

Clark, B.S. et al. 1993. Foraging activity of adult female Ozark big-eared bats (Plecotus townsendii ingens) in 

summer. J. Mamm. 74(2):422-427.

Cline, E.T., J.F. Ammirati, and R.L. Edmonds. 2005. Does proximity to mature trees influence 

ectomycorrhizal fungus communities in Douglas-fir seedlings? New Phytologist 166(3):993-1009.

Cochran, P. H. 1992. Stocking levels and underlying assumptions for uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands. USDA 

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Note PNW-RN-509. 10 p.

Cochran, P. H.; Geist, J. M.; Clemens, D. L.; Clausnitzer, R. R.; Powell, D. C. 1994. Suggested stocking 

levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Research Station Research Note PNW-RN-513. 21 p.

Cochran, P. H., and J. W. Barrett. 1995. Growth and mortality of ponderosa pine poles thinned to various 

densities in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. Res. paper PNW-RP-483. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station

Cochran, P.H.; Barrett, James W. 1999. Growth of ponderosa pine thinned to different stocking levels in central 

Oregon: 30-year results. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-508. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.

Copeland, J. P., J. M. Peek, C. R. Groves, W. E. Melquist, K. S. McKelvey, G. W. McDaniel, C. D. Long, 

and C. E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 

71(7):2201-2212.

Cottrell, M. J. 1981. Resource partitioning and reproductive success of three species of hawks (Buteo spp.) in an 

Oregon prairie. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 

2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Courtney, S. P., A. C. Carey, M. L. Cody, K. Engel, K. E. Fehring, J. F. Franklin, M. R. Fuller, R. J. 

Gutierrez, J. F. Lehmkuhl, M. A. Hemstrom, P. F. Hessburg, S. L. Stephens, L. A. Sztukowski, and L. 

Young. 2008. Scientific Review of the Draft Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and Reviewer Comments. 

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. www.sei.org 150 pages.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. 

Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of 

the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR. 

Covington, W. W., and M. M. Moore. 1994. Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes and forest structure: 

ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2:153-181.

Craigg, T.L., 2000. Subsoiling to restore compacted soils. In: “Proceedings, Twenty-first Annual Forest 

Vegetation Management Conference”, January 2000; Redding, CA. Forest Vegetation Management 

Conference, Redding, CA.

Csuti Blair, Oneil T.A., Shaughnessy M.M., Gaines E.P., Hak J.C. 2001. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife 

Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History. Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon. 525 pp.

Cushman, K. A. and C. A. Pearl. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana 

pretiosa). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 

46 pages.

Damiami, C., D.C. Lee, and S.L. Jacobson. 2007. Effects of noise disturbance on northern spotted owl 

reproductive success. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences 

Laboratory, Arcata, California.

DeBano, Leonard F., Daniel G. Neary, Peter F. Folliott. 1998. Fire Effects on Ecosystem. John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc. New York. 332pp.
References

270  EXF Final EIS

de Groot, P., and J. J. Turgeon. 1998. Insect-pine interactions. Pages 354-380 in D. M. Richardson, editor. 

Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Delaney, D., T. Grubb, P. Beier, L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican 

spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1): 60-76.

Diebert, W. J., M. J. Griffith, and K. Zahl. 1970s. Fieldbook of Selected Wildlife. USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Region. 97pp.

Dieterich, J.H. 1980. The composite fire interval: a tool for more accurate interpretation of fire history. In 

Stokes, M.A., and J.H. Dieterich (tech. coords.). Proceedings of the fires history workshop: p. 8-14. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-81.

Dixon, Rita Dianne. 1995. Ecology of white-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. Moscow, ID: 

University of Idaho. 148pp. M.S. thesis.

Dixon, Rita Dianne. 1995. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use, and behavior 

of white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Wildlife 

Nongame Project No. 93-3-01. 71 pp and Appendices.

Dolph, K. L., S. R. Mori, and W. W. Oliver. 1995. Long-term response of old-growth stands to varying levels of 

partial cutting in the eastside pine type. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 10:101–108.

Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage 

Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan V3.0. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Region 6, 

Portland, OR. 70pp.

Edelman, F. and J. Copeland. 1999. Wolverine distribution in the northwestern United States and a survey in 

the Seven Devils mountains of Idaho. Northwest Science, Vol. 73, No. 4.

Eglitis, Andris, Undated. Natural Range of Variation of Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed Conifer Forests of 

Central Oregon. Unpublished paper, on file, Deschutes National Forest

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and Darryl Wheye. 1988. The Birder’s Handbook: A Field Guide to the Natural 

History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster Inc. New York, New York. 785 pp.

Emmingham W.H., Oester P.T., Fitzgerald S.A., Filip G.M., Edge W.D. 2005. Ecology and management of 

eastern Oregon forests: A comprehensive manual for forest managers. Manual 12, Oregon State Univ. Ext. 

Serv., Corvallis, OR. 208 p.

Erickson, J.L., and S.D. West. 1995. Managed forests in the western Cascades: the effects of seral stage on bat 

habitat use patterns. In: B.M.R. Barclay and R.M. Brigham, eds. Bats and Forests Symposium. Victoria, 

British Columbia. p.215-227.

Everett, R. L., R. Schellhass, D. Keenum, D. Spurbeck, and P. Ohlson. 2000. Fire history in the ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir forests on the east slope of the Washington Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management 129: 

207-225.

Fettig, C. J., K. D. Klepzig, R. F. Billings, A. S. Munson, T. E. Nebeker, J. F. Negrón, and J. T. Nowak. 

2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle 

outbreaks in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 

238: 24-53.

Filip, Gregory M, Stephen A. Fitzgerald, Kristin L. Chadwick, and Timothy A. Max. 2009. Thinning 

ponderosa pine affected by Armillaria root disease: 40 Years of growth and mortality on an infected site in 

central Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 24(2): 88-94.

Finney, Mark. 2001. Design of Regular Landscape Fuel Treatment Patterns for Modifying Fire Growth and 

Behavior. Forest Sciences 2001. 

Finney, Mark A. 2006. An Overview of FlamMap Fire Modeling Capabilities. In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Butler, 

Bret W., comps. 2006. Fuels Management-How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 

2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
References

EXF Final EIS  271

Finney, Mark, Stuart Brittain, and Rob Seli. 2006. FlamMap Version 3.0. Joint Fire Sciences Program, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, US Bureau of Land Management, Systems for Environmental 

Management.

Fitzgerald, S.A. 2002. Fire in Oregon’s Forests: Risks, Effects, and Treatment Options A synthesis of current 

issues and scientific literature, Fitzgerald S.A., ed. Oregon Forest Resources Institute.

Fitzgerald, S.A. 2005. Fire Ecology of Ponderosa Pine and the Rebuilding of Fire-Resilient Ponderosa Pine 

Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-198, 2005, p. 197-225. 

Fontaine, Barbara pers. communication (email) to Rob Rawlings (March 7, 2005) forwarded to Art Currier to 

Joanna Booser (March 31, 2005) to Barbara Schroeder, re: “Dialog Among Various Fuels Planners and 

Silviculturists” Big Tree Mortality and Spring Burning.

Forsman, E.D., C.E. Mellow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. 

Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor, B.L. Biswell, A. Ellingson, 

E.C. Mellow, G.S. Miller, K.A. Swindle, J.A. Thrailkill, F.F. Wagner, and D. E. Seaman. 2002. Natal and 

breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 149:1–35.

Froehlich, H.A., D.E. Aulerich, R. Curtis, 1981. Designing Skid Trail Systems to Reduce Soil Impacts from 

Tractive Logging Machines, Research Paper 44, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvailis, Oregon. 13 pages. 

Furniss, and Carolin 1992. Western Forest Insects. Misc. Pub. 1339. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 654 p.

Gabrielson, I. N., and S. G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of Oregon. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, 

Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 

pp.

Gannett, M.W., K.E. Lite, Jr., D.S. Morgan, and C.A. Collins. 2001. Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper 

Deschutes Basin, Oregon. Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4162. U.S. Geological Survey.

Garland, John J. 1983. Designated Skidtrails to Minimize Soil Compaction. 

Geist, Michael J., J.W. Hazard, and K.W. Seidel; 1989. Assessing Physical Conditions of Some Pacific 

Northwest Volcanic Ash Soils After Forest Harvest. 5 pages.

Gercke, D.M., and S.A. Stewart. 2006. Strategic Placement of Treatments (SPOTS): maximizing the 

effectiveness of fuel and vegetation treatments on problem fire behavior and effects. Fuels ManagementHow to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings, 28-30 March 2006, Portland, OR. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. 

Gilligan, J., M. Smith, D. Rogers, and A. Contreras. 1994. Birds of Oregon: status and distribution. In Birds 

of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers, 

Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Nongame Project # 87-3-02, Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Bend, OR. 

84pp. 

Graham, Russel T., Alan E. Harvey, Martin F. Jurgensen, Theresa B. Jain, Jonalea R. Tonn, Deborah S. 

Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing Coarse Woody Debris in Forests of the Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest 

Service Research Paper INT-RP-477. Pages 1-13.

Graham, R.T., Alan E. Harvey, Threasa B. Jain, Jonalea R. Tonn. 1999. The Effects of Thinning and Similar 

Stands Treatments on Fire Behavior in the Western Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. PNW GTR-463. 28pp.

Greene, Lula E. 1992. Qualitative genetics of mountain pine beetle in central Oregon. In: Hayes, Jane L; 

Roberson, Jacqueline L, tech. coords. Proceedings of a workshop on bark beetle genetics: current status of 

research; 1992 May 17-18; Berkeley, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-138. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 3.
References

272  EXF Final EIS

Hall, Frederick C. 1987. Growth basal area handbook. R6 Ecol 181b-1985. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 84 p. 

Hanson, C. T., D. C. Odion, D. A. Dellasala, and W. L. Baker. 2009. Overestimation of fire risk in the 

northern spotted owl recovery plan. Conservation Biology 23:1314-1319.

Hanson, C. T. 2010. The myth of “catastrophic” wildfire: a new ecological paradigm of forest health. John Muir 

Project Technical Report 1. John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute, Cedar ridge, California.

Harrod, R. J., D. W. Peterson, N. A. Povak, and E. K. Dodson. 2009. Thinning and prescribed fire effects on 

overstory tree and snag structure in dry coniferous forests of the interior Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology 

and Management 258 (2

Harrod, R. J., B. H. McRae, and W. E. Hartl. 1999. Historical stand reconstruction in ponderosa pine forests to 

guide silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology and Management 114: 433-446.

Harvey, A.E., M.F. Jurgensen, and M.J. Larsen. 1981. Organic reserves: Importance to ectomycorrhizae in 

forest soils of western Montana. Forest Science 27(3): 442-445.

Hayes, J. L., and G. E. Daterman. 2001. Bark beetles (Scolytidae) in eastern Oregon and Washington. 

Northwest Science 75: 21-30.

Hemstrom, Thomas Spies, Craig Palmer, Ross Kiester, John Teply, Phil McDonald, and Ralph 

Warbington. 1998. Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Effectiveness Monitoring Plan for the 

Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-438 December 1998

Henny, C. J. Cooper’s Hawk. Pp 149-150 in Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. D. B. Marshall, M. G. 

Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Henny, C. J. Cooper’s Hawk. Pp 149-150 in Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. D. B. Marshall, M. G. 

Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Hessburg, P. F., R. G. Mitchell, and G. M. Filip. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in 

eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNWGTR-327.

Hessburg, P.F., Agee, J.K. 2003. An environmental narrative of inland Northwest US forests, 1800–2000. For. 

Ecol. Manage. 178, 23–59.

Hessburg, P. F., J. K. Agee, and J. F. Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest 

USA: contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and 

Management 211:117-139.

Holmes, A. L. and G. R. Geupel. 1998. Avian population studies at naval weapons systems training facility 

Boardman, Oregon. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. 

Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Hood, S. 2009. Prescribed burning and big trees: Can we do it without killing the trees? Fire Science Brie Issue 

31 6 pages.

Hopkins, B., S. Simon, M. Schafer, and T. Lillybridge. 1993. Region 6 Interim Old Growth Definitions for 

Grand fir/White fir series, Lodgepole series, and Ponderosa pine series.

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can. J. Zool. 

59:1286-1301.

Hurteau, Matthew D., George W. Koch, Bruce A. Hungate. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: 

toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology 6(9): 493-498.

Isaacs, F. B. and R. G. Anthony. 2005. Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in Oregon and the 

Washington portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone, 1971 through 2005. Oregon Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
References

EXF Final EIS  273

Janes S. W. 1985a. Behavioral interactions and habitat relations among grassland and shrub steppe raptors. In 

Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Janes S. W. 1985b. Habitat selection in raptorial birds. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. 

G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Jeffries, S. Deschutes Forest Biologist and D. Zalunardo, Ochoco Forest Biologist Letter dated June 19, 2003 to 

File Code: 2670; Subject: Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) habitat mapping; To: District Wildlife Biologists, 

Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest and the Crooked River National Grassland).

Johnsgard, P. A. 1987. Diving birds of North America. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. 

G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Johnsgard , Paul A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington D.C. pp. 164-182.

Kolb, T. E. et al., Perpetuating old ponderosa pine, Forest Ecol. Manage. (2007), 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.002

Kranabetter, J.M. and P. Kroeger. 2001. Ectomycorrhizal mushroom response to partial cutting in a western 

hemlock-western redcedar forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research: 978-987.

Krasnow, K., T. Schoennagel, T.T. Veblen. 2009. Forest fuel mapping and validation of LANDFIRE fuel maps 

in Boulder County, Colorado. Forest Ecology and Management. 257: 1603-1612.

Keen, F.P. 1936. Relative susceptibility of ponderosa pine to bark-beetle attack. Journal of Forestry. 34(10): 919-

927.

Klenner, W. and A. Arsenault. 2009. Ponderosa pine mortality during a severe bark beetle (Coleoptera: 

Curulionidae, Scolytinae) outbreak in southern British Columbia and implications for wildlife habitat 

management. Forest Ecology and Management 2585:S5-S14.

Knight, I. & J. Coleman. 1993. A fire perimeter expansion algorithm based on Huygens’ wavelet propagation. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 3(2): 73-84.

Koonce, Andrea L.; Roth, Lewis F. 1980. The effects of prescribed burning on dwarf mistletoe in ponderosa 

pine. In: Martin, Robert E.; Edmonds, Robert L.; Fulkner, Donald A. [and others]. Proceedings, 6th 

conference on fire and forest meteorology; 1980 April 22-24; Seattle, WA. Bethesda, MD: Society of 

American Foresters: 197-203. 

Koonce, Andrea Lavender. 1981. Interactions between fire and dwarf mistletoe in ponderosa pine. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University. 53 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Krebs, J; E. C. Lofroth, and I. Parfitt. 2007. Multi-scale habitat use by wolverine in British Columbia Canada. 

J. Wildl. Manage. 71(7):2180-2192.

Larsen, Daniel M. 1976. Soil Resource Inventory Deschutes National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region.

Larsson, S.; Oren, R.; Waring, R.H.; Barrett, J.W. 1983. Attacks of mountain pine beetle as related to tree 

vigor of ponderosa pine. Forest Science. 29(2): 395-402.

Lehmkuhl, J. F., L. E> Gould, E. Cazares, and D.R. Hosford. 2004. Truffle abundance and mycophagy by 

northern flying squirrels in eastern Washington forests. Forest Ecology and Management 200: 49-65.

Lehmkuhl, J.F, K. D. Kistler, and J. S. Begley. 2006. Bushy-tailed woodrat abundance in dry forests of eastern 

Washington. J. Mammology. 87(2):371-379.

Littlefield, C. D. 1990. Birds of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. In Birds of Oregon: A General 

Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

OR. 768 pp.

Long, J. N., and T. W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. West. J. Appl. For. 5: 

93-96. 
References

274  EXF Final EIS

Lundsten, J. 1996. Solitary Sandpiper nesting in Marion County, Oregon? In Birds of Oregon: A General 

Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

OR. 768 pp.

Luoma, D.L. and J. Eberhart. 2005. Results from green-tree retention experiments: ectomycorrhizal fungi. In: 

Peterson, C.D. and D.A. Maguire (eds.). Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable 

forestry. Proceedings of a conference. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-635. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Lyon, L.J. and C.E. Jensen. 1980. Management implications of elk and deer use of clear-cuts in Montana. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 44(2):352-362.

Maffei, H. and B. Tandy. 2002. Methodology for modeling the spatial and temporal effects of vegetation 

management alternatives on late successional habitat in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service 

Proceedings RMRS-P-25.

Manga, Michael, 1997. A model for discharge in spring-dominated streams and the implications for the 

transmissivity and recharge of quaternary volcanics in the Oregon Cascades

Manga, M. 1999. On the Timescales Characterizing Groundwater Discharge at Springs. Journal of Hydrology, 

Volume 219, pgs. 56-69. 

Marshall, D. 1992. Status of the Northern Goshawk in Oregon and Washington. Audubon Soc., Portland, Oregon. 

34pp.

Marshall, D. 1992. Status of the black-backed woodpecker in Oregon and Washington. Audubon Society of 

Portland, Oregon. 32pp.

Marshall, D. B. 1996. Species at risk. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and 

A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Marshall, D. B. 1997. Status of the white-headed woodpecker in Oregon and Washington. Audubon Society of 

Portland, Portland. 30 pages and appendices.

Marshall, D. B., M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Maxwell, Wayne, Ward, F., 1980. Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Forest Residues in Common Vegetation 

Types of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-105.

McCullough, D. G., R. A. Werner, and D. Neumann. 1998. Fire and insects in northern and boreal forest 

ecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 107-127.

McCullough, D. R. ed. 1996. Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation. Island Press, Washington DC. 429 

pages.

McKenney, D. W., J. H. Pedlar, K. Lawrence, K. Campbell, and M. F. Hutchinson. 2007. Potential impacts of 

climate change on the distribution of North American trees. BioScience 57: 939-948.

McNabb, D.H., Froehlich, H.A., 1983. Conceptual Model for Predicting Forest Productivity Losses from Soil 

Compaction. 

Meehan, W.R. 1991. USDA Forest Service. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and Their Habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19.

Mellen-McLean, K., B. G. Marcot, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, S. A. Livingston, E. A. Willhite, B. B. 

Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, 

partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 1.10. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. 

http//wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf 

Meyer, M. D., D.A. Kelt, and M. P. North. 2007. Microhabitat associations of northern flying squirrels in 

burned and thinned forest stands of the Sierra Nevada. Am. Midl. Nat. 157:202-211.
References

EXF Final EIS  275

Miller, J.C. and P.C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and moths of Pacific Forests and Woodlands: rare, 

endangered, and management-sensitive species. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Technology 

Transfer Species Identification FHTET-2006-07, September 2007.

Miller, J. C. 1995. Establishment of baseline data on populations of immature lepidoptera for reference to future 

spruce budworm control projects and components of bat diets. Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Miller, G. S.; R. J. Small, and E. C. Meslow. 1997. Habitat selection by spotted owls during natal dispersal in 

western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 61(1): 140-150.

Mitchell, R. G., 1990. Effects of prescribed fire on insect pests. Pages 111-116 in J. D. Walstad, S. R. 

Radosevich, and D. V. Sandberg, editors. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Oregon 

State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Moeur, Melinda; Spies, Thomas A.; Hemstrom, Miles; Martin, Jon R.; Alegria, James; Browning, Julie; 

Cissel, John; Cohen, Warren B.; Demeo, Thomas E.; Healey, Sean; Warbington, Ralph. 2005. 

Northwest Forest Plan-The first 10 years (1994-2003); status and trend of late-successional and old-growth 

forest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-646. Portland, OR; US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 142 p.

Moghaddas, Jason J. 2006. A fuel treatment reduces potential fire severity and increases suppression efficiency 

in a Sierran mixed conifer forest. In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Butler, Bret W., comps. Fuels management--how 

to measure success: conference proceedings; 2006 March 28-30; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 441-

449. [65172]

Moldenke, Andrew, Pajutee, M., Ingham, E. 2000. The Functional Roles of Forest Soil Arthropods: The Soil Is 

a Lively Place. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-178. 16 Pages.

Morrison, P.H. and H.M. Smith IV. 2005. Fire Regime condition Classes and Forest Stewardship Planning on 

the Mt. Hood National Forest. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, WA. 33 p. 

Morrow, Robert J. 1985. Age structure and spatial pattern of old-growth ponderosa pine in Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest, Central Oregon. Oregon State University, Master’s Thesis.

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. 1999. Silviculture and Water Quality: A Quarter Century 

of Clean Water Act Progress. Special Report No. 99-06. 

National Wildfire Coordination Group (NWCG). 2001. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and 

Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NFES 1279. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, National Association of State Foresters. 226 p.

Natureserve. 2009. Natureserve Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7 

Natureserve, Arlington, VA. Available at http:www.natureserve.org/explorer

Oliver, W. W. 1995. Is self-thinning in ponderosa pine ruled by Dendroctonus bark beetles? Pages 213-218 in 

Proceedings of the 1995 national silviculture workshop. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

GTR-RM-267.

Oliver, W. W. 2005. The West-wide ponderosa pine levels-of-growing-stock study at age 40. In Ritchie, M. W., 

D. A. Maguire, and A. Youngblood, eds. Proceedings of the symposium on ponderosa pine: issues, trends, and 

management. . Gen. Tech. Rep PSW-GTR-198. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. p. 71-79

Omi, Philip N., Martinson, Erik J. 2002. Effectiveness of thinning and prescribed fire in reducing wildfire 

severity. Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University. Presented at Sierra Nevada 

Science Symposium, October 7-9, 2002, North Lake Tahoe, CA

Opperman, T., J. Gould, M. Finney, and C. Tymstra. 2006. Applying fire spread simulators in New Zealand 

and Australia: results from an international seminar. Fuels Management- How to Measure Success: 

Conference Proceedings, 28-30 March 2006, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. 
References

276  EXF Final EIS

Ormsbee, P.C. 1995. Characteristics, use, and distribution of day roosts selected by female Myotis volans (longlegged myotis) in forested habitat of the Central Oregon Cascades. In: B.M.R. Barclay and R.M. Brigham,

eds. Bats and Forests Symposium. Victoria, British Columbia. p. 124-131.

Ottmar, R. D., and D. V. Sandberg. 2001. Wildland fire in eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 

75: 46-54.

Oregon Water Resources Department Website. http://www.wrd.state.or.us/

Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1993. Susceptibility of Volcanic Ash-Influenced Soil in Northern Idaho to Mechanical 

Compaction. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-409, Ogden, Utah. 5 pages.

Pampush, G. J. 1981. Breeding chronology, habitat utilization, and nest site selection of the Long-billed Curlew 

in north central Oregon. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. 

Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Peek James M., Korol, Jerome J., Gay Donald, Hershey Terry. 2000. Overstory-understory biomass changes 

over a 35-year period in south central Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 150:267-277.

Perlmeter, S. 1996. The 1996 Bat Project: Final Report. Deschutes National Forest, Oregon.

Perlmeter, S. 1998& 1999. Patterns of Roost Selection by Long-Legged Myotis Bat Year 1&2

Peterson, D.L., D.L. Agee, T. Jain, M. Johnson, D. McKenzie, and E. Reinhardt. 2003. Fuels planning: 

managing forest structure to reduce fire hazard. Proceedings of the 2nd International Wildland Fire Ecology 

and Fire Management Congress, Orlando, FL. American Meteorological Society, Washington D.C. In press.

Pollet, Jolie and Omi, Philip N. 1999. Effects of Thinning and Prescribed Burning on Wildfire Severity in 

Ponderosa Pine Forest. 5pp.

Popper, K.J. 2001. Abundance and Distribution of Yellow Rails in the Deschutes and Northern Great Basins of 

Southcentral Oregon. Unpubl. report to United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office.

Powers, R.F., T.M Alves, T.H. Spear. 1999. Soil Compaction: Can it be Mitigated? Reporting a Work in 

Progress. Proceedings, Twentieth Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Redding, CA. 

Reaves, Jimmy L.; Shaw, Charles G., Ill; Martin, Robert E.; Mayfield, John E. 1984. Effects of ash leachates 

on growth and development of Armillaria mellea in culture. Res. Note PNW-418. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11 p.

Reaves, Jimmy Lee. 1985. Interaction between Armillaria root disease, Trichoderma, and prescribed fire in a 

ponderosa pine forest. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta University. 146 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Reaves, Jimmy L; Alien, Thomas C.; Shaw, Charles G., Ill [and others], 1988. Occurrence of viruslike 

particles in isolates of Armillaria. Journal of Ultrastructure and Molecular Structure Research. 98: 217-221.

Reaves, Jimmy L; Shaw, Charles G., Ill; Mayfield, John E. 1990. The effects of Trichoderma spp. isolated 

from burned and non-burned forest soils on the growth and development of Armillaria ostoyae in culture. 

Northwest Science. 64(1): 39-44.

Reineke, L. H. 1933. Perfecting a stand density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research

46(7):627-638.

Reynolds, T. D., T. D. Rich, and D. A. Stephens. 1999. Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus). In The Birds 

of North America, No. 463 (A. Poole and F. gill, eds.). The Birds of N. Am., Inc., Philadelphia, PA. In Birds 

of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Richardson, D. M., P. W. Rundel, S. T. Jackson, R. O. Teskey, J. Aronson, A. Bytnerowicz, M. J. Wingfield, 

S. Proches. 2007. Human impacts in pine forests: past, present, and future. Annual Review Ecol. Evol. Syst. 

38: 275-297.

Ritchie et al. 2007. Probability of tree survival after wildfire in an interior pine forest of northern California: 

Effects of thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management 247: 200-208.
References

EXF Final EIS  277

Ritchie, M., Brian Wing, Todd Hamilton. 2008. Stability of the large tree component in treated and untreated 

late-seral interior ponderosa pine stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources: 38; 919-923.

Robinson, J. A., L. W. Oring, J. P. Skorupa, and R. Boettcher. 1997. American Avocet (Recurvirostra 

Americana). In The birds of North America, No. 275 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). In Birds of Oregon: A 

General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, 

Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Rochelle, James A. 1999. Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife Implications. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The 

Netherlands.

Rorig, M. L., and S. A. Ferguson. 1999. Characteristics of lightning and wildland fire ignition in the Pacific 

Northwest. Journal of Applied Meteorology 38: 1565-1575.

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 the Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. Pp 580-

623 in D.H. Johnson and T. A. O’Neil, editors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Roth, L.F. 1953. Pine dwarf mistletoe on the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. Res. Note 91. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 3 p.

Roth, Lewis F. 1959. Perennial infection of ponderosa pine by Elytroderma deformans. Forest Science. 5(2): 182-

191.

Roth, Lewis F. 1966. Foliar habitat of ponderosa pine as a heritable basis for resistance to dwarf mistletoe. In: 

Breeding pest-resistant trees: Proceedings of a symposium; 1964 August 30-September 11; [University Park], 

PA. [Pennsylvania State University]. Oxford: Pergamon Press: 221-228.

Roth, L.F. 1971. Dwarf mistletoe damage to small ponderosa pines. Forest Science. 17(3): 373-380.

Roth, Lewis F.; Strand, Mary A. 1971. Estimating dwarf mistletoe seed production in small ponderosa pines. 

Forest Science. 17(1): 73-78.

Roth, Lewis F. 1974a. Juvenile susceptibility of ponderosa pine to dwarf mistletoe. Phytopathology. 64(5): 689-

692.

Roth, Lewis F. 1974b. Resistance of ponderosa pine to dwarf mistletoe. Silvae Genetica. 23(4): 116-120.

Roth, Lewis F.; Barrett, James W. 1985. Response of dwarf mistletoe-infested ponderosa pine to thinning: 2. 

Dwarf mistletoe propagation. Res. Pap. PNW-331. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p.

Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. Research Paper INT-143.

Rothermel, Richard C. 1991. Predicting Behavior and Size of Crown Fires in the Northern Rocky Mountains. 

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. Research Paper INT-438. 46pp.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, and W.L. Zielinski, tech eds. 1994. American marten, 

fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. 

184pp.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. S. McKelvey, K. B. Aubry, J. P. Copeland, D. H. Pletscher, and M. G. Hornocker. 2007. 

Wolverine conservation and management. J. Wildl. Manage. 71(7): 2145-2146.

Russell, R. E., J. A. Royle, V. A. Saab, J. F. Lehmkuhl, W. M. Block, and J. R. Sauer. 2009. Modeling the 

effects of environmental disturbance on wildlife communities: avain responses to prescribed fire. Ecol. 

Applications 19(5): 1253-1263.

Saab, V. A. and J. G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire andsalvage 

logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-11. Ogden, UT; 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 17 p.
References

278  EXF Final EIS

Saab, V., R. Brannon, J. Dudley, L. Donohoo, D. Vanderzanden, V. Johnson, and H. Lachowski. 2002. 

Selection of fire-created snags at two spatial scales by cavity-nesting birds. In: Laudenslayer, William F., Jr.; 

Valentine, Brad; Weatherspoon, C. Philip; Lisle, Thomas E., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the 

symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. 1999 November 2-4; Reno, NV. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/062_Saab.pdf

Sartwell, C., and R. E. Dolph, Jr. 1976. Silvicultural and direct control of mountain pine beetle in second growth 

ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service Research Note RN-PNW-268.

Savage, M., and T.W. Swetnam. 1990. Early nineteenth-century fire decline following sheep pasturing in a 

Navajo ponderosa pine forest. Ecology. 71: 2374-2378.

Sawyer, M. 1981. Solitary Sandpiper: probable nesting in Oregon. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, 

Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 

pp.

Scharpf, Robert F.; Roth, Lewis F. 1992. Resistance of ponderosa pine to western dwarf mistletoe in central 

Oregon. Res. Pap. PSW-RP-208. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 9 p. 

Scott, Joe H., Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use 

with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p.

Seidel, K.W. 1985. A ponderosa pine-grand fir spacing study in central Oregon: results after 10 years. Res. Note 

PNW-429. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station.

Shaw J. D. 2000. Application of stand density index to irregularly structured stands. Western J. Applied For. 

15(1): 40-42.

Short, K. C., and J. F. Negrón. 2003. Arthropod responses: a functional approach. In P. Friederici, editor. 

Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. p. 286-305

Sibley, D. A. 2005. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New 

York. 474 p.

Sikorowski, Peter Paul. 1960. Dissemination of spores of Elytoderma deformans (Weir) Darker. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State College. 58 p. M.S. thesis. 

Sikorowski, Peter P.; Roth, Lewis F. 1962. Elytoderma mycelium in phloem of ponderosa pine. Phytopathology. 

52(4): 332-336.

Simpson, Mike, Dave Zalunardo, Andy Eglitis, Donald C. Wood, Debra Roy, Susan Johnson. April, 1994. 

Draft Viable Ecosystems management Guide, Ochoco National Forest. 

Smith, W. P. 2007. The northern flying squirrel: a biological portrait of a forest specialist in post-European 

Settlement North America. J. Mammal. 88(4): 837-839.

Society of American Foresters. 1971 . The Multilingual Forestry Terminology Series No. 1. Terminology of 

Forest Science, Technology Practices and Products. 

Soeriaatmadja, R.E. 1966. Fire history of the ponderosa pine forests of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, 

Oregon. Oregon State University, Ph.D. Dissertation.

Spies, T. A., J. D. Miller, J. B. Buchanan, J. F. Lehmkuhl, J. F. Franklin, S. P. Healey, P. F. Hessburg, H. D. 

Safford, W. B. Cohen, R. S. H. Kennedy, E. E. Knapp, J. K. Agee, and M. Moeur. 2009. 

Underestimating risks to the northern spotted owl in fire-prone forests: response to Hanson et al. 

Conservation Biology 24 (1): 330-333.

Stalmaster, M. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York, NY. 227 pp.
References

EXF Final EIS  279

Steele, R., S. F. Arno, and K. Geier-Hayes. 1986. Wildfire patterns change in central Idaho’s ponderosa pineDouglas fir forest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1: 16-18.

Stephens, S. L., and S. J. Gill. 2005. Forest structure and mortality in an old-growth Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer 

forest in north-western Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 205: 15-28.

Strand, Mary Ann Sail. 1973. Simulation of population changes of western dwarf mistletoe on ponderosa pine. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 121 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Stratton, D. 2004. Assessing the effectiveness of landscape fuel treatments on fire growth and behavior. Journal 

of Forestry. Oct/Nov, 102(7): 32-40.

Stratton, D. 2006. Guidance on spatial wildland fire analysis: models, tools, and techniques. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. GTR: RMRS-GTR-183.

Sussmann P. 2005. 18 Fire Herbicide Treatment Environmental Assessment, Soil Specialist Report, Deschutes 

National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region.

Taylor, A. H., and C. N. Skinner. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, 

Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 111: 285-301.

Thomas, J.W., ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: The Blue mountains of Oregon and Washington. 

USDA Forest Service, Ag. Handbook 553. 

Troendle, C.A.; and Olsen, W. K. 1993. Potential Effects of Timber Harvest and Water Management on 

Streamflow Dynamics and Sediment Transport. In: Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an 

Ecological Approach to Land Management, July 12-15, 1993, Flagstaff, Arizona, pp. 34-41. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-247.

Troendle, C. A.; King, R. M. 1987. The Effect of Partial and Clearcutting On Streamflow At Deadhorse Creek, 

Colorado. Journal of Hydrology. 90 (1987): 145-157.

Troendle, C. A.; King, R. M. 1985. The Fool Creek Watershed—thirty years later. Water Resources Research. 

21 (12): 1915-1922.

Troendle, C. A. 1983. The potential for water yield augmentation from forest management in the Rocky 

Mountains. Water Resource Bulletin. 19 (3): 359-373.

Tyler, James. Personal communication. (email) to Barbara Schroeder, Silviculturist, Bend Ft Rock June 15, 2006 

re: Large Tree Mortality/Burning.

Upper Deschutes Basin Fire Learning Network Technical Team. 2007. Historical Fire regimes, Natural 

Range of Variability and Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Mapping Methodology.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter Volume II of III. 

Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-95/00ibF. pp. 8-82 – 8-89.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Handbook for criteria pollutant inventory development: a 

beginner’s guide for point and area sources. EPA-OAQPS-454-99-037. Research Triangle Park, NC. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes and Ochoco National Forest. August 2006. Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Programmatic BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT April 2006 – April 2009.

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 1994. Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log 

Implementation Strategy.

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 1996. Final Interpretation of Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines SL-3 and SL-4, Document 96-01, Soil Productivity.

USDA Forest Service, Larsen. 1976. Soil Resource Inventory, Deschutes National Forest, Pacific Northwest 

Region. 

USDA Forest Service, Region 6. 1995. Revised Environmental Assessment for the Continuation of Interim 

Management Direction Establishing Riparian Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales.
References

280  EXF Final EIS

USDA Forest Service. 1931. The Proposed Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, Representing the Western Yellow 

Pine Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1937. Report on the Lookout Mountain Unit of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. 

Deschutes National Forest. Deschutes County, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan. Bend, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores in the Western United States. 

American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine.

USDA Forest Service. 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999. Soil Monitoring Reports. Deschutes National Forest, Pacific 

Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Update of the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species Lists and Transmittal of 

Strategic Species List. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision To Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines from Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. 46 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR 42-volume 4.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 4000 – Research and Development. Chapter 4060 –

Research Facilities and Areas. National Forest Headquarters, Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District. 2004. Fall Project Environmental Analysis and 

associated Assessment. Bend, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District. 2000. Charlie Brown Project Environmental Analysis 

and associated Assessment. Bend, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 1998. Pacific Northwest Codes for Seral and 

Potential Natural Communities. PNW-GTR-418. Portland, OR: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. FSM 2520, Forest Service Soil Quality Standards, Region 6, R-6 Supplement No. 

2500-98-1. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Brown’s Mountain/Wickiup Watershed Analysis and Associated Assessment. 

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Cultus and Sheridan Late Successional Reserve Assessments. Bend/Ft. Rock 

Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest.

USDA Forest Service 1995. Revised Environmental Assessment for the Continuation of Interim Management 

Direction Establishing Riparian, ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (Eastside Screens).

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Deschutes National Forest: A Late Successional Reserve Overview. Deschutes 

National Forest. Bend, OR. 

USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 1994. Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log 

Implementation Strategy.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Protocol for surveying spotted owls in proposed management activity areas and 

habitat conservation areas.

USDA Forest Service, 1993(b). Region 6 Interim Old Growth Definition.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl; Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-growth 

Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
References

EXF Final EIS  281

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2006. Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Programmatic Biological Assessment April 2006 – April 2009 For Federal Lands within the Deschutes Basin 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Prineville Office and for Federal Lands Administered by 

the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests, August 2006 – August 2009.

USDA Forest Service, USFWS, ODFW. 2000. Conservation Agreement for the Oregon Spotted Frog Mink Lake 

Basin Population. 17 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. The Northern spotted owl status review supplement. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of 

threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 55:26114–26194.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, ODFW. 2000. Conservation Agreement for the Oregon Spotted Frog Mink 

Lake Basin Population. 17 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Status Review of the Northern Goshawk in the Forested West. Office of 

Technical Support – Forest Resources. Portland, OR. Unpublished report. 250 pages. 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/gh_sr.pdf 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Biological opinion and letter of concurrence for effects to bald eagles, 

marbled murrelets, northern spotted owls, bull trout, and designated critical habitat for marbled murrelets and 

northern spotted owls from Olympic National Forest program of activities for August 5, 2003 to December 

31, 2008.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Federal register June, 2007. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted 

Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina); Proposed Rule. pp 32450-32516.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis 

caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. 

http://www.fws.gev/migratorybirds/

Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. In: Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II. Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management 

Options. University of California, Davis. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, pp. 1155±1165.

Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Plant Associations of the Central Oregon Pumice Zone. PNW R6-ECOL-104-1985. 

Portland, OR. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station 138 p. 

Waring, R.H., Pitman G.B. 1985. Modifying Lodgepole Pine Stands to Change Susceptibility To Mountain 

Pine Beetle Attack. Ecology. 66(3):889-897.

Waters, J.R., K.S. McKelvey, C.J. Zabel, and W.W. Oliver. 1994. The effects of thinning and broadcast 

burning on sporocarp production of hypogeous fungi. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24: 1516-1522.

Watkins, W. 1988. Population density and habitat use by Red-necked Grebes on Upper Klamath Lake, Klamath 

County, Oregon. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras. 

Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships in Sierra forests. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, 

Final Report to Congress, II: Assessments, scientific basis for management options, ed., vol. II: 

Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 

University of California, Davis, Water Resources Center Report No. 37, pp. 1167–1176.

Weaver, H. 1951. Fire as an ecological factor in the southwestern ponderosa pine forests. J. For. 49: 93-98.

Weaver, H. 1959. Ecological changes in the ponderosa pine forest of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in 

Oregon. J. For. 57: 15-20.
References

282  EXF Final EIS

Weigl, P. D. 2007. The northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus): A conservation challenge. J. Mammal. 

88(4): 897-907.

Weldon, A. 2006. How corridors reduce Indigo bunting nest success. Conservation Biology Vol 20 (4) 1300-

1305. 

Western Regional Climate Center Website. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/

White Scheuering, R. and G. McAtee. Sharp-shinned Hawk. Pp 146-148 in Birds of Oregon: A General 

Reference. D. B. Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, 

OR.

Wickman, B. E. 1992. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: the influence of insects and disease. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-295.

Wiens, J. A., and J. T. Rotenberry. 1981. Habitat associations and community structure of birds in shrubsteppe environments. In Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, Marshall, M. G. Hunter, and A. L. 

Contreras. Eds. 2003. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp.

Winkler, H., D. A. Christie, and D. Nurney. 1995. Woodpeckers: An identification guide to the woodpeckers 

of the world. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, New York. 406 pp.

Woodbridge, B. and C. D. Hargis (Vojta). 2005. Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical 

Guide. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Wildlife 

Fish Watershed Air Staff. pp 31-53. 

Wright, C. S., and J. K. Agee. 2004. Fire and vegetation history in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. 

Ecological Applications 14: 443-459.

Yohay, C., S. Paz, F. Jahashan and M. Shoshany. 2009. Assessing fire risk using Monte Carlo simulations of 

fire spread. Forest Ecology and Management. 257: 370-377.

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.

Youngblood, A., K. L. Metlen, and K. Coe. 2006. Changes in stand structure and composition after restoration 

treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 234: 143-

163.

Youngblood, Andrew, comp. 1995. Research publications of the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, Cascade 

Range, 1930 to 1993. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-347. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 45p.

Youngblood, Andrew. 2009. Study Plan for Forest Dynamics after Thinning and Fuel Reduction in Dry Forests. 

On file at the Deschutes National Forest Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District. 

Youngblood, Andrew. In Press. Ecological lessons from long-term studies in experimental forests: Ponderosa 

pine silviculture at Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, central Oregon. Forest Ecol. Manage. (2009), doi: 

10.1016/j.foreco.2009.11.025
References

EXF Final EIS  283