United States Department of Agriculture

Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels 

Management Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District Publication No.

FS-F14-PM-02-18

May 2018
Cover photo: the view from Elk Point on the Pomeroy Ranger District offers a dramatic panorama of forest vegetation in 

the headwaters of North Fork Asotin Creek and is a representative portion of the Sunrise project area. 

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

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual 

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

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

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

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the 

responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact 

USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information 

may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 

20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

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

El USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidad.
SUNRISE VEGETATION AND FUELS MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Garfield and Asotin Counties, Washington

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Monte Fujishin, District Ranger

Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District

71 W. Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347

For Information Contact: Johnny Collin

Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District

71 W. Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347

Phone: 509-843-4643

Abstract: The USDA Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project (Sunrise project) located on the 

Pomeroy Ranger District. The proposed project will address the needs for: (1) Reducing fuels and vegetation to 

lessen wildfire effects and promote healthy forests; (2) Improving and maintaining wildlife habitat; (3) Promoting 

timber production and harvest to meet Forest Plan targets; and (4) Providing timber products to local economies. 

Three Alternatives are analyzed, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). The Proposed Action 

(Alternative B), and one additional action alternative (Alternative C). These three alternatives were brought forward 

for detailed analyses of effects as they best met the purpose and needs for the project as identified by the 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) in internal scoping as well comments from the public in external scoping. Additional 

documentation, including maps and more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be viewed by appointment 

at the Pomeroy District Range, 71 W. Main Street, Pomeroy, Washington 99347, or on the project website: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45689

Actions proposed on NFS lands under the FEIS and DROD constitute activities that implement the proposed action 

for the Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy District and are subject to the agency’s pre-decisional objection process at 

36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. The objection process occurs prior to the Forest Service making a final decision 

(signing a Final ROD) and will include circulation of the FEIS and DROD. Legal notices to initiate the objection 

period will be published in the newspapers of record following publication of the Notice of Availability of the final 

EIS in the Federal Register; objections will be submitted to the responsible official at that time.

The opportunity to provide comments to establish eligibility to object under 36 CFR 218 ends when the 45 day 

public comment period on the FEIS and DROD ends, as discussed above. Only those individuals who submit timely 

and specific written comments (36 CFR 218.2) regarding the proposed project or activity during the public comment 

period are eligible to file an objection (36 CFR 218.24(b)(6)). It is the responsibility of all individuals and 

organizations to ensure that their comments are received in a timely manner. For issues to be raised in objections, 

they must be based on previously submitted, specific, written comments regarding the proposed project or activity, 

and must be attributed to the objector. For objection eligibility, each individual or representative from each entity 

submitting timely and specific written comments regarding the proposed project or activity must either sign the 

comments or verify identity upon request (36 CFR 218.24(b)(8)). 

Send Comments to: Monte Fujishin, Pomeroy District Ranger

ATT: Johnny Collin

71 W. Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347

Phone: (509) 843-4620, Fax: (509) 843-4621

Electronic Comments: Submit electronic comments on the Sunrise project webpage: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=45689 by selecting the 

“Comment on Project” link in the “Get Connected” group at the right hand 

side of the project webpage.

Comments must be received by the end of the 45 days following publication of the legal notice in the newspaper of 

record. The publication date of the legal notice in the East Oregonian is the exclusive means for calculating the 

comment period.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District i

SUMMARY

Project Location

The Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project (henceforth referred to as the Sunrise 

project) planning area is located on the Pomeroy Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest. It is 

approximately 33,150 acres, approximately 32,000 acres are identified as National Forest 

System Lands and is situated in Asotin and Garfield Counties, Washington (Appendix A). The 

Sunrise project is within portions of: 

• Township 7 South, Range. 43 East, Section 6; 

• Township 8 North, R. 42 East, Sections 1-5, 8-16, 22-26, and 36; 

• Township 8 North, R. 43 East, Section 2-11, 15-22, and 28-33; 

• Township 9 North, R. 42 East, Sections 25 and 33-36; 

• Township 9 North, R. 43 East, Sections 8, 9, and 13-36; and

• Township 9 North, R. 44 East, Sections 18, 19, 30, and 31. 

It is within the Lick Creek and North Fork Asotin Creek subwatersheds of the George Creek –

Asotin Creek Watershed. Elevation in the project area ranges from 2400 to 6200 feet.

The Sunrise project area is bordered on the east by the Asotin Creek Wildlife Area, which is 

owned and managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. It contains the entire 

Asotin Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and is adjacent to Wenatchee and Tucannon 

IRAs. Ecosystems in and around Sunrise project planning area are diverse, ranging from shrub/ 

grasslands to subalpine coniferous forests. There are numerous camping areas, hiking trails, 

scenic vistas, big game hunting opportunities, huckleberry picking opportunities, and forest 

products. There are two inholdings owned by the state of Washington within the project 

boundary, totaling 1,130 acres.

Existing Conditions

An analysis of existing vegetation compared to historical range of variability (HRV) has 

indicated that additional management is warranted for upland forests of the Sunrise project 

area. HRV recognizes that ecosystems are complex and experience a range of conditions across 

which processes are resilient and self-sustaining. When allowed to move beyond the limits of 

the range of variability, ecosystems inevitably move into a state of disequilibrium or 

disorganization (Egan and Howell 2001, Holling and Meffe 1996, Kaufmann et al. 1994). HRV 

uses a range of reference conditions pertaining to the previous several centuries prior to the presettlement era – a timeframe defined as the mid-1800s for the northern Blue Mountains.

Forest stand composition, density, and structure in the project planning area has deviated from 

their respective HRV due to fire suppression and other past forest management practices. A 

majority of current forest stands originated as a result of fire disturbances occurring up to the 

early 20th century, and have not experienced fire since then. Late seral tree species, multistoried structural stages, and high-density stands have become dominant after long periods 

without disturbance and are more susceptible to disturbance-caused mortality than early seral 

species. Analysis of forest vegetation conditions in the analysis area and comparison to desired 

ranges is summarized in Chapter 3 of this document, and revealed the following issues, 

concerns and/or opportunities:
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

ii Umatilla National Forest

Dry Upland Forests

Douglas-fir cover types dominate too much of the dry forested landscape and there is too little 

ponderosa pine cover types compared to the historic range of variability (HRV). Within this 

biophysical setting, there are too many areas with high forest density, and too few areas with

low and moderate density. Understory reinitiation and old forest multi-strata (OFMS) structural 

stages dominate too much of the dry forested landscape and there is too little stand initiation, 

stem exclusion, and old forest single stratum (OFSS) structural stages. 

For the dry upland forest biophysical environment, there is too little of the OFSS late-old 

structural stage and too much of the OFMS stage. Since one of the late-old structural stages is 

below HRV, scenario A of the wildlife screen (one of six Eastside Screens, an amendment to the 

Umatilla Forest Plan) will apply for this biophysical environment.(see Appendix C for 

Consistency with Eastside Screens).

Moist Upland Forests

Douglas-fir and subalpine fir/spruce cover types dominate too much of the moist forested 

landscape and there is too little broadleaved trees, western larch, and lodgepole pine, cover 

types. Within this biophysical setting, there are too many areas with high forest density, and too 

few areas with low and moderate density. Old forest multi-strata structural stage dominates too 

much of the moist forested landscape and there is too little stand initiation, stem exclusion, and 

old forest single stratum structural stages.

For the moist upland forest biophysical environment, there is too little of the OFSS late-old 

structural stage and too much of the OFMS stage. Since one of the late-old structural stages is 

below HRV, scenario A of the wildlife screen (one of six Eastside Screens, an amendment to the 

Umatilla Forest Plan) will apply for this biophysical environment. (see Appendix C for 

Consistency with Eastside Screens) 

Cold Upland Forest

Spruce/subalpine fir and Douglas-fir cover types dominate too much of the cold upland forested 

landscape and there is too little of the lodgepole pine cover type. Within this biophysical

setting, there are too many areas with high forest density, and too few areas with low and 

moderate density. Understory reinitiation and old forest multi-strata structural stage dominates 

too much of the cold forested landscape and there is too little stem exclusion and old forest 

single-stratum structural stages.

For the cold upland forest biophysical environment, there is too little of the OFSS late-old 

structural stage and too much of the OFMS stage. Since one of the late-old structural stages is 

below HRV, scenario A of the wildlife screen (one of six Eastside Screens, an amendment to 

the Umatilla Forest Plan) will apply for this biophysical environment (see Appendix C for 

Consistency with Eastside Screens.)

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

FRCC is a metric which describes the departure from historical fire regimes in terms of fire 

return intervals and vegetative change from historical composition and density. The FRCC in 

many stands within the project area have been modified due mainly to past harvest history and 

fire suppression (Fuels Resource Report page 9). In many areas, the surface and ladder fuels, 

which historically would have been consumed during periodic wildfires, have increased above 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District iii

historical levels. Today, fires in dry and moist forests would exhibit moderate to severe effects 

characterized by high fire severity and intensity on landscapes that historically had low to 

mixed severity. Without treatment, the project area would continue to transition from a low or 

moderately altered fire regime (Condition Classes 1 and 2), to a significantly altered fire regime 

(Class 3), where the risk of losing ecosystem components would be substantially higher. 

Surface fuel loads would continue to build and ladder fuels would continue to increase as 

shade-tolerant tree species continue to seed in increasing tree densities and canopy layering. 

These small trees would serve as ladder fuels that can carry fire from the forest floor to the tree 

canopy, increasing the likelihood of high severity, stand-replacement wildfires. Wildfires 

occurring in the project area today would not function as a natural disturbance process within 

their historical range pertaining to fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, or landscape patterns.

Purpose and Need

The Pomeroy District Ranger has determined that there is a need for action based upon 

comparisons of the current vegetative and fuel trends in the project planning area and the 

desired future conditions identified in the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan, pp 4-3 to 4-14) and recommendations made in the Asotin 

Watershed Assessment (pp VI-1 to VI-3.) The Asotin Watershed Assessment recommended the 

use of timber harvest to thin dense stands, reduce the extent of Douglas-fir and/or grand fir, 

retain pine and larch to convert to early seral species stands, and allow fire prescriptions to 

reduce fuels. Therefore, purpose of this action is to improve forest heath, vigor, and resilience 

to fire, insect, and disease. This action is needed to move towards the historical range of 

variability. Currently, forests are outside their historical pre-fire suppression conditions for 

species composition, structural diversity, stocking densities, and fuel loadings. In addition, 

given the Forest Plan management area allocations for big game and wildlife habitat goals (C3, 

C3A, and C4), District Ranger determined there is a need to continue to provide and manage 

wildlife habitat and its components (cover and forage) in the Sunrise project planning area. 

The response to the purpose and need for this project is identified as follows:

Vegetation – There is a need to move forest vegetative structure, composition, and density 

toward their HRV. The project would move successional and structural conditions of forests 

toward desired ranges by converting areas in the OFMS to OFSS, converting areas in the stem 

exclusion and/or understory reinitiation stages to stand initiation stages and by moving other 

stands toward old forest as appropriate for the disturbance regime and biophysical

characteristics of the site. The Sunrise project would also reduce forest density; in some 

locations reducing inter-tree competition and improving residual tree health. Treatments within 

the project would also modify composition to increase the abundance of early-seral species 

such as ponderosa pine and western larch.

Fuels – There is a need to manage forest stands in Condition Classes 2 and 3 to begin to restore 

vegetation characteristics and fire return intervals characteristic of historical fire regimes and 

desired fire regimes. Fuels treatments would be used to lower stand densities; reduce surface, 

ladder and canopy fuels, increase the relative abundance of fire-tolerant tree species, while 

improving suppression capabilities on forest land. Landscape burning within the project area 

would be used to reintroduce and/or perpetuate fire within this fire-dependent ecosystem by 

utilizing a variety of burning strategies over about 60 percent of the area. In addition to creating 

vegetative conditions more consistent with desired fire regimes, it would also increase the 

probability that future fires burn in a manner more consistent with the fire regime associated 

with the biophysical environment of the site. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

iv Umatilla National Forest

Timber Production – There is a need to provide sawlogs and wood fiber for utilization by 

regional and local economies as stipulated in the Forest Plan. Silviculture treatments used to 

alter tree densities, structural diversity, species composition, and ladder and canopy fuels would 

generate wood fiber through timber harvest. Personal and commercial use firewood would 

continue within the project area.

Wildlife Habitat – There is a need to reduced fuels and stand densities in order to maintain 

resilient forest wildlife habitat. 

Alternative A (No Action)

Purpose and Design

• No new management activities as proposed would occur.

• Current biological and physical processes would be allowed to continue along their present 

path along with associated risks and benefits and serve as a baseline for comparison with 

other alternatives. 

• Responds to the requirement to consider a No Action Alternative (40 CFR §1502.14 (d)). 

Description

Under the No Action alternative, no activities identified in either action alternative would occur 

and previously approved ongoing activities such as domestic cattle grazing, wildfire 

suppression and/or containment, firewood cutting, recreation, and road maintenance (including 

danger tree removal) would continue. This alternative would allow timber stands, identified at 

this time as needing treatment, to progress through growth and successional processes at their 

own rate and in the absence of ecological disturbances. Natural fuels would not be treated to 

reduce the risk of undesired wildfire intensity or allow for a safer environment for fire-fighting 

personnel during fire suppression. No tree cutting, tree planting, fuels treatments for natural or 

activity fuels, landscape prescribed fire, or road decommissioning would be implemented.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Purpose and Design

Alternative B responds to the project purpose and need to modify composition, structure, and 

density through a combination of activities including tree cutting, mastication, tree planting, 

and pile, jackpot and landscape broadcast burning. Activities would occur over a 5-10 year 

period beginning in approximately 2019. No trees equal to or greater than 21 inches in diameter 

at breast height (DBH) would be cut, under this action alternative and no cutting would occur 

within PACFISH buffers (see tiering references in chapter 1.7).

Alternative B is most similar to the alternative proposed during scoping, except that acreages 

have been adjusted to reflect additional field reviews and updated GIS information. Treatments 

in Alternative B respond to elements identified in the Purpose and Need (Chapter 1) and are 

designed to accomplish the following objectives, while complying with all applicable laws, 

rules, and regulations:

• Modify dry, moist, and cold upland forests to move species composition, tree density, and 

forest structure compatible with the historical range of variability. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District v

• Reduce fuel loading (surface, ladder, and canopy fuels) to a level where periodic lowintensity surface fires can safely be reintroduced and where fuel loads would not 

contribute to uncharacteristic wildfire size, intensity and resource damage.

• Provide sawlogs and wood fiber products for utilization by local and regional industry.

• Continue to provide and manage wildlife habitat and its components (cover and forage).

• Reduce risk of personal injury by removing danger trees along haul routes used for 

timber sale activities. 

Alternative C

Purpose and Design

Alternative C was developed to more effectively respond to the key issue of wildlife habitat and 

the potential negative impacts the proposed action could have on elk distribution and habitat 

quality due to decreased cover and security areas, as well as old forest distribution, old forest 

connectivity, and snag habitat.

• Modify dry, moist, and cold upland forests to move species composition, tree density, and 

forest structure compatible with the historical range of variability. 

• Reduce fuel loading (surface, ladder, and canopy fuels) to a level where periodic lowintensity surface fires can safely be reintroduced and where fuel loads would not 

contribute to uncharacteristic wildfire size, intensity and resource damage.

• Continue to provide and mange wildlife habitat and components with emphasis on 

indicator species habitat such as Rocky Mountain elk. 

• Provide sawlogs and wood fiber products for utilization by local and regional industry.

• Reduce risk of personal injury by removing danger trees along haul routes used for 

timber sale activities. 

Major Conclusions

Silviculture

Alternative A, the no action alternative, would result in the existing stand densities, species 

composition, and structural stages remaining outside of the ranges of variability as determined 

for the Umatilla forest. Alternative B treatments would create stand conditions closer to the 

historical range of variability and with improved fire tolerance, meeting the purpose and need. 

Compared to the treatment acreages within Alternative C, Alternative B would treat more acres 

and move closer to the desired condition for silvicultural indicators. 

Alternative C treatments would also create stand conditions closer to the historical range of 

variability and with improved fire tolerance, but to a lesser degree than Alternative B.

Alternative A, the no action alternative, would result in the action area continuing to develop 

increasing fuel loads, increasing the chance of crown fires. High fire class conditions would 

also remain overrepresented when compared to the historical range of variation.

Alternative B would result in a decrease of fuel loads in treated areas. This would improve the 

representation of low-severity fire classes with the project area and reduce the likelihood of 

crown fires.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

vi Umatilla National Forest

Alternative C would also result in a decrease of fuel loads in treated areas. Compared to 

Alternative B it treats few acres over all, and thus would decrease fuel loads somewhat less. 

This alternative would still help move the representation of low-severity fire classes more 

towards the historical range of variability and reduce the likelihood of crown fires in treated 

areas.

Wildlife

Alternative A, the no action alternative, would not result in any disturbance to management 

indicator, threatened, endangered or sensitive species. However, continued fuels build up and 

increasing stand densities would create conditions for a potential large scale habitat reduction 

for forest canopy dependent species. 

Alternative B would result in a considerable change of forest conditions in the area, affecting 

wildlife in various ways depending on the species. The distribution of elk cover would be less 

than desirable. A substantial amount of old forest would be affected by changing it from OFMS 

to OFSS. Creating more resilient forest through stand density reduction, fuels reduction and 

landscape burning would overall benefit most species in the long term.

Alternative C would change forest conditions but at a lesser magnitude than Alternative B. The 

balance of improving habitat for some species (e.g. increases in dry OFSS) and decreasing the 

amount of habitat for other species (e.g. marten, elk cover) is more in balance, while still 

reducing fuels to a more natural level. 

Fisheries

Alternative A does not include any actions within riparian corridors and therefore would have 

no impact on fish or other aquatic species.

Alternative B and C both contain required design criteria which should prevent treatment 

activities from impacting fish and other aquatic species.

Hydrology

Alternative A is not expected to impact hydrologic function.

Alternative B and C may contribute to negative cumulative impacts on water yield in several 

watersheds if this action is undertaken simultaneously with other planned actions. However, 

this is unlikely as planned actions are expected to take place over a period of several years.

Soils

Alternative A is not expected to negatively impact soils; however no remediation of past 

activities will occur either.

Alternative B and C authorize activities that are expected to have short-term negative impacts 

on soils. However, decommissioning of temporary roads and project design criteria will 

minimize long-term impacts on soils.

Botany

Alternative A is not expected to detrimentally impact the threatened Spaulding’s catchfly or 

sensitive plant species.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District vii

Alternative B and C may negatively impact habitat for sensitive species, but are not expected to 

contribute to a need for listing. Project design criteria will protect Spaulding’s catchfly from 

impacts.

Invasive Plants

Alternative A is not expected to directly result in the spread of invasive plants, although there 

may be an indirect impact if a damaging fire were to occur from increasing fire risk.

Alternative B and C will result in increased risk of the spread of invasive plants, correlating 

with the amount of ground disturbance in each alternative. Project design criteria will help 

mitigate, but not completely eliminate this risk.

Visual Resources

Alternative A would have no impacts on visual resources.

Alternative B and C would have minor, short-term negative impacts as disturbance from 

activities occurred. Long-term, these alternatives would have positive impacts on the visual 

resources by helping blend the visual components of past treatments. 

IRAs

Alternative A would not be expected to impact Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Alternatives B and C would have some minor and short-term, negative impacts within areas 

undergoing timber treatment. 

Recreation

Alternative A would not be expected to impact recreation within the project area.

Alternatives B and C may both result in some short-term localized displacement of dispersed 

recreation users, depending on the timing of prescribed burns. No changes to the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum are expected.

Air Quality

Alternative A would not be expected to have a direct impact on air quality. Indirect impacts 

may occur if potentially larger wildfires result from the lack of action.

Alternatives B and C would contribute to short-term negative impacts on air quality during 

prescribed burning activities. 

Range

Alternative A would have no impacts on the quality of range within the action area.

Alternatives B and C would temporarily reduce forage after prescribed burning but have a 

positive effect as forb and grass cover rebound post treatment.

Economics

Alternative A would not produce timber products and therefore would not contribute to the 

economic stability of the nearby communities.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

viii Umatilla National Forest

Alternative B would produce approximately 25 mbf and Alternative C would produce 

approximately 12 mbf and contribute to the economic stability of nearby communities by 

providing forest products.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................1-13

1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................1-13

1.2 Project Location...............................................................................................................................................1-13

1.3 Existing Condition ...........................................................................................................................................1-14

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ...........................................................................................................................1-16

1.5 Management Direction.....................................................................................................................................1-17

1.6 Proposed Action...............................................................................................................................................1-20

1.7 NEPA Document Preparation ..........................................................................................................................1-22

1.8 Treaty Rights....................................................................................................................................................1-25

1.9 Tribal and Public Involvement.........................................................................................................................1-26

1.10 Decision Framework ......................................................................................................................................1-27

1.11 Scoping Comments........................................................................................................................................1-27

Chapter 2. Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................2-29

2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................2-29

2.2 Range of Alternatives.......................................................................................................................................2-29

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ....................................................................................................................2-30

2.4 Project Design Criteria.....................................................................................................................................2-39

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analyses....................................................................2-46

2.6 Monitoring Framework ....................................................................................................................................2-46

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................3-47

3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................3-47

3.2 Effects and Impacts..........................................................................................................................................3-47

3.3 General Analyses Methodology and Assumptions...........................................................................................3-47

3.4 General Analyses Methodology and Assumptions...........................................................................................3-48

3.5 Cumulative Effects...........................................................................................................................................3-48

3.6 Vegetation........................................................................................................................................................3-51

3.7 Fuels.................................................................................................................................................................3-62

3.8 Wildlife Species and Habitat............................................................................................................................3-79

3.9 Fisheries.........................................................................................................................................................3-122

3.10 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................................3-135

3.11 Soils .............................................................................................................................................................3-153

3.12 Botany..........................................................................................................................................................3-173

3.13 Invasive Plants.............................................................................................................................................3-180

3.14 Visual Resources (scenery)..........................................................................................................................3-186

3.15 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA) and other Undeveloped Lands .....3-195

3.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................................3-204

3.17 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................3-209

3.18 Range ...........................................................................................................................................................3-213

3.19 Economic Analysis ......................................................................................................................................3-215

3.20 Climate Change............................................................................................................................................3-221

3.21 Findings of Consistency...............................................................................................................................3-223

3.22 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ..............................................................................................3-233

3.23 Unavoidable Adverse Effects.......................................................................................................................3-233

3.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...........................................................................3-233

3.25 Other Required Disclosures .........................................................................................................................3-233

3.26 Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................................................3-236

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................................4-1

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members.......................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Consulted and Requesting the Environmental Impact Statement...............4-2

4.3 Tribal Consultation and Coordination................................................................................................................4-3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-9

Glossary........................................................................................................................................................1

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Definition of Terms.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Index..............................................................................................................................................................1

References....................................................................................................................................................1

Botany ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Fuels........................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Silviculture ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Hydrology................................................................................................................................................................. 16

Wildlife Species and Habitat .................................................................................................................................... 19

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA), and Other Undeveloped Lands................ 28

Economics................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Air Quality................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Fisheries ................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Invasive Plants.......................................................................................................................................................... 31

Soils.......................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Visual Resources (scenery)....................................................................................................................................... 35

Appendices...................................................................................................................................................1

Appendix A: Maps...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Appendix B: Cutting Unit Activities for Action Alternatives..................................................................................... 1

Appendix C: Compliance with Eastside Screens........................................................................................................ 1

Appendix A: Project Maps...........................................................................................................................2

Appendix B: Cutting Unit Activities for Action Alternatives.....................................................................9

Appendix C: Consistency with Eastside Screens ...................................................................................15

General Standards (Items 1-3 in Plan Amendment #11)........................................................................................... 15

Ecosystem Standard (Item 5 in Plan Amendment #11) ............................................................................................ 15

Wildlife Standard (Item 6 in Plan Amendment #11) ................................................................................................ 15

List of Figures

Figure 3-1. Fire Regime Condition class for the Sunrise project area. Note, WADNR and WDFW land was not 

analyzed for condition class.............................................................................................................................. 3-67

Figure 3-2. Fuel models currently within the Sunrise project area. ............................................................................ 3-70

Figure 3-3. Potential crown fire hazard for the Sunrise project area. ......................................................................... 3-73

Figure 3-4. Distribution of percent cover of down wood > 5 inches diameter in moist upland forest in the snag analysis 

area (41,220 acres)............................................................................................................................................ 3-91

Figure 3-5. Distribution of percent cover of down wood >20 inches diameter in moist upland forest in the snag 

analysis area (41,220 acres).Pileated Woodpecker ........................................................................................... 3-91

Figure 3-6. Elk cover in MA-C4 after implementing Alternative B. ........................................................................ 3-107

Figure 3-7. Elk cover in MA-C4 after implementing Alternative C. ........................................................................ 3-108

Figure 3-8. Steelhead distribution within and adjacent to the Sunrise Project.......................................................... 3-125

Figure 3-9. Designated Steelhead Critical Habitat within and adjacent to the Sunrise Project.................................3-126

Figure 3-10. Chinook salmon distribution within and adjacent to the Sunrise Project ............................................. 3-127

Figure 3-11. Subwatersheds within the Sunrise project area. ................................................................................... 3-137

Figure 3-12: Seven Year Implementation Schedule ECA ........................................................................................ 3-152

Figure 3-13: Alternative C – Seven Year Implementation Schedule ECA............................................................... 3-153

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Geographic extent for management areas applicable to the Sunrise project..............................................1-17

Table 2-1 - Minimum Tree Stocking Standards ......................................................................................................... 2-33

Table 2-2. Activity acres, miles, or board-feet for each management alternative for the Sunrise project. Alternative A 

is the No-Action Alternative............................................................................................................................. 2-38

Table 2-3. Project Design Criteria by Resource Objective ......................................................................................... 2-39

Table 3-1. Past Vegetation Management Activities by Decade within the Sunrise project Area................................3-49

Table 3-2. Tree species cover type extent and distribution for forest Potential Vegetation Groups (PVGs) within the 

Sunrise Project Vegetation Analysis Area. Values listed in bold font currently exceed desired ranges; items in 

italics are currently below desired ranges. ........................................................................................................ 3-53
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-10 Umatilla National Forest

Table 3-3. Forest structural stage extent and distribution for forest Potential Vegetation Groups (PVGs) within the 

Sunrise project Vegetation Analysis Area. Values listed in bold font currently exceed desired ranges; items in 

italics are currently fall below desired ranges. ..................................................................................................3-54

Table 3-4 Forest density class extent and distribution for forest Potential Vegetation Groups (PVG) within Sunrise 

Vegetation Analysis Area. Values listed in bold currently exceed desired ranges; items in italics are currently 

below desired ranges.........................................................................................................................................3-55

Table 3-5. Direct effects of project implementation in forest structure stages. Comparison of current existing 

conditions, post treatment conditions for Alt. B and Alt. C, and the changes from existing conditions in Alt. B 

and Alt. C. Values listed in bold currently exceed desired ranges, items listed in italics are currently below 

desired ranges....................................................................................................................................................3-56

Table 3-6. Direct effects of implementing the activities described under Alternatives B and C on forest density classes.

..........................................................................................................................................................................3-57

Table 3-7. Snag and down wood retention per acre by forest vegetation community type.........................................3-61

Table 3-8. Characteristics of common Oregon and Washington fire regimes present within Sunrise project area.....3-63

Table 3-9 Fire Regime Condition Class Descriptions.................................................................................................3-64

Table 3-10. Fire regimes within Sunrise project area by acres. ..................................................................................3-66

Table 3-11. Acres by condition class within the Sunrise project area.........................................................................3-67

Table 3-12. Past wildfire acres within the Sunrise project area.1 ................................................................................3-68

Table 3-13. Most common fuel models (Anderson 1982) found in the Sunrise project area. .....................................3-69

Table 3-14. Acres of each fuel model present within the Sunrise project area............................................................3-71

Table 3-15. Crown fire hazard by Fire Regime within the Sunrise project area. ........................................................3-72

Table 3-16. Existing fire regime condition class in the Sunrise project area. .............................................................3-75

Table 3-17. Fire regime condition class post treatment for Alternative B. .................................................................3-75

Table 3-18. Change in distribution of crown fire hazard in fire regimes 1 and 3........................................................3-76

Table 3-19. Fire regime condition class post treatment for Alternative C. .................................................................3-77

Table 3-20. Change in distribution of crown fire potential in fire regimes 1 and 3 ....................................................3-77

Table 3-21. Fire regime condition class post treatment for Asotin Creek prescribed fire project. ..............................3-79

Table 3-22. Change in distribution of crown fire potential in dry upland forests as a result of Asotin Creek prescribed 

fire.....................................................................................................................................................................3-79

Table 3-23. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects. .........................................................................3-81

Table 3-24. Wildlife management indicator species for the Umatilla National Forest. ..............................................3-82

Table 3-25. Percent tree cover, HEI value, and open road density by management area............................................3-84

Table 3-26. Old forest structure range of variation and current conditions.................................................................3-86

Table 3-27. Old forest cover types (acres). .................................................................................................................3-86

Table 3-28. Tolerance levels for woodpeckers occurring in Eastside Mixed Conifer/Blue Mountains habitat type 

(DecAID Table EMC_S/L.sp-22) Snag density/acre for 30%, 50%, 80% tolerance levels.1 ............................3-90

Table 3-29. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation Region 10 that may be present and 

potentially affected by the Sunrise project. .......................................................................................................3-94

Table 3-30. Threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species for the Umatilla National Forest, Washington. ..3-95

Table 3-31. Sensitive invertebrate species for the Umatilla National Forest, Washington. ......................................3-101

Table 3-32. Sunrise project potential sensitive invertebrates and their habitats........................................................3-101

Table 3-33. Cover reduction by alternative in MA-C3 (acres)..................................................................................3-106

Table 3-34. Cover reduction by alternative in MA-C4 (acres)..................................................................................3-106

Table 3-35. Cover reduction by alternative in MA-C8 (acres)..................................................................................3-108

Table 3-36. Comparison of effects to elk habitat by alternative................................................................................3-109

Table 3-37. Tree cutting within old forest (acres).....................................................................................................3-110

Table 3-38. Changes to old forest structure by alternative (acres)............................................................................3-111

Table 3-39. Effects to birds of conservation concern in the Sunrise project area......................................................3-115

Table 3-40. Summary of effect to sensitive wildlife and invertebrate species. .........................................................3-121

Table 3-41. Management of Watershed affected by the Sunrise Project...................................................................3-124

Table 3-42. Project Area acreage within the watershed ............................................................................................3-124

Table 3-43. Regional Forester's List of Sensitive Aquatic Invertebrate and Vertebrate Species Present or suspected on 

the Umatilla NF...............................................................................................................................................3-129

Table 3-44. Subwatersheds within the Sunrise project area......................................................................................3-137

Table 3-45. Sunrise Riverine Wetlands Summary of Total Acres (Acres of National Forest Lands within Project Area)

........................................................................................................................................................................3-139

Table 3-46. Water Quality Standards for Temperature and Sediment ......................................................................3-139

Table 3-47. Road Density and Stream Crossings on NFS Lands at the Subwatershed Scale....................................3-140

Table 3-48. RHCA Road Interactions within the project area ..................................................................................3-140

Table 3-49. Equivalent Clearcut Area Modeling Summary......................................................................................3-150

Table 3-50. Forest Plan Standards for Effective Ground Cover................................................................................3-159

Table 3-51. Resource Indicators and Measures for the existing condition................................................................3-160
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-11

Table 3-52. Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative B – Lick Creek....................................................... 3-168

Table 3-53. Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative B – NF Asotin Creek .............................................3-168

Table 3-54: Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative C – NF Asotin Creek ............................................. 3-171

Table 3-55. Summary of Cumulative Detrimental Soil Condition (DSC) by Alternative ........................................3-173

Table 3-56. Botanical Surveys for Sunrise project ................................................................................................... 3-177

Table 3-57. Extent of higher-priority invasive plants known to occur within approximately 1 mile of the Sunrise 

planning area. Lower priority species are assumed to be widely distributed across grassy sites within the project 

area. ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-182

Table 3-58. Low, medium, and high levels of risk to noxious weed invasion for action Alternatives B and C (acres)..3-

183

Table 3-59. General effects of selected vegetation species in response to fire disturbance. .....................................3-183

Table 3-60. Visual Quality Objectives and definitions............................................................................................. 3-189

Table 3-61. Seen foreground age classes with Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective......................................3-189

Table 3-62. Visible Acres by Visual Quality Objective. .......................................................................................... 3-190

Table 3-63. Created Openings.................................................................................................................................. 3-190

Table 3-64. Created Openings in Even and Uneven-aged Systems.......................................................................... 3-191

Table 3-65. Silvicultural Prescription Acres by Visual Quality Objective (Alt. B).................................................. 3-193

Table 3-66. Percentage of Acres Treated by Visual Quality Objective (Alt. B)....................................................... 3-193

Table 3-67. Silvicultural Prescription Acres by Visual Quality Objective (Alt. C).................................................. 3-193

Table 3-68. Percentage of Acres Treated by Visual Quality Objective (Alt. C)....................................................... 3-193

Table 3-69. Visible Foreground Age Class in Partial Retention and Trends by Alternative.....................................3-194

Table 3-70. Undeveloped Lands; Map by Map Summary........................................................................................ 3-197

Table 3-71. Summary of wilderness, PWAs, IRAs, undeveloped and developed landscape....................................3-198

Table 3-72. Other undeveloped lands within the Sunrise project area by MAs........................................................ 3-199

Table 3-73. Summary of undeveloped lands in the Sunrise project area by alternative............................................3-201

Table 3-74. Potential Wilderness in the Sunrise project area by alternative............................................................. 3-201

Table 3-75. Acres by ROS Classification................................................................................................................. 3-206

Table 3-76. Estimated Smoke Emissions (lbs/acre).................................................................................................. 3-210

Table 3-77. Estimated PM2.5 and CO emissions by burn type in the Sunrise Planning area (acres) .......................3-210

Table 3-78. Alternative B Harvest Cost for Commercial Timber Treatments.......................................................... 3-218

Table 3-79. Alternative B Gross Revenue of Timber Resources.............................................................................. 3-218

Table 3-80. Alternative B Stumpage Value.............................................................................................................. 3-218

Table 3-81. Alternative B Additional Activity Costs ............................................................................................... 3-219

Table 3-82. Harvest Cost for Commercial Timber Treatments ................................................................................ 3-219

Table 3-83. Alternative C Gross Revenue of Timber Resources.............................................................................. 3-220

Table 3-84. Alternative C Stumpage Value.............................................................................................................. 3-220

Table 3-85. Alternative C Additional Activity Costs ............................................................................................... 3-220

Table 3-86. Forest Plan goals and management area direction relative fire and fuels management. ........................3-224

Table 3-87. Fuels treatments by management area................................................................................................... 3-225

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-13

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

1.1 Introduction

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

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

regulations. This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative

environmental effects that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document 

is organized into four chapters and relevant appendices:

• Purpose of and Need for Action (Chapter 1): briefly describes the proposed action, the need 

for that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This section also details 

how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and how the public 

responded.

• Alternatives (Chapter 2): provides a detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as 

well as two alternative actions that were developed in response to comments raised by the 

public during scoping. It describes the key management direction used in developing the 

project which comes from the Forest Plan of the Umatilla National Forest. The end of the 

chapter includes summary tables comparing the proposed action and alternatives with respect 

to the activities proposed for each alternative, how each addresses the purpose and need of the 

project, how each addresses relevant issues, and their environmental effects.

• Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Chapter 3): describes the 

affected environment and environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives on 

forest resources and the overall response from the Forest to responsible opposing views.

• Consultation and Coordination (Chapter 4): provides a list of preparers and agencies 

consulted during the development of the EIS.

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

presented in the EIS. Maps of the alternatives and other maps for this document are located in 

Appendix A. Planning unit treatments by alternative are listed in Appendix B. Additional 

appendices are included as needed to provide support to specialist reports.

Additional documentation, including maps and more detailed analyses of project area resources, 

may be viewed by appointment at the Pomeroy District Range, 71 W. Main Street, Pomeroy, 

Washington 99347 or on the project website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45689.

1.2 Project Location

The Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project (henceforth referred to as the Sunrise 

project) planning area is located on the Pomeroy Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest. It is 

approximately 33,150 acres, approximately 32,000 acres are identified as National Forest System 

Lands and is situated in Asotin and Garfield Counties, Washington (Appendix A). The Sunrise 

project is within portions of: 

• Township 7 South, Range. 43 East, Section 6; 

• Township 8 North, R. 42 East, Sections 1-5, 8-16, 22-26, and 36; 

• Township 8 North, R. 43 East, Section 2-11, 15-22, and 28-33; 

• Township 9 North, R. 42 East, Sections 25 and 33-36; 

• Township 9 North, R. 43 East, Sections 8, 9, and 13-36; and
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-14 Umatilla National Forest

• Township 9 North, R. 44 East, Sections 18, 19, 30, and 31. 

It is within the Lick Creek and North Fork Asotin Creek subwatersheds of the George Creek –

Asotin Creek Watershed. Elevation in the project area ranges from 2400 to 6200 feet.

The Sunrise project area is bordered on the east by the Asotin Creek Wildlife Area, which is 

owned and managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. It contains the entire 

Asotin Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and is adjacent to Wenatchee and Tucannon 

IRAs. Ecosystems in and around Sunrise project planning area are diverse, ranging from shrub/ 

grasslands to subalpine coniferous forests. There are numerous camping areas, hiking trails, 

scenic vistas, big game hunting opportunities, huckleberry picking opportunities, and forest 

products. There are two inholdings owned by the state of Washington within the project

boundary, totaling 1,130 acres.

1.3 Existing Condition

Forest Composition, Structure, and Density

An analysis of existing and historical vegetation (see Vegetation Report) has indicated that 

additional management is warranted for upland forests of the Sunrise project area. The historical 

range of variability (HRV) recognizes that ecosystems are complex and they experience a range 

of conditions across which processes are resilient and self-sustaining. When allowed to move 

beyond the limits of the range of variability, ecosystems inevitably move into a state of 

disequilibrium or disorganization (Egan and Howell 2001, Holling and Meffe 1996, Kaufmann 

et al. 1994). HRV uses a range of reference conditions pertaining to the previous several 

centuries prior to the pre-settlement era – a timeframe defined as the mid-1800s for the northern 

Blue Mountains.

Forest stand composition, density, and structure in the project planning area have been altered 

from historical ranges of variation due to fire suppression and other past forest management 

practices. A majority of current forest stands originated as a result of fire disturbances occurring 

up to the early 20th century, and have not experienced fire since then. Late seral tree species, 

multi-storied structural stages, and high-density stands have become dominant after long periods 

without disturbance and are more susceptible to disturbance-caused mortality than early seral 

species. Analysis of forest vegetation conditions in the analysis area and comparison to desired 

ranges is summarized in Chapter 3 of this document, and revealed the following issues, concerns 

and/or opportunities:

Dry Upland Forests

• Douglas-fir cover types dominate too much of the dry forested landscape and there is too little 

ponderosa pine cover types compared to the historic range of variability (HRV). Within this 

biophysical setting, there are too many areas with high forest density, and too few areas with 

low and moderate density. Understory reinitiation and old forest multi-strata (OFMS) 

structural stages dominate too much of the dry forested landscape and there is too little stand 

initiation, stem exclusion, and old forest single stratum (OFSS) structural stages. 

• For the dry upland forest biophysical environment, there is too little of the OFSS late-old 

structural stage and too much of the OFMS stage. Since one of the late-old structural stages is 

below HRV, scenario A of the wildlife screen (one of six Eastside Screens, an amendment to 

the Umatilla Forest Plan) will apply for this biophysical environment(see Appendix C for 

Consistency with Eastside Screens.)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-15

Moist Upland Forests

• Douglas-fir and subalpine fir/spruce cover types dominate too much of the moist forested 

landscape and there is too little broadleaved trees, western larch, and lodgepole pine, cover 

types. Within this biophysical setting, there are too many areas with high forest density, and 

too few areas with low and moderate density. Old forest multi-strata structural stage dominates 

too much of the moist forested landscape and there is too little stand initiation, stem exclusion, 

and old forest single stratum structural stages.

• For the moist upland forest biophysical environment, there is too little of the OFSS late-old 

structural stage and too much of the OFMS stage. Since one of the late-old structural stages is 

below HRV, scenario A of the wildlife screen (one of six Eastside Screens, an amendment to 

the Umatilla Forest Plan) will apply for this biophysical environment (see Appendix C for

Consistency with Eastside Screens)

• Spruce/subalpine fir and Douglas-fir cover types dominate too much of the cold upland 

forested landscape and there is too little of the lodgepole pine cover type. Within this 

biophysical setting, there are too many areas with high forest density, and too few areas with 

low and moderate density. Understory reinitiation and old forest multi-strata structural stage 

dominates too much of the cold forested landscape and there is too little stem exclusion and 

old forest single-stratum structural stages.

• For the cold upland forest biophysical environment, there is too little of the OFSS late-old 

structural stage and too much of the OFMS stage. Since one of the late-old structural stages is 

below HRV, scenario A of the wildlife screen (one of six Eastside Screens, an amendment to 

the Umatilla Forest Plan) will apply for this biophysical environment (see Appendix C for 

Consistency with Eastside Screens.)

Fire Regime Condition Class

Fire Regime Condition Class1 (FRCC), is a metric which describes the departure from historical 

fire regimes in terms of fire return intervals and vegetative change from historical composition 

and density. The FRCC in many stands within the project area has been modified primarily by 

past harvest history and fire suppression (Fuels Resource Report page 9). In many areas, the 

surface and ladder fuels, which historically would have been consumed during periodic 

wildfires, have increased above historical levels. Today, fires in dry and moist forests would 

exhibit moderate to severe effects characterized by high fire severity and intensity on landscapes 

that historically had low to mixed severity. Without treatment, the project area would continue to 

transition from a low or moderately altered fire regime2 (Condition Classes 1 and 2), to a 

significantly altered fire regime (Class 3), where the risk of losing ecosystem components would 

be substantially higher. Surface fuel loads would continue to build and ladder fuels would 

continue to increase as shade-tolerant tree species continue to seed in increasing tree densities 

and canopy layering. These small trees would serve as ladder fuels that can carry fire from the 

forest floor to the tree canopy, increasing the likelihood of high severity, stand-replacement 

wildfires. Wildfires occurring in the project area today would not function as a natural 

 

1 Condition Class Describes the departure from historic fire regimes in terms of fire return interval and vegetative 

changes from historical composition and density (Hann and Bunnell, 2001). Class 1 – within historical range; Class 2 

– moderately altered from historical range; and Class 3 – significantly altered from historical range. 2 Fire regime: Class 1 –0 to 35-year frequency and of low severity (most commonly associated with surface fires) to 

mixed severity (in which less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced). Class 3 –35 to 200-

year frequency and of mixed severity. Less than 75% of the dominate overstory vegetation is replaced.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-16 Umatilla National Forest

disturbance process within their historical range pertaining to fire size, frequency, intensity, 

severity, or landscape patterns.

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

The need for the Sunrise project arises from an interdisciplinary evaluation or assessment of the 

differences or gap between the existing conditions as delineated above and the desired future 

conditions as identified in this document as well as the Umatilla National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, pp.4-3 to 4-14). The purpose of this project is to

modify vegetation and fuels by moving vegetation composition, structure, density, and fuels 

closer to desired conditions as described in the following sections. Forest Plan objectives require 

providing sawlogs and wood fiber products for utilization by regional and local industries is also 

considered a need for this project. Furthermore, because the majority of acres (about 19,200 

acres) in the project planning area are Forest Plan management area allocations with big game

and wildlife habitat goals (C3, C3A, and C4) there is a need to continue to provide and manage 

wildlife habitat and its components (cover and forage) in the Sunrise project planning area. The 

need for this project is identified in further detail as follows:

Vegetation – There is a need to move forest structure, species composition, and stand 

density toward their HRV. By moving these forest attributes more toward HRV, ecosystem

processes, such as response to wildfire, insects and disease, are more resilient and selfsustaining (Egan and Howell 2001, Holling and Meffe 1996, Kaufmann et al. 1994).The 

project would move successional and structural conditions of forests toward desired 

ranges by converting areas in the Old Forest Multi-Strata structural stage to the Old Forest 

Single Stratum stage, converting areas in the Stem Exclusion and/or Understory

Reinitiation stages to Stand Initiation stages and by moving other stands toward Old 

Forest as appropriate for the disturbance regime and biophysical characteristics of the site.

Additionally, there is a need to reduce forest density in some locations as reducing intertree competition will improve residual tree health. Treatments within the project would 

also modify species composition, increasing the abundance of early seral species such as 

ponderosa pine and western larch.

Fuels – There is a need to modify forest stands in Condition Classes 2 and 3 to begin to 

restore vegetation characteristics and fire return intervals characteristic of historical fire 

regimes and desired fire regimes. Fuels treatments would be used to lower stand densities; 

reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels; increase the relative abundance of fire-tolerant

tree species, while improving suppression capabilities on forest land. Landscape burning 

within the project area would be used to reintroduce and perpetuate fire within this firedependent ecosystem by utilizing a variety of burning strategies over about 60 percent of 

the area. In addition to creating near-term conditions, more consistent with desired fire 

regimes, it would also increase the probability that future fires burn in a manner more 

consistent with the fire regime associated with the biophysical environment of the site. 

Timber Production – There is a need to provide sawlogs and wood fiber to augment the 

regional and local economies due to the dependency on timber production from with the 

Forest. Silvicultural treatments used to alter tree densities, structural diversity, species 

composition, and ladder and canopy fuels would generate wood fiber through timber 

harvest. Personal and commercial use firewood would continue within the project area. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-17

Wildlife Habitat – There is a need to continue to provide and manage, over time, for 

wildlife habitat, as it is required to meet Forest Plan goals and management area standards 

and guidelines 

1.5 Management Direction

Umatilla Forest Plan

The Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan, 

1990) includes multiple-use forest-wide goals and objectives for management of the National 

Forest. Forest-wide goals apply to all areas of the forest, whereas allocated management area

(MA) goals are applied to specific management areas. Below is a listing of Forest Plan forestwide goals, desired conditions, and relationship of those items to the project purpose and need.

Forest Plan forest-wide goals (FP pp. 4-1 to 4-3) that are most applicable to the purpose and need 

identified for this project are as follows:

• Forest Plan Goal 1 – Provide land and resource management that achieves a more healthy 

and productive forest and assists in supplying lands, resources, uses, and values which meet 

local, regional, and national social and economic needs.

• Forest Plan Goal 9 – Provide and manage big game (elk and deer) habitat and its components 

(cover, forage, and roads) to assist in meeting states wildlife agency population management 

objectives.

• Forest Plan Goal 13 – Provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and species 

consistent with overall multiple-use objectives for the Forest. Maintain or enhance ecosystem

functions to provide for the long-term integrity (stability) and productivity of biological 

communities.

• Forest Plan Goal 15 – Provide for production and sustained yield of wood fiber and insofar 

as possible meet projected production levels consistent with various resource objectives, 

standards and guidelines, and cost efficiency.

• Forest Plan Goal 25 – Provide and execute a fire protection and fire use program that is cost 

efficient and responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives. 

Forest Plan allocated management areas (MA), each of which emphasizes a particular desired 

future condition (DFC) contain standards and guidelines to provide direction for achieving 

DFCs. The Forest Plan designates management areas as the way to characterize the landscape for 

the type and intensity of management activities that may occur on Umatilla National Forest 

lands. Management areas within the project planning area are listed below and shown in Map 2

of Appendix A. 

Sunrise project area contains portions of nine different Management Areas, the largest of which

is C4: Wildlife Habitat (36% of project area), followed closely by C8: Grass-Tree Mosaic (29%). 

Table 1-1 shows the acreage and percent of the total project area by Management Area.

Table 1-1: Geographic extent for management areas applicable to the Sunrise project

Management Area Allocation Acres Percent of Total

A4: Viewshed 2 1,135 4

A6: Developed Recreation 20 <1
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-18 Umatilla National Forest

Management Area Allocation Acres Percent of Total

C1: Dedicated Old Growth 1,785 6

C3: Big Game Winter Range 4,280 13

C3A: Sensitive Big Game Winter Range 3,255 10

C4: Wildlife Habitat 11,650 36

C5: Riparian (Fish and Wildlife) 490 2

C8: Grass-Tree Mosaic 9,230 29

E2: Timber and Big Game 160 <1

Following are brief descriptions of goals, desired conditions, and relationship to the project 

purpose and need associated with each Forest Plan management area allocation located within 

Sunrise project planning area. Detailed descriptions for each area can be found in the Forest Plan 

(FP pages 4-94 to 4-186). The Sunrise project purpose and need revolves around the concepts of 

forest vegetation, density, structure, and fire regime condition class, but also responds to the 

goals below by maintaining or enhancing the desired conditions for each management area. 

Desired conditions would be maintained or enhanced via planned activities and design criteria

described in detail in Chapter 2 with detailed analysis of effects included in Chapter 3. 

A4 Viewshed 2—Goal: Manage the area seen from a travel route, use area, or water body 

where some forest visitors have a major concern for the scenic qualities (sensitivity level 

2) as a natural appearing to slightly altered landscape

Desired Future Condition: Viewsheds will be managed primarily to meet the visual 

quality objectives of partial retention and modification. An attractive, near natural 

landscape will be maintained or created. 

A6 Developed Recreation—Goal: Provide recreation opportunities that are dependent on 

the development of structural facilities for user conveniences where interaction between 

users and evidence of others is prevalent. 

Desired Future Condition: Readily accessible, appropriately designed recreation 

facilities shall provide for concentrated us by people seeking a variety and convenience 

of developed recreation opportunities and experiences. Recreationists will enjoy outdoor 

opportunities where social interactions are moderate to high. Controls and regulations 

will be noticeable to obvious. 

C1 Dedicated Old Growth—Goal: Provide and protect sufficient suitable habitat for 

wildlife species dependent upon mature and/or over-mature forest stands, and promote a 

diversity of vegetative conditions for such species.

Desired future condition: Old-growth areas will be characterized by stands of naturally 

appearing over-mature trees. Stands of mature trees may be included in the old growth

category to provide a better distribution of this habitat type throughout the forest. Trees 

in these stands are relatively large (with many trees greater than 21 inches dbh); past the 

point of rapid growth, and some have visible evidence of decay and decline including 

mycorrhizal fungi and other microorganisms. Stands will be dispersed in quantities and 

sizes which meet the needs of dependent wildlife. These stands will contribute toward 

the forest diversity and aesthetic values.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-19

C3 Big Game Winter Range—Goal: Manage big game winter range to provide high levels 

of potential habitat effectiveness and high quality forage for big game. 

Desired Future Condition: Big game winter ranges will appear as a mosaic of managed 

forests, brush patches, and large grasslands. Forested areas will contain a mix of 

harvested even-aged, uneven-aged, and natural stands, creating patterns of cover patches 

and forage areas for big game. Areas of early spring green-up and other forage changes 

due to prescribed fires and other means will occur in a mosaic pattern over the winter 

ranges; quality forage will be abundant because of management.

C3A Sensitive Big Game Winter Range—Goal: Manage sensitive areas of big game winter 

range to provide high levels of potential habitat effectiveness (at or above the current 

levels).

Desired Future Condition: The area will appear as a mosaic of plant communities, 

including grassland forage area, brush, and some stands of trees. Use of prescribed fire

will be apparent and carried out to maintain or increase the quality and quantity of 

forage and amount of cover on the area. Areas of early spring forage green-up due to 

prescribed fire will occur in a mosaic pattern over the winter range. Increased forage and 

cover will help encourage big game use on public lands and discourage high levels of 

winter use on the adjacent private lands. Most roads and trails will be closed to vehicle 

traffic during the winter, and there will be minimum human disturbance to big game 

during this period. 

C4 Wildlife Habitat—Goal: Manage Forest Lands to provide high levels of potential 

habitat effectiveness for big game and other wildlife species with emphases on size and 

distribution of habitat components (forage and cover areas for elk, snags and dead and 

down materials for all cavity users) unique wildlife habitats and key use areas will be 

retained or protected.

Desired Future Condition: The forest will be a mosaic of even-aged and uneven-aged 

stands dispersed in a manner to create a pattern of forage, and marginal and satisfactory 

cover for big game.

C5 Riparian (Fish and Wildlife)—Goal: Maintain or enhance water quality, and produce a 

high level of potential habitat capability for all species of fish and wildlife within the 

designated riparian habitat areas while providing for a high level of habitat effectiveness 

for big game.

Desired Future Condition: A near natural setting will predominate adjacent to the 

stream, with a wide variety of plant communities of various species, sizes, and age 

classes. In forested riparian zones, a continuous high tree canopy layer will be present 

and the forest will appear denser than in the surrounding land. Upper and mid-level 

conifer and hardwood canopy structure and lower shrub level will provide desired levels 

of stream surface shading, streambank stability, and satisfactory cover for big game.

C8 Grass – Tree Mosaic—Goal: On areas known as grass-tree mosaic (GTM), provide 

high levels of potential habitat effectiveness, high quality forage for big game wildlife 

species, visual diversity, and protect erosive soils.

Desired Future Condition: Generally these areas will remain natural appearing with the 

predominate view being made up of patches or stringers of timber occurring on open, 

generally steep hillsides. Many forest stands will appear as mature timber with some 

having multi-layered canopies. Some stands will be more open as the result of 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-20 Umatilla National Forest

management activities designed to improve big game habitat. Areas of early spring 

forage green-up will occur in a mosaic pattern over the winter range portion of this area. 

Quality big game habitat will be maintained and enhanced, thereby helping to achieve 

big game management population and productivity goals. In addition, during an average 

winter, most of the wintering big game will remain on public lands, helping to keep 

impacts to private lands low.

E2 Timber and Big Game—Goal: Manage Forest Lands to emphasize Production of wood 

fiber (timber), encourage forage production, and maintain a moderate level of big game 

and other wildlife habitat.

Desired Future Condition: Management of forests for timber production, domestic 

livestock, big game, and other wildlife habitat will be apparent. Forests will contain a 

mosaic of even-aged and uneven-aged stands dispersed in a manner creating patterns of 

tree cover for big game and openings providing forage. Created opening will range from 

1-3 acres up to 40 acres, but will often be 20-30 acres in size. Horizontal and vertical 

diversity will be apparent; tree species will be diverse, but seral, more pest-free species 

such as ponderosa pine, western larch, and lodgepole pine will predominate. 

Accumulated fuels will be generally light, and large destructive fires will seldom occur. 

Prescribe fire will continue to be an important management tool.

Vegetation management, including tree harvest and prescribed burning, would occur in 

management areas A4, A6, C3, C3A, C4, and E2. No mechanical tree-cutting activities are 

proposed in PACFISH-designated Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) or within the 

IRA.

1.6 Proposed Action

The Pomeroy District Ranger proposes the following action and associated activities that may 

occur concurrently for this project. This proposed action is in response to the purpose of and 

need for action identified above as refined by internal and external scoping comments. A more 

detailed description of the proposed action can be found in Chapter 2 of this document. 

Vegetation and fuels treatments are anticipated to continue over a period of approximately three 

to ten years following the signature of the final Record of Decision. 

Timber harvest and other tree-cutting activities

The project would include mechanical tree-cutting activities across approximately 7,790 acres. 

Intermediate tree-cutting would be used to modify the growth, vigor, composition, or structure of 

a forest stand after its establishment and prior to its final harvest (approximately 5,660 acres). In 

other areas where thinning treatments alone will not meet landscape vegetation and fuels-related 

objectives, regeneration harvests (i.e. clearcut, shelterwood, seed tree, etc.) and tree planting 

would occur (up to approximately 2,130 acres). Treatments would be designed to promote 

underrepresented, early seral tree species such as ponderosa pine and western larch. Harvest 

methods would include a combination of conventional ground-based3 (approximately 3,310 

 

3 Conventional ground based logging system: This is tractor or skidder yarding on trails spaced approximately 100 

feet apart. Skidding equipment would be required to remain on the trails and logs dragged to the landings with one end 

suspended. Mechanical felling equipment may be used to fall and bunch logs near the trail and be allowed a single 

pass between skid trails to reduce compaction concerns.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-21

acres) and cable/skyline4 yarding systems (approximately 2,210 acres). Activity units could 

include the removal of sawlogs, small diameter trees (generally less than 7.0 inches diameter at 

breast height (DBH)) and/or excess down wood for use as woody biomass 5 products. Units 

within the Lick Creek area would receive only the cutting of small-diameter trees. Tree-cutting 

objectives and activities would vary depending on existing forest vegetation and fuels conditions 

as well as wildlife habitat needs. Although wood fiber utilization is expected in some areas, the 

focus of each treatment would be on the desired conditions of each activity area and designed to 

move vegetation characteristics towards those desired conditions. No trees greater than or equal 

to 21 inches DBH would be cut, under any action alternative. 

Fuels Treatments (activity and natural)

Activity fuels and existing natural fuels would be treated in harvest units. A combination of the 

following treatments (more than one treatment may occur on an acre) would occur: prescribed 

burning of activity fuels (approximately 877 acres), mechanical grapple piling of activity fuels 

(approximately 1,068 acres), and yarding with tops attached. Non-commercial hand thinning

(about 1,680 acres) and mechanical thinning (about 590 acres) would be used to treat ladder 

fuels in both harvest activity units and natural fuels units where high density small diameter 

understory remain. If it is economically feasible, material from 3 to 10 inches DBH would be 

removed as a woody biomass product, if it is not economically feasible, mechanical fuel 

treatments would be treated by mastication.

Landscape Prescribed Fire

Landscape prescribed fire could occur across approximately 14,055 acres within the Sunrise 

project area. The project area would be burned when fire intensity could be kept low to facilitate 

the likelihood of reducing surface and ladder fuels while limiting the incidences and size of 

individual tree and group torching. This would result in lower stand densities, increased 

abundance of fire-tolerant species, reduced existing ladder, surface, and canopy fuels, while 

improving suppression capabilities on forest land, and re-introducing landscape-scale fire into 

the ecosystem. Upon completion, landscape could be described as a mosaic of unburned, lightly 

burned, moderately burned, and intensely burned patches.

Road Management 

To accomplish implementation of proposed activities approximately 39 miles of closed6 system 

roads (operational maintenance level 17

), and 52 miles of seasonally8 open roads (operational 

maintenance level 29 and 310) would be used as haul routes. Closed system roads used for project 

activities would not be opened to the public. All system roads would remain the same after 

 

4 Skyline logging system: In a skyline system, logs are yarded up the hill by a system of cables, and logs are either 

partially or fully suspended to reduce soil disturbance. Skyline yarding landings are slightly smaller than conventional 

ground-based systems. 5 Woody Biomass: Trees and woody plants, including limbs, tops, needles, leaves, and other woody parts, grown in a 

forest, woodland, or rangeland environment, that are the by-products of forest management. 6 Closed Road: These roads are not available for motorized vehicle travel for everyday access and are gated or closed 

by barricades. These roads can be opened for access for resource management activities or fire suppression.

Snowmobile use is allowed except where specifically prohibited. 

7 Operational maintenance level 1: The operational objective is closed more than 1 year. 8 Seasonally Open Roads: These roads are available for public motorized vehicle use only during specified seasons. 9 Operational maintenance level 2: The operational objective is for high clearance vehicles. 10 Operational maintenance level 3: The operational objective is for passenger vehicles – road surface is not smooth.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-22 Umatilla National Forest

project implementation; open roads would remain open, closed roads would continue to be 

closed, and seasonally open roads would continue with that designation. Approximately 14 miles 

of temporary road would be constructed; of which 8 miles would be constructed over previous 

road templates. All temporary roads would be decommissioned after project activity use. No new 

specified permanent road construction is proposed.

Danger Tree Removal 

Danger trees

11 would be felled and removed along all previously described haul routes used for 

timber sale activity. If considered economically feasible they would be sold as part of a timber 

sale. Danger trees within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would not be removed; 

they would be cut and left to provide additional coarse woody debris.

1.7 NEPA Document Preparation

NEPA Documentation Relying on resource reports and the project file helps implement the 

CEQ's regulation provision that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4), 

through incorporation by reference, keeping documents analytic rather than encyclopedic, and 

keeping NEPA documents no longer than absolutely necessary (40 CFR 1502.2). The objective is 

to furnish enough site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned consideration of the 

environmental effects of the alternatives and how these effects can be mitigated, without 

repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere.

Project Administrative Record

This EIS hereby incorporates by reference the project file (40 CFR 1502.21). The project file 

contains resource specialist reports and other technical documentation used to support the 

analysis and conclusions in this EIS; as well as all decision making documentation Specific 

information on methodologies, assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are 

contained in specialist reports. The following specialist reports are included in the project file: 

soils, hydrology, fisheries, wildlife, botany, vegetation (including historical range of variability, 

insects and disease, and invasive plants), fuels, air quality, transportation system (roads), 

economics, recreation, visuals/scenery, inventoried roadless areas, potential wilderness areas, 

other undeveloped lands, and cultural resources. Other sources of information, documents, 

published studies, and books referred to in this document are also included in the project file 

which is located at Pomeroy Ranger District office.

Tiering and Incorporating by Reference

In order to eliminate repetition and focus on site-specific analysis, this DEIS is tiered to the 

following documents as permitted by 40 CFR 1502.20. When incorporating information sources 

by reference, this document and resource specialist reports summarize the source’s analysis and 

conclusions, and explain its relevance to the Sunrise project analysis.

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS and Record of 

Decision (ROD) dated June 11, 1990 and all subsequent NEPA analysis for amendments. The 

 

11 Danger Trees: A danger tree is defined as any standing tree that presents a hazard to people due to conditions such 

as, but not limited to, deterioration or physical damage to the root system, trunk, stem, or limbs and the direction and 

lean of the tree (FSH 6709.11, Glossary). Trees will be felled that have an imminent or likely potential to fail. Trees 

that have an imminent potential to fail are so defective or rotten that it will take little effort to make them fail. Trees 

considered likely to fail include all dead trees and some live trees with specific diseases and/or damage. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-23

FEIS contains analyses of resource management practices, levels of resource production and 

management, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource management.

This DEIS also incorporates by reference the following documents:

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) dated June 

11, 1990, and all subsequent Forest Plan amendments. The Forest plan provides programmatic 

direction for the Forest, including Sunrise project planning area. Relevant Forest Plan 

amendments for this project are summarized below:

Forest Plan Amendment #10, The Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous FishProducing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California 

(PACFISH) dated February 24, 1995. PACFISH provided further protection for fish habitat, 

particularly regarding activities within riparian areas.

Forest Plan Amendment #11, Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing 

Riparian, Ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (Regional Forester’s Amendment 

No. 2, Screens) dated June 12, 1995. The Screens (Eastside Screens) established additional 

management direction regarding riparian management (screen 4), ecosystem diversity (screen 5), 

and wildlife structural diversity, connectivity of late/old structure, retention of snags and downed 

wood, and goshawk nest-sites (screen 6).

Forest Plan Amendment #30, Pacific Northwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Invasive Plant Program, 2005, hereby referred to as the R6 2005 FEIS. The R6 2005 

FEIS culminated in a Record of Decision (R6 2005 ROD) that amended the Umatilla National 

Forest Plan by adding management direction relative to invasive plants. 

The Biological Opinion for the Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing 

Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and 

Portions of California (PACFISH) from National Marine Fisheries Service dated January 23, 

1995. PACFISH itself does not propose any ground-disturbing actions, but sets in place certain 

riparian management goals and management direction with the intent of arresting the 

degradation and beginning the restoration of riparian and stream habitats. Habitat for 

anadromous fish is present in the watersheds analyzed for this project.

The Biological Opinion for the Effects to Bull Trout from Continued Implementation of 

Land and Resource Management Plans and Resource Management Plans as Amended by 

the Interim Strategy for Managing Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, and Portions of Nevada (INFISH), and the Interim 

Strategy for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH) from National Marine Fisheries 

Service, dated August 14, 1998. This BO addresses the effects of continued implementation of 

LRMPs as amended by PACFISH standards and guidelines where listed distinct population 

segments of bull trout occur in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Habitat for bull trout 

is present in the watersheds analyzed for this project. 

The Biological Opinion on the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Boise, 

Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

from National Marine Fisheries Service, dated March 1, 1995. National Marine Fisheries has 

identified a set of goals, objectives, and guidelines that will apply to watershed and site-specific 

consultations until Land and Resource Management Plans are amended. Conformance with the 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-24 Umatilla National Forest

provisions of this Opinion, in combination with implementation of PACFISH, should provide 

reasonable certainty that site-specific actions will not result in jeopardy to listed salmon or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. This applies to the Land and Resource Management Plan 

for Umatilla National Forest and PACFISH amendment used for this project. 

The Biological Opinion - Land and Resource Management Plans for National Forests and 

Bureau of Land and Management Resource Areas in the Upper Columbia River Basin and 

Snake River Basin Evolutionarily Significant Units by National Marine Fisheries Service 

dated June 22, 1998. This BO addresses the effects of continued implementation of the 18 

LRMPs as amended by PACFISH standards and guidelines on Snake River salmon and 

steelhead. This applies to the Land and Resource Management Plan for Umatilla National Forest 

incorporated by reference in this project.

Blue Mountain Expedited Section 7 Consultation Process –Consultation with the Level 1 

Team Agreement (U.S. Forest Service, NOAA Fisheries, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

will be occurring in May 2018. The project is tiered to Letters of Concurrence for the Blue 

Mountain Expedited Section 7 Consultation Process (Blue Mountain Project Design Criteria 

(PDC)) received from Fish and Wildlife Service, June 4, 2007 and NOAA Fisheries dated May 

31, 2007 will. Level 1 Team letter will fulfill requirements for Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation.

Bull Trout Critical Habitat Designated in 2010: Letter dated November 16, 2010 from U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, confirmation of Conference Reports and Conference Opinion as 

Letters of Concurrence and a Biological Opinion for Multiple Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Actions Involving Proposed Bull Trout Critical Habitat. This letter transmits confirmation of 

previously completed conference documents for actions described in the letter. Date of informal 

conference (13420-2010-1C-0150) for Umatilla National Forest is July 30, 2010. The purpose of 

this letter is to adopt the conference report as a Letter of Concurrence for designated bull trout 

critical habitat for the Blue Mt. Expedited Section 7 Consultation Process. Habitat for bull trout 

is present in the watershed analyzed for this project.

National Forests in Oregon and Washington received the biological opinions “Fish Habitat

Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington CY2007-2012 Biological Assessment and 

associated Biological Opinions, reissued by NMFS on June 27, 2008: NMFS BO (FS 

2008/03505), FWS BO (13420-2007-F-0055)” (referenced as ARBO). To address the 2010 

designation of bull trout critical habitat, the ARBO for FWS was reinitiated by the Forest 

Service, and a resulting Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence dated April 26, 2011 on 

the Programmatic Aquatic Habitat Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington that Affect 

ESA-Listed Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Species and Their Critical Habitats (TAILS #13420-2011-

F-0129) was released. This process was used for Sunrise project.

Asotin Watershed Assessment, Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District, January 18, 

1996. A watershed-level ecosystem analysis of current and reference conditions along with 

recommendations for restoration. Sunrise Project is located in the Asotin Watershed and 

recommendations from this assessment were considered for this project.

Invasive Plants Treatment Project (EIS), Umatilla National Forest, decision dated July 2010. 

Authorizes treatment of invasive plant species over a 5-15 year period using manual, 

mechanical, biological, herbicide, and cultural treatments. Up to 4,000 acres may be treated 

annually, including known sites and those detected in the future. Invasive plants in the project 

planning area will be treated as identified in this EIS (Chapter 3, Table 3-57). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-25

Environmental Assessment for Pomeroy Ranger District Motorized Access and Travel 

Management Plan, Pomeroy Ranger District, July 1993. A comprehensive program resulting in 

a transportation system which provides for a broad mix of both motorized and non-motorized 

recreation opportunities while moving toward Forest Plan desired future conditions. The 

transportation system for this project is consistent with this EA. 

Analysis of Umatilla National Forest Road System, completed January 2004. Forest-scale 

analysis in determining the minimum road system needed to meet resource and other 

management objectives. Transportation actions for this project are consistent with this Forest 

scale analysis.

The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia 

Basin released 1996. Links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic 

characterizations to described biophysical and social systems. Biological and social systems for 

this project are described in Chapter 3 of this EIS.

Umatilla National Forest Interim Snag Guidance Letter dated April, 1993, which provides 

direction on the number and distribution of snags to retain in harvest units. Direction from this 

letter was used for this project.

National Fire Plan Developed in August 2000 with the intent of responding to severe wildland 

fires and their impacts to communities while addressing five key points: Firefighting, 

Rehabilitation, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Community Assistance, and Accountability. Activity 

and natural fuels are proposed for treatment in this project.

Region 6 Protocol for Assessment and Management of Soil Quality Conditions dated 

January 2002. Established consistency in soil assessment methods on the Umatilla National 

Forest and other Blue Mountain forests, and ensures compliance with Forest Plan and NEPA

condition assessment needs.

Analysis and documentation for this project has been done according to direction contained in 

the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ), Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act 

(CAA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA).

1.8 Treaty Rights

The Forest Service, through the Secretary of Agriculture, is vested with statutory authority and 

responsibility for managing resources of the National Forests. Commensurate with the authority 

and responsibility to manage is the obligation to consult, cooperate, and coordinate with Indian 

Tribes in developing and planning management decisions regarding resources on National Forest 

system land that may affect tribal rights.

Locally, the Sunrise project area lies within the area ceded to the United States government by 

the Nez Perce Indians, as a result of the Treaties of 1855. Elements of respective Indian cultures, 

such as tribal welfare, land, and resources were entrusted to the United States government as a 

result of the treaties. Trust responsibilities resulting from the treaties dictate, in part, that the 

United States government facilitate the execution of treaty rights and traditional cultural

practices of Nez Perce Indians by working with them on a government to government basis in a 

manner that attempts a reasonable accommodation of their needs, without compromising the 

legal positions of the respective tribes or the federal government. Specific treaty rights applicable 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-26 Umatilla National Forest

to that land base managed by the Umatilla National Forest area generally articulated in Article III 

of the 1855 Nez Perce Treaty, include:

“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering said 

reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and 

accustomed places in common with citizens of the Territory; and of erecting temporary buildings 

for curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their 

horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.”

Although the 1855 Treaties do not specifically mandate the federal government to manage 

habitats, there is an implied assumption that an adequate reserve of water be available for 

executing treaty related hunting and fishing activities. Of major concern relating to recent Forest 

Service projects are potential effects on Treaty rights, fish habitat and populations, water quality, 

and protection of archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and first foods resources. 

Because tribal trust activities often occur in common with the public, Umatilla National Forest 

strives to manage tribal ceded land to enable the execution of tribal rights, as far as practicable, 

while still providing goods and services to all people.

1.9 Tribal and Public Involvement

Tribal Involvement 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2014. The 

NOI asked that public comment on the scoping be received by December 29, 2014. In addition, 

as part of the public involvement process, the agency sent letters on December 12, 2014 

describing the project to representatives of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation (CTUIR) and Nez Perce Tribe, and to interested individuals, organizations, and 

other agencies that have indicated an interest in this type of project in the recent past. 

Public Involvement

Using the comments from the public, other agencies, and the CTUIR and Nez Perce Tribe (see 

Scoping Comments section), the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address. A 

table of scoping input and issues identified is located in the project file at the Pomeroy District 

office. Any issues raised during the public scoping process were considered and analyzed in this 

document. The Forest Service separated the comments into two groups: issues considered and 

comments dismissed. Comments dismissed pertained to activities and/or effects 1) outside the 

scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher 

level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. 

For this project, a government to government scoping letter was sent to tribal staff members of 

the Nez Perce Tribe on December 14, 2014, informing them of the Sunrise proposed project and 

requesting any comments or concerns regarding the project. The Pomeroy District Ranger 

presented the District Program of Work to Nez Perce tribal staff members on March 20, 2015 

and continued to update the Nez Perce tribal staff members is subsequent opportunities. At these 

meetings, projects are presented the District Ranger solicits questions, comments, or requests for 

additional information. Several field trips were also organized with tribal staff members on June 

29, 2015; December 08, 2015; and October 24, 2016 to view the project area, discuss potential 

treatments, answer any questions and address any concerns.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 1-27

General concerns received from tribal staff members on recent projects similar to the Sunrise 

project include the following:

• Potential effects to archeological and traditional properties and first foods resources.

• Potential effects to water quality.

• Potential effects to fish habitat, including salmonid species federally listed as threatened or 

endangered under ESA.

• Potential effects to economic recovery.

• Potential effects to treaty rights.

After the government to government consultation, scoping letter and Program of Work meetings, 

no comments or concerns specific to the Sunrise Project were presented by tribal staff members.

1.10 Decision Framework

The scope of the project and decision to be made are limited to: commercial timber harvest, fuels 

treatments (landscape prescribed fire, non-commercial thinning, and non-commercial mechanical 

treatment), danger tree removal along haul routes, and mitigation and monitoring within the 

project planning area. Connected actions include reforestation of harvest units and temporary 

road development and decommissioning of temporary roads. Chapter 2 details the designs of 

these actions. Proposed project activities would occur on National Forest System lands (NFS) 

and the decision to implement them would be limited to NFS lands. 

The responsible deciding official will decide whether to implement the proposed action, another 

alternative action, or take no action at this time. If an action alternative is selected, the 

responsible deciding official will also determine:

1. How much and where timber harvest and fuel treatments, along with their associated 

activities, should occur. 

2. Whether other management activities (landscape prescribed fire, danger tree removal, 

and fuel treatments) and their associated activities should occur.

3. What monitoring requirements are needed to assure the selected alternative and 

mitigation are implemented as designed. 

1.11 Scoping Comments

Issues Considered for Detailed Study 

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed 

action and alternatives, giving opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to 

meet the purpose and need for the proposal, while reducing adverse effects and compare tradeoffs for the decision maker and public to understand. The responsible official approved the issues 

to be analyzed in depth by the IDT in the environmental analysis, as well as issues considered, 

but not analyzed in depth. Issues to be analyzed in depth include potential direct, indirect, and/or 

cumulative effects upon the following resources or topics that were brought to light through 

internal and external scoping and consideration for significance of any effects:

• Forest vegetation composition, structure, and density

• Fuels: Fire Regime Condition Class

• Amount and distribution of source habitat for rocky mountain elk, pileated woodpecker, 

marten, and three-toed woodpecker

• Economic issues: net present value of forest products
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

1-28 Umatilla National Forest

• Invasive plants

• Access management: road decommissioning 

• Inventoried Roadless Areas

• Soil resources

• Water quality / hydrologic function

• Recreation opportunities

• Threatened, Endangered, and/or Sensitive Plants

• Carbon emissions / climate change

A majority of the management area acres within the Sunrise project emphasize the management 

of wildlife and timber; therefore, treatments were designed to address the needs associated with

one or both of these resources. Some issues identified from scoping indicated possible 

unresolved conflicts. Specifically, the proposed action could negatively affect management 

indicator species by decreasing the quality, abundance, and distribution of habitat, due to 

decreased cover and security areas, as well as old forest distribution, old forest connectivity, and 

snag habitat. Measures for this issue include:

• Amount and distribution of elk cover and open roads 

• Amount, distribution, and connectivity of old forest 

• Amount and distribution of source habitat for pileated woodpecker, marten, and three-toed 

woodpecker

• Snag and down wood: range of variation analysis 

Issues Dismissed from Detailed Study

Following scoping, only one issue was omitted from detailed study because it did not meet the 

purpose and need or was outside of the scope and scale of the proposed project. Some comments 

addressed the possible effect of the Sunrise project on greenhouse gas emissions. This issue is 

addressed generally in Chapter 3, in relation to the Sunrise project area and vicinity because 

enough is known about the scope and scale of the Sunrise project relative to global emissions to 

determine that overall effects would be negligible in a global context. All other issues identified 

during scoping are considered in detail in this EIS.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 2-29

Chapter 2. Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

Three alternatives were selected for development along with design criteria and monitoring

elements associated with the alternatives. These alternatives will be described in this chapter 

with supporting information incorporated by reference in associated appendices. Maps showing 

activity areas described in action alternatives are located in Appendix A. The proposed action 

alternatives are limited to connected, similar, and cumulative actions (40 CFR 1508.25). Both 

action alternatives propose activities (prescribed landscape burning) that occur within a 

congressionally designated area: the Asotin Creek Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). No tree 

cutting will occur within that IRA. A finding that the action alternatives are consistent with 

specific direction and/or provisions in the enabling legislation is discussed in Chapter 3. 

2.2 Range of Alternatives

The phrase “range of alternatives” refers to the alternatives discussed in environmental 

documents. It includes all reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously explored and 

objectively evaluated as well as other alternatives, which are eliminated from detailed study with 

a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them [CFR 40.1502.14 ].

Both action alternatives respond to the project purpose and need to modify species composition, 

forest structure, fuel loading, and tree density through a combination of activities including tree 

cutting, mastication, tree planting, and pile, jackpot and landscape broadcast burning. Activities 

would occur over a 5-10 year period beginning in approximately 2019. No trees ≥21 inches in 

diameter at breast height (DBH) would be cut under this action alternative and no cutting would 

occur within PACFISH buffers. Alternative C includes the same types of activities as Alternative 

B, but tree-cutting and road-related activities would occur to a lesser degree. 

The alternatives for this project were designed to express a range of possible actions. The Interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed the range of alternatives and design criteria presented in this 

chapter. The type and scope of activities were determined by the project purpose and need, 

Forest Plan goals and objectives, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, requirements under the 

Endangered Species Act, and other Federal and State laws and regulations. 

The IDT recommended, and the responsible official approved, two action alternatives and a No 

Action alternative based on the information presented in Chapter 1. Alternative C was developed 

following the scoping period based on comments that identified possible effects of the proposed 

action on wildlife populations and habitat. A modified version of the proposed action - occurring 

over a smaller geographic area - was developed to reduce detrimental effects on habitat, yet still 

meet the project purpose and need. No other action alternatives were considered because none 

were proposed during scoping, and no other activities are known to modify vegetation and fuels 

in the manner required to meet the project purpose and need. The two action alternatives 

represent a range of possible extent that could reasonably be expected to alter vegetation and 

fuels characteristics to the degree indicated by current departures from desired conditions. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-30 Umatilla National Forest

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative A (No Action)

Purpose and Design

• No new management activities as proposed would occur.

• Current biological and physical processes would be allowed to continue along their present 

path along with associated risks and benefits and serve as a baseline for comparison with other 

alternatives.

• Responds to the requirement to consider a No Action alternative (40 CFR §1502.14 (d)). 

Description

Under the No Action alternative, no activities identified in the proposed action would occur and 

previously approved ongoing activities such as domestic cattle grazing, wildfire suppression 

and/or containment, firewood cutting, recreation, and road maintenance (including danger tree

removal) would continue. This alternative would allow timber stands, identified at this time as 

needing treatment, to progress through growth and successional processes at their own rate and 

in the absence of unsuppressed wildfires or human-caused ecological disturbances. Natural fuels 

would not be treated to reduce the risk of undesired wildfire intensity or allow for a safer 

environment for fire-fighting personnel during fire suppression. No tree cutting, tree planting,

fuels treatments for natural or activity fuels, landscape prescribed fire, or road decommissioning 

would be implemented to accomplish project goals.

Alternative B – Proposed Action – Preferred Alternative

Purpose and Design

Alternative B responds to the project purpose and need to modify species composition, forest 

structure, fuel loading, and tree density through a combination of activities including tree cutting, 

mastication, tree planting, and pile, jackpot and landscape broadcast burning. Activities would 

occur over a 5-10 year period beginning in approximately 2019. No trees ≥21 inches in diameter 

at breast height (DBH) would be cut under this action alternative and no cutting would occur 

within PACFISH buffers. The extent of activities for both Alternative B and C are described 

further at the end of this chapter. 

Alternative B is a modification of the alternative proposed during scoping, with the difference of 

acreages that have been adjusted to reflect additional field reviews and updated GIS information. 

Treatments in Alternative B respond to elements identified in the Purpose and Need (Chapter 1) 

and are designed to accomplish the following objectives, while complying with all applicable 

laws, rules, and regulations:

• Modify dry, moist, and cold upland forests to a species composition and structure compatible 

with the historical range of variability. Thinning treatments are used to reduce insect and 

disease susceptibility by improving tree and stand vigor. Regeneration treatments are used to 

improve upland forest sites where early-seral species are no longer present in ecologically 

viable amounts.

• Reduce fuel loading (surface, ladder, and canopy fuels) to a level that facilitates future 

reintroduction of low-intensity surface fire, reduce ladder and ground fuelsin natural fuel areas 

to lower the risk of fire spread into the upper canopy, and reduce fuels that would contribute 

to uncharacteristic wildfire intensity and resource damage.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 2-31

• Provide sawlogs and wood fiber products for utilization by local and regional industry.

• Continue to provide and manage wildlife habitat and its components (cover and forage).

• Reduce risk of personal injury by removing danger trees along haul routes used for timber sale 

activities. 

Description

Vegetation Treatments

Approximately 7,790 acres would be treated with either an intermediate cut (5,660 acres) or a 

regeneration (2,130 acres) tree-cutting activity in an effort to improve tree species composition, 

reduce tree density, and/or alter stand structure (see Appendix A for maps, Appendix B for a 

listing of units and treatments, and the Silviculture report for detailed descriptions of silvicultural 

activities and terminology definitions.). Approximately 5,530 acres of the tree-cutting treatments 

would include the removal of sawlogs and small-diameter trees (generally less than 9 or 10 

inches DBH) and /or excess down wood for use as woody biomass products. In most cases, 

treatments would be designed to promote underrepresented, early seral tree species such as 

ponderosa pine and western larch. No trees greater than or equal to 21 inches DBH would be cut

under this action alternative except for danger trees felled for safety concerns. Small tree 

removal may include mastication or hand thinning. Additionally, no cutting would occur within 

the PACFISH buffers. Approximately 2,130 acres would be reforested through three planning to 

help restore early seral tree species. Fuels treatments would reduce activity generated and 

existing natural fuels on 5,520 of harvest units. These treats may include lop and scatter, 

broadcast and underburning, as well as burning of excess activity generated fuels. 

Intermediate Cutting

Approximately 5,660 acres would be treated with an intermediate cut. These acres include some 

of the “small tree removal” activities described later in this section. Intermediate treatments in 

the Sunrise project would generally retain a forest meeting minimum stocking requirements and 

sufficient over-story density to preclude extensive tree germination and establishment. 

For dry-forest sites, intermediate cutting would be utilized to transform some of the 

overrepresented Douglas-fir cover type to the underrepresented ponderosa pine cover type. For 

moist-forest sites, intermediate cutting would transform some of the overrepresented grand fir 

and spruce-fir cover types to the underrepresented western larch, broadleaved species, and/or 

lodgepole pine cover types. Among dry and cold forest sites, intermediate cutting would be used 

to transform overrepresented understory reinitiation to currently underrepresented stem 

exclusion, and old forest multi-strata structure classes to old forest single-strata classes. 

Intermediate cutting would reduce tree density (stocking) levels for high and moderate-density 

stands on dry, moist, and cold forest sites, thereby increasing amounts of underrepresented 

moderate and low-density stand types. 

Within units designated for intermediate cutting, those identified as “high-retention” areas will 

be treated to maintain marginal or satisfactory wildlife cover and/or satisfactory cover for 

wildlife connectivity corridors. Approximately 2,210 unit acres have been identified for cover 

requirements, 1,372 (62%) of those acres will be hand-thinned and receive landscape-burning 

treatment only. The goal of the activities in high-retention units is to maintain marginal or 

satisfactory elk cover and/or wildlife habitat connectivity. 

Treatments in high-retention units would include small-tree thinning of trees 10 inch DBH or 

less, pruning, and treatment of surface fuels. Tree-felling would generally be limited to sub-
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-32 Umatilla National Forest

dominant or suppressed trees, surface fuels, or ladder fuels (small live or dead trees immediately 

adjacent to larger, older trees). Prescribed fire would also be implemented within high-retention 

units with higher canopy cover following the removal of trees. The desired prescribed fire effects 

include low overall burn severity within these units (generally less than 10% canopy reduction 

from fire-caused tree mortality), consumption of surface and lower-canopy fuels, promotion of 

sprouting hardwood vegetation, improvement of grass community vigor and density, and 

minimization of tree mortality caused by ladder fuel ignition. Duff pull-back from identified 

large old residual trees and landscape burning would be conducted in such a manner as to 

minimize the possibility of large, old pine mortality caused by smoldering duff consumption, 

following guidance provided in (Hood 2010, Progar et al. 2017). 

Regeneration Cutting

Approximately 2,130 acres would be treated with a regeneration cut. These acres include some 

of the “small tree removal” activities described later in this section. Regeneration cutting is 

defined as tree removal to assist regeneration already present (e.g. existing seedling and 

saplings), or to make new regeneration possible (Helms 1998). The Silviculture report contains 

general descriptions of silvicultural activities and terminology definitions. Regeneration cutting 

is proposed for upland-forest sites where early seral species (ponderosa pine, western larch, 

lodgepole pine) are no longer present in ecologically viable amounts. These stands are more 

advanced in ecological succession, and often exhibit high levels of insect or disease mortality. 

The existing stocking of mid or late seral species—primarily Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, 

grand fir or Douglas-fir—typically exceeds that of the early seral species. Many stands within 

the dry, moist, and cold upland forest sites have become dominated by shade-tolerant, late seral, 

fire-susceptible trees species such as grand fir, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and Douglas-fir.

For dry-forest sites, regeneration cutting would transform some of the overrepresented Douglasfir forest cover types to the underrepresented ponderosa pine cover type. For moist-forest sites, 

regeneration cutting would transform some of the overrepresented Douglas-fir forest cover type 

to the underrepresented western larch or lodgepole pine cover types. Regeneration cutting would 

convert some of the overrepresented subalpine fir and spruce cover types to underrepresented 

lodgepole pine cover types, as well as western larch, which is currently at the low end of the 

desired range.

Regeneration cutting would convert some of the overrepresented stem exclusion or understory

reinitiation structure classes to the underrepresented stand initiation structure classes, which 

would occur in dry, moist, and cold upland forests under this action alternative. It can also be 

used concurrently to move stands with moderate or high tree densities to low or moderate tree 

densities. 

For the Sunrise project, regeneration cutting would include individual-tree selection, group 

selection, shelterwood harvest, seed-tree harvest, or clearcutting methods. Depending on site and 

stand characteristics, regeneration cutting methods may result in the removal and/or retention of 

a variety of tree sizes, species, and density levels; the common element is that substantial 

amounts of tree germination and establishment are expected following the activity. In some 

cases, regeneration cutting methods such as individual-tree or group selection would retain stand 

of moderate density overall, but with enough gaps and openings to allow germination and 

establishment of a new tree cohort. The amount of retained overstory was predicted in the 

environmental analysis based on existing stand characteristics and anticipated cutting methods. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 2-33

Tree Planting within Regeneration Units

Approximately 2,130 acres are proposed for reforestation through tree planting. Tree planting is 

defined as “the establishment of trees by planting seedlings, transplants, or cuttings” (Dunster 

and Dunster 1996). Planting is proposed to improve tree composition for currently understocked 

stands, or to help provide desired (future) forest conditions in openings created by the 

regeneration cutting.

The planting proposed action responds to one of the upland forest issues identified in the purpose 

and need in Chapter 1. Planting would help restore early seral tree species (ponderosa pine, and 

western larch) and shrubs for both dry- and moist-forest sites. An emphasis on early seral species 

was included in the forest-wide standards and guidelines section of the Forest Plan (item C on 

page 4-73 in the Plan: “strong consideration should be given to maintenance of stands dominated 

by early successional species”), as well as the purpose and need section of this document.

Created openings resulting from Sunrise regeneration cutting, particularly those where natural 

regeneration might not be sufficient to meet requirements established by the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 and its regulations (NFMA; 16 U.S. C. 1604), would be planted with 

tree seedlings to reestablish an ecologically appropriate mix of early seral tree species, and to 

ensure that minimum stocking objectives from the Forest Plan are met within 5 years of final 

harvest, as required by 16 U.S.C. 1604 (E) (ii) .

Although not required by NFMA, native shrub seedlings would also be planted when doing so 

would help meet the desired future conditions of an area. Planting helps restore shrub 

populations that have been reduced or lost altogether due to intense ungulate herbivory (Riggs et 

al. 2000), or because of overstory shading caused by uncharacteristically high tree density 

(Hedrick et al. 1968).

Tree planting in regeneration units would meet the following minimum tree stocking guides 

listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 - Minimum Tree Stocking Standards

Average Stand Diameter After 

Harvest (Inches DBH)

Minimum Acceptable Stocking 

(Live Trees Per Acre)

Minimum Basal Area Stocking 

(Basal Area Per Acre)

<5" 100-200 14 - 27

6" 100 20

8" 80 28

10" 65 35

12" 45 35

14" 30 32

16" 25 35

18" 20 35

20" 15 33

21+" 12 29

Logging Systems

Timber harvest methods would include conventional ground-based logging (approximately 3,310 

acres) and skyline logging (approximately 2,210 acres). For all cutting units in which a 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-34 Umatilla National Forest

commercial product is removed, yarding systems could require either whole-tree yarding12 or 

leaving tops attached13 with de-limbing in the woods and leaving the activity slash. Conventional 

ground-based harvesting utilizes a crawler tractor or rubber-tired skidder that would operate on 

designated trails with selected spacing criteria. All equipment would be required to remain on 

designated skid trails. Skyline logging would occur in areas where topography is suitable and 

necessary for this type of logging. In a skyline system, logs would be felled and yarded up the 

hill partially or fully suspended by a system of cables to reduce soil disturbance and improve 

economic efficiency. Skyline systems utilize only hand-felling of trees, while conventional 

ground-based systems may utilize a tracked caterpillar feller-buncher, or hand-felling. Harvest 

units with a chip/biomass component may utilize a chipper/grinder at the landing to process and 

load material to chip trucks for delivery to production facilities. 

Fuels Treatments 

Fuel treatments are proposed to reduce activity generated fuels and existing natural fuels in the 

5,520 acres of harvest units. They are also designed to modify ladder and surface fuels outside of 

harvest units to lower the risk of fire spreading into the upper tree canopy, and in areas where 

fuels would contribute to undesired/uncharacteristic wildfire intensity and resource damage. Fuel 

treatments include the following activities, alone or in combination. 

• Whole Tree Yarding: The entire tree above the stump including non-merchantable material 

(tops and limbs) will be yarded to the landing. Once at the landing this material that doesn’t 

meet merchantable specifications may be utilized for woody biomass products or burned. 

• Lop and Scatter: In areas where non-merchantable tops and limbs would be left, boles would 

be cut to less than six feet in length and limbs would be severed from bole and scattered to 

prevent fuel bed depth from exceeding two feet in depth.

• Jackpot burning: Burning of slash concentrations would be utilized to reduce excess slash 

generated in harvest units. Jackpot burning would be accomplished utilizing hand ignition 

methods. Harvest units located in landscape prescribed fire areas may require jackpot burning 

prior to landscape prescribed fire to reduce heavy slash concentrations.

• Broadcast and Under Burning: Low intensity prescribed fire would be applied to a broad 

area using hand ignition devices. This method would be used to favor early seral, fire resistant 

species composition and structure while reducing surface and ladder fuels. Under burning 

would be used to reduce activity and natural fuels in harvest units to reduce activity slash and 

create regeneration/planting spots.

• Grapple Piling: Slash generated by timber harvest will be mechanically piled in units where 

prescribed fire would not be effective to reduce activity slash or to create planting spots for 

regeneration. Both naturally occurring woody debris and activity generated fuels may be piled. 

Chainsaws may be used to compact material in the pile and throughout the unit to cut logs in 

lengths that are more easily piled. Pile size would vary and will be burned.

• Landing Pile Burning: Hand ignition of landing and grapple piles would occur when the 

threat of fire spreading from the pile location would be minimal. Pile specifications would 

ensure that pile burning would have minimal damage to residual trees in the stand. Large 

 

12 Whole-tree yarding – Tops (with limbs) will be left attached to the last log and yarded to the landing, where piled 

and burned. 

13 Leave tops attached: a contract provision requiring that felled trees meeting minimum merchantability specifications 

are limbed to the minimum top diameter inside bark, bucked according to length, with the final log yarded with the unlimbed tree top attached, and which is processed at the landing. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 2-35

landings piles that could create areas of bare soil would be replanted to native grasses.

Small Tree Removal

Small tree removal activities are included as part of the intermediate and regeneration cutting 

activities described earlier in this section. Small tree removal would be used to remove 

understory trees in an effort to reduce ladder fuels, decrease stand density, and potentially 

provide woody biomass products for local industry. Removal of ladder fuels would increase 

canopy base height and deter the initiation of a crown fire within the treated stand. Increased 

spacing of trees (reduced canopy bulk density) would result in bringing a crown fire that was 

initiated outside the stand back to the ground. Fire tolerant species (ponderosa pine, western 

larch, and Douglas-fir) would be favored as leave trees where they occur. 

In dry forest stands where under burning would follow harvest, it may be necessary to treat the

<10 inch material prior to burning so that it does not function as ladder fuel. Stands that are 

mechanically thinned would have an increased fire hazard until the resulting fuels abated either 

naturally or with prescribed fire. The needles and smaller branches would fall from severed 

stems after the first 2 to 3 years. Snow pack would help compact smaller fuels, resulting in lower 

fire potential. Methods used for small tree removal are:

• Mechanical Thinning (Mastication): Consists of the cutting and mulching of trees 10 inches 

or less DBH. This treatment would be comparable to the intermediate cutting described above, 

except that trees and/or shrubs would be cut and mulched on-site as opposed to being removed 

for a commercial product.

• Manual (hand) Thinning: This activity would cut trees measuring less than 10 inches DBH

that are in excess to full stocking. Undesired trees and fuels would be slashed by hand and 

scattered. Slash would be treated so that the resulting height of surface fuels is no greater than 

two feet in depth. Fire-tolerant species (ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas fir) would 

be favored as leave trees where they occur. This activity may include the transfer of activity 

fuels from the base of residual and or reserve trees, and removal of ladder fuels from residual 

and or reserve trees. This may occur in landscape prescribed fire activity units, if needed, to 

reduce mortality to residual and or reserve trees. 

Landscape Prescribed Fire

Landscape prescribed fire would occur across approximately 14,055 acres within Sunrise 

planning area. This treatment would reintroduce fire within the project area’s low severity and 

mixed severity (Fire Regime I and III)14 fire-dependent ecosystems, treating about 60 percent of 

the prescribed fire area to lessen the impact of a future uncharacteristic wildfire and improve 

forage quality for big game, by reducing surface and ladder fuels, and duff accumulations, and 

enhancing fire-tolerant trees species. Fire intensities would be kept low by establishing backing 

fires to minimize fire in the canopy, and burning mainly surface and ladder fuels throughout the 

majority of the prescribed fire area. Individual tree and group torching would likely occur in 

areas where there are sufficient ladder fuels, and in timber stands where there are high 

occurrences of mistletoe infected trees.

All landscape prescribed fire areas are accessible by forest roads, but due to the steep terrain and 

natural fuel breaks, such as ridges and rock outcroppings, handline will be utilized along 

 

14 Landscape prescribed burning proposed in fire regime 4 is only because of its adjacency to fire regime 1 and 3 

prescribed fire areas and is being included for holding purposes. The intent is to reintroduce and/or perpetuate fire in 

fire regime 1 and 3 which historically experienced low to mixed severity fire and 5 to 100 year fire return intervals.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-36 Umatilla National Forest

landscape prescribed fire area perimeters. The 14,055 acres proposed for prescribed burning are 

divided into four landscape prescribed fire areas (see Appendix A). These four areas would be 

divided further into burn blocks and may take multiple prescribed fire entries over multiple years 

to complete. Hand fireline and blackline will be utilized along burn area and burn block 

perimeters to control or stop the progression of fire. Blacklining methods would be completed by 

hand (manual methods) and in some areas by aerial ignition methods. Aerial and hand ignition 

would be utilized to ignite and establish backing fires in prescribed fire areas and burn block 

interiors. 

Danger Tree Removal

A danger tree is defined as any standing tree that presents hazard to people due to conditions 

such as, but not limited to, deterioration or physical damage to the root system, trunk, stem, or 

limbs and the direction or lean of the tree (FSH 6709.11). Along roadways, danger trees would 

be evaluated in accordance with the Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response, 

Pacific Northwest Region, 2008. Hazard trees around trailheads would be evaluated in the 

context of Long Range Planning for Developed Sites in the Pacific Northwest: The Context of 

Hazard Tree Management, Pacific Northwest Region, 1992. A tree’s potential failure zone is the 

area that could be reached by any part of a failed tree. This is generally one and one-half tree 

lengths, but can vary depending on slope, tree height, lean, individual tree characteristics, and 

other factors. 

Danger trees would be felled and removed along all haul routes used for timber sale activity and 

around trailheads. Only danger trees with an imminent failure potential would be felled on 

closed system roads. Trees with an imminent failure potential and those deemed likely to fail 

within a 5-10 year period would be felled along open system roads except for sections of Forest 

Roads (FRs) 4400, 4300, and 4304 that separate Asotin Creek and Wenatchee Creek Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRAs) from the project planning area. Only danger trees with an imminent 

failure potential will be removed from these sections of road that are adjacent to the IRAs. (See 

Danger Trees in Glossary for definitions of imminent failure and likely to fail). Danger tree 

removal, for public safety, is part of Forest Service general road maintenance for these roads. 

Danger tree removal is currently occurring where needed on these roads, and danger trees will 

continue to be removed from 300 feet on each side of Forest Roads 4400, 4300, and 4304 as long 

as they remain open for public use. If considered economically feasible, danger trees would be 

sold as part of a timber sale. Danger trees within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) 

would be felled and left to provide additional coarse woody debris.

Road Management

To accomplish implementation of proposed harvest activities approximately 52 miles of seasonal 

open system roads (operational maintenance level 215 and 316) and about 37 miles of closed 

system roads (operational maintenance level 117), would be used as haul routes on NFS lands. 

Closed system roads used for project activities would not be opened to the public during project 

activities. All system roads would remain the same after project implementation; closed roads 

would continue to be closed, and open roads would continue with preexisting designations. 

Approximately 14 miles of temporary roads would be constructed, of which 8 miles would be 

constructed over previous road templates. All temporary roads would be decommissioned after 

 

15 Operational maintenance level 2 – The operational objective is for high clearance vehicles. 16 Operational maintenance level 3 – The operational objective is for passenger vehicles – road surface is not smooth. 17 Operational maintenance level 1 – The operational objective is closed more than 1 year.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger Districts 2-37

project activity use. No new system road construction is proposed. Detailed maps of the 

proposed activities are included in Appendix A. Road information is summarized by alternative

in the Recreation section in Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

Two existing rock sources would be used during project activities. One rock sources is located in 

T9N, R42E, S32, and the other in T7N, R44E S5, just north of the junction of FR 4304 and FR 

4305. Three water sources would be utilized; first source in T8N, R42E, S4, second source on 

FR 4302 in T8N, R43E, S28, and third source located at one of the named rock sources, is 

located in T9N., R42E., S32. All water sources would require a moderate amount of 

development to permit water use for road maintenance. Any Alternate rock sources used would 

not require expansion, but would be within an existing rock source. 

Alternative C

Alternative C was developed to more effectively respond to the key issue of wildlife habitat. 

This was due to the potential for negative effects on elk distribution and habitat quality due to 

decrease cover and security areas. This Alternative would also respond to the issues of old forest 

distribution, old forest connectivity, and snag habitat.

The types of treatment activities within Alternative C are the same as Alternative B. Alternative 

C, however, proposes fewer harvest acres and therefore, fewer roads would be needed to access 

these acres. There would be 940 acres of regeneration cutting activities, and 3,880 acres of 

intermediate cutting activities. The 940 acres of regeneration cutting would be replanted. Harvest 

would occur 2,550 acres (1,640 acres ground-based and 910 acres skyline). The same fuels 

treatment as Alternative B will be used on the smaller 2,550 acres of harvest. There would be 3

fewer miles of temporary roads. Activity within the winter range are the same as Alternative B, 

including small diameter tree cutting, fuels treatments and tree planning. 

Landscape burning would occur over the same number of acres as Alternative B. 

In response scoping issues and management direction to provide greater elk security within the 

project area, a change in closure date for road 4000-360 is proposed in order to enhance the elk 

security area. The closing date of this road would change from October 11 to August 1. The road 

would be open to motor vehicles April 1 to July 31. The first mile of the road will remain open 

year-round. 

Activity acres, miles, or board-feet for each action alternative for the Sunrise project are shown 

in Table 2-2.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-38 Umatilla National Forest

Table 2-2. Activity acres, miles, or board-feet for each management alternative for the Sunrise 

project. Alternative A is the No-Action Alternative.

Activity Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Tree-cutting activities (Acres)

Intermediate cutting methods – thinning (free or low thin) 

and improvement cutting (Both alternatives include 2,210 

acres of units with a high-retention prescription)

0 5,660 3,880

Regeneration cutting – individual-tree selection, group 

selection, shelterwood or seed-tree, or clearcutting

methods

0 2,130 940

Tree-Planting 0 2,130 940

Economics

Cutting areas of likely positive appraised value (acres) 0 5,520 2,550

Cutting areas of marginal or negative appraised value 

(acres) 0 2,270 2,270

Commercial timber volume (thousand board-feet / MBF) 0 26,500 12,100

Cutting/harvest Systems (Acres)

Hand-felling, lop/scatter slash 0 2,270 2,270

Conventional ground-based (tractor or skidder) 0 3,310 1,640

Skyline 0 2,210 910

Fuels Treatments (Acres)

Whole-tree yarding/ landing-pile burning 0 5,520 2,550

Mechanical grapple-piling and burning 0 1070 330

Manual (hand) thinning / lop and scatter 0 1,680 1,150

Mechanical thinning (slash-buster/mastication) 0 590 590

Broadcast/jackpot burning of activity fuels 0 880 600

Landscape prescribed burning 0 14,055 14,055

Transportation and Access (Miles)

Gated closed roads opened for haul or project vehicle 

access, then reclosed 0 39 34

Temporary roads constructed on new template (prism) and 

post-harvest decommissioning 0 6 3

Temporary roads constructed on existing template (prism) 

and post-harvest decommissioning 0 8 5

4100-300 road closure changed to August 1 to March 31 N N Y

Note: Acres values are approximate and rounded to nearest 10 acres. Mile values are approximate and rounded to the nearest 1 mile. 

Intermediate cutting methods acres listed under Tree-Cutting Activities includes thinning and/or burning activities also listed under Fuels 

Treatments. Fuels treatments may occur alone or in combination.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 2-39

2.4 Project Design Criteria 

Management requirements are established to protect natural resources and the quality of the 

human environment, and include standards and practices incorporated into planned activities.

The project design criteria (PDCs) listed in the following table include standards and/or practices 

that the IDT developed during project planning and analysis to address site-specific 

environmental and resource concerns not sufficiently addressed by existing management 

requirements. PDC’s are specific actions designed to address site-specific environmental or 

resource concerns that were not sufficiently addressed by existing management requirements. 

PDC’s occur during or after project implementation and can include avoiding the effect, 

minimizing the effect by limiting the action, rectifying the effect, reducing the effect through 

maintenance, or compensating for the effect. Additionally, Best Management Practices (BMP’s) 

are a standard set of general guidelines used throughout the Forest Service that are primarily 

intended to provide protections for water and aquatic resources. For purposes of clarity and 

simplicity, BMPs have been added to PDCs in a single table (Table 2-3). The project design 

criteria and BMPs apply to all action alternatives. 

Table 2-3. Project Design Criteria by Resource Objective

Design 

Criteria Description

RHCA-1

Stream and riparian protection is based on the Forest Plan as amended by PACFISH. PACFISH 

standards and guidelines related to timber harvest, roads, and fire apply to this project and are 

incorporated by reference into this document. No harvest, landings, noncommercial thinning or slash

piling will take place in RHCAs which are described below as they apply to this project. 

Category 1 - Fish-bearing streams: RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on either side of the 

stream extending 300 feet slope distance from the edges of the active stream channel. 

Category 2 - Perennial non-fish-bearing streams: RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on 

either side of the stream extending 150 feet slope distance from the edges of the active stream channel.

Category 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: RHCAs consist of the 

body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or the extent of the 

seasonally saturated soil, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of 

constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest.

Category 4 - Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, landslides, 

and landslide-prone areas: This category includes criteria with high variability in size and site-specific 

characteristics. At a minimum the RHCAs must include: the area from the edges of the stream channel,

wetland, landslide, or land-slide prone area to a distance equal to 100 feet. 

RHCA-2 Trees may be felled in RHCAs when they pose a safety risk. If possible, keep all trees on site to meet 

woody material objectives. 

RHCA-3 Prescribed Fire will not be ignited in RHCAs but will be allowed to back into RHCAs (see Protection of 

fish habitat for additional guidelines).

WQ-1

Implement and monitor Best Management Practices (BMPs) and incorporate findings into project 

implementation (See Appendix C for a listing of BMPs selected for project implementation along with 

effectiveness rating).

WQ-2

Ground based equipment will only cross ephemeral draws and channels at sites pre-approved by the 

responsible Forest official, and crossings will be minimized.

Harvest systems will be designed to minimize crossing ephemeral draws. Ephemeral draws will not be 

crossed where equipment will cause bank breakdown. Woody debris or rock may be placed into 

crossings to reduce soil disturbance and compaction. 

All embedded wood will be retained. Other wood will be retained as specified in project design criteria for 

Wildlife.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-40 Umatilla National Forest

Design 

Criteria Description

WQ-3 Ephemeral stream channels will not be used as forwarder trails, landing sites, or as road locations.

WQ-4

As referenced under timber sale contract standard provisions B(T)6.5 “Stream course Protection and 

B(T)6.6 “Erosion Prevention and Control”, commercial use of National Forest roads shall be suspended 

when commercial contract or permit operations create movement of sediment laden water from the road 

surface in areas where it could flow into stream channels. This may be from pumping of saturated fines 

by passage of commercial or contract vehicles, creating sediment laden water on the road surface 

during rain or snowmelt periods.

WQ-5

Timber sale purchaser will prepare a spill containment plan that will ensure that spilled fuel will not leave 

the site. Fuel will not be stored within any RHCA. Refueling, repair, and maintenance of equipment will 

be done at landings or on forest roads outside of RHCAs.

WQ-6 Where the proposed haul routes encounter wet areas, new drainage structures and surface rock will be 

installed.

WQ-7

Proposed temporary roads will have drainage installed if retained over-winter. Upon completion of 

project activity, roads will be obliterated using criteria in WQ-9. Berms will be pulled into the roadbed and 

re-contoured, and the road will be revegetated with native seed and mulched with existing slash. Road 

entrances may be camouflaged to discourage use.

WQ-8

Installation and removal of culverts on Forest Road 4027016 would be bedded on native material, placed 

on natural stream grades and occur under dry conditions; slopes would be pulled back to a stable angle 

and soils stabilized as described in WQ-9.

WQ-9

The following design criteria will be used for road obliteration/decommissioning:

a) Where decommissioning crosses draws or channels, work will be done when channels are dry.

b) Draws will be contoured to match upstream and downstream channel features including: 

gradient, bankful width and channel cross-section, and floodplain.

c) Re-contoured draws will be seeded with local, weed free native seed and mulched with on-site 

material or weed free straw or hay.

d) Roadbeds will be de-compacted and drained as necessary to prevent erosion.

e) Where full re-contour does not occur, remaining fill will be stabilized.

f) Where re-contouring occurs reconnect the surface of the cut bank slope with the re-contoured 

fill slope

Objective: Protection of Fish Habitat

FISH-1

When drafting water, sources will be monitored for reduced flows. During low flow (less than 5 cfs) 

conditions, spring-fed ponds will be used as sources prior to the use of stream sources whenever 

feasible. If spring-fed ponds are not feasible, stream sources can be used but pumping rates must not 

reduce flows to less than 5 cfs. If the stream has less than 10 cfs, stream flow cannot be reduced more 

than 1/10th of the existing stream flow and will discontinue drafting if this amount is exceeded.

FISH-2

During road maintenance and snow plowing side casting of materials will not occur where these 

materials could be directly or indirectly introduced into a stream, or where the placement of these 

materials could contribute to the destabilization of the slope.

FISH-3

Slough and waste materials removed during road maintenance activities, including ditch and culvert 

cleaning, will be deposited in approved disposal areas outside of RHCAs. For erosion control and 

stabilization the disposal site will be seeded with native species. 

FISH-4 Ditches will only be maintained where the water captured by the ditch is not able to be transported to the 

adjacent drainage structure that carries the water across the road.

FISH-5 Prescribed fire will not be ignited within 600 feet of fish bearing streams in the North Fork Asotin Creek 

subwatershed to maintain overstory shade in RHCAs.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 2-41

Design 

Criteria Description

Objective: Protection of soil during burning

SOIL-1 Retain as much duff as possible, while meeting fuel reduction objectives to control erosion and provide 

organic matter.

SOIL-2 For jackpot or underburning, soil exposure will be limited to 20 percent or less of the area on slopes 

greater than 35%.

SOIL-3 Within RHCA mechanical fuels treatment areas soil exposure will be limited to 10 percent or less.

Objective: Erosion control on fire lines

SOIL-4

Fireline construction will only occur where necessary. Any fireline constructed will be to minimal standard 

needed to complete prescribed burning. Locations will be evaluated post-harvest. Water bars will be 

installed along fireline and all firelines will be seeded after project completion, as needed.

Objective: Soil protection and erosion control

SOIL-5 All logging systems will provide at least one-end suspension.

SOIL-6

Yarding will be spaced for optimum efficiency and minimum soil disturbance. Forwarder trails will 

average 50 feet apart, except where converging. Conventional system trail spacing will average 100 

feet. Skyline system corridors will average 100 feet apart. All trails will be approved prior to use.

SOIL-7 Use existing trail system as much as possible. Ground based equipment will operate when soil 

conditions are dry enough to support machinery adequately. 

SOIL-8 No ground-based equipment will operate on sustained slopes greater than 35% in order to reduce the 

potential for soil movement. 

SOIL-9 Minimize exposure of soils and keep erosion control current. 

SOIL-10 Landings will be designed and constructed to minimize size and provide for safe operations. 

SOIL-11

Erosion control measures will occur on all skid trails and landings, as specified under timber sale 

contract provisions B (T) 6.67 and C (T) 6.6#. Seed soil exposed by contract operations using native 

seed. Subsoil, waterbar, and mulch using existing slash as necessary to prevent erosion. 

SOIL-12 Temporary roads (Alternatives B and D) - install drainage if roads remain over-winter and will be 

decommissioned following use.

SOIL-13 If using mechanical treatment methods utilize low ground pressure equipment and existing skid trails 

wherever possible.

SOIL-14 Avoid ground equipment operations (including ATV and truck driving and parking) on unstable, wet or 

easily compacted soils and steep slopes as described per Umatilla Forest Plan.

SOIL-15 Retain sufficient slash/biomass material to provide organic matter and nutrients commensurate with 

existing technical recommendations. 

Objective: Control and prevention of invasive plants

INPLT-1

Invasive plant sites will be treated consistent with the 2005 Region 6 Invasive Plant FEIS and ROD that 

amended the Umatilla Forest Plan in March, 2006, and the July 2010 Umatilla National Forest Invasive 

Plant Treatment Project FEIS and ROD.

INPLT-2

All gravel, fill, sand stockpiles, quarry sites, and borrow material will be inspected for the presence of 

invasive plants before use and transport. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that are judged to be weed 

seed free by District or Forest weed specialist.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-42 Umatilla National Forest

Design 

Criteria Description

INPLT-3 Road blading, brushing, and ditch cleaning in areas with high concentrations of invasive plants will be 

conducted in consultation with District or Forest-level invasive plant specialists. 

INPLT-4 Invasive plant treatment and prevention practices will be incorporated as appropriate. 

INPLT-5 Project or contract maps will show currently inventoried high priority noxious weed infestations as a 

means of aiding in avoidance and/or monitoring.

INPLT-6

Prior to moving onto the Forest, reasonable measures will be taken to insure that all off-road equipment 

is free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds. In addition, prior 

to moving off-road equipment from a cutting unit known to be infested with invasive species to any other 

unit that is believed to be free of noxious weeds, reasonable measures will again be taken to make sure 

equipment is free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds 

(timber sale contract provision B/BT 6.35 or equivalent provision).

INPLT-7

Use state certified weed-free straw and mulch for all projects conducted or authorized by the Forest 

Service on National Forest System Lands. If state certified straw and/or mulch is not available, individual 

forests should require sources certified to be weed-free using the North American Weed Free Forage

Program standards, or a similar certification process.

INPLT-8 Soils disturbed by project activities will be revegetated with certified weed-free native seed.

INPLT-9 Logging system design will consider the objectives of maintaining ground cover and minimizing ground 

disturbance. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for ground and soil disturbance will be followed.

INPLT-10 Landings and parking areas will be located outside known areas of invasive plants. If no other location is 

feasible the site will be surveyed and treated for noxious weeds prior to use. 

Objective: Consistency with the Clean Air Act

AIR-1 Washington State Smoke Management Plan regulations will be followed to protect air quality, avoid 

smoke intrusion into sensitive areas, and be consistent with the Clean Air Act.

Objective: protection of cultural resources

ARCH-1

Historic properties will either be avoided by all project activities (this includes access to treatment areas 

and landing sites) or by site-specific mitigation measures approved by the assistant Forest Archeologist 

and SHPO.

ARCH-2 Since some project activities will be implemented over multiple years, project leaders will contact the 

North Zone Archaeologist prior to project implementation for monitoring and avoidance purposes.

Objective: Populations of Federally listed and Forest Service designated sensitive plant species and 

unique plant habitats.

BOT-1

Populations of Federally listed and Forest Service designated sensitive plant species that are in, or near, 

areas with proposed ground disturbing activities shall be designated as “Special Management Areas” 

(SMAs). These sites shall be buffered and protected from all ground disturbances. Vehicle and 

equipment parking, log decking, yarding, slash piling and burning, and construction of fire lines shall be 

prohibited within these areas. SMAs shall be clearly marked on sale maps, and on implementation 

planning maps. SMAs may be flagged on the ground prior to treatment. A botanist may assist with unit 

layout in areas where the SMAs occur. Aerial, hand, or vehicle-based fire ignition in areas with 

populations of sensitive plants may be done in consultation with a botanist. This would depend upon the 

particular species expected response to fire. 

Any additional populations of Federally listed and FS sensitive plants discovered during field surveys 

shall be evaluated for the need to be designated as SMAs.

Timber sale administrator and/or implementing staff shall notify botany staff when activities are 

scheduled to begin in areas where SMAs are designated.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 2-43

Design 

Criteria Description

BOT-2

Pre-implementation monitoring of selected high probability habitats for Federally listed and Forest 

Service designated sensitive plants shall be conducted in specific areas of proposed activities. These 

shall be determined based upon potential habitat and the potential risk to rare plants due to the 

proposed activities.

BOT-3

All documented, and any newly discovered, populations of Spalding’s catchfly shall be excluded from all 

burning activities. Routes for motorized off road access in Spalding’s catchfly habitat shall be 

preapproved by qualified botany personnel. All proposed fire-lines in Spalding’s catchfly habitat shall be 

field surveyed and approved by qualified botany personnel.

BOT-4

Protect unique habitats: lithosols (scablands), seeps, springs, wallows, and wetland areas (including wet 

meadows) from harvest activities. Buffer riparian and wetland areas in accordance with PACFISH

buffers. Log decking, piling, and burning of slash piles shall not occur in these areas. If caves, cliff faces, 

or other unique habitats not listed above are encountered during recon or layout, their value to wildlife 

and botany would be evaluated, and appropriate protection, as determined by the District Wildlife 

Biologist and botanist, would be provided.

Objective: 

FUELS Slash will not be piled against large trees or snags to prevent loss from prescribed fire.

FUELS

Where open, park-like conditions occurred historically (pre-settlement areas characterized by frequent, 

low-severity fire regimes), maintain such conditions by implementing intermediate treatments and/or 

emphasize the removal of fire-intolerant species. 

VEG-1 Maintain all live trees ≥ 21" dbh that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities.

VEG-2 All prescriptions in existing old forest will emphasize the retention of individual trees and tree species 

sufficient to maintain or attain minimum requirements for old forest, as described in the Forest Plan.

VEG-3

In stands that do not meet current late and old structural conditions, manipulate vegetative structure in 

such a manner that moves it towards those conditions, as appropriate to meet HRV within the applicable 

biophysical environment of the forest vegetation affected environment.

VEG-4

For even-aged stands on lands identified as suited for timber production and where timber production is 

the primary purpose for the harvest, do not prescribe regeneration activities unless stand-level growth 

has reached the culmination of mean annual increment.

WILD Prescriptions for habitat connectivity corridors must ensure the retention of some amount of understory

(if any occurs) left in patches or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover.

WILD Leave all hollow or partially hollow, broken-top snags greater than 15 inches DBH to provide roost 

habitat for bats. Dead grand fir most commonly provides hollow tree habitat.

WILD

Protect goshawk nests from disturbance if any are located during project activities. Defer harvest on 30 

acres of the most suitable nesting habitat around nest sites. Retain late and old structure forest in a 400-

acre post-fledging area (PFA) as determined by the District wildlifewildlife biologist. Defer activities in 

active PFAs from April through August.

WILD Seeps, springs, bogs, wallows, and other wet areas will be evaluated and protection measures 

determined by the District wildlife biologist (Forest Plan pages 4-57, 4-160).

WILD If cliffs, talus or cave habitat is found, protection measures will be determined by the District wildlife 

biologist. (Forest Plan pages 4-57)
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-44 Umatilla National Forest

Design 

Criteria Description

WILD

Retain all snags 20 inches DBH and larger, except for hazard trees. If there are less than 3 large snags 

per acre available, smaller snags will be retained to meet 3 per acre. Maintain down wood habitat and 

green replacement trees at or beyond levels identified below. Tree species and soundness at the base 

will also be considered. The tree species most preferred are ponderosa pine, western larch, and 

Douglas-fir. Specific design criteria for snags, green tree replacements, and down wood are as follows: 

Ponderosa 

pine

Mixed 

conifer Grand fir Lodgepole pine

Subalpine 

zone

Leave all snags 20 inches dbh and 

larger. If unavailable, leave at least 3 

per acre over 10 inches dbh.

All > 20 All > 20 All > 20 All > 20 All > 20

Green Tree Replacements (per acre) 16 16 9 14 19

Down Wood Pieces (per acre) 3 - 6 15 - 20 15 - 20

Diameter at the small end > 12 

inches > 12 inches > 8 inches

Length per piece > 6 feet > 6 feet > 8 feet

Total length per acre > 20 feet > 100 feet > 120 feet

WILD

Protect known or discovered raptor nest sites from management and human disturbances until fledging 

has been completed. Level of protection will vary by species and will be recommended by the District 

wildlife biologist (Forest Plan pages 4-57).

WILD Prescriptions for habitat connectivity corridors must maintain abundant medium diameter or larger trees, 

with total canopy closures within the top one-third (33%) of site potential.

WILD Do not create forest openings18 through even-aged cutting methods that exceed 40 acres in size, unless 

allowed by exceptions provided in the Forest Plan.

SCEN-1

Create natural appearing opening(s) when viewed individually and a natural appearing mosaic when 

viewed within the broader landscape.

a) Created openings and treatment units should not be symmetrical, or geometric in shape. 

b) Straight lines and right angles should be avoided. 

c) Created openings should resemble the size and shape of those found in the surrounding 

natural landscape. 

d) Treatments should follow natural topographic breaks and changes in vegetation. 

e) Where small landforms exist, consider treating the entire landform rather than creating artificial 

lines and patterns. 

f) Along sensitive roadways, vary unit sizes, widths, shapes and distance from the center line. 

SCEN-2

Create natural appearing transition between treated and untreated vegetation.

a) Utilize natural breaks in topography and vegetation type to delineate treatment edges. 

b) Edges will be shaped and/or feathered to avoid a shadowing effect in the cut unit. 

c) Where the unit is adjacent to denser forest, the percent of thinning within the transition zone 

will be progressively reduced toward the outside edge of the unit. In addition, vary the width of 

the transition zone. 

 

18 A harvested area is considered a created opening for timber management when the prescribed crop tree stocking is below minimum 

acceptable levels and trees are at or below 4 1⁄2 feet in height and/or not free to grow.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 2-45

Design 

Criteria Description

d) Where the unit interfaces with an opening, the percent of thinning within the transition zone will 

be progressively increased toward the outside edge of the unit. In addition, vary the width of 

the transition zone. 

e) Soften edges by thinning adjacent to existing unit boundaries, removing taller, older trees and 

favoring younger ones. 2 This will reduce a vertical wall effect. 

f) Treatment boundaries should extend up and over ridgelines to avoid the “Mohawk” look. This 

is especially important along ridgelines silhouetted against the sky. 

g) Avoid widely spaced trees that are silhouetted along the skyline. 

h) Consider leaving single trees and/or groups of trees to visually connect with the unit’s edges.

SCEN-3

Minimize patterns created by implementation and maintain natural appearing mosaic of vegetation 

across the landscape.

a) Where multiple clear cuts are planned, vary the size and spacing across the project area. 

b) Interlock individual openings to prevent artificial, isolated openings unrelated to topography or 

natural disturbance processes. 

SCEN-4

Maximize diversity of species and age class that are within the landscape’s natural range of 

variation/Forest Plan Desired Condition. 

a) Where feasible, leave a diversity of species and age classes.

b) Leave healthy, windthrow-resistant trees and groups of trees to add variety and interest. 

c) A range of stem diameters should be left where compatible with silvicultural objectives. 

SCEN-5

Minimize long-term visual effects of access roads, skid trails, and landings.

a) Side cast topsoil during the construction of temporary roads and use for later obliteration and 

recontouring. 

b) Where new access roads and skid trails meet FSRD 40, they should intersect at a right angle 

and, where feasible, curve after the junction to minimize the length of route seen from the 

primary travel route. 

c) Where feasible, retain screening trees one tree-height below roads and landings (including 

cable landings) when viewed from below. Avoid creating a straight edge of trees by saving 

clumps of trees and single trees with varied spacing.

d) When viewed from above, retain, screening trees one tree-height above roads and landings 

and/or prescribe a higher leave basal area. Avoid creating a straight edge of trees by saving 

clumps of trees and single trees with varied spacing.

e) Log landings, roads, gravel pits, borrow areas, and bladed skid trails should be minimized 

within the FSRD 40 viewshed.

SCEN-6

Minimize slash piles and residue that appears man-made. 

a) Ensure slash is abated near landings by scattering, chipping, or other techniques.

b) In sensitive foreground areas, stumps should be cut to 6 inches or less in height, in immediate 

foreground, stumps should be cut to 2 inches or less in height.

c) Slash, root wads, and other debris will be removed, buried, burned, chipped or lopped to a 

height of 2 feet or less in sensitive view sheds. If slash is buried, locate in previously disturbed 

areas where possible.

SCEN-7

Minimize the long term visual effects of skyline operations. 

a) Minimize the number of skyline corridors in visually sensitive areas. 

SCEN-8

Maintain a forest floor that appears natural and clear of excessive debris.

a) In the immediate foreground (300 feet from FSRD 40Fuel loadings meeting reforestation and 

wildlife standards in middleground and background areas will normally be compatible with the 

visual objectives.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

2-46 Umatilla National Forest

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed

Analyses

After consideration of all scoping comments as well as internal analysis, the three alternatives 

discussed in this chapter were finalized. There were no other alternatives proposed for 

consideration and subsequently dismissed. 

2.6 Monitoring Framework

Monitoring for both implementation (whether the project was implemented as planned) and 

effectiveness (whether overall management objectives were met) would occur. Design criteria 

and Best Management Practices are incorporated into the project (Table 2-3). 

Any action which might occur in this planning area will be considered for monitoring in the 

Umatilla National Forest annual BMP monitoring. District staff will conduct monitoring in areas 

that have the highest probability of showing effects. 

• RHCA widths in harvest units, road maintenance work, and road use and maintenance during 

wet weather are items that will be monitored. 

• The Forest Service contract representative or other staff will monitor during and after activities 

to insure sediment and soil disturbance objectives are met. If objectives are not met, Forest 

Service personnel will identify and implement corrective action and document modifications 

to be used in future projects. 

• Number, size, and distribution of snags and down logs within a sample of units will be field 

checked by Forest Service personnel. 

• Known invasive plant locations are identified prior to activities and will be re-assessed after 

project implementation where applicable. 

• After prescribed fire treatments, Forest Service fire and fuel personnel will field check a 

sample of burned units to determine whether the prescription objectives (i.e. mortality, mineral 

soil exposure, fuel load reductions, etc.) have been met. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-47

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This Environmental Consequences Chapter analyzes both beneficial and adverse effects that 

would result from implementing any of the alternatives considered in this DEIS. In 

accomplishment of these analyses, each resource section will describe the affected environment

specific to that resource, as well as the effect analysis of each alternative, resource specific 

mitigation measures, and the cumulative effects. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions and affected environment of area resources are 

also mentioned, as described in Chapter 2.

Effects are shown as being direct (occurring at the same time and plane as the triggering action), 

indirect (separate in time or space from the action that caused them), or cumulative (incremental 

effect of the project when added to effects from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions). Each resource specialist considered and included activities relevant to the individual 

resource in the cumulative effects analysis. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are described 

in terms of increases, decreases, intensity, duration, and timing. The discussion of these effects 

also provides a comparison of the trade-offs associated with each alternative. Relevant direction 

from Umatilla Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and applicable laws, 

regulations, and agency policies are also discussed in this chapter. The scale of analysis may be 

different for each resource. This chapter ends with a discussion of compliance with 

environmental laws and executive orders. 

3.2 Effects and Impacts

For the purpose of this EIS, it is imperative to explain the difference between effects and 

impacts, and how they are used in this document. For the purpose of this document, an effect 

from an action can be beneficial, adverse, or negligible. An impact, as used in this document, 

implies greater magnitude and is used to describe either beneficial or adverse conditions. That is, 

an action can effect a resource, but the action may not rise to the level of an impact to the 

resource. Effects and impacts are not used interchangeably in this document.

3.3 General Analyses Methodology and Assumptions

This chapter evaluates effects on the human environment (i.e., physical, natural, cultural, and 

socioeconomic resources) from proposed vegetation and fuels management alternatives. The 

approach includes the following elements:

• Focusing the analysis, to the greatest extent possible, on management changes and associated 

issues that could have meaningful impacts on the resources or values being evaluated.

• Using general analysis methods and assumptions that follow the USDA Forest Service 

National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (FS 2014).

• Evaluating cumulative effects for each resource topic.

• The importance and severity of effects from management activities are assessed and described 

in each resource topic as applicable. If effects are not likely to be significant, no determination 

on significance is provided.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-48 Umatilla National Forest

3.4 General Analyses Methodology and Assumptions

The Interdisciplinary team reviewed a substantial body of scientific literature and studies 

applicable to the project areas and the associated resources. This information augments sitespecific field studies, observations, and documentation gathered by IDT members to support the 

quantitative and qualitative statement presented for each analyzed resource. The effect analyses 

focuses on perceived or expected environmental issues from the implementation of the 

alternatives and their likelihood of being significant. 

Assessing Effects and Impacts Using CEQ Criteria

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500-

1508) the term significantly is based on the criteria of both context and intensity (40 CFR 

1508.27).

Context: This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts to 

include society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the 

locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. Both short term and long 

term effects/impacts are relevant.

Intensity: This refers to the severity of magnitude of an effect. An EIS considers direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects to determine intensity. The CEQ has identified set standards for 

conducting and presenting impact analysis.

Assumptions

The following guiding assumptions were used to provide context for this analysis:

Analyses Period: This DEIS considered management actions over 5-10 years, however, as long 

as there are no substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental 

concerns, no new information and no changed conditions, management activities may continue 

without additional NEPA analyses. 

Duration of Effect: Duration describes the length of time over which an effect may occur. 

Effects could occur over minutes, days, months, or years. Each analyses includes a description of 

the expected time frame over which effects are expected. 

Type of Effect: Description of the effect as beneficial or adverse. A beneficial effect is one 

which moves current conditions found in the project area to conditions more in line with 

historical norms. While an adverse effect would be something that would negatively affect 

conditions found in the project area beyond the current conditions. While the current conditions 

are not necessarily desired, an adverse condition would be a further step backward. These effects

however, have elements of duration, intensity, and magnitude as part of their analysis, meaning 

for examples they could be short term, minor, and beneficial effects. 

3.5 Cumulative Effects

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

The temporal and spatial scale of analysis is variable depending on the resource concern being 

evaluated, particularly when considering the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions. During the interdisciplinary process the team followed guidance provided by the CEQ. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-49

Using this guidance the following summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

within and adjacent to Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project planning area was 

developed. These projects were considered, where relevant, when addressing cumulative effects

for various resources.

Cumulative impact (or effect) is defined in CEQ regulations as, “...the impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 

CFR 1508.7).

Summary of Past Actions

Some residual effects remain visible on the landscape and contribute to the description of the 

current conditions (affected environment). Past actions are maintained as a layer in the District’s 

Geographic Information System (GIS) database and are used in analysis for multiple forest-wide 

management goals including: calculating Equivalent Treatment Acres for watershed conditions, 

elk habitat effectiveness index (HEI), cover values for big game, soil conditions, and historic 

range of variability (HRV). In some cases, the activities listed below in Table 3-1 overlap in 

space. 

• Planting: Approximately 3,812 acres were planted between 1967 and 2011.

• Invasive Plant Treatments (Non-Mechanical): Approximately 2,448 acres were treated 

between 2006 and 2015 within the planning area.

• Wildfire: Since 1910 approximately 10,781 acres, by 107 fires, have burned in the Sunrise 

planning area. Wildfire is unpredictable, but it is likely some portion of the planning area could 

burn in the foreseeable future.

• Grazing: Asotin C&H Allotment - Grazing has occurred at various levels beginning in the 

mid-1800s. Wild horses used the area from 1885 to 1910. The average amount of permitted 

livestock grazing from 1929 to 1964 was 815 head of cattle. Range improvements include: 28 

springs, 29 ponds, 3 corrals, and 18 miles of fence (includes boundary fence) within the project 

planning area. Peola Allotment - grazing allotment totaling 39,238 acres with a seasonal total 

of 355 pair of cattle located in Asotin, Columbia and Garfield counties.

Table 3-1. Past Vegetation Management Activities by Decade within the Sunrise project Area

Years Treatment Acres

1960 - 1969 Pre-commercial Thin

Pre-commercial Thin

Single-Tree Selection

Stand Clearcut

155

155

1,345

3,313

1970 - 1979 Commercial Thin

Pre-commercial Thin

Salvage Cut

Sanitation Cut

Shelterwood Cut

Single-tree Selection

Stand Clearcut

1,131

1,220

537

143

486

4,372

2,626
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-50 Umatilla National Forest

Years Treatment Acres

1980-1989 Pile Burning

Commercial Thin

Pre-commercial Thin

Range Seeding

Sanitation Cut

Shelterwood Cut

Single-tree Selection

Stand Clearcut

131

104

148

365

617

1,697

612

377

1990-1999 Broadcast Burning

Pile Burning

Overstory Removal Cut

Pre-commercial Thin

Range Seeding

Shelterwood Cut

Single-tree Selection

Stand Clearcut

Underburn

1,259

987

64

1,588

550

796

1,413

1,227

5,040

2000-2009 Pile Burning

Chipping of Fuels

Commercial Thinning

Fuel Break

Pre-commercial Thin

Rearrangement of Fuels

Salvage Cut

Single-tree Selection

Site Preparation

Underburn

40

11

47

217

840

483

26

14

329

4266

2010-2016 Pile Burning

Chipping of Fuels

Invasive Mechanical

Jackpot Burning

Pre-commercial Thin

Salvage Cut

Thinning

Underburn

Yarding

17

240

109

45

309

188

2

550

188

Summary of Present Actions (ongoing)

• Invasive Plant Treatments: Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment FEIS and 

Record of Decision (ROD) (July 2010) will continue to be implemented. Invasive plant 

treatments (herbicide, hand pulling and biological agent release) is currently being done. 

Where appropriate, treated areas are seeded with local sources of native grasses and forbs after 

treatment.

• Recreation: Ongoing use of dispersed camping, hunting, and sightseeing occurs year-round. 

Public firewood gathering and snowmobile use will continue to occur.

• Road Maintenance: Road maintenance consists of a variety of activity components including 

surface rock replacement, spot surfacing, roadside brushing, erosion control, logging out, road 

surface blading, ditch cleanout, slide removal, dust abatement, culvert cleaning or 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-51

replacement, danger tree removal, and other items that contribute to the preservation of the 

existing road and its safe use.

• Asotin Prescribed Burn: Project consisting of 7,957 acres of Forest Service land 2,423 acres 

of Washington Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) land. Proposed treatments are located in the Asotin 

Creek Watershed and within Forest Plan Management Areas that allow prescribed fire.

• Grazing: Asotin C&H Allotment: The current number of permitted cow/calf pairs has been

495 since 1965, however, only 413 cow/calf pairs have actually grazed the allotment from 

1995 to the present. The allotment area totals approximately 39,400 acres, of which about 

21,000 acres are within the project planning area. Currently used pastures include the

Park/Cook and Hogback pastures, totaling approximately 1,770 acres. Peola Allotment – The 

grazing allotment totaling 39,238 acres, includes the Lick and Charley pastures (8,000 acres),

with a seasonal total of 355 pair of cattle.

Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

• Invasive Plant Treatments: The 2,448 acres mentioned above plus an additional 3 percent 

of acres are planned for herbicide treatments based on current increases being noted. Where 

appropriate, treated areas will be seeded with local sources of native grasses and forbs after 

treatment.

• Asotin Prescribed Burn: This burn, as described above, is an ongoing fuels management

project. The total prescribed acres will take multiple seasons to treat, and is therefore a 

foreseeable action as well.

• Elk habitat projects: Seeding and fertilizing key areas to enhance elk forage.

• Road Maintenance: Road maintenance would continue to be the same as identified above in 

ongoing activities. 

• Recreation: Recreation use would continue to be the same as identified above in on-going 

activities.

3.6 Vegetation

This section incorporates by reference the Vegetation Specialist Report. Specific information on 

the methodologies, assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the 

report. A summary of the current conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects 

of the Proposed Action and its alternatives are discussed in this section.

Introduction

The purpose of this section is to look at the current conditions and the effects of the Sunrise 

Vegetation and Fuels Management Project on the vegetation in the project area. The Silvicultural 

conditions within the project area can best be described by examining species composition, 

structural stages, and forest density. The action alternatives were designed to move the existing 

conditions in the project area towards the desired conditions.

Regulatory Framework

This project is consistent with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to National 

Forest vegetation affected by the decision alternatives. For a more detailed description of how 

this project meets the applicable laws please refer to the Silviculture Report.

The most important factor influencing whether, or to what degree, a forested area might be 

affected during implementation of an action alternative is management direction from the 1990 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the Umatilla National Forest (Forest Plan). The 

Sunrise project area includes several Forest Plan Management Areas, with additional designation 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-52 Umatilla National Forest

for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) adjoining rivers, streams, and other wetlands. 

This Forest-wide riparian habitat allocation is referred to as PACFISH (USDA Forest Service; 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995). Forest-wide and Management Area direction is 

incorporated by reference into this document. Additional vegetation management direction is 

provided by two amendments in particular: “Interim Management Direction Establishing 

Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales” (USDA Forest Service 1995; also 

known as Eastside Screens); and “Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing 

Watersheds on Federal Lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and Portions of 

California” (USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995; also known as 

PACFISH).

Methodology 

The Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management analysis area is defined in this report as all 

forested Umatilla National Forest lands in the North Fork Asotin and Lick Creek watersheds. 

This area is approximately 22,800 acres which includes all dry, moist, and cold uplands forest in 

the project area. The greater Sunrise Project Area includes both forested and non-forested areas 

and is approximately 33,150 acres in size. For the temporal context of this analysis, short-term 

will be defined as up to 10 years following the implementation for the activities and long-term 

will be defined as anytime time beyond that.

Indicators used for comparison purposes between alternatives include the following:

• Forest vegetation species cover type: the tree species or species group that occupies a majority 

or plurality of total canopy cover. 

• Forest vegetation structural stage: the vertical architecture of coniferous vegetation occurring 

along a successional pathway. 

• Forest vegetation density class: the relative occupancy of available site resources by 

coniferous forest vegetation, allocated into discrete classes by biophysical environment.

The methodology utilized to assess and disclose the existing conditions, direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the activities included under the project’s action alternatives incorporated a 

variety of information sources. Any particular assessment method is associated with a set of both 

strengths (accuracy and precision) and weaknesses (uncertainty and error). This analysis of 

effects on forest vegetation resources derives assessment and analytical strength through multiple 

lines of evidence (Goetz et al. 2012). The various methods utilized for this report are described 

in detail in the Silviculture Specialist Report, along with their associated strengths and 

weaknesses. The methods are characterized in terms relevant to successful implementation of the 

National Environmental Policy Act and associated case law, which require or recommend that 

disclosure of environmental effects include consideration and discussion of data validation and 

error, use of methods standard in the field relevant to the resource being considered (in this case, 

forestry), and incomplete and/or unavailable information. 

Affected Environment

The Sunrise project area totals 33,150 acres, of which 22,800 acres is dry, moist, and cold 

uplands forest.

Species Composition

The current composition and extent of forest species cover types within the Project Forest 

Analysis Area and a comparison between existing conditions and desired ranges are shown in 

Table 3-2. Desired conditions are stratified by biophysical environment (dry, moist, and cold 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-53

upland forest potential vegetation groups), as well as cover type extent and relative abundance. 

In general, cover types are defined by the tree species (or species group) that constitute a 

majority or plurality of occupied growing space in a delineated forest stand

The existing cover types are dominated by late seral tree species and forest stands dominated by 

early seral species are under-represented (Table 3-2). Some old forests have shifted in both 

species composition and structure; for example, some ponderosa pine forests with an old forestsingle stratum structure have shifted to a Douglas-fir cover type with an old forest multi strata 

structure. This undesirable condition is caused by combination of factors described further in the 

specialist report.

In the dry upland forest portion of the Sunrise project area, the Douglas-fir cover type currently 

exceeds the desired range, while the ponderosa pine cover type is below the desired range. Grand 

fir cover type is at the high end of the desired range. In the moist upland forest, the extent of 

Douglas-fir and Subalpine fir/spruce cover type currently exceed desired ranges, while the 

western larch and lodgepole pine cover types are less than desired ranges. In the cold upland 

forest, the extent of subalpine fir/spruce and Douglas-fir cover types currently exceed desired 

ranges, and the extent of lodgepole pine cover types are currently below desired ranges.

Table 3-2. Tree species cover type extent and distribution for forest Potential Vegetation Groups 

(PVGs) within the Sunrise Project Vegetation Analysis Area. Values listed in bold font currently 

exceed desired ranges; items in italics are currently below desired ranges.

Existing conditions Desired Range

Percent Acres

Species cover type / PVG Tolerance class Acres % of total Low High Low High

Dry Upland Forest

Western juniper Shade-intolerant 0 0 0 5 0 560

Ponderosa pine Shade-intolerant 3793 34 50 80 5597 8956

Douglas-fir Mixed-tolerant 5806 52 5 20 560 2239

Western larch Shade-intolerant 68 1 1 10 112 1119

Broadleaved trees Shade-intolerant 0 0 0 5 0 560

Lodgepole pine Shade-intolerant 19 <1 0 0 0 0

Western white pine Mixed-tolerant 0 0 0 5 0 560

Grand fir Shade-tolerant 1116 10 1 10 112 1119

Subalpine fir and spruce Shade-tolerant 73 1 0 0 0 0

Total 11,195

Moist Upland Forest

Western juniper Shade-intolerant 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ponderosa pine Shade-intolerant 1292 13 5 15 499 1498

Douglas-fir Mixed-tolerant 3325 33 15 30 1498 2995

Western larch Shade-intolerant 204 2 10 30 998 2995

Broadleaved trees Shade-intolerant 0 0 1 10 100 998

Lodgepole pine Shade-intolerant 1053 11 25 45 2496 4493

Western white pine Mixed-tolerant 0 0 0 5 0 499

Grand fir Shade-tolerant 1853 19 15 30 1498 2995

Subalpine fir and spruce Shade-tolerant 2230 22 1 10 100 998

Total 9,983

Cold Upland Forest

Grass-forb Not applicable 0 0 0 5 0 81

Shrub Not applicable 0 0 0 15 0 243

Western juniper Shade-intolerant 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ponderosa pine Shade-intolerant 0 0 0 5 0 81

Douglas-fir Mixed-tolerant 295 18 5 15 81 243

Western larch Shade-intolerant 74 5 5 15 81 243

Broadleaved trees Shade-intolerant 0 0 0 5 0 81

Lodgepole pine Shade-intolerant 129 8 25 45 406 730
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-54 Umatilla National Forest

Existing conditions Desired Range

Percent Acres

Species cover type / PVG Tolerance class Acres % of total Low High Low High

Western white pine Mixed-tolerant 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand fir Shade-tolerant 121 7 5 15 81 243

Subalpine fir and spruce Shade-tolerant 1003 62 15 35 243 568

Total 1,622

Forest Structural Stages

The existing structural stages in the Sunrise project area generally reflects the succession, 

vegetation growth, and lack of recent disturbance. Structural stages that are created by recent and 

regular intervals of disturbance are under-represented and structural stages representing a lack of 

disturbance are over-represented. Table 3-3 displays the existing and desired conditions for forest 

structural stages within each upland forest potential vegetation group for the project area. For 

further information on structural stages and how they are derived please refer to the Silviculture

Specialist report.

In the dry upland forest, the understory reinitiation and old forest multi-strata structures currently 

exceed desired ranges, and the extent of stand initiation, stem exclusion, and old forest single 

stratum structural stages are below desired ranges. In the moist upland forest, the old forest 

multi-strata structural stage currently exceeds the desired range, and the extent of old forest 

single stratum structural stage is below the desired range. In the cold upland forest, the 

understory reinitiation and old forest multi-strata structural stages currently exceed desired 

ranges, and the extent of stem exclusion and old forest single stratum structural stages are below 

desired ranges. Table 3-3 shows the existing and desired extent of each structural stage in the 

project area.

Table 3-3. Forest structural stage extent and distribution for forest Potential Vegetation Groups 

(PVGs) within the Sunrise project Vegetation Analysis Area. Values listed in bold font currently 

exceed desired ranges; items in italics are currently fall below desired ranges.

Existing Conditions Desired Conditions

Percent of PVG Acres

Acres % of total Low High Low High

Dry Upland Forest

Stand Initiation 432 4 15 30 1,647 3,293

Stem Exclusion 965 9 10 20 1,098 2,195

Understory Reinitiation 2,288 21 0 5 0 549

Old Forest Single-Stratum 843 8 40 65 4,391 7,135

Old Forest Multi-Strata 6,450 59 1 15 110 1,647

Total 10,977

Moist Upland Forest

Stand Initiation 1,691 17 20 30 1,993 2,989

Stem Exclusion 1,629 16 20 30 1,993 2,989

Understory Reinitiation 1,467 15 15 25 1,494 2,491

Old Forest Single-Stratum 22 <1 10 20 996 1,993

Old Forest Multi-Strata 5,153 52 15 20 1,494 1,993

Total 9,963

Cold Upland Forest

Stand Initiation 387 24 20 45 317 713

Stem Exclusion 96 6 15 30 238 475

Understory Reinitiation 655 41 10 25 158 396

Old Forest Single-Stratum 25 2 5 20 79 317

Old Forest Multi-Strata 422 27 10 25 158 396

Total 1,584
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-55

Note: Total forested acres for each potential vegetation group may differ than total acres reported in Table 4 because 

they do not include bare ground and other non-forest locations classified under a potential forested vegetation group. 

Forest Density

Stand density refers to a measure of the amount of tree vegetation per unit of land area. The 

current and desired type and extent of forest vegetation structural stages within the Sunrise 

project area are described in Table 3-4. Desired conditions are stratified by biophysical

environment and forest density classes. Across all biophysical environment types high density is 

over represented while low and moderate density classes are below the desired range.

Table 3-4 Forest density class extent and distribution for forest Potential Vegetation Groups (PVG) 

within Sunrise Vegetation Analysis Area. Values listed in bold currently exceed desired ranges; 

items in italics are currently below desired ranges.

Existing Conditions

Desired Conditions

Percent of PVG Acres

Acres % of total Low High Low High

Dry Upland Forest

Low 695 6 40 30 4.448 9,453

Moderate 1,605 14 10 15 1,668 3,336

High 8821 79 0 5 556 1,668

Total 11,121

Moist Upland Forest

Low 773 8 20 40 1,997 3,993

Moderate 2,012 20 25 60 2,496 5,990

High 7,190 72 15 30 1,498 2,995

Total 9,963

Cold Upland Forest

Low 47 3 15 30 243 486

Moderate 186 11 20 40 324 649

High 1,390 86 25 60 405 973

Total 1,622

Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Emissions

See Chapter 3, Cumulative Effects, Global Climate Change.

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the project No Action Alternative, ongoing disturbance and succession processes 

influencing vegetation conditions in the Sunrise area would continue as they have in the recent 

past without additional treatment. If none of the proposed activities would be implemented to 

move existing conditions closer to desired conditions, then forest vegetation within the project 

planning area would remain excessively dense and continue to be dominated by mid- and lateseral stages of species composition. Old forest single-strata structure on moist-forest sites would 

continue to be deficient because proposed activities would not be used to increase tree growth 

and thereby promote large-diameter trees (trees whose diameter is 21 inches or greater), or to 

reduce stand density sufficiently for establishment of a new cohort (stratum) of understory trees. 

Vegetation within the area would also become more susceptible to insect, dwarf mistletoe, 

disease and wildfire disturbances. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-56 Umatilla National Forest

Alternative B

Species composition

Alternative B emphasizes the retention of early seral species and the removal of late seral species 

across all three biophysical environments. Changes in species composition would vary based on 

the existing composition of the stand and amount of overstory cut or killed by fire application. In 

this section there will be references to “mix” stands. These are stands in which activity is not 

likely to change the current species majority, but is likely to create growing space for more 

desirable early seral species.

If a stand cover type is expected to change as a result of a silvicultural treatment, it would move 

from a late seral species cover type to a mix type or early seral type. Implementing this action 

alternative would result in an increase of early seral and mix cover types, and a decrease of late

seral types. Over time it is expected that up to 3,364 acres in Dry Upland Forest, 3,270 acres in 

Moist Upland Forest, and 776 acres Cold Upland Forest have the potential to move from late

seral to early seral species groups. Some treatment areas may not change species type as a result 

of activity implemented during this project, and this is likely due to minimal tree mortality

during treatment. Treatment of those acres may still have an effect on the structural stage of the 

stand and the tree density.

Forest Structure

The direct effects of implementing the activities described in Alternative B of the project on 

forest structural stage are described in Table 3-5. Effects within the project area are driven by 

changes of existing species composition and tree size. Compositional changes have minor 

influence on structural stage, but tree-size changes have major influence on structural state 

outcomes. Some structural changes are designed to reflect constraints and objectives associated 

with the Umatilla Forest Plan and Eastside Screens amendment.

Overall there will be an increase in the Stand Initiation, Stem Exclusion, and Old Forest SingleStratum stand stages that are currently deficient. There will be a decrease in the stand stages 

currently exceeding the desired conditions: Understory Re-Initiation and Old Forest Multi Strata. 

The changes in the stand structures are expected to bring all of the stands to within the desired 

ranges. Old Forest Single Stratum is expected to increase over time due to decreased densities 

within the stem exclusion and understory re-initiation stages.

Table 3-5. Direct effects of project implementation in forest structure stages. Comparison of current 

existing conditions, post treatment conditions for Alt. B and Alt. C, and the changes from existing 

conditions in Alt. B and Alt. C. Values listed in bold currently exceed desired ranges, items listed in 

italics are currently below desired ranges.

Existing Conditions

Post-treatment Change from Existing

Alt B Alt C Alt B Alt C

Acres. % Ac. % Ac. % Ac. % Ac. %

Dry Upland Forest

Stand Initiation (SI) 432 4 488 4 488 4 56 1 56 1

Stem Exclusion (SE) 965 9 1,827 17 1,467 13 861 8 502 5

Understory Reinitation (UR) 2,288 21 1,633 15 1,993 18 -655 -6 -295 -3

Old Forest Single-Stratum (OFSS) 843 8 2,733 25 2,484 23 1,891 17 1,641 15

Old Forest Multi-Stratum (OFMS) 6,450 59 4,297 39 4,546 41 -2,153 -20 -1,904 -17

Total 10,977
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-57

Existing Conditions

Post-treatment Change from Existing

Alt B Alt C Alt B Alt C

Acres. % Ac. % Ac. % Ac. % Ac. %

Moist Upland Forest

SI 1,691 17 2,258 23 1,958 20 567 6 267 3

SE 1,629 16 2,246 23 1,951 20 616 6 322 3

UR 1,467 15 529 5 1,124 11 -938 -9 -343 -3

OFSS 22 <1 1,975 20 983 10 1,953 20 961 10

OFMS 5,153 52 2,954 30 3,947 40 -2,199 -22 -1,207 -12

Total 9,963

Cold Upland Forest

SI 387 24 432 27 393 25 44 0 6 <1

SE 96 6 480 30 260 16 384 4 164 10

UR 655 41 226 14 485 31 -428 -4 -170 -11

OFSS 25 2 245 15 242 15 221 2 217 14

OFMS 422 27 201 13 205 13 -221 -2 -217 -14

Total 1,584

Forest Density

All activities would be conducted to reduce total stand density, albeit Alternative B will reduce 

densities more than Alternative C. In stands designated as habitat connectivity corridors or elk 

cover, density reductions would mostly occur in the understory with minimal reductions in 

overstory. In most areas, total stand density will be reduced to varying degree. Density 

reductions planned for both action alternatives reflect a balance: the relative proportion of 

desirable and undesirable species, and wildlife habitat cover. Alternative B favors vegetation 

changes by including more acres of density reduction and removal of undesirable trees. The 

direct effects of implementing the activities described under Alternatives B of the project on 

forest density classes are described in Table 3-6.

Overall, Alternative B lowers the percentage of high density stands and raises the amount of low 

and moderate densities across all three biophysical environments. The resulting change will 

bring all three into the desired conditions for forest density.

Table 3-6. Direct effects of implementing the activities described under Alternatives B and C on 

forest density classes.

Existing Conditions Post-treatment Change from Existing

Alt B Alt C Alt B Alt C

Ac. % Ac % Ac % Ac. % Ac. %

Dry Upland Forest

Low 695 6 1,417 12 1,033 9 722 6 338 3

Moderate 1,605 14 5,525 48 5,471 48 3,915 34 3,861 34

High 8,821 79 4,490 39 4,928 43 -4,637 -41 -4,199 -37

Total 11,121

 Moist Upland Forest

Low 773 8 3,480 35 1,867 16 2,707 27 1,094 9

Moderate 2,012 20 3,463 34 3,415 30 1,447 14 1,399 10

High 7,198 72 3,119 31 4,780 42 -4,154 -41 -2,493 -30

Total 9,983

 Cold Upland Forest
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-58 Umatilla National Forest

Existing Conditions Post-treatment Change from Existing

Alt B Alt C Alt B Alt C

Ac. % Ac % Ac % Ac. % Ac. %

Low 47 3 751 46 461 28 705 43 414 26

Moderate 186 11 304 19 240 15 118 7 54 3

High 1,390 86 569 35 924 57 -823 -51 -469 -29

Total 1,622

Susceptibility to future insect and disease disturbance

Direct effects of an action alternative result in shifts of structure, stand density and tree vigor.

These conditions that are less susceptible to most bark beetles, non-native adelgids, dwarf 

mistletoes, and defoliators (Schmitt and Powell 2012 and references therein, Schooley and 

Bryant 1978). Shifts in species composition in favor of early seral species does not eliminate tree 

or stand susceptibility to biotic damage agents, as these tree species serve as hosts for their own 

variety of pests. 

The project action alternatives are expected to reduce general susceptibility across the Sunrise 

project area in two additional ways. The first, is that the action alternatives would diversify 

species composition across the landscape by increasing under-represented species, (Table 3-5). 

This method of reducing susceptibility does so by reducing the overall amount of host species in 

a given stand, as well as reducing the vulnerability of remaining host species, as they are more 

isolated within a broader landscape and less prone to disturbance propagation and dispersion. 

Early seral species such as western white pine and western larch are all relatively droughttolerant and thus resistant to attack by damage agents which seek drought stressed hosts. The 

second way the project will have direct effects on forest susceptibility is by immediately shifting 

species composition toward host species less prone to stress-induced biotic disturbances. 

Alternative C

Species composition

Alternative C emphasizes the retention of early seral species and the removal of late seral species 

across all three biophysical environments. Changes in species composition would vary based on 

the existing composition of the stand and amount of overstory cut or killed by fire application. 

As in the Alternative B section, this section will refer to “mix” stands. Forest activity will not 

immediately change the majority species for mixed-species stands, but it will provide growing 

space for early seral species. 

If a stand cover type is expected to change as a result of a silvicultural treatment, it would move 

from a late seral species cover type to a mix type or early seral type. Implementing this action 

alternative would result in an increase of early seral and mix cover types, and a decrease of late

seral types. Over time it is expected that up to 2,983 acres in Dry Upland Forest, 1,743 acres in 

Moist Upland Forest, and 458 acres in Cold Upland Forest, will potentially move from late seral 

to early seral species groups. Some treated areas did not change species type due to minimal tree 

mortality due to treatment activity. Treatment of those acres may still have an effect on the stand 

structure and density. 

Forest Structure

The direct effects of implementing the activities described under Alternative C of the Project on 

forest stand structure are described in Table 3-5. Effects within the project area are driven by 

changes of existing species composition and tree size. Some structural changes are designed to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-59

reflect constraints and objectives associated with the Umatilla Forest Plan and Eastside Screens

amendment.

Overall, there will be an increase in the Stand Initiation, Stem Exclusion, and Old Forest Single 

Stratum stages that are currently present. There will be a decrease in the stand stages currently 

exceeding the desired conditions; Understory Re-Initiation and Old Forest Multi Strata. The 

changes in the stand structures are expected to bring all of the stands to within the desired 

ranges. Old Forest Single Stratum is expected to increase over time due to decreased densities 

within the stem exclusion and understory re-initiation stages.

Forest Density

All activities would be expected to reduce total stand density, albeit Alt. C will retain higher 

densities than Alt. B. In stands designated as habitat connectivity corridors or elk cover,, density 

reductions would mostly occur in the understory with minimal reductions in overstory cover. In 

most areas, total stand density will be reduced to varying degree. Density reductions planned for 

both action alternatives reflect a balance struck between the relative proportion of desirable and 

undesirable species, and wildlife habitat cover. Alternative C favors providing wildlife habitat by 

disturbing fewer acres in the short term. The direct effects of implementing the activities 

described under Alternatives C of the Project on forest density classes are described in Table 3-6.

Overall, Alternative C lowers the percentage of high density stands and raises the amount of low 

and moderate densities class across all three biophysical environments, but to a lesser extent than 

results from implementation of alternative B. The resulting change will bring all three into the 

desired conditions for forest density.

Susceptibility to future insect and disease disturbance

Direct effects of an action alternative result in shifts of structure, stand density and tree vigor.

These shifts will result in lower susceptibility to most bark beetles, non-native adelgids, dwarf 

mistletoes, and defoliators (Schmitt and Powell 2012, Schooley and Bryant 1978). Shifts in 

species composition in favor of early seral species does not eliminate tree or stand susceptibility 

to biotic damage agents, as these tree species serve as hosts for their own variety of pests. 

The project action alternatives are expected to reduce general susceptibility across the Sunrise 

Forest Vegetation Analysis Area in two additional ways. First, is that the action alternatives 

would diversify species composition across the landscape by increasing under-represented 

species (Table 3-5). This method of reducing susceptibility does so by reducing the overall 

amount of host species in a given stand, as well as reducing the vulnerability of remaining host 

species, as they are more isolated within a broader landscape and less prone to disturbance

propagation and dispersion. The second way project will have direct effects on forest 

susceptibility is by immediately shifting species composition toward of host-species less prone to 

stress-induced biotic disturbances. Early seral species such as, western white pine, and western 

larch are all relatively drought-tolerant and thus resistant to attack by damage agents which seek 

drought-stressed hosts.

Alternative B and C Indirect Effects

Species Composition

Areas affected by Action Alternatives would develop along their natural succession earlier than if 

the activities had not occurred. The mixed cover type would retain more early seral, fire tolerant 

species than the No Action Alternative. Even with the stand movement toward early seral 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-60 Umatilla National Forest

species, all but the driest of stands will retain some presence of late seral species. This would 

allow for the establishment of shade tolerant species in the understory in the years following 

treatment. Regardless, desired, early-seral species will be promoted best under either Action 

Alternative.

Forest Structure

The indirect effects of either Action Alternative would move treated areas to a late forest 

structure sooner than if no action had occurred. (Crane and Fisher 1986, O’Hara et al. 1996). 

Future moderate or severe disturbances could convert areas to an earlier stage. Future lowseverity disturbances would most likely maintain the old forest single-stratum stage by creating 

mortality in recently developed understory trees. Conversely, low-severity disturbance could 

move stands toward old forest multi-stratum through over-story mortality, creating openings 

which would allow for the development of understory cohorts.

Forest Density

Relative stand density is likely to increase over the next decade as a result of the density 

reduction from either Action Alternative. Long term impacts will be determined by ongoing 

activities within the project area. Further management will help reduce stand densities toward 

desired condition. 

Susceptibility to future insect and disease disturbance

As the direct effects of both action alternatives on forest density class, structural stage, and cover

type diminish over time, effectiveness on the reduction of susceptibility to insect and disease will 

also decrease. The cumulative effects of wildfire suppression in the project Sunrise Forest 

Vegetation Analysis Area will enable forests to develop multi-strata canopies, shade-tolerant

species to flourish, and stand density to increase, all of which are associated with increased 

susceptibility to a host of future biological disturbances. Unless future disturbances decrease 

stand density, canopy layering, or the amount of host species, susceptibility to such disturbances 

will gradually increase to pre-implementation levels over a 50 to 75-year period. 

Mitigation Measures

Silvicultural design features related to the Eastside Screens Forest Plan amendment 

and Important Habitat Features

One of the Old Forest structure classes (OFSS) falls below HRV in all three biophysical

environments present within the project area. Both action alternatives fall under Scenario A of 

the Eastside Screens Forest Plan Amendment (see Appendix C). In order to ensure consistency 

with the Screens amendment, the following design features are incorporated into both action 

alternatives for the Sunrise project: 

• Maintain all remnant late and old seral, and/or structural live trees ≥ 21" dbh that currently 

exist within stands proposed for harvest activities.

• All timber harvest activities outside of LOS forests must be prescribed in such a manner that 

it does not prevent attainment of HRV within the project analysis area for both LOS types 

(single and multi-stratum). All prescriptions will emphasize the retention of individual trees 

and tree species sufficient to maintain or attain minimum requirements for old forest, as 

described in the Forest Plan. 

• Prescriptions for habitat connectivity corridors must ensure the retention of abundant medium 

or larger diameter trees, and canopy closures within the top one-third (33%) of site potential.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-61

• Do not create forest openings19 through even-aged cutting methods that exceed 40 acres in 

size, unless allowed by exceptions provided in the Forest Plan. 

• Prescriptions for habitat connectivity corridors must retain some level of understory (if any 

already exists) and left in patches or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover.

• Where open, park-like conditions occurred historically (pre-settlement areas characterized by 

frequent, low-severity fire regimes), maintain such conditions by implementing intermediate 

treatments and/or emphasize the removal of fire-intolerant species. Maintain a sufficient 

number of seedlings, saplings, and poles to allow for the development of future stands. 

• Slash will not be piled against large trees or snags to prevent loss from prescribed fire. 

• Hollow or partially hollow, broken top snags greater than 15 inches DBH will be left to provide 

roost habitat for bats. Dead grand fir most commonly provides hollow tree habitat.

• Protect goshawk nests from disturbance if any are located during project activities. Defer 

harvest on 30 acres of the most suitable nesting habitat around nest sites. Retain late and old 

structure forest in a 400-acre post-fledging area (PFA) as determined by the district biologist. 

Defer activities in active PFAs from April through August.

• Protect known or discovered raptor nest sites from management and human disturbances until 

fledging has been completed. Level of protection will vary by species and will be 

recommended by the District wildlife biologist (FP 4-57).

• Seeps, springs, bogs, wallows, and other wet areas will be evaluated and protection measures 

determined by the District wildlife biologist (FP 4-57, 4-160).

• If cliffs, talus or cave habitat is found, protection measures will be determined by the District 

wildlife biologist. (FP 4-57)

• Concerning snag retention, retain all snags 20 inches DBH and larger, except for hazard trees. 

If there are less than 3 large snags per acre available, smaller snags will be retained to meet 3 

per acre. Maintain down wood habitat and green replacement trees at or beyond levels 

identified in the table below. Tree species and soundness at the base will also be considered. 

The tree species most preferred are ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir. For a peracre reference see Table 3-6 below. 

Table 3-7. Snag and down wood retention per acre by forest vegetation community type

 

19 A harvested area is considered a created opening for timber management when the prescribed crop tree 

stocking is below minimum acceptable levels and trees are at or below 4 1⁄2 feet in height and/or not free to 

grow.

Snag and Down Wood Retention Ponderosa

pine

Mixed 

conifer

Grand 

fir

Lodgepole 

pine

Subalpine 

zone

Leave all snags 20 inches dbh and larger. If 

unavailable, leave at least 3 per acre over 10 

inches dbh. 

All (3) All (3) All (3) All (3) All (3)

Green Tree Replacements (per acre) 16 16 9 14 19

Down Wood Pieces (per acre) 3 - 6 15 - 20 15 - 20

Diameter at the small end > 12 inches > 12 inches > 8 inches

Length per piece > 6 feet > 6 feet > 8 feet

Total length per acre > 20 feet > 100 feet > 120 feet
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-62 Umatilla National Forest

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A

Under the project No Action Alternative, ongoing disturbance and succession processes 

influencing vegetation conditions in the Sunrise area would continue as they have in the recent 

past without additional treatment. It is reasonable to assume other actions would continue in 

other areas and generally move landscape towards desired conditions. Cumulatively, however, 

the impacts would not be as positive if no action was chosen compared to the action alternatives. 

Alternatives B and C

Cumulative effects analysis must consider the effects of all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. For a full list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions please refer to Table 10 in the Silviculture Specialist Report.

All past actions, which include timber harvest, reforestation, non-commercial thinning and 

prescribed fire, established the existing conditions found in the project area today. The 

cumulative effects of this project, along with past projects in the project area, can be considered 

positive long term effects on vegetation.

Present vegetative treatment activities occurring in the project area include but are not limited to,

the Asotin Burn and Non-commercial thinning. These activities were created with a similar 

purpose and need to the Sunrise project and should have positive amplifying effects with the 

Sunrise Project. Similarly, all reasonably foreseeable future vegetative actions would likely be 

created with a similar purpose and need and would take in to account the effects of the Sunrise 

Project in their existing conditions. All future projects would have a positive effect on forest 

health. Past, present, and future non-vegetative treatment such as campground maintenance, 

cattle grazing, and issuance of special forest products are likely to have negligible cumulative 

effects on forest vegetation. Due to the similarity of purpose and needs and the need for 

continued action to maintain desired vegetative conditions, the action alternatives will have a 

more positive cumulative effect than the No Action alternative.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.7 Fuels 

This section incorporates by reference the Fuels Specialist Report. Specific information on the 

methodologies, assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the 

report. A summary of the current conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects 

of the Proposed Action and its alternatives are discussed in this section.

Introduction

The implementation of either action alternative has the potential to impact the health and safety 

of local residents and those utilizing public lands by increased smoke in the area. In addition, 

excess fuel loading is outside the range of historic variability (see Silviculture Specialist Report). 

Either through inaction, Alternative A, and the continued risk of large wildfires, or through 

prescribed fire, air quality was identified as a resource that should be analyzed for potential 

impacts. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-63

Regulatory Framework

Implementation of Alternatives B or C complies with the Forest Plan and desired condition for 

fire and fuels as outlined in the report. The Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) provides the overall direction of management 

activities on the Forest. Forest-wide management goals, as well as management area direction, 

represent the desired future condition that management actions are designed to achieve. The 

projects meets the desired future conditions for the following management areas: A4-Viewshed 

2, A6-Developed Recreation, C1-Dedicated Old Growth, C3-Big Game Winter Range, C4-

Wildlife Habitat, C5-Riparian, C8-Grass Tree Mosaic, and E2-Timber and Big Game. 

Methodology 

Information for this fuels analysis was gathered and synthesized from field reconnaissance, the 

Umatilla National Forest’s Geographic Information System (GIS), historic vegetation mapping, 

FSVeg Spatial and FSVeg Data Analyzer, and FVS Fire and Fuels Extension. Existing condition 

and effects analyzed for this project includes only the Forest Service portion of the planning area 

for approximately 32,000 acres. Project activities, in conjunction with past, ongoing, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities, have effects on fuels and fuel continuity; therefore, the 

planning area is sufficient to display effects on the landscape20. All acres in the project planning 

area were assigned a fire regime and condition class, as well as evaluated for crown fire

potential. 

Indicators

Indicators used in the analysis of the vegetation and fuel activities occurring in the Sunrise 

planning area are acres of fire regime 1, 2 and 3 in condition classes 2 and 3, and historical range

of variability (HRV) for both dry and moist forest that support high density conditions and level 

of crown fire potential. 

Fire Regime Condition Class and Historical Range of Variability (RV)

A natural fire regime is a classification of the historical role fire would play across the landscape 

in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but including the influence of 

aboriginal burning (Agee 1993, Brown 1995). Fire regimes are classified based on the average 

number of years between fires (frequency) combined with the severity of the fire. Severity can 

be low (surface fires), mixed (less the 75 percent of overstory mortality), and high (greater than 

75 percent overstory mortality). There are four historical fire regimes which commonly occur in 

the Blue Mountains (Powell 2005). They are fire regimes 1, 2), 3 and 4. Fire regime 3 and 4 have 

sub-regimes which are defined with more detail based on region specific characteristics 

identified by local resource experts and regional fire ecologist, and are based on Umatilla 

National Forest historical fire data. The four fire regimes and sub-regimes are described further 

in Table 3-7.

Table 3-8. Characteristics of common Oregon and Washington fire regimes present within Sunrise 

project area.

Fire 

Regime

Return Interval 

(years) Severity Potential Plant Communities Historical Burned Area21 (%)

1 <25 – 35 Low, Surface Fire Ponderosa pine, dry Douglas-fir 75

 

21 Historical burned area is an estimate of annual burned area (percent) for the Blue Mountains prior to Euro-American 

settlement (defined as pre-1850O. Data were derived from Agee (1996).
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-64 Umatilla National Forest

Fire 

Regime

Return Interval 

(years) Severity Potential Plant Communities Historical Burned Area21 (%)

2 <35 Mixed, High True grasslands 5

3A <50 Mixed Mixed conifer, dry Douglas-fir, dry 

grand fir

15

3B 50-100 Mixed Warm, mesic grand fir

3C 100-200 Mixed Mesic grand fir and Douglas-fir

4C 100-200 High Subalpine mixed conifer (spruce-fir), 

western larch

5

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) describes the amount of departure of the landscape from 

the historical fire regime. Condition class describes the condition of the landscape by 

characterizing the vegetation’s departure from its historical range of variability. This 

characterization describes the landscapes vulnerability to uncharacteristic wildfire intensities, 

severities, and insect and disease susceptibility. Condition Class is divided into three categories. 

Condition Class 1, within the historical range of variability of vegetation and fuels composition. 

Condition Class 2, is moderately altered from historic conditions. Condition Class 3, 

substantially altered from historic conditions. Table 3-9 below describes condition class in more 

detail below. 

Table 3-9 Fire Regime Condition Class Descriptions

Condition 

Class

Description Species Composition and Structure

1 Within the historical range of 

variability of the vegetation 

characteristics; fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity and 

pattern

Species composition and structure are function

within their historical range.

2 Fire regimes have been 

moderately altered from historical 

range. Fire frequencies have 

departed from natural historical 

frequencies by one or more return 

intervals. The result is moderate 

changes to one or more of the 

following: fire size, intensity and 

severity, and landscape patterns. 

Species composition and structure have been 

moderately altered. For example:

Grassland – Moderate encroachment of shrubs and 

trees or invasive exotic species.

Forestland – Moderate increase in density, 

encroachment of shade tolerant trees species, 

moderate fire tolerant tree species.

3 Fire regimes have been 

substantially altered from their 

historical range. Fire frequencies 

have departed from natural 

frequencies by multiple return 

intervals. Dramatic changes occur 

to one or more of the following: 

fire size, intensity and severity 

and landscape patterns.

Species composition and structure have been 

substantially altered from their historical range. For 

example:

Grassland – High encroachment and establishment 

of shrubs, trees, or invasive exotic species. 

Forestland – High increases in density, 

encroachment of shade tolerant tree species, or high 

loss of fire tolerant tree species.

High mortality or defoliation from disease and insect.

Historical range of variability (HRV) is a conservation strategy used to establish reference 

conditions for managing landscapes. These reference conditions describe the forest composition 

and structure that existed before Euro-American settlement. For the northern Blue Mountains, 

HRV uses a range of reference conditions pertaining to the pre-settlement era (mid 1800’s) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-65

(Powell 2009, Schmidt et al. 2002). HRV was used with a wide variety of vegetation indicators, 

such as species composition, stand density, canopy biomass, and insect and disease 

susceptibility, when completing analysis for the Sunrise planning area.

Crown Fire Potential

Crown fire potential describes a stands ability to initiate and sustain a crown fire. Some fire 

regimes experience crown fires under historic conditions (fire regime 4). For others, such as fire 

regime 1 and 3, sustained crown fires are uncharacteristic. The spatial continuity and density of 

tree canopies in combination with wind and physical setting provide the conditions for crown 

fires (Graham, McCaffrey and Jain 2004). Canopy base height22, canopy bulk density23, and 

canopy continuity are key characteristics of forest structure that affect the initiation and 

propagation of crown fire (Albini 1976, Rothermel 1991). Canopy base height is important 

because it affects crown fire initiation and canopy continuity influences the spread of fire 

(Graham 2004).

Ladder fuels, as they relate to canopy base height, provide avenues for fire to move from the 

ground to the tree crowns. Stands with low canopy base height are more susceptible to crown

fires. Crown fires are high intensity wildfires that advance through a stand’s canopy and can 

exhibit extreme fire behavior that is difficult and dangerous to suppress, and cause economic 

damage (Keyes 2002). They occur when surface fires create enough energy to preheat and 

combust live fuels well above the ground or when ladder fuels, in the form of small seedlings, 

saplings and young trees with low hanging branches, carry fire into the upper canopy. There are 

two stages of crown fires: the initiation of crown fire activity, referred to as “torching” (also 

known as passive crown fire), and the process of active crown fire spread, where fire moves 

from tree crown to tree crown. Torching commences when the surface flame length exceeds a 

critical threshold, defined by (Van Wagner 1977) as a function of the moisture content of 

overstory foliage and the vertical distance to live crown, known as canopy base height (CBH). 

Once in the crowns, fire must maintain a minimum rate of spread to become an active crown fire 

and is primarily determined by topography and weather conditions. The spread rate required to 

keep fire in the crown hinges on the density (Agee 2005) of fuels in the canopy, called canopy 

bulk density (CBD) (Keyes and O'Hara 2002). Torching and crowning also create fire brands that 

can spread fire well beyond their source, increasing fire spread to adjacent stands. Crowning 

significantly limits fire suppression options, requiring suppression personnel to rely on aerial 

resources or implement other indirect attack techniques. 

Affected Environment

Fire Regime Condition Class and Historic Range of Variability (HRV)

The Sunrise project planning area is comprised of 35 percent fire regime 1, 29 percent fire 

regime 2, 18 percent fire regime 3, and 18 percent fire regime 4. Table 3-10 displays the

historical fire regimes and associated acres present in the project area, and the Figure 3-2 

visually displays the fire regimes throughout the Sunrise project planning area. 

 

22 Canopy base height is the lowest point in the stand was there is sufficient available fuel to propagate fire vertically. 23 Canopy bulk density is the canopy weight for a given volume.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-66 Umatilla National Forest

Table 3-10. Fire regimes within Sunrise project area by acres.

Fire Regime Acres Percent

1 11,181 35

2 9,178 29

3 5,828 18

4 5,780 18

No Data 

(Administration Sites)

22 N/A

WADNR & WDFW1 1130 N/A

1 WADNR and WDFW land was not analyzed for fire regime.

Prior to European settlement, dry forests of the Inland northwest, ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer (grand fir and Douglas-fir), were burned by relatively frequent low and mixed severity 

fires (Hessburg et al., 2005). The low severity fires occurred frequently, usually every 1 to 25 

years, and as a result less than 20 percent of the tree basal area was killed (Agee 2004). The 

mixed severity fires occurred every 25-100 years and 20 to 70 percent of the basal area may have 

been fire killed, but in the context of drier fire regime 3 eco classes, such as Douglasfir/ninebark, this mortality tended to be at the lower end of this overstory mortality (Hessburg et 

al., 2005). 

In stands with low severity fires, fire-tolerant forest structures were maintained by removing the 

lower crown classes. These fires carried primarily by surface fuels; consumed litter, duff and 

downed wood; controlled establishment of fire-intolerant species (such as grand fir) and 

eliminated ladder fuels; and elevated crown bases by killing the majority of trees in the 

suppressed and intermediate crown layers (Agee 1994b, Youngblood 2008). This reduced the 

threat of running crown fires by continually thinning stands, eliminating ladder fuels and 

elevating crown base heights (Hessburg et al., 2005). Crown fires rarely occurred under these 

conditions, which can be attributed to lack of surface fuel continuity, raised crown base heights, 

and reduced crown bulk densities.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-67

Figure 3-1. Fire Regime Condition class for the Sunrise project area. Note, WADNR and WDFW land 

was not analyzed for condition class.

Approximately 29 percent of the Sunrise project area is considered to be in condition class 2 and 

another 15 percent in condition class 3. This indicates a transition to more complex fuel 

conditions than historically were present in the planning area. Fuels that would have historically 

been consumed during periodic wildfires have increased and in many areas, surface and aerial 

(within the canopy) fuel loadings are above historical levels. Table 3-11 groups the project 

planning area into the 3 condition classes by acres and percent of planning area, and the map 

above visually displays the condition class of the landscape within the Sunrise planning area.

Table 3-11. Acres by condition class within the Sunrise project area.

Condition 

Class Acres Percent of Planning Area

1 11613 35%

2 9588 29%

3 5030 15%

A reason for this change in forest composition and structure is due to the decline in fire 

occurrence caused by changes in land use (Heyerdahl 1997). Fire is thought to be a dominant 

disturbance type in the Blue Mountains prior to European settlement (Agee 1994a). These fires 

kept stands from becoming overstocked and ground fuels from accumulating. In the late 1800’s 

and early 1900’s settlers began moving to the northwest, so began timber harvest, grazing and 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-68 Umatilla National Forest

the establishment of the Forest Service (Agee 1993). Along with establishment of the Forest 

Service agency came policy to suppress all wildfires (Agee 1993). Aggressive fire suppression 

has been the Forest Service policy since the destructive fire season in northern Idaho and western 

Montana in 1910. By restricting fire spread through suppression, fuels that would have been 

reduced by wildfire have been allowed to accumulate, increasing the probability of large, more 

intense fires. Fire suppression has also affected current conditions by substantially decreasing 

fire mosaics or patches on the landscape. Historically, fires burned large areas creating a 

landscape consisting of a mixture of succession patterns or mosaics, with some of these patches 

serving as natural fire barriers. With successful fire suppression, the large-scale fire mosaics or 

patches on the landscape are being lost, creating a more uniform fuel structure with little or no 

natural barriers to help contain fire growth. This absence of fire has allowed stands to become 

overstocked, species composition to change fire-intolerant trees, and ground fuels to accumulate 

resulting in increased fire severity in forest types that once were adapted to low intensity

wildfires. 

Historical wildland fire data shows that very small acreages have burned during the last 100 

years in the Sunrise project area. With respect to fire return frequency, this means at least two 

fire return intervals have been missed in fire regime 1 and one or more in fire regime 3 

(depending on the classification, example IIIa or IIIc). This absence of fire has resulted in 

increased surface fuel loads, increased tree density and lower canopy base heights. Increased 

canopy cover has led to regeneration of shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant species with low crown

bases. These abundant small trees serve as ladders that carry fire from the forest floor to the 

canopy, increasing the likelihood of crown fire (Huff et al. 1995.) Table 3-12 displays wildfire 

acres in the project area by decade. 

Table 3-12. Past wildfire acres within the Sunrise project area.1

Decade Number of Fires Total Acres Burned

1910 1 8710

1970 25 4.3

1980 31 48.6

1990 34 1864.5

2000 6 0.8

2010 – present 10 152.7

1 There are no fires on record between 1911 and 1969.

Fire exclusion and fire suppression have also indirectly contributed to advancing secondary 

succession by preventing fires of a size and frequency that allow establishment of early seral

species (Hessburg et al., 2005). Tree densities in the Sunrise project are above historical densities 

in dry upland forestland (see Silviculture report). High tree densities in dry upland forest 

historically occupied 5 to 15 percent of the area, but currently occupy 79 percent of the dry 

upland forest area. Historical range of variability analysis for species composition shows that dry 

forestland currently supports too much of the Douglas-fir forest cover type and too little of the 

ponderosa pine forest cover type. Historical range of variability analysis also shows moist 

forestland supports too much of the subalpine fir/spruce and Douglas-fir forest types and too 

little of the western larch and lodgepole pine forest cover types. In dry upland forest, the HRV

for ponderosa pine is 50 to 80 percent cover, Douglas-fir is 5-20 percent, and grand fir is one to 

10 percent. Currently ponderosa pine cover type is at 34 percent, Douglas-fir is 52 percent, and 

grand fir is at 10 percent (see Silviculture report). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-69

For moist upland forest the HRV is 5-15 percent ponderosa pine cover type, 15 to 30 percent 

Douglas-fir cover type, 10 to 30 percent western larch, 15 to 30 percent grand fir and one to 10 

percent spruce-fir. Current percentages are 13 percent ponderosa pine (within HRV), 33 percent 

Douglas-fir, two percent western larch, 19 percent grand fir and 22 percent spruce-fir (see 

Silviculture Report). 

Acres of the national forest are further described in terms of fuel models. Table 3-11 below 

explains the most common models found within the project area, while Figure 3-3 visual 

represents each model’s geographic location within the project area. 

Surface Fuel Loading

Across the project area, the absence of low and mixed severity fires has caused a substantial 

increase in surface fuel loading, understory vegetation and stand density. There are areas with 

high fuel loadings caused by insects and disease, self-thinning and overstory tree mortality. The 

loss of the fire-resistant large-tree component has reduced the fire resiliency of many stands. Past 

overstory removal and lack of fire has resulted in a shift from ponderosa pine forest cover type, 

on dry-forest sites, to Douglas-fir and grand fir. Moist-forest sites have shifted from Douglas-fir, 

western larch cover types to grand fir, spruce cover types in many stands, significantly 

increasing ladder fuels and decreasing canopy base height. If a fire occurs in these areas under 

favorable burning conditions, it is likely that torching and/or crowning would cause overstory 

mortality. 

Table 3-13. Most common fuel models (Anderson 1982) found in the Sunrise project area.

Fuel 

Model Category Description

1 Short Grass

Surface fires that move rapidly through the continuous, cured or nearly cured herbaceous 

fuels. Surface fuel loading, less than 3 inches in diameter, is less than .74 tons per acre. 

Surface fuel bed depth is 1.0 foot.

2

Timber, 

Grass, and 

understory

Fire spread is primarily through the fine fuels, such as grass and pine needles. The stand 

is open where larger pine and Douglas-fir cover one-to two-thirds of the area. Surface fuel 

loading, less than 3 inches in diameter, averages 4 tons per acre. Surface fuel bed depth 

is 1 foot.

5 Low Brush

Fire is generally carried in the surface fuels that are made up of litter cast by the shrubs 

and the grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires are generally less intense because 

surface fuel loads are light. Surface fuel loading, less than 3 inches in diameter, averages 

3.5 tons per acre. Surface fuel bed depth is 2.0 feet.

8

Timber, 

Closed 

Timber Litter

A typical stand includes a closed canopy of short-needled conifers, such as Douglas-fir. 

The compact litter layer consists of needles, leaves and occasional twigs. Surface fuel 

loading, less than 3 inches in diameter, averages 5 tons per acre. Surface fuel bed depth 

is 0.2 feet.

10 Timber, Litter,

Understory

Fires burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater fire intensity than the other timber 

litter models. Fuels in this model include greater quantities of dead and down material 3 

inches and greater. Crowning, spotting and torching are more frequent in this fuel 

situation. Surface fuel loading, less than 3 inches in diameter, averages 12.0 tons per 

acres. Surface fuel bed depth is 1.0 feet.

Surface fuel loadings vary throughout the project area and are best described by fuel models. 

Fuel models contained within the proposed areas are described by Anderson (1982). The 

difference in fire behavior among fuel models is related to the fuel load and its distribution 

among the fuel particle size classes (Anderson 1982). Fuel load and depth are significant fuel 

properties for predicting whether a fire would be ignited, rate of spread and intensity (Anderson 

1982). Fuel models do not indicate potential for uncharacteristic wildfire behavior and effects, 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-70 Umatilla National Forest

fire regime condition class, or departure from historical conditions. However, the combination of 

an indicator of departure from historical conditions, along with fuel models, can be of 

considerable value in determining if wildfire behavior and effects have departed from natural 

conditions (Hann 2003). Intensity and duration of surface fires depend on the availability and 

condition of surface fuels (Graham 2004). Woody fuel can greatly increase the energy released 

from surface fires and in some cases increase flame lengths sufficiently to ignite ladder and/or 

canopy fuels (Graham 2004). In terms of fuels and fire potential, a majority of the closed stands 

proposed for commercial harvest treatment have fuel loads that are best represented as fuel 

model 10. Fuel model 5 occurs in the more open stands. Areas proposed for landscape prescribed 

fire are represented by fuel models 1, 2 and 5 with minor inclusions of fuel models 8 and 10. 

Figure 3-2. Fuel models currently within the Sunrise project area.

Fuel model 2 and 8 are fuel models which would have abundantly existed in fire regime 1 and 3 

dominated landscapes. The fire behavior of these representative models (except fuel model 8) is 

determined by accumulations of fine fuels. Some stands may not have changed enough to move 

into a different fuel model classification, but fire exclusion and the associated changes in stand 

condition have significantly increased the fire behavior potential. 3-12 below, contains the 

relative percentages of fuel models in the Sunrise planning area as they are currently classified. 

As an example, many of the stands classified as Fuel model 8 are becoming older. As these 

stands have aged, numerous trees have been out competed for sunlight and nutrients and are now 

standing dead or have recently fallen, creating higher fuel loads in all fuel size classes. These 

higher surface fuel loads are more characteristic of a fuel model 10. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-71

In the Sunrise planning area, the changes in forest stands and the concurrent increase in down 

woody fuel loadings have caused a shift from a historical dominance from fuel models 1 and 2, 

to fuel model 5, and from fuel model 8 to the dominance of fuel model 10. This could potentially 

result in a shift of fire behavior during severe fire weather conditions from what were historically 

fast moving, low intensity, surface fires to fast moving, high intensity crown fires which can be 

stand replacing. 

Table 3-14. Acres of each fuel model present within the Sunrise project area.

Fuel Model Acres Percent of Area

1 9527 30

2 6414 20

5 2474 8

8 1759 5

10, 11, 12 1 11793 37

No Data 22 N/A

WDFW and WADNR 2 1130 N/A

1 Fuel Models 11 and 12 where combined with Fuel Model 10 because Fuel Model 10 more accurately resembles 

down woody fuel. 2 WADNR and WDFW land was not analyzed for fuel model.

Crown Fire Hazard

Under historical disturbance regimes, frequent surface fires consumed litter, duff, and down 

wood; controlled establishment of fire intolerant species; reduced density of small diameter 

stems; opened the stands to increased sunlight; led to vertical stratification of fuels by 

eliminating fuel ladders between the forest floor and overstory canopy; and maintained early 

seral plant associations. Crown fires rarely occurred under these historical disturbance regimes. 

Consequently, the structure in these stands consisted of open, predominantly widely spaced 

medium to large, old trees, light and patchy ground fuels, and low and patchy cover of firetolerant shrubs (Youngblood et al. 2008). 

It is estimated that with a properly functioning disturbance regime, influenced primarily by 

frequent surface fire (Agee, 1998), dry forest had 60 percent of its acreage supporting lowdensity forest, 30 percent supporting moderate-density forest and 10 percent supporting highdensity forest (Powel, 2009). As for mixed severity fire, moist forest had 30 percent supporting 

low-density, 50 percent moderate density and 20 percent high density (Powell 2009). 

Currently in the Sunrise planning area, 79 percent of the dry upland forest acres are classified as 

high tree density, 14 percent moderate and 6 percent low. Historically, 5 - 15 percent of dry 

upland forest would have been high tree density and 40 - 85 percent classified low. For moist 

upland forest 72 percent is currently in the high tree density category, 20 percent in the moderate 

class, and 8 in the low. Historically, 15 - 30 percent of moist upland forest would have been high 

tree density and 20 to 40 percent classified low (see Silviculture report). 

Crown fire hazard in the Sunrise project area was calculated based upon the potential for 

individual stands to support a fire moving from the ground into the crowns of the trees, initiating 

and sustaining a crown fire. The Forest Vegetation Simulator Fire and Fuels Extension 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-72 Umatilla National Forest

(FVS/FFE) utilizes a torching index24 and a crowning index25 to calculate crown fire hazard and 

summarizes the potential into four categories surface fire, passive crown fire, active crown fire 

and conditional crown fire. Surface fire does not burn in the crowns, passive crown fires would 

burn as individual trees or groups or groups of trees torch and active crown fires move through 

the tree crowns, burning all crowns in the stand (Rebain et al. 2015.) Conditional crown fires are 

fires that if beginning as surface fire would remain a surface fire, but beginning as an active 

crown fire in an adjacent stand may continue to spread as an active crown fire. Crown fire hazard 

for the Sunrise project area is displayed in Figure 3-4 below. Roughly 34 percent of the dry and 

moist forest types in the Sunrise project planning area are classified as having active or passive 

crown fire hazard (see Table 3-15 below). 

Table 3-15. Crown fire hazard by Fire Regime within the Sunrise project area26.

Crown Fire

Potential

Fire 

Regime 1 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Planning Area 

(FS Only)

Fire 

Regime 3 

(Acres)

Percent of 

Planning Area 

(FS Only)

Fire Regime 

4 (Acres)

Percent of 

Planning Area 

(FS Only)

Surface Fire 4,011 13% 1,452 4% 1,515 5%

Passive 

Crown Fire

3,388 11% 1,269 4% 2,802 9%

Conditional 

Crown Fire 458 1% 279 1% 501 1%

Active Crown

Fire

3,213 10% 2,829 9% 959 3%

11,175 35% 5,828 19% 5,778 19%

 

24 Torching index is the 20 foot wind speed required at which a surface fire is expected to ignite the crown layer 

(Rebain, et. al., 48).

25 Crowning index is the 20 foot wind speed needed to support an active or running crown fire (Rebain, et. al., 48). 26 Fire Type was not calculated for 9163 acres of Fire Regime 2, 22 acres of administrative sites and 2 acres of no data 

equaling 29% of planning area (FS acres only).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-73

Figure 3-3. Potential crown fire hazard for the Sunrise project area.

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Taking no action in the analysis area would allow Fire Regimes (FR) to continue outside their 

historical range of variability (HRV), as reflected by their condition classes, and further deviation 

from HRV would occur across the landscape. In the dry upland forests as described in Hessburg 

et al. (2005), fire severity, intensity, frequency, and vegetative characteristics would continue to 

place ecosystem function at risk in the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire (Barrett et al. 2010). 

In the absence of treatment in the Sunrise project area, fire regimes 1 and 3 would continue to 

shift from frequent low/mixed severity fires to infrequent moderate/high severity fires 

characterized by increased fire return intervals and associated fire disturbance severities. The 

area would continue to develop dense, multi-storied stands with forest composition continuing to 

shift towards fire intolerant species dominance (Powell 2009). Insects and disease would act as a 

surrogate to the historical fire disturbance, and the relative distribution of low, moderate, and 

high severity disturbance would continue to be outside HRV across the landscape.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-74 Umatilla National Forest

Vegetation characteristics associated with condition classes would continue to depart under the 

No Action alternative. FRCC 1 represents the historical state of the landscape by definition and 

currently characterizes less than 35 percent of the planning area. This means that 65% of the 

landscape has experienced some degree of departure from its historical condition. 

Taking no action in the Sunrise planning area would result in species compositions that remain 

outside the historical range of variability. In the dry upland forests, ponderosa pine cover type 

would continue to be underrepresented, and on moist-forest sites western larch and associated 

species would also be underrepresented.

No change would occur to tree density levels, so the low density condition would continue to be 

under represented on dry forest sites, as well as canopy biomass levels for both dry and moist 

forest-types. 

Fuel Loading

Fuel loading would remain high and continue to increase. Standing dead fuel (snags) would 

continue to accumulate and add to the existing down fuel load leading to increased departure in 

FRCC and HRV. 

Crown Fire Hazard

Under the No Action alternative 34 percent of the dry (fire regime 1) and moist (fire regime 3) 

forest areas in the Sunrise analysis area would continue to be at risk of historically 

uncharacteristic crown fire. Crown fire is dependent upon stand structure, composition, density, 

and fuel loading. In the absence of treatment, the Sunrise analysis area would continue to depart 

from historical conditions in all of the listed characteristics that contribute to the initiation of 

crown fire. Structure would remain multi-storied where it occurs and develop in areas not 

currently exhibiting multi-storied canopies. Density would increase in most areas under the No 

Action alternative creating the ability of fire to spread from crown to crown. Fire intolerant 

species would be allowed to occupy a more dominant role in the forested stands leading to 

physical characteristics that increase torching and the ability to initiate and sustain crown fire. 

Accumulating surface and aerial fuels would increase fire intensity which is a major component 

driving initiation of crown fire.

Alternative B

Alternative B would include a mix of treatments including 5,520 acres of timber harvest; 1,068 

acres of associated mechanical grapple piling; 878 acres of associated activity fuels prescribed 

burning; 585 acres of mechanical and 1,677 acres of hand non-commercial mechanical thinning

and ladder fuel reduction; and 14,055 acres of landscape prescribed burning. 

Thinning treatments are designed to reduce stocking levels and stand densities while altering 

species composition to favor fire-tolerant and insect and disease resistant species. 

Fire Regime Condition Class

Alternative B addresses the need to shift FRCC 2 and 3 acres towards FRCC 1 in fire regimes 1, 

2 and 3. Table 3-16 summarizes the existing FRCC within the Sunrise project area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-75

Table 3-16. Existing fire regime condition class in the Sunrise project area.

Fire Regime Condition Class Acres Percentage

1 1 4,903 15

2 5,247 16

3 917 3

2 1 5,093 16

2 0 0

3 4,113 13

3 1 1,617 5

2 4,341 14

3 0 0

Table 3-16 summarized the post-treatment condition class by FRCC. This analysis is based on 

the definition of fire regime 1 representing HRV for all dry upland forest types described by 

Hessburg et al.(Date). Fire regime 3 represents a mix of both moist and cold upland forest types 

and ranges from mixed conifer, dry Douglas-fir and dry grand fir to mesic grand fir and Douglasfir cover types. Overall, Alternative B would move approximately 19% (5,986) of upland forest 

towards a more resilient and historically appropriate condition. Alternative B would also treat 

447 acres of condition class 2 in fire regime 2. 

Table 3-17. Fire regime condition class post treatment for Alternative B.

Fire Regime Condition Class Existing Acres Alt. B Post Treatment Acres Percentage Change

1 1 4,903 7,824 60

2 5,247 2,709 -48

3 917 534 -42

2 1 5,093 5,357 8%

2 0 0 0%

3 4,113 3,631 -10%

3 1 1,617 4,459 179%

2 4,341 1,377 -68%

3 0 0 0

Percentages are calculated based on 31,989 Forest Service acres within the planning area. 

Condition class was not calculated for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife lands or 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources land. Acres were not double counted for post 

treatment effectiveness. For example, if 24 acres of a cutting unit intersected with landscape 

prescribed fire, the 24 acres were only counted once in post treatment (Table 3-17.)

Reduction in Crown Fire Hazard 

The fuels and vegetative structure that initiates and spreads crown fire would be changed under 

Alternative B. The treatments would increase height to live crown, reduce surface fuel loading, 

shift the landscape towards fire adapted species, and reduce canopy bulk density in the treated 

areas. Commercial harvest and subsequent fuels treatments would significantly reduce the crown 

fire hazard by decreasing stem and crown densities, and reducing surface fuel loadings. Ladder 

fuels are significantly reduced through timber harvest and non-commercial thinning followed by 

underburning or grapple piling.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-76 Umatilla National Forest

In dry upland forests, under the 75th percentile weather scenario, Alternative B treatments would 

treat approximately 2,859 acres of dry forest (fire regime 1) in the passive and crown fire

category. Under the 95th percentile weather scenario 3994 acres of the dry forest would be treated 

in the passive and/or active crown fire categories. In moist upland forests (fire regime 3), under 

the 75th percentile weather scenario, 1,398 acres would be treated in the passive and/or active fire 

categories and under 95th percentile weather, 2,858 acres would be treated. Table 3-18

summarizes the change in abundance of crown fire potential for fire regimes 1 and 3 under 

Alternative B. 

Table 3-18. Change in distribution of crown fire hazard in fire regimes 1 and 3.

Percentile Weather Fire Regime Crown Fire Hazard Existing Acres Acres Treated Percent Treated1

75 1 Surface 6,590 3,896 59

Passive 3,424 2,445 71

Active 1,063 414 39

3 Surface 3,289 2,670 81

Passive 2,049 1,038 51

Active 490 360 73

95 1 Surface 4014 2,561 64

Passive 3,390 2,645 78

Active 3,214 1,349 42

3 Surface 1,452 1,043 72

Passive 1,269 851 67

Active 2,829 2,007 71

1 Percent treated = acres treated divided by existing acres. For example 59 percent treated for percentile weather of 

75, fire regime 1, surface fire simply means that 59 percent of existing 6,590 acres of surface fire is proposed for 

treatment.

The indirect effects of the action alternatives would be negligible. In the future, if there is no 

further action, it is anticipated the Fire Regime Condition Class and Crown Fire Potential will 

move toward where they are at present.

Alternative C

Alternative C would include a mix of treatments including 4830 acres of timber harvest; 329 

acres of associated grapple piling and 2,730 acres of jackpot burning of activity fuels; 593 acres 

mechanical and 1,676 acres of hand non-commercial thinning and ladder fuel reduction; and 

approximately 14,000 acres of landscape prescribed burning.

Thinning treatments are designed to reduce stocking levels and stand densities while altering 

species composition to favor fire tolerant and insect and disease resistant species. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-77

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)

Alternative C addresses the need to shift from condition classes 2 and 3 acres towards condition 

class 1. 

Table 3-19. Fire regime condition class post treatment for Alternative C.

Fire 

Regime

Condition 

Class

Existing 

Acres

Alt. C PostTreatment AcresPercentage 

Change

1

1 4,949 7557 54

2 5,237 2934 -44

3 902 575 -37

2

1 4,952 5535 9

2 0 0 0

3 4,036 3671 -11

3

1 1,597 4094 153

2 4239 1864 -57

3 0 0 0

Table 3-19 summarizes the post-treatment condition class by FRCC. This analysis is based on 

the definition of fire regime 1 representing HRV for all dry upland forest types described by 

Hessburg et al. 2005. Fire regime 3 represents a mix of both moist and cold upland forest types 

and ranges from mixed conifer, dry Douglas-fir and dry grand fir to mesic grand fir and Douglasfir cover types. Overall, Alternative C would move approximately 16% (5,131 acres) of upland 

forest towards a more resilient and historically appropriate condition. Alternative C would also 

treat approximately 442 acres of condition class 3 in fire regime 2. 

Reduction in Crown Fire Potential

In dry upland forests, under the 75th percentile weather scenario, Alternative C treatments would 

move approximately 2,570 acres of dry forest (fire regime 1) from passive or active crown fire

categories to the surface fire category. Under the 95th percentile weather scenario 3,673 acres of 

the dry forest would be treated in the passive and/or active crown fire categories. In moist upland 

forests (fire regime 3), under the 75th percentile weather scenario, 989 acres would be treated in 

the passive and/or active fire categories and under 95th percentile weather, 1592 acres would be 

treated. Table 3-20 summarizes the change in abundance of crown fire potential in moist upland 

forest under Alternative C. 

Table 3-20. Change in distribution of crown fire potential in fire regimes 1 and 3

Percentile 

Weather

Fire 

Regime

Crown Fire

Hazard

Existing 

Acres

Alt. C Post 

Treatment Acres

Percent 

Change

75 1 Surface 6,590 3,782 57%

Passive 3,424 2,219 65%

Active 1,063 369 35%

3 Surface 3,289 2,299 70%

Passive 2,049 646 32%

Active 490 343 70%
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-78 Umatilla National Forest

Percentile 

Weather

Fire 

Regime

Crown Fire

Hazard

Existing 

Acres

Alt. C Post 

Treatment Acres

Percent 

Change

95 1 Surface 4,014 2,478 62%

Passive 3,390 2,448 72%

Active 3,214 1,244 39%

3 Surface 1,452 761 52%

Passive 1,269 677 53%

Active 2,829 1,689 60%

In relation to indirect effects, it is believed that the indirect effects of the action alternatives 

would be negligible. In the future, if there is no further action, it is anticipated the Fire Regime 

Condition Class and Crown Fire Potential will move toward where they are at present.

Mitigation Measures

The Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide (PMS 484) 

provides standardized procedures specifically associated with planning an implementation of 

prescribed fire. Prior to implementing prescribed fire under the standards in the PMS 484, there 

must be compliance with the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA), National Historical 

Preservation Act (NHPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements. PMS 484 describes 

what is minimally acceptable for prescribe fire planning and implementation and is documented, 

reviewed and signed in a Prescribed Fire Burn Plan. 

Cumulative Effects

Activities considered for cumulative effects are those that further modify indicators used in this 

analysis. The indicators utilized to measure changes in conditions for this analysis are fire regime

condition Class, associated HRV, and crown fire potential. Past actions were considered and 

addressed in the current conditions section of this document. For an activity to be considered a 

cumulative effect they must overlap in space and time with proposed treatments. The following 

reasonably foreseeable activities are recognized as having potential cumulative effects relating to 

fuels activities outlined in direct and indirect effects portion of this analysis. All activities listed 

below are expected to occur within the same time frame as implementation of the Sunrise project 

and are located within the project planning area. The same analysis area (Sunrise project 

planning area) used to analyze direct and indirect effects above are used in the cumulative effects 

analysis because effects are not expected to move outside the project planning area. 

Alternative A (No Action)

Because no direct or indirect effects would occur with implementing Alternative A, there are no 

cumulative effects.

Alternatives B and C

Asotin Prescribed Fire Project

Asotin Prescribed Fire project would treat 7,957 acres of Forest Service land within the Sunrise 

project planning area with prescribed fire. The objective of the Asotin Prescribed Fire project is 

to maintain, or reestablish, vegetation characteristics and disturbance regimes associated with 

fire regimes of the Blue Mountains, and improve the health and resiliency of native grasses and 

shrubs to improve wildlife forage in big game winter range and bighorn sheep habitat. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-79

The Asotin Creek prescribed fire projects would contribute to the reduction of stands in 

condition class 2 and 3 in fire regimes 1, 2 and 3, and would reduce acres of passive and active 

crown fire. Table 3-21 and Table 3-22 display the amount of acres that would be effected in fire 

regimes 1, 2 and 3 in condition classes 2 and 3, and crown fire potential categories low, moderate 

and high. These effected acres are in addition to acres listed above in the effects analysis.

Table 3-21. Fire regime condition class post treatment for Asotin Creek prescribed fire project.

Fire 

Regime

Condition 

Class

Existing 

Acres

Asotin Post 

Treatment 

Acres

Percentage 

Change

1

1 4,949 6,181 25%

2 5,237 4,412 -16%

3 902 495 -45%

2

1 4,952 8023 62%

2 0 0 0

3 4,036 965 -76%

3

1 1,597 1,620 1%

2 4,239 4,216 -.05%

3 0 0 0

Table 3-22. Change in distribution of crown fire potential in dry upland forests as a result of Asotin 

Creek prescribed fire.

Percentile Weather Fire Regime Crown Fire Hazard Existing 

Acres

Asotin Post 

Treatment Acres

Percent 

Change

75

1

Surface 6,590 7,776 18%

Passive 3,424 2,752 -20%

Active 1,063 549 -48%

3

Surface 3,289 3,312 1%

Passive 2,049 2,027 -1%

Active 490 489 0%

95

1

Surface 4,014 6,051 51%

Passive 3,390 2,751 -19%

Active 3,214 1,726 -46%

3

Surface 1,452 1475 2%

Passive 1,269 1,248 -2%

Active 2,829 2,828 0%

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.8 Wildlife Species and Habitat

This section incorporates by reference the Sunrise Wildlife Specialist Report contained in the 

project analysis file at Pomeroy Ranger District. Specific information on the methodologies, 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-80 Umatilla National Forest

assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the report. A summary 

of the current conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed 

Action and its alternatives are discussed in this section. 

The Sunrise project would change the distribution and amounts of various types of wildlife 

habitat in the area. Habitat conditions and species status in the area are described, as well as 

changes that would be expected. This section includes the Biological evaluation for Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive wildlife and invertebrate species. 

Regulatory Framework

The following federal laws relating to wildlife habitat and species apply to the Sunrise project: 

Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Forest Management Act, and the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Applicable Executive Orders are the Facilitation of 

Hunting Heritage, Wildlife Conservation Executive Order, and the Migratory Bird Order.

Agency policy direction is provided in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670) and the Umatilla 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USFS 1990). The Forest 

Plan contains standards and guidelines that must be met for specific Management Areas and 

wildlife habitats. The Eastside Screens Amendment (USFS 1995) and other direction amends 

some of the standards contained in the Forest Plan and establishes standards for old growth

habitat, snag and down wood densities, and habitat connectivity. The standards and guidelines in 

the Forest Plan, as amended, apply to the proposed activities contained in this analysis. 

Methodology

The geographic scale of analysis for most species is the roughly 32,000 acre project area itself 

because it is large enough to encompass the home range or range for most species considered in 

this project area. The following exceptions are made: 

• Elk habitat is assessed by forest plan management area as described in the elk section, because 

forest plan standards for elk are specific to each area. 

• NFMA viability compliance for management indicator species is determined at the forest 

scale.

• Habitat for the primary cavity excavator group is assessed at the watershed scale. 

Time frames considered for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife are short-term 

(within 10 years), mid-term (10-50 years) and long-term (more than 50 years). These temporal 

scales are appropriate given the parameters of the proposed activities and the duration of 

potential effects to all wildlife species addressed in this document. Indirect effects are estimated 

for 10-50 years into the future because that is a timeframe in which changes in structure, species 

composition, and density are expected to remain measurable and predictable with a reasonable 

degree of certainty.

Information Sources 

The quantity and quality of wildlife habitat and the effects of proposed activities were assessed 

using the following sources of information:

• Personal knowledge and personal communications with state and other wildlife biologists

• Notes, summaries, and other documents generated from field reconnaissance of the project 

area

• Publications, reports, and scientific papers

• Layers, data tables, graphics, maps and other information within and/or generated from 

information stored within the corporate Geographic Information System (GIS) database
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-81

• Aerial photos or other imagery

• Forest wide wildlife survey and observation records

• Project vegetation analysis and information from other specialist reports 

• Other vegetation data such as Current Vegetation Survey and Gradient Nearest Neighbor 

datasets to evaluate snag densities

• DecAID online repository of information on dead wood habitat

Incomplete and Unavailable Information 

The presence or absence of many wildlife and invertebrate species in the project area is 

unknown. If habitat is present, we assume that the species may be present now or in the near 

future. Where information is available, it is presented. 

Affected Environment

Resource Indicators and Measures 

Proposed silviculture treatments could change forest stand structure, composition, and density on 

a maximum of 7,790 acres. An additional 14,055 acres would be burned in a mosaic fashion, 

over a period of years. This totals nearly 70 percent of the 32,000 acre project area. Some 

wildlife species may benefit from these changes while others may not, and there are short term 

versus long term trade-offs. 

The following categories of wildlife or habitats are discussed: elk habitat, old forest structure, 

Management Indicator Species, threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species, and 

sensitive invertebrate species (Table 3-23). The main issue utilized for alternative development 

in this EIS reflects several wildlife issues that were brought up during project scoping. 

Alternative C was developed to respond to the wildlife habitat issue.

Table 3-23. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects.

Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure

Used to 

address 

issue?

Elk habitat Amount and distribution Acres Yes

Old Forest Amount and distribution Acres Yes

Source habitat for Management 

Indicator Species

Amount and distribution Acres Yes

Snag and down wood habitat Amount and distribution Acres Yes

TES wildlife species Presence of species or habitat Determination of effects No

Sensitive invertebrate species Presence of species or habitat Determination of effects No

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) directs the Forest Service to provide habitat to 

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) were selected for emphasis in planning, and are assessed 

during forest plan implementation in order to determine the effects of management activities on 

their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs. The amount and 

quality of habitat is used as a proxy for determining the effects of projects on MIS. All of these 

Management Indicator Species could be present in the project area (Table 3-24.)
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-82 Umatilla National Forest

Table 3-24. Wildlife management indicator species for the Umatilla National Forest.

Species Habitat Types

Rocky Mountain elk general forest habitat and winter ranges

American marten mature and old growth stands at high elevations

primary cavity excavators dead/down tree (snag) habitat

pileated woodpecker dead/down tree habitat (mixed conifer) in mature and old growth stands

northern three-toed woodpecker dead/down tree habitat (lodgepole pine) in mature and old growth stands

Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences

Elk Habitat

Rocky Mountain elk was selected as an indicator species in the Umatilla Forest Plan (FP) to 

represent general forest habitat and winter ranges for big game. Elk habitat serves as an indicator 

of the quality and diversity of general forested habitat, the interspersion of cover and forage

areas, and security habitat provided by cover and low levels of human activity. 

Elk use a variety of habitat types in all successional stages, and patterns of use change both daily 

and seasonally. Elk are primarily grazing animals, preferring a diet of grasses and forbs, but in 

winter they turn to browsing the tips of twigs from willow, alder, aspen or other woody 

vegetation (Csuti et al. 2001). Summer nutrition is extremely important for elk survival into the 

following year. Summer elk forage consists of a combination of lush forbs, grasses, and shrubs 

that are high in nutrients and easily digestible. Early summer diets in the Blue Mountains include 

big huckleberry and snowberry, while elderberry, ninebark, and ocean spray become more 

important in late summer (Korfhage et al. 1980). Generally, higher elevation wet meadows, 

springs, and riparian areas in close proximity to forested stands offer these conditions for the 

longest period. Such areas provide nutritious forage and moist, cool places for bedding and 

escaping summer heat and insects (ODFW 2003).

The Sunrise project is within the Lick Creek Game Management Unit. Surveys conducted by 

WDFW in 2017 indicated that there are approximately 650 elk in the Lick Creek Unit (Wik, 

pers. commun), which is low compared to the previous 5 years. The 8 year average in Lick 

Creek is about 850 elk and in some years has achieved the management objective of 1,000 elk. 

The entire Blue Mountain elk population in Washington, however, has been doing well, with 

total numbers meeting the state objective of 4,950-6,050 elk for the past 7 years (Wik and 

Vekasy 2016).

Scale of Analysis for Forest Plan Standards

The Sunrise project area falls within summer range, winter range, and calving habitat for elk. 

Forest plan standards for elk are specific to each Management Area (MA). Generally the winter 

range actually used by elk overlaps our forest plan MA-C3, but not exactly. Summer use and 

calving areas in this project are mostly in MA-C4 and C8. Forest plan standards for percent 

cover, HEI, and road density are currently being met in each of the Sunrise project elk analysis 

areas (Table 3-25). Three management areas are assessed for the Sunrise project: 

MA-C4, Wildlife Habitat: designated in the Forest Plan to ‘provide high levels of potential 

habitat effectiveness for big game and other wildlife species’ (FP 4-158). A mosaic of 

even-aged and uneven-aged stands dispersed in a manner is desired to create a pattern of 

forage and cover. Managing roads is emphasized to provide big game security.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-83

MA-C3, Big Game Winter Range: designated to provide high levels of potential habitat

effectiveness and high quality forage for big game (FP 4-151). The desired condition is a 

mosaic of managed forest, brush patches, and large grasslands. Forested areas will 

contain a mix of harvested even-aged, uneven-aged, and natural stands, creating patterns 

of cover and forage areas. MA-C3A, Sensitive Big Game Winter Range, is included in 

the overall winter range analysis because it has the same standards as MA-C3.

MA-C8, Grass-Tree Mosaic: designated to provide (in part) high levels of potential habitat

effectiveness and high quality forage for big game (FP 4-171). Desired condition is 

natural appearing patches or stringers of timber on open steep hillsides. Stands may be 

mature multi-layered timber or more open as the result of management designed to 

improve big game habitat. The MA-C8 in the Sunrise project is roadless and relatively 

unmanaged. 

Three forest plan standards are used to evaluate effects of management actions on elk habitat: 

percent tree cover, open road density, and habitat effectiveness. The Habitat Effectiveness Index 

(HEI) model combines the amount of elk cover, the ratio and configuration of cover and forage

areas, and open road density to provide an index value. Elk forage is also discussed, but there is 

no forest plan standard.

Tree Cover

Forested stands with relatively closed canopies are often used by elk disproportional to their 

availability and can function as hiding cover or reduce the difference between an animal's body 

temperature and ambient air temperature. Research from the nearby Starkey Experimental Forest 

(Cook et al. 1998) and other studies suggest that the presumed thermal benefits of cover could 

not be substantiated, but recognized that multi-story forested stands are important to elk because 

of their tendency to use these areas throughout the year. 

The Forest Plan defines satisfactory cover as a stand of trees at least 40 feet tall and providing 70 

percent or more canopy closure. Marginal cover is defined as a stand of trees at least 10 feet tall 

and providing 40 percent or more canopy closure. Both types should have sufficient understory

structure to obscure 90 percent of a standing elk at a distance of 200 feet. There is no forest plan 

standard for marginal cover; rather it is added to satisfactory cover for the total cover standard. 

MA-C3 is right at the minimum of 30 percent total cover (Table 3-25). No overstory harvest is 

proposed in this area. Only small diameter tree cutting and prescribed burning is 

proposed in MA-C3 and C3A.

MA-C4 is 53 percent cover, well above the forest plan minimum of 30%; however, the roadless 

area is providing much of the cover while the managed areas are lacking. Alternative C 

addresses this issue. 

MA-C8 is well above the minimum forest plan standards for cover. It is roadless and the only 

recent management in the area has been landscape prescribed fire. 

Roads

Elk have been found to select habitats preferentially based on increasing distance from open 

roads (Rowland et al. 2000). Vulnerability and hunting mortality have been found to be higher in 

forested stands with greater road densities and less hiding cover (Weber et al. 2000).
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-84 Umatilla National Forest

All three elk analysis areas have relatively low open road densities and are within the desired 

condition of an average of 2 miles per square mile or less, forest-wide (FP p. 4-11) (Table 3-25). 

MA-C3 has 13 miles of road and about 5 miles of motorcycle trail open in the summer and fall, 

but roads are gated December 1 for the winter. The main access road (FR 41) opens 

April 1, but arterial roads are closed until July 1 to limit disturbance to elk calving. The 

summer open road density is 1.2 miles per square mile. 

MA-C4 open road density is 1.2 miles per square mile. Parts of this MA-C4 are within the 

Asotin Creek Roadless Area. 

MA-C8 is completely within the Asotin Creek Roadless Area. Less than 1 mile of road is open in 

this area for .05 miles per square mile.

Table 3-25. Percent tree cover, HEI value, and open road density by management area.

Scale Measure Forest Plan Standard Existing Condition

Management Area C3/C3A

(7,070 acres)

Satisfactory Cover 10 % 16 %

Total Cover 30 % 30 %

HEI 70 78

Open Road Density < 2.0 1.2

Management Area C4

(13,425 acres)

Satisfactory Cover 15 % 36 %

Total Cover 30 % 53 %

HEI 60 70

Open Road Density < 2.0 1.2

Management Area C8

(9,670 acres)

Satisfactory Cover 10 % 18 %

Total Cover 30 % 33 %

HEI 70 82

Open Road Density < 2.0 .05

Habitat Effectiveness Index

The elk habitat effectiveness index model (HEI) is used to predict the influence of forest 

management on elk and other big game species. The model uses the distribution of cover and 

forage areas, cover quality, and road factors to help indicate how effective an area will be in 

supporting big game (Thomas et al. 1988.) It is intended to be a relative measure of habitat, and 

does not consider many other factors such as topography, forage quality, weather, predation, and 

hunting. The HEI model provides an index rating from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating the least 

effective elk habitat and 1 indicating optimal effective habitat. The index number is multiplied 

by 100 to get a whole number for comparison purposes. 

MA-C3 elk analysis area has an HEI value of 78, which is above forest plan standard of 70 

(Table 3-25). The value is high because all roads are closed in the winter, which creates 

effective habitat during the winter use period. 

MA-C4 HEI value is 70, which is above the minimum forest plan standard of 60. Although this 

value is high, it does not reflect the poor distribution of cover in much of the C4 analysis 

area. The roadless area has good cover and no open roads, which brings up the overall 

HEI value. 

MA-C8 HEI value is 82, well above the forest plan standard of 70. The high value is due to the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-85

area being roadless and not having previous timber harvest.

Elk Forage

Forage availability can be affected by competition with livestock, invasive plants, and created 

openings. However, the amount and quality of forage is largely controlled by the year to year 

weather (Wisdom et al. 2005).

Grazing occurs in primarily winter range (MA-C3) and grass-tree mosaic (MA-C8) management 

areas on the north half of the project planning area. Active pastures (8,000 acres) include Lick 

and Charley in the Peola Allotment, and Park/Cook and Hogback in the Asotin Allotment. 

Monitoring in 2016 indicates that forage utilization is within Forest Plan standards (Project 

Range Report). These utilization standards were calculated to provide forage for both livestock 

and big game. Once an area has reached full utilization, livestock must move out in order to 

reserve remaining forage for big game.

Timber management, grazing, and prescribed fire can all contribute to the spread of invasive 

plants. Several species of non-native invasive plants are present in the Sunrise project area, 

including yellow star thistle, spotted knapweed and diffuse knapweed (Invasive Plant Report). 

Uncontrolled spread of invasive plants can have substantial impacts to elk forage resources 

(Sheley and Petroff 1999). Fortunately efforts to control invasive plants on the Umatilla forest 

have prevented widespread reductions of native big game forage species. 

Late and Old Forest

A number of species present on the Umatilla National Forest require late and old structure 

habitat. These species include pileated woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Lewis’ 

woodpecker, pine marten, northern goshawk, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, flammulated 

owl, great gray owl, Vaux’s swift, Townsend’s warbler, Hammond’s flycatcher, and others.

The Forest Plan allocated specific areas as Management Area C1-Dedicated Old Growth to 

provide old growth forest habitat across the Forest. No timber harvest is allowed in these areas. 

Four dedicated old growth stands are designated within the project boundary, totaling 1,785 

acres (Figure 4). All are on steep hillsides along Asotin Creek. These areas are large compared to 

most dedicated old growth stands on the forest, the largest of which was designated as a 

replacement for MA-C1 that was burned in the School Fire.

In addition, the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995) were implemented to preserve options for long 

term ecosystem strategies that would maintain habitat for species dependent on late and old 

forest structure. Harvest in late and old structure stands is restricted in some cases, and stands 

connecting them are given special consideration to prevent short term habitat fragmentation. The 

Eastside Screens also establish desired conditions for snags and down wood, and protection for 

goshawk nesting areas. 

An analysis of stand conditions in the Sunrise project area was completed to determine the 

amount and distribution of old forest structure (Silviculture Report). Old forest structure is 

generally wide spread and well connected in the project planning area (Table 3-26), totaling 

13,200 acres or 57 percent of the forested acres. 

While only structure is considered for the purposes of identifying old forest, a number of other 

factors actually affect the quality and effectiveness of these stands for providing habitat for 

associated wildlife species. In addition to large diameter trees, old growth habitat would consist 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-86 Umatilla National Forest

of large diameter snags and downed wood, stand complexity/heterogeneity, and trees with 

broken tops, decay/hollows, wind/ice/fire damage, mistletoe brooms, and other features 

indicative of decadence. These elements were not evaluated in most of these stands. 

The total amounts of old forest are within the ranges of variation for each biophysical

environment, but the amount of old forest single stratum is far below and the amount of old 

forest multi strata is far above the reference condition for both moist and dry forest (Table 3-26). 

Therefore Scenario A of the Eastside Screens was applied such that no net decrease in old forest 

would occur from timber removal activity. Harvest is allowed in old forest but only to maintain 

or enhance late and old structure habitat within a particular biophysical environment, or to move 

one type of late old structure habitat into another that is deficit (OFMS to OFSS). No trees 

greater than or equal to 21 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) would be cut, under any 

action alternative. 

Table 3-26. Old forest structure range of variation and current conditions.

Potential Vegetation 

Group

Old Forest Multi-strata % Old Forest Single-stratum 

% Total Old Forest 

Range of Acres

Variation Current Range of Variation Current

Dry 1-15 59 40-65 7 7295

Moist 15-20 52 10-20 < 1 5175

Cold 10-25 27 5-20 2 445

Total 12915

Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine cover types dominate the northern two thirds of the project 

planning area. At higher elevations on the southwest part of the project area, grand fir and 

subalpine fir are prominent. 

The largest component of old forest is in the Douglas-fir cover type (7,900 acres), followed by 

grand fir (2,285 acres) and ponderosa pine (2,225 acres). Douglas-fir is considered 

‘overrepresented’ compared to the range of variation for the Umatilla forest (Powell 2014), but 

provides the majority of old forest in this project area.

Single stratum old forest in the ponderosa pine cover type is rare, occurring in a handful of 

widely scattered stands (320 acres). This is due to past harvest and fire suppression. 

Table 3-27. Old forest cover types (acres).

Cover Type OFMS OFSS Total Old Forest

Douglas-fir 7,190 540 7,730

Grand fir 2,270 0 2,270

Ponderosa pine 1,805 320 2,125

Subalpine fir/other 760 30 790

Total 12,025 890 12,915

American Marten

The American marten (Martes americanus) was selected as a Management Indicator Species in 

the Forest Plan to represent mature and old growth stands at high elevations. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-87

In Oregon, American marten occur in the southern Oregon Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, 

Cascade Mountains, and Blue Mountains (Marcot et al. 2003). The global conservation status of 

marten is considered ‘widespread, abundant, and secure’ (NatureServe 2015). 

A study in northeastern Oregon showed that martens selected for areas with denser canopy, more 

canopy layers, larger diameter live and dead trees, larger down logs, and closer proximity to 

water as compared to what was available in the area (Bull et al. 2005). 

Marten use a variety of structures for rest and den sites, such as tree cavities, mistletoe brooms, 

and accumulations of down logs (Bull and Heater 2000). Bull et al. (2005) found density of 

potential rest sites was significantly higher in marten home ranges than in unoccupied areas. 

In a comparison of historical versus current conditions in the Blue Mountains, marten habitat

appears to be strongly increasing (Wisdom et al. 2000). Suitable environments for marten are 

broadly distributed and of high abundance on the Umatilla National Forest, and there has been 

little change from historical to current conditions (Wales et al. 2011). The Umatilla National 

Forest provides roughly 100,000 acres of marten source habitat, according to forest plan revision 

data. Source habitat is defined as those habitats contributing to long-term population persistence 

(Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Recent vegetation data was used to determine the current amount and distribution of marten 

habitat in the project area. The project area provides about 6,225 acres of well-distributed marten 

habitat, generally associated with the headwaters of Asotin Creek. 

A study in Eastern Oregon indicated that the average home range size for males was about 6,700 

acres, and the average for females was about 3,500 acres (Bull and Heater 2001). Home ranges 

typically include both source habitat as well as foraging areas and non-habitat. The authors 

suggest that a marten reproductive pair would likely have higher success where an average of 

6,700 acres are available for foraging and denning. Although no marten observations have been 

recorded in this area, it is possible that the area could support a reproducing pair of marten.

According to the HRV analysis, old forest multi-strata is overrepresented compared to the range

of variability in the Blue Mountains. The area is probably not capable of maintaining this amount 

of marten habitat over the long term. Considering there are 5,150 acres of existing moist old 

forest multi-strata, and 1,500-2,000 being the ‘desired range’ for long term sustainability, it 

follows that the area should have about half as much structurally diverse marten source habitat 

(OFMS) as is currently being provided. Dead and Down Tree Habitat

Primary cavity excavators as a group were selected to represent dead/down tree (snag) habitat

that a wide array of species depend on for reproduction and/or foraging. Primary cavity 

excavators (PCE) create holes for nesting or roosting in live, dead or decaying trees. Secondary 

cavity users such as owls, bluebirds, and flying squirrels may use these cavities later for denning, 

roosting, and nesting. 

Populations of cavity nesting birds may have declined across the Blue Mountains compared to 

historical conditions, primarily due to reductions in the numbers of large snags (Wisdom et al. 

2000). However, breeding bird surveys since 1966 indicate a stable, increase, or positive 

population trend for most of the PCE species in Oregon (Sauer et al. 2014). Partners in Flight 

(PIF) data indicate that some species may be ‘of concern.’ Lewis woodpecker and white-headed 

woodpecker have the highest concern PIF scores of all PCEs, and both are listed on our Regional 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-88 Umatilla National Forest

Forester’s Sensitive species list. They are addressed specifically later in this document (see TES 

wildlife section). 

Additional information on cavity-excavating birds’ habitat associations, distribution and life 

history requirements is summarized in Mellen-McLean (2012a). Habitat for primary cavity 

excavators includes coniferous and hardwood stands in a variety of structural stages and the 

availability of dead trees in various size and decay classes (Thomas et al. 1979). Primary habitat 

generally contains snags greater than 15 inches DBH, while smaller sizes provide secondary 

habitat. 

Because dead and down tree habitat was selected to represent primary cavity excavators, this 

analysis and discussion focuses primarily on that habitat component. While maintaining snags

and down wood in managed areas contributes to providing habitat for cavity excavators, habitat 

for each woodpecker species is more than just dead wood, and different for each species. Snag 

availability is the most limiting factor because that is where reproduction occurs.

Treatment unit standard

The Sunrise project snag recommendation exceeds the minimum required by the Forest Plan by 

requiring retention of all snags > 20 inches dbh, except for hazard trees. If there are less than 3 

large snags per acre available, smaller snags would be retained to meet at least 3 per acre at a 

minimum. Actual snag density would most likely be much higher since all large snags would be 

retained wherever possible. In addition to snag retention in harvest units, design criteria for snag 

replacement trees and down wood is provided (see Ch. 2 Design Criteria). 

Dead and Down Wood Analysis

Historic Range of Variability

Integration of the latest science is incorporated into this analysis using DecAID Advisor (version 

2.2) (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012) which is an internet-based summary, synthesis, and integration 

(a "meta-analysis") of the best available science: published scientific literature, research data, 

wildlife databases, forest inventory databases, and expert judgment and experience. In addition 

to data showing wildlife use of dead wood, DecAID also contains data showing amounts and 

sizes of dead wood across the landscape based on vegetation inventory data.

Project area contribution to the forest wide viability of primary cavity excavators (PCE) is 

assessed using the historical range of variability (HRV) concept; comparing current amounts and 

distribution of habitat to historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2000, Suring et al. 2011). Scientists 

assume that species are more likely to persist into the future under the conditions that remain 

most similar to the conditions that they persisted in during the past (Landres et al. 1999, Samson 

et al. 2003). By managing habitat within HRV it is assumed that adequate habitat would be 

provided because species survived those levels of habitat in the past to be present today. Thus, if 

we manage current habitats within the range of historic variability, we are likely to do an 

adequate job of maintaining population viability for those species that remain. Generally the 

further current habitat conditions are from HRV, the more likely it is that population viability 

would be compromised.

Reference conditions

USFS Region 6 Continuous Vegetation Surveys (CVS) are permanent plots on a 1.7-mile grid 

that sample the vegetative condition on Forest Service land (Brown 2003). DecAID contains 

snag information from this data source by watershed and by habitat types. CVS data collected 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-89

from plots that fell within unharvested areas of the Blue Mountains is used as a reference 

condition. Data for the small/medium, large, and open structure classes was weighted to best 

reflect HRV conditions on the Umatilla Forest as determined by the Forest Silviculturist (Powell 

2014). Although the data from unharvested areas may not accurately reflect “pre-settlement” or 

“natural” conditions in eastside forests due to years of fire exclusion (Mellen-McLean et al. 

2012), it is comparable to other estimates of historical dead wood densities (Harrod et al. 1998, 

Agee 2002, Ohmann and Waddell 2002). 

Current levels of dead wood may be elevated above historical conditions in some areas due to 

fire suppression and increased mortality, and may be depleted below historical levels in local 

areas burned by intense fire or subjected to repeated salvage and firewood cutting (MellenMcLean et al. 2012). Even with this caveat, the CVS reference data are used in this analysis 

because: they are still some of the best data available to assess HRV of dead wood, even in 

eastside dry forests; they are the only available data showing distribution and variation in snag

and down wood amounts across the landscape; and the data from unharvested stands are in the 

range of other published data on HRV of dead wood even in the drier vegetation types (MellenMcLean 2011). 

Current snag and down wood habitat for the Sunrise project was evaluated using the 2012 

Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) vegetation data (Ohmann and Gregory 2002). GNN produces 

pixel-based maps with associated snag and down wood data. In addition, this data was updated 

with snags identified by aerial detection surveys from 2013 through 2016. 

GNN snag and down wood data is organized by watershed and habitat type. The Sunrise project 

is entirely within the George Creek-Asotin Creek Watershed. The portion of the watershed that 

lies within the National Forest boundary is approximately 63,155 acres (Figure 3-9). Of the 

forested area, only the Eastside Mixed Conifer East Cascades/Blue Mountains (EMC/ECB) 

wildlife habitat type (WHT) (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012) had sufficient acreage to analyze 

(41,220 acres). 

Snags

Snag data was weighted by structure type to result in one number that reflects the proportion of 

data within each type (large, open, and small/medium) for the entire snag analysis area. A 

distribution analysis was used to determine how close current conditions for snags on the 

landscape match reference conditions. For a comparison of approximated existing snag density 

distributions in the Sunrise snag analysis area to reference conditions see the Wildlife Report.

Updates to the 2012 GNN data within the snag analysis area included aerial detection surveys 

conducted between 2013 and 2016 to estimate impacts of insects and disease and the Little Butte 

prescribed fire. The aerial detection surveys detected approximately 1,660 acres of low density 

large snags and small snags. The Little Butte prescribed fire was implemented in September 

2016 with approximately 775 acres burned and about 1% of the burn area resulted in snag 

creation. 

Generally, there is a relatively good distribution of snag densities in the Sunrise snag analysis 

area and densities are fairly consistent with reference conditions for both > 10 and > 20 inch dbh 

snags. There is a slight deficiency in larger snags in the 4-6 snags/acre density class and a slight 

abundance of larger snags in the 0-2 snags/acre density class. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-90 Umatilla National Forest

Snag densities are at or above the 30%, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels for several primary cavity

excavator species (gray area in Table 3-28). Although not meeting all of the highest tolerance 

levels (unshaded blocks), areas of high snag density habitat are available within the George 

Creek-Asotin Creek Watershed and across the landscape. In addition, not meeting each level 

does not indicate that the species would not be present. A 50% tolerance level means that 50% of 

the woodpecker observations were in those snag densities. Therefore 50% were also observed in 

study areas with higher or lower snag densities.

Snag densities are meeting the 80% tolerance level for white-headed woodpecker, pygmy 

nuthatch, and black-backed woodpecker. Recent fires outside of the project area are also 

providing post-fire habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. 

Pileated woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker generally use areas with high snag densities. 

While this condition may be more limited, areas of higher snag density (>12 per acre) occur on 

38 percent of the snag analysis areas. For snags greater than 20 inches dbh, habitat for 

Williamson’s sapsucker and pileated woodpecker meet both the 30% and 50% tolerance levels 

on about 20 percent of the snag analysis area (> 4 snags per acre). 

Many observations of pileated woodpeckers have been recorded over the years throughout the 

project area and in adjacent areas. Williamson’s sapsucker have also been documented.

Table 3-28. Tolerance levels for woodpeckers occurring in Eastside Mixed Conifer/Blue Mountains 

habitat type (DecAID Table EMC_S/L.sp-22) Snag density/acre for 30%, 50%, 80% tolerance levels.1

Species >10” dbh >20” dbh

Tolerance level 30% 50% 80% 30% 50% 80%

White-headed woodpecker 0.3 1.9 4.3 0.0 1.5 3.8

Pygmy nuthatch 1.1 5.6 12.1 0.0 1.6 4.0

Black-backed woodpecker 2.5 13.6 29.2 0.0 1.4 5.6

Williamson’s sapsucker 14.0 28.4 49.7 3.3 8.6 16.6

Pileated woodpecker 14.9 30.1 49.3 3.5 7.8 18.4

1 A tolerance level is an estimate of percent of individuals in a population that use a particular range of values. 50% 

tolerance means that studies showed 50% of sites used by the species were in areas with that snag density. Gray 

shading indicates levels in the Sunrise snag analysis area are at or above Blue Mountains reference values.

Down wood 

A distribution analysis was used to determine how close current conditions for down wood on 

the landscape match reference conditions. Figures 8 and 9 are a comparison of approximated 

existing percent cover of down wood in the Sunrise snag analysis area to reference conditions. 

As snags fall down, more down wood is created. The analysis did not include fall down rates of 

snags after 2012. Only a slight increase of down wood between 2012 and the present would be 

expected and the change would not be significant in this analysis.

Generally, there is a relatively good distribution of down wood in the Sunrise snag analysis area. 

Small diameter (>5 inches) down wood is mostly in excess of reference conditions (Figure 3-10). 

Large diameter (>20 inches) down wood is fairly consistent with reference conditions, with some 

variation (Figure 3-11). The amount of the analysis area with more than 2 percent cover is less 

than reference conditions, which indicates there is a slight deficiency of large diameter down 

wood in these cover classes. The >2 percent class reference is 10 percent of the area, and the 

current condition is about 5 percent of the area, so it is small in proportion to the entire analysis 

area. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-91

Figure 3-4. Distribution of percent cover of down wood > 5 inches diameter in moist upland forest in 

the snag analysis area (41,220 acres).

Figure 3-5. Distribution of percent cover of down wood >20 inches diameter in moist upland forest 

in the snag analysis area (41,220 acres).Pileated Woodpecker
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-92 Umatilla National Forest

The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is an MIS for old growth habitats. Below is a 

summary of pileated woodpecker ecology important to providing information pertinent to 

assessing impact of the project on the species. For additional details see Mellen-McLean (2012a) 

in the analysis file. Also see the body of work by Evelyn Bull in the Blue Mountains (Bull 1987, 

Bull and Holthausen 1993, Bull et al. 1992, Bull et al. 2007) and Nielsen-Pincus and Garton 

(2007).

Pileated woodpeckers are widely distributed in forested areas of eastern North America, 

westward across a large swath of forest in Canada, and then southward into Montana, Idaho, 

Washington, Oregon, and California (NatureServe 2017). The pileated woodpecker is ranked as 

‘widespread, abundant, and secure’ globally, and ‘apparently secure’ in Washington (NatureServe 

2017). The state of Washington lists pileated woodpecker as a ‘priority species.’ The PIF 

database (Partners in Flight 2012) indicates an increasing population and expected future 

ongoing stability.

Pileated woodpeckers are associated with late seral stages of the subalpine, montane, lower 

montane forests and specifically old forest structure in mixed conifer forests (Wisdom et al. 

2000). In the Blue Mountains, densities of nesting pairs of pileated woodpeckers were positively 

associated with the amount of late structural stage forest and negatively associated with the 

amount of area with regeneration harvests since 1970 (Bull et al. 2007). 

Snags, down logs, and large hollow trees are important habitat components for pileated 

woodpeckers. Approximately 90 percent of the diet of these birds consists of carpenter ants, 

which are associated with large standing and down wood. Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and 

western larch were preferred species for foraging substrate (Bull and Holthausen 1993). The 

woodpeckers also use large, decadent trees and hollow grand fir for roosting (Bull et al. 1992). 

The majority of roost trees were hollow grand fir infected with Indian paint fungus and large 

ponderosa pine snags. 

Within mixed conifer forest, pileated woodpeckers nested preferentially in ponderosa pine and 

western larch in northeast Oregon (Bull 1987, Nielsen-Pincus and Garton 2007). Bull and 

Holthausen (1993) found that density of large snags (> 20 inches dbh) was the best predictor of 

density of pileated woodpeckers in the Blue Mountains. 

Due to an increase in dense, multi-canopy stands due to fire suppression, habitat for pileated 

woodpeckers is increasing across the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, densities 

of large-diameter snags (>20 inches dbh) have declined from historic to current levels (Wisdom 

et al. 2000, Korol et al. 2002). 

According to 2012 GNN data, snag densities of large snags are providing habitat at the 50% 

tolerance level for pileated woodpeckers (see Wildlife Report). The 80 % tolerance level is not 

met, however the density indicated (over 18 large snags per acre) is an unusual condition and 

would only be expected on two percent of the landscape, or 800 acres. This density is provided 

on about 400 acres of the snag analysis area (Figure 3-9).

The project area contains approximately 10,300 acres of pileated woodpecker habitat. Mean 

home range size for paired birds in northeastern Oregon was 1,180 acres (Bull and Holthausen 

1993), which would include both reproductive and foraging habitat. Based on habitat 

distribution, the Sunrise project area could reasonably support eight pair of pileated 

woodpeckers. Many observations of pileated woodpeckers have been recorded over the years 

throughout the project area and in adjacent areas.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-93

Dedicated Old Growth areas are generally providing good habitat for pileated woodpecker forest 

wide. In 1992, biologists surveyed 100 Dedicated Old Growth areas in the Blue Mountains, 

including 20 on the Umatilla National Forest (NF). All of the areas surveyed on the Umatilla NF 

(100%) were occupied by pileated woodpecker at that time (Bull and Carter 1993). The current 

forest management emphasis on retaining large trees and old forest conditions is beneficial to 

pileated woodpecker. 

A viability assessment completed for the forest plan revision effort indicates no viability concern 

for the pileated woodpecker on the Umatilla National Forest. Suitable environments for pileated 

woodpecker have declined slightly, but are broadly distributed and of high abundance on the 

Umatilla National Forest (Wales et al. 2011). The Umatilla National Forest provides roughly 

200,000 acres of pileated woodpecker source habitat. Source habitat is defined as those habitats 

contributing to long-term population persistence (Wisdom et al. 2000). Overall there is little risk 

to pileated woodpecker viability (Wales et al. 2011). 

Three-toed Woodpecker

Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) was selected as a management indicator species in 

the Forest Plan to represent dead and down tree habitat in mature and old growth lodgepole pine 

stands. Their relatively large home range and close association with old-growth conifer forests 

make them sensitive to forest harvesting and fragmentation (Leonard 2001).

The three-toed woodpecker is a year-round resident throughout forested regions of Canada and 

Alaska, south into the northern New England states, Minnesota and Michigan, and south into 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana, the Black Hills of South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, 

Colorado, eastern Nevada, central Arizona, and southern New Mexico (NatureServe 2017, 

Wiggins 2004).

The global status of three-toed woodpecker is ‘secure’ due to its wide distribution (NatureServe 

2017), but ‘vulnerable’ in the state of Washington. They are considered vulnerable due to a 

decline in old forests of lodgepole, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce, salvage of dead trees, 

and fire suppression (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, a trend analysis of habitat for this 

woodpecker showed an increasing trend in the Interior columbia Basin (Wisdom et al. 2000). 

American three-toed woodpecker are largely restricted to high elevation conifer forests (Wiggins 

2004). They appears to prefer disturbed coniferous forests with trees that exhibit thin, flaky bark 

such as spruce and lodgepole pine. Foraging occurs on a variety of tree species including 

ponderosa and lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch. Most foraging occurs on large 

standing snags and dying trees. A habitat relationship model developed for the three-toed 

woodpecker in Oregon indicates that the presence of recently dead trees killed by mountain pine 

beetle was the best predictor of presence of the woodpecker (Chapman 2011).

According to the Sunrise project insect and disease reports, mountain pine beetles are present in 

remnant lodgepole pines. Older pine beetle killed trees are on the ground. This appears to be 

limited in extent and within mixed species stands. The main concerns in the overall area appear 

to be balsam wooly adelgid in the subalpine fir, and Armillaria root rot. 

While various forest habitats are used for foraging, nesting appears to be consistently tied to the 

presence of lodgepole pine. Nesting primarily takes place in unsalvaged, recent, post fire habitat

(Mellen-McLean 2012b), and in northeast Oregon they were found nesting in beetle-killed 

lodgepole pine (Bull 1980).
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-94 Umatilla National Forest

The Columbia Complex fire of 2006 was immediately adjacent to the Sunrise project area. After 

the fire, there was an increase in mountain pine beetle and Douglas-fir beetle activity both within 

and adjacent to the fire perimeter. Post-fire salvage projects Teal and Spruce were completed in 

2007 and 2011 respectively. There were approximately 250 acres of salvage within the Sunrise 

project area, in stands of mixed subalpine fir, spruce and lodgepole pine. This reduced the 

amount of post fire nesting habitat for three-toed woodpecker habitat in the project area. Threetoed woodpeckers were observed in or very close to the project area in 1998, 2005 and 2006. 

Current habitat for three-toed woodpeckers in the Sunrise project area was identified by querying 

the vegetation database for dense, moist mixed conifer, spruce, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine. 

Query results indicate that there are about 4,670 acres of potential foraging habitat for three-toed 

woodpeckers in the project area. Approximately 620 acres of this habitat are of the lodgepole 

pine cover type, present in 3 distinct areas of the upper elevations of the project area. There is a 

slight possiblity that nesting could occur. 

Current estimates indicate there are 170,000 acres of three-toed woodpecker habitat on the forest 

(Wales, pers. commun). The Sunrise project area contributes about three percent to the forestwide habitat for three-toed woodpeckers.

Birds of Conservation Concern

The appropriate state Bird Conservation Plan and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern 

species list (USFWS 2008) for the project area were reviewed. Those species and habitats that 

may occur in the Sunrise project area and may be affected by proposed actions are listed (Table 

3-29

Table 3-29. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern for Bird Conservation Region 10 that may be 

present and potentially affected by the Sunrise project.

Species Preferred Habitat

Flammulated owl Montane forest, prefers mature ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir with open canopy, most often 

found on ridges and upper slopes. 

White-headed 

woodpecker

Mixed conifer forests (< 40 % canopy cover) dominated by old growth Ponderosa pine and 

open habitats with standing snags and scattered tall trees.

Lewis' woodpecker Often used burned pine forest; open canopy, shrubby understory, dead and down material, 

available perches and abundant insects. 

Williamson's 

sapsucker

Montane and subalpine coniferous forest, mixed deciduous-coniferous forest, nests usually in 

dead or decaying pine, fir, larch, or aspen. Snags are a critical component.

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Open conifer forests (< 40 % canopy cover) and edge habitats where standing snags and 

scattered tall trees remain after a disturbance.

Calliope 

hummingbird

Montane forest, mountain meadows, second-growth, and willow and alder thickets. Nests are 

in trees (frequently conifers) at meadow edges or in canyons or thickets along streams.

Cassin’s finch Open, mature coniferous forests of lodgepole and ponderosa pine, aspen, alpine fir, grand fir 

and juniper steppe woodlands. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife and Invertebrate Species

An endangered species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range. A threatened 

species is an animal or plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act that is likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of, its 

range. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-95

A sensitive species is an animal or plant species identified by the Forest Service Regional 

Forester for which species viability is a concern either a) because of significant current or 

predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or b) because of significant current 

or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing 

distribution.

A species list was requested from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on May 18, 2017 for the 

Sunrise project (USFWS 2017) in order to identify which endangered, threatened, de-listed, 

candidate, and proposed species, if any, may be present in the project area. This species list 

indicated that there is a potential for the Canada lynx and yellow-billed cuckoo within Asotin 

and Garfield Counties, however neither of these species are expected to occur in the Sunrise 

project area. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species addressed on the Umatilla National Forest 

include those that have been documented from a valid, recorded observation, or suspected as 

likely to occur based on available habitat to support breeding pairs/groups. Whether these 

species may occur in the project analysis area is determined by observation records, vegetative 

and wildlife species inventory and monitoring, published literature on the distribution and habitat 

utilization of wildlife species, information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the experience and professional judgment of wildlife biologists on the Umatilla National Forest. 

These tables are based on the 2015 Regional Forester’s sensitive species list.

Table 3-30. Threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife species for the Umatilla National Forest, 

Washington.

Species Scientific Name Status Umatilla 

Forest

Sunrise 

project

Mammals

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Documented Not expected

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Not expected Not expected

North American wolverine Gulo gulo Proposed 

Threatened Suspected Possible

Gray wolf Canis lupus Sensitive Documented Documented

Preble’s shrew Sorex preblei Sensitive Documented Documented

Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep Ovis canadensis Sensitive Documented Documented

Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus Sensitive Documented Not expected

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus 

townsendii Sensitive Documented Not expected

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus Sensitive Documented Possible

Birds

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus Sensitive Documented Documented

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Sensitive Suspected Not expected

Great gray owl Strix nebulosa Sensitive Documented Possible

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sensitive Documented Documented

White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Sensitive Documented Documented

Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Sensitive Documented Documented

Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Sensitive Documented Documented

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus Sensitive Documented Documented

Amphibians

Rocky Mountain tailed frog Ascaphus montanus Sensitive Documented Documented
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-96 Umatilla National Forest

The following species are not expected to occur in the project area and will not be discussed 

further: 

• Canada lynx – Umatilla forest is considered unoccupied (USFS 2006). There have been no 

verified records since one was trapped near Mt. Misery in 1931. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service concluded that lynx may occur on the forest as dispersers that have never maintained 

resident populations. This is based on the lack of reproduction records, limited verified records 

of lynx, low frequency of occurrences, and correlations with cyclic highs with populations in 

Canada (USFWS 2003). 

• Yellow-billed cuckoo – breeding populations are considered extirpated in the state of 

Washington (USFWS 2014, USFWS 2014b).

• Townsend’s big-eared bat is strongly associated with spacious cavern-like structures for 

roosting during all stages of its life cycle (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Individuals or small 

groups may day roost in hollow and creviced trees and snags near water for a limited time, but 

tend to stay within a few miles of colonial roosts (Perkins and Schommer 1992). The nearest 

colonial roost is about 20 miles away near the town of Asotin and there are no records of 

Townsend’s big-eared bats on the district.

• Mountain goat – the existing goat population in the Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness was 

introduced on the Oregon side and is not contiguous with the Cascade or Rocky Mountain 

populations. Mountain goats are not known to inhabit the project area. 

• Peregrine falcon – There are no suitable cliff nesting areas and no record of presence. There 

are no known nest sites on the Umatilla National Forest.

Wolverine

The northern Rocky Mountains, including the Blue Mountains, are considered the southern 

portion of the species range. Wolverines here require high elevation alpine forest with deep 

persistent snow (Copeland et al. 2010). Most year-round habitat is found near the tree line in 

conifer forests, and in cirque basins and avalanche chutes that have food sources such as 

marmots, voles, and carrion (Inman et al. 2011). 

While there have been many reports of wolverines on the forest, none have been verifiable. The 

nearest known area of confirmed wolverine activity is in the Wallowa Mountain Range. 

Extensive track and camera surveys and resulted in the detection of four different individual 

wolverines in the Eagle Cap Wilderness in the years 2010-2012 (Magoun et al. 2013). The 

Wallowa Range appears to have enough snow cover to support wolverine, but at this time it does 

not appear that a breeding population exists (Magoun et al. 2013). 

Various winter track surveys have been conducted intermittently on the forest, and no tracks 

have been detected. There are also ongoing efforts to detect American marten and wolverine on 

the forest with cameras, but not on the scale that is necessary to complete a systematic survey. 

The Umatilla forest contains very little alpine or high elevation tree line habitat and provides 

relatively small areas with persistent snow cover in comparison to areas with known wolverine 

populations. However the forest may provide foraging opportunities for individuals. Wolverines 

are opportunistic scavengers with large mammal carrion the primary food source year-round. 

They depend on carnivores like wolves, cougars, and bears in part to provide scavenging 

opportunities (Banci 1994, Van Dijk, et al. 2008). They are known to travel 18-24 miles in a day 

in their daily hunt for food (Banci 1994).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-97

The project area is not within or near any high elevation alpine forest that would support deep 

snow into May for wolverine reproduction. There are no cirque basins, avalanche chutes, or open 

boulder slopes.

Gray wolf

The project area is within the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of 

the gray wolf, which was recently removed from the federal Endangered Species List (USFWS 

2011, USFWS 2009). Wolves remain listed on the state of Washington’s Endangered Species 

List (WDFW et al. 2017). 

A wolf pack known as the Tucannon pack utilizes areas in and around the Sunrise project area. 

Wolves in Washington are managed according to a state wolf conservation and management plan 

(Wiles et al. 2011).

Wolves can occupy a variety of habitat types provided adequate prey exists (Keith 1983, Fuller 

1989, Haight et al. 1998) and human activity is minimal (Oakleaf et al. 2006, Belongie 2008). 

The primary prey species of gray wolves are large native ungulates (Haight et al. 1998, Fuller et 

al. 2003). Gray wolves are typically sensitive to human disturbance near den and rendezvous 

sites. The entire Forest is considered suitable habitat for gray wolves.

The primary prey species in this area are elk and deer, both of which have healthy populations. 

There are no known wolf dens or rendezvous sites within the project area. Repeated conflicts 

with livestock have not been reported for the Tucannon wolf pack.

Preble’s shrew

Preble’s shrew are an uncommonly noted species that has been primarily found in high desert 

riparian areas. Only a few records have been noted in coniferous forest. According to Armstrong 

(1957), nine specimens of Preble’s shrew were captured in pit traps on the western edge of the 

project planning area near Clearwater lookout. These are the only records of Preble’s shrew in 

the state of Washington. The Pomeroy sites were described in very general terms as lodgepole 

pine with small poles and fir forest (Armstrong 1957). Unfortunately there is not enough 

information to revisit the precise locations they were found. They were not far from major roads, 

which may have been the only roads at the time. Clearcut harvesting occurred in the general area 

in the past, as well as salvage harvest in recent years (see map in project file). 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

Bighorn sheep are native to the area but were gone from the region by 1945 due to over-hunting, 

competition for forage with domestic livestock, and introduced diseases (Coggins and Mathews 

1996). Restoration of bighorn sheep to Hells Canyon and adjacent habitat has been an ongoing 

effort with measured success, however populations continue to be primarily threatened by 

disease transmission from domestic sheep. 

Bighorn sheep typically use rugged, open to semi-open grassland that allows high visibility. 

They may be seen on both steep and gentle slopes, broken cliffs, rock outcrops, and canyons and 

their adjacent river benches and mesa tops (Beecham et al. 2007). Expanses of rim rock, broken 

cliffs, and rock outcrops are especially important for lambing and escape from predators. Grasses 

are the staple forage species, complemented seasonally with forbs and shrubs.

The Sunrise project planning area is utilized by the Asotin bighorn sheep herd, which is part of 

the Hells Canyon bighorn sheep meta-population. They use North Fork Asotin Creek drainage 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-98 Umatilla National Forest

and in particular, the Asotin Creek Roadless Area. The population is about 70 sheep (Fortin and 

Cassirer 2015). 

Little brown myotis

Little brown myotis is considered ‘apparently secure’ in the state of Washington (S4), but 

globally vulnerable (G3) (Natureserve 2017). There has been a rapid decline in numbers in 

eastern North Amercia due to white-nose syndrom, an introduced fungal disease. White-nose 

syndrome was recently detected in northwestern Washington, and one of the cases was a little 

brown myotis (WDFW 2016). Mortality from wind turbines is also a factor in little brown 

myotis declines. 

The presence of this bat was documented in a 2007 survey on state land along the Tucannon 

River, outside of the project area. Since no other surveys have been done, these are the only 

documented locations on or near the Pomeroy Ranger District. 

Little brown myotis use a wide range of habitats and often use human-made structures for resting 

and maternity sites. Foraging habitat requirements are generalized; foraging occurs over water, 

along the margins of lakes and streams, or in woodlands near water. Winter hibernation sites 

(caves, tunnels, abandoned mines, and similar sites) generally have a relatively stable 

temperature of about 2-12 C. Maternity colonies commonly are in warm sites in buildings (e.g., 

attics) and other structures; also infrequently in hollow trees. Microclimate conditions suitable 

for raising young are relatively narrow, and availability of suitable maternity sites may limit the 

species' abundance and distribution (NatureServe 2017).

There are mixed conclusions regarding forest management effects to bats (Thomas 1988, Humes 

et al. 1999, Grindal and Brigham 1999). Bat survey methods have site biases and capture data 

cannot provide unequivocal information on the distribution of bats among various sites or 

habitats (Thomas and West 1991). In general, removal of large old trees and snags is a concern 

(Christy and West 1993) because it reduces roosting opportunities. Structural characteristics of 

large old trees and snags such as cracks and crevices in thick bark, bark pulling away from the 

trunk thus forming crevices, and holes in the bole where limbs have been shed, hollow interiors 

offer many potential roosting sites. These large live and dead trees are primarily associated with 

older stands, but may also be present in younger stands.

Bald eagle

Bald eagles occasionally travel through the project area. They have been seen in Asotin Creek 

and Lick Creek, but no roost or nest sites are known in the project area. There are bald eagle 

nests on the Tucannon River to the west and on the Snake River to the east, both more than 10 

miles from the Sunrise project area. 

Great gray owl

Great gray owls use a variety of habitats, primarily mature forests interspersed with open areas 

suitable for foraging (Duncan and Hayward 1994). Older and mature forests with high canopy

closure, adjacent to open areas suitable for foraging, are preferred for nesting, although secondgrowth forests are sometimes used (Bryan and Forsman 1987; Bull and Henjum 1990). Its 

preferred foraging habitat includes montane meadows and open forests and prey species include 

voles, gophers and other rodents. Bogs, clearcuts, and early successional forests are also used for 

foraging (Bryan and Forsman 1987).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-99

There are no reports of great gray owl in the project planning area. Nesting has not been 

documented on the forest to date. Grassy areas next to mature forest are common in the Sunrise 

project area, so it is possible that nesting could occur. They typically use large diameter broken 

off snags or abandoned nests of other raptors.

Northern goshawk

The northern goshawk is considered a habitat generalist at large spatial scales, however it 

typically nests in a narrow range of structural conditions (Squires and Kennedy 2006). Goshawks 

prefer mature forest with large trees, and relatively closed canopy with an open understory for 

nesting. Nests are frequently found near the lower portion of moderate slopes and near water. 

A study in the Blue Mountains found that structural stage, tree basal area, and low topographic 

position reliably discriminated between nests and random sites. Positive correlations were found 

between fledging rate and tree basal area within 1 ha of the nest (McGrath, et al. 2003). Most 

nests in the Blue Mountains have been found in stands with ponderosa pine, but survey effort has 

been lacking in other cover types. Therefore non-pine cover types are not ruled out as potential 

goshawk habitat. 

No goshawk nests are currently documented in the planning area. A query of vegetation data for 

areas with at least 50 percent tree cover and the presence of large diameter trees resulted in 

approximately 9,500 acres of potential goshawk nesting habitat. These stands are well distributed 

throughout most of the planning area. Not all of these areas would actually be suitable for 

nesting; quality nesting habitat would typically be within 1⁄4 mile of water, in the lower portion of 

the slope, and often on the north facing slope. 

Important habitat attributes of goshawk prey species include snags, downed logs, woody debris, 

large trees, openings, herbaceous and shrubby understories and an intermixture of various forest 

structural stages (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Goshawk surveys will be conducted in areas of high potential that may be affected by project 

activities. The Eastside Screens (USFS 1995) provide for specific protections for goshawk 

nesting territories. If active nests are found at any time, they would be protected as specified in 

the project design criteria (see Chapter 2).

Lewis’s woodpecker and White-headed woodpecker

Both Lewis’ and white-headed woodpeckers are associated with open ponderosa pine forest. 

Although habitat is currently limited, both species have been observed in the project area. 

Lewis woodpeckers tend to use open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodland dominated 

by cottonwood, and burned pine forest (Tobalske 1997). Perhaps due to their lack of excavation 

abilities typical of other woodpeckers, they nest primarily in snags or soft-wooded trees in areas 

that provide an abundance of aerial insects. Lewis’s woodpeckers rarely, if ever, probe for woodboring insects but instead employ the technique of fly catching (Abele et al. 2004). 

White-headed woodpecker habitat is typically open ponderosa pine with large trees and snags. 

This species relies almost exclusively upon the seeds from large ponderosa pine cones for its 

foraging needs. They will also utilize insects that are gleaned off ponderosa pine trees. Large 

ponderosa pine snags are utilized for nesting. 

The loss of breeding and wintering habitats in the form of open park-like ponderosa pine forests, 

burned pine forests and riparian cottonwood stands is thought to be the primary threat to the 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-100 Umatilla National Forest

long-term persistence of Lewis’s woodpecker populations (Abele et al. 2004). Maintenance of 

open forest stands through natural fires, prescribed burns, selective timber harvest, and 

restoration of cottonwood would serve to conserve Lewis’ woodpecker.

The Sunrise project area has about 1,000 acres of ponderosa pine cover type with open pine. 

Much of it is not technically classified as old forest, single-stratum ponderosa pine (OFSS), but 

potentially does have stand characteristics that these species would use. Cottonwood groves and 

burned pine forest are not found in the area. 

Green-tailed towhee 

Green-tailed towhees breed mainly at higher elevations (5,000-10,000 feet) throughout much of 

the Rocky Mountains, Great Basin, and Sierra Nevada of the western United States (Dobbs 

2006). In Washington, they don’t appear to breed any further north than the Blue Mountains. 

Green-tailed towhee have been documented just over the ridge from the Sunrise project on a 

shrubby south-facing slope. The species is primarily associated with heterogeneous shrub 

habitat. In forested areas, they commonly use dry shrubby hillsides and post-disturbance, 

shrubby second growth conifer forest (Dobbs et al. 1998). They also are known to occur in 

shrubland-woodland savannah’ or very open ponderosa pine with sagebrush, juniper and other 

shrubs dominating (Dobbs 2006).

Mountain quail

In the drier eastern portions of its range, mountain quail are found in mountain and riparian 

shrub communities on steeper slopes, and in early successional-stage shrub vegetation following 

fire, logging, and other disturbances (USFWS 2003b).

Mountain quail occurred historically in the Blue Mountains in southeastern Washington 

(Crawford 2000), but this was likely due to translocations in the late 19th century. Little evidence 

suggests that they were native to Washington (Vogel and Reese 1995). Birds from multiple 

sources were brought into Washington, resulting in mixing of various subspecies. Populations in 

eastern Washington have been in a severe decline, as reported by Vogel and Reese (2002). 

The nearby Chief Joseph Wildlife Area contains a remnant population of mountain quail 

(WDFW 2006). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has attempted introductions in the 

North and South Forks of Asotin Creek in recent years with little success (Vekasy and Wik 

2015), but it is possible a few may occur in the project planning area. 

Rocky Mountain tailed frog

Tailed frogs are associated with cold, high gradient, boulder and cobble dominated streams. 

Tadpoles have long larval periods and require permanent, rocky streams that are cool and well 

oxygenated all year (Bury and Adams 1999). Froglets and adults often hide in gravel and cobble 

substrates, and tadpoles cling to boulders and cobbles. 

Tailed frogs have documented in many areas of the Umatilla forest and are present in and 

adjacent to the project planning area. They were observed in Charley Creek in 2004 and North 

Fork Asotin Creek in 2005. 

Invertebrate species

The distribution and habitat requirements of the sensitive invertebrates listed for the Umatilla 

forest are poorly understood. Sometimes an invertebrate species is found to be more common 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-101

than originally thought, once specific surveys are conducted. Several surveys have been 

conducted on the Umatilla NF in recent years, but none were within the project area for these 

specific species. Only the Great Basin fritillary has been documented in the project area and it is 

found in numerous places on the forest. No other sensitive invertebrate species potentially 

occurring on the Umatilla National Forest have been documented within the Sunrise project area.

Most of the snail species are found where moist microsites are created by key habitat

components such as talus rock, down logs, moist ravines, nearby water features. All of the 

sensitive insects are reliant upon flower nectar. Key habitat components for the butterflies and 

bumble bee are meadows and other forest openings, open hillsides, ridges and talus. Johnson’s 

hairstreak is unique in that its larval state is associated with mistletoe in the trees and adults are 

often in the forest canopy.

Historic records of meadow fritillary place it on the Umatilla NF, but it is now believed to be 

absent from Oregon and Washington (Fleckenstein and Huff 2007a). Barry’s hairstreak 

caterpillars feed on juniper and this habitat is not present in the project area (Fleckenstein and 

Huff 2007b). Columbia clubtail have not been found on the forest. The nearest known location to 

the Sunrise project is the Yakima River. They have a very restricted range that seems to be 

associated with slow moving rivers (Scheuering 2006). It is unlikely that this species occurs in 

the project area.

Table 3-31. Sensitive invertebrate species for the Umatilla National Forest, Washington.

Species Scientific Name Status Umatilla Forest Sunrise project

Molluscs

Fir pinwheel Radiodiscus abietum Sensitive Documented Possible

Columbia Gorge 

oregonian Cryptomastix hendersoni Sensitive Documented Possible

Pristine springsnail Pristinicola hemphilli Sensitive Documented Possible

Thinlip tightcoil Pristiloma idahoense Sensitive Documented Possible

Humped coin Polygyrella polygyrella Sensitive Documented Possible

Shiny tightcoil Pristiloma wascoense Sensitive Suspected Possible

Salmon coil Helicodiscus salmonaceus Sensitive Suspected Possible

Butterflies 

Great Basin fritillary Speyeria egleis Sensitive Documented Documented

Meadow fritillary Boloria bellona Sensitive Documented Not expected

Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni Sensitive Suspected Possible

Barry’s hairstreak Callophrys gryneus barryi Sensitive Documented Not expected

Lustrous copper Lycaena cupreus Sensitive Suspected Possible

Other Insects

Columbia clubtail Gomphus lynnae Sensitive Suspected Not expected

Western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis Sensitive Documented Possible

Table 3-32. Sunrise project potential sensitive invertebrates and their habitats.

Species Documented 

on UNF

Habitat, surveys, and known locations

Fir pinwheel Yes Recently documented in the Touchet River drainage on the Umatilla NF, 20 air 

miles southwest of Sunrise project. Inhabits moist and rocky Douglas-fir forest 

at mid-elevations in valleys and ravines (Duncan and Huff 2009). It is known to 

live in or near talus of a variety of rock types or under fallen logs (Frest and 

Johannes 1995).
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-102 Umatilla National Forest

Species Documented 

on UNF

Habitat, surveys, and known locations

Columbia 

Oregonian

Yes Surveys in 2010 and 2012 found this snail at four sites in the Touchet River 

drainage, as well as in the South Fork Umatilla River on the Umatilla NF 

(Jepsen and Jordan 2011). Little is known about the ecology of this species, 

but these sites were rocky and generally moist areas on hillsides just above the 

rivers. 

Pristine pryg 

(springsnail)

Yes The only completely aquatic snail on our sensitive list. Found at many locations 

on the Oregon side of the Umatilla forest, but only one record known from a 

state inholding on the Washington side. Associated with springs and seeps in 

‘pristine’ condition and associated small streams with coarse gravel or cobble. 

See Andrews and Huff 2010

Thinlip tightcoil Yes Low elevation ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests. Moist valley, ravine, 

gorge or talus. This species was found in the South Fork Umatilla River area in 

2012 (Jepsen et al 2012). 

Shiny tightcoil No Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forests at moderate to high elevations (Frest 

and Johannes 1995). The nearest record is near Wallowa Lake in Oregon.

Salmon coil No Dry rocky habitats, often intermixed with sagebrush and grasses. Found in 

2012 on BLM lands in Asotin County, east of the project planning area near the 

Idaho border (Jepsen and Jordan 2011).

Humped coin Yes Recently documented in the Touchet River drainage (Jepsen and Jordan 

2011), this species is associated with moist Douglas-fir and spruce forest, often 

in association with outcrops and talus of various rock types (Frest and 

Johannes 1995). It inhabits moss and decaying wood in dampest areas of 

forest cover; moist valley, ravine, and talus sites are preferred, apparently near 

water (Frest and Johannes 1995). 

Johnson’s 

hairstreak

No An old growth obligate, caterpillars of this butterfly feed exclusively on aerial 

shoots of dwarf mistletoe plants (Andrews and Huff 2011). Johnson’s hairstreak 

in northeastern Oregon were found feeding on western dwarf mistletoe on 

ponderosa pine (Spiegel 2014). The nearest known location is on the Wallowa 

Whitman National Forest, east of North Powder, Oregon. Recent surveys on 

the Heppner Ranger District failed to locate any Johnson’s hairstreak. 

Great Basin 

fritillary

Yes Great Basin fritillary have been found in numerous places on the Pomeroy 

Ranger District. One record of this butterfly is within the project area, near 

Sunset point. Many records are outside the planning area, but close by. This 

butterfly inhabits openings and edges in forest habitats including montane 

meadows, forest clearings, exposed rocky ridges, and stream banks 

(Fleckenstein and Huff 2007c).

Lustrous 

copper

No There are no records of lustrous copper on the Umatilla NF; the nearest known 

location is in northern Idaho, but it is also found in Oregon, so there is a 

possibility it would be in between. Habitat is mountain ridges and slopes, 

meadows, talus fields, and sometimes along streams (Fleckenstein and Huff 

2007d).

Western 

bumble bee

Yes The nearest known location of Western bumble bee is from 1922 near Field 

Peak, about 10 miles west of the project area. These bees have been observed 

taking nectar from a variety of flowering plants (Evans et al 2008). Meadows 

and other openings often provide flowers for food, and abandoned rodent 

burrows provide nest and hibernation sites.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)

Elk

Tree Cover

The amount and distribution of elk cover would not likely change in the short-term. Over the 

mid and long-term (beyond 10 years), some stands could grow into thicker hiding cover while 

others may deteriorate. Increased susceptibility to insect, dwarf mistletoe, and disease 

disturbances (see Silviculture Report) would potentially cause some trees to die and fall, which 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-103

would allow pockets of foraging areas to develop. If wildfire occurred in the future, the 

combination of high tree densities, increasing fuel loads, and the presence of fire-intolerant tree 

species could result in uncharacteristic crown fires (Fuels Report) and potentially large scale but 

short term loss of elk cover. 

Roads

No changes in road densities are anticipated. The 4000-360 road would continue to close in 

October. Elk would continue to be disturbed by vehicle traffic from August to October, an 

important time for calf growth and putting on weight to last through the winter. 

HEI

There would be no change to the HEI value. The area would likely remain within forest plan 

standards.

Forage

Without proposed controlled burns important elk forage species may become more decadent and 

less nutritious or palatable to ungulates. Previously planned burning (Asotin Burn) in the 

northeast portion of the planning area would move forward.

Late and Old Forest

Taking no action contributes toward meeting Forest Plan direction over the short-term by 

maintaining existing habitat for late and old structure dependent species such as pileated 

woodpecker, American marten and northern three-toed woodpecker. Ongoing disturbance and 

succession processes influencing vegetation conditions would continue as they have in recent 

years. Forest density would increase and multi-strata old forest would continue to occupy a large 

percentage of the forest landscape (>50%). 

Over the mid and long term, there would be increasing amounts of multi-strata old forest, higher 

tree densities and susceptibility to natural disturbances (Silviculture Report). Thirty-two percent 

of moist and dry forest would continue to be at risk of uncharacteristic crown fire (Fuels Report). 

Over the long-term, by increasing the risk of insect infestations, disease, and uncharacteristic 

wildfire, the No Action alternative does not contribute toward development or maintenance of 

healthy diverse forest conditions that would move forests toward desired conditions for the Blue 

Mountains.

American Marten

Existing marten habitat would remain in its current state in the short term. Multi-strata, moist 

and cold old forest would continue to occupy a large percentage of the forest landscape (5,500 

acres), which is currently providing the majority of marten habitat (6,225 acres). Over the mid 

and long term, there would be increasing amounts of old forest, stands with higher tree densities, 

mid and late seral species, and susceptibility to natural disturbances (Silviculture Report). 

Because marten utilize areas of high down wood densities, they would benefit from an increase 

in snags and down wood as stands mature. The longevity of such stands is questionable, 

however, due to the increased potential for widespread mortality due to natural disturbances such 

as insect, disease, and uncharacteristic wildfire.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-104 Umatilla National Forest

Dead and Down Tree Habitat

Within the next five years, dead standing trees (snags) would continue to occupy the project area 

at current densities and size classes, barring disturbance such as a large scale, high severity 

wildfire. Although snags would continue to be lost and created on the landscape in the short 

term, the existing snag density distribution would not be expected to change in this short 

timeframe. 

In the mid and long term, snag densities have the potential to increase in the analysis area 

through naturally occurring mortality caused by insect and disease, or due to wind and wildfire. 

Some existing snags would fall to the ground, increasing down wood in the analysis area.

Mortality caused by insects and disease would be patchy, creating small to moderately sized 

“islands” with high densities of snags in the early stages of decay. These islands would provide 

habitat for primary cavity excavators (e.g., black-backed, three-toed, and Lewis’ woodpeckers) 

and other wildlife that require pulses of high-density snags. 

The risk of high-severity wildfire would also increase over time. If fires occurred, snag densities 

would initially increase due to immediate and delayed fire mortality. Species that show an 

affinity for post-fire conditions (e.g., black-backed, three-toed, and hairy woodpeckers) would 

benefit in the short term following this type of event. Ultimately, snags resulting from this event 

would fall and snags would be relatively scarce until regenerating stands become old enough to 

produce large trees, a time period ranging from 80 to 100 years.

Pileated Woodpecker

Existing pileated woodpecker habitat would remain in its current state in the short term. In the 

mid and long term, more snags would be created as trees die. Over the mid and long term, there 

would be increasing amounts of old forest, stands with higher tree densities, mid and late seral

species, and susceptibility to natural disturbances (Silviculture Report). Because woodpeckers 

utilize areas of high snag and down wood densities, they would benefit from an increase in snags 

and down wood as stands mature. The longevity of such stands is questionable, however, due to 

the increased potential for widespread mortality due to natural disturbances such as insect, 

disease, and uncharacteristic wildfire.

Three-toed Woodpecker

Existing three-toed woodpecker habitat would remain in its current state in the short term, with 

habitat enhanced by limited amounts of additional mortality from mountain pine beetle activity. 

Over the mid and long term, there would be increasing amounts of old forest, stands with higher 

tree densities, mid and late seral species, and susceptibility to natural disturbances (Silviculture

Report). Any future fire and/or beetle mortality in trees would benefit three-toed woodpeckers. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife and Invertebrate Species

Wolverine

Existing habitat conditions would continue to provide foraging habitat for wolverine. No decline 

in prey species would be expected in the short term, and there would be no change in open road 

densities. In the event of a large wildfire, forest cover could be removed over large areas, but 

eventually shrubs would respond positively and wolverine prey species would still be present.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-105

Gray wolf

No decline in prey species would be expected in the short term, and there would be no change in 

open road densities. There may be increased risk of uncharacteristic wildlife if fuels are not 

reduced. If fire reduces forest cover over a large area, wolves may be less likely to use the area 

for a few years, but then resume activity in relation to ungulate availability as shrubs and grasses 

sprout up (Ballard et al. 2000). 

Preble’s shrew

With continued fire suppression, tree densities would increase and surface fuels and fuel ladders 

would continue to accumulate in the area, leading to a corresponding increase in the potential for 

high-intensity crown fires. Such events could remove entire forest stands across extensive areas 

in both upland and riparian habitats. In burned areas, leaf litter and low concealing cover would 

be removed or adversely modified over the short-term. This could negatively impact prey species 

and potentially make shrews more susceptible to predation.

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

There would be no effects to bighorn sheep if the proposed actions are not implemented. Bighorn 

habitat is unaffected by changes or lack of changes to forested area. If the prescribed burning 

were not implemented, that would be a lost opportunity to enhance forage in the grassy areas, but 

other burning in the Asotin bighorn sheep area has already been planned and would be 

implemented over the next few years.

Little brown myotis

Alternative A would maintain potential habitats for little brown myotis in the short-term, but this 

alternative would not address the increasing risk of a high intensity fire which could remove 

potential roosting structures. In the absence of wildfire, increasing densities of large decaying 

and dead trees would provide more roosting habitat for bats.

Bald eagle

There would be no effects to bald eagles if the proposed actions are not implemented. There are 

no nest sites or roost sites, and presence is very infrequent. 

Great Gray Owl

Alternative A would maintain potential habitats for great gray owls in the short-term, but this 

alternative would not address the increasing risk of a high intensity fire which could remove 

potential nesting structures and entire nest stands in the area. 

Northern goshawk

Alternative A would maintain all of the potential habitat for goshawk in the short-term, but this 

alternative would not address the increasing risk of a high intensity fire which could remove 

entire stands. 

Lewis’s woodpecker and White-headed woodpecker

Alternative A would maintain all of the potential habitat for these species in the short-term, but 

this alternative would not address the increasing risk of a high intensity fire which could remove 

entire stands. If lower intensity fires occur in ponderosa pine forest, which happens at times, that 

would be beneficial to Lewis’ woodpecker. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-106 Umatilla National Forest

Green-tailed towhee

Alternative A would maintain all of the potential habitat for green-tailed towhee in the shortterm. Wildfire could potentially reduce habitat, but this species is associated with shrubby areas 

and second growth forest, so effects would be short-lived. 

Mountain quail

There would be no impacts to mountain quail since new forest management activities would not 

be initiated in the project area. Even in the event of wildfire, mountain quail are known to return 

to burned areas where there is cover remaining or sprouting. 

Rocky Mountain tailed frog

There would be no impacts to tailed frogs since new forest management activities would not be 

initiated in the project area. Generally the only indirect effect might be a high intensity wildfire 

caused by fuels build up that could burn riparian areas, affecting water quality and streamside 

shade. 

Invertebrate species

There would be no immediate impacts to sensitive invertebrates since new forest management 

activities would not be initiated in the project area. Generally the only indirect effect might be a 

future high intensity wildfire caused by fuels build up. 

Alternatives B and C

Elk

Tree Cover

• Cover for elk would meet forest plan standards in both action alternatives (Table 3-25). 

• Landscape burning would be designed to maintain adequate amounts of elk cover

MA-C3: The amount of total cover would not change in MA-C3, but some satisfactory cover

would be converted to marginal cover. (Table 3-33).

MA-C4: Harvest and fuels treatments proposed in MA-C4 would substantially reduce the 

amount of satisfactory and total cover (2,630 acres). Alternative C would maintain 1,800 acres 

more elk cover than Alternative B on the landscape in a better distribution pattern for elk and 

other wildlife (Table 3-34.) More elk cover would be maintained in these areas (1,800 acres) 

until the surrounding openings created develop into cover. 

Table 3-33. Cover reduction by alternative in MA-C3 (acres).

Management Area C3 (7,100 acres) Current Elk Cover Alternative B Alternative C

Satisfactory Cover 1140 - 375 - 375

Marginal Cover 995 + 375 + 375

Total 2135 +/- 0 +/- 0

Table 3-34. Cover reduction by alternative in MA-C4 (acres).

Management Area C4 (13,425 acres) Current Elk Cover Alternative B Alternative C

Satisfactory Cover 4770 -1870 -730

Marginal Cover 2300 -760 -60

Total 7070 -2630 -790
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-107

Figure 3-6. Elk cover in MA-C4 after implementing Alternative B.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-108 Umatilla National Forest

Figure 3-7. Elk cover in MA-C4 after implementing Alternative C.

MA-C8: Landscape burning is the only activity proposed in MA C8 because it is a roadless area. 

Although we would not anticipate a loss of cover due to landscape burning, we identified some 

likely areas where that could happen in the roadless area (Table 3-35). 

Table 3-35. Cover reduction by alternative in MA-C8 (acres).

Management Area C8 (9,665 acres) Current Elk Cover Alternative B Alternative C

Satisfactory Cover 1745 -415 -415

Marginal Cover 1430 +150 +150

Total 3175 -265 -265

HEI and Roads

• HEI values would remain within forest plan minimum standards in both Alternatives and all 

three management areas (Table 3-36). 

• For both action alternatives, there would be no change in the open road densities. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-109

Table 3-36. Comparison of effects to elk habitat by alternative.

Scale Measure Forest Plan

Standard Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C

Management Area C3/C3A

(7,070 acres)

Satisfactory Cover 10 % 16 % 11 % 11 %

Total Cover 30 % 30 % 30 % 30 %

HEI 70 78 75 75

Open Road Density < 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2

Management Area C4

(13,425 acres)

Satisfactory Cover 15 % 36 % 21 % 30 %

Total Cover 30 % 53 % 33 % 47 %

HEI 60 70 68 70

Open Road Density < 2.0 1.2 1.2 1.2

Management Area C8

(9,670 acres)

Satisfactory Cover 10 % 18 % 13 % 13 %

Total Cover 30 % 33 % 30 % 30 %

HEI 70 82 80 80

Open Road Density < 2.0 .05 .05 .05

Some closed roads would be opened temporarily for harvest and fuels activities; however they 

would remain closed to the public. Temporary roads would be established, but decommissioned 

once the project is completed. These areas would be seeded and would likely have established 

vegetation within a year. Alternative B would require using 39 miles of existing closed roads and 

14 miles of temporary road. Alternative C would require using 34 miles of existing closed roads, 

and 8 miles of temporary road. 

Because Alternative C would have fewer miles of road being used and fewer miles of vegetation 

disturbed for temporary access, there would be less effect to elk during project activities. 

Motorized vehicles using temporary roads and existing roads that have been closed for many 

years would likely cause elk to avoid these areas when activity is occurring. Since proposed 

activities would take place gradually over several years, activities would be spread out in space 

and time, the road use would not cause elk to move out of the area permanently. Elk may even 

return to the areas at night when operations shut down. All activities in the winter range would 

be restricted from December 1 through March 30. Roads closed for elk calving would not be 

used until after June 30.

Devil’s Tailbone Road (4000-360) currently closes October 11, opens November 5, and closes 

again December 1. Alternative C proposes closing the gate on Forest Road 4000-360 on August 

1 to match nearby roads. Having the same closure date would reduce confusion on our travel 

maps, reduce administrative costs, and improve elk security. The first mile of the road would 

remain open year-round.

Cover is currently limited along this road, due to natural openings as well as past harvest. 

Alternative B proposes treatments along the entire length of this road, and much of it on both 

sides of the road. A substantial amount of canopy cover and hiding cover would be removed with 

regeneration harvest and thinning. Alternative C also maintains 200 more acres of cover along 

this road than Alternative B.

The earlier closure date in Alternative C would provide additional elk security during late 

summer and fall, a time when elk are putting on weight to last through the winter. It would also 

potentially reduce elk movements onto private land.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-110 Umatilla National Forest

Forage

Prescribed burning would directly decrease forage for big game for a short time, but burning 

activities would be spread over multiple years. Upon completion of each burn area, there would 

be a mosaic of unburned, lightly burned, moderately burned, and intensely burned patches. As 

green-up occurs the following spring and summer; new grass sprouts would be highly palatable 

and rich in nutrients. Increased vigor and palatability of grasses lasts only a year or two, but 

where shrubs and understory trees are burned, the forage base would increase over the mid-term. 

Similarly, non-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, and regeneration harvest of trees can 

increase forage for elk in the mid-term (Cook 2002).

All management activities would be followed by seeding with native seed where it is needed. 

Aerial fertilizer may be applied to key forage areas if funding is available. Growth in the elk 

population would not be likely, or at least not attributable to this project, but elk may be more 

inclined to stay on national forest where forage is enhanced rather than move onto private lands 

where crop damage may occur.

Forest Plan Consistency

Alternative B could result in a slightly negative habitat trend due to the resulting poor 

distribution of cover in elk summer range. Alternative C would maintain a better distribution of 

summer range cover and the change in Forest road 4000-360 closure date would improve elk 

security. Alternative C would likely result in no net change in mid to long-term habitat trend. 

Forest plan standards for elk habitat would be met, and no changes to the elk population are 

expected as a result of these actions. Both Alternatives B and C are consistent with the forest 

plan and continued viability of Rocky Mountain elk is expected on the Umatilla National Forest.

Late and Old Forest

There are 3,030 acres of OFMS and 100 acres of OFSS affected by cutting units, totaling 3,130 

acres. (Table 3-37Alternative B includes 2,130 acres of tree cutting with removal of larger trees 

(up to 21 inches dbh), plus 1,000 acres of tree cutting with removal of small trees only (up to10 

inches dbh). Alternative C includes 880 acres of tree cutting with removal of larger trees and the 

same 1,000 acres of small diameter cutting. The effects from small diameter thinning and 

landscape burning are the same for both action alternatives.

Table 3-37. Tree cutting within old forest (acres).

Cutting activity Alternative B Alternative C

Thinning and regeneration harvest up to 21 inch dbh trees 2,130 880

Thinning only up to 10 inch dbh trees 1,000 1,000

Total 3,130 1,880

No live trees > 21 inches DBH would be removed except for danger trees, and no snags > 20 

inches dbh would be removed except for danger trees. Large snags may not be available in all 

affected stands, but all units would maintain snags and down wood equal to or in excess of 

Forest Plan standards where they are available. The healthiest large trees and the soundest large 

snags would remain as the building blocks for present and future stand and wildlife habitat

development. 

About one third of the silvicultural activities in old forest include movement from old forest 

multi-strata (OFMS) to old forest single-stratum (OFSS) (Table 3-28). Cutting methods 

occurring in existing old forest include intermediate and regeneration harvests. Regeneration 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-111

methods would include individual-tree and group selection, shelterwood preparatory cutting, or 

shelterwood seed cutting. All treatments in existing old forest would retain at least 10 trees/acre 

> 21 inches dbh. 

Group selection harvests in old forest would typically create openings less than two acres in size, 

and the stand as a whole is still considered well-stocked and meeting minimum old forest 

requirements. Such openings to allow more light penetration to the ground to regenerate shadeintolerant, early seral species such as western larch and lodgepole pine. 

Landscape burning outside of cutting units is predicted to potentially create 1,800 acres of OFSS 

in both alternatives by burning the small trees in the understory. Effects from landscape burning 

are also included in Table 3-38.

Note that Alternatives B and C are similar in the amount of OFMS converted to OFSS in dry 

forest. This is because the treatments are the same for the majority of dry forest. 

There is a larger discrepancy in moist old forest between alternatives because many units 

retained for elk cover in Alternative C happen to be moist upland, old forest. The end result of 

both alternatives is a substantial change from OFMS to OFSS. 

There are also some cutting units that would maintain enough understory to remain classified as 

OFMS (800 acres, both alternatives). Stands that are currently OFSS would only be treated with 

hand thinning and landscape fire such that they remain OFSS (100 acres). 

Table 3-38. Changes to old forest structure by alternative (acres)

Old Forest Structure Type Existing Alt B Change Alt C Change Alt B Result Alt C Result

Dry OFSS 843 +1,891 +1,641 2,733 2,484

Dry OFMS 6450 -2,153 -1,904 4,297 4,546

Moist OFSS 22 +1,953 +961 1,975 983

Moist OFMS 5153 -2,199 -1,207 2,954 3,947

Cold OFSS 25 +221 +217 245 242

Cold OFMS 422 -221 -217 201 205

Total 12915 -540 -540 12,405 12,407

The predicted reduction of total old forest in Alternatives B and C (500 acres). The extra 40 

acres is an allowance for potential mortality from landscape burning. That is why the -/+ 

conversions from OFMS to OFSS are not equal. When the burning occurs, plans include 

modifications to adjust operations such that areas of elk cover would be protected and thus, most 

of the old forest would as well. Based on past burning in similar areas, resulting small areas of 

high burn severity are normal, but at a very small scale if at all. If this occurs, rich snag habitat

would be created in these areas and diversity of habitat would increase.

Canopy would be reduced in some of the connective corridors between old forest stands via tree 

cutting, small diameter thinning, and/or landscape burning. Alternative B would affect 545 acres 

of connective forest and Alternative C would affect 190 acres of connective forest. These areas 

would be thinned, but are noted as ‘high retention’ areas; in other words thinning would be light 

and the corridor would continue to provide for movement of various wildlife species associated 

with late and old structural conditions.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-112 Umatilla National Forest

Proposed temporary roads considered ‘new’ (not on old roadbed) would remove trees and 

vegetation within old forest in both alternatives. Alternative B proposes 3 miles and Alternative 

C proposes 1.7 miles of new temporary road within old forest. The effects to vegetation are 

accounted for in the prior effects stated for tree cutting because all of the old forest stands 

impacted by temporary roads are also within cutting units. All temporary roads would be revegetated after use. Since these roads would be closed to the public, access to old forest stands 

for activities such as firewood cutting would not increase. 

Other proposed activities such as road maintenance and removal of danger trees along roads 

would have little to no effect to old forest stands, because only trees adjacent to roads would be 

affected and interior old forest would not. 

American Marten

In the remainder of the project area, nearly all marten habitat that is not protected by MA-C1 

(Dedicated Old Growth, MA-C5 (Riparian) and Asotin Creek Roadless Area designations would 

be affected by cutting activity proposed in Alternative B. Within MA-C4, 100 percent of the 

marten habitat would be affected by tree cutting (1,950 acres). Marten habitat that would be hand 

thinned and underburned is predicted to remain old forest multistory, and would continue to 

provide habitat for marten. 

The majority of effect from Sunrise project would be multi-strata moist old forest converting to 

single-stratum moist old forest. The regeneration acres (Table 12) are prescriptions that would 

not remove large trees or change the stand structure to something other than old forest. Minimum 

down wood and all large snags would be retained, and large trees (> 21 inches dbh) would not be 

removed. These stands would still qualify as marten foraging habitat, but modifications to stand 

structure could make them unsuitable for winter denning in the short term. 

Since marten home ranges typically include both source habitat as well as foraging areas and 

non-habitat, the project area may continue to provide enough habitat for a reproducing pair. With 

Alternative B, Management Area C-4 would no longer provide high quality habitat. Quality 

source habitat would be available in the roadless area, and marten could continue to use managed 

areas to find prey. In general, Alternative C would treat half as much marten habitat as 

Alternative B, and would provide a balance between maintaining marten habitat and reducing 

fuels.

Past timber harvest and road construction has occurred throughout the project area, which is 

reflected in the existing condition. The Asotin Creek Prescribed Fire project boundary only 

contains 42 acres of marten habitat which will not likely be affected. The 44 Road Grapple 

project would not occur within marten habitat. Forest recreation activities such as hunting, 

hiking, sightseeing, and berry picking take place during the day time when marten are less 

active. Open road densities would remain low, which restricts the amount of human disturbance. 

These and other activities such as livestock grazing, future seeding and planting, weed 

treatments, and road projects in combination with proposed activities in this EIS would have no 

cumulative effects to marten habitat.

Dead and Down Tree Habitat

Hand thinning and pruning would not affect snag densities, however follow up burning could 

reduce snags and down wood, while also causing some new tree mortality. There could be a 

short term reduction but a mid- to long-term increase in dead wood habitat.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-113

Thinning and selection harvests should accelerate the development of large trees in the project 

area. Over the long term, large diameter snags and down logs would be recruited from these 

trees. Timber harvest and fuel reduction activities would reduce ladder fuels and tree crown

biomass, reducing the potential for hot, crown fires to occur in the project area. The supply of 

snags would be less subject to “boom and bust” cycles and should become more stable and 

continuous over time. The average snag diameter should slowly increase. 

Following the project there would be a short to mid-term reduction in snag recruitment in harvest

units, since logging would “capture” much of the potential habitat that would have resulted from 

density or age dependent tree mortality factors. Most of this potential habitat would have 

consisted of smaller diameter trees. With all logging methods, an occasional green reserve tree 

might be mechanically injured during felling and skidding operations. These tree injuries could 

provide forest pathogens access into the tree bole, potentially resulting in defective live trees or 

snags over a few years. In addition, many of the mechanical units would also be burned and 

create new snags.

Current and future snag and down wood habitat could be provided in a variety of ways within 

mechanical harvest units. In general, large trees and snag retention would be emphasized. Large 

snags would be left standing except for incidental snags that need to be felled for safety 

purposes, for skyline corridors, or during clearing for temporary roads. Large diameter snags are 

emphasized because they are in shorter supply, stand longer, and are used by more wildlife 

species than smaller snags.

Under Alternative B; mechanical activities could result in some short term snag loss on 5,520 

acres, or 11.4 percent of the forest in the watershed (48,270 acres on FS). Again, all existing 

large snags would be retained wherever possible. Under Alternative C, mechanical activities 

could result in some snag loss on 2,555 acres, or 5 percent of the forest in the watershed. 

Overall there is expected to be a net loss of down wood and a net increase in snags, due to fire 

mortality. Fuels would be consumed in relation to their diameter and moisture content. 

Structural habitat for cavity excavating birds could be slightly reduced at the stand scale, but 

measures taken to provide current and future habitat (mentioned above) would contribute to long 

term dead wood habitat needs on the forest. The improvement of long term forest resiliency

would provide snag and down wood habitat over the long term. In general, managing forests 

within or towards the historical range of variability should provide habitat for a wide range of 

cavity excavator species. Managing within Eastside Screens direction also ensures that the old 

forest habitat that many primary cavity excavators utilize remains available. The Asotin Creek 

burn would affect an additional 7,475 acres within the watershed. This is the size of the area, but 

only a portion would actually burn. The Asotin Creek burn area is a mix of grassland and timber, 

with a variable mosaic of burn severity and intensities expected.

Timber sales associated with the South George EIS total 3,450 acres of treatment in this same 

watershed. South George units in combination with mechanical treatments in Sunrise project, 

Alternatives B and C would affect 19 and 12 percent of total forest respectively. At the forest 

scale, the effect is very small (<1%)

Pileated Woodpecker

Pileated woodpecker habitat that would be hand thinned and underburned is predicted to remain 

in the old forest or understory reinitiation stand structure, and would continue to provide habitat.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-114 Umatilla National Forest

The majority of effect from Sunrise project would be multi-strata old forest converting to singlestratum old forest; both of which can be source habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Minimum 

down wood and all large snags would be retained, and large trees (> 21 inches dbh) would not be 

removed. 

Thinning and selection harvests should accelerate the development of large trees in the project 

area. Over the long term, large diameter snags and down logs would be recruited from these 

trees. The supply of snags would be less subject to “boom and bust” cycles and should become 

more stable and continuous over time. The average snag diameter should slowly increase. 

Landscape fire could reduce snags and down wood, but small scale torching would result in snag 

and down wood recruitment. Overall there is expected to be a net loss of down wood and a net 

increase in snags, due to fire mortality. 

Structural habitat for pileated woodpecker could be slightly reduced at the stand scale, but 

measures taken to provide current and future habitat would contribute to long term dead wood 

habitat needs on the forest. The improvement of long term forest resiliency would provide snag

and down wood habitat over the long term. In general, managing forests within or towards the 

historical range of variability should provide habitat for a wide range of cavity excavator species. 

Managing within Eastside Screens direction also ensures that the old forest habitat for pileated 

woodpecker remains available. 

The Asotin Creek Prescribed Fire project could affect an additional 1,500 acres of pileated 

woodpecker habitat. These are for the most part timber stringers in draws and along North Fork 

Asotin Creek. Burning effects are expected to be minimal in these areas, as the objective is to 

burn the extensive grasslands in the area. 

About one mile of the 44 Road Grapple project is immediately adjacent to pileated woodpecker 

habitat. There would be minimal encroachment of the project into these stands, if any, because of 

the limited distance the grapple piling will occur from the road. 

Open road densities would remain low, which reduces the potential for snag loss from personal 

use firewood cutting. Other activities such as livestock grazing, future seeding and planting, 

weed treatments, recreational uses and road projects in combination with proposed activities in 

this EIS would have no cumulative effects to pileated woodpecker.

Three-Toed Woodpecker

Alternative B would reduce tree density on about 64 percent (3,000 acres) of the three-toed 

woodpecker habitat. Alternative C would reduce tree density on about 30 percent (1,400 acres) 

of the three-toed woodpecker habitat in the project area. 

Three-toed woodpeckers would likely continue to use post-harvest stands that retain at least 50 

percent canopy cover; this would be the case for about 600 activity acres in Alternative B and 

300 acres in Alternative C. 

The majority of treatments would be a moderate or mixed amount of cover retention (< 50% 

canopy cover retained). Generally these treatments would reduce habitat in the short term but 

create more resilient stands in the long lerm. Increases in lodgepole pine would be expected.

Within the moderate and mixed retention prescription, Alternative B would change 300 acres of 

three-toed woodpecker habitat to a stand initiation structure, with 75 acres of that being the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-115

lodgepole pine cover type (units 61 and 63). Only 26 acres of currently OFMS lodgepole pine 

would be treated, and it would change to an OFSS stand structure; which may also be used by 

three-toed woodpeckers.

Landscape prescribed fire would potentially affect an additional 1,400 acres of three-toed 

woodpecker habitat. Any mortality associated with burning would probably enhance foraging 

opportunities.

Foraging habitat for three-toed woodpeckers would remain available on over 2,000 acres with 

Alternative B and 3,570 acres with Alternative C.

Recent fires on the Pomeroy Ranger District (School, Columbia Complex, Grizzly Bear 

Complex) have created large amounts of dead tree habitat in adjacent areas. Other ongoing 

activites such as the Asotin Creek burn, livestock grazing, and recreation uses would not affect 

three-toed woodpecker habitat. 

Birds of Conservation Concern

The appropriate state Bird Conservation Plan and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern 

species list (USFWS 2008) for the project area were reviewed. The effects on those species and 

habitats that may occur in the Sunrise project sites are disclosed below (Table 3-39.)

Table 3-39. Effects to birds of conservation concern in the Sunrise project area.

Bird Species Effects of Alternative A (No 

Action) to Habitat

Effects of Alternatives B and C to Habitat

Flammulated 

owl

Mature ponderosa pine and 

Douglas-fir with open canopy

would continue to be scarce.

Habitat would be enhanced through understory thinning and 

burning.

White-headed 

woodpecker

Ponderosa pine with open 

understory would continue to 

be scarce.

Ponderosa pine habitat would be enhanced through understory

thinning and burning.

Lewis' 

woodpecker

Habitat would continue to be 

present.

Habitat would be enhanced through understory thinning and 

burning, and retention of snags and down wood.

Williamson's 

sapsucker

Deciduous forest is limited but 

conifer habitat would continue 

to be present.

Habitat would be reduced due to removal of existing and future 

decaying trees, potentially enhanced through burning and 

maintenance of snags and down wood.

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

Habitat would continue to be 

present.

Landscape burning would enhance habitat. Thinning would 

create more diverse stand conditions, retaining largest trees 

and snags. Forest gaps and forest edge habitat would enhance 

foraging opportunities.

Calliope 

hummingbird

Habitat would continue to be 

present.

Habitat would continue to be present and unaffected by 

proposed activities.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife and Invertebrate Species

Wolverine

Management actions such as timber harvest, prescribed fire, and grazing, are not considered a 

threat to this species (USFWS 2013). Because wolverines are dependent on deep snow cover that 

persists into the month of May for successful denning, the primary threat is from habitat and 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-116 Umatilla National Forest

range loss due to climate warming (USFWS 2013). Since denning is not expected in the area, 

there would be no effects to reproduction.

Timber harvest and underburning could lead to improvements in green forage production and 

palatability as well as berry production. Prey species and scavenging opportunities would likely 

remain the same. Open road densities would remain low, which restricts the amount of human 

disturbance. Forest corridors would be maintained.

Determination

Because wolverines are not known to reside in the area, foraging and movement potential would 

remain about the same, and the project does not have denning habitat, implementation of either 

Alternative B or C would have no effect to North American wolverine.

Gray wolf

Timber harvest, mechanical fuels treatments, and low-intensity prescribed fires would reduce 

ground fuels and continuous fuel ladders. Future wildfires that occur in treated stands should 

burn cooler and would be less likely to ascend into the crowns of over-story trees. Thus, the risk 

of a hot crown fire removing forest cover over large areas would be reduced. Where lowintensity, prescribed fire is employed, decadent vegetation on upland shrubs and grasses would 

be removed. Forage plants for big game should respond to these burns with robust basal 

sprouting and an increase in palatability for several years following treatment. In short, the 

proposed activities are not expected to reduce prey availability. See the elk section in this chapter 

for further information.

If a den or rendezvous site is identified prior to or during project activities, the Forest Service 

would consult with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife personnel to determine if 

seasonal restrictions or other requirements are necessary. Because these sites are difficult to 

locate and can change yearly, this would need to be assessed on an ongoing basis throughout the 

life of the project. 

In the experience of regional and local biologists, timber harvest and associated activities has 

thus far had no evident impact to wolves on the Umatilla Forest (Berkley and Hickman 2015). 

The wolf population continues to grow (WDFW et al. 2017).

Determination

Since denning is not occurring within the project area, road densities would not change, and prey 

availability would remain high, the proposed activities in combination with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have no impact to gray wolf.

Preble’s shrew

Project requirements such as no-harvest buffers adjacent to springs, wetlands and stream habitats 

would reduce potential impacts to Preble’s shrew. Retention of down logs would help maintain 

moist microsite conditions. Effects to riparian and wet areas is unlikely. There is a slight chance 

that individual shrews could be killed by heavy equipment and burning operations. Timber 

harvest and fuels reduction would also remove or reduce the concealing cover of live ground 

vegetation and leaf litter over at least the short-term. Some down logs would be disturbed or 

removed. In the mid to long-term, timber harvest and landscape burning would promote the 

growth of dense understory vegetation by reducing competition with conifers for sunlight, water, 

and soil nutrients. These increases in herb and shrub growth could result in an increased 

abundance and diversity of insect prey. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-117

Determination

The Sunrise project may impact individual Preble’s shrews, but would not likely cause a loss of 

viability of the species or a trend toward federal listing.

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep

There would be little to no effect to bighorn sheep habitat from timber harvest and other tree 

cutting. No disturbance would be expected since sheep are typically not near the forest stands or 

roads. The only activity affecting bighorn habitat would be landscape prescribed fire. 

Determination

Landscape prescribed fire would likely improve bighorn sheep habitat for a few years. The 

proposed activities would have a beneficial effect and therefore, the project may impact Rocky 

Mountain bighorn sheep, but would not likely cause a loss of viability of the species or a trend 

toward federal listing.

Little brown myotis

Roosting habitat for bats could be slightly reduced at the stand scale, but measures taken to 

provide current and future habitat would contribute to long term snag habitat. Large tree and 

snag retention would be emphasized. Large snags would be left standing except for incidental 

snags that need to be felled for safety purposes, for skyline corridors, or during clearing for 

temporary roads. 

Thinning and selection harvests should accelerate the development of large trees in the project 

area. Over the long term, large diameter snags and down logs would be recruited from these 

trees. Timber harvest and fuel reduction activities would reduce ladder fuels and tree crown

biomass, reducing the potential for hot, crown fires to occur in the project area. The supply of 

snags would be less subject to “boom and bust” cycles and should become more stable and 

continuous over time. The average snag diameter should slowly increase.

Landscape fire would be prescribed in stands that are not being harvested, both within and 

outside the Asotin Creek Roadless Area. Although a loss of snags is expected with prescribed 

burning, small scale torching would result in snag recruitment. Overall there is expected to be a 

net increase in snags, due to fire mortality. 

For more information about effects to snags, see the Dead and Down Tree Habitat section of the 

wildlife report.

Determination

Threats to this species are primarily white-nose syndrome and wind turbines. Large snag habitat

would continue to be available for roosting bats. Therefore the Sunrise project may impact 

individual little brown myotis, but would not likely cause a loss of viability of the species or a 

trend toward federal listing.

Bald eagle

Use of the area by bald eagle is incidental. If this species were in the area during project 

activities, increased human presence and noise could cause it to move a short distance. Smoke 

from prescribed fires may discourage use of the area, but this is limited in duration. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-118 Umatilla National Forest

Determination

Bald eagle use of the area is incidental and there are no nearby nests. Since it is highly unlikely 

that individuals would be in close proximity during project activities, there would be no impact 

to bald eagle. 

Great Gray Owl

Opening up old forest multi-strata (OFMS) stands to old forest single-stratum could reduce the 

attractiveness of the stands for great gray owl nesting, but currently there is more than twice the 

amount of OFMS in the area than there should be. Reducing this condition is necessary to insure 

the long term health of the forest. There would be little to no loss of large trees or snags (>21 

inches dbh) and no net loss of old forest. The roadless area as well as a substantial Dedicated Old 

Growth area would provide large areas of undisturbed habitat. 

Landscape burning would like enhance great gay owl habitat by maintaining grassy openings 

and stimulating plant species used by prey such as voles and other rodents. 

Determination

Based on the lack of great gray owl observations in the project area, and lack of known nesting 

on the Umatilla forest, the Sunrise project would have no impact to great gray owl. If a nest is 

found at any time, it would be protected as described in the project design criteria (Chapter 2).

Northern goshawk

Within cutting units, the primary effect to potential goshawk habitat would be changing stand 

structure from OFMS to OFSS. Generally canopy cover would be reduced to the point that 

goshawks would not be drawn to these stands for nesting. Hand thinning and mechanical units 

with high cover retention would retain large trees for future nesting, but the understory would 

probably be altered enough that prey habitat would be reduced. Landscape burning would have a 

lesser effect, with variable effects to trees and understory stand components. 

Alternative B would reduce canopy cover below 50% on about 1,700 acres of potential goshawk 

habitat, while Alternative C would do the same on about 700 acres. 

Additional landscape burning would affect 2,400 acres, although fire would be patchy so the 

actual acres would be less. This includes riparian areas which would have minimal fire effects. 

This leaves 5,400 to 7,000 acres of well-connected and well-distributed potential goshawk 

habitat in Alternative B (depending on fire activity), and 6,400 to 7,000 acres in Alternative C. 

The best habitat in riparian areas would not likely be affected.

Determination

The Sunrise project may impact individual northern goshawk, but would not likely cause a loss 

of viability of the species or a trend toward federal listing. If a nest is found at any time, it would 

be protected as described in the project design criteria (Chapter 2).

Lewis’s woodpecker and White-headed woodpecker

Both Alternatives B and C would potentially create healthier stands and more open conditions on 

about 1,800 acres of old forest multi-strata ponderosa pine stands. This would occur via thinning

(800 acres) or burning (1,000 acres). Areas not being thinned, but within the landscape burning 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-119

perimeter (1,000 acres) may or may not be affected depending on site conditions and 

management of the burn. 

About 50 acres of OFMS pine would have a regeneration prescription but would still qualify as 

OFSS post-treatment (Units 130 and 226). All of these areas would retain large trees and snags. 

For more information about project effects to snags, see the Dead and Down Tree Habitat section 

of the wildlife report.

Determination

Lewis’ woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker habitat would likely be improved with both 

action alternatives in the long term. Therefore the proposed project may impact Lewis 

woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker, but is not expected to cause a loss of population 

viability or result in a trend toward federal listing. 

Green-tailed towhee

The most important management consideration for the green-tailed towhee probably is the 

maintenance of habitat heterogeneity, with respect to species composition, vigor, cover, and age 

structure of shrubs, and the prevention of invasion by non-native annual grasses (Dobbs 2006). 

Activities that promote species-rich shrub habitats with high shrub vigor should benefit greentailed towhee (NatureServe 2017). Towhees can benefit from burns, timber harvest, and other 

management activities where post-fire or post-harvest habitats develop into brush fields 

(NatureServe 2017). Restoration of natural disturbance regimes may minimize unnaturally high 

levels of habitat alteration due to uncharacteristic fires.

Proposed activities would likely have a beneficial effect to habitat for green-tailed towhee. 

Burning is most commonly done in the fall and should have no effect to breeding birds if they 

are present. Controlled burns typically invigorate shrub growth. Timber management activities 

would reduce the chance for uncharacteristic wildfire, as well as open canopy up and allow for 

more shrub growth.

Determination

The proposed activities would have an overall beneficial effect and therefore, the project may 

impact green-tailed towhee, but would not likely cause a loss of viability of the species or a trend 

toward federal listing.

Mountain quail

If present, smoke and fire may displace quail temporarily but they would eventually return to 

post-fire habitat. Landscape burning may reduce shrubs that quail use for cover in the short term, 

but increase in the mid to long term. The shrubs and grasses will often be stimulated by fire and 

grow with more vigor and improve the overall habitat quality for quail. Quail habitat in riparian 

areas would generally not be affected. Timber removal and tree thinning could also create early 

successional-stage shrub vegetation in the short term. 

Determination

The proposed activities would have an overall beneficial effect and therefore, the project may 

impact mountain quail, but would not likely cause a loss of viability of the species or a trend 

toward federal listing.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-120 Umatilla National Forest

Rocky Mountain tailed frog

Timber management activities would not affect riparian areas, and thus would not directly affect 

tailed frogs. The stream environment is not expected to be disturbed. Indirectly, any changes to 

water temperature or stream quality could affect tailed frog reproductive success. No effects to 

water temperature and channel morphology are expected. There may be short term, slight effects 

to sediment levels in some area streams due to thinning followed by prescribed burning 

(Hydrologist report). 

Landscape fire would be allowed to back into some riparian areas. Fire and smoke could 

temporarily cause terrestrial tailed frogs to move out of the area or stay in the water, but should 

cause no harm. Tailed frogs in the water would not be affected by low intensity fire. 

Determination

The project may impact Rocky Mountain tailed frog, but would not likely cause a loss of 

viability of the species or a trend toward federal listing. Effects from this project are expected to 

be slight to none since no activities are proposed within riparian areas and effects to water 

quality would be minimal.

Invertebrate species

Heavy equipment operation and prescribed burning could directly kill individual sensitive

invertebrates; particularly the less mobile species such as the mollusks or the larvae of 

butterflies. Food plants could be crushed or removed. Down logs which provide essential 

habitats for the mollusks could be removed, broken down by heavy equipment operation, or 

charred in areas that are under-burned. 

Off-setting these potential adverse effects, timber harvest would create openings and edge habitat

that would provide some species with increased flowering plants. Project design criteria require 

protection of rock outcrops, talus, meadows and riparian areas. PACFISH buffers would protect 

springsnail and other species that are closely associated with water sources.

Down log habitat would be reduced, but not in wet areas or in any of the aforementioned 

habitats. The prescribed amount of large down wood (derived from a natural range) that could 

harbor sensitive snails would be retained within harvest units. Burning in moist or wet areas 

would cause minimal or no changes to down wood. 

Proposed landscape burning could affect ravines, open ridges and hillsides. This is a natural part 

of the ecosystem, but is applied in a controlled manner. Burn plans include specific objectives 

and controls, with considerations for topography, wind pattern, amount of burned area, etc. 

Effects would be much less than if a wildfire occurred. 

Western dwarf mistletoe has not been reported in the ponderosa pines in the analysis area. Areas 

with the most pine and highest potential for western dwarf mistletoe would see primarily small 

diameter hand thinning and underburning. Ponderosa pine stands would be improved overall, 

providing habitat (host plants) longer. Since Johnson’s hairstreak are not documented in or near 

the project area, and most potential habitat would have minimal disturbance, no effects to 

Johnson’s hairstreak would be expected.

Determination

Based on the short to long-term project effects described earlier, and the lack of evidence 

indicating these species are present, the alternatives as proposed may impact individuals, but 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-121

would not likely cause a trend to federal listing of any sensitive invertebrate species (Table 

3-40.)

Table 3-40. Summary of effect to sensitive wildlife and invertebrate species.

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Mammals

Canada lynx No Effect No Effect No Effect

Yellow-billed cuckoo No Effect No Effect No Effect

North American wolverine No Effect No Effect No Effect

Gray wolf No Impact No Impact No Impact

Preble’s shrew No Impact May Impact May Impact

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep No Impact May Impact May Impact

Mountain goat No Impact No Impact No Impact

Townsend’s big-eared bat No Impact No Impact No Impact

Little brown myotis No Impact May Impact May Impact

Birds

Bald eagle No Impact No Impact No Impact

Peregrine falcon No Impact No Impact No Impact

Great gray owl No Impact No Impact No Impact

Northern goshawk No Impact May Impact May Impact

White-headed woodpecker No Impact May Impact May Impact

Lewis’ woodpecker No Impact May Impact May Impact

Green-tailed towhee No Impact May Impact May Impact

Mountain quail No Impact May Impact May Impact

Amphibians

Rocky Mountain tailed frog No Impact May Impact May Impact

Molluscs

Fir pinwheel No Impact May Impact May Impact

Columbia Gorge oregonian No Impact May Impact May Impact

Pristine springsnail No Impact No Impact No Impact

Humped coin No Impact May Impact May Impact

Thinlip tightcoil No Impact May Impact May Impact

Shiny tightcoil No Impact May Impact May Impact

Salmon coil No Impact May Impact May Impact

Butterflies 

Great Basin fritillary No Impact May Impact May Impact

Meadow fritillary No Impact No Impact No Impact

Johnson’s hairstreak No Impact May Impact May Impact

Barry’s hairstreak No Impact No Impact No Impact

Lustrous copper No Impact May Impact May Impact

Other Insects

Columbia clubtail No Impact No Impact No Impact

Western bumble bee No Impact May Impact May Impact

No Effect: no effect on a proposed or listed species or critical habitat; No Impact: no impact to R6 sensitive species 

individuals, populations, or their habitat; May Impact: may impact sensitive species, but will not cause a loss of 

viability or trend toward federal listing.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-122 Umatilla National Forest

Findings of Consistency

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, because they 

would meet project design features set for the project, meet standards and guidelines for affected 

land management allocations, and provide for viable populations of wildlife species. All 

alternatives would provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the Sunrise project 

area, based on the suitability and capability of the land therein. All project alternatives are 

consistent with the Endangered Species Action, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, and Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation Executive 

Order.

3.9 Fisheries

Introduction

Special attention is paid to fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. The region is home to many iconic 

aquatic species, some of which are threatened or endangered. Therefore fisheries require special 

attention and additional analysis.

Regulatory Framework

The Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Fisheries Specialist Report was prepared in 

accordance with the following guidance and direction:

• Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended),

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (§ 305(b)) and it’s 

implementing regulations (50CFR § 600).

• National Forest Management Act of 1976

• Clean Water Act of 1972

• Land and Resource Management Plan – Umatilla National Forest (1990) as amended by 

PACFISH (1995)

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Fish and Habitat

Snake River Basin (SR) steelhead, Bull trout, Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook salmon and 

their designated critical habitats and salmon essential fish habitat are the only species and 

habitats listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which are found in or adjacent to the 

project area. Information on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species suspected or known to 

occur on the Umatilla National Forest can be found in Table 3-43.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Steelhead trout (anadromous) and resident rainbow trout (aka Redband trout) are the designated 

aquatic Management Indicators Species (MIS) for the Umatilla National Forest. The Forest Plan

was amended in 1995 by PACFISH which incorporated standards and guides to allow for nearnatural rates of habitat restoration, and avoid adverse effects to listed species and their 

Designated Critical Habitats. Streams surveys and broadscale efforts, i.e. PACFISH/INFISH 

Biological Opinion, (aka “PIBO”) monitoring, are in place to collect data and monitor habitat 

conditions.

Snake River Basin steelhead and their Designated Critical Habitat

Wild steelhead and resident interior Columbia Basin redband trout in the analysis area, are the 

anadromous and resident forms respectively, of the same salmonid subspecies (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss gairneri). Redband trout are another name for native resident rainbow trout in the Interior 

Columbia River Basin and are indistinguishable visually from the anadromous form as juveniles. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-123

Steelhead rear in freshwater streams for their first 1 to 3 years prior to smolting. They then 

migrate to the ocean where they can spend up to 3 years before returning to their native 

freshwater stream to spawn. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead are iteroparous, meaning they do 

not necessarily die after spawning and are able to spawn more than once, although this varies 

among runs

Methodology

For this document, the environmental baseline discussion and discussion of effects use FS 

habitat stream survey data and WDFW stream survey data as well as GIS analysis and the 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) summary values 

(McKinney et al. 1996, see table 11) as directed under ICBEMP memorandum FS agreement No. 

03-RMU-11046000-007, and reports in published scientific literature. Water temperature data is 

referenced from the Umatilla National Forest monitoring records. The seven-day moving 

maximum and average summer time water temperatures are measured. Stream surveys follow 

the Region 6 Level II stream survey protocol (following a modified Hankin and Reeves 1988 

protocol). 

The surveys were conducted to document stream conditions and establish a baseline. Surveys 

have been completed and updated for most major streams in the Project Area. 

These habitat parameters are specifically addressed as PACFISH Riparian Management 

Objectives (RMO’s) (referencing Section 7 Fish Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper 

Columbia River Basin, USDA Forest Service, 1994), Please see the Fisheries Specialist Report 

for further details. 

Under the Section 7 Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper Columbia River Basin (USDA 

1994), PACFISH RMO’s are intended to apply to fish bearing Rosgen (1996) C-type channels 

and are meant to describe good fish habitat. Table 8, above, has a list of streams and their 

associated Rosgen stream channel type. These types of channels are most commonly found in 

low-gradient channels in wide alluvial valley bottoms. For example, monitoring protocol for 

determining pool frequency requires count of only pools greater than 1 meter (~3 feet) deep in 

low gradient (1% -2%) stream channels. 

Streams within or adjacent to the analysis area that do not fit these criteria include Couger Creek, 

Lick Creek, NF Asotin Creek , Middle Branch of NF Asotin Creek and SF of NF Asotin Creek. 

These Streams are more representative of a Rosgen Type B stream channel. Because of this, 

ICBEMP pool frequencies are more applicable to these streams than the PACFISH standard. 

ICBEMP pool frequency values are more representative of stream capabilities within the 

analysis area. 

Affected Environment

The Sunrise Project is proposed in the headwaters of the North Fork Asotin Creek Subwatershed 

(HUC 170601030201) and Lick Creek Subwatershed (HUC 170601030202) both of which are 

part of the George Creek – Asotin Creek Watershed (HUC 1706010302). 

The George Creek – Asotin Creek Watershed is part of the Lower Snake - Asotin Sub-basin and 

the Lower Snake Basin, a tributary to the Mid-Columbia River. The watershed area is 

approximately 208,267 acres, of which 63,163 acres (30 percent) are managed by the US Forest 

Service (USFS). Please See below. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-124 Umatilla National Forest

The George Creek – Asotin Creek Watershed will be the analysis area for cumulative effects on 

Snake River Basin steelhead, Snake River spring Chinook, Bull trout and their Designated 

Critical Habitats. The same watershed will be the analysis area for the cumulative effects on 

Essential Fish Habitat. The George Creek – Asotin Creek Watershed contains the Sunrise Project 

area. Table 3-42 shows acreage of the Sunrise Project area within the watershed.

Table 3-41. Management of Watershed affected by the Sunrise Project

Manager Acres Percent

US Forest Service (Umatilla NF) 63,163 30%

Other (BLM, Private and State) 145,104 70%

Total 208,267 100%

Table 3-42. Project Area acreage within the watershed

Watershed Name (HUC) Watershed Size 

(acres)

Project Acres in 

Watershed

Watershed in Project 

Boundary

George Creek – Asotin Creek Watershed

(HUC 1706010302) 208,267 32,000 15.3%

Indicators

Within the George Creek and Asotin Creek watersheds there is 115.2 miles of stream occupied 

by steelhead, with 17.6 miles located within the project area. Steelhead in the analysis area 

display a broad life history pattern of spawn timing typically called summer-run. Steelhead 

spawning occurs between March and May. Prior to spawning, maturing adults hold in pools or in 

side channels to avoid high winter flows. Typically, they spawn in stream reaches with a 

moderate to high gradient. Fry typically emerge between April and June. Migration to the ocean 

typically occurs at age 2 for wild summer steelhead, while most hatchery smolts migrate at age 1 

(Carmichael and Taylor, 2009).

The steelhead population utilizing the Sunrise Project area is part of the Lower Snake Major 

Population Group (MPG), within the Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS. Figure 3-8 shows the 

Steelhead distribution within and adjacent to the Sunrise project area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-125

Figure 3-8. Steelhead distribution within and adjacent to the Sunrise Project.

Designated critical habitat for Snake River Basin Steelhead includes all rivers and stream 

reaches accessible to steelhead below long-standing natural barriers (Federal Register Vol. 70 

(52630); September 2, 2005). There are approximately 8.9 miles of designated critical habitat for 

Snake River Basin Steelhead within the project area.

Snake River Spring Chinook salmon and their Designated Critical Habitat

Chinook salmon are anadromous, living part of their life in salt water while breeding in fresh 

water; and semelparous, reproducing only once in a lifetime. Biologists recognize different 

seasonal (i.e., spring, summer, fall, or winter) "races" or “runs” in the Chinook salmon migration 

from the ocean to fresh water. 

Spring/summer-run Chinook salmon from the Snake River basin exhibit stream-type life history 

characteristics. The spring-run Chinook salmon return to the Columbia River from the ocean in 

early spring and pass Bonneville Dam beginning in early March and ending the first week of 

June. The summer-run Chinook salmon return to the Columbia River from June through August. 

Returning fish hold in deep mainstem and tributary pools until late summer, when they emigrate 

up into tributary areas and spawn. In general, Snake River Basin spring-run Chinook salmon 

tend to spawn in higher-elevation reaches of major Snake River tributaries in mid- through late 

August. Snake River Basin summer-run Chinook salmon spawn approximately one month later 

than spring-run fish and tend to spawn lower in the Snake River Basin drainages, although their 

spawning areas often overlap with spring-run spawners.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-126 Umatilla National Forest

Figure 3-9. Designated Steelhead Critical Habitat within and adjacent to the Sunrise Project

The stream-type life history may be adapted to select spawning and rearing areas that are 

consistently productive with limited susceptibility to dramatic changes in water flow. The eggs 

that Snake River spring and summer Chinook salmon deposit in late summer and early fall 

incubate over the following winter, and hatch in late winter and early spring of the following 

year. Juveniles rear through the summer, overwinter, and typically migrate to sea in the spring of 

their second year of life, although some juveniles may spend an additional year in fresh water. 

Depending on the tributary and the specific habitat conditions, juveniles may migrate extensively 

from natal reaches into alternative summer-rearing or overwintering areas. Most of the fish 

spend two or three years in the ocean before returning to tributary spawning grounds primarily as 

4- and 5-year-old fish. A small fraction of the fish spend only one year in the ocean and return as 

3-year-old “jacks,” heavily predominated by males (Good et al. 2005). 

The Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon was listed as Threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act on April 22, 1992 (50 FR 37160). Critical habitat was designated for Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook salmon on December 28, 1993 (58 FR 68543) and revised October 25 

of 1999 (64 FR 57399). Although Designated Critical Habitat is not mapped for Snake River 

Spring/Summer Chinook salmon, it is described in the narrative or rule 64 FR 57399. Critical 

Habitat includes those waters that are accessible upstream of occupied habitat. These listings 

decisions were reaffirmed in 2005 (Good et al. 2005; 50 FR 37160).

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are found within and adjacent to the Sunrise 

Project boundary. They are known to occupy approximately 5.4 miles of NF Asotin Creek within 

the Project boundary and can also be found in downstream of the project area in NF Asotin 

Creek and mainstem Asotin Creek. Due to few adult spawners returning to Asotin Creek, the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-127

Interior Columbia Technical Review Team considers the Asotin Spring Chinook population to be 

functionally extinct. 

Figure 3-10. Chinook salmon distribution within and adjacent to the Sunrise Project

Essential Fish Habitat

The federal Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) requires analysis for effects to Essential Fish Habitat

(EFH) specifically for Pacific salmon. Amendment 18, of the Pacific salmon Fisheries 

Management Plan, revises the description and identification of EFH for Pacific salmon managed 

under the FMP. Freshwater EFH, identified in Amendment 18 of the FMP, is described using 

fourth field hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). 

EFH includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other currently viable water bodies and 

most of the currently and historically accessible habitat to Pacific salmon species. The riparian 

zone adjacent to these waterways is also considered EFH. This zone is defined as shade, 

sediment, nutrient/chemical regulation, streambank stability, and LWD/organic matter. 

The Sunrise project area falls within one HUC 8 (Lower Snake - Asotin) identified in the Pacific 

salmon Fisheries Management Plan as EFH and contains EFH for Chinook salmon. 

Bull trout and their critical habitat

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are members of the Salmonidae family. They are often 

referred to as char, which is the common name for members of the genus Salvelinus. 

In general, bull trout are a cold water species that inhabits Pacific slope drainages from northern 

California through British Columbia to extreme southeastern Alaska (Meehan and Bjornn 1991). 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-128 Umatilla National Forest

Natural climactic warming and loss of cold water habitats since the Pleistocene period 

exacerbated by effects of human activities have reduced their distribution (Cavender 1978). 

GIS databases show Bull trout are known to occur in 78.4 miles of streams in the George Creek 

– Asotin Creek watershed. Those same streams are listed as Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Of those occupied and DCH streams, approximately 14.8 

miles are within the Sunrise project boundary. 

Redband/Rainbow Trout 

Interior Columbia Basin redband trout are a resident subspecies of Oncorhynchus mykiss found 

east of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington, in northern California, and in eastern 

British Columbia. Behnke (1979) noted two main evolutionary lines of the species dating back to 

the Pleistocene; the coastal rainbow trout west of the Cascades and the inland Columbia Basin 

redband trout east of the Cascades. Both of these evolutionary lines include steelhead 

populations of their respective areas. They are currently recognized as being two separate 

subspecies, with the natural break between them being the Cascades Mountains in Oregon. 

Hatchery rainbow trout stocked for sport fisheries are typically produced from the coastal 

subspecies (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), and had been stocked in analysis area waters in 

earlier decades, but hatchery stocking in free-flowing streams has been discontinued in recent 

years. Absent genetic analyses to show dominant hatchery genetics, all resident O. mykiss in the 

analysis area are presumed to be O. mykiss gairdneri/interior Columbia Basin redband trout, 

particularly since the two subspecies display different patterns of coloration. Genetically pure 

populations of redband can generally be found isolated above migratory barriers where stocking 

has not occurred (Behnke 1979). 

Redband trout require stream and riparian habitat conditions in the area favorable to spawning 

and rearing. Factors concerning their habitats include water temperature, water quality, timing 

and quantity of peak stream flows, and physical in-stream and riparian habitat characteristics. 

Good water quality is essential for spawning and rearing. Redband require similar in-stream 

habitat characteristics as other cool-water salmonids. A variety of habitat types are important in 

providing adequate habitats for all life stages.

GIS data show Redband/rainbow trout are present in 27.1 miles of streams within the Sunrise 

project boundary. Of those occupied streams, 3.2 miles are above physical barriers 

Regional Sensitive Invertebrate and Vertebrate Species

A number of sensitive invertebrate and aquatic vertebrate species are known or suspected on the 

Umatilla National Forest. Table 3-43 describes their known or suspected presence in the analysis 

area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-129

Table 3-43. Regional Forester's List of Sensitive Aquatic Invertebrate and Vertebrate Species 

Present or suspected on the Umatilla NF

Regional 

Sensitive

Aquatic Species

Habitat Description* Habitat

Present in 

Analysis 

Area

Species Present in 

Analysis Area

Known Current 

Distribution

Western ridged 

mussel 

(Gonidea 

angulata)

Occur in streams of all sizes 

of low to mid-elevation 

watersheds. Common in 

stable stream reaches, 

tolerant of fine sediments and 

occupy depositional areas.

Habitat likely 

present in 

NF Asotin 

Creek.

Assumed present 

within the analysis 

area although none 

have been found 

during stream 

surveys or project 

field visits.

Widely distributed west 

of the Continental 

Divide, CA to BC. It is 

mainly distributed east 

of the Cascades.

Shortface lanx 

(Fisherola 

nuttalli)

Occurs in large low to midelevation riverine habitats. 

Common in unpolluted, cold, 

well oxygenated, perennial 

streams with cobble-boulder 

substrate.

No No Found throughout the 

Snake River and the 

Mid-Columbia basin 

limited to large rivers.

Westslope 

Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus 

clarkii lewisi)

Cold clear, water, high 

mountain streams with 

variable habitat complexity

No No Found throughout the 

Mid-Columbia River 

Basin, NFJD and 

Upper John Day R. 

subbasins

*Frest and Johannes 1995, Nedeau et al. 2009, Neitzel and Frest 1990, NatureServe Explorer 2009, Paulson 1999, 

Scheuering 2006, forest stream survey data (on file); Xerces.org database.

Westslope cutthroat trout

Westslope cutthroat are considered a sensitive species on the Forest. The only known or 

suspected populations are located in high-elevation watersheds of the John Day River basin. 

There are no Westslope cutthroat trout located in the Sunrise project area and will not be 

discussed any further in this Fisheries Specialist Report.

Western ridged mussel

Western Ridged mussels (G. angulate) are filter feeders that consume phytoplankton and 

zooplankton suspended in the water. Gonidea angulata is a relatively slow growing and long 

lived species – perhaps living 20 to 30 years (COSEWIC 2003, Vannote and Minshall 1982). To 

reproduce, adult females release fertilized juvenile mussels, or glochidia, in packets called 

conglutinates. Glochidia attach to host fish for a period of weeks to months. Once glochidia are 

released, they attach to a fish host. In northern California, the release of glochidia apparently 

peaks in June, and the glochidia are probably excysted from fish primarily during the period 

from late June to late July (Spring Rivers 2007). Gonidea angulata is not known to occur in the 

Sunrise Project area. 

Shortface lanx

Fisherola nuttalli is generally restricted to relatively large perennial streams ranging from 30-

100 m (98-300 ft.) wide in the Columbia River Basin. Within such streams it is found primarily 

at the edges of rapids or immediately downstream from rapids in areas that have suitable 

substrate. This species requires clean, cold, well-oxygenated water with gravel, cobble, and 

boulder substrate. In an assessment of Hells Canyon Dam (Snake River, Idaho), F. nuttalli was 

found on cobbles in higher velocity areas of the stream much more frequently than any other 

mollusk species; this was considered to reflect the species’ preference to attach themselves to 

hard surfaces in high velocities to avoid competition with other species (Richards et al. 2005).
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-130 Umatilla National Forest

Fisherola nuttalli has not been found in areas with the following characteristics: slow flow; silt 

or mud substrates; extreme seasonal variations in discharge; an abundance of macrophytes 

(aquatic plants) or epiphytic algae; a bedrock substrate; or where dredging or mining occurs 

(Neitzel & Frest 1992; Frest & Johannes 1995; Frest 1999; Richards et al. 2005). The snails feed 

by scraping algae and diatoms from the surface of rocks and boulders.

Freshwater pulmonate snails generally reproduce sexually, laying their eggs from spring to fall in 

a gelatinous capsule attached to plants or stones. Egg capsules of F. nuttalli are usually laid on 

the undersides or sides of cobbles in protected areas where adults occur. Fisherola are 

hermaphrodites but do not appear to be self-fertilized, i.e. mating occurs between two 

individuals. Hatchlings are morphologically similar to adults, except that they lack a functional 

reproductive system. Young snails appear to grow rapidly and require only a few months to reach 

full size. Individual F. nuttalli generally live for only one year, as this species breeds once and 

dies afterwards (semelparous breeding) (comments by T. Frest in 5-year review and evaluation 

of Banbury Springs limpet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Individuals are present yearround in the streams they inhabit, but are inactive during the winter. Dispersal of F. nuttalli

occurs as snails crawl slowly across the substrate or are carried by the current.

Fisherola nuttalli was historically widespread, with populations scattered throughout the lower 

Columbia and Snake Rivers as well as some of their major tributaries, and was known from 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. It has also been documented in the Columbia River 

drainage in British Columbia, Canada, although its presence there was assumed based on the 

discovery of a shell (Clarke 1981). Prior to 1987, collections of F. nuttalli are reported from 

Columbia and Spokane Rivers in Washington; the Snake and Salmon Rivers in Idaho; the 

Deschutes River in Oregon; and the Kootenai River in British Columbia. Columbia River sites 

extended from Portland, Oregon, to the Hanford Reach in Washington. Most of these sites no 

longer have suitable F. nuttalli habitat due to the effects of damming, impoundment, pollution, 

and water withdrawals for irrigation (Neitzel & Frest 1992), although one occurrence is known 

in Oregon near the Bonneville Dam. This species is now presumed extirpated in Montana and 

British Columbia, although it may persist in the Okanogan River drainage in British Columbia 

(Stagliano et al. 2007).

Currently, large populations of F. nuttalli persist in only four streams: the lower Deschutes River, 

Oregon; the Okanogan River and the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Washington; and the 

Snake River in Oregon and Idaho. Additional small populations are found in Oregon in the John 

Day and Imnaha Rivers, and the lower Columbia River near Bonneville Dam; the Methow River, 

Washington; and the Grande Ronde River, Washington and Oregon (Neitzel & Frest 1992; Frest 

& Johannes 1995, 2000; Frest 1999; Richards et al. 2005; Idaho Conservation

Data Center 2006). Many of these areas are on federal lands, including the Hanford Reach 

(Department of Energy); Deschutes Wild and Scenic River; Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area; Okanogan, Gifford Pinchot, and Mt. Hood National Forests; and the Bonneville Power

Administration. Shortface Lanx are not known to occur within or adjacent to the Sunrise Project 

area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-131

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

There are no direct or indirect effects under this Alternative. Under Alternative A of the Sunrise 

Project, the FS would not change management in the project area. There would be no proposed 

road maintenance/construction, harvest, thinning, prescribed burning or other associated 

activities. Therefore, there would be no mechanism for direct, indirect or cumulative effects to 

ESA listed fish species and their DCH, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) or USFS R6 sensitive fish 

and aquatic invertebrates and their habitat. 

Therefore, there would be no effect to Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened fish species and 

DCH or EFH and no impact to Sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrate species and their habitats 

considered in this analysis.

For additional information, see the Fisheries Specialists Report.

Alternatives B and C

Snake River Basin steelhead and Designated Critical Habitat

The steelhead population that inhabits the Sunrise project area is part of the Lower Snake River 

Major Population Group (MPG), within the Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS. They spawn and 

rear in 17.6 miles of stream within the George Creek – Asotin Creek watershed portions of the 

project area. There are 8.9 miles of designated critical habitat (DCH) for Snake River Basin 

steelhead within the project area.

SRB steelhead and their DCH may be indirectly affected by harvest, burning and road 

management activities, particularly where those activities occur within RHCAs. Project design 

criteria and BMP monitoring would ensure that the probability and magnitude of those effects 

remain both negligible and discountable. There would be no measurable cumulative effects to 

the species or to DCH. Therefore, the implementation of the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels 

Management Project activities (harvesting, prescribed fire/fuels management and road 

management) under the Proposed Action alternative May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Snake River Basin steelhead and May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Designated Critical 

Habitat for SRB steelhead.

Chinook salmon, Designated Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are found within the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels 

Management project boundary. They can be found in approximately 5.8 miles of NF Asotin 

Creek within of the project area (Figure 3-10). Chinook salmon found in the project area are 

from the Asotin population of the Lower Snake River MPG. This MPG historically had two 

populations (Tucannon and Asotin populations). In 2011, the ICTRT declared the Asotin 

population to be functionally extirpated. Designated critical habitat for the Snake River 

spring/summer Chinook salmon is not mapped but is described in narrative in the rule (64 FR 

57399). Critical Habitat includes those waters that are accessible upstream of occupied habitat. 

The Lower Snake - Asotin HUC contains EFH and is associated with the Snake River spring 

Chinook ESU. The project area contains approximately 5.8 miles of occupied EFH associated 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-132 Umatilla National Forest

with North Fork Asotin Creek. Chinook can also be found downstream of the project area in 

mainstem Asotin Creek. 

Through the implementation of project design criteria and BMP monitoring, there would be no 

measurable direct, indirect or cumulative effects from the implementation of the Sunrise 

Vegetation and Fuels Management Project under the proposed action Alternative. 

Therefore, implementation of the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project activities 

(harvesting, prescribed fire/fuels management and road management) under the proposed action 

Alternative May Affect, Not Likely Adversely Affect SR spring/summer Chinook salmon or their 

Designated Critical Habitat and Will Not Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook 

salmon. 

Bull trout and Designated Critical Habitat

Bull trout are known to occupy approximately 14.8 miles of stream within the Sunrise Project 

area. Those same streams are listed as Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) for Bull trout. Based 

on the distance from project activities and occupied habitat, and the implementation of project 

design criteria and BMP monitoring, there would be no measurable direct, indirect or cumulative 

effects from the implementation of the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project under 

the proposed action Alternative. 

For the reasons stated above, the implementation of the Sunrise Project under the proposed 

action Alternative May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Bull trout and/or their Designated 

Critical Habitat. 

Western ridged mussel

Gonidea angulate is not known to occur within or adjacent to the Sunrise project boundary. Due 

to the lack of presence and through the implementation of project design criteria and BMP

monitoring, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects from the implementation of 

the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project under the proposed action Alternative. 

For reasons stated above, the implementation of the Sunrise Project under the proposed action 

Alternative would have no impact to Western Ridged Mussel individuals or their habitat. 

Shortface lanx

Shortface Lanx, aka Giant Columbia River Limpet, are not known to occur within or adjacent to 

the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project area. Due to the species not being present 

in the project area and through implementation of project design criteria and BMP monitoring, 

there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects from the implementation of the Sunrise 

Project under the proposed action Alternative.

For reasons stated above, the implementation of the Sunrise Project under the proposed action 

Alternative would have no impact to Shortface Lanx individuals or their habitat.

For additional information on either action Alternative, please see the Fisheries Specialists 

Report.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-133

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Since there is no action under Alternative A, 

there are no direct or indirect effects and therefore no cumulative effects.

Species composition and structural changes at the landscape scale described in the Vegetation 

Report would not occur by mechanical means, therefore succession would remain on its current 

trajectory further away from landscape range of variation. 

Stream temperatures would be unaffected under the No Action alternative. 

Under the No Action alternative, the current road densities, road use designations and use 

patterns within the analysis area would not change. Motor vehicle and recreational off road 

vehicle use would continue to occur on routes designated on the Umatilla National Forest motor 

vehicle use map (MVUM). Erosion and sedimentation from roads would continue as roads are 

used and maintained according to their respective maintenance level. Continued deferred 

maintenance of the majority of system roads would be the primary management related sources 

of accelerated erosion. Natural disturbance events such as fires and floods could affect stream 

temperature and sediment regimes over time, if these events cause large-scale changes to 

vegetation or stream channel morphology. 

The hydrologic function of streams in the project area would continue to recover within the 

limitations of past and present management (timber harvest and roads) and periodic high flow 

events. 

Large scale fire could affect water yield and peak flows, with resultant adverse effects to channel

and riparian condition, with resultant loss of fish habitat.

Alternative B

Stream Temperature

Past management activities, including road construction/maintenance, timber harvest and fuels 

treatments affected the overstory structure and thus the shade component of the streams. This 

ultimately affected stream temperature. This alternative proposes to use prescribed fire to treat 

fuels. Fire ignition would occur within 600 feet of fish bearing streams in the NF Asotin Creek 

subwatershed and within 300 feet of fish bearing streams in the Lick Creek subwatershed. These 

activities are not expected to remove shade producing trees along the streams and therefore 

would not be expected to affect stream temperature. 

There would be no cumulative effects to stream shade or water temperature as a consequence of 

implementing this alternative.

Sedimentation

Past actions including grazing, fires, fire exclusion, harvest, road construction, road obliteration 

and recreation have occurred in the project area. Plant species composition and ground cover

have changed and invasive plant species are present. 

Effects to water quality are directly linked to water yield. If erosion from a road or upslope 

treatment does not enter into a waterbody, there would be no effect to water quality. Sediment
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-134 Umatilla National Forest

transport occurs primarily during spring runoff. For more information on sedimentation, see the 

Hydrology and Soils Reports. 

Temporary roads would be decommissioned after use. Decommissioning would reduce sediment

potential and help restore infiltration capacity. Decommissioning may include blocking, 

ripping/scarifying, seeding, and possible mulching with emphasis to improve hydrologic soil 

function. BMP monitoring of decommissioned temporary roads would be performed to help 

ensure resultant erosion is reduced to background levels. 

No cumulative sediment effects are expected because design criteria and BMPs shape the actions 

proposed in this project such that no measurable sediment is expected to reach surface waters. 

See also the Soils Report. 

Large Woody Debris

Historic logging in the riparian areas likely affected large wood recruitment in watershed

streams. Dispersed recreation may have impacted and could still impact in-stream large wood 

and potential recruitment. Recreational impacts would come in the form of firewood cutters and 

campers utilizing wood from within the riparian areas.

The felling of hazard trees within the RHCAs would increase the amount of wood at the reach 

scale but may not be measureable at the watershed scale.

No cumulative large woody debris effects are expected because design criteria and BMPs shape 

the actions proposed in this project such that no measurable impacts are expected. 

Pools/mile

Historic logging and recreational impacts likely affected pools/mile over time by reducing the 

amount of large wood available for recruitment. This has led to a reduction in stream channel

roughness, bed scour and in-channel deposition. 

This alternative is not expected to have any direct or indirect effects on pools and therefore 

would have no cumulative effects. 

Width/Depth ratio

Historic logging and recreational impacts likely affected width/depth ratio over time by reducing 

the amount of large wood available for recruitment. This has led to a reduction in stream channel

roughness and in-channel deposition. 

This alternative is not expected to have any direct or indirect effects on channel morphology and 

therefore would have no cumulative effects. 

Alternative C

Cumulative effects under this alternative would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-135

3.10 Hydrology 

This section incorporates by reference the Sunrise Hydrology Report contained in the project 

analysis file at Pomeroy Ranger District. Specific information on the methodologies, 

assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the report. A summary 

of the current conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed 

Action and its alternatives are discussed in this section. 

Introduction

As the action alternatives consist of commercial timber harvest, commercial and non-commercial 

thinning, prescribed burns – and each will utilize system and temporary roads, the effects to 

hydrological functions is of utmost importance to the project analysis. 

Regulatory Framework

Land and Resource Management Plan

The Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) provides standards 

and guidelines as shown in Appendix C. Implementation of design criteria and best management 

practices as described above, Umatilla National Forest Road Use Rules, as well as standard 

Umatilla NF timber sale contract specifications or the corresponding stewardship contract 

specifications would constitute compliance with the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan for hydrologic and water quality components.

Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and 

Plans 

Clean Water Act of 1972 

The Clean Water Act of 1972 and amendments require the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. All of the activities proposed 

in this project were designed to be consistent with the Clean Water Act and State of Washington 

Water Quality Standards.

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988

E.O. 11988 requires the Forest Service to avoid “to the extent possible the long and short term 

adverse impacts associated with the ... occupation ... or modification of floodplains...” The E.O. 

also provides direction to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains. Actions proposed in the Sunrise Project would preserve the beneficial values of 

floodplains within the project area and for this reason, the Sunrise Project is consistent with this 

EO. 

Wetlands, Executive Order 11990

E.O. 11990 requires the Forest Service to "avoid to the extent possible the long and short term 

adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands." The Sunrise 

Project does not propose to destroy or modify any wetland. For this reason, the Sunrise Project is 

consistent with this EO. 

Municipal Watersheds

There are no designated municipal watersheds in the Sunrise Project area. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-136 Umatilla National Forest

Methodology

Analysis indicators used to summarize past, present, and future conditions include road density, 

location and road-stream crossings. These parameters represent the potential for increased 

drainage efficiency (rate of runoff) from roads compared to the unroaded condition. Roads that 

intersect or parallel streams may extend channel networks, contribute polluted runoff directly to 

streams, and alter shade and temperature conditions. 

Continuous recording thermographs have been deployed in several streams in and downstream 

of the project area. The WEPP Model (Flanagan and Livingston 1995) is a physically-based soil 

erosion model that can provide estimates of soil erosion and sediment yield by considering the 

specific soil, climate, ground cover, topographic condition, and management activity. The 

Disturbed WEPP module was used by the Forest soil scientist to model hillslope erosion due to 

vegetation treatments and burning (see Soils Report). The WEPP Road module was used to 

compare road-derived sediment among alternatives (Elliot et al 1999b). 

A method commonly used to evaluate harvest effects on water yield and peak flow is the 

Equivalent Clearcut Acre (ECA) analysis (King 1989). A procedure was developed for the 

Umatilla National Forest as part of Endangered Species Act consultation (Ager and Clifton 

2005). ECAs were calculated following the Umatilla National Forest protocol to determine 

existing levels of harvest and estimate potential water yield and peak flow effects in the analysis 

area. Percent ECA measures the extent of created openings and is used as an indirect measure of 

the hydrological effects (increases in water yield and peak flow) of vegetation alteration. The 

procedure to determine percent ECA includes harvest method and vegetative recovery rates 

developed for the Blue Mountains. Roads are included in the calculation of ECA as part of this 

analysis. 

The ECA model accounts for changes in the forest canopy caused by past timber harvest, fires, 

insect infestations, and road construction. Effects of actions and events are pro-rated over time to 

model their recovery on the ground. The ECA model assumes that disturbances which remove 

certain percentages of basal area recover hydrologically over certain periods of time, depending 

on the plant associations. Model results should be considered relative values only (not absolute 

predictions) for purposes of comparing background and activity effects. Actual conditions and 

activities are more complex than those used to make model estimates. The ECA model assumes 

that project implementation would occur in the same year, and be completed by the end of 2018. 

This assumption affects the timing of the response indicator of the ECA. In actual practice, the 

activities would be likely take approximately 5 to 10 years to fully implement. However, the 

assumptions and simplifications provide a reasonable analysis and estimation of project effects 

for purposes of comparing relative differences with and without activities and between 

alternatives. 

Affected Environment

The hydrologic system and the hydrologic effects of proposed actions will be analyzed for 

National Forest System (NFS) lands by the 12 digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), also known as 

a subwatershed (SWS). HUC is a national level interagency map of the hydrologic system. Table 

3-44 shows examples of HUC codes. Cumulative effect indicators including Equivalent Clearcut 

Area (ECA) are reported by HUC 12. Effects to water quality are based on the stream reaches 

identified by Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). WDOE designates beneficial uses of 

water resources and establishes water quality standards protective of those uses. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-137

The Sunrise analysis area contains about 32,000 acres of National Forest Service (NFS) lands

located in portions of eight subwatersheds and Table 3-44 shows the two main subwatersheds of 

the analysis area.

Table 3-44. Subwatersheds within the Sunrise project area.

Subwatershed

(HUC12)

SWS Name SWS 

acres

NFS acres in 

SWS

Project Acres 

in SWS

% Project Area 

in SWS

170601030201 North Fork Asotin Creek 28,163 25,007 24,822 88%

170601030202 Lick Creek 12,342 8,231 6,567 53%

170601030203 South Fork Asotin Creek 25,794 11,961 222 0.9%

170601030204 Charley Creek 14,403 9,277 218 1.5%

170601060310 First Creek 13,576 13,576 18 0.1%

170601060704 Menatchee Creek 21,079 16,563 36 0.2%

170601070501 Headwaters Pataha Creek 18,320 8,906 19 0.1%

170601070601 Headwaters Tucannon River 24,508 24,508 96 0.4%

Figure 3-11. Subwatersheds within the Sunrise project area.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-138 Umatilla National Forest

Resource Indicators and Measures

Treatment alternatives will be evaluated based on their effect to hydrologic function and 

condition, water quality, and water yield. Indicators used to analyze effects of proposed actions 

are as follows: 

Hydrologic Function, Floodplains and Wetlands: 

• road density (mi/mi2

)

• roads in RHCAs (mi)

• road-stream crossings (number)

Water Quality:

• water temperature

• sediment

Water Yield: 

• Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA < 20%)

• road density (mi/mi2

)

Existing Condition and Regulatory Framework

Elevations in the Sunrise planning area range from about 2,400 feet where North Fork Asotin 

leaves NSF lands to about 6,000 feet along ridge tops near Forest Road 40. The increase in 

elevation from this uplift caused streams to cut down and form very steep, and generally narrow, 

V-shaped canyons. The area is drained by the North Fork Asotin Creek and Lick Creek, which 

generally flow from the Southwest to Northeast. Numerous springs and seeps occur, 

predominantly in headwater areas. Annual precipitation ranges from about 20 inches per year at 

lower elevations to 40 inches per year at the highest elevations. Most of the annual precipitation 

falls between November and May and much of the winter’s precipitation occurs as snow.

Hydrologic Function and Condition

The mapped stream system in the Sunrise Project area includes 49 miles of perennial streams, 62 

miles of intermittent streams and 3 miles of streams with a discontinuous flow regime. These 

streams represent the channeled system. The analysis area also contains numerous unchanneled 

ephemeral draws, with 121 miles mapped in GIS.

Floodplain Function (Executive Order 11988)

Executive Order 11988 is applicable to those Federal actions which will occur in or which will 

impact upon flood prone areas, which includes portions of Lick Creek. The order requires 

agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods, as well 

as preserve the values served by floodplains. Each agency has a responsibility to evaluate the 

potential effects of any actions it may take in a floodplain. Most of these effects occurred 

downstream of the Forest boundary where the stream flows through deeper sediments and where 

the stream is confined in the valley bottom along FR40. A floodplain is present and developing, 

but is narrower and less complex than historically, due to channel incision and lack of large 

wood.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE)

Executive Order 11990 requires agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, loss or 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-139

wetlands. The US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory identifies 345 acres of 

riverine wetlands in the two project watersheds.

Table 3-45. Sunrise Riverine Wetlands Summary of Total Acres (Acres of National Forest Lands 

within Project Area)

Subwatershed Total Subwatershed Acres (Acres Within Project Area)

Lick Creek 108 (82 within project area)

NF Asotin Creek 263 (263)

Total 371 (345)

Water Quality

The Clean Water Act (CWA) as statute requires both State and Federal agencies to develop 

standards for water quality. The State of Washington and the Forest Service developed a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) defining each entities responsibilities for compliance with 

the CWA. The MOA designates the Forest Service as the management agency responsible for 

meeting the Clean Water Act on NFS lands and recognizes best management practices (BMPs) 

as the primary mechanism to control nonpoint source pollution on NFS lands.

Water quality standards are based on life stages of fish and the most restrictive need sets the 

standard. Water temperature and sediment are the main water quality parameters related to the 

proposed action (Table 3-46). 

Table 3-46. Water Quality Standards for Temperature and Sediment

Water Body Aquatic Life Uses Temperature Turbidity

Lick Creek and tributaries Core Summer 

Habitat

16oC 

(60.8oF) Not to exceed 5 NTU over 

background OR < 10% increase 

North Fork Asotin Creek and when background > 50 NTU tributariesChar Spawning and 

Rearing

12oC 

(53.6oF)

Water Temperature

The MOA designates the Forest Service as the management agency responsible for meeting the 

Clean Water Act on NFS lands and recognizes best management practices (BMPs) as the primary 

mechanism to control nonpoint source pollution on NFS lands.

Lick Creek has exceeded the temperature standard 3 of 18 years and nearly all data collected

from the North Fork Asotin Creek on the Umatilla National Forest have exceeded the bull trout 

standard.

Sediment

Sediment mobilized from hillslopes and roads may be stored in channels for years or delivered 

into a stream within a season depending on precipitation patterns. Suspended sediment yield 

measured in the High Ridge Evaluation Area of the Umatilla Barometer Watershed (located 

about 40 miles southwest of the Sunrise Project) had a 12-year (1984-95) average annual yield of 

19 tons/mi2 (range 3 – 43) for the control (unlogged) catchment, with high inter-annual 

variability (Helvey and Fowler 1995). Sediment transport during spring snowmelt was the 

dominant transport process, although rain-on-snow events produced some of the largest single 

event volumes.

The Lick Creek Demonstration project monitored hillslope erosion effects from prescribed 

burning, mechanical harvest and mechanical fuels treatments from 2002-2005 (Wondzell and 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-140 Umatilla National Forest

Clifton 2005; Zamora and Martin 2006). Background hillslope erosion was very low (< 2 

tons/mi2) which suggested a low amount of sediment was delivered to valley floors and into 

streams. The Lick Creek Demonstration Project only collected four years of data, so other longterm studies, such as the High Ridge study, may provide more accurate background levels for 

analysis.

Roads

The road system within the Lick Creek and North Fork Asotin Creek subwatersheds contain 

about 124 miles of open, closed and decommissioned routes (Table 3-47). Routes on FS lands 

include 4.6 miles of maintenance level (ML) 4 roads, 17.3 miles of ML 3 roads, 37.8 miles of 

ML 2 roads and 38.9 miles of ML 1 (closed) roads. Crushed aggregate has been applied to about 

55 miles of road surface. The North-South ATV trail has about 5.5 miles in the project area and 

occurs on about 4 miles of non-system routes and about a mile of open and closed roads. WEPP 

modelling of all roads within the Sunrise project area estimates that erosion from road surfaces 

entering into stream channels is currently 1.5 tons of sediment per year from 58 crossings 

(Hydrology resource specialist report). 

The road system within the North Fork Asotin subwatershed occurs predominantly in upland 

areas and only enters into RHCAs at road-stream crossings. About 64% of the road crossings are 

on native surface roads and most of these (39 of 47) occur on Class IV or V (unchanneled)

streams. The sediment transport rate from road surfaces at stream crossings using the WEPP 

model (Elliot et al 1999a) calculated that the current road system is adding < 1 ton per year of 

sediment in the North Fork Asotin Creek and Lick Creek subwatersheds. 

Road density is used as an indicator of potential for affects to hydrologic function (extension of 

the stream network) and water quality (sediment delivery to surface waters). Stream crossings 

are used as an indicator of the degree of connectivity between the road system and the drainage 

network.

Table 3-47. Road Density and Stream Crossings on NFS Lands at the Subwatershed Scale

Subwatershed NFS 

(mi2)

System Roads (mi, 

open and closed)

Road 

Density 

(mi/mi2)

Decommissioned 

Roads (mi)

Stream 

Crossings

Lick Creek 12.8 23.8 1.9 31.7 35

NF Asotin Creek 39.1 62.4* 1.6 5.8 23

Both SWS have few miles of road in RHCA. Most of the stream-road intersections are 

ephemeral or intermittent crossings. Field reconnaissance from 2014-2016 found that > 80% of 

the formally decommissioned roads are effectively closed to motorized use. 

Within the project area, the higher RHCA road densities (Table 3-48) are the result of 

geomorphic constraints, with most roads located on ridgetops, rather than steep hillslopes and 

deep canyon bottoms. Roads selected for decommissioning were mostly located on steep 

hillslopes or near valley bottoms where the risk for erosion and sedimentation were the highest. 

Table 3-48. RHCA Road Interactions within the project area

SWS Name RHCA

(mi2)

Open Road 

Miles w/in 

RHCAs

RHCA Road 

Density 

(mi/mi2)

Road Miles

Decommissioned

Stream- Road 

Intersections 

(open roads)

Lick Creek 0.9 4.6 5.1 4.4 26
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-141

SWS Name RHCA

(mi2)

Open Road 

Miles w/in 

RHCAs

RHCA Road 

Density 

(mi/mi2)

Road Miles

Decommissioned

Stream- Road 

Intersections 

(open roads)

NF Asotin Creek 5.2 3.1 2.7 0.3 20

Total 7.7 4.7 46

Grazing

In the Sunrise Project area, the Peola Allotment has 37 stock ponds and 5 spring developments in 

Lick Creek and 4 stock ponds and 3 spring developments in North Fork Asotin subwatersheds. 

There are 5 stock ponds and 2 spring developments in the North Fork Asotin Creek 

subwatershed in the Asotin Allotment. The ungrazed portion of the Sunrise Analysis area has 3 

old stock ponds and 3 spring developments in the North Fork Asotin Creek subwatershed. 

Livestock are trailed along roads in the RHCAs of Lick Creek, Dry Fork Lick Creek and Sheep 

Gulch in the Peola Allotment. Lick Creek is fenced near the mouth of Dry Fork Lick Creek to 

prevent livestock effects to the streambank and near bank vegetation. 

Water Yield

McCammon (1993) assigned risk to watersheds from changes in cover and evapotranspiration as 

low (< 15%), moderate (15 – 30%) and high (> 30%). Reviews of literature demonstrate that the 

relationship is highly variable (Stednick 1995 and Scherer 2001). Generally effects are not seen 

below 20% ECA and in a local study effects were not seen below 50% ECA (Helvey and Folwer 

1995). Grant et al (2008) reported that increased peakflows could occur at >20% ECA and that 

the potential for effects to channel morphology is in the 5-10 year recurrence interval flow 

ranges. 

Subwatersheds in the planning area are below the 15% threshold of concern established by 

NMFS and the 20% threshold for hydrologic effects. Based on model assumptions, management 

induced changes in water yield, timing of flow, or peak flow are currently negligible. 

Prescribed Burning

Troendle et al (2010) summarized the hydrological effects of prescribed fire, which are largely a 

function of fire severity and area burned. Fires are typically set during times when flame lengths 

are expected to be low, fire residence times short and soil heating expected to be low. Because 

the low severity of prescribed fires do not cause a high degree of mortality or litter combustion, 

the effects to overstory canopy, evapotranspiration and forest floor water storage are generally 

too small to measurably change shade or watershed-scale water yields.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

The ecological processes described would continue on the current trajectory unless a large-scale 

disturbance such as a high severity fire or high intensity rainfall or rain-on-snow event occurs 

within the project area. 

Hydrologic Function

No change to the existing road system would occur under this alternative. Road density, 

proximity to channels and number and location of stream crossings would remain the same. Few 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-142 Umatilla National Forest

of the analysis area roads have regular maintenance. FR44 (Smoothing Iron Road) was improved 

in 2014 for log haul from South George timber sale units and FR41 (Lick Creek Road) was 

resurfaced in 2017. Unauthorized ATV use on some closed, decommissioned and non-system 

roads would continue to inhibit vegetation re-establishment, reduce infiltration rates and increase 

the potential for runoff. 

Floodplains

There would be no direct or indirect effects to floodplain function because this alternative would 

not change water yield, peak flows or sediment regime, thus current levels of channel stability

and morphology would not be altered. 

Wetlands and GDEs

Alternative A does not propose new ground disturbing activities in stream- or spring-associated 

wetlands; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects to wetlands or GDEs as a result 

of this alternative. 

Water Quality

Water Temperature

Alternative A would continue with passive RHCA management, which is to allow the current 

rate of succession without intentionally altering species density or composition. Water 

temperature would improve slowly over time as near channel vegetation grows and provides 

more shade. The magnitude of this change is unknown and related to the degree that shade 

currently departs from site potential. Temperature standards in Lick Creek may be exceeded in 

years with warmer summers and low snowpack winters. Water temperature in North Fork Asotin 

Creek would continue to exceed state standard for bull trout, as evidenced by past monitoring. 

Disturbance events such as fires and floods could reverse this trend in vegetation. The time 

frame for shade and water temperature improvement is long, related to the growth rate of site 

potential vegetation, which in the case of overstory canopy would take decades to regrow. 

Sediment

Modelling by the soil scientist indicates that current rates of sedimentation from hillslopes are 

low (0.03 tons/acre or < 19 tons/mi2

). Road-related modelling by the hydrologist indicates that 

the road system is contributing sediment at rates considerably lower than background estimates 

(< 2 tons total) and this would continue to be an ongoing sediment source. Natural disturbance

regimes such as fires and floods would be the dominant sediment risks for the future, as 

indicated by sediment modelling based on expected fire behavior (see Fuels Report). Research 

has shown that elevated sedimentation could be expected for up to five years post-fire.

MacDonald and Sosa-Perez (2017) found that 15 months after burning 100% of the road 

segments in areas burned at high and moderate severity were connected to streams, even though 

the mean stream distance was > 200 feet away from a stream, whereas, pre-fire only about 15% 

of roads were hydrologically connected to streams. 

Water Yield

No change to the existing road system would occur under this alternative. Road density and 

number and location of stream crossings would remain the same. Therefore, drainage patterns 

would remain unchanged and there would be no effect to water yield. Alternatives B and C
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-143

Floodplains

There would be no direct effects from timber harvest activities on floodplain function because no 

new roads would be constructed in floodplains and landings and skidding would not occur in 

floodplains. 

Previously approved prescribed fire projects would proceed under the No Action alternative. 

Prescribed fire ignition for landscape prescribed fire or activity fuel treatments would not occur 

inside RHCAs but fire would be allowed to back into RHCAs. The high level of moisture would 

lessen fire severity in these areas. 

There would be no indirect effects to floodplain function because this alternative would not 

change water yield, peak flows or sediment regime, thus current levels of channel stability and 

morphology would not be altered.

Wetlands

Alternatives do not propose new ground disturbing activities in stream- or spring-associated 

wetlands during harvest and thinning operations and these areas would be protected by 

PACFISH RHCA buffers. Implementation of prescribed fire operations would include no 

ignition zones within 100 feet of springs and other perennial wetlands < 1 acre in size and 150 

feet for wetlands > 1 acre. Subsequent erosion and sedimentation are expected to be minor. 

There would be no indirect effects to wetlands or groundwater dependent ecosystems as a result 

of this alternative because these areas would burn with none to low soil burn severity and 

vegetative recovery would occur rapidly and hydrologic function would not be altered. 

Water Quality

Current policies, regulations, BMPs, and adaptive management techniques are expected to 

minimize unwanted sedimentation from forestry related activities.

Water Temperature

With peak stream temperatures occurring in July and August, summer stream temperature 

increases due to removal of riparian vegetation are well documented and have led to 

development of best management practices to protect shade. 

Proposed harvest/thinning and associated activity fuels treatments would not occur inside of 

interim PACFISH RHCAs, therefore the canopy density in RHCAs and shading would be 

maintained along all perennial streams. Because shade would not be changed, water temperature 

changes due to increased solar loading would not occur from this project. 

Landscape Prescribed Fire

Proposed landscape burning is included in action alternatives totaling approximately 14,060 

acres (11,000 acres forested and 3,000 acres grassland). Several of the project design criteria are 

prescribed to limit the intensity of the fire (see Fuels Report). Fire intensities would be kept low 

via the prescription. Short head fire runs may occur, as well as individual tree and group torching 

in areas where there are sufficient ladder fuels, and in timber stands with high occurrences of 

mistletoe infected trees. 

The 14,060 acres proposed for prescribed burning are divided into four landscape prescribed fire

areas. These four areas would be divided further into burn blocks and may take multiple 

prescribed fire entries over multiple years to complete. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-144 Umatilla National Forest

No created openings are expected to occur in RHCAs of perennial and fish-bearing streams. 

Shade and therefore effects to water temperature from landscape burning at near natural rates 

would be protected. 

Danger Tree Removal

Danger trees would be felled along all haul routes used in the proposed timber sales. They would 

be left on the ground inside RHCAs and commercially removed elsewhere. Most stream 

crossings on haul routes are ephemeral or intermittent with no or very low summer flows. 

Danger trees felled on haul routes within RHCAs of perennial streams would have negligible 

effect on shade density for affected streams. 

Sediment

Silvicultural ground disturbing activities which may result in runoff include harvesting 

operations, road maintenance, construction and use, mechanical site preparation and prescribed 

fire. Potential downstream effects are increased where these activities impinge on unchanneled 

swales or low order stream channels. 

Effects to sedimentation are expected to be limited when best management practices (BMPs) and 

other design criteria are implemented.

Non-Commercial Hand Thinning

Noncommercial hand thinning is planned for 1,677 and there would be no ground disturbance

and therefore no erosion or sediment from this activity.

Harvest and Treatments

Design criteria for each action would include no-harvest within interim PACFISH RHCAs. 

These design criteria would prevent damage that could contribute to erosion and sedimentation 

into channels and streams (Belt et al, 1992). Minimal detrimental soil acres would occur in 

RHCAs and haul road effects would be mitigated when design criteria are implemented and 

landings would occur outside of the RHCAs. Refer to the Soils Report for discussion of logging 

and mastication systems effects to ground cover and soil stability. 

Heavy equipment trails have the potential to impact ephemeral streams by introducing fine 

sediment. The trails may also capture the ephemeral flows, and begin to function as Class IV 

streams. Ephemeral streams are protected from these impacts by design criteria. Sites would be 

chosen to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential for erosion and sediment delivery to nearby. 

Landscape and Prescribed Fuels Reduction Burning

This treatment would reintroduce fire to a fire-dependent ecosystem, lessening the effects of a 

future uncharacteristic wildfire and improve forage quality for big game. Fire intensities would 

be kept low, by establishing backing fires to minimize fire in the canopy, and burning mainly 

surface fuels throughout the majority of the project area. Individual tree and group torching 

would likely occur in areas where there are sufficient ladder fuels, and in timber stands with high 

occurrences of mistletoe infected trees.

The Pomeroy Ranger District has been conducting prescribed burns for decades. Fuels 

management activities would be designed and executed to maintain or enhance fish and wildlife 

habitat within the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines of 10% mineral soils and 80% stream 

surface shading (Forest Plan, C5, pg 4-166). This will be accomplished by incorporating design 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-145

criteria identified in Chapter 2. All burning operations are conducted in accordance with a 

detailed Burn Plan. Proposed prescribed burning in the North Fork Asotin Creek and Lick Creek 

subwatersheds alone would not increase ECA above threshold values and therefore, would not 

cause detectable changes in water yield, peak flows or base flows. 

Haul Roads

Maintenance, reconstruction and construction would be performed using standard specifications 

to accomplish surface blading, hazard tree removal, construction of drainage dips or water bars, 

dust abatement with water, surface rock placement, roadside brushing, ditch cleanout, culvert 

maintenance or removal and replacement, road surface shaping and draining, surface material 

processing and erosion control. BMPs, design criteria and applicable road maintenance 

specifications are contained in EM-7730-20. 

Temporary roads are constructed on stable soils and are intended for project use only. To 

minimize impacts to soil and water resources, pre-existing temporary road alignments and 

alignments of previously decommissioned system roads would be used. New temporary roads 

are proposed to access landings where existing system roads or existing alignments are not 

adequate. After use, newly constructed temporary roads would be obliterated by reestablishing 

former drainage patterns or natural contours, installing waterbars (if needed), removing gravel 

surfacing, decompacting road surfaces, pulling back unstable fill slopes or shoulders, scattering 

slash on the roadbed, applying erosion control much, seeding disturbed areas and blocking or 

disguising the former road entrance to prevent motorized vehicle traffic. 

Danger Tree Removal

This activity would occur along haul routes. Danger trees felled inside RHCAs would be left on 

the ground and no ground disturbance would occur. Removal of danger trees outside of RHCAs 

could lead to ground disturbance as equipment traveled off road or trees were winched to the 

road. Slope distances would be short and erosion and sedimentation would be unlikely. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B 

The direct effects of implementing the Alternative B would be the removal of 26.5 MBF of 

timber from 5,520 acres (including development of skid trails, landings and 13.7 miles of 

temporary road) and pre-commercial thinning (hand and mastication) an additional 2,270 acres. 

Treatment of activity fuels would include mastication, lop and scatter, hand piling, grapple 

piling, pile burning, jackpot burning and/or broadcast burning. Prescribed fire is proposed for 

14,055 acres of forest and grassland.

Hydrologic Function

The existing road system would not change in Alternative B (no new roads are proposed and the 

project would not decommission any National Forest System roads) and temporary road

construction would be located and managed such that there would be no effect to the drainage 

network. Road maintenance would occur on up to 90 miles of system roads used by timber sales 

and would include blading, ditch relief culvert cleanout, spot rock and ditch cleanout as needed 

(see Transportation Report). Culvert cleanout and necessary ditch cleanout would lead to 

immediate reductions in risk from the road system. Detrimental effects from ditch cleanout 

would be short term, less than one year. Closed roads would be left in a self-maintaining 

condition. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-146 Umatilla National Forest

Access to units 120 and 190 via FR4027016 would require 3 culverts to be installed in Class IV 

streams and access to units 71 and 216 via FR4000224 would require 1 culvert to be installed on 

a Class IV stream. The original culverts were removed when the roads were closed. The culverts 

would be appropriately sized per standard engineering design. Per BMPs, road reconstruction 

and culvert installation would occur under dry conditions and no disturbance would occur 

outside of the existing footprint. Culverts would be removed and embankments stabilized by 

seeding and mulching after completion of silvicultural treatments. 

Alternative B would require the construction of 13.7 miles of temporary roads to access 

vegetation treatment units in the North Fork Asotin Creek subwatershed and road density would 

temporarily increase from 1.6 to 1.9 mi/mi2 until these roads are decommissioned. No temporary 

roads would occur in RHCAs and using McCammon (1993) as a guide, road densities < 3 mi/mi2

would constitute a low risk to detrimental effects to hydrologic function. No effect to watershed

function would occur.

Road density in the Lick Creek subwatershed would not change because no temporary roads are 

proposed under Alternative B, and there would be no direct or indirect effects to hydrologic 

function in Lick Creek subwatershed. 

Floodplains

Alternative B requires the installation of four culverts. Culverts would be re-installed in previous 

locations, then removed after completion of silvicultural treatments, hence there would be no 

new disturbance to floodplains. 

Water Temperature

Alternative B would not adversely affect water temperature because harvest, thinning and 

burning would not measurably remove the shade component along any stream channel. Because 

there would be no change to shade, there would be no adverse effect to beneficial uses and no 

effect on the 303(d) listing status of streams. In addition, no adverse changes to channel 

condition from silvicultural treatments are predicted because water yield and peak flow would 

not be affected, therefore, morphological channel changes which could affect stream temperature 

would not occur. 

Sediment

Harvest and Fuels Treatments

Harvest, thinning and prescribed burning would produce lower short and long term 

sedimentation rates than a higher severity wildfire based on WEPP model runs and assumed 

background levels (see Soils Report). In addition, the longer term benefit of treatments would be 

to reduce the severity of future wildfires commensurate with changes to desired fire regime

condition classes (see Fuels Report), which would result in lower erosion and sedimentation 

rates. This effect is expected to last for decades because of the reduced fuel loading from 

proposed treatments. 

Based on the Lick Creek study, effective ground cover would remain within Forest Plan

standards during and after treatments and ground cover is expected to recover to pre-activity 

levels within 2 years. Therefore, any potential increase in hillslope erosion and sedimentation 

would return to background levels within this time frame. There would be a low risk of sediment

entering into stream channels when design criteria are implemented. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-147

Roads

Approximately 13.7 miles of temporary road construction is proposed in Alternative B in the 

North Fork Asotin Creek Subwatershed. 5.8 miles or temporary road would occur on previously 

disturbed areas (old roads or skid trails). Associated with 5 road segments are 6 areas where 

these roads would cross unchanneled swales. BMPs such as rock armor or corduroy log mats 

would be placed at draw bottom crossings to maintain the integrity of the ground surface during 

use. 

Water Yield

All temporary roads would occur in upland areas, above the point on the landscape in which 

snowmelt or rainfall runoff enters into a defined channel. Stream density would remain in the 

low risk category and there would be no new road crossings that would extend the stream 

network farther into upland areas. There would be no changes to the road system in the Lick 

Creek subwatershed. As a result, there would be no measureable increase in streamflow at the 

subwatershed scale. Therefore there would be no direct or indirect effect to water yield or peak 

flows from these actions under this alternative. 

Alternative C

The direct effects of implementing Alternative C would be the removal of 12.1 MBF of timber 

from 2,550 acres (including development of skid trails, landings and 8.4 miles of temporary 

road) and precommercially thinning an additional 2,270 acres. Treatment of activity fuels would 

include mastication, lop and scatter, hand piling, grapple piling, pile burning, jackpot burning 

and/or broadcast burning. Prescribed fire is proposed for 14,055 acres.

Hydrologic Function

The existing road system would not change in Alternative C (no new roads are proposed and the 

project would not decommission any National Forest System roads) and temporary road

construction would be located and managed such that there would be no effect to the drainage 

network. 

Alternative C would require the construction of 8.4 miles of temporary roads to access 

vegetation treatment units in the North Fork Asotin Creek subwatershed and road density would 

temporarily increase from 1.6 to 1.8 mi/mi2 until these roads are decommissioned. No temporary 

roads would occur in RHCAs and using McCammon (1993) as a guide, road densities < 3 mi/mi2

would constitute a low risk to detrimental effects to hydrologic function. The road locations 

would be upslope of where channel formation has occurred in draw bottoms. Temporary roads 

would occur across 2 unchanneled ephemeral draws and design criteria would include rock or 

other armoring to prevent rutting and maintain ground cover. Cut and fill construction would be

needed for about 2 miles of temporary roads. Decompaction, pulling of sidecast berms, 

recontouring where needed, revegetation and camouflaging of entranceways would be used to 

completely decommission these roads at the end of harvest. No effect to watershed function 

would occur.

Road density in the Lick Creek subwatershed would not change because no temporary roads are 

proposed under Alternative C, and there would be no direct or indirect effects to hydrologic 

function in Lick Creek subwatershed. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-148 Umatilla National Forest

Water Temperature

Alternative C would not adversely affect water temperature because harvest, thinning and 

burning would not measurably remove the shade component along any stream channel. Because 

there would be no change to shade, there would be no adverse effect to beneficial uses and no 

effect on the 303(d) listing status of streams. In addition, no adverse changes to channel 

condition from silvicultural treatments are predicted because water yield and peak flow would 

not be.

Sediment

Harvest and Fuels Treatments

Effects in the Lick Creek subwatershed would be the same as Alternative B. Alternative C would 

treat approximately 2,970 acres less than Alternative B in the North Fork Asotin Creek 

subwatershed. Although the overall rate (tons/acre) of change in fire regime condition class and 

erosion/sedimentation are similar to Alternative B, the amount of sediment (tons) would be less 

because fewer acres are treated (see Soils Report). Initially, the potential sediment load from 

thinning and mastication areas would be less than alternative B. However, the net long-term 

benefit of wildfire risk reduction would not be as much as alternative B because 1,700 fewer 

acres with moderate to high fire behavior would be treated under Alternative C. 

Roads

Approximately 8.4 miles of temporary road construction is proposed in Alternative C in the 

North Fork Asotin Creek Subwatershed. 3.6 miles or temporary road would occur on previously 

disturbed areas (old roads or skid trails). Associated with 2 road segments are 2 areas where 

these roads would cross unchanneled swales. BMPs such as rock armor or corduroy log mats 

would be placed at draw bottom crossings to maintain the integrity of the ground surface during 

use. 

Fuels Treatments and Landscape Prescribed Fire

The longer term benefit of treatments would be to reduce the severity of future wildfires 

commensurate with changes to desired condition classes, which would result in lower erosion

and sedimentation rates. However, the net long-term benefit of wildfire risk reduction would not 

be as much as Alternative B. 

Water Yield

Alternative C would add 8.4 miles of temporary road in the North Fork Asotin Creek 

subwatershed and temporarily increase road density from 1.6 to 1.8 mi/mi2. Temporary roads 

would not occur in RHCAs. All temporary roads would occur in upland areas, above the point on 

the landscape in which snowmelt or rainfall runoff enters into a defined channel. Stream density 

would remain in the low risk category and there would be no new road crossings that would 

extend the stream network farther into upland areas. There would be no changes to the road 

system in the Lick Creek subwatershed. As a result, there would be no measureable increase in 

streamflow at the subwatershed scale. Therefore there would be no direct or indirect effect to 

water yield or peak flows from these actions under this alternative. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-149

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Water Quality

Motor vehicle and recreational off road vehicle use would continue to occur on routes designated 

on the Umatilla National Forest motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Erosion and sedimentation 

from roads would continue. Continued deferred maintenance of the majority of system roads 

would be the primary management related sources of accelerated erosion. 

The current level of livestock use would continue and would be managed under the allotment

management plans and annual operating instructions which allows flexibility to meet resource 

objectives. Weeds treatment would continue to occur along roads and in areas identified on the 

2017 Planned Treatments Map (USFS 2017) and implementation would follow design features 

described in the Umatilla National Forest Weeds EIS (USFS 2010). Natural disturbance events 

such as fires and floods could affect stream temperature and sediment regimes over time, if these 

events cause large-scale changes to vegetation or stream channel morphology. 

The Asotin Prescribed Burn would occur on about 7,943 acres within the Sunrise Project area. 

Under the modeled wildfire scenario, there would be an additional 0.09 tons/acre from the Lick 

Creek subwatershed and 0.11 tons/acre from the North Fork Asotin subwatershed (see Soils 

Report). 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A

Species composition and structural changes at the landscape scale described in the Silviculture

Report would not occur by mechanical means, therefore succession would remain on its current 

trajectory further away from landscape scale range of variation. 

Water Quality

Stream temperatures would be unaffected under the No Action alternative. 

Road densities and road use designations would remain unchanged with the No Action

alternative. Erosion and sedimentation from roads would continue as roads are used and 

maintained according to their respective maintenance level. 

Current levels of hillslope erosion are low and erosion from hillslopes is expected to be 

localized. Alternative A would not reduce the severity of wildfire, as described in the Fuels 

Report, and the effects wildfire are higher soil burn severity, loss of effective ground cover, 

increased soil exposure increasing the potential for hillslope erosion and potential failures. 

Floodplain Condition

The hydrologic function of streams in the project area would continue to recover from past 

harvest within the limitations of past and present management (timber harvest and roads) and 

periodic high flow events. Large scale fire could affect water yield and peak flows, with resultant 

adverse effects to channel and riparian condition, with resultant loss of fish habitat.

Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

The hydrologic function of stream-associated wetlands in the project area would continue to 

recover within the limitations of past and present management (timber harvest and roads) and 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-150 Umatilla National Forest

periodic high flow events. The condition of seeps and springs in the project area would continue 

to be influenced by current livestock management, as summarized in the Range Report. 

Water Yield

Current ECA values for Lick Creek and North Fork Asotin Creek subwatersheds are low 

compared to threshold value of 20% and suggest that there is no measurable difference between 

current conditions and those with no harvest. Vegetative recovery through time would continue 

to reduce ECA values. Current values of ECA when added to the Asotin Prescribed Fire Project 

(Table 3-49) indicates that there would continue to be no measurable increase in water yield or 

peakflows. 

Table 3-49. Equivalent Clearcut Area Modeling Summary

Subwatershed Current ETA Asotin Rx Total ECA

Lick Creek 3.2% 4.2% 7.4%

NF Asotin Creek 1.5% 3.4% 4.9%

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Water Quality

Temperature

Past actions, including road construction and timber harvest, affected overstory structure and, by 

default, shade which resulted in a higher exposure of surface water to solar radiation. In the 

alternatives, prescribed fire ignition would not occur within 600 feet of each side of fish-bearing 

streams in North Fork Asotin Creek subwatershed, 300 feet of each side of fish bearing streams 

in Lick Creek subwatershed, within 150 feet each side of perennial non-fish bearing streams, or 

within 100 feet of springs and other isolated wetlands. All alternatives would temporarily open 

roads for log haul in RHCAs with perennial streams. These activities would not remove any 

overstory shade-producing trees, although understory hardwoods, such as alder would be cut. As 

described in Direct and Indirect Effects, shade would not be affected and there would be no 

affect to water temperature at the reach scale from the proposed project and so no mechanism for 

cumulative effects to water temperature.

Road construction and previous timber sale activities on Forest Service lands removed shadeproducing vegetation along portions of perennial streams. The last timber sales within what are 

now RHCAs occurred nearly 25 years ago. Occasional hazard trees are felled along roads within 

RHCAs and this activity has a negligible effect to shade. An exclosure fence was constructed on 

lower Lick Creek about 15 years ago to limit livestock access. Approximately 38 miles of roads 

have been decommissioned in the two subwatersheds during the past 20 years. Most of these 

roads are effectively closed to motor vehicles and are in the process of hydrologic and vegetative 

recovery. The combined effect of these activities has had a positive effect to shade-producing 

vegetation in RHCAs. 

Sediment

Past actions including grazing, fires, fire suppression, timber harvest, road construction, road 

obliteration and recreation have occurred in the project area. Plant species composition has 

changed and invasive plant species are present. Ground cover has been affected and the sediment

regime has likely changed some unquantified amount through time, including ongoing actions. 

Sediment transport would continue to occur primarily during spring runoff. Effects to water 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-151

quality are directly linked to water yield because, if erosion from a road or hillslope treatment 

does not enter into a waterbody, there would be no effect to water quality. 

Erosion resulting from prescribed burning is generally less than that resulting from roads, skid 

trails, and site preparation techniques that cause soil disturbance (Robichaud et al 2010). 

Robichaud et al (2010) also reported that sediment effects from fuel management activities 

generally return to pre-disturbance levels within 1 to 2 years. The Fuels Report describes 

predicted modification of fire behavior as a result of changes to fire regime condition class from 

vegetation management and fuels reduction projects in the Sunrise Project area. These actions, 

together with the Asotin Creek Prescribed Burn Project would provide long term beneficial 

effects to water quality because lower fire severity and intensity from future wildfires are 

expected to result in lower soil burn severity at the landscape scale (see Soils Report). 

Sediments are a major nonpoint-source pollution problem in forests, most often associated with 

forest roads (MacDonald and Stednick 2003). Direct and indirect effects to soil and watershed

resources under proposed action would include short-term (hours to days) effects such as erosion

and sediment delivery resulting from removal of ground cover during construction of temporary 

roads and landings. 

Approximately 38 miles of roads have been decommissioned in the two subwatersheds during 

the past 20 years. Most of these roads are effectively closed to motor vehicles and are in the 

process of hydrologic and vegetative recovery. FR41 along Lick Creek was resurfaced with 

crushed aggregate in 2017 which has improved the running surface and stabilized the eroding 

subgrade material. An exclosure fence was constructed on lower Lick Creek about 15 years ago 

to limit livestock access to streambanks. The combined effect of these activities has had a 

positive effect to reducing hillslope and road-related sedimentation to streams. 

Temporary roads would be decommissioned as soon as feasible after use to reduce sediment

potential and help restore infiltration capacity. Decommissioning would include a combination of 

the following to improve hydrologic soil function: recontouring, ripping/scarifying, seeding, 

mulching and blocking the entrance. The Forest Service policy for control of nonpoint sources of 

pollution is to use BMPs, monitor the implementation and effectiveness of those BMPs, and 

adjust management practices using monitoring results. 

All action alternatives would increase livestock distribution on the allotment by increasing 

access and/or increasing available forage for livestock. Management of livestock would improve 

with all action alternatives due to increased visibility and access for livestock herding and due to 

the short term increase in forage. An increase in distribution of livestock on the uplands could 

decrease the amount of use on riparian areas. Field reconnaissance in 2014 and 2016 indicates 

that there would continue to be a low risk of sediment transported downstream into Class I, II 

and III waters from livestock grazing. 

Floodplain Condition

Channel stability is the ability of a stream, over time, in the present climate, to transport the 

sediment and flows produced by its watershed in such a manner that the stream maintains its 

dimension, pattern and profile without either aggrading or degrading (Rosgen 1996). Natural 

processes of floods and high severity wildland fire would occur, over time and the surrounding 

forest would continue to grow and trees would die and some would fall into streams. The result 

of these phenomena would result in changes to the stream shape and sediment dynamics. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-152 Umatilla National Forest

The Sunrise Project would not change the flow regime (water yield or peak flows) or sediment

regime, therefore there would be no cumulative effect to channel morphology from proposed 

silvicultural activities. Cumulative effects to floodplains would be not occur because temporary 

changes to road densities and stream crossings at the subwatershed scale of analysis are 

negligible and implementation of design criteria would not increase detrimental soil conditions 

above threshold amounts. 

Wetlands and GDEs

Ground disturbing activities would not occur in stream- or spring-associated wetlands as a result 

of the alternatives. Spring, seep and other wetland areas not previously identified and which are 

identified during unit layout would also be protected with no-skid buffers. Prescribed fire that 

burn near or across seeps, springs and other wetland areas would not permanently alter 

hydrologic properties associated with those features. Water developments for livestock are the 

main sources of hydrologic alteration to springs in the project area and there would be no 

additional adverse effects to these resources as a result of the Sunrise Project. 

Alternative B

Water Yield

Effects of past harvest and road building, proposed harvest, and landscape burning on water 

yield and peak flows were analyzed with ECA Model as described in the Existing Condition

section of this report and the Hydrology Report. Based on the assumptions of the ECA model and 

the literature cited and assuming that vegetation and fuels treatments would occur over a several 

year time frame, the proposed harvest and landscape burning would not have a measurable effect 

to hydrologic functions (capture, storage, and release of water) in the North Fork Asotin Creek 

and Lick Creek subwatersheds when combined with the Asotin Prescribed Burn Project and 

other past vegetation treatments. 

Figure 3-12 shows how ECA would change over a ten year time frame under this scenario, with 

ECA remaining below the 20% threshold value for cumulative effects to water yield. 

Figure 3-12: Seven Year Implementation Schedule ECA

Alternative C

Water Yield

The same timber sale and prescribed fire scenario described for Alternative B were input into the 

ETA model for Alternative C, which indicates that when treatments are implemented over the 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

NF Asotin...

Lick Creek
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-153

course of several years, rather than instantaneously, the ECA would remain below the 20% 

threshold value for cumulative effects to water yield for Lick Creek and NF Asotin Creek (see

Figure 3-9).

Figure 3-13: Alternative C – Seven Year Implementation Schedule ECA

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures

Implementation of actions proposed under the Sunrise project would include BMPs and project 

design criteria applicable to all action alternatives and these are listed in Appendix C and 

additional BMPs are identified in the Soils Report.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.11 Soils

This section incorporates by reference the Soils Report contained in the project analysis file at 

Pomeroy Ranger District. Specific information on the methodologies, assumptions, and 

limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the report. A summary of the current 

conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed Action and its 

alternatives are discussed in this section.

Introduction

Soil is the vital link that connects so much to so many in a healthy forest ecosystem, and as such 

was chosen as a resource due additional analysis. 

Regulatory Framework

Land and Resource Management Plan

The Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) provides standards 

and guidelines for all activities. 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028

NF Asotin...
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-154 Umatilla National Forest

The Desired Future Condition in the 1990 Forest Plan (LRMP) for water/soil is to maintain soil 

productivity (Forest Plan p. 4-9). The plan further states that Standards and Guidelines are to 

maintain a minimum of 80 percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable productivity 

potential. Acceptable productivity is defined as:

• Less than 20% increase in bulk density of volcanic soil or a less than 15 percent increase in 

soil bulk density for other forest soils.

• Soil disturbance of less than 50 percent of the topsoil humus enriched A1 and or AC horizons 

from an area 100 sq. ft. (i.e. 5ft by 20ft)

o Molding of the soil in vehicle tracks that area rutted to a depth less than 6 inches.

• Severely burned soil with the top layer of mineral soil altered in color (usually to red) and the 

next 1⁄2 inch blackened from organic matter charring.

• Plan and conduct land management activities so that soil loss from surface erosion and mass 

wasting, caused by activities will not result in an unacceptable reduction in soil productivity

or water quality.

• Management activities shall be designed and implemented to retain sufficient ground 

vegetation and organic matter to maintain long-term soil and site productivity.

• Active slump and landslide area are considered unavailable for road construction. Areas with 

known landslide potential and lake sediments require special transportation planning and 

design, layout preconstruction, construction and maintenance techniques.

Federal Law

Multi-Use Sustainable Yield Act (1960)

The project with described mitigation and BMPs in place should be able to meet the intent and 

direction of the Sustained Yield Act. Sustained yield means achieving and maintaining into 

perpetuity a high-level annual or regular periodic output of renewable resources without 

impairment of the productivity of the land.

Clean Water Act

Project design features were developed for the protection and maintenance of soil productivity

during and after the implementation of the Sunrise Project. Minimizing the risk of sedimentation 

as a result of large scale, high severity wildfire within the project area through the use of these 

design features to maintain soil stability would allow the Sunrise Project to meet the intent of the 

Clean Water Act.

Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and 

Plans 

For the proposed actions within this proposed project there would be 7 activity units under 

alternative B and 5 activity units under alternative C expected to exceed DSC defined by the 

forest plan if project design features such as re-using existing skid trails and subsoiling are not 

implemented (see Soils report). Project design features were developed to allow needed 

vegetation management to occur in the Sunrise Project area while providing for restoration of 

soil productivity. 

The project with described mitigation and BMPs in place should be able to meet the intent and 

direction of the LRMP as it pertains to the soil resource. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-155

It is assumed that the project being able to meet LRMP and FSM will lead to a project that will 

be considered sustainable in the terms of the Sustained Yield Act.

Methodology

Remote Data – Soil Productivity (Erosion and Sediment) and Stability

First a query was done of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory soil survey data to determine 

the soil types present within the planning area. These soils have been previously mapped under 

contract with the Blue Mountain TEUI. This mapping is inspected by the Forest Service and 

NRCS as contract task orders are completed and the resulting survey is commensurate with 

NRCS county soil surveys. Some of the taxonomic information (texture, slope range, surface 

rock content) was used in the erosion analysis, along with estimated vegetation data. The erosion 

analysis was conducted to determine if the proposed activities would create a risk to either soil 

productivity (erosion) or water quality (sediment). Lastly the TEUI mapping was used to 

eliminate unstable locations. No units were altered by this stability analysis. 

The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP, Elliott and Robichaud, 2001) has developed 

several modules that are used to estimate hillslope erosion and sedimentation: 

https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. WEPP simulates seasonal hydrology, surface 

hydrology and hydraulics, subsurface hydrology, vegetation growth and residue decomposition 

and sediment detachment and transport from a hillslope using five major input variables: climate, 

slope, soil texture, rock content and management scenario. 

To evaluate erosion risk following a management action or wildfire, the model was run using a 

stochastic climate for 50 years of possible weather. The long term data were used to account for 

temporal variability of storm patterns occurring in different years. Average monthly precipitation 

data from the Spruce Springs SNOTEL site (located at the northwest corner of the project area) 

were manually entered into the climate model and adjusted slightly to represent an average 

precipitation distribution in the upper North Fork Asotin Creek watershed, where most of the 

treatments would occur. A separate climate scenario was modelled for the lower elevation Lick 

Creek treatment units. 

The following activities were modelled: undisturbed forest, timber harvest with tractor logging, 

timber harvest with skyline logging, mastication fuels treatment, prescribed fire as a landscape 

burn, prescribed fire of activity fuels. Each activity affects ground cover and soil properties. In 

addition, low to high severity wildfire was modelled to estimate background hillslope sediment

and evaluate effectiveness of proposed treatments at reducing sedimentation as a result of a 

wildfire burning under current fuel conditions (See Fuels Report for Modeling Summary). 

WEPP modeling included the range of slopes, soil textures and surface rock content 

characteristics identified in the TEU descriptions. This range of characteristics typify hillslopes 

that occur within or are contained by proposed treatment areas. WEPP uses two slope elements 

in the model. The upper slope element represents the disturbance activity (e.g. mechanical 

harvesting, mastication, burning), and a lower slope element which represents the sediment

buffer to a waterway. The Soil report summarizes WEPP input variables and estimates of 

sedimentation (hillslope soil loss) due to ground-based yarding, skid trails, skyline yarding, and 

burn severity due to prescribed burning and wildland fire. 

Model results are summarized by the two major subwatersheds of the project area: Lick Creek 

and North Fork Asotin Creek. Approximately 249 treatment acres occur in 6 other subwatersheds 

(SWS): 89 acres in the Charley Creek SWS, 5 acres in the First Creek SWS, 2 acres in the 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-156 Umatilla National Forest

Headwaters Pataha Creek SWS, 50 acres in the headwaters Tucannon River SWS, 17 acres in the 

Menatchee Creek SWS and 86 acres in the South Fork Asotin Creek SWS. WEPP results for the 

North Fork Asotin Creek subwatershed would also be applicable to these treatment areas using 

the estimated erosion and sedimentation rate in tons/acre. 

Soil Productivity Influenced by Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSC)

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for management induced soil disturbance are described in 

terms of the amount of area of an activity unit (for example, a harvest unit) exceeding certain 

levels of effects to soil in degree and extent. Effects that are considered include compaction, 

displacement, rutting (puddling), and severe burning from prescribed fire. Changes from natural 

conditions from any permitted or management directed activity (e.g. livestock grazing) is 

included in assessments. Effects from compaction, displacement and puddling, in particular, tend 

to be persistent and last many years in this area. A study in central Idaho indicates that natural 

recovery of the soil may take 40 to 70 years (Froehlich and McNabb 1983). 

The persistence of compacted soil over time, for example, determines its effect on stand response 

and the long-term effect on forest productivity. How long soils remain compacted is determined 

by natural recovery rates or tillage operations or both (Froehlich and McNabb 1983). As such, 

these effects from previous soil disturbing actions are often still observable. Not all soil 

disturbance is detrimental -exceedance of certain threshold values triggers characterization of 

that disturbance as detrimental. For example, compaction is considered detrimental if bulk 

density is increased more than 20% for ash soils. 

Units were assessed for the extent and degree of previously impacted soil using aerial photo 

analysis, GIS mapping of prior harvest activities and field observation starting in the fall of 

2014. Units with prior harvest history and the likelihood for greater existing effects were 

evaluated by the Forest Soil Scientist for quantitative assessment relative to Forest Plan

standards and guidelines for detrimental soil condition. An estimate of DSC as a percentage of 

the areas was assigned for each activity unit to provide a consistent tracking measure. 

Potential effects to soil productivity would be created by the equipment used and methods 

employed to implement this project. Skid trails are pathways used to transport trees, logs, and 

other forest products from the forest to a deck, landing or roadside. Skid trails are usually for 

temporary use and may be used only once or equipment may make many passes. If they are not 

planned, constructed or used correctly or rehabbed when needed, skid trails can have longlasting effects on soil productivity and water quality. Landings are locations where trees, logs or 

other forest products are removed and temporarily placed so they can be loaded onto trucks for 

transport. Because of the disturbance to exposed soil and repeated equipment traffic in a 

concentrated area, soils become compacted and have the potential to produce significant runoff

and erosion. 

Remote Data – Soil Productivity Influenced by Detrimental Soil Conditions

Qualitative estimates are considered sufficient to meet assessment, analysis, and monitoring

objectives (FSM 2551.4). To provide an understanding of soil productivity within proposed 

units, and how past activities may have influenced the soil resource; remote observations were 

made to identify legacy impacts. These observations began as remote sensing of historic aerial 

photos and contemporary aerial photographs. Areas with assumed presence of legacy equipment 

disturbance or a noticeable change to current vegetative cover; were digitally mapped.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-157

The presence (or absence), growth and development of trees in legacy roads and skid trails was 

considered to be a surrogate for soil productivity. Observations included a presence or absence 

of tracks (ruts), berms and/or apparent blading of the ground surface. The presence of ruts or 

berms is a sign of soil disturbing equipment traffic (soil molding). Although trails are expected 

to recover to natural soil conditions over time, it was assumed these changes in vegetation and 

soil structure are a signature of reduced soil productivity (i.e. DSC) within the prism of these 

mapped features. 

Signs of equipment traffic visible through the forest canopy using aerial photos available from 

the Forest Service database and Google Earth were used to digitize features. Historic aerial 

photos available on Google Earth were examined to identify and digitize locations of skid trails 

and landings, if they were not visible on more recent photography.

Estimates of DSC for previous harvest units that were not observable from aerial images are 

based on sampling for the Kahler Project (Archuleta 2013) which found that detrimental 

conditions corresponded to about 3% of an activity unit.

Field Observations – Soil Productivity (Erosion and Sedimentation), Stability and 

Detrimental Soil Conditions

Observations of soil conditions occurred during field reconnaissance in 2014 and 2016. 

Observations were made during field reconnaissance for soil stability and field examinations for 

these features do not conflict with completed soil mapping (TEUI). No signs of instability were 

observed and presence of erosion tended to be associated with localized occurrences. No areas 

identified as a chronic source of natural erosion that may be a source of sediment. There were 

some locations where overland flow could offer sediment, but due to the gentle slopes and minor 

scour of the exposed soil; it is assumed that this occurrence was likely within background 

erosion and sediment volumes.

Some units had roads that were decommissioned by: blocking the entrance and allowing natural 

regeneration; scarifying and seeding; subsoiling and seeding; and/or recontouring. Roads that 

were subsoiled and recontoured are considered to have removed compaction and restored 

infiltration and percolation properties. Other methods have not effectively removed the traveled 

surface and are still considered to have legacy impacts and these roads are included in the 

calculation for DSC. New temporary access roads are not counted as DSC because they would 

be rehabilitated to break up compaction and seeded and mulched to restore ground cover. 

Affected Environment

Scale of Analysis

This analysis is spatially bound by the proposed vegetation treatment unit boundaries, temporary 

access routes to those units and landscape prescribed fire boundaries. The analysis is temporally 

bound by the timing of activities at the unit and landscape scale, which will inform when 

mitigation measures would be implemented to maintain or restore soil productivity. 

The Umatilla NF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) has soil productivity goals that 

are used as indicators of change, which will be grouped into four resource elements for this 

analysis. For this analysis, the observed change to vegetation (absence, conversion to grass/forb, 

reduced growth) due to compaction, puddling, displacement or severely burned soil as evidenced 

by the presence of non-system roads, presumed skid trails and landings is used as a surrogate for 

the four components of detrimental soil conditions (DSC).
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-158 Umatilla National Forest

Indicators for comparison purposes between alternatives are:

• Soil Mass Wasting –soil stability

• Erosion –soil productivity

• Sediment –water quality

• Change or Absence in Vegetation Growth – detrimental soil conditions

(as a result of old roads, landings, skid trails)

Existing Condition

Natural Development

Soils in the analysis area have been mapped with the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory 

(TEUI). These taxonomic delineations result in polygons of various shapes and sizes across the 

landscape. Polygons are populated with either a soil consociation (single series) or soil 

complexes of various soil series. Some soil series have either been previously identified in 

another soil survey or newly identified within the TEUI mapping on the Umatilla NF. Soil 

complexes can have two to four soil series within a complex, the first series named in the 

complex is the dominant, with the remaining series placed in its place of dominance in the 

complex name. 

In the taxonomic description for each of the soil series, there is a soil order. Soil order 

information offers clues to the history of a given landscape and a better picture of the landscape 

environmental development. Within the project, three soil orders are identified by the soils 

mapped in proposed units. The soil orders within the project area range from slight (Andisols) to 

intermediate (Mollisols) in their degree of development (Brady and Weil 1999). 

Soil Complexes

The project area contains 21 individual soil series, which comprise the 38 soil complexes. A 

complex is composed of two or more soils series and/or a miscellaneous area (such as rock 

outcrop), plus allowable inclusions. Each complex has a dominant soil, which is the first series 

of the complex name (see Soils Resource Report).

Human Influences to the Soil Resource

As mentioned in Methodology, human influences have caused some change to the soil resource. 

Some of these influences have been recognized as having either beneficial, no effect, or 

detrimental effects to the soil resource. 

Previous NEPA decisions have determined that the current road system is needed to implement 

the multiple uses that occur on National Forest System lands within the Pomeroy Ranger 

District. The Sunrise Project contains about 140 miles of developed National Forest System

roads, which has removed about 240 acres from vegetative production. Some of these roads 

occur within or adjacent to proposed treatment units. Following manual direction (FSM 2551.3, 

2010), soil management standards and guidelines are generally not applied to administrative sites 

or dedicated use areas (such as roads, recreation sites). This report analyzes the effects of nonNFS roads, skid trails, landings and user created routes that occur within proposed treatments 

units, in addition to modelled hillslope erosion and sedimentation from proposed activities. 

The most direct and recognizable influence left on the Sunrise landscape is from past harvest

activities. Several studies reported that compaction and displacement effects associated with 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-159

temporary roads and skid trail equipment traffic can detrimentally influence vegetation and their 

associated soil communities (Froehlich and McNabb 1983, Amaranthus et al, 1996, Bulmer and 

Simpson, 2010 and Miller et al, 2004). Often, effects from temporary roads, landings and skid 

trails do not prevent vegetation from growing seedlings, but these features can limit the 

opportunity of vegetation to reach maturity or result in loss of ecologic function and economic 

value. Additionally if left on the landscape without Effective Ground Cover (EGC) these features 

can cause erosion (Lane et al 1988). Depending upon the proximity of effects to surface water, 

they could serve as sediment sources. At this time there are no observed hillslope sources of 

direct sediment input within the project area. Forest Plan standards for EGC after cessation of 

any soil-disturbing activity is shown Table 3-50. 

Table 3-50. Forest Plan Standards for Effective Ground Cover

Erosion Hazard Class

Minimum EGC

1st Year 2nd Year

Low (very slight, slight) 20-30% 30-40%

Medium (moderate) 30-45% 40-60%

High (severe) 45-60% 60-75%

Very High (very severe) 60-75% 75-90%

In the past, human ignited fire could be partially responsible for stand densities consistent with 

Mollisol soil development. In a general sense, it is assumed that maintenance burning would 

beneficially consume fuels, preventing the high intensity/long duration fire that can detrimentally 

heat alter the soil resource. Conversely, current human suppression of fire helps to build wildland 

fuel loads that may create detrimental effects to the soil resource (i.e. heat altered soil). Heat 

altered soil is commonly associated with sterilization of the topsoil and the formation of 

hydrophobic layers that promote erosion and stream sediment.

Erosion and Sediment

Erosion and sedimentation from undisturbed forest floor conditions are low and often not 

measureable (Elliot and Miller, 2017). Baseline surface erosion and the sediment it may create 

were modeled with WEPP, for slopes and soil textures found within proposed harvest units. To 

generate baseline hillslope erosion and potential sedimentation (amount of sediment transported 

from a hillslope to a stream), the range of variables in units were populated in the model to test 

the greatest distance offered within the model (1200 ft.). This modeling showed a baseline that 

was low probability (0%) of sediment and low volumes of sediment (undetectable). 

A recent hillslope erosion study (Wondzell and Clifton 2005) within the Sunrise Project area 

measured very low background erosion rates ranging from 0.0001 – 0.003 tons/acre. The study 

also monitored erosion from fuels and harvest treatment and these data were used to improve 

WEPP model calibration at low erosion rates. Use of local data greatly improves the confidence 

of the model results to display differences between treatments and alternatives. Results of the 

Lick Creek study showed very little runoff due to the lack of large rainfall events. The study was 

only conducted for 4 years, and therefore only captured a small sampling of weather conditions. 

Harris et al. (2007) concluded that without major storm events to drive extensive overland flow, 

the physical mechanism that would drive erosion and downslope sediment transport was lacking. 

A 12 year data set collected at the Umatilla Barometer Watershed High Ridge study site (Helvey 

and Fowler 1995) reported background sedimentation rate of 0.03 t/ac (19 t/mi2

), which is still a 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-160 Umatilla National Forest

very low amount of erosion. Because of the larger dataset and longer period of record, the High 

Ridge data will be used to define baseline estimates for the Sunrise Project. Model results should 

be considered estimates only, and used as relative values for purposes of comparing fire effects 

and management scenarios. Because of natural variability in climate, soil types, cover, and other 

factors, and assumptions made to simplify modeling, results are at best plus or minus 50 percent 

(Elliot et al, 1999). 

Resource Indicators and Measures

Table 3-51 summarizes the existing condition for the resource elements and indicators. 

Assessment of potential hillslope erosion and sedimentation were modeled using WEPP, as 

described under ‘Methodology’ and results of WEPP modelling are in Appendix D of the 

specialist’s report available at the Pomeroy Ranger District. The Hydrology Report analyzes the 

effects of road-related sediment, therefore the Soils Report will only address potential sediment 

derived from proposed hillslope treatments. 

Table 3-51. Resource Indicators and Measures for the existing condition

*complete inventory is not available, assumed DSC at 3% of landscape previously harvested is based on intensive 

monitoring for other project areas on the Umatilla National Forest; these are acres outside of proposed treatment 

units

Resource Indicator or Measure 1

Aerial photo analysis for soil stability and observations made during field reconnaissance for 

these features do not conflict with completed soil mapping (TEUI) or add to known landslide 

features mapped on the Umatilla NF. Therefore this resource indicator of slope stability is not a 

factor in this analysis.

Resource Indicators and Measures 2 and 3 

The most productive part of the soil is often the closest to the mineral surface (Brady and Weil 

1999). Erosion would either change the location of productive soil or be a loss of soil 

productivity to stream channels as sediment inputs. Additionally, it is assume that the network of 

legacy trails can offer means to route surface flow and sediment to streams. 

Field observations of forested areas appeared to be consistent with the low overall expected 

sedimentation rates measured during the Wondzell and Clifton (2005). Presence of widespread, 

management-induced active hillslope erosion and gullying were not observed during field 

reconnaissance. Small-scale gully-erosional features associated with sparsely vegetated nonforested openings were observed in several areas within the project area, such as near the Mount 

Resource Element Resource 

Indicator

Measure Existing 

Condition

1) Soil Stability Soil Mass Wasting Active areas identified (acres) 0

2) Soil Productivity Erosion tons (tons/acre) < 0.03

3) Water quality Sediment tons (tons/acre) < 0.03

4) Detrimental Soil 

Conditions (DSC)

Change or absence 

in vegetation growth

Legacy roads, trails, landings in project 

area (acres)* 150

Legacy roads and trails and landings in 

proposed treatment units (miles/acres) 57/121

Legacy landings in proposed treatment 

units (acres) 21
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-161

Misery Snowmobile Shelter. These type of non-forested areas would be avoided and therefore 

not be affected by proposed management actions. 

The WEPP model summarizes hillslope erosion and sedimentation in the same table, therefore 

these two indicators will be evaluated together for each subwatershed. The assumed background 

hillslope erosion and sedimentation rate is 0.03 tons/acre. Current condition modelled results for 

forested hillslopes of the Lick Creek and North Fork Asotin subwatersheds mirrored those 

reported by Wondzell and Clifton (2005), which showed essentially no measureable erosion or 

sedimentation. Grassland areas of the Lick Creek SWS also showed no erosion or sedimentation 

under conditions modeled. At the landscape scale, grassland areas of the NF Asotin 

subwatershed averaged 0.07 tons/acre or about 143 tons of sediment from 2,042 acres. 

Sedimentation observed or measured in natural stream channels can originate from hillslope 

erosion or from stream channel bed and bank erosion. The lower 4-5 miles of Lick Creek within 

the project boundary were deeply scoured during runoff events in the winter of 1996-97. This 

was most likely due to accelerated streamflow through the narrowly confined valley bottom, 

unconsolidated fill material and low amount of bank stabilizing riparian vegetation along nonperennial portions of the stream channel. Field reconnaissance in 2014 found that streambank 

stability along lower portions of Lick Creek are still below stability thresholds described by 

Rosgen (1996) for similar stream types. Reconnaissance along Cougar Canyon, Middle Branch 

of the North Fork and North Fork Asotin Creek in 2014 indicate that stream channel 

morphologies are stable for these stream types. Refer to the hydrology and fisheries reports for 

more detail on stream condition. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 4 

Without human intervention there are not many cases when the soil resource can be influenced. 

Thus the inhibition of the growth of trees and brush (FSM 2551.5, Figure 2 of the Soils Report) 

would be considered an expression of a detrimental change to the productivity of the soil 

resource. The presence of DSC was found in association with legacy roads, trails and landings. It 

is assumed that most of these trails were left from previous harvest activities, but some may have 

been created from unregulated recreation and firewood cutters in the area. Topography of the 

area is conducive to access for most forms of vehicles used in recreation activities. Estimates of 

DSC are based on GIS mapping of old roads, skid trails and landings, with some field 

verification of the presence of these features. For previously harvested units where linear 

features are not evident on aerial photos, an estimate of 3% DSC is assumed based on intensive 

DSC mapping for the Kahler project (Archuleta 2013). 

Appendix E of the specialist report summarizes DSC by treatment unit. Overall, calculated DSC 

occurs on 141 acres within proposed treatment areas and currently exceeds Forest Plan Standards 

for Units 215 (30% or 1.9 acres) and 216 (24% or 1.5 aces). These trails appear to have inhibited 

vegetation growth and type of growth. Where site conditions allow, these areas would continue 

to recover toward a more natural state. 

Environmental Consequences

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative 

Effects Analysis

All ground disturbing activities included in the list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

activities for the Sunrise project are relevant to cumulative effects analysis for DSC.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-162 Umatilla National Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 

Soil mass movement was not identified in the area, therefore, the No Action alternative would 

not increase or decrease the potential slope instability.

Resource Indicators and Measures 2 and 3

If the project area were to continue unchanged by further disturbance from humans or natural 

events it would remain on its current soil developmental trajectory with no direct change to the 

resource indicators of erosion or sedimentation. Direct and Indirect effects to erosion and 

sedimentation are expected to be small, with no elevation above assumed background levels.

Resource Indicator and Measure 4 

This alternative would produce no increase or reduction in detrimental soil disturbance because 

logging operations and associated activities as proposed in other alternatives would not occur. 

No rehabilitation and native seeding of existing landings, skid trails, or unauthorized roads 

would occur to improve soil productivity on detrimentally altered sites. 

Cumulative Effects

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 

Cumulative effects are not expected from mass movement under normal weather conditions. 

NEPA is complete for the Asotin Prescribed Burn, which includes about 7,943 acres in the 

Sunrise project area. Table 7 of the specialist’s report shows how soil burn severity would 

change following a wildfire before and after the Asotin Prescribed Fire is implemented. 

After the Asotin Prescribed Burn is implemented, this portion of the Sunrise Project area would 

have a reduced risk to post wildfire hillslope failures because an expected reduction in soil burn 

severity would maintain higher amounts of effective ground cover to protect mineral soils from 

wind and water erosion. 

Resource Indicators and Measures 2 and 3

The Asotin Prescribed Burn would occur on about 7,943 acres within the Sunrise Project area. 

The same modeling scenario described under direct and indirect Effects was run for the Asotin 

Prescribed Burn. Under the modeled wildfire scenario, there would be an additional 0.09 

tons/acre from the Lick Creek subwatershed and 0.11 tons/acre from the North Fork Asotin 

subwatershed (see Fuels Specialist report).

Erosion from hillslopes is expected to be localized unless influenced by a combination of high 

soil burn severity wildfire followed by high winds and runoff-producing rainfall events 

immediately after a fire. The potential duration of expected erosion risk would be for at least 3 

years immediately following wildfire. The volumes of erosion under this risk are also influenced 

by the intensity and duration of precipitation events that occur during elevated erosion risk. 

Current equivalent clearcut area (ECA) values for Lick Creek and NF Asotin Creek 

subwatersheds are low and well below threshold values (see Hydrology Report). Based on model 

assumptions, management induced changes in water yield, timing of flow, or peak flow are 

currently negligible, which indicates that streambed and bank derived sedimentation rates are not 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-163

being influenced by management activities at the subwatershed scale. The Asotin Creek Rx burn 

would increase the NF Asotin Creek ECA from 5.7% to 9.9% and Lick Creek would increase 

from 3.2% to 6.8%, which are below the threshold value of 20% that may result in changes to 

water yield and streamflow. Unless a large scale high severity fire burns within the Sunrise 

Project area and causes an increase in ECA above the threshold value due to the fire that results 

in streamflow increases, changes to the stream channel-derived sediment would not occur. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 4 

Detrimental Soil Conditions that are created by equipment traffic can be long-lived (>40 years). 

There are no cumulative effects to DSC for this alternative because there would be no additional 

land disturbing activities and areas of known DSC would not be rehabilitated to restore soil 

productivity. 

Common to All Action Alternatives (Alternative B and C)

The Sunrise Project has two distinct treatment types at two different scales: 1) harvest, thinning

and fuels treatment of activity units and 2) landscape prescribed burning. WEPP analyses are 

therefore based on different hillslope areas. Harvest, thinning and mastication units that also 

have broadcast burning as part of the fuels treatment were not counted in the landscape fire 

scenario, so that acres were not double counted. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 

Soil mass movement was not identified in the project area nor within individual treatment units. 

Aerial photo examination of proposed treatment units and other previously harvest areas in the 

project area indicates that past vegetation treatments did not cause obvious hillslope failures. 

Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of proposed treatments are presumed to also have no 

observable effect on mass movement. 

Resource Indicators and Measures 2 and 3 

Harvest

Soils in most of the units proposed for treatments have considerable volcanic ash content (ash 

soils) with susceptibility to compaction in both wet and dry condition, water erosion hazard, 

displacement and dry condition dusting (key concerns for these soil types). All soils in the area 

have at least some ash-influence in the surface layer. 

Utility of the harvester-forwarder system for ground-based harvest (or other silvicultural 

treatments) mitigates to great extent the potential for these adverse effects when adequate ground 

cover is present or can be generated by operations. Nearly all of the smaller branches and 

needles are left on site, where, even if later jackpot or underburned, would allow nutrient 

retention in the unit. Virtually no landings are needed because the short logs can be decked along 

the length of adjacent haul roads. Erosion hazard is all but eliminated in typical operations of this 

type, with only occasional areas of bare soil limited to short sections (typically less than 25 foot 

in length) with a mosaic pattern that is not conducive to concentrating water sufficient to move 

soil. 

Monitoring of other harvest activity on the Umatilla NF indicates cut-to-length processors and 

full-suspension forwarders result in detrimental soil impacts (per Forest Plan definition) 

dominantly in the 2 to 5% range (including fuels treatments in most cases, hence the slightly 

higher range than indicated above) with lesser compaction (in particular) on the shallower soil 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-164 Umatilla National Forest

types. The residual soils, and those with thin volcanic ash mantles (10 inches or less), have high 

strength in dry conditions and do not compact easily. They are still susceptible to surface 

displacement. The deeper soils, most with high ash content, are still susceptible to compaction 

even when dry, as soil strength does not increase in ash soils to the same degree as in other 

parent materials.

The results with the in-woods processors (including the cut-to-length systems using forwarders) 

have been quite favorable in operations monitored on the Umatilla National Forest. The slash

mats spread compressive forces while little to no displacement occurs as there is minimal turning 

forces or dragging of trees to move surface soil. Landings often overlap existing roads thereby 

limiting additional effects to unaffected soil areas, or logs are simply piled roadside with no 

scraping needed.

Feller-buncher plus skidding harvesting systems exposes more soil than does hand felling and 

cable systems. Tractor operations which skids logs across the surface create greater area of bare 

mineral soil subject to erosion. Skidding can also create “dusting-up” of volcanic ash soils if the 

soil is very dry and there is little surface duff and branches to buffer the surface. Control of 

operations during fluctuating moisture and freeze/thaw conditions (winter operations if utilized) 

is crucial. 

Tractor yarding of whole or partial-tree trees typically results in detrimental soil condition 

percentages in the 4 to 8% range in these soil types and vegetation conditions. Areas with large 

amounts of downed wood tend to have DSC in the lower end of the range as the downed wood 

reduces the degree of compaction, rutting, and bare mineral soil created. 

The previous discussion maintains the following assumptions: skid trails are perpendicular or 

oblique slope angle to drainages; main skid trails with multiple passes experience considerably 

more erosion than feeder trails with fewer passes; skyline corridors have higher ground cover

than skid trails; skyline corridors cause less ground disturbance but more dense than main skid 

trails; proposed treatments would reduce the severity of wildfire which would result in lower 

rates of sedimentation. 

Understanding the benefiting opportunities from fuel loading (slash) with yarding method may 

be an important factor to consider in the analysis. If harvest in a unit occurs before or as it 

transitions from moist to dry soil conditions; equipment may need to ride on slash to minimize 

DSC. 

Temporary Roads

All action alternatives would construct temporary roads to facilitate commercial timber harvest. 

The width of temporary roads and the number and size of turnouts would be limited to minimize 

disturbance to soils, vegetation, and root mats. Construction of temporary roads would cause 

direct effects in the form of compaction and displacement of soils. Erosion potential is the 

greatest during and immediately after temporary road construction. A maximum of 13.7 miles of 

temporary roads would be constructed to facilitate harvest on the various soils types. 

Factors that influence surface erosion on temporary roads include erodibility of soils and 

steepness of grade. All temporary roads are located on low to moderate gradient slopes outside of 

RHCAs. Ash derived soils are the predominant soil type where temporary roads would be 

constructed. Ash soils have high infiltration rates and high water holding capabilities that 

decrease erodibility. Due to location, low erodibility of the soils, slope gradient, and the use of 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), the potential for sediment reaching streams is low. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-165

To reduce sediment potential the temporary roads would be decommissioned as soon as feasible 

after use. Decommissioning includes blocking, subsoiling, seeding, and possible mulching with 

emphasis to improve hydrologic, and soil function. Surface treatment (ripping or other tillage 

activity) would improve the infiltration, reduce or eliminate erosion hazard, and improve seed 

bed character upon completion, but remain in a reduced productive capacity if retained for future 

use. Soil structure should recover in the long term. Full obliteration would most fully return 

productive capacity over the long term. Monitoring of decommissioned temporary roads is 

important to assure erosion recovery is occurring and erosion is at a minimum. It is expected that 

decommissioning will prevent long term impacts. 

Prescribed Fire

Effects of concern from prescribed fire activity would be related to area of high soil burn 

severity (indicated by fire intensity) and total exposed soil surface subject to potential erosion

hazard. The prescription for underburning and pattern of heavy fuel concentrations are prime 

determining factors affecting the extent of high severity burn areas. Contemporary prescriptions 

for underburning rarely create severe burn conditions. Total area of severely burned soils is 

expected to be very small, usually < 5% in broadcast treatment; increasing up to 10% of 

treatment areas if there are numerous concentrations of heavy fuels loadings resulting from 

either harvest activity or down woody levels. Exposed soil would be expected to be scattered in a 

mosaic pattern similar to heavy fuel loading patterns, rarely in continuous areas to become an 

erosion hazard. 

Mechanical Fuel Treatments

Use of mechanical fuel treatments adds additional equipment traffic while generally reducing the 

number of spots of severe burn intensity. Mastication (slash busting) equipment is proposed in 

some thinning or improvement cut harvest units to reduce created and existing slash, and protect 

the remaining stand which includes a considerable proportion of fire intolerant species. These are 

usually mounted on small-body excavator bodies with wide tracks. As such they have relatively 

low ground-pressure and can work on top of downed logs and existing or created slash. 

Additional compaction and some displacement can be created while turning. Operation on 

downed slash and other woody material and use of existing trails keeps additional compaction 

and displacement effects very low. Rolling drum type masticators can cause more ground 

disturbance because they are generally pulled behind a tracked machine than cause additional 

compaction, rutting and displacement of soils. Monitoring of grapple-piling operations on the 

Umatilla NF indicates detrimental soil impacts in the 0-2% range. 

Specific impacts will depend on what equipment is used during different stages of treatment. 

Overall, short-term impacts may range from minimal to substantial negative impacts. Long term, 

the magnitude of impacts will decrease with time but some moderate negative impacts may 

persist in areas of high compaction. 

Cumulative Effects

Previous management activities over the past several decades compound to produce the existing 

condition. Activities include road building, timber harvest, site preparation, livestock grazing, 

fire suppression activities and prescribed fire. The concern, from a soils standpoint, is whether 

additional effects to the soil resources resulting from proposed activities would accumulate 

adverse effects to soil characteristics sufficient to affect productivity. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-166 Umatilla National Forest

Existing soil disturbance is scattered across the project, concentrated on more level ground that 

is readily accessed. It is primarily in the form of old skid trails and access roads that were 

sufficiently disturbed at the time of their use. They remain in exceedance of criteria for 

detrimental disturbance levels. This existing detrimental soil condition is often referred to as 

legacy disturbance, and is factored into assessments of cumulative effects for new management 

actions. 

A certain amount of overlap occurs when logging activity happens on units with existing 

detrimental soil condition as machinery reuses some trails and landing sites. This tends to reduce 

the amount of added, new detrimental soil impacts. However, this was not used to reduce the 

estimated increase percentage in DSC in the assessment due to uncertainty on the extent of this 

effect on a specific unit. This would likely lead to some overestimation of total potential DSC in

units with existing soil disturbance from previous activity. 

Cumulative effects relative to erosion hazard are not relevant within treatment units as surface 

recovery occurs rapidly enough to eliminate this as a cumulative concern. Data collected during 

a fuels treatment study (Wondzell and Clifton 2005) in the Sunrise Project area found that 

ground cover was maintained to Forest Plan Standards. Results of the Lick Creek study showed 

very little runoff, however, the study was only conducted for 4 years, and therefore only captured 

a small sampling of weather conditions. A 12 year data set collected as part of the Umatilla 

Barometer Watershed study (Helvey and Fowler 1995) reported background sedimentation rate 

of 0.03 t/ac (19 t/mi2

). 

Soil rehabilitation of adverse soil conditions is expected to be necessary on several units with 

existing high levels of DSC (see Appendix E of the Soils Report). Obliteration of temporary 

roads, scarification/subsoiling of landings, and retention of as much organic matter as fire 

risk/fuel objectives would help ameliorate and rehabilitate site conditions for productive capacity 

and reduced erosion hazard.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative B

The direct effects of implementing the Alternative B would be the removal of 26.5 MBF of 

timber from 5,520 acres (including development of skid trails, landings and 51 temporary road

segments totaling 13.7 miles) and precommercial thinning of an additional 2,270 acres. 

Treatment of activity fuels would include mastication, lop and scatter, hand piling, grapple 

piling, pile burning, jackpot burning and/or broadcast burning. Prescribed fire is proposed for 

14,055 acres of forest and grassland. Appendix D of the specialist’s report summarizes the 

results of the WEPP batch runs for the Lick Creek and North Fork Asotin Creek subwatersheds. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 

See Effects Common to All Action Alternatives. 

Resource Indicators and Measures 2 and 3

Actions under Alternative B that would have some effect on soil productivity (loss of soil 

through erosion) include ground disturbance from yarding operations (ground-based and skyline 

systems) and mastication, development of landings, development of temporary roads and 

prescribed burning. Each of these activities has an expected impact to the DSC (Reeves et al, 

2011, Archuleta, 1997 and 1999, Siskiyou NF, 1997 and Bennett, 1982), which can influence 

erosion. During the implementation of activities, there would be some elevation of risk to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-167

erosion and sedimentation. However BMPs and project design criteria would mitigate or 

diminish if not all, most of the short term effects from erosion. 

Part of the purpose and need for this project is to implement actions that would facilitate 

restoration and maintenance of the desired fire regime condition classes across the landscape. 

WEPP was used to model effects of proposed treatments at two scales: 1) effect of thinning, 

harvesting and fuels treatment units at the hillslope scale, within each subwatershed and 2) effect 

of prescribed burning at the subwatershed scale, which used the fire condition and behavior 

modeling results. 

The Disturbed WEPP program was used to model potential effects of the wildfire behavior 

simulation (see Fuels Report) as a basis to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed treatments at 

limiting the risk of hillslope soil loss. Elliott (2005) presents another method to compare fuels 

treatments at the landscape scale using the WEPP FuME Module. 

The WEPP model calculates erosion and sedimentation estimates for storm events that have a 

high probability of occurrence in a given year (2.5 year return interval) to a low probability (50 

year return interval), with increasing amounts of precipitation that generate higher runoff that 

results in potentially more hillslope erosion and sedimentation. The data show that the majority 

of the sediment is produced by lower frequency, higher precipitation events and ground cover

becomes less of a factor at maintaining soil stability as the intensity and duration of precipitation 

increases. The model also assumes that BMPs for skidding and yarding would maintain ground 

cover at desired levels. 

Based on the model runs and assumed background levels, harvest and prescribed burning would 

result in less potential hillslope erosion and sedimentation than a high severity wildfire burning 

under current fuel conditions. Beneficial effects of treatments are expected to last for decades 

because of the reduced fuel loading from proposed treatments. 

Treatment Units

Based on the model runs and assumed background levels, harvest and prescribed burning would 

produce lower sedimentation rates than a higher severity wildfire. Average sedimentation rates 

from mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in the Lick Creek subwatershed are similar to that 

reported by Wondzell and Clifton and this amount would be negligible. Sedimentation rates from 

thinning, harvesting and fuels treatments in the North Fork Asotin Creek subwatershed would 

also be low during the first year post-treatment, although both are higher than the background 

rate. EGC would remain within Forest Plan standards and based on the Lick Creek Study, 

expected to recover to pre-activity levels within 2 years. 

The longer term benefit of treatments would be to reduce the severity of future wildfires 

commensurate with changes to desired condition classes, which would result in lower erosion

and sedimentation rates. 

All treatment scenarios for the Lick Creek subwatershed indicate that on a weighted average 

basis, there is little difference between treatments (Table 3-52). The model runs for North Fork 

Asotin Creek (Table 3-53) indicate that at both scales, wildfire effects burning under current 

conditions would be mitigated by implementing density management treatments. Examining the 

difference between erosion/sedimentation rates at the landscape and unit scale indicates units 

proposed for treatment have the potential to produce twice as much sediment as the landscape as 

a whole and thus there is a longer term benefit to implementing these treatments. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-168 Umatilla National Forest

Table 3-52. Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative B – Lick Creek

Resource Element Resource Indicator Treatment Type Measure tons/ac

2) Soil Productivity

3) Water Quality

Erosion

Sedimentation

Landscape Rx < 0.03

Wildfire at Landscape scale 0.03

Harvest/thinning Units < 0.03

Rx Fire Units < 0.03

Wildfire at Unit scale 0.06

Table 3-53. Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative B – NF Asotin Creek

Resource Element Resource Indicator Treatment Type Measure tons/ac

2) Soil Productivity

3) Water Quality

Erosion

Sedimentation

Landscape Rx 0.13

Wildfire at Landscape scale 0.47

Harvest/thinning Units 0.08

Rx fire Units 0.23

Wildfire at Unit scale 0.90

WEPP was also used to validate the recommended water bar spacing for skid trails and 

temporary roads on steeper slopes, as shown in Appendix F of the soil resource specialist report; 

Project Design Features.

Landscape Scale

A complimentary analysis using the broader scale WEPP FuME model indicates that in the first 

year post treatment the benefits of implementing the proposed actions in both subwatersheds is 

similar to the overall average from the more detailed Disturbed WEPP. Appendix D of the 

specialist’s report contains the summary outputs of the WEPP model runs for the vegetation 

components of the Lick Creek and North Fork Asotin Creek subwatersheds. 

The WEPP scenarios were run using a buffer of 100 feet, which is the minimum PACFISH

buffer for Class IV (intermittent) streams. The project area contains Class I, II, III and IV streams 

with no thinning and no ignition buffers ranging from 100-300 feet. In addition, during the 

prescribed burn, project design criteria would implement a 600 ft. no ignition zone along Class I 

streams. For ground-based units, PDFs include water bar guidelines for skid trails. These 

practices would further limit potential for activity-generated sediment to enter into stream 

channels, therefore water quality would not be adversely affected. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 4 

The direct effect of Alternative B would be ground disturbance of approximately 3,312 acres 

from ground based harvesting equipment, 822 acres of noncommercial thinning from masticators 

and 2,207 acres of skyline yarding. Not all ground disturbance would result in DSC, although 

each of the proposed mechanized treatment methods has a predicted impact to the DSC (Reeves 

et al, 2011, Archuleta, 1997 and 1999, Siskiyou NF, 1997 and Bennett, 1982), which can 

influence sediment. 

While Reeves offers a comprehensive list of expected detrimental effects, it appears these 

estimates may underestimate effects if certain conditions are present or absent. Twelve units 

would be near or exceed the 20% threshold under Alternative B. Restoration of DSC by 

subsoiling may be possible in units 62, 195, 208, 215 and 231 depending on the location of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-169

deeper soils. Suitability for subsoiling of deeper soils for the Mount Emily series for units 179 

and 216 are based on hillslope gradients > 35%, so there may be opportunity to effectively 

subsoil portions of these units, based on field reconnaissance. GIS shows soil mapping unit 

5776CN for units 187 and 217, however, the digital elevation model (DEM) indicates that only 

small portions of these units exceed 30% slopes, therefore portions of deeper soils can be 

effectively subsoiled. 

Units 174, 181 and 215 are mastication units only and further impacts to DSC can be mitigated 

by ensuring that enough slash is present to prevent further compaction or prescribing low ground 

pressure equipment. Existing DSC for unit 215 is 30% and the soil scientist would identify areas 

suitable for subsoiling after treatments are implemented. 

For ground based units currently below the 20% threshold, yarding would be restricted to 

existing skid trails and field reconnaissance by the soil scientist would identify areas suitable for 

subsoiling. Unit 216 is currently at 24% DSC and limiting skidding to existing trails would still 

not reduce DSC Unit 187 has inclusions of steeper slopes which would be avoided by ground 

based equipment. Digital elevation dataset indicates that unit 217 exceeds 35% gradient and 

therefore would not be suitable for ground-based harvest. An alternative harvest system would be 

needed for this unit. 

Detrimental impact to soils with low bearing strength can be mitigated by restricting equipment 

operations when soil moisture is less than field capacity (soil is allowed to drain after becoming 

saturated). These soils can also be damaged by multiple vehicle passes when too dry, due to high 

content of silts and clays, which causes loss of soil structure as soil is turned into ‘powder’. 

Understanding the benefiting opportunities from fuel loading (slash) with yarding method may 

be an important factor to consider in the analysis. If harvest in a unit occurs before or as it 

transitions from moist to dry soil conditions; equipment may need to ride on slash to minimize 

DSC. Provided all mitigating factors are implemented occurs, the anticipated DSC for a given 

unit can be reduced below the 20% DSC criteria.

Log haul would occur on 90 miles of NFS roads. Alternative B would require an additional 38 

haul routes totaling 13.7 miles. Temporary roads needed for access and log haul have been 

identified on 5.8 miles of existing nonsystem roads and skid trails and approximately 7.9 miles 

of new temporary access routes are needed to access several units. 

Layout and staking of these routes in advance of vegetation treatments would occur with input 

from the soils scientist to avoid to the extent possible: meadows, lithosols, shallow soils, wet 

soils, soils with low bearing strength or other properties that would reduce the effectiveness of 

fully restoring productivity to these areas. 

Design criteria for reducing or eliminating DSC after temporary road use include ripping, 

subsoiling, pulling berms, mulching, seeding and blocking future motor vehicle access (see 

Design Features in Appendix F of the Soils Report). Temporary road segments T04 (0.1 mi), T05 

(0.3 mi) and T49 (0.3 mi) occur on shallow very shallow frigid, xeric soils where subsoiling is 

not a viable restoration technique. Restoration of these routes may require the addition of soil 

amendments (e.g. topsoil, biochar) to restore long-term soil productivity. 

Beneficial effects to soil productivity from this alternative would occur when 5.8 miles of legacy 

roads and trails and 8.6 acres of landings are rehabilitated to reduce or eliminate compaction, 

improve infiltration and thereby reduce runoff and sedimentation. Some legacy trails would be 

used as temporary roads in the project and subject to removal per the forest plan. Contract 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-170 Umatilla National Forest

provisions of the timber sale would include obliteration of roads and trails per administrative 

authority, otherwise, KV funds would be collected for road and trail decommissioning.

Cumulative Effects

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 

Cumulative effects are not expected from mass movement under normal weather conditions. The 

WEPP model indicates that a 50 year runoff event could increase erosion and sedimentation up 

to an order of magnitude regardless of hillslope treatment. Alternative B, when combined with 

the Asotin Prescribed Burn Project, would reduce the severity of wildfire as described in the 

Fuels Report. Effects of the modeled fire behavior would be reflected in lower soil burn severity, 

which would maintain higher amounts of ground cover, thus limiting soil exposure to post fire 

weather and reducing the potential for hillslope failures. 

Resource Indicators and Measures 2 and 3 

The Asotin Prescribed Burn would occur on about 7,943 acres within the Sunrise Project area. 

Under the modeled wildfire scenario, there would be a temporary addition of 0.09 tons/acre from 

the Lick Creek subwatershed and 0.11 tons/acre from the North Fork Asotin subwatershed. The 

combined effect of the Sunrise and Asotin Projects would reduce fuel loading and change fire 

regime condition class to desired levels at the subwatershed scale. Modelling indicates that the 

long term benefits of the combined Sunrise and Asotin Projects would result in a lower risk of 

large scale, high severity fire for decades, with a corresponding reduction in hillslope erosion

and sedimentation as a result of future wildfires. 

Based on the assumptions of the hydrologic ECA model and the literature cited, the proposed 

harvest and landscape burning would have a measurable effect to hydrologic functions (capture, 

storage, and release of water) when combined with the Asotin Prescribed Burn Project, assuming 

all activities occurred at the same time (see Hydrology Report). This combined effect may result 

in increased sedimentation as a result of streambank scour. In reality, commercial thinning and 

fuels treatments would occur asynchronously in time and space and these effects are not 

expected to be concurrently additive at the subwatershed scale, therefore streambed and bank 

derived sedimentation rates would not be measurably influenced by management activities at the 

subwatershed scale. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 4 

Proposed actions are designed with a considered balance between potential site impacts and the 

feasibility of operations. Previous management activities disturbed soils to varying degrees and 

extent, with some impacts still exceeding levels considered detrimental as described in the Forest 

Plan and Regional Guides. 

Existing soil disturbance is scattered across the project, concentrated on more level ground that 

is readily accessed. It is primarily in the form of old skid trails and access roads that were 

sufficiently disturbed at the time of their use. They remain in exceedance of criteria for 

detrimental disturbance levels. This existing detrimental soil condition is often referred to as 

legacy disturbance, and is factored into assessments of cumulative effects for new management 

actions. 

Mentioned in the existing condition discussion there is existing DSC from past activities (see 

Appendix E of the specialist’s report). Detrimental soil conditions created by equipment traffic 

and landings would increase from 141 acres to 712 acres under Alternative B or about 9% of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-171

treatment units and 2% of the project area. Project design criteria such as subsoiling would occur 

on approximately 8.6 acres, thus there would be an overall reduction in DSC which would result 

in improved soil productivity. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative C

The direct effects of implementing the Alternative C would be the removal of 12.1 MBF of 

timber from 2,550 acres (including development of skid trails, landings and 30 temporary road

segments totaling 8.4 miles) and precommercial thinning of an additional 2,270 acres. Treatment 

of activity fuels would include mastication, lop and scatter, hand piling, grapple piling, pile 

burning, jackpot burning and/or broadcast burning. Prescribed fire is proposed for 14,060 acres 

of forest and grassland. Appendix D summarizes the results of the WEPP batch runs for the Lick 

Creek and North Fork Asotin Creek subwatersheds. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 

See Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.

Resource Indicators and Measures 2 and 3

Treatment Units

Direct and indirect effects in the Lick Creek subwatershed would be the same as Alternative B 

because the proposed treatments are the same. 

Alternative C would treat approximately 2,970 acres less than Alternative B in the North Fork 

Asotin Creek subwatershed. Although the overall rate (tons/acre) of change in fire regime

condition and erosion/sedimentation are similar to Alternative B, the amount of sediment (tons) 

would be less because fewer acres are treated. Initially, the potential sediment load from thinning

and mastication areas would be less than Alternative B. The longer term benefit of treatments 

would be to reduce the severity of future wildfires commensurate with changes to desired 

condition classes, which would result in lower erosion and sedimentation rates. However, the net 

long-term benefit of wildfire risk reduction would not be as much as alternative B because 1,700 

fewer acres with moderate to high fire behavior would be treated under Alternative C. 

Effects in the Lick Creek subwatershed would be the same as Alternative B. All treatment 

scenarios for the Lick Creek subwatershed indicate that on a weighted average basis, there is 

little difference between treatments (see data in Appendix D of Soils Report). 

The model runs for North Fork Asotin Creek (Table 3-54) indicate that at both scales, wildfire 

effects burning under current conditions would be mitigated by implementing density 

management treatments. Examining the difference between erosion/sedimentation rates at the 

landscape and unit scale indicates units proposed for treatment have the potential to produce 

twice as much sediment as the landscape as a whole and thus there is still a longer term benefit 

to implementing these treatments. 

Table 3-54: Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative C – NF Asotin Creek

Resource Element Resource Indicator Treatment Type Measure tons/ac

2) Soil Productivity Erosion Landscape Rx 0.13

Wildfire at Landscape scale 0.47
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-172 Umatilla National Forest

Resource Element Resource Indicator Treatment Type Measure tons/ac

3) Water Quality Sedimentation Harvest/thinning Units 0.07

Rx fire Units 0.18

Wildfire at Unit scale 0.87

Landscape Scale

The landscape scale analysis using WEPP FuME produces the same results on a tons/acre basis 

as Alternative B because this model does not have an input for hillslope acres like the Disturbed 

WEPP batch model. However, as stated above for the mechanical treatments, fewer acres would 

be treated under Alternative C, and initially, there would be less potential sedimentation, but at 

the landscape scale, there would be a higher risk of moderate to high fire burn severity because 

less area is proposed for treatment under Alternative C. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 4 

The direct effect of Alternative C would be ground disturbance of approximately 1,641 acres 

from ground based harvesting equipment, 822 acres of noncommercial thinning from masticators 

and 912 acres of skyline yarding. 

All units except 230 and 231 occur in Alternative C and the effects and rehabilitation of DSC 

described under Alternative B are the same for Alternative C. 

Log haul would occur on 84 miles of NFS roads (see Transportation Report). Alternative C 

would require an additional 30 haul routes totaling 8.4 miles. Temporary roads needed for access 

and log haul have been identified on 5.0 miles of existing nonsystem roads and skid trails and 

approximately 3.4 miles of new temporary access routes are needed to access several units. 

Design criteria for reducing or eliminating DSC after temporary road use include ripping, 

subsoiling, pulling berms, mulching, seeding and blocking future motor vehicle access (see 

Appendix F of Soils Report; Project Design Features). Temporary road segments T04 (0.1 mi) 

and T49 (0.3 mi) occur on shallow very shallow frigid, xeric soils where subsoiling is not a 

viable restoration technique. Restoration of these routes may require the addition of soil 

amendments (e.g. topsoil, biochar) to restore long-term soil productivity. 

Beneficial effects to soil productivity from this alternative would occur when 4 miles of legacy 

roads and trails and 4.8 acres of landings are rehabilitated to reduce or eliminate compaction, 

improve infiltration and thereby reduce runoff and sedimentation. 

Cumulative Effects

Resource Indicator and Measure 1 

Cumulative effects would be similar to Alternative B. 

Resource Indicators and Measures 2 and 3 

Cumulative effects would be similar to Alternative B. 

Resource Indicator and Measure 4 

Proposed actions are designed with a considered balance between potential site impacts and the 

feasibility of operations. Previous management activities disturbed soils to varying degrees and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-173

extent, with some impacts still exceeding levels considered detrimental as described in the Forest 

Plan and Regional Guides. 

Existing soil disturbance is scattered across the project, concentrated on more level ground that 

is readily accessed. It is primarily in the form of old skid trails and access roads that were 

sufficiently disturbed at the time of their use. They remain in exceedance of criteria for 

detrimental disturbance levels. This existing detrimental soil condition is often referred to as 

legacy disturbance, and is factored into assessments of cumulative effects for new management 

actions. 

Mentioned in the existing condition discussion there is existing DSC from past activities (see 

Soil Specialist Report). Detrimental soil conditions created by equipment traffic and landings 

would increase from 137 acres to 459 acres under Alternative C or about 9% of treatment units 

and 1% of the project area. Project design criteria such as subsoiling would occur on 

approximately 4.8 acres, thus there would be an overall reduction in DSC which would result in 

improved soil productivity. 

Table 3-55. Summary of Cumulative Detrimental Soil Condition (DSC) by Alternative

Alternative Activity Area Detrimental Soil Condition

0 to 10% 10 to 20% >20% Total Units/Acres

Alternative A

(Alternative B existing acres DSC) 123 14 4 141 acres

(Alternative C existing acres DSC) 119 14 4 137 acres

Alternative B - number of units 110 118 8 236 units

Total acres DSC 156 530 23 712 acres

(9% of 7,789)

Alternative C - number of units 69 75 6 147 units

Total acres DSC 90 323 14 459 acres

(9% of 4,823)

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.12 Botany

This section incorporates by reference the Sunrise Botany Report/ Biological Evaluation (BE) 

contained in the project analysis file at Pomeroy Ranger District. Specific information on the 

methodologies, assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the 

report. 

Introduction

A report of the existing conditions and analyzed effects from potential proposed actions to plants 

(and their respective habitats) that are federally-listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed for 

federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended is summarized in this 

section, and available in full at the Pomeroy Ranger District office. This botanical report also 

discusses vascular plants, non-vascular plants (mosses and liverworts), and lichen species 

currently identified as sensitive by the Regional Forester of the Pacific Northwest Region.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-174 Umatilla National Forest

Regulatory Framework

Federal laws

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-2015, 1973) mandates all Federal 

departments and agencies to conserve listed species and to utilize their authorities in furtherance 

of the purposes of the ESA. Section 7(a) (2) directs all Federal agencies to insure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry-out does not jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered 

or threatened species or designated or proposed critical habitat. The Umatilla National Forest has 

one listed Threatened plant, Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene spaldingii). Spalding’s catchfly is 

documented in the project area. 

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588, 1976) reorganized, expanded 

and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, 

which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. NFMA 

requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forestlands, develop a management program based 

on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each 

unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of 

national forests.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, 1969) directs federal

agencies to “... insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens 

before decisions are made and before actions are taken” [40 CFR §1500.1(b)].

Forest Service policy

Forest Service manual 2672.1 sensitive species management

Sensitive species of native plant and animal species must receive special management emphasis 

to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the 

need for Federal listing. There must be no impacts to sensitive species without an analysis of the 

significance of adverse effects on the populations, its habitat, and on the viability of the species 

as a whole (USDA Forest Service, Forest Service Manual FSM 2670-2671. Threatened, 

Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, Amendment No. 2600-2005-1, 2005).

Forest Service manual 2672.4: Biological evaluation process

The Forest Service shall review all planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and 

activities for possible effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, and sensitive species. The 

biological evaluation is the means of conducting the review and of documenting the findings. 

Document the findings of the biological evaluation in the decision notice. Where decision 

notices are not prepared, document the findings in Forest Service files. The biological evaluation 

may be used or modified to satisfy consultation requirements for a biological assessment of 

construction projects requiring an EIS (Salwasser, Bosworth, & Lowe, 1995)

The objectives of the biological evaluation process are:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-175

1. To ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native 

or desired non-native plant, or contribute to a trend towards Federal listing of any 

species.

2. To comply with the portion of the Endangered Species Act that requires that actions of 

Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed 

species.

3. To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, 

proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision making 

process.

Forest Service Manual 2070.2: Native plants policy objectives

1. Maintain, restore or rehabilitate native ecosystems so that they are self-sustaining, 

resistant to invasion by non-native invasive species and/or provide habitat for a broad 

range of species including, threatened, endangered, and rare species. 

2. Maintain adequate protection for soil and water resources, through timely and effective 

revegetation of disturbed sites that could not be restored naturally. 

3. Promote the use of native plant materials for the revegetation, rehabilitation and 

restoration of native ecosystems.

Forest Service Region Six revegetation policy

Use local native plant species to meet management objectives. Follow appropriate seed and plant 

movement guidelines.

Umatilla National Forest land and resource management plan

The Umatilla NF Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1990) includes 

the following goals, standards and guidelines for ecosystem diversity, threatened and endangered 

and sensitive species (TES), and wildlife habitat resources. 

Forest plan goals

Forest Management Goal #6: Protect and perpetuate special areas and related resources for their 

unique values (page 4-2).

Forest Management Goal#11: Maintain or improve habitats for all threatened or endangered 

plant and animal species on the Forest, and manage habitats for all sensitive species to prevent 

the species from becoming threatened or endangered (page 4-2).

Forest Management Goal #13: Provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities and 

species consistent with overall multiple-use objectives. Maintain or enhance ecosystem functions 

to provide for the long-term integrity (stability) and productivity of biological communities 

(page 4-2).

Forest Management Goal #14: Provide areas for research and education purposes which are 

typical of unique natural ecosystems and are in undisturbed or nearly undisturbed condition 

(page 4-2).

Methodology

This report describes sensitive plant species, and their habitats, that are documented, or that may 

potentially occur in the planning area. Project design criteria (PDCs) are proposed to protect 

known sensitive plant populations, and to protect potential sensitive plant habitat. Potential 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on known sensitive plant populations, 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-176 Umatilla National Forest

and potential sensitive plant habitat, are presented. Effects analysis determinations follow 

definitions as outlined in Forest Service Manual 2672.42.

Rather than evaluate effects to so many species individually, this analysis focuses on how 

potential activities may impact habitats that may support sensitive plant populations. Species 

documented in the project area are addressed individually.

Information sources 

A pre-field review determined the probability that sensitive plant populations, and potential 

sensitive plant habitat, are located within, or adjacent to, the project planning area. This 

information was used to determine the need for, and intensity of, botanical surveys.

The following sources of information were used to determine which species, and their respective 

habitats, may occur within, or adjacent to, the project planning area:

• Region 6 Regional Forester Special Status Species List (USFS, 2015)

• USFS GIS mapping layers (vegetation, streams and wetlands, aerial imagery)

• Project GIS layers showing potential activity units

• United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS) website. 

• Forest Service Natural Resource Manager database. This database includes information on 

where botanical surveys have been done on the forest in the past. It also contains information 

on sensitive plant populations.

Affected Environment

The scale of Analysis is the project area itself (33,150 acres). Since most plants do not move 

quickly, and no downstream effects are anticipated, it is not necessary to analyze effects to 

sensitive plants outside of the project area. The temporal context for effects analysis includes 

short term and long term effects. Short-term effects are considered to be one to two years after 

project implementation. These would generally be from direct effects such as destruction due to 

ground disturbance from heavy equipment, and incineration from burning. Long term effects for 

this analysis are considered to be more than two years after implementation of all activities. 

These effects would generally be from indirect effects such as changes in sunlight, erosion rates, 

hydrologic regimes, and changes in animal grazing patterns and intensity.

Forest Plan – Management Goals (FP 4-2) – Maintain or improve habitats for all threatened or 

endangered plant and animal species on the Forest, and manage habitats for all sensitive species 

to prevent the species from becoming threatened or endangered as well as provide for a diversity

of plant and animal communities and species consistent with overall multiple-use objectives. 

Maintain or enhance ecosystem functions to provide for the long-term integrity (stability) and 

productivity of biological communities.

Indicators used to analyze effects of the proposed actions:

• Effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species

• Effects to Forest Service sensitive species

The United States Forest Service biological evaluation (BE) process was completed by a 

supervisory botanist for this project. This process includes a pre-field review of existing 

information, botanical surveys to search for sensitive plants, and development of project design 

criteria to protect both known sensitive plant populations and sensitive plant habitat. Potential 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the federally listed plant, Spalding’s catchfly, were 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-177

analyzed. Potential effects to Region six designated sensitive plants for Washington State were 

also analyzed. 

Table 3-56. Botanical Surveys for Sunrise project

Survey Record Number Survey Dates Sunrise Unit Numbers

061400S01176-Sunrise 2013 

Mark Darrach and Tom 

Brumbelow

08/28/2013

08/29/2013

33, 35, 36, 113, 114, 174, 175, 176, 198, 199 

(255 acres total)

061400S01183-Sunrise 2014 

Mark Darrach and Joan Frazee

06/30/2014

08/18/2014

08/19/2014

21, 22, 41, 44, 63, 71, 78, 161, 162, 166, 168, 215, 

227 

(325 acres total)

Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) is federally listed as threatened and documented in the 

project area. Additionally, there are five sensitive plant species documented in, or adjacent to, the 

project area. They are Arthur’s milkvetch (Astragalus arthurii), green-banded mariposa lily 

(Calochortus macrocarpus var. maculosus), Rollin’s biscuit-root (Lomatium rollinsii), mountain 

buttercup (Ranunculus populago), and Idaho gooseberry (Ribes oxyacanthoides var. irriguum). 

Of these, only the green-banded mariposa lily has been found in areas where there are proposed 

activities. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, the No Action alternative, no new activities would be implemented in the 

project planning area. By definition, direct and indirect effects (40 CFR 1508.8), and cumulative 

effects (40 CFR 1508.7) result from the proposed action, and thus are not germane to the No 

Action alternative.

If the No Action alternative is selected, there would be no direct or indirect effects to sensitive

plant populations, or potential sensitive plant habitat. If Alternative A is selected, it would lead to 

an effects call of “No Effect” (NE) for the federally listed plant Spalding’s catchfly. There would

also be “No Impact” (NI) to any Region 6 Washington listed sensitive plant species.

Cumulative Effects

If the No Action alternative is selected, and a finding of no direct and indirect effects, there 

would be no activities undertaken in the project are that would add to cumulative effects. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives B and C

Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene spaldingii)

For both action alternatives, all documented populations of Spalding’s catchfly would be 

protected from all proposed activities. Since the proposed landscape burning is in high potential 

habitat for Spalding’s catchfly, additional surveys would be done in the landscape burn areas 

before burning commences. Special focus would occur in areas where any fire-lines may be dug, 

and also any areas where vehicles may be driven off road for burning and activities.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-178 Umatilla National Forest

Since no Spalding’s catchfly plants are within any proposed cutting units, and project design 

criteria would prevent burning or construction of fire-lines through the documented populations, 

implementation of the proposed action would have “No effect (NE)” to Spalding’s catchfly 

populations. In addition, there would be no cumulative effects between the proposed action, the 

Peola or Asotin grazing allotments, or the Asotin Creek prescribed fire project. Therefore, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation for Spalding’s catchfly is not necessary for this 

project. 

For both of the action alternative, there is no proposed tree cutting, or burning, in any 

populations of four of the documented sensitive species (Arthur’s milkvetch, Rollin’s biscuitroot, mountain buttercup, and Idaho gooseberry). Therefore, there would be “no impact (NI)” to 

documented population of these species for either of the action alternatives. Since there is no 

overlap in time or space between any proposed activities and these populations, there would be 

no cumulative effects from the action alternatives in relationship to other ongoing or planned 

activities in the project area. 

Green-banded Mariposa Lily (Calochortus macrocarpus var. maculosus)

Two small populations of green-banded mariposa lily occur in areas that are proposed for 

landscape burning. Implementation of fire in documented populations of the green-banded 

mariposa lily populations would be done in the fall, after the plants have gone dormant for the 

year. Therefore, there would be no, or minimal, direct impacts to the populations. Due to 

uncertainty of the indirect effects of burning (changes in grazing patterns and potential increases 

in competition from non-native invasives), and the many acres of potential habitat that are in 

areas slated for prescribed burning, it is determined that implementation of the proposed action 

may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH) of the green-banded mariposa lily, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species. Since the two populations that occur in proposed burn areas overlap with permitted 

cattle grazing in the Peola allotment, there is a potential for minimal cumulative effects due to 

this project in relationship to ongoing activities. However, since these populations represent such 

a small proportion of the total number of plants in the project area, and across the forest and the 

rest of the species range, these cumulative effects are judged to be negligible.

For both action alternatives, the effects call for habitat and any undocumented populations of 

sensitive species affiliated with low to moderate elevation cliffs, rock outcrops, talus slopes, and 

riparian or wetland habitats is no impact (NI). This is because there are no ground disturbing 

activities proposed in these habitat types, and any fire that may occur would be low intensity, and 

would not negatively impact undiscovered populations that may be there. No heavy equipment 

would be used in aquatic and riparian dependent communities, and no mechanical slash piling 

would be allowed in those areas. 

For both action alternatives, the effects call for habitat and any undocumented populations of 

sensitive species affiliated with lithosols and grasslands is may impact individuals or habitat 

(MIIH), but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species Construction of temporary roads may occur in some of 

these upland non-forested habitats. Botanical surveys and PDCs to avoid impacts to known 

populations would protect any currently undocumented populations that would potentially be 

impacted by road construction activities. The uncertainty about potential indirect effects of the 

interactions of burning and non-native invasive plants, and the inherent inability to survey 100% 

of proposed burn areas in grasslands, led to the overall call of MIIH, but will not likely 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-179

contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species for lithosol and grassland habitats.

The species with greatest risk due to project activities from both action alternatives are those that 

occur in upland coniferous communities. The effects call for all sensitive plant species that occur 

in these upland forested areas is MIIH, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to populations of sensitive plant species. The risk to upland 

coniferous communities is derived mostly from the use of heavy equipment. The ground 

disturbance associated with the use of equipment has a relatively high potential to negatively 

effect upland coniferous forest habitats and associated soils. In addition, indirect effects of 

altered hydrologic regimes, increased light, and changes in grazing patterns also contribute to the 

call of MIIH, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to populations of sensitive plant species. 

The calls for both action alternatives for each sensitive plant population and potential habitat are 

the same. However, the relative risk to the various habitats (especially the coniferous forest 

habitats) is less for Alternative C than for Alternative B. This is due to the fact that Alternative C 

proposes significantly less ground disturbance and changes in tree canopy cover than is proposed 

in Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative B and C

The time scale for this cumulative effects analysis covers the span from 1880, coincident with 

when significant mining and sheep grazing began to alter the area, to 2045 – 30 years into the 

future. It is thought that the 30-year timeline into the future should account for the potential of 

increasing temperatures and reduced moisture that are expected to occur if climate change 

proceeds as predicted. With the exception of small-scale projects such as stream enhancements 

and local meadow restoration efforts, it seems likely that for the next 30 years that this project 

would be the only landscape-scale project implemented by the Forest Service in the area. If a 

large wildfire were to impact the area, is likely that danger tree and possible salvage operations 

might be implemented. These activities would add an element of added disturbance, possibly 

significantly so, to some of the planning area. This is in addition to the effects of the fire itself.

It is highly likely that historical activities, particularly intensive cattle and sheep grazing, and 

timber harvest, mining activities, road construction, and fire suppression activities have 

destroyed populations, and altered habitats for sensitive plants. Since records of rare plant 

populations have only been kept for the last thirty years, historical effects are not quantifiable.

Since 1990, protection and management of sensitive species and their habitats in the form of 

project design features, avoidance, or other mitigations have been included in nearly all projects. 

This is in accordance with forest planning documents and policy set forth in FSM 2670. These 

policies have, and would continue to, reduce the potential of cumulative effects to sensitive plant 

populations and supporting habitats. Although some unquantifiable amount of cumulative effects 

are likely, it is assumed that they won’t be of a magnitude that will contribute a trend towards 

federal listing of sensitive plants.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-180 Umatilla National Forest

Biological Determination of Effects to Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive

Plant Species

Federally listed plant, Silene spaldingii

As stated previously above, no Spalding’s catchfly plants are within any proposed cutting units, 

and project design criteria would prevent burning or construction of fire-lines through the 

documented populations, implementation of the proposed action would have “No effect” to 

Spalding’s catchfly populations.

Region 6 and listed Washington State sensitive

There are no effects or minimal effects to Region 6 Sensitive Species listed plants from proposed 

activities in Sunrise project planning area. A determination of “No effect” or “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” was given for sensitive plant species. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.13 Invasive Plants

Introduction

Flora not known to exist in the Pacific Northwest prior to Euro-American settlement, but which 

readily displace native vegetation in disturbed or undisturbed sites are considered “invasive” for 

purposes of project effects analysis. The analysis also utilizes two broad categories of invasive 

plants, each considered in a different manner. Higher-priority invasive plants are those which 

regularly receive treatment under the 2010 Invasive Plants Treatment Project Record of 

Decision. Those species include rush skeletonweed, spotted and diffuse knapweed, high-density 

patches of yellowstar thistle, canada, scotch, and bull thistle, gypsy flower, dalmatian toadflax, 

and sulfur cinquefoil. Lower-priority species do not receive regular control treatments due to low 

density, wide distribution at present, low impacts on native flora and fauna, and/or difficulty of 

control. Lower-priority species include cheatgrass, medusahead, and ventenata. 

The relative risk of displacement and invasion brought about by higher-priority invasive plant 

introduction and/or site disturbance is broadly described in this section as “low,” moderate,” or 

“high.” In and of themselves, these terms do not quantitatively describe the exact probability that 

a particular species would become established as a result of human activities, because such 

quantification is essentially impossible. The intent of such classification, rather, is to allow 

comparison between alternatives and describe risk in qualitative but site-specific terms, and in 

ways useful to managers and decision-makers seeking to identify potential detrimental 

environmental effects and possible mitigation measures. 

Regulatory Framework

Invasive plants are defined as “a non-native plant whose introduction does or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” (Executive Order 13122).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-181

The 1999 Executive Order on invasive species (direction found in Forest Service Manual 2080), 

and the National and Regional strategies for noxious weed management identify prevention as 

the preferred strategy for managing invasive plant species on National Forest Service lands. 

The Sunrise project is intended to comply with the existing management direction, including the 

Invasive Plants Treatment Project EIS (decision July 2010). The portions applicable to the 

Sunrise project include prevention standards that are incorporated in Chapter 2 and found in the 

Invasive Plants specialist report.

Methodology

Treatment and monitoring are expected to be completed in conjunction with the activities 

included under Alternatives B and C. Treatment and monitoring would be conducted by the 

Noxious Weed Coordinator and other personnel on the Pomeroy Ranger District.

All of the known priority 1 noxious weed sites within the Sunrise project area were scheduled for 

herbicide treatment during 2015 and will have follow up treatments as prescribed in the Umatilla 

National Forest’s Invasive Plants Treatment Project (EIS), decision dated July 2010 and 

consistent with the 2005 Region 6 Invasive Plant ROD that amended the Umatilla Forest Plan in 

March 2006.

Inclusion of a number of design criteria in project activities will help to reduce the risk of 

invasive species introduction and spread. The criteria are intended to minimize ground 

disturbance and the exposure of mineral soils, reduce the introduction of weed seed into areas 

where ground disturbance is occurring, minimize the moving of any weed seed that already 

exists in planning area soils, and to re-establish weed-free ground cover as quickly as possible 

after any ground-disturbing activities. Past Forest Plan monitoring and annual evaluation reports 

have documented the effectiveness of these measures.

Affected Environment

Scale of Analysis

The geographic scale of this analysis is the 32,000-acre Sunrise project area. The temporal scale 

is bounded in the past by the earliest known period in which activities would have affected 

invasive plant establishment and distribution in ways that persist today (existing condition), and 

which have the potential to overlap in space and time with the direct and indirect effects of the 

activities included in Alternatives B and C. Because out-year planning efforts typically include a 

5-year timespan, and harvest activities are expected to last 3 or more years, the temporal 

boundary of this analysis would also be approximately 8 years in the future (year 2025).

The majority of acres (30,720) in the Sunrise project area are currently at a low risk for noxious 

weed invasion. Approximately 1,810 acres are at a moderate risk, and 1,760 acres are at high 

risk. Weed infestations planned for treatment in the Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants 

Treatment Project Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (July 2010) and 

currently documented in the national Natural Resource Inventory System (NRIS) database 

include 11 species occurring separately or in combination at 51 sites on Forest Service land 

within the Sunrise planning area, covering approximately 1,250 acres (Table 3-57). 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-182 Umatilla National Forest

Table 3-57. Extent of higher-priority invasive plants known to occur within approximately 1 mile of 

the Sunrise planning area. Lower priority species are assumed to be widely distributed across 

grassy sites within the project area. 

Common name Infested acres

Rush skeletonweed 260

Spotted knapweed 470

Diffuse knapweed 200

Canada thistle 65

Bull thistle 74

Scotch thistle 407

Gypsy flower 257

Dalmatian toadflax 32

St. Johnswort 38

Sulphur cinquefoil 253

Yellowstar thistle 280

Note: Acres are rounded to the nearest 10 acres. The acre total in this table differs from the total described above 

because inventory polygons may contain more than one species. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

The No Action alternative does not include any activities related to the Sunrise project. The 

spread of invasive plants from currently existing populations and off-Forest seed sources is not 

expected to be extensive, as existing populations, both on and off-Forest, are relatively small and 

isolated. Although some species of lower-priority for treatment are extensive across the 

gransslands in the project area, invasive plant density is highly variable, ranging from trace 

populations to near-monocultures in small, isolated areas. See the botany section of this 

document for futher information on the relative abundance of native and non-native species in 

the project area.

Because there are no activities associated with Alternative A, there are no effects associated with 

activities. Nevertheless, failing to reduce existing fuels, in combination with reasonably 

foreseeable future fire suppression, means that future fires would burn at high intensity and 

severity in some areas, and likely to a greater extent than under Alternative A or B.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives B and C

Inspecting activity areas and haul routes before and during activities is expected to reduce any 

increase in weed infestations caused by the spreading of new seed, even if prevention measures 

are not 100% effective. These prevention measures would not affect spread of any older seed 

that may be present in the soil seedbank in the vicinity of pre-existing populations. It is not 

possible to calculate exact acreage reductions resulting from these weed treatments. However, 

the reductions in areas at risk would be proportional for each action alternative.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-183

Invasion of an area by noxious weeds is known to be facilitated by ground disturbance, loss of 

plant cover, disruption of functioning native plant communities, and the presence of a weed seed 

source (Keeley 2004; R6 FEIS 2005). When addressing the spread of invasive plant species, it is 

impossible to accurately predict spread rates or exact locations of expanding weed populations; 

however, it is more feasible to assess the relative spread risk of various activities based on the 

degree of ground disturbance involved, and the proximity of existing weed populations that act 

as seed sources.

Using the methodology described above, levels of noxious weed infestation risk expected to 

occur as a result of implementing the activities included within action Alternatives B and C were 

allocated across the Sunrise planning area (Table 3-58). The purpose is not to predict the actual 

number of acres that may become infested, but to show the comparative risk of the different 

activities and alternatives. The effects of implementing activities included under Alternative B or 

C on spatial distribution invasion risk-classes for non-native, higher-priority are indicated in 

Table 3-58 below. 

Table 3-58. Low, medium, and high levels of risk to noxious weed invasion for action Alternatives B 

and C (acres). 

Risk Level Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Low 30,720 18,210 18, 328

Moderate 1,810 6,360 8,090

High 760 1,400 1,390

Alternative B results in the highest number of moderate and high risk levels for higher-priority 

species, because the total area experiencing a ground disturbance is highest. Conversely, the 

extent of areas with a moderate and high risk level is lowest under Alternative A, because the 

total area experiencing a ground disturbance as a result of human activities is the least. 

A brief literature review of effects associated with ecosystems and activities included in 

Alternatives B and C for lower-priority species are summarized in Table 3-59. In general, 

Alternative B would have greatest risk of lower-priority species invasion, because burning 

activities are the same for each action alternative, but tree-cutting and related ground-disturbing 

activities are more extensive under Alternative B. Experience with long-term monitoring in 

similar grasslands suggests that the near-term consequences would be for the density and 

distribution of lower-priority species to wax and wane across the landscape as various species 

compete for resources prior to and following recurring disturbance events. 

Table 3-59. General effects of selected vegetation species in response to fire disturbance. 

Species Fire response Study Misc. Notes

Yellowstar thistle 

(Centaurea solstitialis)

Neutral Bushey 1995 Existing plants and seed on soil surface killed by 

heat, but able to quickly re-colonize

Yellowstar thistle 

(Centaurea solstitialis)

Negative Zouhar 2002; Roche and 

White 2000; Martin and 

Martin 1999

Repeated, early-season burns are required for 

successful depletion of seed bank and control.

Yellowstar thistle 

(Centaurea solstitialis)

Modest, 

sustained 

increase

USDA Forest Service Fire 

Effects Information System 

database: yellowstar 

thistle. Accessed February 

3, 2016.

A single mid or late-season fire usually kills most 

plants, but creates conditions for aggressive 

colonization and growth. Effects of heat on seed 

viability has not been studied.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-184 Umatilla National Forest

Species Fire response Study Misc. Notes

Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum)

Initial reduction, 

quickly reaches 

pre-burn levels

Youtie et al. 1998 Moderately intense fire; consumed cheatgrass 

and medusahead seeds. Natives were FEID and 

PSSP

Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum)

Variable over 

space and time

USDA Forest Service Fire 

Effects Information System 

database: cheatgrass.

Accessed February 3, 

2016.

A single mid or late-season fire usually kills most 

plants, but creates conditions for aggressive 

colonization and growth. Cheatgrass is a 

particularly strong competitor in the post-fire 

environment and quickly increases to occupy 

growing space made available by the burn. If 

other species, including native bunchgrasses 

quickly re-occupy a site as well, cheatgrass would

not likely dominate.

Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum)

Variable over 

space and time

USDA Forest Service Fire 

Effects Information System 

database: cheatgrass.

Accessed February 3, 

2016.

Cheatgrass response to fire depends on plant 

community and seed bank composition, density, 

and spatial distribution; season of burning; fire 

severity, frequency and patchiness; scale of 

consideration; post-fire management; and climatic 

conditions. Generalizations are difficult because 

each combination of climate, vegetation, and soil 

must be considered separately, as well as 

environmental differences at the time of burning 

and during subsequent plant reestablishment.

Cheatgrass (Bromus 

tectorum)

Negative Antos 1983 Cheatgrass dominance may be avoided on sites 

that have sufficient cover of native perennials, 

proper management of livestock, and favorable 

climatic conditions for post-fire recovery. Three 

years after a severe wildfire on an ungrazed 

foothill mountain grassland in western Montana, 

cheatgrass cover was lower in burned patches 

than in unburned patches, and cheatgrass 

showed no indication of invading the burn. At that 

time Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass 

cover were similar to unburned levels, and rough 

fescue cover was slightly below unburned levels.

Medusahead rye

Taeniatherum caputmedusae

Temporary 

increase

No known studies in 

literature

Professional experience in the vicinity indicates 

that medusahead rye typically increases in 

density and site occupany following fire, likely for 

an extended period of time, but studies describing 

long-term effects may be lacking. 

Spotted knapweed 

Diffuse knapweed 

(Centaurea spp.)

Data are 

insufficient to 

draw firm 

conclusions for

different burn 

seasons and 

severities.

USDA Forest Service Fire 

Effects Information System 

database: Spotted and 

diffuse knapweed. 

Plants readily re-sprout after fire and are 

aggressive colonizers.

Rush skeletonweed 

(Chondrilla juncacea)

Increase USDA Forest Service Fire 

Effects Information System 

database: rush 

skeletonweed. Accessed 

February 3, 2016.

Plants readily re-sprout after fire and are 

aggressive colonizers generally, but post-fire 

colonization is not well-understood.

St. Johnswort 

(Hypericum perforatum)

Temporary 

increase

USDA Forest Service Fire 

Effects Information System 

database: Common St. 

Johnswort. Accessed 

February 3, 2016.

Fire seems to benefit the species, but St. 

Johnswort often competes poorly against vigorous 

bunchgrasses
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-185

Species Fire response Study Misc. Notes

Prickly lettuce (Lactuca 

serrioloa)

Temporary 

increase

Haskins and Gehring 2004; 

Turner and others 1997; 

Armour and others 1984; 

Youngblood and others 

2006; Sutherland, 

unpublished data 2008; 

Floyd and others 2006

Successfully colonizes burned sites but most 

studies report decreases over 2-10 years.

Scotch cotton thistle 

(Onopordum acanthium)

Initial increase, 

generally 

decrease over 

time

Professional opinion; 

anecdotal observations

In isolated cases, known to successfully colonizes 

some burned sites and can persist for many 

years. Generally not an aggressive persistent 

invader in this area.

Sulfur cinquefoil 

(Potentilla recta)

Neutral or 

increase

Bushey 1995 Tap-rooted, long-lived perennial able to quickly resprout after fire. Able to quickly colonize a site.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

For the No Action alternative, the Sunrise project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore 

it would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations (p. 3-1), there would be no 

cumulative effects for the No Action. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives B and C

Existing infestations are a result of past ground disturbing activities with effects that overlap in 

space and time with the direct and indirect effects of the activities proposed under each of the 

action alternatives. Domestic livestock and wildlife can spread invasive plant seeds throughout 

the planning area. The project area includes an active cattle allotment (see Range section) with a 

season of use from mid-June through mid-October. As a result, cattle are within the planning 

area when seed maturity occurs and likely serve as a vector for seed spread. There would likely 

be some level of cumulative effects associated with cattle grazing and activities associated with 

this project. Those effects could include the spread of existing infestations and the establishment 

of new invasive species, but precise quantification of spread risk is very difficult and uncertainty 

is extremely high. 

Design criteria would reduce the cumulative effects, they would likely not be eliminated; 

however, grazing activities in Asotin and Peola C&H grazing allotments are managed to reduce 

detrimental impacts on soils and native plant communities and minimize opportunities for 

invasive plant establishment outside of road corridors. As a result, grazing activities in Asotin 

and Peola C&H grazing allotments are not likely to expand areas of moderate or high risk above 

and beyond what is expected to occur as a result of implementing actions included under any of 

the alternatives of the Sunrise project.

Low risk of spread does not equate to zero risk. The spread of invasive plants from currently 

existing populations and off-forest seed sources would continue at the current level. Animal and 

vehicle vectors would likely be the primary means of seed introduction into the planning area. 

The following past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered, but, for 

the reasons cited, did not alter the calculations of acreages in the high and low risk categories for 

weed spread.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-186 Umatilla National Forest

The following items may increase the potential for invasive plant species establishment and 

spread, but are not expected to cumulatively increase the amount of areas considered as high risk 

to invasive plant establishment because they occur along roadways, which are already classified 

as high risk. However, acreage placed at high risk from these activities is speculative, so are not 

evaluated numerically.

Larger vehicles traveling away from roadbeds can increase potential weed habitat by disturbing 

and/or compacting soils, and by damaging and weakening existing vegetation. They can also 

carry and disperse weed seed wherever they go. While system roads are mapped, and can be 

efficiently patrolled for detection and treatment of associated weed populations, any infestations 

along unauthorized, user-built roads are less likely to be rapidly found and treated. Acreage 

where this may be occurring is unknown.

The use of OHVs away from designated roadbeds or trails raises concern for invasive species 

spread, but these activities are not expected to occur outside areas currently mapped as high risk 

to invasive plant establishment. While OHVs cause less ground disturbance than larger vehicles 

such as pick-ups, they can access more varied terrain. If used for unauthorized cross-country 

travel they can act as wide-ranging seed dispersal vectors, potentially introducing weed 

infestations into remote and seldom-frequented sites. The amount of unauthorized land use by 

vehicles is unknown, but it is apparent that at least some such use occurs in portions of the 

planning area, increasing the risk of spreading invasive species to remote spots where they are 

not easily detected or treated.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.14 Visual Resources (scenery)

Introduction

The scenery resource report analyzes the project effects to the scenery resources that are 

comprised of the positive elements of the natural appearing and culturally valued landscape. The 

indicator used to measure the effects to scenery resources is visual quality. Visual quality is an 

indicator of the desired level of excellence based on the physical and sociological characteristics 

to an area and refers to the degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristic landscape. Visual 

alterations are those that detract from the natural appearing landscape such as straight linear 

features, geometric forms, and colors that contrast with the natural landscape. The effects that are 

measured are those that are visible from the viewing platform that is designated by the Forest 

Plan as a sensitive travel route. The Pomeroy-Grouse Flat Rd, Forest Road 40 is the viewing

platform from which the scenery resource analysis is analyzed. 

Regulatory Framework

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) states that it is the “continuing 

responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means to assure for all 

Americans, aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” NEPA also requires “A 

systematic and interdisciplinary approach which would insure the integrated use of the natural 

and social sciences and the environmental design arts into planning and decision-making which 

may have an impact on man’s environment.” To accomplish this, numerous Federal laws require 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-187

all Federal land management agencies to consider scenery and aesthetic resources in land 

management planning, resource planning, project design, implementation, and monitoring. 

Integration off this scenery analysis assures the Sunrise project is consistent with scenery-related 

Forest Plan direction, Forest Service policies, and applicable elements of Forest Service Visual 

Management and Scenery Management systems. 

Methodology

The viewshed from FSRD 40 is analyzed to determine visibility from bare earth modeling. A 

viewshed analysis is utilized to determine visibility by using a digital terrain model to determine 

what is visible from points located on the route at 1⁄4 mile intervals. An offset from ground level 

of 6 feet is used to assimilate the height of a human standing on the road or riding in a tall 

vehicle. (Visibility acreages are determined by use of digital terrain modeling known as “bare 

earth modeling” that does not take into account and screening from remaining trees or shrubs. It 

is a worst case scenario and visual impacts will not occur on all visible acres. The acreages 

calculated for visibility will high and the visible acreage shows potential for impacts related to 

management activities, rather than visible acres of impact.) 

Google Earth, and field observation were also used, and it has been determined that there are 

very few opportunities to see into the project area from FSRD 40 due to terrain and vegetation in 

the foreground. 

Along with visibility, the discernibility of the impact from various distance zones is considered 

by use of distance zones: foreground (0 to 1⁄2 mile) fg, middleground (1/2 to 3 miles) mg, and 

background (3 miles to 5 miles+) bg. There are other factors that affect discernibility such as the 

angle of view, and duration of view. 

Foreground impacts that expected to be discernible are impacts such as individual tree stumps 

and slash. From middleground distances, texture is normally characterized by the masses of trees 

in stands of uniform tree cover. Individual tree forms are usually only discernible in very open or 

sparse stands. From background distances, texture is difficult to discern in continuous forest 

landscapes. In very open or sparse timbers stands, texture is seen as groups of patterns of trees. 

Ground disturbance is apparent if seen from direct angles and are contiguous and linear. (Ag 

Handbook 462, pg. 7)

Visual Quality Objectives are used as measures of acceptable alteration within the Forest Plan

standards and guides. In this project area the visual quality objective for the foreground view is 

partial retention, and in middleground views, the visual quality objective (VQO) is modification. 

The Partial Retention VQO states that management activities remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape. It is expected that the project impacts meet the VQO within the first 

year following the conclusion of the project harvest activities. The Modification VQO states that 

management activities may be visually dominate the original characteristic landscape but must 

borrow from the naturally established form line color or texture.

The effects analysis considers the impacts of the vegetation management treatments and the 

harvest activities that are utilized to carry out those treatments. 

Affected Environment

Scale of Analysis

The geographic area or spatial bounds for the cumulative effects to scenery resources is 

determined by typical experience of the viewers. There are local viewers who utilize the Sunrise 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-188 Umatilla National Forest

project area for various recreation experiences and there are travelers who experience the area as 

they travel through via the Pomeroy-Grouse Rd, Forest Road 40. The visual experience is the 

forested setting of Sunrise project containing the entire Asotin Creek Inventoried Roadless Area 

(IRA) and is adjacent to Wenatchee and Tucannon IRAs. The project area is adjacent to private 

property on the eastern boundary and includes a section of land owned by the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources and portions of sections owned by Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife that are located within the project area (no activities are proposed on WDNR 

or WDFW land). This geographic boundary is determined by the viewing distance to which 

treatments can be visually discerned and the setting in which the project is within. 

The temporal bounds are related to the longevity of visual impacts of the reasonable and 

foreseeable activities in the geographic boundary. Visual impacts that can be discerned from a 

middleground to background viewing distance are of such scale that the effects could overlap 

spatially therefore these are the visual impacts to be considered. Timber harvest that creates 

unnaturally shaped or sized opening via clearcutting or textural contrasts that are not in keeping 

with the historical range of variability are generally used as examples of harvest effects that may 

temporally overlap. Once an opening has revegetated and reached a height of 20 feet, the visual 

impact has been mitigated or restored. Within this area the height of 20 feet can be reached 

within 20 to 30 years depending on the topography, aspect and climate. Therefore, 30 years is the 

temporal bounds for the cumulative analysis of effects.

The project area sits at the upper reaches of the Asotin River drainage that runs east, north east. 

The area covers the upper plateau and also drapes down into the draws of the Asotin River 

Drainage. The draws are timbered with views of previous harvest units being very apparent from 

secondary roads. Primarily viewed from Forest Road 40, the Pomeroy-Grouse Flat Road that 

runs along the eastern rim of the Tucannon River drainage. However, the primary views are 

limited from Forest Road 40. Foreground timber and topography screen much of the 

middleground areas from view. Along the road there are some areas of open grassy areas while 

the timber stands are quite dense. In some views there is visual evidence of past harvest activity 

where units stand out as an unnatural appearing rectangular form and strong distinct edges. The 

visual quality ranges from partial retention to maximum modification from secondary 

views.(views from routes that are designated as sensitive routes)

Visual Quality

Visual Quality is measured on the Umatilla National Forest through Visual Quality Objective 

levels defined by the USFS Visual Management System’s Chapter 1 USDA Handbook # 462. 

These levels and descriptors of how people perceive them are shown in Table 3-60. 

The existing visual quality varies from partial retention to modification. The area currently 

shows signs of harvest activity, much like a patchwork quilt with varying degrees of thinning and 

cutting of various sized and shaped units. The landscape topography is not a uniform canvas, but 

dissected by drainages that provide an array of slopes angling in various directions. 

Views within the foreground of the Forest Road 40 show some signs of harvest activities. There 

are stumps remaining visible from previous harvest activities, and there are remnants of skid 

trails in some units along the road, but the visible impact is minimal and do not detract from the 

natural appearance of the foreground views, meeting the visual quality objective of partial 

retention. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-189

Table 3-60. Visual Quality Objectives and definitions

Visual Quality Objective Visual Quality as people perceive it

Preservation Unaltered , visually complete or intact

Retention Unnoticeably altered

Partial Retention Slightly altered

Modification Moderately altered

Maximum Modification Heavily altered

Unacceptable Modification Unacceptably altered

Views from middleground distances show management activities that dominate the natural 

landscape. Slopes are often broken up visually by large harvest units reaching from the top of the 

ridge to the edge of the riparian buffer, and alternate with remaining timber stands from one end 

of the drainage to the other. Many of the previous harvest units have straight line edges that 

appear unnatural. The scale of many of the existing harvest units are larger than natural 

openings. These impacts dominate the natural appearing scenery, meeting modification.

Sensitive routes and areas

The route identified in the Forest Plan as a viewshed for visual concerns and potentially affected 

by the Sunrise project is Forest Road 40, the Pomeroy- Grouse Flat Road. The views from 

Grouse Flat Road are varied in foreground, and middleground and background views into the

project from the road prism platform looking into the project area from the southern edge. Some 

views into the Asotin drainage are afforded where the road traverses the edge of the head of the 

draw. 

Age Class and Structural Stages within Partial Retention

The desired mix of age classes within foreground partial retention is 20% for each of the 

following age classes, as determined by the Forest Plan. The existing, extent and proportion of 

foreground area are shown in Table 3-61. 

Absent high-severity disturbances in the seen-area foreground, all age classes are trending 

towards desired conditions, except the 0-36 age class, which is roughly analogous to the stand 

initiation structural stage. 

Table 3-61. Seen foreground age classes with Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective

Age 

class

Existing 

acres

% of total

Long-term trends and causes

Existing Desired

0-36 211 16 20

Decreasing: more areas are expected to leave this class than 

enter it, over time, because a lack of high-severity disturbance

prevents recruitment into the class. 

37-72 454 35 20

Decreasing: more areas are expected to leave this class than 

enter it, over time, because only about half the acres are available 

from the 0-36 year class. 

73-108 631 48 20

Decreasing: more areas are expected to leave this class than 

enter it, over time, because only the pool of acres expected to 

recruit into this class are only about 60% of the acres expected to 

transition away from this class.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-190 Umatilla National Forest

Age 

class

Existing 

acres

% of total

Long-term trends and causes

Existing Desired

109-181 18 1 40

Increasing: existing forest ages in the analysis area suggest that 

many more acres would enter this class than leave it, absent highseverity disturbances. Most stands in the area are much less than 

181 years old. 

Visibility

The visibility analysis is a detailed, site-specific look at the viewshed using “bare earth 

modeling,” without taking into account the vegetation that screens much of the area beyond 

foreground views. Table 3-62 shows the acres in the project are that are visible by Visual Quality 

Objective. 

Table 3-62. Visible Acres by Visual Quality Objective.

Visual Quality Objective Total 

Acres

Total 

Visible

Percent 

Visible

Partial Retention 7544 667 8%

Modification 9195 1905 20%

Maximum Modification 15398 1746 11%

 

The areas that are more likely to be seen are the foreground areas (707 acres). Of those 

foreground acres, 266 acres designated Partial Retention, and 426 are designated as 

Modification. Visible treatment acres will be disclosed by alternative in the Effects Analysis.

Created openings

Created openings were designated by identifying forest areas in the stand initiation structural 

stage. The stand initiation stage was used as an analogue for created openings because the 

dominant canopy height of forests in this stage are generally less than 20 feet, which is the 

standard for created openings for the A4 Management Area. The extent of visible (from Forest 

Road 40) created openings in the foreground and middleground with a Partial Retention Visual 

Quality Objective is described in Table 3-63. The percentage of forest in created openings 

relative to total seen foreground and middleground areas managed with a Partial Retention 

Visual Quality Objective is described in Table 3-64. 

Table 3-63. Created Openings

Area in created openings (acres)

Location Harvest acres

Acres of Partial Retention

in viewshed

Foreground 21 1,608

Middleground 9 2,931

Total 30
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-191

Table 3-64. Created Openings in Even and Uneven-aged Systems

Even and Uneven-aged Silvicultural Systems

Max percent harvest/decade

foreground 4

middleground 0.1

Max percent of area in 

created openings post-harvest

foreground 1

middleground 1

Environmental Consequences

In this section, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Sunrise project management 

Alternatives on visual resources are discussed for Alternative A, and in combination for 

Alternatives B and C. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities are incorporated 

together in the assessment of existing conditions and effects associated with the Sunrise project.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Because there are no activities associated with Alternative A, there would be no effects from the 

No Action Alternative. The indirect effects would include continued visual impacts that need to 

be rehabilitated where prior harvest units stand out against the surrounding timber stands. The 

age class/structural stage mix trends would continue to decrease in stand initiation and stem 

exclusion while understory reinitiation and old forest stages would likely increase slightly. The 

existing visual quality would remain at maximum modification to partial retention with visual 

elements that detract from the natural landscape and dominate views. 

Alternatives B and C

The visual quality objectives of the project area would be maintained by all alternatives. The 

project proposed harvest would help blend with prior harvest units and give the area a more 

natural appearance overall by treating areas adjacent to these prior harvest units in a manner that 

transitions the density of adjacent stands to reduce the stark line between clearing and dense 

forest. The project would meet the visual quality objectives of the Forest LRMP. The expected 

effects related to the vegetation treatments and harvest methods are described in general here, 

followed by brief discussion of the visibility and effect analysis.

Intermediate vegetation treatments open stands up creating a texture difference in middleground 

views, making the units appear less dense, with clumps of trees of the preferred species, sizes, 

and crown condition. The effect is expected to create a natural-appearing mosaic with variable 

levels of residual density. Regeneration vegetation treatments create openings that create a larger 

scale mosaic while still appearing natural, but with more of a change from existing density and 

texture. Unit edges are scalloped and feathered to soften the edge appearance and avoid straight 

linear forms and shadows.

Logging systems result in varying visual impacts. Ground-based operations create ground 

disturbances such as duff and soil disturbance from tracked vehicles, skid trails and skyline 

corridors. Log landings are located in large openings that are used for continuous vehicular use, 

turning and moving to receive, stack, and load logs on trucks. Visual disturbances caused by 

harvest activity are expected to be reduced by design features addressing occurrences such as 

gouging by dragging logs. By suspending the butt end while dragging the logs, gouging in skid 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-192 Umatilla National Forest

trails does not occur. Harvest activities are limited seasonally to times of dry soil conditions to 

avoid rutting from equipment. Slash, duff and biomass is retained to encourage vegetation 

recovery. Stumps are cut in foreground areas of Forest Road 40 are to be cut at a height less than 

6”. These disturbances are primarily foreground impacts, discernible within 0-1/2 mile, and more 

extensively within the immediate foreground (300ft), lasting for a short duration. Past experience 

in nearby areas suggests that within one to two growing seasons, shrubs and forbs usually 

recover, breaking up the visual elements of linear disturbances and color contrast of exposed 

soils.

Fuels Treatments include prescribed burning, landing pile burning and grapple pile and burn. 

The expected burn unit affects are expected to be notable but appearing as natural occurrences, 

burning at varied severities, and creating small mosaics, primarily by underburning the ground 

layer vegetation and saplings with some small pockets of mortality. The expected effects for 

piling and burning are minimal, limited to the landing locations primarily, with a large pile 

burned within a year of the end of the harvest contract. This is a short term with positive visual 

effects on slash left by tree-cutting and pruning activities. Landings would not be visible from 

Forest Road 40. Some mastication is planned, however these areas would be in middleground 

and background viewing distances where it is not expected to be discernible.

The visibility from Forest Road 40 of the project area is limited primarily by local topography. 

The road travels along the rim looking down into the Tucannon River drainage to the west while 

the project area is to the east of the road. Often, ridges, knolls, and small hills limit views from 

the road into the project area. There are 7782 acres of proposed treatment units. Of those, 2073 

acres are determined to be visible by the viewshed analysis using a bare earth digital terrain 

model. This model does not account for timber stands in the foreground that would screen most 

of the area beyond the foreground stands. 

The views that provide visual access to middleground views are often of existing past harvest

units that appear blocky and unnatural. Alternative B proposes units that are adjacent to many of 

these units and would create a more uniform appearance and reduce contrast between existing 

plantations and adjacent unharvested stands. Foreground views are a mix of timber stands and 

small openings with high plateau grasses. Alternative B is expected to reduce stand density in 

many locations and in some areas create small (generally less than 1⁄2 acre in size) openings, 

thereby creating diversity in the roadside views. 

The areas that are most likely to be viewed are the foreground acres along Forest Road 40, which 

are approximately 760 acres. These foreground acres would be opened up to varying degrees, 

addressing structural stage and species composition objectives. Harvests in the foreground would 

occur with variable levels of retention and sizes of retained trees, with an emphasis on retaining 

the largest trees of desirable species and crown characteristics. Tree-cutting activities would 

generally resemble a thinning with the foreground retaining a moderate density level in most 

areas, but small openings would be created in some units along Forest Road 40. Table 3-65

shows the breakdown of treatments by Visual Quality Objective for Alternative B. Table 3-66

shows the percentage of acres treated broken out by Visual Quality Objective for Alternative B. 

The majority of treatments are in Modification or Maximum Modification where the activity 

effects are expected to remain consistent with visual objectives. As described in Chapter 2, some 

regeneration units may resemble a thinning, where the intent is to retain moderate amounts of 

residual canopy and regenerate shade-tolerant species or small groups of shade-intolerant

species. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-193

Table 3-65. Silvicultural Prescription Acres by Visual Quality Objective (Alt. B)

Silv. RX Retention Partial Retention Modification Max. Mod

Intermediate 0 325 2470 2859

Regeneration 0 99 930 1097

Table 3-66. Percentage of Acres Treated by Visual Quality Objective (Alt. B)

Retention Partial Retention Modification Max. Mod

Percent Treated 0% 5% 44% 50%

Table 3-67 shows the breakdown of treatments by Visual Quality Objective for Alternative C. Of 

total cutting acres under Alternative C, 1096 acres are determined to be visible from Forest Road 

40 via the digital terrain modelling. However, the foreground acres are more likely to be visible.

Table 3-67. Silvicultural Prescription Acres by Visual Quality Objective (Alt. C)

Silv. RX Retention Partial Retention Modification Max. Mod

Intermediate 0 171 1383 2320

Regeneration 0 50 291 601

Table 3-68 shows the percentage of acres treated broken out by Visual Quality Objective. The 

majority of treatments are in Modification or Maximum Modification, where the activity effects 

would remain consistent with visual objectives. 

Table 3-68. Percentage of Acres Treated by Visual Quality Objective (Alt. C)

Retention Partial 

Retention Modification Max. Mod

Percent Treated 0% 4% 30% 60%

Alternatives B and C would directly and indirectly address some of the trends related to age class

in foreground partial-retention areas. The desired mix of age classes is 20 percent of each of the 

following age class and structural stages in the Forest Plan, but the two oldest age classes in the 

Forest Plan have been lumped for this analysis, to allow for comparison to stand structural 

stages; thus, the objective for the 109-181 age class is 40% of seen area in the foreground. Short 

and long-term trends are displayed in Table 3-69 for existing conditions (Alt. A) and for action 

alternatives (Alts. B and C). Trends associated with each alternative are analogous to 

direct/indirect effects, to the extent that trends differ. For example, by creating some areas of 

stand initiation structural conditions, Alts B and C would for the short-term reverse a (currently) 

decreasing trend that would have occurred under the no-action alternative.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-194 Umatilla National Forest

Table 3-69. Visible Foreground Age Class in Partial Retention and Trends by Alternative. 

Age 

class

Structural 

stage

Existing 

acres

% of total Extent trends over time relative to current 

conditions

Existing Desired Alt A short 

and long-term

Alts B and C 

short-term

Alts B and C 

long-term

0-36 SI 211 16 20 Decreasing Increase Decreasing

37-72 SE 454 35 20 Decreasing Stable Stable

73-108 UR 631 48 20 Decreasing Decreasing Stable

109-181 Old Forest 18 1 40 Increasing Stable Increasing

Note: Structural stages listed include Stand Initiation (SI), Stem Exclusion (SE), Understory Reinitiation (UR), and Old 

Forest. Short-term effects are associated with a 0 to 20-year time frame, and long-term effects are associated 20 

years or more. 

Under any alternative, age classes remain stable when roughly equal areas of forest enter and 

exit the age class over time. Forests enter the 0-36 age class through high severity disturbance—

most often wildfires or tree-harvests. Under Alternative A, a lack of disturbances would cause 

the amount of forest in the 0-36 age class to gradually decrease over time. The relatively small 

extent of tree-cutting activities under Alternatives B and C would have an indirect effect of 

slightly decreasing the extent of the 0-36 age class in the short term, because it would not likely 

compensate for the overall amount of forest transitioning out of that age class over the long term. 

Under each alternative, forests that enter the 109-181 age class do so by persisting over long 

enough periods of time (greater than 109 years since stand origin). Alternative A would result in 

short and long-term increases of forest in this age class because endemic disturbances (insect, 

disease, or small wildfire) would likely be less extensive than the amount of forest transitioning 

into the 109 to 181-year age class. Alternatives B and C would have the direct effect of 

stabilizing the extent of the age class over the short-term, because a roughly equal amount of 

forest would leave the class via landscape burning disturbances and enter the class through forest 

growth. Additionally, tree-cutting activities proposed under Alternatives B and C would not 

reduce the amount of forest in this class. Over longer periods of time, more areas of forest are 

expected to enter the 109 to 181-year age class than would leave it through disturbances. 

For some age classes/stand structures Alternative B maintain a stable proportion of the landscape 

or move conditions toward the desired extent, because it would convert some forests in the overrepresented 37-27 (SE) and 73-108 (UR) age classes to the under-represented 0 to 36-year age 

class. This alternative would maintain the visual quality objectives, and potentially improve 

areas of maximum modification (areas of past harvest) for reasons explained elsewhere in this 

section. Alternatives B and C would meet the visual quality objectives, and potentially improve 

areas of maximum modification. Alternative C proposes the same treatment methods, but to a 

lesser degree in consideration of wildlife resource concerns. 

Alternative A indirectly allows existing trends to continue. Alternatives B and C address 

structural stages in similar ways, but to a differing extent, as described in Chapter 2. The 

proposed alternatives have very little differences between them as they relate to scenery 

resources overall. All proposed alternatives would meet the visual quality objectives established 

in the Forest Plan.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-195

Past Activities are visible within the project area and in adjacent areas within the viewshed of 

Forest Road 40. Those that are within the project area do not presently dominate the viewshed as 

seen from Forest Road 40. Many of these effects would be reduced by the activities proposed by 

Alternative B and C, addressing prior units that are blocky and unnatural-appearing by softening 

edges between harvested and previously unharvested forest. There are units west of Forest Road 

40, adjacent to the project area. Units are still evident from the Teal Salvage sale along the west 

of the Forest Road 40. Previous effects of the Teal timber sale are accounted for in the analysis 

of existing conditions and not expected to alter the degree of effects disclosed above for 

Alternatives B and C. 

There are present and foreseeable activities that are expected to create effects. Prescribed fire

efforts in and around the project area would create small pockets of scorching and mortality. 

These effects are natural appearing and are expected to occur at a scale that is very minimal. 

Grazing, road and trail maintenance, and recreational uses are not expected to affect scenery 

resources to any measurable degree.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.15 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), Potential Wilderness 

Areas (PWA) and other Undeveloped Lands 

This section incorporates by reference the Sunrise Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential 

Wilderness Areas and Undeveloped Lands Report contained in the project analysis file at 

Pomeroy Ranger District. Specific information on the methodologies, assumptions, and 

limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the report. A summary of the current 

conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed Action and its 

alternatives are discussed in this section. 

Introduction

Within a National Forest, though already a place of solitude and contemplation, there are special 

areas designated specifically to preserve these unique characteristics. Wilderness, Potential 

Wilderness Areas, IRAs, and undeveloped lands are set aside to assure future generations have 

equal access to seclusion and introspection.

Regulatory Framework

It is important to accurately define terminology found in this section, as a wide range of terms 

have been used by respondents during scoping, the courts, and the Forest Service itself. The 

terms and definitions below will be used in this site-specific analysis. The following four 

resource topics are based on current law, regulation, agency policy, and the Umatilla Land 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended. 

Wilderness

A wilderness area is designated by congressional action under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and 

other wilderness acts. Wilderness is undeveloped Federal land retaining primeval character and 

influence without permanent improvements or human habitation (Umatilla Forest Plan, page GL45). There is, however, no congressionally designated wilderness within the project area, and no 

project activities are proposed in the wilderness. The proposed project would have no direct, 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-196 Umatilla National Forest

indirect or cumulative effects on designated Wilderness areas; therefore there will be no further 

discussion of the effects to designated wilderness in this report.

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA)

The Umatilla National Forest conducted a Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) inventory for forest 

plan revision and updated the inventory in 2010 (2010 PWAs) consistent with agency policy at 

that time. Only acres of land inventoried as PWA were carried forward into the forest plan 

revision evaluation and wilderness recommendation process. The forest plan draft EIS was 

released in 2014 and the 2010 PWA inventory was used to evaluate, analyze, and recommend 

wilderness in the alternatives. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) 

These areas were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set of inventoried 

roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, which are held at the 

National headquarters office of the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision of those 

maps (36 CFR 294.11). These areas were set aside through administrative rulemaking and have 

provisions, within the context of multiple use management, for the protection of IRAs. Most IRA 

boundaries are substantially identical to those identified as “Roadless Areas” referred to in the 

1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17) and identified by the Forest Plan, FEIS, Appendix C; 

however some localized, minor differences in boundaries may exist.

Undeveloped Lands

Undeveloped lands are simply lands that do not have a history of management activity (see 

methodology), whether it is timber harvesting, road construction, or other trammels. These areas 

are not necessarily designated, but rather identified as undeveloped, and are considered in the 

analysis of each action alternative. Undeveloped lands do not contain development within 300 

feet of maintenance level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 Forest Service roads or open County roads.

Undeveloped lands analysis does not reference the planning handbook (FSH 1901.12) or the 

Wilderness Act as they are not relevant to this analysis.

Methodology

The identification of IRA, PWA and other undeveloped lands was conducted through a sequence 

of GIS and database analyses, field verification, and application of professional judgment. The 

judgment applied was situational and instance by instance. The judgment applied was situational 

and instance by instance. Lands 300 feet on either side of the centerline of all maintenance level 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Forest Service roads and open County Roads are considered developed due to 

evidence of stumps from firewood cutting and hazard tree removal, dispersed campsites, and 

other activities allowed under the current Forest Plan. Examples of typical situations that 

required applications of professional judgment included, but are not limited to:

• Determining whether other improvements or evidence of past human activities are 

substantially noticeable.

• Extending placement of polygon boundaries to the edges of development for purposes of 

inclusion in the analysis.

Lands with substantially noticeable management were identified by creating a map that depicts 

past harvest and thinning from the FACTS and Legacy Harvest databases together with an 

orthophoto of the project area. This information was viewed both in terms of type of 

management and year of implementation. Where the orthophoto did not clearly indicate 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-197

substantially noticeable management (i.e. a uniform change in tree crown size and height, 

consistently open tree spacing, skid trails, etc.) stand conditions were verified on the ground. 

Administrative sites, and developed recreation sites were also included in lands with 

substantially noticeable management.

Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Potential Wilderness Areas, development associated 

with roads, and lands with substantially noticeable management were then subtracted from the 

Sunrise planning area acres and the remaining acres are considered undeveloped lands. All 

polygons less than one acre were dropped from detailed study because individual polygons this 

small could easily result from mapping error and they are too small to be meaningful. 

Indicators used for comparison purposes between alternatives are:

• Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soils, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.)

• Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, solitude, remoteness)

• Change in acres of other undeveloped lands

Affected Environment

All roadless area acres were allocated to various management area strategies as disclosed in the 

Umatilla Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix C and described in the Record of Decision (page 6-9) for 

the FEIS. Some management area strategies were intended to retain the undeveloped roadless 

character of the roadless area and some management area strategies were intended to develop the 

lands with timber harvest and road building activities; thus forgoing roadless character.

The Asotin Creek IRA and PWA Description: The Asotin Creek IRA (16,433 acres, which 

amounts to approximately 50 percent of the project area) and PWA (16,181 overlapping acres) 

includes the headwaters of the North Fork Asotin Creek. Almost the entire drainage is within the 

forest boundary. Bounded on the east by the Forest Boundary, this area may be accessed from 

numerous local roads emanating from Forest road 41 on the north side, Road 40 on the west side, 

and Road 44 on the south side. The trailhead for Trail 3125 is located five miles downstream on 

State lands.

Existing and Desired Conditions

Table 3-70 displays the acres of remaining other undeveloped lands within the Sunrise project 

area along with reference to maps found in Appendix A. The Sunrise planning area 

(approximately 33,500 acres) contains 4,527 acres identified as other undeveloped lands. 

Table 3-70. Undeveloped Lands; Map by Map Summary

Other Undeveloped Lands and Reference Map Approximate Acres within 

Sunrise Analysis Area

Total acres considered within analysis area* (Map A-1). 33,150

Lands that are not National Forest within the analysis area (i.e. private 

lands)

1,130

Existing Wilderness 0

Existing Inventoried Roadless Areas (Asotin Creek IRA)** 16,433

Existing Potential Wilderness Areas** 16,181

Acres of substantially noticeable timber harvest activities excluded (Map 

A-2)

9,670

Acres of ‘road improvements’ excluded (roads maintained to level 1, 2, 3, 

4, or 5)*** (Map A-3).

7,681 (133 miles)
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-198 Umatilla National Forest

Other Undeveloped Lands and Reference Map Approximate Acres within 

Sunrise Analysis Area

Acres of ‘other improvements’ excluded (summary of acres of 

substantially noticeable timber harvest, developed campgrounds, mines, 

administrative site, etc.) (Map A-4).

17

Acres of undeveloped land**** (Map A-5). 4,527

*This includes all acres contained within the Sunrise planning area.

**The IRA and Potential Wilderness Area substantially overlap one another 

***Some of these acres overlap with acres of substantially noticeable other improvements. 

****This number does not include polygons less than one acre in size. 

Evidence of activity would be apparent to varying degrees in treatment areas. The natural 

appearance of the landscape would be reduced following treatment activities. Stumps, skid trails 

and slash would be evident where tree cutting activities occur. Tree density would be reduced 

which would result in more open stands compared with neighboring untreated areas. Some 

stands would likely be opened to the point that the skyline of the forest canopy appears highly 

manipulated to the casual observer. 

The sense of remoteness, opportunities for solitude, and primitive recreation would be reduced 

as the sights and sounds of management would intrude into outer portions of the PWA. These 

effects would be confined to relatively small portions of the edges of the PWA. The vast majority 

of the PWA would retain the characteristics for which it was established. 

Prescribed fire activities would result in short term effects including the sight and smell of smoke 

and the sight of burned vegetation. These effects are short term. In the long term, 10 years or 

longer, the prescribed burned areas would appear natural. Therefore, there would be no reduction 

in PWA due to prescribed fire activities.

The resulting effect for Alternative A would by about a 1% reduction to the PWA. Under 

Alternative B approximately 186 acres of the Asotin PWA would be affected by cutting and 

associated activities (such as new temporary road. construction). Under Alternative C about 29 

acres would be affected. Under Alternative C there would be less than a quarter of 1 percent 

reduction to the PWA. These acres would no longer meet PWA inventory criteria because timber 

harvest and creation of stumps would make them appear developed.

The vast majority of the PWA (99% or more) would remain intact. However, selection of either 

of the action alternatives could affect a future wilderness decision associated with a forest plan 

revision: the only difference between the alternatives would be the number of acres affected.

The table below is a summary of all the acres evaluated for lands with wilderness characteristics 

for this project. Information summarized in this table can be found in Appendix A. Table 3-71

displays the total lands considered Wilderness. Potential Wilderness Areas, Inventoried Roadless 

Areas, acres of undeveloped land and acres of developed landscape.

Table 3-71. Summary of wilderness, PWAs, IRAs, undeveloped and developed landscape.

Acres of 

Wilderness

Acres of 

Potential

Wilderness 

Areas

Acres of 

Inventoried 

Roadless 

Areas

Acres of 

undeveloped 

lands

Acres of developed 

lands with 

substantially 

noticeable past 

harvest, roads, etc.

Non-federal 

land within 

Project Area

(i.e. state and 

private land)

0 16,181 16,433 4,527 11,335* 1,130
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-199

*This number contains acres that overlap. For instance, acres associated with roads may overlap with acres past 

harvest, developed recreation, or administrative sites, or other developments such as powerline. Also acres of past 

harvest may overlap with other noticeably developed activities.

Undeveloped lands comprise approximately 14% of the Sunrise project planning area. 

Undeveloped lands within the project planning area are typically located in drainage bottoms and 

on steep slopes with timbered stringers and grassy ridgetops that are not timbered. The Asotin 

Creek IRA, PWA and undeveloped lands make up approximately 50 percent of the planning area.

The majority of the 4,527 acres of undeveloped lands within the project area are allocated to 

Forest Plan management areas C3-Big Game Winter Range, C4-Wildlife Habitat and C3ASensitive Big Game Winter Range. Any areas with unique ecological values within the Sunrise 

project area are currently maintained for those values with Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

for management area allocations. Table 3-72 displays allocated acres by management area.

Table 3-72. Other undeveloped lands within the Sunrise project area by MAs.

Management Area Acres of Other 

Undeveloped Lands located 

in each MA within the 

project area

Percent of Other 

Undeveloped Lands in 

each MA within the project 

area

A4- Viewshed 2 109 2.4

A6- Developed Recreation 6 0.1

C1-Dedicated Old Growth 405 9

C3- Big Game Winter Range 519 11.5

C3A- Sensitive Big Game Winter Range 967 21.4

C4-Wildlife Habitat 2296 51

C5-Riparian (Fish and Wildlife) 198 4.4

C8-Grass Tree Mosaic 27 0.6

Total 4,527 100%

More than 74 of the 83 Polygons of other undeveloped lands are from one to 100 acres in size 

(See Appendix A). These relatively smaller polygons make up about 22% of the undeveloped 

lands within the project area. They are typically very dissected and scattered throughout the 

project area. The two largest polygons, polygons 1 (1,303 acres) and polygon 2 (845 acres) make 

up about 47% of the undeveloped lands within the project area.

Polygon 1 is located in the lower portions of the upper reach of North Fork Asotin Creek and a 

tributary to NF Asotin creek-in Cougar Canyon. The polygon is mostly in the creeks bottoms and 

on timbered side slopes that have not been previously harvested. The creeks bottoms are in 

Management Area C-5-Riparian, and most of the rest of the polygon is in management area C-4-

Wildlife habitat. Much of the polygon is part of a patchwork of past harvest areas. 

Polygon 2 is located in the northeast portion of the project area mostly along Lick Creek and the 

Cabin Gulch tributary to Lick Creek. Most of the acres in polygon 2 are in management area C9-Sensitive Big Game Winter Range. This polygon is typical of the lower, drier portions of the 

project area being comprised of grassy ridgetops and stringers of timber on steep side slopes.

Human influences have had limited impact to long-term ecological processes within the 

undeveloped lands. Disturbance by insects and fire has been and most likely would continue to 

be the factors with the most potential to impact the area.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-200 Umatilla National Forest

Soils in vegetated areas that have not been previously effected by activities described above are 

generally more productive and promote better vegetation growth than in other areas (see Soils 

Report, project file). 

Most streams and aquatic habitat in the project area, including those that occur in other 

undeveloped lands, have been effected by past harvest, roads, etc., resulting in sedimentation, 

lack of large woody debris, and increased water temperature.

Plant communities, particularly habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, would 

be mostly unimpaired by human activities. Areas effected by past management activities and 

maintenance level 1 roads have altered plant communities progressing through various stages of 

succession. Noxious weeds have fewer transport venues in undeveloped areas and less 

opportunity to become established. However noxious weeds have many vectors, such as wind 

and wildlife, and infestations in remote areas not often visited likely go undetected and 

untreated.

Wildlife habitat on undeveloped lands varies widely in structure, composition, and density.

These stands provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife species dependent on open canopy

forest, closed canopy forest, grasslands, shrublands, early successional stages, dead wood, and 

other features. This variation in structure, composition, density, and other habitat features 

(including snags and downed wood) are the result of multiple factors including historic 

disturbance regimes, topographical features (aspect, slope position, moisture gradients, etc.), past 

management (harvest, fire suppression, etc), and other factors. Areas where there have been no 

timber management activities often provide snag densities that exceed those expected based on 

data from reference stands. Where no road building, past timber management, or natural 

disturbance events have occurred, snag and downed wood dynamics and stand structure, 

composition, and density (which contribute to habitat quality for a wide suite of wildlife species) 

are similar to what would have been expected historically and show no impairment by humans.

Larger blocks of other undeveloped lands (areas 1,000 acres or more) would serve as movement 

corridors for many wildlife species. Where moisture and other factors allow, undeveloped lands 

and those areas where management activities are no longer noticeable (in terms of stand 

structure) provide higher quality and better distributed cover habitat for elk and dense dry upland 

forest stands for species like the pileated woodpecker. 

Recreation in other developed lands within the project area provides recreation opportunities that 

are similar to those which occur throughout the rest of project area. Dispersed camping, hunting, 

horseback riding and hiking likely occur though there are few designated hiking trails. These 

activities occur within closer proximity to evidence of past harvest, roads, and other developed 

areas. 

Opportunities for a feeling of remoteness are limited due to the small size, odd shapes and 

scattered distribution of most of the undeveloped polygons. Distance and topographic screening 

are also factors in creating such opportunities. Nearby, sights and sounds of roads and timber 

harvest can be heard and often seen from within undeveloped lands. 

Visual quality within many other undeveloped lands would be high in the foreground, but views 

of managed landscapes could intrude within the smaller polygons, depending on the amount of 

screening provided by topography and tree cover.

No additional special or unique values in other undeveloped lands associated with the Sunrise 

analysis area have been identified by project resource specialists.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-201

The existing condition of all remaining 11,335 acres of land within the Sunrise project area that 

are not IRAs, PWAs other undeveloped lands present a landscape that has been managed and is 

generally developed in nature. These lands contain evidence of past harvest and maintenance 

level 1 or higher forest roads. Past management actions and current conditions reflect the 

multiple-use intent and decisions made in the Forest Plan (1990 as amended), and reflects 

consistency with Forest Plan management area allocations.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

There would be no direct or indirect effects to undeveloped lands because no activities would 

occur in these areas. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural 

processes and ongoing management activities (see description of affected environment for a full 

list of resources considered). Biological and ecosystem functions would continue. 

Alternative B and C

Table 3-73 displays the acres of treatment activities proposed within undeveloped lands by 

alternative and the amount of other undeveloped lands that would remain after implementation. 

Evidence of activity would be apparent to varying degrees in treatment areas. The natural 

appearance of the landscape would be reduced following treatment activities. Stumps, skid trails 

and slash would be evident where tree cutting activities occur. Tree density would be reduced 

which would result in more open stands compared with neighboring untreated areas. Some 

stands would likely be opened to the point that the skyline of the forest canopy appears highly 

manipulated to the casual observer. Overall, project activities would reduce undeveloped lands 

within the project area in Alternative B by 2,252 acres (50%) and 1,318 acres (29%) in 

Alternative C. 

Table 3-73. Summary of undeveloped lands in the Sunrise project area by alternative.

Alternative Acres of Other 

Undeveloped Lands in 

the Project Area Prior to 

Activity

Acres of Other 

Undeveloped Lands in 

the Project Area 

Affected/ (%)

Acres of Other Undeveloped 

Lands Remaining in the 

Project Area After 

Implementation

Alternative A 4,527 0 / (0%) 4,527

Alternative B 4,527 2,252/ (50%) 2,275

Alternative C 4,527 1,318 (29%) 3,209

Table 3-74. Potential Wilderness in the Sunrise project area by alternative.

Alternative Acres of Potential 

Wilderness Area in the 

Project Area Prior to 

Activity

Acres of Potential 

Wilderness Area in the 

Project Area Affected/ 

(%)

Acres of Potential Wilderness 

Area Remaining in the Project 

Area After Implementation

Alternative A 16,181 0 / (0%) 16,181

Alternative B 16,181 186/ (1.1%) 15,995

Alternative C 16,181 29/ (0.2%) 16,152
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-202 Umatilla National Forest

Effects to the intrinsic physical and biological resources of other undeveloped lands within the 

Sunrise planning area (soils, water, wildlife, recreation, aquatic habitat, etc.) are disclosed in the 

applicable resource sections of the EIS and only briefly summarized here. 

Soils: Where management would occur within other undeveloped lands, soils would be exposed 

to compaction and displacement from heavy equipment and erosion due to soil surface exposure 

during skidding or road construction/reconstruction. However, given the design criteria, a 

minimum of 80 percent of an activity area would remain in a condition of acceptable 

productivity potential consistent with Forest Plan standards. 

Water Quality: The action alternatives have the potential to effect surface water quality and 

groundwater. However, the project contains site-specific Best Management Practices which are 

designed to prevent further impairment to water quality and to protect groundwater. These Best 

Management Practices would also prevent effects on fish. In addition, the potential for high 

intensity wildfire in the riparian areas would be reduced. 

Plant Communities: Design criteria would protect threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants. 

Areas of disturbed soil would be open to colonization by noxious weeds.

Wildlife habitat: For Forest Plan indicator species such as elk, Alternative B and C, HEI would 

remain within forest plan standards. While forage may decrease due to prescribed burning 

activity in the short-term, activities such as burning and thinning are expected to improve forage 

in the long-term. There are many species, including primary and secondary cavity nesters, which 

rely on snags and dead and down for habitat. While both alternatives temporary effect the 

number and amount of snags and dead and down, Forest plan guidelines would be followed 

concerning the retention and recruitment of this habitat. The project area has documented 

instances of threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) species, as well as possible populations 

of TES species (see wildlife specialist report). For all documented and potential TES species, as 

well as other species of interest that are not TES, there is either a finding of no impact, or may 

impact but not likely cause a loss of viability of the species, for both alternatives. For all

indicators, the No Action alternative is not expected to have any direct and indirect as well as 

cumulative effects. Current conditions are expected to persist outside the desired range.

Recreation: Recreation would change slightly, adding dispersed camping, motorized sports, and 

gathering forest products to the potential uses within other undeveloped lands. The quality of the 

hunting experience would be reduced if elk are displaced. Where treatment occurs within 

undeveloped lands, there would be a loss of apparent naturalness. Recreationists seeking a 

primitive experience or a sense of remoteness would have less area available due to harvest in 

the large polygons of other undeveloped lands whereas the small polygons have already been 

infringed upon by adjacent sights and sounds of management and human presence prior to 

implementation. The Asotin Creek IRA/PWA (16,000+ acres) comprises about 50% of the 

project area and would still provide opportunities for a primitive experience or a sense of 

remoteness and solitude. The 166,000 Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area and the Wenatchee 

Creek and Upper Tucannon IRAs/PWAs are all located just outside the Sunrise project area. 

These areas provide outstanding opportunities for a primitive recreation experience and solitude.

On acres treated by commercial or noncommercial thinning, management activities would be 

substantially noticeable for up to 50 years, depending on the rate of stump decay and recovery of 

disturbed soils. Prescribed fire would have little effect on undeveloped lands characteristics in 

that the majority of the treated area would still appear natural, with some fire control lines and 

periodic stumps related to removal of hazardous snags. Pile burning would appear less natural, as 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-203

blackened circles spaced somewhat regularly on the ground, but vegetation regrowth would 

begin to disguise this in one year, and by three years only burn scars on trees should be 

noticeable.

Visual quality: within undeveloped lands where management occurs would still meet Forest 

Plan standards, although views would no longer be pristine. There are several cultural resource 

sites within these other undeveloped lands, however no effects are expected on known cultural 

resources since all would be avoided by project activities. All of the proposed activities would 

not affect the historic integrity or historic character of these sites.

Environmental effects to resources in undeveloped lands due to the implementation of proposed 

project activities would be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Plan

management area standards and guidelines (see applicable sections of the EIS for Findings of 

Consistency for each resource). 

All action alternatives propose some level of activity within undeveloped lands, varying only by 

the number of acres (see Table 3-73). Refer to the Appendix A and associated maps to see the 

location of activity units and other undeveloped lands and the EIS Chapter 2 for a listing of 

harvest activity units and logging method. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

For the No Action alternative, the Sunrise project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore 

it would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations (p. 3-1), there would be no 

cumulative effects for the No Action. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives—Alternatives B and C

The cumulative effects geographic boundary is the Sunrise analysis area (33,150 acres). The 

types of direct and indirect effects expected to occur as a result of the Sunrise project are not 

expected to interact with any similar effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that might occur elsewhere within the analysis area of the project area.

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 50 years. This timeframe is 

appropriate because that is how long it would take harvest and temporary road construction to no 

longer be substantially noticeable (based on field observations of other past management in the 

Sunrise analysis area). 

Within the Sunrise project area, project related activities such as tree cutting, construction of 

temporary roads, re-opening of closed roads and prescribed burning would have an incremental 

effect on undeveloped lands where other past, present and ongoing activities such as grazing, 

dispersed camping, and vehicle use on roads also occur. Apparent naturalness, solitude and 

remoteness in these undeveloped lands within the project area would be reduced by noises and 

sounds from mechanized equipment, visibility of stumps or evidence of temporary roads, and 

smoke from prescribed burning. Those effects are expected to remain cumulatively minor due to 

their relatively short term (10 years) nature. Overall, cumulative effects from these activities on 

apparent naturalness, solitude and remoteness are very small (not measurable/indistinguishable 

from those effects described in direct and indirect effects). 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-204 Umatilla National Forest

Cumulative effects to soil, water quality, air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation; noxious weeds; and cultural resources

on undeveloped lands within the project area are disclosed in previous sections of this chapter 

and are not reiterated here.

Outside the treated areas, the conditions described in the affected environment would remain 

Visual Resource (Scenery)

Specific information on the methodologies, assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other 

scenery-related details are contained in the resource report contained in the project file. A 

summary of the current conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the 

Proposed Action and its alternatives are discussed in this section. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.16 Recreation

This section incorporates by reference the Recreation Report contained in the project analysis 

file at Pomeroy Ranger District. Specific information on the methodologies, assumptions, and 

limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the report. A summary of the current 

conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed Action and its 

alternatives are discussed in this section.

Introduction

The recreation opportunities available on National Forest lands broadly benefit users. For many 

Americans, public lands provide the only means of experiencing outdoor recreation. The settings 

and experiences of these lands are important to an overall healthy lifestyle of the American 

public. Managing recreation resources includes the analysis of projects in regard to how the 

activities will affect developed and undeveloped recreation sites, uses and activities, as well as 

recreation settings in which the user experience is presented. 

Regulatory Framework

The Umatilla Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) establishes goals related to 

specific resources by management area. The Forest Service issues a nationally recognized 

classification system called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to describe different 

recreation settings, opportunities and experiences to help guide recreation management activities 

(USDA Forest Service 1986). The LRMP has recognized the importance of recreation settings. 

Each Management Area (MA) is assigned a desired ROS.

Methodology

ArcMap geographic information systems (GIS) was used to analyze the proposed activities in 

regards to recreation use and facilities, dispersed recreation sites and the recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS) classes assigned to the area. 

Indicators for comparison purposes between alternatives are:

• Developed and Dispersed Camping: recreation experiences and availability

• Access and Dispersed Recreation Activities: travel access, safety, and desired use
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-205

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: level of development and settings: characteristics 

consistent with Recreation Niche Statement

• Sense of Place Characteristics consistent with Recreation Niche Statement (See Umatilla 

Forest Recreation Niche Statement in the Forest Plan)

Affected Environment

Existing Condition 

The existing condition for recreation resources is considered in terms of facilities, travel and 

access, recreation opportunity spectrum and sense of place. 

Developed and Dispersed Recreation 

Developed Campgrounds: 

There are no developed campgrounds located within the Sunrise project area. There are however 

two campgrounds located nearby. 

Wickiup Campground is situated adjacent to the project area on FS road 43 near its junction with 

FS road 44 along the southeastern boundary. The campground is most heavily utilized during the 

late summer and fall hunting seasons

Misery Campground is located just south of the southern boundary of the project area on FS road 

4030020. Like Wickiup campground, it is most heavily utilized during the late summer and fall 

hunting seasons. 

In addition to the two developed campgrounds, there are two other developed site: Misery 

Warming Shelter and Clearwater Big House Rental. While both of these are not within the 

project area, they are in proximity to roads that will be utilized by the Sunrise project. Misery 

Warming Shelter is utilized during the winter months, while Clearwater Big House Rental is 

available for rent year round.

Undeveloped Campsites:

There is no inventory of undeveloped campsites in the project area; however there are a number 

of traditional dispersed campsites scattered throughout. A generic description of a dispersed 

campsite consists of a user-made area that is generally adjacent to a developed road. 

Other popular recreation activities:

There are a number of popular recreation activities in the area besides camping that occur year 

around including: 

• Hiking

• Horseback Riding

• All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Riding

• Mushroom and Berry Picking

• Hunting

• Sight Seeing

• Snowmobiling
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-206 Umatilla National Forest

Travel/Access 

During the spring summer and fall months, there are 84 miles of roads that provide access for 

hiking, ATV riding, hunting, berry picking and sightseeing. Most routes are closed at different 

times of the year to certain types of vehicles for various reasons including for wildlife protection, 

improving big game hunting, facilitating winter recreation and erosion control. Portions of FS 

roads 40, 41, 42, 44 and their spurs are closed to motor vehicle travel except for snowmobiles 

travel from December 1st to April 1st. Between FS roads 40 and 44, there are approximately 15 

miles of groomed snowmobile routes within the project area. Currently, there are a few miles of 

FS roads 41 and 4206 within the project area that remain open to the public year around. 

Approximately 25 miles of motorized and non-motorized system trails (trails 3115, 3125, 3128, 

3131, 3285 and 3286) are located within the project area, providing access to North Fork of 

Asotin Creek, Hard-To-Get-To Ridge and other more remote areas.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

Currently the recreation opportunity is classified as shown in the table below. The classifications 

provide an understanding of the recreation setting in terms of access, remoteness, naturalness, 

facilities, social encounters, visitor impacts and visitor management. 

Table 3-75. Acres by ROS Classification

ROS Classification Acreage Percent of Total

Roaded Modified 16,553 50

Roaded Natural 9,656 29

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 5,789 17

Non-NFS Lands 1,152 4

Mapping Error 22 -

Total 33,150 100

The area is divided into ROS classifications primarily by the available roads, facilities and 

expected social encounters. The semi-primitive Non-Motorized management area is located 

primarily within the heart of the Asotin Creek IRA/PWA. This area is very remote with trail 

access only. The roaded natural area is found within portions of the Asotin IRA/PWA, Lick 

Creek area and Bear Ridge-Spruce Springs areas. It’s also found around the Wickiup 

Campground, Misery Campground and Misery Warming Shelter areas. The roaded modified area 

captures the remaining acres that are roaded including the Clearwater Big House rental and 

hardy Ridge road complex. 

Sense of Place

The sense of place that currently exists in this area is a remote working landscape. The area is 

utilized as a backcountry hunting/dispersed recreation experience. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-207

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

The No Action alternative would perpetuate the existing management of the setting, facilities and 

access. Developed and dispersed site campers and cabin renters would remain undisturbed by 

noise, smoke, or traffic. Dispersed campsite use patterns would remain the same. 

Travel and access would see no effects by the No Action alternative. The recreation opportunity 

spectrum would not be affected by the No Action alternative. The sense of place would see no 

effects by the No Action alternative.

For the No Action alternative, the Sunrise project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore 

it would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations (p. 3-1), there would be no 

cumulative effects for the No Action alternative.

Alternative B and C

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

The campgrounds, rental cabin and some dispersed campsites would experience an increase in 

dust and noise during harvest and thinning activities, and by an increase of stand treatment 

related traffic on haul routes.

Effects to the recreation resources are primarily related to the harvest and prescribed fire

activities and the disturbance that these activities create. These activities would create local, 

adverse, short term effects to the timbered portion of the landscape. For further description of 

these effects, see the scenery resource report. 

Some recreationists could be displaced from their desired dispersed campsite, but again, the 

effects would be limited to a small number of sites at one time (local, adverse and short term) 

and would cease as soon as treatment of the adjacent unit is complete (generally 1-2 weeks as 

work is occurring). Hunters may be displaced from their favorite dispersed camping site for one 

season during the prescribed burning window. Numerous alternative dispersed campsites would 

continue to be available. 

Wickiup Campground, Misery campground, Misery Warming Shelter and Clearwater Big House 

recreation rental cabin would remain available during and after stand treatments, but the 

campgrounds, rental cabin and disperse campsites could also be affected by smoke from 

prescribed burning. This could coincide with some of the more popular camping periods (fall 

hunting season) because conditions during late fall area generally the best times for conducting 

prescribed burning. Late fall campers (primarily hunters) would be most likely affected. Again, 

these effects are short term and local.

Travel and Access 

Under Alternatives B and C many of the roads that are open for public travel would be utilized to 

access cutting units and to serve as haul routes. Some open roads or portions of open roads may 

be temporarily closed during project activities and would be re-opened as soon as possible after 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-208 Umatilla National Forest

work is completed, especially during hunting season. Open roads would generally be expected to 

remain open to the public during log haul. 

There would be no changes to the existing travel system after treatment. Existing roads and trails 

that are open to the public would continue to be available. Increased vehicle traffic during 

harvest and thinning activities may deter localized recreational user activities. 

Portions of some roads that are currently groomed during the winter for snowmobiles may be 

needed for winter haul. Under these circumstances a single lane would be plowed for log haul 

with grooming continuing to take place on the other side of the road or an alternative route 

would be groomed. This practice has been successful in a number other project areas in years 

past. While snowmobiling on groomed routes would continue to take place, the presence of a 

plowed route and truck traffic may negatively affect a visitor’s sense of remoteness.

Trails: Treatment activities would take place near or adjacent to many portions of the trail 

system. Harvest and thinning activities may deter localized recreational user activities. Under 

both action alternatives the trail system would continue to be available during and after treatment 

activities. There would be no changes to the trail system.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The alternatives do not propose actions that would alter effects to the recreation opportunity 

spectrum. No camping facilities would be altered and the existing road and trail system would 

remain unchanged following project activities. Some undeveloped campsites may be altered by 

treatment but these changes would not alter the opportunities to a degree that would change the 

ROS classifications. Maps 12 and 13 show proposed cutting units by alternative in relation to 

ROS settings.

Sense of Place

The project is not expected to make any significant effects that are inconsistent with the Forest 

niche statement that describes the desired sense of place. The usage and settings are expected to 

remain consistent. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations (p. 3-1), there would be no cumulative 

effects for the No Action alternative.

Alternative B and C

Considering past, present and foreseeable future actions, it is believed there would be no 

accumulative effects associated with recreation opportunities from either action alternatives. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-209

3.17 Air Quality

This section incorporates by reference the Air Quality Report contained in the project analysis 

file at Pomeroy Ranger District. Specific information on the methodologies, assumptions, and 

limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the report. A summary of the current 

conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed Action and its 

alternatives are discussed in this section.

Introduction

The implementation of either action alternative has the potential to impact the health and safety 

of local residents and those utilizing public lands by increased smoke in the area. Either through 

inaction, Alternative A and the continued risk of large wildfires, or through prescribed fire, air 

quality was identified as a resource that should be analyzed for potential impacts. 

Regulatory Framework

Currently, all prescribed burning that occurs on the Pomeroy Ranger District adheres to 

Washington State and Federal Air Quality Regulations (see Air Quality Report p. 2-5 for specific 

regulations). All prescribed burning is regulated by Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) as defined by the Washington State Clean Air Act and is done in accordance 

with the Washington State DNR Smoke Management Plan. 

Methodology 

Prescribed burning must be, and is, approved on a day-by-day basis by the DNR smoke 

management meteorologist. By using current and predicted air quality conditions, current and 

forecasted weather conditions, knowledge of the local topography, wind patterns, and BlueSky 

Rains Smoke Dispersion modeling the DNR meteorologist determines if prescribed burning 

projects would meet State smoke management guidelines on any given day. Pomeroy Ranger 

District personnel also monitor for effects from smoke produced, and if negative effects occur 

they notify DNR and discontinue ignition. 

Outdoor air quality in Washington is influenced predominately by smoke from agricultural and 

outdoor burning, woodstoves and motor vehicles (EPA, 2011). It is monitored utilizing Air 

Quality Index (AQI) levels. The higher the AQI, the greater the level of air pollution and the 

higher the health concerns (see Air Quality report). Wildfires are not considered as a cause for 

violations of air quality standards or visibility protection goals because they are consider natural 

events, but prescribed fires are considered active management so the smoke produced is 

considered as an impact on air quality and visibility standards.

The below cited references are from “Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland 

Fire” published by the National Wildfire Coordination Group. This Forest Service publication is 

comprised of multiple papers that serve as a handbook for smoke management. 

A prescribed fire is a combustion process that has no pollution control devices to remove 

pollutants (Achtemeier 2001). CO2 and water (H20) make up 90 percent of total emissions from 

wildfire and prescribed fire (Ottmar and Reinhardt 2001). The other 10 percent is made up of 

CO, hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), which includes NO2 and PM (PM2.5 and PM10) 

(Ottmar and Reinhardt 2010). CO and PM are the chief inhalation hazards to the public and 

fireline personnel when exposed to smoke (Ottmar and Reinahrdt). Over 90 percent of 

particulate matter produced by wildland fires is less than 10 microns in diameter and over 80-90 

percent of this is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (Ottmar 2001). Particles less than 2.5 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-210 Umatilla National Forest

micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) are referred to as "fine" particles and are believed to pose the 

largest health risks. 

Smoke intrusions and visibility reduction may also result from the direct impact of the smoke 

plume. Intrusions of smoke can cause numerous nuisance impacts, as well as specific safety 

hazards. The vast majority of prescribed burns occur without negative smoke impacts 

(Achtemeier 2001). Prescribed fires produce smoke, but less smoke is generated for the same 

acre than for a wildfire. Prescribed fire smoke, unlike wildfire smoke is regulated. Table 3-76

estimates smoke emissions for PM2.5 and CO during prescribed fire and wildfire in dry, moist 

and cold forest types and grass/shrub fuel types. These fuel types are all common in the Sunrise 

planning area. The table below is to show that smoke emissions from wildfire exceed smoke 

emissions from prescribed fire. 

Table 3-76. Estimated Smoke Emissions (lbs/acre)

Forest Type Smoke Emission Type Wildfire Prescribed Fire1

Dry Forest (Interior 

Ponderosa Pine)

PM 2.5 327 296

CO 3969 3551

Moist Forest (Interior 

Douglas Fir)

PM 2.5 581 524

CO 7391 6592

Cold Forest (Engelmann 

Spruce – Subalpine fir)

PM 2.5 1816 N/A

CO 23795 N/A

Grass/Shrub (Idaho 

Fescue)

PM 2.5 8 8

CO 17 17

1 Any prescribed fire in cold forest type would be incidental and would only be included to provide secure holding 

locations. 

Table 3-77. Estimated PM2.5 and CO emissions by burn type in the Sunrise Planning area (acres)

Alternative Activity Fuels Burning

PM2.5 = 1699lbs/ac

CO = 21146lbs/ac

Natural (Landscape) Fuels Burning

PM2.5 = 1295lbs/ac

CO = 16,787lbs/ac

A 0 0

B 878 14,055

C 599 14,055

Affected Environment

The analysis area for air quality impacts includes Class I areas, “designated” or nonattainment 

areas, and sensitive areas that may likely be affected by smoke intrusion from prescribed burning 

activities in the sunrise planning area. These areas may include:

• Class I Federal area, Hells Canyon Wilderness, approximately 55 air miles to the southeast of 

the project area. 

• Class I Federal area, Eagle Cap Wilderness, approximately 50 air miles to the south of the 

project area.

• Sensitive areas, Clarkston, Washington (approximate population 19,866) and Lewiston, Idaho 

(approximate population 32,544) being the largest population centers located 15 air miles to 

the northeast of the project area.

• Sensitive area, Asotin, Washington (approximate population 1251) is located four air miles to 

the west of the project area.

• Sensitive area, Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness which is located two air miles to the southwest 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-211

of the project area.

There are no “designated” or nonattainment areas as designated by the Washington Department 

of Ecology within or near the project area. The areas designated as sensitive are listed due to 

their proximity to the project areas and/or location in alignment of general wind patterns of the 

area. Differences in alternatives will be displayed by carbon monoxide (CO) and fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) produced by fuel treatments.

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

This alternative would have no immediate direct, short or long term adverse effect on local air 

quality as no action would be taken. The No Action alternative would mean only burn 

prescriptions already approved, and outside the project area, would commence. 

While there should be no direct effects from the No Action alternative, indirect consequences 

would include wildfires that typically burn with a higher intensity and burn more acres creating 

emissions that are higher than that of prescribed fire. Consumption is also higher during 

wildfires than prescribed fires contributing to the greater production of emissions. Wildfires may 

also occur under weather conditions which limit smoke dispersal.

Smoke concentrations can increase during the night due to inversions, but may decrease during 

the afternoons due to dispersion. Wildfire smoke may last for several weeks depending on fire 

behavior and meteorology. 

In 2000, wildfire smoke concentrations in Montana were many times higher than monitored 

previously. PM2.5 concentrations ranged between 100 and 600 μg/m3 (24-hour average) up to 100 

miles from the fire. 

There is a potential for indirect adverse short term local effects to air quality if due to a lack of 

fuels management, wildfires are able to grow in intensity. 

Alternatives B and C

The Sunrise project proposes to treat approximately 14,055 of landscape prescribed fire (natural 

fuels) in both alternatives, and approximately 878 acres of activity fuels burning in Alternative B 

and 599 in Alternative C. Estimated amount of smoke emissions produced during prescribed 

burning is depicted in Table 3-77Prescribed fire treatments and the associated smoke emissions 

in the Sunrise project area would occur over an extended period of time. PM2.5 and CO produced 

would vary by size and environmental conditions at the time of implementation. For example, a 

30 acre activity fuels burn would produce approximately 30,600 pounds of PM2.5 and 378,720 

pounds of CO emissions. This would occur primarily during the day of ignition, becoming 

significantly less each day until the burn is out. Therefore, for both action alternatives there 

would be a short term, adverse direct impact in the form of smoke exposure in the project area.

Current fuel load estimates in proposed timber sale units are 7 to 30 tons per acre. Predicted fuel 

loads after timber harvest is estimated to be 25 to 65 tons per acre. The estimated amount of fuel 

consumed during prescribed burning in activity units would average about 15 to 39 tons per acre. 

Estimated fuel loads in natural fuels units is .95 to 29 tons per acre. Estimated amount consumed 

during burning would average 0.75 to 17.4 tons per acre. The fuel component consumed in all 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-212 Umatilla National Forest

activities includes litter, woody material, duff, herbaceous material, shrubs, crown foliage, and 

crown branchwood27. 

The indirect effects of the action alternatives would be adverse, short term smoke exposure to the 

local area. There is however, the potential for the long term beneficial effect of less smoke 

exposure in the local area from a reduction in fuel and a lessening of potential wildfire severity 

form the action alternatives.

Mitigation Measures

Prescribed burning must be, and is, approved on a day-by-day basis by the DNR smoke 

management meteorologist. By using current and predicted air quality conditions, current and 

forecasted weather conditions, knowledge of the local topography, wind patterns, and BlueSky 

Rains Smoke Dispersion modeling the DNR meteorologist determines if prescribed burning 

projects would meet State smoke management guidelines on any given day.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A

Activities considered for cumulative effects are those that further modify indicators used in this 

analysis. The indicators utilized to measure changes in conditions for this analysis are pounds of 

PM2.5 and CO. Past actions were considered and addressed in the current conditions section of 

this document. For an activity to be considered as contributing to cumulative effects, the effects 

of that action must overlap in space and time with the prescribed burning proposed under one of 

the action alternatives in this analysis. 

Prescribed burning (silvicultural burning) by the US Forest Service in Washington State must be 

approved by a Washington State Department of Natural Resource smoke management 

meteorologist (if smoke produced exceeds 100 tons) on each day of a planned ignition. This 

approval process sets priorities within the State and between competing airsheds to minimize 

smoke impacts on Federal class I areas, non-attainment areas and sensitive areas. Therefore, 

prescribed burning would not likely be approved if smoke produced from silvicultural burning 

would cause the NAAQS to be exceeded.

Because no direct or indirect effects would occur with implementing Alternative A, there are no 

cumulative effects.

There would continue to be wildfires in the project area. Smoke from wildfire is not considered 

as a cause for violations of air quality standards or visibility protection goals because they are 

considered natural events; however, effects of smoke from a large wildfire could influence AQI. 

Alternatives B and C 

Smoke from prescribed burning is short term; therefore, effects of the proposed action from 

smoke emissions are not likely to have cumulative effects with other activities. The Washington 

DNR Smoke Management Plan permits burning only when atmospheric stability allows for good 

smoke dispersion. They also regulate the daily amount of burning to reduce impacts and negative 

effects of smoke. Prescribed burning competes with other burning in the airshed. The 

 

27 Fuel loadings and particulate emissions were estimated using FOFEM version 6.3.1.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-213

Washington DNR is responsible for managing all burn activities on a given day. The Forest 

Service is responsible for establishing burn priorities for its actions. If air quality is predicted to 

exceed thresholds when proposed activities are scheduled to occur, implementing any of these 

alternatives may result in some delays in burning as a result of this increased demand for “air 

space.”

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.18 Range

This section incorporates field data and other files and documents gathered by the Range

Specialist of the Pomeroy Ranger District. These documents are available in the project analysis 

file at Pomeroy Ranger District office. Specific information on the methodologies, assumptions, 

and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the project file. A summary of the 

current conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed Action 

and its alternatives are discussed in this section.

Introduction

Gazing and grazing permitting continues to be an important aspect of management of the 

Umatilla National Forest, and is therefore a resource of interest for analysis. The effects of 

grazing itself on the project area, as well as the effects to grazing quality and availability are 

analyzed in this section. 

Regulatory Framework

This document incorporates the requirements and guidelines as set forth in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Umatilla 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) which was signed March 8, 1991 

as amended by the continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, 

Ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (hereafter referred to as “eastside screens”, 

(Lowe, 1995)).The Interim Strategies For Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds on 

Federal Lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH), 

which was signed February 24, 1995. 

Methodology

The main concern associated with range and grazing are the effects of livestock on the 

ecosystem. Livestock can contribute to soil compaction, water quality issues, or erosion and 

streambank stability issues. These concerns are addressed through monitoring. There are three 

monitoring locations within the project area. Monitoring is done through the PACFISH/INFISH 

Biological Opinion monitoring program (PIBO) and includes brush and stubble height 

measurements, streambank stability analysis, recording disturbances, and measuring coarse 

woody debris availability.

Scale of Analysis

The Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management project planning area is located within portions 

of the Asotin and Peola C&H grazing allotments. For the purpose of discussing domestic 

livestock grazing, those portions of the above listed allotments that are within the project 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-214 Umatilla National Forest

planning area will be analyzed, while the portions of the allotments that are outside the analysis 

area will not be discussed in detail. 

The indicator for comparison purposes between alternatives are environmental effects of this 

project from livestock grazing. They will be discussed in relation to how each alternative affects 

management of livestock distributions in uplands and riparian community types.

Affected Environment

Asotin allotment is located in the eastern portion of Pomeroy Ranger District, mainly in the 

Asotin Watershed, about twelve miles west of Anatone, Washington. The entire area of the 

allotment encompasses approximately 39,400 total acres, but only 1,772 acres are in the planning 

area. The Asotin C&H Allotment currently permits approximately 2,204 AUMs (Animal Unit

Months). The allotment is a cattle (cow/calf) permit for a total of 413 pair from June 13th to 

October 13th annually. There is one permit holder and approximately 4 water developments and 

1 wildlife guzzler within the project area. 

Asotin C&H Allotment is divided into four pastures: Park/Cook, Hogback, George and 

Wenatchee. The Park/Cook and Hogback pastures are the only two pastures that lie within the 

project area. 

The Peola C&H Allotment currently permits approximately 1,948 AUMs (Animal Unit Months). 

The allotment is cattle (cow/calf) permit for a total of 333 pair from June 3rd to October 7th and 

22 pair from June 15th to October 15th annually. There are two permit holders and approximately 

13 miles of fence, 41 water developments (consisting of troughs and ponds combined) and 4 

wildlife guzzlers within the project area. 

Peola C&H Allotment is divided into eleven pastures: Cottonwood, Dick, Dick Trail, Lower 

Sourdough, Upper Sourdough, North Fork, Lick, Charley, Abels, Lower Pataha and Upper 

Pataha pastures. The Project area lie within the North Fork, Lower Sourdough, Upper 

Sourdough, Lick and Charley pastures, but only Lick and Charley pastures are currently in use. 

Environmental Consequences

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Livestock grazing distribution would likely stay the same or continue to slowly decrease as 

stocking in timber stands grows denser and wood continues to accumulate on the ground. 

Livestock access would stay the same or continue to slowly decrease due to down wood, 

continuous regeneration of trees, and the resulting reduction in visibility. Forage would also stay 

the same or continue to slowly decrease due to the gradual reduction of sunlight on the forest 

floor reducing forest floor vegetation. 

In the context of NEPA, 40CFR 1508.8 states that effects arise from taking an action, and 

therefore with the No Action alternative there would be no direct or indirect effects. 

Alternatives B and C

Both action alternatives would increase livestock distribution on the Asotin C&H Allotment by 

increasing access and or increasing available forage for livestock. This would have a short term 

local beneficial effect to available livestock forage by spreading utilization of vegetation more 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-215

evenly through the allotment and reduce soil and vegetation disturbance in areas of concentrated 

use. 

Proposed burning would reduce the amount of forage in a one to two-year period, however, after 

that time period forage would be expected to be higher than the existing condition due to the 

reduction in competition from small tress and or shrubs, and would therefore have a short term 

local beneficial effect.

Proposed non-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, removal of danger trees, fuels 

reduction projects, and harvest would increase the amount of sunlight on the forest floor, 

stimulating grass growth and increasing the amount of available forage (transitory range28) for 

domestic livestock and would therefore have a short term local beneficial effect.

Management of livestock would improve with all action alternatives due to increased visibility 

and access for livestock herding, and due to short term local beneficial increases in forage. An 

increase in distribution of livestock could decrease the amount of use on riparian areas. The 

effects of the approximately 240 acres of proposed riparian fuels treatment in the RHCA may 

result in cattle drawn into the new established forage near water. These areas would be 

monitored to minimize negative effects from this activity.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

For the No Action alternative, the Sunrise project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore 

it would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations (p. 3-1), there would be no 

cumulative effects for the No Action.

Alternatives B and C

Proposed treatments in all action alternatives, non-commercial thinning and landscape prescribed 

burns, could result in long-term benefits to forage and increased accessibility for livestock. But 

these benefits must be maintained through continued prescribed burns and burning activities. 

Analysis area for cumulative effects is the project planning area and the time period is 

approximately five years, as this is the duration of current grazing permits.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.19 Economic Analysis

This section incorporates by reference the Economic Analysis Report contained in the project 

analysis file at Pomeroy Ranger District. Specific information on the methodologies, 

assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the report. A summary 

 

28 Transitory Range –Land that is suitable for grazing use of a non-enduring nature over a period of time; often found 

in the openings create d timber harvesting activities. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-216 Umatilla National Forest

of the current conditions of the affected environment and the predicted effects of the Proposed 

Action and its alternatives are discussed in this section. 

Introduction

The management of the Umatilla National Forest has the potential to affect local economies. 

This section presents the economic effects of the project, including the project feasibility, 

financial efficiency, and effects to jobs and income. Economics was identified as a component of 

the purpose and need of the Sunrise project. Specifically, a need was identified to contribute 

wood products to local and regional economies. This analysis discusses the revenues and costs of 

the commercial, non-commercial, and restoration activities proposed in the Sunrise alternatives.

Regulatory Framework

This document incorporates the requirements and guidelines as set forth in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Umatilla 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) which was signed March 8, 

1991, as amended by the continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, 

Ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (hereafter referred to as “eastside screens”, 

(Lowe, 1995)).The Interim Strategies For Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds on 

Federal Lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH), 

which was signed February 24, 1995. 

Section 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv) requires that timber will be harvested from National Forest 

lands only where the harvest system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the 

greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber. Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994 

orders Federal Agencies to identify and address any adverse human health and environmental 

effects of agency programs that disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations. 

The Order also directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an 

agency action may affect fish or wildlife. 

The geographic scope of the economic analysis includes Columbia, Asotin and Garfield 

Counties, Washington, and Nez Perce County, Idaho. Nez Perce County is included in the 

analysis as most of the wood products production would take there, and should be included in 

the effects on local economies. The economic effects of the project is expected to occur over the 

next 10 years, establishing the temporal scale for the project. Indicators for Comparison purposes 

between alternatives are:

• Alternative efficiency –net present value (NPV)

• Sale Viability –volume (MBF), stumpage, and costs

• Benefits to regional economy –number of jobs, personal income

Affected Environment

Forest products have been an economic mainstay for over a century in the Sunrise project area. 

Over the last 15 to 20 years, the supply of timber products from the Agency to the local 

communities has been greatly reduced. 

Existing Conditions

Total Volume

According to the Washington Department of Natural Resources and US Forest Service Sale 

Detail Reports (2006-2015), timber harvest across the three Washington counties averaged 26.2 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-217

MMBF per year from 2006 to 2015 with 13.2 MMBF (50.3%) of that from Forest Service lands. 

At the peak in 2006, the counties supported a 101.9 MMBF timber harvest, 40.4 MMBF from 

Forest Service lands. The low in timber harvest occurred in 2012 with 4.8 MMBF harvested, 4.7 

MMBF Forest Service lands.

Harvest Cost, Harvest Revenue, and Stumpage 

Average log prices have rebounded significantly from 2008-2009 recession values. According to 

Oregon Department of Forestry data, the average log price for Douglas-fir has increased 208% 

from a low in the second quarter of 2009 until the fourth quarter of 2015. This increase allows 

for greater stumpage values (stumpage value is the logging/hauling costs subtracted from the 

delivered log price), an improved forest-sector economy, and a greater likelihood of timber sales 

being economically feasible, financially efficient, and salable to local purchasers.

Additional Activity Cost

The existing conditions and need for action relevant to each of the additional project activities is 

addressed in the specialist report for the related resource. See the specialist report associated 

with each additional project activity for more information. See the economic specialist report for 

existing conditions related to non-timber production activities.

Net Present Value

Net Present Value was estimated using the Region 6 approved R6_TEAEcon program. Values 

were estimated using a 2% discount rate with harvest activities occurring over 5 years starting 

one year from now. Other associated activities would begin in the following year, and occur over 

a five year span.

Effect on Local Economies 

According to Headwaters Economics the current employment for the four counties was 

estimated at 1,751 jobs with an average salary of $43,177 for the natural resources sector 

(headwaters.org).

For a breakdown of proposed treatments and activities for each alternative see Table 2-3. 

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A (No Action)

Under the No Action alternative, no commercial timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, or fuel 

reduction activities associated with the Sunrise project would occur. Except for the Agency’s 

planning costs, Alternative A would incur no costs, produce no revenue, and would not change 

the conditions or level of economic activity in the surrounding counties. This alternative may, 

however, contribute to a decline in the local timber industry and local economy, since it would 

keep federal timber from the market. Additionally, since Alternative A would allow further 

departure from historic conditions in the Sunrise area, it is possible that costs could be incurred 

in the future to remediate issues such as insects, disease, and wildfires that could have been less 

costly if an action alternative had been chosen.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-218 Umatilla National Forest

Alternative B

Alternative Efficiency and Sale Viability (Direct and Indirect Effects)

The total volume from this alternative is expected to be 25.6 MMBF of which 80% would likely 

be saw log based on past experience from similar stands.

Harvest Costs

Logging systems proposed for Alternative B of the Sunrise Project include ground-based and 

skyline. Approximately 60% of proposed harvest acres would be yarded with a ground-based 

system; and 40% yarded with a skyline system.

Table 3-78. Alternative B Harvest Cost for Commercial Timber Treatments

Logging 

System

Stump to 

Truck 

($/MBF)

Hauling 

($/MBF)

BD/Temp 

Roads/EC 

($/MBF)

Total 

($/MBF)

Volume/Acre 

(MBF)

Total 

($/Acre)

Groundbased

$140 $68 $14 $222 4.2 $932

Skyline $250 $68 $19 $337 5.4 $1,820

Logging costs were developed using LOGCOST version 15.0 and the hauling costs were developed using Haul Cost 

Appraisal version 15.0. Other cost were developed using nearby sales.

Gross Revenue 

Gross revenue is the price offered for delivered logs from area mills. Listed values reflect prices 

as of February, 2017. See Table 3-79 for projected gross revenue for ground-based and skyline 

units.

Table 3-79. Alternative B Gross Revenue of Timber Resources

*Higher stumpage results from no removal of green bio convertible

Stumpage Value 

Stumpage value is the logging/hauling costs subtracted from the delivered log price. See the 

Table 3-80 for projected stumpage values for ground-based and skyline units.

Table 3-80. Alternative B Stumpage Value

Logging 

System

Average Product 

Value ($/MBF)

Volume/Acre Product Value 

($/Acre)

Net 

Acres

Total 

Revenue

Groundbased

$343 4.2 $1,441 3320 $4,784,120

Skyline $382* 5.4 $2,063 2210 $4,559,230

Total 5,530 $9,343,350

Logging 

System

Product 

Value 

($/Acre)

Harvest

Costs 

($/Acre)

Stumpage 

Value 

($/Acre)

Volume/Acre 

(MBF)

Stumpage 

Value 

($/MBF)

Net 

Acres

Total 

Stumpage

Groundbased

$1,441 (-$932) $509 4.2 $121 3,320 $1,689,880

Skyline $2,063 (-$1,820) $243 5.4 $47 2,210 $537,030

Total 5530 $2,226,910
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-219

Additional Activities 

The total cost of implementing the Sunrise project are $3.1 million. Costs were obtained from 

each specialist and are shown in Table 3-81

Table 3-81. Alternative B Additional Activity Costs

Treatment Acres Cost/Acre Total Cost

Timber Marking 5,530 $70 $387,100

Reforestation 2,130 $725 $1,544,250

Non-Commercial Thinning 2,270 $325 $737,750

Landscape Burning 14,055 15 $210,825

Grapple Piling and Burning of Activity Fuels 1,068 140 $149,520

Prescribed burning of Activity Fuels 877 120 $105,240

Total $3,134,685

Net Present Value

Present value for the stumpage and additional costs for this alternative were $2.09 million and 

$2.89 million for a net present value of negative (-) $800,000.

Regional Economies 

At the volume estimated and approximately 8.85 jobs created per million board feet the estimate 

for this alternative would produce 234 jobs for a gross income of $10.1 million in salary over the 

life of the project.

There is the potential for a direct localized, short-term benefit to the local economy from

implementation of alternative B. Indirect effects are more qualitative in nature and related to the 

effects of those dollars on the local economy. 

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures do not apply to this resource.

Alternative C 

Alternative Efficiency and Sale Viability (Direct and Indirect Effects)

The total volume from this alternative is expected to be 12.1 MMBF of which 80% would likely 

be saw log based on past experience from similar stands. 

Harvest Costs

Logging systems proposed for Alternative B of the Sunrise Project include ground-based and 

skyline. Approximately 60% of proposed harvest acres would be yarded with a ground-based 

system; and 40% yarded with a skyline system.

Table 3-82. Harvest Cost for Commercial Timber Treatments

Logging 

System

Stump to 

Truck 

($/MBF)

Hauling 

($/MBF)

BD/Temp 

Roads/EC 

($/MBF)

Total 

($/MBF)

Volume/Acre 

(MBF)

Total 

($/Acre)

Groundbased

$143 $68 $14 $225 4.0 $904

Skyline $229 $68 $19 $316 6.0 $1,905
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-220 Umatilla National Forest

Logging costs were developed using LOGCOST version 15.0 and the hauling costs were developed using HaulCost 

Appraisal version 15.0. Other cost were developed using nearby sales.

Gross Revenue 

Gross revenue is the price offered for delivered logs from area mills. Listed values reflect prices 

as of February, 2017. See the table below for projected gross revenue for ground-based and 

skyline units.

Table 3-83. Alternative C Gross Revenue of Timber Resources

*Higher stumpage results from no removal of green bio convertable

Stumpage Value 

Stumpage value is the logging/hauling costs subtracted from the delivered log price. See Table 

3-84 for projected stumpage values for ground-based and skyline units.

Table 3-84. Alternative C Stumpage Value

Benefits

The total cost of implementing Alternative C of the Sunrise project is $1.9 million. Costs were 

obtained from each specialist and are shown in Table 3-85.

Table 3-85. Alternative C Additional Activity Costs

Treatment Acres Cost/Acre Total Cost

Timber Marking 2,560 70 $179,200

Reforestation 940 725 $681,500

Non-Commercial Thinning 2,270 325 $737,750

Landscape Burning 14,055 15 $210,825

Grapple Piling and Burning of Activity Fuels 329 140 $46,060

Prescribed burning of Activity Fuels 599 120 $71,880

Total $1,927,215

Logging 

System

Average 

Product 

Value 

($/MBF)

Volume/Acre Product 

Value ($/Acre)

Net Acres Total Revenue

Ground-based $343 4.0 $1,372 1,650 $2,263,800

Skyline $382* 6.0 $2,292 910 $2,085,720

Total 2,560 $4,349,520

Logging 

System

Product 

Value 

($/Acre)

Harvest

Costs 

($/Acre)

Stumpage 

Value 

($/Acre)

Volume/Acre 

(MBF)

Stumpage 

Value 

($/MBF)

Net 

Acres

Total 

Stumpage

Groundbased

$1,372 (-$904) $468 4 $117 1,650 $772,200

Skyline $2,292 (-

$1,905)

$387 6 $65 910 $352,170

Total 2560 $1,124,370
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-221

Net Present Value 

Present value for the stumpage and additional costs for this alternative were $1.06 million and 

$1.78 million for a net present value of $720,000.

Regional Economies 

At the volume estimated and approximately 8.85 jobs created per million board feet the estimate 

for this alternative would produce 107 jobs for a gross income of $4.6 million in salary over the 

life of the project.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A (No Action) 

For the No Action alternative, the Sunrise project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore 

it would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations (p. 3-1), there would be no 

cumulative effects for the No Action. 

Alternatives B and C

Many factors influence and affect the local economies, including changes to industry 

technologies, economic growth, international trade, and the economic diversity and 

dependency of the counties. This project in connection with other projects is not likely to 

add to any short term (either beneficial or adverse) effects to local economies. However, 

the jobs and income associated with the action alternatives may bring the local economy 

some increased relative stability during the life of the project.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.20 Climate Change

All analyzed alternatives could affect up to approximately 7,800 acres of forest by commercially 

thinning smaller trees from the stand, and prescribed fires associated with the Sunrise and Asotin 

burn decision could affect up to 21,800 of forest and grassland. Although such activities are 

noticeable at the watershed scale, this scope would be minor relative to the amount of forested 

land in the states of Oregon and Washington as a whole. Climate change is a global phenomenon 

because major greenhouse gasses (GHG) mix well throughout the planet’s lower atmosphere 

(IPCC 2013). Considering emissions of GHG in 2010 was estimated at 49 ± 4.5 gigatonnes29

globally (IPCC 2014) and 6.9 gigatonnes nationally (US EPA, 2015), a project of this magnitude 

makes an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions. Therefore, at the global and national 

scales, this proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate 

change would be negligible. 

 

29 A gigatonne is one billion metric tons of CO2; equal to about 2.2 trillion pounds.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-222 Umatilla National Forest

In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the proposed action’s 

contribution to cumulative effects on global greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be 

negligible. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the contributions to climate 

change of global human activity sectors in its Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). In 2010, 

anthropogenic (human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions came from several 

sectors:

• Industry, transportation, and building – 41% 

• Energy production – 35% 

• Agriculture – 12%. 

• Forestry and other land uses – 12% 

There is agreement that the forestry sector contribution has declined over the last decade (IPCC, 

2014; Smith et al., 2014; FAOSTAT, 2013). The main activity in this sector associated with GHG 

emissions is deforestation, which is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion 

of forest and grassland into agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC 2000). 

The Sunrise project does not fall within any of these main contributors of greenhouse gas 

emissions. Forested land would not be converted into a developed or agricultural condition. In 

fact, forest stands are being retained and thinned to maintain a vigorous condition that supports 

trees, and sequesters carbon long-term. US forests sequestered 757.1 megatonnes30 of carbon 

dioxide after accounting for emissions from fires and soils in 2010 (US EPA, 2015). However 

there is growing concern over the impacts of climate change on US forests and their current 

status as a carbon sink. There is strong evidence of a relationship between increasing 

temperatures and large tree mortality events in forests of the western US. There is widespread 

recognition that climate change is increasing the size and frequency of droughts, fires, and 

insect/disease outbreaks, which would have major effect on these forests’ role in the carbon cycle 

(Joyce et al. 2014).

The project is in line with the suggested practice of reducing forest disturbance effects found in 

the National Climate Assessment for public and private forests (Joyce et al. 2014). Here 

specifically, the project proposes to modify stand density, species composition, structural stage, 

and/or fuel loading. This project falls within the types of options presented by the IPCC for 

minimizing the impacts of climate change on forest carbon, and represents a potential synergy 

between adaptation measures and mitigation. Actions aimed at enhancing forest resilience to 

climate change by reducing the potential for large-scale, catastrophic disturbances such as 

wildfire of high intensity and resulting in permanent losses of productivity also prevents release 

of GHG and enhances carbon stocks (Smith et al. 2014). As described in the direct and indirect 

sections above, the proposed action reflects the rationale behind these recommendations because 

it would increase the extent of stand densities, species compositions, and stand structures more 

resistant to insect, disease, and wildfire disturbances. 

Timber management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in four main ways: (1) 

by increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding their damage or destruction (avoided 

deforestation), (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed forests), and (4) through 

transferring carbon from the live biomass to the harvested wood product carbon pool. Land-use 

changes, specifically deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global scale 

 

30 A megatonne is one million metric tons of CO2; equal to about 2.2 billion pounds.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-223

in forests’ role as sources or sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC, Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, 2000). Projects like the proposed action and other alternatives that 

create forests or improve forest conditions and capacity to grow trees are positive factors in 

carbon sequestration. 

3.21 Findings of Consistency

Activities must be consistent with the letter and intent of the Act itself, and the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA; Public Law 94-588; 16 U.S.C. 1600) requires specific findings to be 

made and documented when considering the implementation of certain management practices on 

National Forest System lands. A review of all activities proposed for the Sunrise project and 

activity direct, indirect, and cumulative effects found that such activities are consistent with the 

NFMA. The basis and rationale for this consistency finding is described in this section. 

Forest Plan and Amendments

Forest Plan Goals, Objectives, Standards and Guidelines

Forest-wide standards and guidelines (pages 4-47 to 4-93) guide implementation of management 

actions and pertain to all National Forest System lands located within the Umatilla National 

Forest, including the Sunrise project planning area. All Forest-wide standards and guidelines 

pertinent to live and dead forest vegetation are incorporated by reference into both the 

Management Direction section of this document, as well as project design criteria utilized during 

any implementation of activities that may occur. Standards and Guidelines that prescribe 

management activities are incorporated by reference into the design criteria of the Sunrise 

Project. The project is consistent with the Forest Plan because the activities of the project—or 

characteristics of those activities—are described and constrained by the Plan itself. 

Consistency with Eastside Screens

In 1993, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the U.S. Forest Service 

(Pacific Northwest Region) to halt all timber harvest activity in old growth forest occurring on 

national forest lands located east of the Cascade Mountain crest in Oregon and Washington.

That year a group of university and U.S. Forest Service research scientists released an “Eastside 

Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment” in draft form. In response to the NRDC petition and the 

collaborative draft, the Pacific Northwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service issued interim 

direction requiring that timber sales prepared and offered by Eastside National Forests be 

evaluated to determine their potential impact on riparian habitat, historical vegetation patterns, 

and wildlife fragmentation and connectivity. 

The interim direction known as the Eastside Screens was referenced and followed, along with 

the Forest Plan, during all planning activities for the Sunrise project. Compliance with the 

Eastside Screens for all silviculture activities can be found in Appendix C. 

Fire and Fuels Management

Implementation of Alternatives B or C complies with the Forest Plan and desired condition for 

fire and fuels as outlined in the report. 

The Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 

1990) provides the overall direction of management activities on the Forest (see Chapter 1). 

Forest-wide management goals, as well as management area direction, represent the desired 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-224 Umatilla National Forest

future condition that management actions are designed to achieve. Table 3-86 displays the Forest 

goal and management area direction for the project relative to fire and fuels management. 

Table 3-86. Forest Plan goals and management area direction relative fire and fuels management.

Management 

Area

Management Area Description

A4 – Viewshed 2 The Desired Future Condition (DFC) for Viewsheds is to maintain or create a near 

natural landscape. Management activities will be done with sensitivity to people’s 

concern for scenic quality, with vegetative manipulation conducted so that Forest 

management activities remain visually subordinate in foregrounds of selected travel 

routes and sites. All timber management practices and intensities shall be permitted 

consistent with achieving the primary visual quality goals. Prescribed low intensity

fire with minimal scorch is acceptable. 

A6 – Developed 

Recreation

This Management Area is managed to provide recreation opportunities that are 

dependent on the development of structural facilities for user conveniences. Trees 

will be managed on a nonscheduled basis to meet recreation objectives and to 

reduce the risk of public injury from hazardous trees or vegetation. Slash resulting 

from hazard tree removal will be available for firewood to campground users. 

C1 – Dedicated 

Old Growth

This MA is managed to provide and protect sufficient suitable habitat for wildlife 

species dependent upon mature and/or overmature forest stands, and promote a 

diversity of vegetative conditions for such species. Timber management and harvest

activities will not be scheduled or permitted. Natural fuel treatments are permitted to 

maintain or enhance old growth habitat characteristics or reduce the potential for a 

high number of and/or severely burned acres. Prescribed burning is the preferred 

method of fuel treatment.

C3 – Big Game

Winter Range

The Desired Future Condition (DFC) for this MA is a mosaic pattern of managed 

forests, brush patches and large grasslands. The management goal is to provide a 

high level of potential habitat effectiveness and high quality forage for big game.

Emphasis will be on cover, forage, and road management. Timber management is 

on a scheduled basis with emphasis on uneven-aged management. All types of 

prescribed fire may be used including broadcast burning, underburning, or range

burning.

C4 - Wildlife 

Habitat

This MA is managed to provide high levels of potential habitat effectiveness for big 

game and other wildlife species with emphasis on size and distribution of habitat 

components. Unique wildlife habitats and key use areas will be retained or 

projected. DFC for the MA is a mosaic of even-aged and uneven-aged stands 

dispersed in a manner to create a pattern of forage, and marginal satisfactory cover

for big game. All timber management practices and intensities consistent with 

achieving the primary wildlife habitat management goals will be permitted. All types 

of prescribed fire may be used to accomplish management objectives. 

C5 – Riparian 

(Fish and 

Wildlife)

This MA is managed to maintain or enhance water quality, and produce a high level 

of potential habitat capability for all species of fish and wildlife within the designated 

riparian habitat areas while providing for a high level of habitat effectiveness for big 

game. DFC for this MA A near natural setting will predominate adjacent to the 

stream, with a wide variety of plant communities of various species, sizes, and age 

classes. In forested riparian zones, a continuous high tree canopy layer will be 

present and the forest will appear denser than in the surrounding land. Upper and 

mid-level conifer and hardwood canopy structure and lower shrub level will provide 

desired levels of stream surface shading, streambank stability, and satisfactory 

cover for big game. Timber will be managed on a scheduled basis with exceptions 

(see Forest Plan for exceptions). Prescribed fire may be used, consistent with 

riparian objectives. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-225

Management 

Area

Management Area Description

C8 – Grass-Tree 

Mosaic

Managed to remain natural appearing with predominant view of patches or stringers 

of timber occurring on open, generally steep hillsides. Many forest stands will 

appear as mature timber with some having multi-layered canopies. Some stands will 

be more open as result of management activities designed to improve big game

habitat. Forage will be abundant and improved through management. All types of 

prescribed fire may be used including broadcast burning, underburning, or range

burning.

E2 – Timber and 

Big Game

Manage forest lands to emphasize production of wood fiber (timber), 

Encourage forage production, and maintain a moderate level of big game and other 

wildlife habitat. DFC is to manage for timber production, domestic livestock, big 

game and other wildlife habitat. Forest will contain a mosaic of even-aged and 

uneven-aged stands dispersed in a manner creating patterns of tree cover for big 

game and openings providing forage. Timber will be managed on a scheduled basis. 

All timber management practices and intensities will be permitted. Prescribed fire

may be used to accomplish a variety of timber and forage production objectives. 

Asotin Creek 

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

The Asotin Creek Inventoried Roadless Area is overlaid with Umatilla Forest Plan

Management Allocation Designations. Primary allocations are C3, C3A and C8 

(described above) and all allow the use of prescribed fire for management activities. 

Table 3-87 further compares fuels treatments by management area for each action alternative.

Table 3-87. Fuels treatments by management area.

Alternative B Alternative C

Management Area Grapple 

Pile

Jackpot 

Burn

NonCommercial 

(Hand 

and/or 

Mechanical)

Landscape 

Prescribed 

Fire

Grapple 

Pile

Jackpot 

Burn

NonCommercial 

(Hand 

and/or 

Mechanical)

Landscape 

Prescribed 

Fire

A4 - Viewshed 2 483 - - 306 201 - - 306

A6 - Developed Recreation 17 - - 19 - - - 19

C1 - Dedicated Old Growth - - - 596 - - - 596

C3A - Sensitive Big Game Winter Range - - 776 878 - - 776 878

C3 - Big Game Winter Range - 67 1272 3172 - 49 1272 3172

C4 - Wildlife Habitat 564 810 171 5444 128 549 171 5444

C5 - Riparian (Fish and Wildlife) - - - 240 - - - 240

C8 - Grass-Tree Mosaic - - - 3238 - - - 3238

E2 - Timber and Big Game 4 - 37 160 - - 37 160

Overall Goal - Provide and execute a fire protection and fire use program that is cost efficient 

and responsive to land and resource management goals and objectives. 

Specific to fuels management – Levels and methods of fuels treatment will be guided by the 

protection and resource objective of the management area. Emphasis will be on intensive 

utilization of wood residues using a marketing strategy to reduce fuel loadings; and prescribed 

fire will be utilized to meet management objectives and maintain fuel profiles in all ecosystems. 

Other applicable regulatory framework that guides fuel activities is located in the Fuels 

specialist’s report.

Wildlife resources
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-226 Umatilla National Forest

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, because they 

would meet project design criteria set for the project, meet standards and guidelines for affected 

land management allocations, and provide for viable populations of wildlife species. All 

alternatives would provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in the Sunrise project 

area, based on the suitability and capability of the land therein. All project alternatives are 

consistent with the Endangered Species Action, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, and Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation Executive 

Order.

Fisheries resources

All of these alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding native fish 

populations. None of the potential effects of timber harvest, fire/fuels management and 

associated activities, under any of these alternatives, would be expected to retard progress 

towards PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives. Application of PACFISH direction would 

maintain or improve fish habitat conditions in the analysis area. 

Consultation on the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project, with NOAA Fisheries, 

would occur spring 2018. The project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect ESA listed 

SRB steelhead and their DCH. Besides those just mentioned, there would be no effects to other 

listed fish and their designated critical habitats or sensitive species and their habitats. 

Effects to Management Indicator Species

For redband trout, a Forest management indicator species, no alternatives would result in any 

direct, indirect or cumulative population level effects nor a negative habitat trend at either the 

watershed or Forest scale. Project design criteria and BMP monitoring would ensure that the 

probability and magnitude of those effects remain both unlikely and immeasurable to the extent 

they occur. 

As a result, the proposed activities under these alternatives would not affect the viability of 

redband trout at the watershed scale

For steelhead, a Forest management indicator species, the overall direct and indirect effects of 

any of this project’s action alternatives would limit effects to steelhead and their habitat at the 

project scale and thus at the forest scale, due to distance from project activities, and due to 

project design criteria and BMP monitoring that would ensure any effects from activities, to the 

fish habitat indicators, would be unlikely and immeasurable. No alternatives would reduce 

population viability or result in a negative habitat trend at either the watershed or Forest scale.

During the 5-year ESA status review of the Snake River Basin steelhead, it was determined that 

the Asotin Creek summer steelhead population remains not viable mainly due to the lack of data 

on adult spawners and productivity (NMFS, 2011). This project would not retard recovery of 

populations in the Lower Snake River. The project is consistent with the Forest Plan as amended 

by PACFISH; none of the project alternatives would retard recovery of Snake River Basin 

steelhead within NFS lands; they are all consistent with relevant standards and guidelines for the 

various activities.

First Foods

The Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project alternatives would not impact fisheries 

resources, which are one of the First Foods within the analysis area. These resources are valued 

by Native American tribal members, who hunt and gather salmonid species in their usual and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-227

accustomed areas. The effects determination made for the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels 

Management project was that it “May effect, but not likely to adversely affect” Snake River 

Basin steelhead or their designated critical habitat and “will not adversely affect” Essential Fish 

Habitat for salmon. The project “may effect, but not likely to adversely affect” SR Chinook 

salmon or their designated critical habitat due to the distance between the project activities and 

occupied habitat and through the implementation of Design criteria and BMPs. 

Hydrology

The Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) provides standards 

and guidelines. Implementation of design criteria and best management practices as described 

above, Umatilla National Forest Road Use Rules, as well as standard Umatilla NF timber sale 

contract specifications or the corresponding stewardship contract specifications would constitute 

compliance with the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for 

hydrologic and water quality components. 

Neither action alternative would have direct or indirect effects to hydrologic function, 

floodplains, water temperature, sediment, or water yield, as all actions will not take place in, let 

alone near RHCAs, and any potential effects to water resources from supporting activities such 

as haul road traffic will be mitigated. 

Soils

Multi-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, directs the agency to manage resources (outdoor 

recreation, range, timber watershed and fish) in combination that best meets the needs of the 

American people. Sustained yield means achieving and maintaining into perpetuity a high-level 

annual or regular periodic output of renewable resources without impairment of the productivity 

of the land.

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2500 has the objective (FSM 2551.02) to determine if land 

management practices need adjustments to sustain or restore soil quality.

The FSM 2551.5 further states that the use of soil quality indicators ultimate goal is to provide 

information on the health of the soil. For example; when an indicator (i.e. tree growth), is altered 

by management practices. This type of alteration to soil indicators is considered an expression of 

a detrimental change to the productivity of the soil resource.

The Desired Future Condition in the 1990 Forest Plan for water/soil is to maintain soil 

productivity (Forest Plan p. 4-9). The plan further states that Standards and Guidelines are to 

maintain a minimum of 80 percent of an activity area in a condition of acceptable productivity 

potential. Acceptable productivity is defined as:

• Less than 20% increase in bulk density of volcanic soil or a less than 15 percent increase in 

soil bulk density for other forest soils.

• Soil disturbance of less than 50 percent of the topsoil humus enriched A1 and or AC horizons 

from an area 100 sq. ft. (i.e. 5ft by 20ft)

o Molding of the soil in vehicle tracks that are rutted to a depth less than 6 inches.

• Severely burned soil with the top layer of mineral soil altered in color (usually to red) and the 

next 1⁄2 inch blackened from organic matter charring.

• Plan and conduct land management activities so that soil loss from surface erosion and mass 

wasting, caused by activities would not result in an unacceptable reduction in soil productivity

or water quality.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-228 Umatilla National Forest

• Management activities shall be designed and implemented to retain sufficient ground 

vegetation and organic matter to maintain long-term soil and site productivity.

• Active slump and landslide areas are considered unavailable for road construction. Areas with 

known landslide potential and lake sediments require special transportation planning and 

design, layout preconstruction, construction and maintenance techniques.

A certain amount of overlap occurs when logging activity happens on units with existing 

detrimental soil condition as machinery reuses some trails and landing sites. This tends to reduce 

the amount of added, new detrimental soil impacts. However, this was not used to reduce the 

estimated increase percentage in DSC in the assessment due to uncertainty on the extent of this 

effect on a specific unit. This will likely lead to some overestimation of total potential DSC in 

units with existing soil disturbance from previous activity. 

Cumulative effects relative to erosion hazard are not relevant within treatment units as surface 

recovery occurs rapidly enough to eliminate this as a cumulative concern. Data collected during 

a fuels treatment study (Wondzell and Clifton 2005) in the Sunrise Project area found that 

ground cover was maintained to Forest Plan Standards (Figure 4). The study monitored hillslope 

erosion for three treatments: prescribed fire; commercial timber yarding followed by prescribed 

burning; and yarding of all fuels (> 3” dbh) followed by prescribed burning. 

Soil rehabilitation of adverse soil conditions is expected to be necessary on several units with 

existing high levels of DSC (see Soils report). Obliteration of temporary roads, 

scarification/subsoiling of landings, and retention of as much organic matter as fire risk/fuel 

objectives will help ameliorate and rehabilitate site conditions for productive capacity and 

reduced erosion hazard.

Botany

This project is consistent with Forest Plan goals (p. 4-7) and Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines (pp. 4-89 to 4-90). As required, a Biological Evaluation for plant species is available 

and located in the project analysis file. 

Invasive plants

The proposed Sunrise project is consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended, with respect to 

noxious weeds. This finding is based on the the above discussions of existing condition, the 

mechanisms of invasive species spread, and the inclusion of prevention measures included in 

Chapter 2, which are identical to those described in the Forest Plan.

Visual Resources (scenery)

Alternatives B and C would remain compliant with the Forest Plan standards and guides for 

Visual Quality Objectives and Scenery Management, because analyzed activities would result in 

site-specific conditions consistent with Forest Plan allocations. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA) and other 

Undeveloped Lands 

All 4,527 acres of undeveloped lands identified within the analysis area would not qualify as a 

Potential Wilderness area, Inventoried Roadless Area, or a designated Wilderness area. This 

outcome is consistent with the intent of the land allocation decisions made in the Forest Plan.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-229

Recreation

All action alternatives would be in compliance with the Forest Plan, forest wide standards and 

guidelines for recreation.

Air quality

Implementation of any action alternative would remain consistent with the Forest Plan

management goal #18 –to maintain air quality at a level adequate for protection and use of forest 

resources and which meets or exceeds applicable Federal and state standards (Forest Plan p. 4-2). 

Air quality standards would be maintained at a level to meet Washington State and Federal 

standards (Clean Air Act) through coordination and compliance with Washington State DNR 

guidelines and approval process. Available predictive and management methods and models 

would be used to minimize the effects of smoke on any smoke sensitive areas. 

Range

All action alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan objectives to manage grazing 

resources to maintain and improve vegetative conditions compatible with protecting and 

maintaining use of the Asotin and Peola C&H Allotments.

Forest products

The Forest Plan provides standards and guidelines for the production of forest products. All 

action alternatives comply with this plan by providing wood products for local communities.

National Forest Land Suitability

Finding: As described in the Management Direction section of this report, all silvicultural 

activities would be implemented only on lands meeting the definition of forest land (16 U.S.C. 

1604) and designated as suitable for timber production by the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 

1990), as amended.

Appropriateness of Even-aged Management

Finding: All proposed even-aged management is considered an appropriate method to achieve 

the identified objectives and other Forest Plan components such as desired future conditions. All 

stands where even-aged management is prescribed would have generally reached culmination of 

mean annual increment (see project design criteria). Implementation of the proposed 

regeneration silvicultural activities would result in created openings, as defined by Forest-wide 

direction in the Forest Plan, but none of the created openings would exceed 40 acres in size.

Optimality of Clearcutting

Finding: Any silvicultural prescriptions designating a clearcutting activity would only do so if 

such an activity is found to be the optimal silvicultural activity (see project design criteria). This 

determination would be made using criteria provided in the Forest Plan: “stand condition and 

structure; insect and disease problems; silvics of the tree species concerned; plant community; 

logging method feasibility and probability of success; site characteristics; regeneration difficulty; 

economics; and other factors all in the context of meeting the resource objectives for that 

management area portrayed in the Forest Plan” (USDA Forest Service 1990, page 4-68).

All silvicultural prescriptions recommending a clearcutting activity would do so only if it is 

found to be an activity of last resort –only proposed when no other intermediate (preferred) or 

regeneration cutting method to meet stand management objectives would be appropriate or 

compatible with existing stand conditions. A major factor in this determination would likely be 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-230 Umatilla National Forest

the presence or absence or a sufficient number of acceptable seed trees. This means that 

clearcutting would be proposed only when the silvicultural prescription for a given stand shows a 

clearcutting method would accomplish Forest Plan objectives that cannot be accomplished 

through other cutting methods.

Finding: To the extent practicable, clearcut units would be shaped and blended to emulate the 

analysis area’s natural terrain (see project design criteria).

Vegetation Manipulation

Finding: Tree stand manipulation complies with requirements found in 16 U.S.C. 1604:

1. The proposed silvicultural activities are well suited to the multiple-use goals and 

objectives established for the Sunrise planning area when considering the potential 

environmental impacts associated with their implementation.

2. There is ample assurance that lands proposed for regeneration cutting (created openings 

in the context of the Forest Plan) would be adequately restocked within five years after 

final harvest, because no activities would be conducted in locations in which the 

silvicultural prescription does not amply demonstrate the capacity for restocking (see 

project design criteria).

3. The proposed silvicultural prescriptions were not chosen primarily because they would 

give the greatest dollar return or the greatest output of timber, although these factors 

were considered when evaluating whether a proposed silvicultural activity was 

economically feasible.

4. The potential implementation effects on residual trees and adjacent stands were 

considered when developing the silvicultural proposals.

5. No permanent (e.g., irreversible) impairment of site productivity is expected as a result 

of the proposed silvicultural activities, and the project’s design criteria, management 

requirements, and best management practices ensure conservation of soil, slope, and 

other watershed conditions.

6. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would be specifically designated on the 

ground in such a way as to exclude their full extent from any adjacent upland forest area 

selected for silvicultural treatment. 

7. Silvicultural activities proposed for implementation in the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels 

Management Project are expected to provide desired effects with respect to water 

quantity and quality, wildlife and fish habitat, regeneration of desirable tree species, 

forage production, recreation uses, aesthetic values, and other resource yields.

8. Silvicultural activities proposed for implementation in the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels 

Management Project are considered practical in terms of transportation and harvesting 

requirements, and total financial costs of project preparation, timber harvest, and sale 

administration.

Endangered Species Act

Vegetation

This project complies with present Federal regulations (ESA) pertaining to the management of 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant species.

Fish and Wildlife Species

With regards to threatened and endangered species, a determination has been made that the 

proposed actions would not result in irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that 

foreclose formulation or implementation of reasonable or prudent alternatives. Consultation for 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-231

Canada lynx and yellow-billed cuckoo is not necessary since a determination has been made that 

the proposed activities would have no effect to these species. Conferencing for wolverine is not 

necessary since a determination was made that there would be not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of wolverine. 

Sensitive Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrate Species

A biological evaluation (BE) was completed for federally listed and proposed endangered and 

threatened species, and for animal species currently listed as sensitive on the Regional Forester's 

Sensitive Species List (project file). Determinations were made that none of the proposed project 

activities would adversely affect, contribute to a trend toward federal listing, nor cause a loss of 

viability to listed animal populations or species. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

All action alternatives are consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the 

Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186. Species of concern were considered and the 

Conservation Strategy for Landbirds (Altman 2000) was reviewed for effects disclosures. Design 

criteria such as retention of adequate snags and down logs, retention of live trees, and avoidance 

of riparian areas proposed in this project would minimize take of migratory birds and meet the 

intent of current management direction.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

All action alternatives comply with the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 

2007) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Use of the area by eagles is sporadic, and 

no nesting or roosting habitat would be affected by the proposed activities. 

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation Executive Order

Both action alternatives meet the intent of the Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation Executive Order, specifically by proposing enhancements to elk winter range and 

bighorn sheep habitat.

Clean Water Act of 1972 

The Clean Water Act of 1972 and amendments require the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. All of the activities proposed 

in this project were designed to be consistent with the Clean Water Act and State of Washington 

Water Quality Standards.

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988

E.O. 11988 requires the Forest Service to avoid “to the extent possible the long and short term 

adverse impacts associated with the ... occupation ... or modification of floodplains...” The E.O. 

also provides direction to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains. Actions proposed in the Sunrise Project would preserve the beneficial values of 

floodplains within the project area and for this reason, the Sunrise Project is consistent with this 

EO. 

Wetlands, Executive Order 11990

E.O. 11990 requires the Forest Service to "avoid to the extent possible the long and short term 

adverse impacts associated with the ... destruction or modification of wetlands." The Sunrise 

Project does not propose to destroy or modify any wetland. For this reason, the Sunrise Project is 

consistent with this EO. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-232 Umatilla National Forest

Wetlands, Executive Order 12898

Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994 orders Federal Agencies to identify and address any 

adverse human health and environmental effects of agency programs that disproportionately 

impact minority and low-income populations. The Order also directs agencies to consider 

patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency action may affect fish or wildlife. 

None of the alternatives restrict or alter opportunities for subsistence hunting and fishing by 

Native American tribes. Tribes holding treaty rights for hunting and fishing on the Umatilla 

National Forest are included on the project mailing list and have the opportunity to provide 

comments on this project. More employment and income opportunities would be created by each 

action alternative than by Alternative 1 (no action). Implementation of either action alternative 

would not likely adversely affect minority or low-income populations.

Municipal Watersheds

There are no designated municipal watersheds in the Sunrise Project area.

Treaty Resource Protection 

In this analysis, the primary focus of the federal government Trust Responsibility is the 

protection of the treaty rights and interests that tribes reserve on land included in this project. 

The Nez Perce Tribe has treaty rights and interests in the South George area. 

A government-to-government scoping letter was sent to staff members of the Nez Perce Tribe 

and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation on December 14, 2014, informing 

them of the Sunrise proposed project and requesting any comments or concerns regarding the 

project. The Pomeroy District Ranger presented the District Program of Work to Nez Perce tribal 

staff members on in the spring of 2015, 2016, and 2017, and continued to update the Nez Perce 

tribal staff members at subsequent opportunities. At these meetings, projects are presented and 

the District Ranger solicits questions, comments, or requests for additional information. Several 

field trips were also organized with tribal staff members on June 29, 2015, December 08, 2015, 

and October 24, 2016 to view the project area, discuss potential treatments, answer any questions 

and address any concerns. No specific comments or concerns for South George project were 

presented by tribal staff members after the government to government consultation scoping letter 

or Program of Work meetings. Tribal staff members have identified for similar past projects the 

rights they believed most at risk. Of major concern are potential effects on Treaty rights, fish 

habitat and populations, water quality, and protection of archaeological sites, traditional cultural

properties, and first foods resources.

Cultural Resource surveys were conducted to locate cultural sites and gather the information 

necessary to evaluate historic properties. Identified sites and any newly recorded sites would be 

protected from all project activities associated with the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels 

Management Project (Chapter 2, Table 2-5). A Project Review for Heritage Resources under the 

terms of the 1997 Programmatic Agreement between ACHP, SHPO, and USFS R6, has been 

completed (2/14/12). A No Adverse Effect (with stipulations) determination was made. 

Timber harvest has the potential to negatively affect water quality and thus indirectly aquatic 

habitat. The effects of harvest and associated activities on water quality are discussed in the 

Hydrology section in this chapter. It was found that effects of the action alternatives would not 

adversely or measurably affect water quality. 

The action alternatives were designed to prevent damage to RHCAs. Riparian and channel

components that protect water quality would be maintained over the long run. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-233

Other design criteria and BMPs would control disturbance that could lead to erosion and 

sedimentation.

The effects of harvest and associated activities on aquatic species and habitats are found in the 

Fisheries section. It was determined that action alternatives may effect – not likely to adversely 

affect threatened species and may impact some sensitive species (see Table 3-15). Based on the 

information summarized above, it is reasonable to assume that treaty rights would be protected 

during implementation of the proposal.

3.22 Short-term Uses and 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 the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including 

financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general 

welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 

generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

3.23 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Effects that cannot be avoided due to constraints in alternatives. These effects do not have to be 

avoided by the planning agency, but they must be disclosed, discussed, and mitigated, if possible 

(40 CFR 1500.2(e).

Other than Soil resources, there are no effects that will not be mitigated through basic forest 

guidelines or implementation of BMPs

Concerning soils, as it may apply to temporary roads placed on shallow soils, some effects may 

be irreversible depending upon the depth of impact, organic matter present in the soil and the 

depth of the soil itself. These areas are of minimal importance to timber production, but have a 

multitude of other resource values. These impacts over time may be colonized by noxious weeds 

and other pioneer species suited to such undeveloped conditions; which may lead to other 

resource damage. Therefore these types of impacts are expected to minimize to reduce the 

occurrence of irreversible damage to the soil resource.

3.24 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 rights-of-way or road.

For all action alternatives (B and C) there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources with implementation of proposed activities.

3.25 Other Required Disclosures

This section describes how the action alternatives comply with applicable state and Federal laws, 

and Forest Service policies and regulations.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-234 Umatilla National Forest

National Historic Preservation Act –Heritage surveys have been completed. State Historic 

Preservation Office consultation was conducted under the Programmatic Agreement among the 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Washington State Historic Preservation 

Officer regarding Cultural Resource Management on National Forests dated April 1997. 

Identified sites and any newly recorded sites are protected from all project activities associated 

with Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project. Because heritage resources would not 

be affected by proposed activities under any action alternative, there would be no effect to any 

historic property listed in or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places.

Endangered Species Act and Regional Forester's Sensitive Species - The Endangered Species 

Act requires protection of all species listed as "Threatened" or "Endangered" by Federal 

regulating agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). The 

Forest Service also maintains through the Federal Register a list of species which are proposed 

for classification and official listing under the Endangered Species Act, species which appear on 

an official State lists, or that are recognized by the Regional Forester as needing special 

management to prevent their being placed on Federal or State lists. Biological Evaluations have 

been completed for all TE&S plant, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Details are found in the 

Fisheries, Botany, and Wildlife sections of this chapter, and relevant appendices.

Wild and Scenic River Act – There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the project area. No 

designated or potential wild and scenic river sections would be affected by implementation of 

any alternative.

Prime Farmland, Range Land, and Forest Land - No adverse effects on any prime farmland, 

range land, and forest land not already identified in the Final DEIS for the Forest Plan would be 

expected to result from implementation of any alternative.Civil Rights, Women, and Minorities

- No adverse effects on civil rights, women, and minorities not already identified in the DEIS for 

the Forest Plan would be expected to result from implementation of any alternative. Alternatives 

B and C would be governed by Forest Service contracts, which are awarded to qualified 

contractors and/or purchasers regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc. Such contracts also 

contain nondiscrimination requirements. 

National Forest Management Act Compliance – The National Forest Management Act of 

1976 (P.L. 94-588), including its amendments to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378), states that when trees are cut to achieve timber production 

objectives, the cuttings shall be made in such a way that “there is assurance that such lands can 

be adequately restocked within 5 years after harvest” (P.L. 93-378, Sec. 6, (g), (3), (E), (ii)). See 

Appendix C, pp. C-9 to C-10.

This reforestation policy is based specifically on language from the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), including its amendments to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378): “Sec. 3 (d) (1) It is the policy of the Congress 

that all forested lands in the National Forest System be maintained in appropriate forest cover

with species of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stand designed to 

secure the maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with 

land management plans.” 

Treaty Trust Responsibilities - In this analysis, the primary focus of the federal government 

Trust Responsibility is the protection of the treaty rights and interests that tribes reserve on land 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-235

included in this project. The Nez Perce Tribe has treaty rights and interests in the Sunrise project 

area. 

A government to government scoping letter was sent to tribal staff members of the Nez Perce 

Tribe and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation on December 14, 2014, 

informing them of the Sunrise proposed project and requesting any comments or concerns 

regarding the project. The Pomeroy District Ranger presented the District Program of Work to 

Nez Perce tribal staff members on in the spring of 2015, 2016, and 2017, and continued to 

update the Nez Perce tribal staff members at subsequent opportunities. At these meetings, 

projects are presented the District Ranger solicits questions, comments, or requests for additional 

information. Several field trips were also organized with tribal staff members on June 29, 2015; 

December 08, 2015; and October 24, 2016 to view the project area, discuss potential treatments, 

answer any questions and address any concerns. 

Cultural Resource surveys were conducted to locate cultural sites and gather the information 

necessary to evaluate historic properties. Identified sites and any newly recorded sites would be 

protected from all project activities associated with the Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels 

Management Project. A Project Review for Heritage Resources under the terms of the 1997 

Programmatic Agreement between ACHP, SHPO, and USFS R6, is underway. 

Timber harvest has the potential to negatively affect water quality and thus indirectly aquatic 

habitat. The effects of harvest and associated activities on water quality are discussed in the 

Hydrology section in this chapter. It was found that effects of the action alternatives would not 

adversely or measurably affect water quality. The action alternatives were designed to prevent 

damage to RHCAs. Riparian and channel components that protect water quality would be 

maintained. Other design criteria and BMPs would control disturbance that could lead to erosion

and sedimentation.

The effects of harvest and associated activities on aquatic species and habitats are found in the 

Fisheries section. It was determined that action alternatives may effect – not likely to adversely 

affect threatened species and may impact some sensitive species.

Based on the information summarized above, it is reasonable to assume that treaty rights would 

be protected during implementation of the proposal.

Roads Analysis - A Forest-wide Roads Analysis was completed in March 2004 on the Umatilla 

National Forest. The forest scale analysis addressed only those National Forest System Roads 

maintained for passenger car traffic, arterial, and collector roads. The Sunrise project planning 

area has arterial, collector, and local roads. These roads are seasonally opened or are closed 

system roads. A site-specific project Roads Analysis containing a road risk value for each road 

was completed for this project and is located in the project file. This project analysis also

includes maps showing the risk value for each road and the operational maintenance level of 

each road in the project planning area. A summary list of miles of roads used as haul routes for 

each alternative and other proposed road activity such as temporary road construction, and 

proposed decommissioning of roads in Alternative C is found in Table 2-11. No new system road 

construction is proposed for this project.

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988 – Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires the Forest Service 

to avoid “to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the 

occupation or modification of floodplains...” The proposed alternatives would avoid all 

floodplains and affects to floodplains and is consistent with this EO.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-236 Umatilla National Forest

Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 - Executive Order (EO) 11990 requires the Forest Service to 

“avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the 

destruction or modification of wetlands.” The proposed alternatives would avoid all wetlands 

and affects to wetlands and is consistent with this EO.

Municipal Watersheds - There is no de-facto or designated municipal watershed in the Sunrise

project planning area. 

Energy Requirements - No adverse effects on energy requirements would be expected to result 

from implementation of any alternative.

Public Health and Safety - Public health and safety would be improved with Alternatives B and 

C removing danger trees along open forest routes, haul routes, developed recreation sites, and 

administrative sites within the Sunrise project planning area. 

Environmental Justice – No local minority or low income populations were identified during 

scoping or environmental effects assessment. No minority or low-income populations are 

expected to be affected by implementation of any of the alternatives, in accordance with 

Executive Order 12898.

3.26 Cumulative Impacts

Detailed findings for issues pertaining to the project purpose and need, as well as issues driving 

alternatives are described below. Findings and conclusions are discussed in comparative format 

between management alternatives. Additional findings for other resource issues are then briefly 

discussed. Alternatives B and C would meet the project purpose and need elements discussed in 

Chapter 1 to some degree, with Alternative B doing so more than Alternative C. Because the 

purpose and need elements would trend away from desired conditions under Alternative A, it 

does not meet the project purpose and need at all. 

Forest Vegetation Composition, Structure, and Density

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action alternatives would not result in changes 

of species cover types in all locations, but changes that would occur generally would involve a 

shift from currently overrepresented cover types dominated by late seral species to currently 

underrepresented cover types dominated by early seral species. Under Alternative B, planned 

activities would reduce the extent of Douglas-fir, grand fir, and subalpine fir-spruce cover types 

by approximately 3900, 1560, and 1940 acres, respectively. Under Alternative C, planned 

activities would reduce the extent of Douglas-fir, grand fir, and subalpine fir-spruce cover types 

by approximately 3260, 870, and 1060 acres, respectively. Each of these respective cover types 

would generally be converted to a “mix” cover type (e.g., grand fir / mix).

A cover type with the term “mix” added is a cover type with the named shade-tolerant species 

present along with a plurality of early seral/shade-intolerant species such as western larch, 

lodgepole pine, or ponderosa pine. The expected changes in extent indicate that Alternative B 

results in the greatest area converted to a cover type in which an early seral conifer species 

constitutes a majority and/or plurality of the overstory forest canopy. 

Although it is not possible to evaluate conversions to a “mix” cover type relative to desired 

ranges of single-species cover types, both action alternatives would increase the relative 

abundance of currently underrepresented early seral species. Alternative B would increase the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-237

relative abundance to a greater degree than alternative C, and Alternative A (the no-action 

alternative) would fail to do so at all. 

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action alternatives would not result in changes 

of species cover types in all locations, but changes that would occur generally would involve a 

shift from currently overrepresented structural stages (understory reinitiation and/or old forest 

multi-strata) to currently underrepresented structural stages (stand initiation, stem exclusion, 

and/or old forest single-strata). Under Alternative B, planned activities would reduce the extent 

of stands in the understory reinitiation and old forest multi strata stages by approximately 2020 

and 4,570 acres, respectively. Activities planned as part of Alternative B would increase the 

extent of stands in the stand initiation, stem exclusion, and old forest single stratum stands by 

approximately 668, 1860, and 4,065 acres, respectively. Under Alternative C, planned activities 

would reduce the extent of stands in the understory reinitiation and old forest multi strata stages 

by approximately 810 and 3,330 acres, respectively. Activities planned as part of Alternative C 

would increase the extent of stands in the stand initiation, stem exclusion, and old forest single 

stratum stands by approximately 330, 990, and 2,820 acres, respectively. Stands currently in the 

old forest multi strata stage would remain old forest, but be converted to the old forest single 

stratum stage. The expected changes in extent indicate that Alternative B would result in the 

greatest area converted from currently overrepresented structural stages (generally understory 

reinitiation and old forest multi strata) to currently underrepresented stages (generally stand 

initiation, stem exclusion, and old forest single strata). 

Forest Density is defined as the measure of the amount of tree vegetation per unit of land area. 

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action alternatives would not result in changes 

of density class in all locations, but changes that would occur generally would involve a shift 

from stands currently in the moderate and high classes to low and moderate classes, respectively. 

Under Alternative B, planned activities would reduce the extent of stands in the high density 

class by approximately 9,450 and 4,570 acres, respectively. Activities planned as part of 

Alternative B would increase the extent of stands in the low and moderate classes by 

approximately 4,130 and 5,320 acres, respectively. Under Alternative C, planned activities would 

reduce the extent of stands in the high density class by approximately 7,000 acres. Activities 

planned as part of Alternative C would increase the extent of stands in the low and moderate 

density classes by 1,850 and 5,150 acres, respectively. The expected changes in extent indicate 

that Alternative B would result in the greatest area converted from currently overrepresented 

high density classes to currently underrepresented low and moderate density classes. 

Fire Regime Condition Class

The proposed treatments would affect FRCC by moving landscape conditions (fuel load, canopy

base height, stand structure and composition) toward HRV represented by Condition Class 1 

from Condition Classes 2 and 3. Recommended treatments would reduce fuel loading and ladder 

fuels, increase canopy base height, reduce canopy bulk density and favor fire tolerant species. 

Treatment under all action alternatives would serve to emulate the stand conditions anticipated 

under the historical fire regime. Alternative B would do this to a greater degree than Alternative 

C, and both much more so than Alternative A. 

Timber Production

A component of the purpose and need of the Sunrise project is to make available forest products 

to the region and local communities. Both action alternatives will undergo silviculture treatments 

which include commercial timber harvesting. Alternative B would include harvests across 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

3-238 Umatilla National Forest

approximately 5,530 acres, providing an estimated 25.6 million board-feet, while Alternative C 

would include harvests that provide approximately 12.1 million board-feet across 2,560 acres.

Wildlife Habitat

During the scoping process, the need to manage and maintain wildlife habitat was restated. The 

wildlife specialist report addresses potential impacts and findings for each alternative for all 

indicators considered, primarily focusing on management indicator species (MIS).

For all indicators, the No Action alternative is not expected to have any direct/indirect as well as 

cumulative effects. Current conditions are expected to persist outside the desired range. 

Alternatives B and C would both maintain the area within forest plan standards for elk. Activities 

such as burning and thinning are expected to improve forage. It is expected that all MIS species 

including American marten, pileated woodpecker, and Northern three-toed woodpecker would 

continue to have viable populations on the forest. Snag and down wood habitat guidelines will be 

followed. 

Additional Findings

Soil condition. All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

for achieving soil quality maintenance objectives, including detrimental soil condition and 

effective ground cover.

Water quality and quantity. Effects of proposed actions would not adversely or measurably 

affect water temperature. The proposed project is in compliance with the Clean Water Act, and 

meets or exceeds all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative 

Effects to vegetation, wildlife, cultural, and recreation resources. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species. Depending on the species and location, the 

activities would have no effect or may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect all applicable 

and/or affected Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive fish, wildlife and plant species.

Invasive plants. Within the Sunrise project boundary, the primary difference in effects to 

invasive plant species from each project alternative is shown by the differing numbers of acres 

that are placed at high risk of noxious weed spread. Alternative B creates the most acreage at 

high vulnerability for weed infestation, due to the slightly larger amount of ground disturbing 

activities proposed. The smaller area of ground disturbance in Alternative C results in slightly 

fewer acres at high risk. There is potential for an increase in noxious weed infestation within the 

planning area due to existing conditions and the types of activities analyzed. Invasive weeds, 

however, are already present in the project area, and will be treated regardless of alternative 

selected. 

Developed recreation. Proposed harvest activities would create short term effects which could 

potentially alter the recreation setting. However, the proposed activities do not alter the setting 

enough to measurably affect the recreation experience. 

Economics and forest products. Alternative B was found to be economically viable, and has a 

higher present net value (PNV) than Alternative C.

Visual quality. It is expected that all of the activities proposed in all of the action Alternatives 

would meet the visual quality objectives of the Forest Plan. The impacts would not exceed the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 3-239

limits of visual impacts defined by modification and partial retention. Characteristics of scenic 

integrity and stability are expected to be maintained or enhanced. 

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWAs). For the Asotin Creek PWA activities proposed in or near 

the PWA under Alternatives B and C, smells, sounds and possible sighting of mechanical 

activities and fuel treatment activities, would reduce a sense of solitude and remoteness in the 

short-term, during project activity. Activities adjacent to PWAs would not preclude the PWAs 

from being retained in the PWA inventory.

Roadless Area characteristics. The only activity slated for Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) is 

6,335 acres of prescribed fire. Under both Alternatives B and C there would be no direct effects

to the Asotin Creek IRA. Indirect effects are predicted to be positive as biological and ecosystem

functions are believed to improve under each action alternative as fire will be reintroduced to a 

fire-dependent ecosystem. The sounds, air quality, and possible sighting of mechanical activities 

and fuel treatment activities occurring within and areas adjacent to the IRA would reduce a sense 

of solitude and remoteness in the short-term, during project activity. In the long-term, however, 

there would be no change to the availability of solitude or primitive recreation.

Other Undeveloped Lands. All treated units would remain forested after harvest although skid 

trails, stumps, and landings could be evident. Stand structure would change, therefore, diversity

of plant and animal communities may shift from current patterns but ecological diversity would 

remain (Chapter 3, Vegetation section). Impacts to natural integrity and sense of naturalness 

would likely be evident until stumps and vegetation canopies are no longer substantially 

recognizable (about 75 to 100 years). The increased numbers of stumps and the open nature of 

the forest stand would likely be the most apparent visual change resulting from implementation. 

The sounds of machinery from active units would reduce a sense of naturalness and solitude 

during project operations but would not persist in the long term. All proposed activities within 

Undeveloped Lands will be consistent with Forest Plan guidelines and project design criteria will 

help reduce impacts to soils, plants, habitat, recreation, and water quality.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 4-1

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members

The following Interdisciplinary Team members are USDA Forest Service employees who 

participated and contributed in the development of the Project’s Purpose and Need, Proposed 

Action, Public Involvement planning actions, Alternatives for analyses and undertook the field 

studies, resource report preparation, and analyses of impacts to individual resources from 

implementation of alternatives. The section includes information regarding the names of those 

IDT members, with their qualifications (expertise, experience, professional disciplines), who 

were primarily responsible for preparing the draft environmental impact statement and/or 

significant background papers, (§1502.6 and 1502.8).

Brooks, Paula J.

Umatilla National Forest, Forest Botanist

Contribution: Botany Analysis and TES plants 

Bassett, Jill (Retired)

Umatilla National Forest, Forest Archeologist

Contribution: Heritage Resources

Collin, Johnny

Umatilla National Forest, North Zone TMA

Contribution: Economics Analysis

Dixon, Donna

Umatilla National Forest, GIS Specialist

Contribution: GIS and Map Products

Dowdy, William

Umatilla National Forest, Fisheries Biologist

Contribution: Fisheries Analysis

Druffel, Angela S.

Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District, Range Technician

Contribution: Range Analysis

Fujishin, Monte

Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District, District Ranger

Contribution: Line officer providing management, guidance and oversight

Harris, Holly

Umatilla National Forest, North Zone Wildlife Biologist

Contribution: Wildlife Analysis

Hickman, Tracii

Umatilla National Forest, ESA Consultation Biologist

Contribution: Oversight of TES process and consultation requirements

Justice, Donald C.

Umatilla National Forest, Vegetation Analyst 

Contribution: Data Analyses/Vegetation Modeling

Mackleit, Tara

Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District, Fire/Fuels Technician

Contribution: Fuels and Air Quality Analysis

Mandersheid, John

Umatilla National Forest, Roads and Trails Manager
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

4-2 Umatilla National Forest

Contribution: Transportation Analysis 

Marquardt, William

Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District, North Zone Archeologist

Contribution: Heritage Resources

Mattson, Donna

Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur, and Umatilla National Forest, Tri-Forest 

Landscape Architect

Contribution: Scenery/visuals Analysis.

Napkora, Zigmund

Umatilla National Forest, North Zone Hydrologist

Contribution: Hydrology/Water Quality Analysis, Soils Analysis

Pfeifer, Eric

Umatilla National Forest, North Zone Forester, Noxious Weed Coordinator

Contribution: Invasive Plant Analysis, Forest Vegetation Analysis, Visuals 

Analysis. 

Randall, Larry

Umatilla National Forest, Recreation and Wilderness Program Manager

Contribution: Recreation, Inventoried Roadless Area and Potential Wilderness 

Area Analysis.

Richardson, Katherine

Umatilla National Forest, Environmental Coordinator

Contribution: NEPA Oversight and Review

Taylor, Leslie

Umatilla National Forest, South Zone Environmental Coordinator

Contribution: NEPA Oversight and Review

Trick, Brian

Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District, Writer/Editor

Contribution: Document Revision, Writer/Editor

4.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies Consulted and 

Requesting the Environmental Impact Statement

An electronic or hardcopy of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be provided to 

those specifically requesting copies by postal mail or email. In addition, the DEIS and all related 

documents were placed on the Forest Webpage, as well as published in the Umatilla NF 

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for official public distribution to whomever is interested 

or affected by the proposed action. The DEIS and related documents have also been provided 

directly to the following Agencies for review and comment:

Federal Agencies: 

Deputy Director, USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

Director, Planning and Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (WA)

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, EIS Review Coordinator 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division, Northwest Region

Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 4-3

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, NEPA Coordinator

Northwest Mountain Region, Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

Northwest Power Planning Council

U.S. Army Engr. Northwestern Division

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Environmental Management CG-443

U.S. Department of Energy, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

USDA, National Agricultural Library, Head, Acquisitions & Serials Branch 

Washington and Oregon State Government and Agencies:

Asotin County Board of Commissioners

Columbia County Board of Commissioners

Garfield County Board of Commissioners

Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality

Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Dept. of Forestry

Union County Board of Commissioners

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Washington Wildlife Commission

Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board

4.3 Tribal Consultation and Coordination

A government to government scoping letter was sent to tribal staff members of the Nez Perce 

Tribe and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation on December 14, 2014, 

informing them of the Sunrise proposed project and requesting any comments or concerns 

regarding the project. The Pomeroy District Ranger presented the District Program of Work to 

Nez Perce tribal staff members on in the spring of 2015, 2016, and 2017, and continued to 

update the Nez Perce tribal staff members at subsequent opportunities. At these meetings, 

projects are presented the District Ranger solicits questions, comments, or requests for additional 

information. Several field trips were also organized with tribal staff members on June 29, 2015; 

December 08, 2015; and October 24, 2016 to view the project area, discuss potential treatments, 

answer any questions and address any concerns. 

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation

Gary Burke

Eric Quaempts

Carl Scheeler

Teara Farrow

Audie Huber

Gary James

Jeremy Wolf

Kathryn Brighan

Aaron Ashley

Sully Kosey

Rosenda Shippentower

Woodrow Star

Niimpuu (Nez Perce Tribe)

Mary Jane Miles

McCoy Oatman

Casey Mitchell

Shannon Wheeler

Elizabeth Arthur-Attao

Bill Picard

Samuel Penny

Arthur Broncheau

Quintin Ellenwood

Nakia Williamson

Patrick Baird

Amanda Rogerson
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

4-4 Umatilla National Forest

Dave Johnson

Aaron Miles, Sr.

Emmit Taylor
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District 4-5

Non-governmental Organizations:

Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Michael Garrity

American Forest Resource Council, Irene Jerome

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project, Karen Coulter

Hells Canyon Preservation Council, David Mildrexler, Jennifer Schwartz 

Oregon Wild, Doug Heiken

Sierra Club, René Voss

The Lands Council, Mike Petersen, Jeff Juel

Commercial Enterprises:

Boise Cascade, LLC, Lindsay Warness

Boise Building, John Fullerton

Guy Bennett Lumber Company, Dave Fritts, Resource Manager

Idaho Forest Group, Bill Higgins

Individuals specifically requesting Information: 

Richard Artley

Jeremy Cox

Dean Gaiser

John Geddie

Robert Budig

Bret Harting

Tom and Kim Hendrickson

Sam Ledgerwood

Richard Isaacson

Shirley Muse

Erik Ryberg

Mark Sater

Les Chapman

Phil Herman

David Hunt

Lyle Jensen

Dave Price

Joe Zellerhoff

Jean Public

Michael Krochta

Library Copies:

Pendleton Library – Electronic and hard copy

Asotin Library - Electronic and hard copy

Lewiston Library - Electronic and hard copy

Walla Walla Library - Electronic and hard copy

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-1

Glossary

Abbreviations

AQI Air Quality Index

ATV All Terrain Vehicle

BA Biological Assessment

BMP Best Management Practice

BIO Biological Opinion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CTUIRConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla

Indian Reservation

CVS Continuous Vegetation Surveys

CY Calendar year

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DFC Desired Future Condition

DSC Detrimental Soil Condition

EA Environmental Analysis

EGC Effective Ground Cover

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESD Emergency Situation Declaration

FR Forest Road

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

FSEIS Final Supplement Environment 

Impact Statement

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

FY Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information System

HEI Habitat Effectiveness Index

HRV Historic Range of Variability

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan

MA Management Area

MBF Thousand Board Feet

MIS Management Indicator Species

MMBF Million Board Feet

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOI Notice of Intent

OFSS Old Forest Single Stratum 

PAG Plant Association Group

RD Ranger District

RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

RNA Research Natural Area

ROD Record of Decision

S&G Standard and Guideline

TES Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive

TEUI Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory

TMDL Total Maxim Daily Load

UMA Umatilla National Forest

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife 

Service

VQO Visual Quality Objective

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife

WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Program
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-2 Umatilla National Forest

Definition of Terms

A

Activity fuels – Fuels generated or altered by a management activity.

Adfluvial individuals – are those which emigrate as juveniles from spawning 

tributaries, maturing and overwintering in lakes and reservoirs.

Affected environment - Natural environment that exists at the present time in the area 

being analyzed.

Age class - A group of trees that started growing (regenerated) within the same time frame, 

usually 20 years. A single age class would have trees that are within 20 years of the same 

age, such as 1-20 years or 21-40 years.

Air quality – The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein; used 

most frequently in connection with “standards” of maximum acceptable pollutant 

concentrations.

Airshed - A geographic area that, because of topography, meteorology, and climate, shares 

the same air.

Allotment (range allotment) - Area designated for use by a prescribed number of livestock 

for a prescribed time period.

Alternative – In an EIS, one of a number of possible options for responding to the purpose 

and need for action.

Anadromous fish – Fish that hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, mature there, and 

return to fresh water to reproduce; for example, salmon and steelhead.

Aspect - The direction a surface faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect.

B

Bankful width – The width of a stream channel measured between the tops of the most 

prominent banks on either side of the stream. Also refers to the width of the stream at the 

normal flood flow.

Basal area - The area of the cross-section of a tree trunk near its base, usually 4 1/2 feet 

above the ground. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by 

trees. The term basal area is often used to describe the collective basal area of trees per 

acre.

Beneficial uses – Any of the various uses which may be made of water including, but 

not limited to, domestic water supplies, industrial water supplies, agricultural water 

supplies, navigation, recreation in and on the water, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. The 

beneficial use is dependent upon actual use, the ability of the water to support a nonexisting use either now or in the future, and its likelihood of being used in a given 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-3

manner. The use of water for the purpose of wastewater dilution or as a receiving water 

for a waste treatment facility effluent is not a beneficial use.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – A practice or combination of practices that is 

the most effective and practical means (including technological, economic, and 

institutional considerations) of preventing or reducing negative environmental impacts to 

water pollution that may result from resource management activities.

Big game - Large mammals, such as deer and elk, that are hunted for sport.

Big game summer range – A range usually at higher elevations, used by deer and elk 

during the summer. Summer ranges are usually much more extensive than winter ranges.

Big game winter range – A range usually at lower elevation used by migratory deer and 

elk during the winter months; usually more clearly defined and smaller than summer 

range.

Biological diversity - The number and abundance of species found within a common 

environment. This includes the variety of genes, species, ecosystems, and ecological 

processes that connect everything in a common environment.

Biological Assessment (BA) – A document prepared by a federal agency for the purpose 

of identifying any endangered or threatened species that is likely to be affected by an 

agency action. This document facilitates compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

Biophysical – The combination of biological and physical components in an ecosystem.

Board foot (bf) - A measurement term for lumber or timber. It is the amount of wood 

contained in an unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide. Often 

expressed as MBF (thousand board feet) or MMBF (million board feet).

Broadcast burn - A prescribed fire that burns forest fuels as they are, with no piling or 

windrowing.

Browse - Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs that animals (such as deer 

and elk) eat.

Buffer - A land area designated to block or absorb impacts to the area beyond the buffer.

For example, a streamside buffer is often retained to reduce impacts of a harvest unit.

C

Canopy - In a forest, the branches of the uppermost layer of foliage. It can also be used 

to describe lower layers in a multistoried forest.

Canopy closure – The amount of ground surface shaded by tree canopies as seen from 

above. Used to describe how open or dense a stand of trees is, often expressed in 10 

percent increments.

Capability – The potential of an area or land/or water to produce resources, supply 

goods and service, and allow resource uses under a specified set of management 

practices and at a given level of management intensity. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-4 Umatilla National Forest

Catastrophic wildfire – An especially intense and widespread fire that usually, but not 

always, occurs in forests that are outside the historical range of variability in terms of 

forest structure and forest fuels due to fire suppression.

Classified road – See Road Definitions.

Cavity - A hole in a tree often used by wildlife species, usually birds, for nesting, 

roosting, and reproduction.

CCF - One hundred cubic feet (see CF).

CF - A measurement term for lumber or timber. It is the amount of wood contained in an 

unfinished block of wood 12 inches thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide. Often 

expressed as CCF (hundred cubic feet).

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations. A codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of the 

federal government.

Channel (stream) – The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main 

current of water flows.

Climax - The stage of plant development in which vegetation is thought to be stable, 

self-sustaining, and self-replicating.

Clearcutting - A regeneration harvest method that removes all merchantable trees in a 

single cutting except for wildlife trees or snags. A “clearcut” is an area from which all 

merchantable trees have been cut.

Closed system road – Classified system road closed to public use. Opened to 

administrative use. Not decommissioned.

Commercial thinning – Any type of tree thinning that produces merchantable material 

at least equal in value to the direct costs of harvesting.

Community - A group of species of plants or animals living and interacting at a 

particular time and place; a group of people residing in the same place under the same 

government.

Compaction – Making soil hard and dense, decreasing its ability to support vegetation 

because the soil can hold less water and air and because roots have trouble penetrating 

the soil.

Conifer - A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or fir tree.

Consultation – A process required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act whereby 

federal agencies proposing activities in a listed species habitat confer with governing 

agencies about the impacts of the activity on the species. Consultation may be informal, 

and thus advisory, or formal, and thus binding.

Connectivity (of habitats) - The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and 

ecological processes to move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-5

close together or linked by corridors of appropriate vegetation. The opposite of 

fragmentation.

Corridor - Elements of the landscape that connect similar areas. Streamside vegetation 

may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows where wildlife feed.

Cover - Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish, sometimes referred to as "hiding 

cover." Cover may be dead or live vegetation, boulders, or undercut stream banks.

Animals use cover to escape from predators, rest, or feed.

Critical habitat - Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed 

threatened or endangered species.

Crown - The part of a tree containing live foliage; treetops.

Crown fire – A forest fire that advances through the crown fuel layer normally in direct 

conjunction with a surface fire.

Cultural resource - The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the 

past (at least 50 years old); this can be prehistoric or historical.

Cumulative effects - Effects on the environment that result from the incremental 

impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time.

D

DBH (diameter at breast height) - The diameter of a tree 4 1/2 feet above the ground 

measured on the uphill side of the tree.

Danger Tree – A danger tree is considered to be any tree that is likely to fail within one 

and one-half tree lengths of an open class 3 or higher system road, any road designated 

for hauling, developed recreation or administrative site.

DecAid – An advisory tool that provides guidance to land managers evaluating effects of 

forest conditions and existing or proposed management activities on organisms that use 

snags, downwood, and other wood decay elements. DecAid is a statistical summary of 

empirical data from published research on wildlife and deadwood. Data provided in 

DecAid allows the user to relate the abundance of deadwood habitat for both snags and 

logs to the frequency of occurrence of selected wildlife species that require dead wood 

habitat for some part of their life cycle.

Decommission – Activity that results in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded 

roads to a more natural state. Removes the road segment from the Forest road inventory 

system. Decommissioning can involve: closing entrances; scarifying road surfaces, or 

decompacting (sub-soiling) to establish vegetation and reduce run-off.; seeding to 

control erosion; partial to full restoration of stream channel by removing culverts and 

fills; and removing unstable portions of embankments. 

Desired future condition - A vision of the long-term conditions of the land.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-6 Umatilla National Forest

Direct effects – Impacts on the environment that are caused by the action and occur at 

the same time and place.

Disturbance - Any event, such as flood, wildfire, insect infestations, or timber harvest, 

that alters the structure, composition, or functions of terrestrial or aquatic habitats.

Diversity - The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities 

and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

Duff – Organic matter in various stages of decomposition on the floor of the forest.

E

Early forest succession - The stage of vegetation or wildlife that inhabits an area 

immediately following removal or destruction of vegetation. For instance, grasses may 

be the first plants to grow in an area that was burned.

Eastside Screens – Regional Foresters’s Forest Plan Amendment (June 1995) designed 

to maintain options for old growth related and other species. Interim management 

direction establishing riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber sales. 

Ecological approach - An approach to natural resource management that considers the 

relationships among all organisms, including humans, and their environment.

Ecology - The interrelationships of living things to one another and their environment or 

the study of these interrelationships. From the Greek Oikos meaning "house" or "place to 

live."

Ecosystem - A complete interacting system of living organisms and the land and water 

that make up their environment; the home places of all living things, including humans.

Ecosystem health – A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are 

sustained over time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such 

that goals for uses, values, and services of the ecosystem are met.

Edge (habitat) - The margin where two or more vegetation patches meet, such as a 

meadow opening next to a mature forest stand or a ponderosa pine stand next to an aspen 

stand.

Endangered species - A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. Endangered species are identified by the Secretary of 

the Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Environmental analysis - An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable long 

and short-term environmental effects. Environmental analyses include physical, 

biological, social, and economic factors.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A statement of environmental effects of a 

proposed action and alternatives. The Draft EIS is released to other agencies and the 

public for comment and review. A Final EIS is issued after consideration of Public and 

agency comments. A Record of Decision (ROD) is based on the information and 

analysis in the Final EIS.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-7

Ephemeral streams - Streams that flow only as the direct result of rainfall or snowmelt.

They have no permanent flow.

Erosion - The wearing away of the land surface by wind, water, ice, gravity, or other 

geological activities. Erosion can be intensified by human activities (such as road 

building) that may reduce the stability of soils or slopes.

ETA – Equivalent Treatment Acres –is a watershed cumulative effects model that 

calculates the acres of created openings in forested areas based on harvest prescription or 

other mortality. It is used as an index to represent the potential for increased water yield

and peak flows as a consequence of reducing water loss by interception and 

evapotranspiration, or by changing snow distribution and melt rates.

Even-aged management - Method of forest management in which trees, usually the 

same species, are maintained at the same age and size and harvested all at once so a new 

stand may grow.

Even-aged stands – Stands of trees of approximately the same age. Silvicultural 

methods that generate even-aged stands include clearcutting, shelterwood, and seed tree.

Exotic - A plant or animal species introduced from a distant area; not native to the area, 

often particularly aggressive.

F

Fauna - The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an area or region.

Fine fuels – Fast-drying fuels, generally with a comparatively high surface area-tovolume ratio, which are less than 1⁄4 -inch in diameter and have a time lag of one hour or 

less. These fuels readily ignite and are rapidly consumed by fire when dry.

Fire behavior – How fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography.

Fire-dependent - Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of 

species that evolved with and are maintained by periodic fire.

Fire-intolerant – Species of plants that do not grow well or die from the effects of too 

much fire. Generally these are shade-tolerant species.

Fire regimes – The ecological effects of frequency, intensity, extent, season, and 

synergistic interactions with other disturbances, such as insects and disease, classified 

into generalized levels of fire severity.

Fire severity or Burn severity –Severity describes the fire-caused damage to the soil.

The severity ratings (high, moderate, and low) are based on standards in Forest Service 

Handbook 2509.13.

Fire-tolerant – Species of plants that can withstand certain frequency and intensity of 

fire. Generally these are shade–intolerant species. 

Flora - The vegetation of an area.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-8 Umatilla National Forest

Fluvial individuals – are those which emigrate as juveniles from spawning tributaries, 

maturing and overwintering in large rivers.

Forage - Vegetation (both woody and non-woody) eaten by animals, especially big game

and livestock.

Forage area – All areas that do not meet the definition of either satisfactory cover or 

marginal cover.

Forb - A broadleaf plant that has little or no woody material in it, including plants 

commonly called wildflowers and weeds.

Foreground - The part of a scene or landscape that is nearest the viewer.

Forest health – The condition in which forest ecosystems sustain their complexity, 

diversity, resiliency, and productivity while providing for human needs and values. It is a 

useful way to communicate about the current condition of the forest, especially with 

regard to resiliency, a part of forest health that describes the ability of the ecosystem to 

respond to disturbances. Forest health and resiliency can be described, in part, by species 

composition, density, and structure.

Forest Plan (Umatilla Land and Resource Management Plan) – A document that 

guides natural resource management and establishes standards and guidelines for a 

National Forest; required by the National Forest Management Act.

Fragmentation - The breakup of a large land area (such as a forest) into smaller patches 

that are isolated from the original area. Fragmentation can occur naturally (as by 

stand-replacing wildfire) or from human activities (such as road building).

Fuel(s) – Combustible material that includes vegetation such as grass, leaves, ground 

litter, plants, shrubs, and trees. Includes both living plants; dead, woody vegetative 

materials; and other vegetative materials which are capable of burning.

Fuel break – A zone in which fuel quantity has been reduced or altered to provide a 

position for suppression forces to make a stand against a wildfire. Fuel breaks are 

designated or constructed before the outbreak of a fire. Fuel breaks may consist of one or 

a combination of the following: natural barriers, constructed fuel breaks, man-made 

barriers.

Fuel ladder - Shrubs, small trees, and low growing branches that allow fire to move 

from the ground to the tree crowns.

Fuel load – The dry weight of combustible materials per unit area; usually expressed as 

tons per acre.

Fuels management - The treatment of fuels that would otherwise interfere with 

effective fire management or control. For instance, prescribed fire can reduce the amount 

of fuels that accumulate on the forest floor before the fuels become so heavy that a 

natural wildfire in the area would be explosive and impossible to control.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-9

Fuel Model 1 (Short Grass) - Surface fires that move rapidly through the continuous, 

cured or nearly cured herbaceous fuels. Surface fuel loading, less than 3 inches in 

diameter, is less than .74 tons per acre. Surface fuel bed depth is 1.0 foot.

Fuel Model 2 (Timber, Grass and Understory) - Fire spread is primarily through the 

fine fuels, such as grass and pine needles. The stand is open where larger pine and 

Douglas-fir cover one-to two-thirds of the area. Surface fuel loading, less than 3 inches 

in diameter, averages 4 tons per acre. Surface fuel bed depth is 1 foot.

Fuel Model 5 (Low Brush) - Fire is generally carried in the surface fuels that are made 

up of litter cast by the shrubs and the grasses or forbs in the understory. The fires are 

generally less intense because surface fuel loads are light. Surface fuel loading, less than 

3 inches in diameter, averages 3.5 tons per acre. Surface fuel bed depth is 2.0 feet. 

Fuel Model 8 (Timber, Closed Timber Litter) - A typical stand includes a closed 

canopy of short-needled conifers, such as Douglas-fir. The compact litter layer consists 

of needles, leaves and occasional twigs. Surface fuel loading, less than 3 inches in 

diameter, averages 5 tons per acre. Surface fuel bed depth is 0.2 feet. 

Fuel Model 10 (Timber, Litter and Understory) - Fires burn in the surface and ground 

fuels with greater fire intensity than the other timber litter models. Fuels in this model 

include greater quantities of dead and down material 3 inches and greater. Crowning, 

spotting and torching are more frequent in this fuel situation. Surface fuel loading, less 

than 3 inches in diameter, averages 12.0 tons per acres. Surface fuel bed depth is 1.0 

feet.

Function - The processes within an ecosystem through which the elements interact, such 

as succession, the food chain, fire, weather, and the hydrologic cycle.

G

Geographic Information System (GIS) – Computer software that provides database 

and spatial analytic capabilities.

Ground fire - A fire that burns along the forest floor and does not affect trees with thick 

bark or high crowns.

Ground fuels – All combustible materials below the surface litter layer. These fuels may 

be partially decomposed, such as forest soil organic layers (duff), dead moss and lichen 

layers, punky wood and deep organic layers (peat), or may be living plant material, such 

as tree and shrub roots. 

Groundwater - Water that sinks into the soil and is stored in slowly flowing and slowly 

renewed underground reservoirs called aquifers.

H

Habitat - The place where a plant or animal finds what it needs to survive, either 

year-round or seasonally.

Habitat capability - The ability of a habitat to support a given species of wildlife.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-10 Umatilla National Forest

Habitat type - A way of defining land areas potentially capable of producing similar 

plant communities at climax. In Forestry, habitat types are named for the predominant 

climax tree species.

For example, the Pinus Ponderosa habitat type series is habitat that typically supports 

climax Ponderosa Pine. A number of other habitat features can be identified using 

habitat types, such as aspect, elevation, climate, and use by wildlife species.

Harvest – (1) Felling and removal of trees from the forest; (2) removal of game animals 

or fish from a population, typically by hunting or fishing.

Headwaters – Beginning of a watershed; unbranched tributaries of a stream.

Hiding area/cover - Vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of an adult elk or deer from 

a human's view at a distance of 200 feet or less.

Historical Range of Variability (HRV) – The natural fluctuation of components of 

healthy ecosystems over time. In this EIS, it refers to the range of conditions and 

processes that are likely to have occurred prior to settlement of the project area by 

people of European descent (approximately the mid 1800s), which would have varied 

within certain limits over time.

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) – An area of land upstream from a specific point on a 

stream (designated as the mouth) that defines a hydrologic boundary and includes all of 

the source areas that could contribute surface water runoff directly and indirectly to the 

designated outlet point.

Hydrology - The study of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and underlying 

rocks, and in the atmosphere.

I

Indicator species - A plant or animal species that is presumed to be sensitive to habitat

change. Its presence indicates specific habitat conditions are also present. Population 

changes in an indicator species can indicate the effects of land management activities.

Indirect effects – Impacts on the environment that are caused by the action and are later 

in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

Individual tree selection - The removal of certain size and age classes of individual 

trees from a stand. Regeneration is allowed to naturally occur and an uneven-aged stand

is maintained.

Intensity (fire intensity) - The rate of heat release for an entire fire at a specific time.

Interdisciplinary team (IDT) - A team of individuals with skills from different 

disciplines that focuses on the same task or project, referred to as ID Team.

Intermediate harvest - The removal of trees from a stand between the time of its 

formation and harvest cutting. Thinning, liberation, and improvement cuts are all types 

of intermediate harvest. Sometimes salvage harvests and sanitation harvests are termed 

intermediate.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-11

Intermittent stream - A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it 

receives water from streams or some surface source, such as melting snow.

Irretrievable – A category of impacts that applies to losses of production or 

commitment of renewable natural resources.

Irreversible – A category of impacts that applies to non-renewable resources, such as 

minerals and archaeological sites. Losses of these resources cannot be reversed.

Irreversible effects can also refer to effects of actions on resources that can be renewed 

only after a very long period of time, such as the loss of soil productivity.

Issue – A matter of controversy, dispute, or general concern over resource management 

activities or land uses. To be considered a “significant “ EIS issue, it must be well 

defined, relevant to the proposed action, and within the ability of the agency to address 

through alternative management strategies. 

L

Ladder fuels – Fuels which provide vertical continuity between strata. Fire is able to 

carry from the surface fuels by convection into the crowns with relative ease.

Landing - Any place where cut timber is collected before further transport from the 

timber sale area.

Landscape - All the natural features such as grasslands, hills, forest, and water, which 

distinguish one part of the earth's surface from another; usually that portion of land 

which the eye can comprehend in a single view, including all its natural characteristics.

Late forest succession - The stage of forest succession in which most of the trees are 

mature or overmature.

Litter (forest litter) - The freshly fallen or only slightly decomposed plant material on 

the forest floor. This layer includes foliage, bark fragments, twigs, flowers, and fruit.

M

Mainstem – The main channel of the river in a river basin, as opposed to the streams 

and smaller rivers that feed into it.

Management action - Any activity undertaken as part of the administration of the 

National Forest.

Management area – An aggregation of capability areas that have a common 

management direction, and may be dispersed over the Forest.

Marginal cover – A stand of coniferous trees 10 or more feet tall with an average 

canopy closure equal to or more than 40 percent but less than 70 percent and generally 

capable of obscuring at least 90 percent of a standing elk from the view of humans at a 

distance of 200 feet..

Merchantable timber - Timber that can be bought or sold.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-12 Umatilla National Forest

MIS (management indicator species) - A wildlife species selected by a land 

management agency to indicate the health of the ecosystem in which it lives and, 

consequently, the effects of forest management activities on that ecosystem (see 

"indicator species").

Mitigation - Measures designed to counteract environmental impacts or make impacts 

less severe.

Mixed stand - A stand consisting of two or more tree species.

MBF - Thousand Board Feet (see board foot).

MMBF - Million Board Feet (see board foot).

Monitoring - A process of collecting information to evaluate whether or not objectives 

of a project and its mitigation activities are being realized.

Mortality - The loss of a population due to all lethal causes, often referring to the rate of 

death of a species in a given population or community.

Mosaic - A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of plant communities are 

interspersed in patches, such as a meadow between stands of old growth.

Multiple-use management – The management of public lands and their various 

resource values so they are used in the combination that best meets the present and 

future needs of the American people.

N

Natural regeneration – Reforestation of a site by natural seeding from surrounding 

trees. Natural regeneration may or may not be preceded by site preparation.

Natural resource - Water, soil, wild plants and animals, air, minerals, nutrients, and 

other resources produced by the earth's natural processes.

NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) - An act of Congress passed in 1969 

declaring a national policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between 

people and their environment. Section 102 of the NEPA requires a statement of possible 

environmental effects be released to

the public and other agencies for review and comment.

NFMA (National Forest Management Act) - A law passed in 1976 requiring the 

preparation of Regional Guides and Forest Plans and regulations to guide that 

development.

No Action alternative - The most likely condition expected to exist in the future if 

management practices continue unchanged.

Non-system road/unclassified road – Any continuous set of wheel tracks that exist for 

more than one season, and does not belong to the transportation system. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-13

Noxious weed - A weed that causes disease or has other adverse effects on man or his 

environment and, therefore, is detrimental to public health and the agriculture and 

commerce of the United States. Noxious weeds are often aggressive and difficult to 

manage and non-native, new, or not common to the United States.

O

Old growth - Old forests often containing several canopy layers, variety in tree sizes 

and species, decadent old trees, and standing and dead woody material.

Ongoing actions – Actions that have been implemented, or have contracts awarded or 

permits issued.

Open system road – Classified system road, open to public use.

Overmature timber - Trees that have attained full development, particularly in height, 

and are declining in vigor, health, and soundness.

Overstory - The upper canopy layer; the plants below comprise the understory.

P

PACFISH – Interim strategies for managing Pacific anadromous fish-producing 

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California.

Park-like structure - Stands with large scattered trees, few or no understory trees, and 

open growing conditions, usually maintained by frequent ground fires.

Patch - An area of uniform vegetation that differs in structure and composition from 

what surrounds it.

Perennial stream - A stream that flows throughout the year from its source to mouth.

Pre-commercial thinning - Removing some of the trees from a stand that are too small 

to be sold for lumber or house logs so the remaining trees will grow faster.

Predator - An animal that captures and feeds on parts or all of an organism of another 

species.

Preferred alternative – The alternative identified in a draft environmental impact 

statement which has been initially selected by the agency as the most acceptable 

resolution to the problems identified in the purpose and need.

Prescribed fire - The intentional use of fire under specified conditions to achieve 

specific management objectives.

Prescription – Measurable criteria that define conditions under which a prescribed fire

may be ignited, guide selection of appropriate management responses, and indicate other 

required actions. Prescription criteria may include safety, economic, public health, and 

environmental, geographic, administrative, social, or legal considerations. 

Present net value (PNV) [also called present net worth] - The measure of the economic 

value of a project when costs and revenues occur at different times. Future revenues and 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-14 Umatilla National Forest

costs are "discounted " to the present by an interest rate that reflects the changing value 

of a dollar over time. The assumption is that dollars today are more valuable than dollars 

in the future. PNV is used to compare project alternatives that have different cost and 

revenue flows.

Public involvement - The use of appropriate procedures to inform the public, obtain 

early and continuing public participation, and consider the views of interested parties in 

planning and decision making.

R

Range of variability - The fluctuation, over time, in the population, size, and 

components of healthy ecosystems.

Rangeland (range) - Land on which the principle natural plant cover is composed of 

native grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are valuable as forage for livestock and big game.

Reforestation - The restocking of an area with forest trees by either natural or artificial 

means such as planting.

Regeneration - The process of establishing a new tree crop on previously harvested 

land. The term also refers to the young crop itself.

Regeneration harvest - A silvicultural treatment intended to regenerate a stand of trees.

Shelterwood and seed tree harvests are forms of regeneration treatments.

Resilient, resiliency -The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. Resiliency is 

one of the properties that enable the system to persist in many different states or 

successional stages 

Restoration (of ecosystems) - Actions taken to modify an ecosystem to achieve a 

desired, healthy, and functioning conditions and processes. Generally refers to the 

process of enabling the system to resume its resiliency to disturbances.

Revegetation - Establishing or reestablishing desirable plants on a site where they are 

absent or in few numbers. Revegetation can be accomplished through natural or artificial 

reseeding or transplanting.

Riparian area - The area along a watercourse or around a lake or pond. Area with 

distinctive soil and vegetation between a stream or other body of water and the adjacent 

upland; includes wetlands and those portions of floodplains and valley bottoms that 

support riparian vegetation.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) – Portions of watershed where ripariandependent resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to 

specific standards and guidelines. RHCAs include traditional riparian corridors, 

wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and other areas where proper ecological 

functioning is crucial to maintenance of the stream's water, sediment, woody debris and 

nutrient delivery systems.

Runoff - The portion of precipitation that flows over the land surface or in open 

channels.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-15

S

Salvage – Salvage timber harvest is defined as "the removal of dead trees or trees 

damaged or dying because of injurious agents other than competition, to recover 

economic value that would otherwise be lost" (Helms 1998). When a fire front passes a 

tree, some of the resulting heat is transferred to the vascular cambium, foliage and roots.

If the temperatures are high enough and the flame residence time is long enough, these 

tissues are killed. When a high proportion of the cambium, crown or fine roots are killed, 

the whole tree dies. Lower temperatures or shorter residence times will injure tissues 

rather than kill them (Dickinson and Johnson 2001).

Satisfactory cover – A stand of coniferous trees 40 or more feet tall with an average 

canopy closure equal to or more than 70 percent. Umatilla Forest Plan defines it as cover

used by animals to ameliorate the effect of weather.

Scoping - The early stages of preparation of an environmental analysis to determine public 

opinion, receive comments and suggestions, and determine issues during the 

environmental analysis process. It may involve public meetings, telephone conversations, 

or letters.

Seasonally Closed Road – Classified system road closed to public use for part of the year.

Sediment – Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by 

water, gravity, ice, or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position 

and eventually will settle to the bottom.

Sensitive species - A sensitive species is one that has been designated by the Regional 

Forester because of concern for population viability. Indications for concern include 

significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or in 

habitat capability that would reduce an existing species distribution.

Seral - Refers to the sequence of transitional plant communities during succession. Early 

seral refers to plants that are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new 

successional process (such as seedling or sapling growth stages in a forest); mid-seral in a 

forest would refer to pole or medium saw timber growth stages; late or old seral refers to 

plants present during a later stage of plant community succession (such as mature or old 

forest stages).

Shade-intolerant species - Species of plants that do not grow well in the shade of others.

They are species that develop on a site soon after a major disturbance. Ponderosa pine and 

western larch are

shade-intolerant tree species.

Shade-tolerant species - Species of plants that grow well in the shade of others.

Douglas-fir is a relatively shade-tolerant tree.

Shelterwood harvest - A regeneration cut designed to establish a new crop of trees under 

the protection of the old. This type of harvest typically occurs in stages with a second entry 

following the first after regeneration has occurred.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-16 Umatilla National Forest

Silvicultural system - The cultivation of forests; the result is a forest of a distinct form.

Silvicultural systems are classified according to harvest and regeneration methods and the 

type of forest that results.

Silviculture - The practice of manipulating the establishment, composition, structure, 

growth, and rate of succession of forests to accomplish specific objectives.

Site potential – A measure of resource availability based on interactions among soils, 

climate, hydrology, and vegetation.

Site preparation - The general term for removing unwanted vegetation, slash, roots, and 

stones from a site before reforestation. Naturally-occurring wildfire as well as prescribed 

fire can prepare a site for natural regeneration.

Slash - The residue left on the ground after timber cutting or after a storm, fire, or other 

event. Slash includes unused logs, uprooted stumps, broken or uprooted stems, branches,

bark, etc.

Smolt – Young salmon or trout migrating to the ocean and undergoing biological changes 

to enable them to move from freshwater streams to saltwater.

Snag - A standing dead tree.

Soil compaction - The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy 

equipment on soils can compact the soil and thereby change it in some ways, such as in its 

ability to absorb water.

Soil productivity - The capacity of a soil to produce a specific crop. Productivity depends 

on adequate moisture and soil nutrients as well as favorable climate.

Species – A population or series of populations of organisms that can interbreed freely 

with each other but not with members of other species.

Stability – Ability of a living system to withstand or recover from externally imposed 

changes or stresses.

Stand - A group of trees in a specific area that are sufficiently alike in composition, age, 

arrangement, and condition so as to be distinguishable from the forest in adjoining areas.

Stand composition – The vegetative species that make up the stand.

Stand density – Refers to the number of trees growing in a given area, usually expressed 

in trees per acre.

Stand replacement - Fire that kills upwards of 70 percent of overstory trees.

Stand structure –The mix and distribution of tree sizes, layers, and ages in a forest. Some 

stands are all one size (single-story), some are two-story, and some are a mix of trees of 

different ages and sizes (multi-story).

Standards and guidelines - Requirements found in a Forest Plan which impose limits on 

natural resource management activities, generally for environmental protection.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District G-17

Stream morphology – The study of the form and structure of streams.

Succession - The predictable, natural replacement of one plant community with another 

over time. The different stages in succession are often referred to as seral stages (see 

"seral").

Successional stage - A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare 

ground to climax. The grass-forb stage of succession precedes the woody shrub stage (see 

"seral").

Suitability - The appropriateness of certain resource management practices for an area of 

land. Suitability can be determined by environmental and economic analysis of 

management practices.

Sustainability – (1) Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the abilities 

of future generations to meet their needs; emphasizing and maintaining the underlying 

ecological processes that ensure long-term productivity of goods, services, and values 

without impairing productivity of the land. (2) In commodity production, refers to the 

yield of a natural resource that can be produced continually at a given intensity of 

management.

T

Thinning - A cutting made in an immature stand of trees to accelerate growth of the 

remaining trees or to improve the form of the remaining trees.

Threatened species - Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered 

throughout all or a specific portion of their range within the foreseeable future as 

designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973.

Tiering – In an EIS, refers to incorporating by reference the analyses in an EIS of a 

broader scope. For example, a Forest Service project-level EIS could tier to the analysis 

in a Forest Plan EIS; a Forest Plan EIS could tier to a Regional Guide EIS.

Total cover – All coniferous tree cover 10 or more feet tall and with a canopy closure of 

equal to or greater than 40 percent (i.e. satisfactory cover plus marginal cover).

Tractor logging - A logging method that uses tractors to carry or drag logs from the 

stump to a landing.

Transitory Range – Land that is suitable for grazing use of a non-enduring nature over 

a period of time; often found in the openings created by timber harvesting activities. For 

example, on particularly disturbed lands, grass may cover the area for a period of time 

before being replaced by trees or shrubs not suitable for forage. 

U

Unauthorized or Temporary Road – Formerly also referred to as unclassified road.

These are defined as Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as 

part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned traveled 

way, and off-road vehicle track that have not been designated and managed as a trail; 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

G-18 Umatilla National Forest

and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not 

decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization. Roads not authorized or 

necessary for long-term resource management.

Underburn - A burn by a surface fire that can consume ground vegetation and ladder 

fuels.

Understory - The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath the overstory.

Uneven-aged management - Method of forest management in which trees of different 

species in a given stand are maintained at many ages and sizes to permit continuous 

natural regeneration. Selective cutting is one example of an uneven-aged management 

method.

Uneven-aged stand – Stand of trees in which there are considerable differences in the 

ages of individual trees.

V

Vegetation management - Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest 

vegetation for multiple-use purposes.

Vertical diversity - The diversity in a stand that results from the different layers or tiers 

of vegetation.

Viable population - The number of individuals of a species sufficient to ensure the 

long-term existence of the species in natural, self-sustaining populations that are 

adequately distributed throughout their range.

W

Water yield - The runoff from a watershed including groundwater outflow.

Watershed - The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir). More 

specifically, a watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that 

contributes water to the stream flow at that point.

Wetlands - Areas that are permanently wet or intermittently covered with water.

Wetlands generally include swamps, bogs, seeps, wet meadows, and natural ponds.

Wildfire - A human or naturally caused wildland fire that does not meet land 

management objectives.

Winter range - That portion of big game's range where animals congregate for the 

winter.

X, Y, Z

Yarding – Hauling timber from the stump to a collection point. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District I-1

Index

Activity Fuels, iv, 1-21, 2-30, 2-35, 2-38, 3-74, 3-76, 3-

143, 3-145, 3-147, 3-155, 3-166, 3-171, 3-210, 3-

211, 3-219, 3-220, 2

Adfluvial individuals, 2

Affected Environment, 1-13, 2-43, 3-47, 3-49, 3-51, 3-

62, 3-80, 3-135, 3-153, 3-195, 3-201, 3-204, 3-209, 

3-213, 3-216, 2

Age Class, 1-19, 2-45, 3-189, 3-191, 3-193, 3-194, 3-

224, 2, 10

Air Quality, vii, 1-22, 2-42, 3-62, 3-204, 3-209, 3-210, 

3-211, 3-212, 3-213, 3-229, 3-239, 4-1, 1, 2, 11, 28

Airshed, 3-212, 2

Allotment, 3-49, 3-51, 3-85, 3-141, 3-149, 3-151, 3-

178, 3-185, 3-214, 2

Alternative, 3, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, 1-13, 1-21, 1-27, 2-29, 

2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-37, 2-38, 3-47, 3-51, 3-55, 3-56, 

3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-62, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 

3-77, 3-78, 3-81, 3-83, 3-86, 3-102, 3-103, 3-105, 

3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-

113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116, 3-118, 3-121, 3-126, 3-

131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-

145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-148, 3-149, 3-152, 3-153, 3-

154, 3-162, 3-163, 3-166, 3-168, 3-169, 3-170, 3-

171, 3-172, 3-173, 3-177, 3-178, 3-179, 3-182, 3-

183, 3-185, 3-190, 3-191, 3-192, 3-193, 3-194, 3-

195, 3-196, 3-198, 3-201, 3-202, 3-203, 3-207, 3-

208, 3-209, 3-210, 3-211, 3-212, 3-214, 3-215, 3-

216, 3-217, 3-218, 3-219, 3-220, 3-221, 3-225, 3-

227, 3-229, 3-232, 3-234, 3-235, 3-236, 3-237, 3-

238, 3-239, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17

Anadromous Fish, 1-23, 3-52, 3-213, 3-216, 2, 13, 15, 

30

Aspect, 3-188, 3-200, 3-213, 2, 10

Bankful Width, 2-40, 2

Basal Area, 2-33, 2-45, 3-66, 3-99, 3-136, 2

Beneficial Uses, 3-136, 3-146, 3-148, 2

Best Management Practices, 2-39, 2-46, 3-131, 3-132, 

3-134, 3-135, 3-139, 3-143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-146, 3-

147, 3-148, 3-151, 3-153, 3-154, 3-164, 3-167, 3-

202, 3-226, 3-227, 3-230, 3-233, 3-235, 1, 3, 18, 

31, 17

Big Game, i, iii, 1-14, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 2-

35, 3-49, 3-63, 3-78, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-110, 

3-116, 3-144, 3-199, 3-206, 3-224, 3-225, 3, 8, 14, 

18

Biological Assessment, 1-24, 1, 3, 1, 2

Biological Diversity, 3, 9

Biophysical, ii, iii, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-25, 2-43, 3-52, 3-

55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-86, 3, 14, 25, 15, 

16

Board Foot, 3-219, 3-221, 1, 3, 12

Broadcast Burn, iv, 2-29, 2-30, 3-50, 3-145, 3-147, 3-

163, 3-166, 3-171, 3-224, 3-225, 3

Browse, 3

Buffer, 2-43, 3-155, 3-164, 3-168, 3-189, 3, 16

Burn Severity, 2-32, 3-111, 3-113, 3-143, 3-149, 3-

151, 3-155, 3-162, 3-165, 3-170, 3-172, 7

Canopy, iii, iv, v, vi, 1-15, 1-16, 1-19, 1-21, 2-30, 2-32, 

2-34, 2-35, 2-44, 3-52, 3-60, 3-65, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 

3-70, 3-71, 3-74, 3-75, 3-83, 3-87, 3-92, 3-94, 3-98, 

3-99, 3-101, 3-109, 3-111, 3-114, 3-115, 3-118, 3-

119, 3-136, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144, 3-157, 3-

179, 3-190, 3-192, 3-198, 3-200, 3-201, 3-224, 3-

236, 3-237, 3, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 16

Canopy Closure, 2-44, 3-60, 3-83, 3-98, 3, 11, 15, 17, 

16

Capability, 3-122, 3-226, 3, 11

Catastrophic Wildfire, 4

Cavity, 1-19, 3-80, 3-82, 3-87, 3-88, 3-90, 3-104, 3-

113, 3-114, 3-202, 4, 24

Channel, 2-39, 2-40, 3-120, 3-123, 3-133, 3-134, 3-

136, 3-138, 3-141, 3-142, 3-143, 3-146, 3-147, 3-

148, 3-149, 3-151, 3-152, 3-161, 3-163, 3-232, 3-

235, 2, 4, 5, 11, 17

Classified Road, 4

Clearcutting, 2-32, 2-38, 3-188, 3-229, 4, 7, 17

Closed System Road, 1-21, 2-36, 3-235, 4

Code of Federal Registrar, 3, iv, 1-22, 2-29, 2-30, 3-

48, 3-49, 3-174, 3-177, 3-196, 3-233, 1, 4, 15, 26

Commercial Thinning, 1-27, 3-50, 3-62, 3-75, 3-76, 3-

110, 3-135, 3-170, 3-215, 3-219, 3-220, 4

Community, 1-25, 2-32, 3-61, 3-184, 3-214, 3-229, 4, 

12, 15, 17

Compaction, 1-20, 2-39, 3-156, 3-157, 3-158, 3-163, 

3-164, 3-165, 3-169, 3-172, 3-202, 4, 32, 33

Connectivity, v, 1-23, 1-28, 2-31, 2-37, 2-43, 2-44, 3-

57, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-80, 3-140, 3-223, 4, 16, 17

Consultation, 1-13, 1-24, 1-27, 2-42, 3-136, 3-174, 3-

178, 3-226, 3-230, 3-232, 3-234, 4-1, 4-3, 4, 1, 2, 

18

Corridor, 3-111, 5, 16

Cover, 2, ii, iii, v, vi, vii, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-19, 1-

20, 1-28, 2-31, 2-32, 2-37, 2-42, 2-43, 3-49, 3-52, 

3-53, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-68, 3-69, 

3-71, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-86, 3-90, 

3-91, 3-94, 3-96, 3-99, 3-100, 3-102, 3-104, 3-105, 

3-106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-114, 3-

115, 3-116, 3-118, 3-119, 3-133, 3-136, 3-141, 3-

144, 3-146, 3-147, 3-149, 3-150, 3-151, 3-155, 3-

156, 3-157, 3-159, 3-160, 3-162, 3-163, 3-164, 3-

166, 3-167, 3-170, 3-179, 3-181, 3-183, 3-184, 3-

187, 3-200, 3-222, 3-224, 3-225, 3-228, 3-234, 3-
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

I-2 Umatilla National Forest

236, 3-237, 3-238, 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 7, 13, 18, 

21, 27, 15, 17

Critical Habitat, 1-24, 3-121, 3-122, 3-124, 3-125, 3-

126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-131, 3-132, 3-174, 3-175, 3-

226, 3-227, 5

Crown, v, vi, 2-35, 3-63, 3-65, 3-66, 3-68, 3-71, 3-72, 

3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-103, 3-

105, 3-113, 3-116, 3-117, 3-191, 3-192, 3-197, 3-

212, 5, 15, 4, 5

Crown Fire, v, vi, 2-35, 3-63, 3-65, 3-66, 3-68, 3-71, 3-

72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-103, 

3-105, 3-113, 3-116, 3-117, 5, 4, 5

Cubic Feet, 4

Cultural Resources, 1-22, 1-24, 1-25, 1-26, 2-42, 3-47, 

3-80, 3-122, 3-203, 3-204, 3-226, 3-231, 3-232, 3-

234, 3-235, 3-238, 4-1, 4-2, 5, 2

Cumulative Effects, vi, 1-13, 1-27, 2-29, 3-47, 3-48, 3-

49, 3-52, 3-55, 3-60, 3-62, 3-78, 3-80, 3-112, 3-

114, 3-124, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3-136, 3-

149, 3-150, 3-152, 3-153, 3-161, 3-162, 3-163, 3-

165, 3-166, 3-170, 3-172, 3-173, 3-175, 3-176, 3-

177, 3-178, 3-179, 3-185, 3-187, 3-188, 3-191, 3-

196, 3-202, 3-203, 3-204, 3-207, 3-208, 3-212, 3-

215, 3-221, 3-222, 3-223, 3-226, 3-228, 3-236, 3-

237, 3-238, 5, 7, 6, 17, 18

Danger Tree, iv, v, 1-22, 1-27, 2-30, 2-31, 2-36, 3-51, 

3-110, 3-112, 3-144, 3-145, 3-179, 3-215, 3-236, 5, 

14

DecAid, 5

Decommission, 3-145, 3-147, 5

Desired Future Condition, iii, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 

1-20, 1-25, 2-33, 3-63, 3-154, 3-224, 3-227, 3-229, 

1, 5

Diameter at Breast Height, iv, 1-21, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 

2-33, 2-35, 2-43, 2-44, 3-61, 3-86, 3-88, 3-110, 1, 5

Direct Effect, 3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-143, 3-

145, 3-147, 3-164, 3-166, 3-168, 3-171, 3-172, 3-

176, 3-194, 3-211, 3-214, 3-239, 6

Disturbance, i, iii, vi, vii, 1-14, 1-16, 1-19, 1-21, 2-34, 

2-39, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-45, 2-46, 3-54, 3-55, 3-58, 

3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-67, 3-71, 3-73, 3-78, 3-84, 

3-94, 3-97, 3-100, 3-103, 3-104, 3-112, 3-116, 3-

117, 3-119, 3-120, 3-133, 3-141, 3-142, 3-144, 3-

145, 3-146, 3-149, 3-151, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-

162, 3-164, 3-165, 3-166, 3-168, 3-170, 3-172, 3-

173, 3-176, 3-179, 3-180, 3-181, 3-183, 3-186, 3-

187, 3-189, 3-191, 3-194, 3-199, 3-200, 3-207, 3-

215, 3-222, 3-227, 3-228, 3-233, 3-235, 3-238, 6, 

15, 8, 10, 12, 16, 21, 34, 15, 17

Diversity, iii, iv, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-23, 2-45, 3-

82, 3-111, 3-116, 3-122, 3-175, 3-176, 3-192, 3-

221, 3-224, 3-226, 3-239, 6, 8, 18, 32

Duff, 2-32, 2-35, 2-41, 3-66, 3-71, 3-164, 3-191, 3-

212, 6, 9

Early Forest Succession, 6

Eastside Screens, ii, 1-14, 1-15, 1-23, 3-52, 3-56, 3-59, 

3-60, 3-80, 3-85, 3-86, 3-99, 3-113, 3-114, 3-223, 

6, 26, 1, 15, 16

Ecological Approach, 6

Ecology, 3-92, 3-102, 3-136, 3-211, 6, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 

29, 31, 32, 34

Ecosystem, iii, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 1-

25, 3-52, 3-73, 3-85, 3-120, 3-123, 3-144, 3-153, 3-

155, 3-175, 3-176, 3-201, 3-213, 3-216, 3-223, 3-

239, 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 

15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 15

Endangered Species, 1-25, 2-29, 3-78, 3-80, 3-94, 3-

97, 3-122, 3-126, 3-136, 3-173, 3-174, 3-175, 3-

226, 3-230, 3-234, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 1, 17, 18, 27, 

29, 30

Environmental Analysis, 1-27, 2-32, 1, 6, 15

Environmental Impact Statement, 1, 3, 1-13, 1-22, 1-

23, 1-24, 1-25, 1-28, 2-37, 3-47, 3-48, 3-81, 3-112, 

3-113, 3-114, 3-149, 3-174, 3-181, 3-196, 3-202, 3-

203, 3-213, 3-216, 4-1, 4-2, 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 13, 17, 

18, 31, 34

Ephemeral Streams, 3-144, 7

Equivalent Treatment Acres, 3-49, 3-150, 3-152, 7

Erosion, 2-40, 2-41, 3-50, 3-133, 3-134, 3-136, 3-139, 

3-140, 3-143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-146, 3-148, 3-149, 3-

151, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-158, 3-159, 3-

160, 3-161, 3-162, 3-163, 3-164, 3-165, 3-166, 3-

167, 3-168, 3-170, 3-171, 3-176, 3-202, 3-206, 3-

213, 3-227, 3-228, 3-233, 3-235, 1, 5, 7, 16, 17, 19, 

33, 34

Even-aged Management, 3-229, 7, 17

Even-aged Stands, 2-43, 7

Fauna, 3-180, 7, 30

Fine Fuels, 3-69, 3-70, 7, 9

Fire Behavior, 3-65, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-142, 3-148, 3-

151, 3-170, 3-171, 3-211, 7, 3, 4

Fire Intensity, iii, iv, v, 1-15, 1-17, 1-21, 2-30, 2-34, 3-

47, 3-48, 3-64, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 

3-105, 3-106, 3-116, 3-120, 3-141, 3-143, 3-151, 3-

159, 3-162, 3-165, 3-167, 3-176, 3-178, 3-182, 3-

202, 3-211, 3-222, 3-224, 3, 7, 9, 10, 17

Fire Regimes, ii, iii, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 2-35, 2-43, 3-61, 

3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-68, 3-70, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 

3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-146, 3-148, 3-151, 3-167, 

3-170, 3-171, 3-237, 7, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16

Fire Severity, iii, 1-15, 3-68, 3-73, 3-141, 3-143, 3-151, 

3-184, 7, 10, 14

Fire-dependent, iii, 1-16, 2-35, 3-144, 3-239, 7

Fire-intolerant, 2-43, 3-61, 3-66, 3-68, 3-103, 7, 16

Fire-tolerant, iii, 1-16, 1-21, 2-35, 3-66, 3-71, 3-74, 7

Flora, 3-180, 7, 6

Fluvial Individuals, 8

Forage, iii, v, vii, 1-16, 1-17, 1-19, 1-20, 2-31, 2-35, 2-

42, 3-51, 3-78, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-97, 3-103, 

3-105, 3-110, 3-116, 3-144, 3-151, 3-202, 3-214, 3-

215, 3-224, 3-225, 3-230, 3-238, 8, 14, 17

Forb, vii, 3-53, 3-157, 8, 17, 32

foreground, 2-45, 3-187, 3-188, 3-189, 3-190, 3-191, 

3-192, 3-193, 3-200

Foreground, 3-187, 3-188, 3-190, 3-192, 3-194, 8
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District I-3

Forest Health, 3-62, 8, 9, 11, 15

Forest Plan, 3, ii, iii, iv, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-

18, 1-23, 1-25, 1-26, 2-29, 2-33, 2-39, 2-41, 2-42, 

2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 3-47, 3-51, 3-56, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 

3-63, 3-80, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-88, 3-93, 

3-103, 3-109, 3-110, 3-122, 3-135, 3-144, 3-146, 3-

153, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-159, 3-161, 3-

163, 3-166, 3-167, 3-170, 3-173, 3-176, 3-181, 3-

186, 3-187, 3-189, 3-191, 3-193, 3-194, 3-195, 3-

196, 3-197, 3-199, 3-201, 3-202, 3-203, 3-204, 3-

205, 3-213, 3-216, 3-223, 3-224, 3-225, 3-226, 3-

227, 3-228, 3-229, 3-230, 3-234, 3-238, 3-239, 1, 

6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 14, 15, 19, 23, 26, 27, 15, 16, 

17

Fragmentation, 3-85, 3-93, 3-223, 5, 8, 16

Fuel Break, 2-35, 8

Fuel Ladder, ii, 1-15, 1-21, 2-32, 2-34, 2-35, 3-65, 3-

66, 3-69, 3-71, 3-75, 3-105, 3-113, 3-116, 3-117, 3-

143, 3-144, 3-237, 8, 11, 18

Fuel Load, iii, v, vi, 1-15, 2-29, 2-30, 2-46, 3-62, 3-67, 

3-68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-74, 3-75, 3-103, 3-146, 3-

159, 3-164, 3-165, 3-167, 3-169, 3-170, 3-211, 3-

212, 3-222, 3-225, 3-237, 8, 9

Fuel Model, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 9, 3, 4

Fuels Management, 3-47, 3-51, 3-131, 3-132, 3-144, 

3-211, 3-224, 3-225, 3-226, 8

Function, iii, vi, 1-15, 1-28, 2-35, 3-64, 3-65, 3-73, 3-

83, 3-133, 3-134, 3-138, 3-140, 3-141, 3-142, 3-

143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-149, 3-151, 3-

159, 3-165, 3-227, 9, 10

Geographic Information System, iv, 2-30, 3-49, 3-63, 

3-80, 3-123, 3-128, 3-138, 3-156, 3-161, 3-169, 3-

176, 3-196, 3-204, 4-1, 1, 9, 19

Ground Fire, 9, 13

Ground Fuels, 2-30, 2-31, 2-34, 2-35, 3-66, 3-67, 3-69, 

3-70, 3-71, 3-105, 3-116, 3-144, 9, 11

Groundwater, 3-138, 3-143, 3-149, 3-202, 9, 18

Habitat, 3, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 

1-21, 1-23, 1-24, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 2-29, 2-31, 2-37, 

2-39, 2-40, 2-43, 2-44, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52, 3-57, 3-59, 

3-60, 3-61, 3-63, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 

3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-92, 3-93, 

3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-101, 3-

102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-109, 3-110, 3-

111, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-

118, 3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 3-123, 3-124, 3-

125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-129, 3-130, 3-131, 3-

132, 3-133, 3-139, 3-144, 3-149, 3-174, 3-175, 3-

176, 3-177, 3-178, 3-179, 3-180, 3-186, 3-199, 3-

200, 3-202, 3-204, 3-223, 3-224, 3-225, 3-226, 3-

227, 3-230, 3-231, 3-232, 3-235, 3-238, 3-239, 4-2, 

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 5, 6, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 

22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 17

Habitat Capability, 1-19, 3-95, 3-224, 9, 15

Habitat Type, 1-18, 3-82, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-97, 3-

128, 3-178, 10

Harvest, 3, ii, iii, iv, 1-15, 1-16, 1-20, 1-21, 1-25, 1-27, 

2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 

2-41, 2-43, 2-46, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-67, 3-70, 3-74, 

3-75, 3-76, 3-83, 3-85, 3-86, 3-88, 3-97, 3-100, 3-

106, 3-109, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116, 3-

117, 3-119, 3-120, 3-131, 3-133, 3-135, 3-136, 3-

139, 3-143, 3-144, 3-146, 3-147, 3-148, 3-149, 3-

150, 3-152, 3-155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-158, 3-159, 3-

161, 3-163, 3-164, 3-165, 3-167, 3-168, 3-169, 3-

170, 3-172, 3-179, 3-181, 3-187, 3-188, 3-189, 3-

190, 3-191, 3-192, 3-194, 3-196, 3-197, 3-198, 3-

199, 3-200, 3-201, 3-202, 3-203, 3-207, 3-208, 3-

211, 3-215, 3-216, 3-217, 3-218, 3-219, 3-220, 3-

223, 3-224, 3-226, 3-230, 3-232, 3-233, 3-234, 3-

235, 3-238, 3-239, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 

28, 33, 34, 9, 15, 16, 17

Headwaters, 2, 3-87, 3-123, 3-137, 3-156, 3-197, 3-

217, 10, 28

Hiding Area, 10

Historical Range of Variability, i, ii, iii, 1-14, 1-15, 1-

16, 2-43, 3-49, 3-60, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 

3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-78, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-

237, 1, 10, 9, 24, 15, 16

Hydrologic Unit Code, 3-123, 3-124, 3-127, 3-131, 3-

136, 1, 10

Indicator Species, v, 3-82, 3-202, 10, 12

Indirect Effects, 3-55, 3-59, 3-60, 3-73, 3-76, 3-78, 3-

80, 3-106, 3-131, 3-133, 3-134, 3-141, 3-142, 3-

143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-148, 3-150, 3-151, 3-

162, 3-163, 3-166, 3-171, 3-176, 3-177, 3-178, 3-

179, 3-181, 3-182, 3-185, 3-191, 3-193, 3-194, 3-

201, 3-203, 3-207, 3-211, 3-212, 3-214, 3-217, 3-

218, 3-219, 3-222, 3-226, 3-227, 3-239, 10

Individual Tree Selection, 10

Interdisciplinary Team, 3, 1-26, 1-27, 2-29, 2-39, 3-48, 

4-1, 10

Intermediate Harvest, 10

Intermittent Stream, 2-39, 3-138, 11

Irretrievable, 3-62, 3-79, 3-134, 3-153, 3-173, 3-180, 

3-186, 3-195, 3-204, 3-208, 3-213, 3-215, 3-221, 3-

230, 3-233, 11

Irreversible, 3-62, 3-79, 3-134, 3-153, 3-173, 3-180, 3-

186, 3-195, 3-204, 3-208, 3-213, 3-215, 3-221, 3-

230, 3-233, 11

Issue, v, 1-28, 2-37, 3-81, 3-83, 11, 3, 5, 19, 29

Landing, 2-34, 2-38, 2-40, 2-42, 3-156, 3-166, 3-192, 

3-228, 11, 17, 33, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Late Forest Succession, 11

Litter, 3-66, 3-69, 3-71, 3-105, 3-116, 3-141, 3-212, 8, 

9, 11

Mainstem, 3-125, 3-126, 3-132, 11

Management Area, iii, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-20, 1-28, 2-

42, 3-51, 3-63, 3-80, 3-82, 3-84, 3-85, 3-106, 3-

108, 3-109, 3-112, 3-190, 3-197, 3-199, 3-201, 3-

203, 3-204, 3-206, 3-223, 3-224, 3-225, 3-229, 1, 

11, 3

Management Indicator Species, 1-28, 3-80, 3-81, 3-

82, 3-86, 3-92, 3-93, 3-122, 3-226, 3-238, 1, 12, 24

Marginal Cover, 3-83, 3-106, 8, 11, 17

Merchantable Timber, 11
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

I-4 Umatilla National Forest

Mitigation, 1-27, 2-42, 3-47, 3-60, 3-78, 3-153, 3-154, 

3-157, 3-180, 3-212, 3-219, 3-222, 12, 6, 9, 13

Mixed Stand, 12

Monitoring, 1-27, 2-29, 2-42, 2-43, 2-46, 3-85, 3-95, 

3-122, 3-123, 3-131, 3-132, 3-134, 3-142, 3-151, 3-

156, 3-160, 3-163, 3-165, 3-181, 3-183, 3-187, 3-

213, 3-226, 12, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 30, 32, 34

Mortality, i, 1-14, 2-32, 2-35, 2-46, 3-56, 3-58, 3-60, 

3-63, 3-64, 3-66, 3-69, 3-83, 3-89, 3-98, 3-103, 3-

104, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-117, 3-

141, 3-192, 3-195, 3-222, 7, 12, 11

Mosaic, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 1-21, 2-44, 2-45, 3-63, 

3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-85, 3-110, 3-113, 3-163, 3-165, 

3-191, 3-199, 3-224, 3-225, 12

Multiple-Use Management, 12

National Environmental Policy Act, 1-13, 1-22, 1-25, 

3-47, 3-48, 3-52, 3-78, 3-158, 3-162, 3-174, 3-186, 

3-214, 3-233, 4-2, 4-3, 1, 12, 1, 6

National Forest Management Act, 1-25, 2-33, 3-80, 3-

81, 3-122, 3-174, 3-223, 3-234, 1, 8, 12, 1

Natural Regeneration, 2-33, 3-157, 12, 16, 18

No Action Alternative, 3, iv, v, vi, 2-29, 2-30, 3-55, 3-

59, 3-62, 3-73, 3-74, 3-78, 3-102, 3-103, 3-115, 3-

131, 3-133, 3-141, 3-143, 3-149, 3-162, 3-177, 3-

182, 3-185, 3-191, 3-201, 3-202, 3-203, 3-207, 3-

208, 3-211, 3-214, 3-215, 3-217, 3-221, 3-238, 12

Non-System Road, 3-142, 3-157, 12

Noxious Weeds, 2-42, 3-181, 3-183, 3-200, 3-202, 3-

204, 3-228, 3-233, 3-238, 13, 31

Old Growth, 1-18, 3-80, 3-82, 3-85, 3-86, 3-92, 3-93, 

3-94, 3-102, 3-223, 3-224, 6, 12, 13, 16

Ongoing Actions, 3-150, 13

Open System Road, 2-36, 13

Overmature, 3-224, 11, 13

Overstory, 1-15, 2-32, 2-33, 2-40, 3-50, 3-56, 3-57, 3-

58, 3-59, 3-63, 3-65, 3-66, 3-69, 3-71, 3-83, 3-133, 

3-141, 3-142, 3-150, 3-236, 13, 16, 18, 17

PACFISH, iv, 1-20, 1-23, 1-24, 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-39, 

2-43, 3-52, 3-120, 3-122, 3-123, 3-143, 3-144, 3-

168, 3-213, 3-216, 3-226, 13, 18, 30

Patch, 13

Perennial Stream, 3-129, 3-138, 3-143, 3-144, 3-150, 

3-161, 3-185, 13

Pre-Commercial Thinning, 3-145, 3-217, 13

Preferred Alternative, 2-30, 13

Prescribed Fire, iv, 1-19, 1-21, 1-27, 2-30, 2-32, 2-34, 

2-35, 2-39, 2-40, 2-43, 2-46, 3-51, 3-61, 3-62, 3-70, 

3-75, 3-78, 3-79, 3-83, 3-85, 3-89, 3-112, 3-114, 3-

115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-141, 3-

143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-147, 3-148, 3-150, 3-152, 3-

155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-162, 3-165, 3-166, 3-167, 3-

171, 3-178, 3-195, 3-198, 3-202, 3-207, 3-209, 3-

210, 3-211, 3-221, 3-224, 3-225, 3-228, 3-239, 3, 

8, 13, 16, 1, 2, 15, 17, 19, 20, 33, 34, 35

Prescription, 2-38, 2-46, 3-114, 3-119, 3-143, 3-165, 

3-193, 3-230, 7, 13, 17

Present Net Value, 3-238, 13

Public Involvement, 1-26, 14

Range, 3, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-

19, 1-20, 1-22, 1-28, 2-29, 2-30, 2-32, 2-36, 2-45, 

3-49, 3-50, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 

3-68, 3-73, 3-74, 3-80, 3-82, 3-83, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 

3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-96, 3-98, 3-99, 

3-100, 3-101, 3-110, 3-113, 3-114, 3-116, 3-120, 3-

133, 3-138, 3-139, 3-149, 3-150, 3-155, 3-158, 3-

159, 3-163, 3-164, 3-165, 3-175, 3-178, 3-185, 3-

188, 3-195, 3-199, 3-200, 3-202, 3-213, 3-224, 3-

225, 3-227, 3-229, 3-234, 3-238, 4-1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 

10, 14, 17, 18, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 

20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 33, 15

Range of Variability, i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, 1-14, 1-22, 2-30, 

3-49, 3-63, 3-64, 3-68, 3-73, 3-74, 3-87, 3-88, 3-

113, 3-114, 3-188, 4, 14, 5, 11, 13, 24

Reforestation, 1-27, 2-33, 2-45, 3-62, 3-219, 3-220, 3-

234, 12, 14, 16, 10, 13

Regeneration, 1-20, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-

35, 2-37, 2-38, 2-43, 3-68, 3-92, 3-109, 3-110, 3-

112, 3-119, 3-191, 3-192, 3-193, 3-214, 3-229, 3-

230, 4, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17

Regeneration Harvest, 1-20, 3-92, 3-109, 3-110, 4, 14

Resiliency, i, iv, vi, 1-14, 1-16, 3-69, 3-75, 3-77, 3-78, 

3-113, 3-114, 8, 14

Restoration, 1-23, 1-24, 3-97, 3-100, 3-119, 3-122, 3-

135, 3-154, 3-167, 3-168, 3-169, 3-172, 3-175, 3-

179, 3-216, 3-231, 5, 14, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, 22, 32, 33, 

34

Revegetation, 3-147, 3-175, 14

Riparian Area, 1-23, 3-82, 3-97, 3-106, 3-118, 3-119, 

3-120, 3-134, 3-151, 3-202, 3-215, 3-231, 14, 29

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area, 1-20, 1-22, 2-36, 

2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-46, 3-52, 3-140, 3-142, 3-143, 

3-215, 3-230, 1, 14, 18

Runoff, 3-134, 3-136, 3-142, 3-144, 3-147, 3-148, 3-

150, 3-156, 3-159, 3-161, 3-162, 3-166, 3-167, 3-

169, 3-170, 3-172, 10, 14, 18, 16

Salvage, 3-49, 3-50, 3-89, 3-93, 3-94, 3-97, 3-179, 3-

195, 10, 15, 10, 18

Satisfactory Cover, 1-19, 2-31, 3-83, 3-106, 3-224, 8, 

15, 17

Scoping, 3, iv, 1-13, 1-20, 1-26, 1-27, 1-28, 2-29, 2-30, 

2-37, 2-46, 3-81, 3-195, 3-232, 3-235, 3-236, 3-

238, 4-3, 15

Seasonally Closed Road, 15

Sediment, 2-40, 2-46, 3-120, 3-127, 3-133, 3-134, 3-

136, 3-138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-142, 3-143, 3-144, 3-

146, 3-148, 3-149, 3-150, 3-151, 3-152, 3-155, 3-

157, 3-158, 3-159, 3-160, 3-161, 3-163, 3-164, 3-

165, 3-167, 3-168, 3-171, 3-227, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 

34

sensitive, vi, vii, 1-19, 2-42, 2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 3-81, 3-

93, 3-95, 3-97, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-106, 3-120, 

3-121, 3-122, 3-128, 3-129, 3-131, 3-173, 3-174, 3-

175, 3-176, 3-177, 3-178, 3-179, 3-180, 3-186, 3-

188, 3-200, 3-202, 3-204, 3-210, 3-211, 3-212, 3-

226, 3-229, 3-231, 3-233, 3-235, 10, 15
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District I-5

Sensitive, 1-18, 1-19, 1-28, 3-80, 3-81, 3-83, 3-88, 3-

94, 3-95, 3-101, 3-104, 3-115, 3-122, 3-128, 3-129, 

3-131, 3-174, 3-180, 3-189, 3-199, 3-210, 3-225, 3-

230, 3-231, 3-234, 3-238, 1, 15, 2, 23, 25, 26, 30

Seral, i, iii, 1-14, 1-16, 1-20, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-

34, 3-53, 3-55, 3-56, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-68, 3-71, 

3-92, 3-103, 3-104, 3-111, 3-236, 15, 17, 12, 16

Shade-Intolerant, 3-53, 3-111, 3-192, 3-236, 15

Shade-Tolerant, iii, 1-15, 2-32, 3-53, 3-54, 3-60, 3-68, 

3-192, 3-236, 7, 15

Shelterwood Harvest, 2-32, 15

Silvicultural System, 16

Silviculture, iv, v, 2-31, 2-32, 3-51, 3-52, 3-54, 3-62, 3-

68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-81, 3-85, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-

149, 3-223, 3-237, 16, 4, 5, 34, 15, 17

Site Potential, 2-44, 3-60, 3-142, 16, 17

Site Preparation, 3-144, 3-151, 3-165, 12, 16

Slash, 2-34, 2-35, 2-38, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 2-43, 2-

45, 3-61, 3-145, 3-164, 3-165, 3-169, 3-178, 3-187, 

3-192, 3-198, 3-201, 3-224, 16, 31, 33

Smolt, 16

Snag, v, 1-19, 1-23, 1-25, 1-28, 2-37, 2-43, 2-44, 2-46, 

3-61, 3-74, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 

3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-96, 3-98, 3-99, 

3-103, 3-104, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-

115, 3-117, 3-118, 3-119, 3-200, 3-202, 3-231, 3-

238, 4, 5, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26, 17

Soil Compaction, 3-213, 16

Soil Productivity, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-158, 

3-160, 3-162, 3-163, 3-166, 3-168, 3-169, 3-171, 3-

172, 3-173, 3-227, 11, 16

Stability, vii, viii, 1-17, 1-19, 3-92, 3-127, 3-142, 3-

143, 3-144, 3-151, 3-154, 3-155, 3-157, 3-158, 3-

160, 3-161, 3-167, 3-175, 3-176, 3-212, 3-213, 3-

221, 3-224, 3-239, 7, 16, 9

Stand Composition, i, 1-14, 16

Stand Density, vi, 1-16, 2-35, 2-43, 3-55, 3-57, 3-58, 

3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-65, 3-69, 3-192, 3-222, 16, 6, 

12, 13, 17

Stand Replacement, 16

Stand Structure, 2-31, 3-56, 3-58, 3-59, 3-74, 3-81, 3-

112, 3-113, 3-115, 3-118, 3-194, 3-200, 3-222, 3-

237, 3-239, 16, 32, 15

Standards and Guidelines, 3-144, 3-154, 3-223, 3-

227, 3-238, 1, 16

Stream Morphology, 17

Succession, 2-32, 3-54, 3-55, 3-59, 3-62, 3-68, 3-103, 

3-133, 3-142, 3-149, 3-200, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 12, 

31, 32

Successional Stage, 3-82, 3-200, 14, 17

Suitability, 1-23, 3-122, 3-169, 3-226, 3-229, 17

Sustainability, 3-87, 17, 11

Temporary Road, vi, 1-22, 1-27, 2-36, 2-37, 2-40, 2-

45, 3-109, 3-112, 3-113, 3-117, 3-134, 3-135, 3-

145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-148, 3-151, 3-159, 3-164, 3-

165, 3-166, 3-168, 3-169, 3-171, 3-172, 3-178, 3-

198, 3-203, 3-228, 3-233, 3-235, 17, 33

Thinning, 1-20, 1-21, 2-30, 2-31, 2-35, 2-38, 2-39, 2-

44, 2-45, 3-50, 3-66, 3-69, 3-74, 3-76, 3-109, 3-

110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-117, 3-

118, 3-119, 3-120, 3-131, 3-143, 3-144, 3-146, 3-

147, 3-148, 3-163, 3-165, 3-166, 3-167, 3-168, 3-

171, 3-172, 3-188, 3-192, 3-196, 3-202, 3-207, 3-

208, 3-215, 3-221, 3-238, 4, 10, 17, 6, 7, 10, 16, 

24, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

threatened species, 3-94, 3-174, 3-231, 3-233, 3-235, 

3, 17

Tier, 1-22, 17

Total Cover, 3-83, 3-106, 17

Tractor Logging, 3-155, 17

Transitory Range, 3-215, 17

Unauthorized, 3-142, 3-162, 3-186, 17

Underburn, 3-50, 18

Understory, ii, iii, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-21, 2-31, 2-32, 2-

35, 2-43, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56, 3-57, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 

3-69, 3-83, 3-94, 3-99, 3-110, 3-111, 3-113, 3-115, 

3-116, 3-118, 3-150, 3-191, 3-194, 3-237, 9, 13, 

18, 32, 17

Uneven-Aged Management, 3-224, 18

Uneven-Aged Stand, 1-19, 1-20, 3-82, 3-224, 3-225, 

10, 18

Vegetation Management, 1-20, 3-52, 3-151, 3-154, 3-

187, 18

Vertical Diversity, 1-20, 18

Viable Population, 3-81, 3-122, 3-226, 3-238, 18

Water Yield, vi, 3-133, 3-136, 3-138, 3-141, 3-142, 3-

143, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-148, 3-149, 3-150, 3-

151, 3-152, 3-153, 3-162, 3-227, 7, 18

Watershed, i, iii, 1-14, 1-23, 1-24, 3-49, 3-51, 3-80, 3-

88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-113, 3-123, 3-124, 3-128, 3-131, 

3-134, 3-139, 3-141, 3-146, 3-147, 3-151, 3-155, 3-

159, 3-166, 3-214, 3-221, 3-226, 3-227, 3-230, 3-

236, 7, 10, 14, 18, 2, 16, 17, 18, 27, 30, 33, 34, 15

Wetlands, 2-39, 3-52, 3-116, 3-127, 3-135, 3-138, 3-

139, 3-142, 3-143, 3-149, 3-150, 3-152, 3-176, 3-

231, 3-232, 3-236, 14, 18

Winter Range, 1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 2-37, 3-63, 3-78, 3-

82, 3-83, 3-85, 3-109, 3-199, 3-224, 3-225, 3-231, 

3, 18, 23, 26

Yarding, 1-20, 1-21, 2-34, 2-38, 2-41, 2-42, 3-50, 3-

155, 3-164, 3-166, 3-167, 3-168, 3-169, 3-172, 3-

228, 18, 34, 9

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-1

References

Botany

Camp, P., & Gamon, J. (2011). Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington. (P. Camp, & J. 

Gamon, Eds.) Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Crowe, E. a. (1997). Mid-Montane Wetland Plant Associations of the Malheur, Umatilla and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. R6-NR-Ecol-TP-22-97. Portland, OR: USFS 

Pacific Northwest Region.

Darrach, M. (2012, September 17). Site Report for Umatilla NF NRM record 0614041011. 

Pendleton, OR.

Darrach, M., & Frazee, J. (2013, August 05). Biological Assessment for Spalding's catchfly; 

Asotin Creek Prescribed Fire. Pendleton, OR: USFS, Umatilla NF.

Frazee, J., & Darrach, M. (2013, September 24). Bological Evaluation for Botany Asotin 

Prescribed Fire Project. Pendleton, OR: USFS, Umatilla NF.

Johnson, C. G. (1992). Plant Associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. R6-ERW-TP-036-

92. Portland, OR: USFS PNW Region.

Johnson, C. G. (2004). Alpine and Subalpine Vegetation of the Wallowa, Seven Devils and Blue 

Mountains. Portland, OR: USFS, PNW Region.

Johnson, C. G. (2005). Bunchgrass plant communities of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains: a 

guide for managers. Portland, OR: USFS PNW Region.

Miller, G. (2014, January 30). Asotin Creek Prescribed Fire Project and Effects on Silene 

spaldingii-Spalding's catchfly-Formal Consultation (FWS reference 01EOFW00-2013-

F-0180). LaGrande, OR: USFWS LaGrande Field Office.

Moseley, B. (1988). Species Management Guide for Lomatium rollinsii. Boise, ID: Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game.

Napkora, Z. (2017). Sunrise Vegetation Project Hydrology Report (Draft). Umatilla NF.

NatureServe.org. (2017, March 3). Conservation Status Assessment. Retrieved from Nature 

Serve Conservation tools: http://www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/conservationstatus-assessment

Powell, D. C. (2007). PNW-GTR-709. Potential vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains 

section of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho. 

Portland, OR: USFS, Region 6.

Public Law 91-190. (1969). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Washington, DC: 

Federal Register.

Public Law 93-2015. (1973). Endangered Species Act of 1973. Washington, DC: Federal 

Register.

Public Law 94-588. (1976). National Forest Management Act of 1976. Washington, DC: Federal 

Register.

Salwasser, H., Bosworth, D., & Lowe, J. (1995, August 17). Memo (File Code 2670/1950). 

Streamlining Biological Evaluation and Conclusions for Determining Effects to Listed, 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-2 Umatilla National Forest

Proposed, and Sensitive Species. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Regions 1, 4, and 

6.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007). Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding's catchfly). 

Portland, OR, USA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

USDA Forest Service. (1990). Land and Resource Management Plan, Umatilla National Forest. 

Portland, OR: USFS Pacific NW Region.

USDA Forest Service. (2005, September 23). Forest Service Manual FSM 2670-2671. 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, Amendment No. 2600-2005-

1. Washington, DC: USFS.

USDA Forest Service Region 1. (2011). USDA Forest Service Region 1 Sensitive Species-Plants 

Idaho. Retrieved February 2017, from 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5279898.pdf

USFS Fire Effects Information System. (n.d.). Species: Ribes oxyacanthoides. Retrieved 2017, 

from https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/riboxy/all.html

USFS Pomeroy RD Umatilla NF. (2017, March). Decision memo Asotin Creek Prescribed Fire. 

Pomeroy, WA: USFS.

USFS Region 4. (2016, June). Intermountain Region (R4) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, 

and Sensitive Species. Retrieved from 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5370041.pdf

USFS, R. 6. (2015, July). Enclosure 1- Federal Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Species and 

Sensitive and Strategic Species Lists. Retrieved from Interagency Special 

Staus/Sensitive Species Program Agency Policy and Lists: 

https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

USFWS La Grande Field Office. (2006, August). Letter of concurrence: Peola Range Allotment

(2007-2016) , Asotin Watershed, Snake River Basin, Asotin and Garfield Cos. WAInformal Consultation (1-17-06-I-0171). LaGrande, OR: USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Washington Natural Heritage Program. (2015, January 1). 2015 Endangered, Threatened, and 

Sensitive Vascular Plant List. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from Washington Natural 

Heritage Program: http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_vascular_ets.pdf

Wells, A. F. (2006). Deep Canyon and Subalpine Riparian and wetland plant associations of the 

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. PNW-GTR-682. Portland, 

OR: USFS PNW Region.

Wisniewski, V. (2016). Washington Rare Care Field Data Sheet Calochortus macrocarpus 

maculosus. Washington: Washington Rare Plant Care and Conservation.

Wood, J. (2006, July 5). Biological Assessment for the Peola Range Allotment for Effects on 

Spalding's Catchfly. Pendleton, OR: USFS Umatilla National Forest.

Fuels

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C. Island Press. 

493p. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-3

Agee, J. K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern 

Cascades. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52p. 

Agee, J. K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science. 72 

(Special Issue): 24-34. 

Agee, J. K., Skinner, C. N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 211: 83-96. 

Agee, J. K. 2004. The complex nature of mixed severity fire regimes. Mixed Severity Fire 

Regimes: Ecology and Management. The Association for Fire Ecology. MISC103: 1-10. 

Albini, F. 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. General Technical Report INT-GTR30. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 92p. 

Anderson, H. E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. General 

Technical Report INT-GTR-122. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22p. 

Brown, J. K. 1995. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management. Pages 171-178 

In Proceedings of Society of American Foresters national convention, Sept. 18-22, 1994, 

Anchorage, AK. Society of American Foresters, Wash. DC. 

Barrett, S., Havlina, D, Jones, J., Hann, W., Frame, C., Hamilton, D., Schon, K., Demeo, T., 

Hutter, L., & Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 

3.0 [Homepage of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest 

Service, US Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy]. [Online], 

Available: www.frcc.gov. 

Countryman, Bruce. 2007. Unpublished Report. Umatilla National Forest fire regime condition 

class lookup table. Baker City, OR: USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman 

Supervisors Office. 

Evers, L. 2002. Unpublished Report. Fire regimes of Oregon and Washington. Portland, OR: 

Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office 

Graham, R. T., McCaffrey, S., & Jain, T. B. Technical Editors. 2004. Science basis for changing 

forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 43p. 

Hann, W. J., & Bunnel, L. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across 

multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10: 389-401 

Hann, W. J. & Strohm, D. J. 2003. Fire regime condition class and associated data for fire and 

fuels planning: methods and applications. Proceeding RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Center. 397-

434. 

Hessburg, P. F., Agee, J. K. & Franklin, J. F. 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. 

Heyerdahl, E. K. 1997. Spatial and temporal variation in historical fire regimes of the Blue 

Mountains, Oregon and Washington: the influence of climate. Doctoral dissertation. 

Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 224p. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-4 Umatilla National Forest

Huff, M. H., Ottmar, R. D., Alvarado, E., Vihnanek, R. E., Lehmkuhl, J. F., Hessburg, P. F. & 

Everett, R. L. 1995. Historical and current forest landscapes in eastern Oregon and 

Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and 

related smoke production. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-355. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

43p. 

Justice, Donald C. Process Document; Vegetation modeling and database creation. Sunrise 

Vegetation and Fuels Management. Pomeroy, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District. 21 pgs. 

Justice, Donald C. Process Document; Vegetation modeling and database creation. Sunrise 

Vegetation and Fuels Management. Addendum No. 1. Pomeroy, WA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District. 7 

pgs.

Keyes, C. R. & O’Hara, K. L. 2002. Quantifying stand targets for silvicultural prevention of 

crown fires. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(2): 101-109. 

Pfiefer, Eric. 2017. Silviculture Specialist Report; Sunrise Vegetation Management Project. 

Pomeroy, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National 

Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District. 

Powell, D. C. 2004. Fire regime condition class queries. Unpublished report. Pendleton, OR:

Unites States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Umatilla National Forest. 8p. 

Powell, D. C. 2009. Silviculture Specialist Report; Forest Vegetation: South George Vegetation 

Management Project. Pomeroy, WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Umatilla National Forest, Pomeroy Ranger District. 

Powell, D.C. 2005. Fire regimes of the Blue Mountains. Unpublished Report. Pendleton, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla 

National Forest. 3 p. 

Rebain, Stephanie A., Reinhardt, Elizabeth D., Crookston, Nicholas L., Beukema, Sarah J., 

Kurz, Werner A., Greenough, Julee A., Robinson, Donald C.E., Lutes, Duncan C. 2015. 

The Fire and Fuels Extension to the forest Vegetation Simulator: Updated Model 

Documentation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Serve, Forest Management 

Service Center. 403 pg. 

Rothermel, R. C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains. Research Paper INT-438. Odgen, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 46 p. 

Schmidt, K. M., Menakis, J. P., Hardy C. C., Hann, W. J., & Bunnell, D. L. 2002. Development 

of coarse scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 41p. 

Scott, J. H. and Burgan, R. E. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set 

for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. General Technical Report RMRSGTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 72p. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-5

Thompson, J. R., Duncan, S. L., & Norman, K. N. 2009. Is there potential for the historical range

of variability to guide conservation given the social range of variability. Ecology and 

Society 14(1): 18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art18/. 

Van Wagner, C. C. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 7(1): 23-24. 

Youngblood, A. 2008. Changes in fuelbed characteristics and resulting fire potentials after fuel 

reduction treatments in dry forests of the Blue Mountains, northeastern Oregon. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255: 3151-3169. 

Silviculture

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. 493 

p. isbn:1-55963-229-1

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science. 

72(Special Issue): 24-34.

Allaby, M., ed. 1998. A dictionary of ecology. 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University 

Press. 440 p. isbn:0-19-280078-7

Arner, S. L.; Woudenberg, S.; Waters, S.; Vissage, J; MacLean, C.; Thompson, M.; Hansen, M. 

2003. National algorithm for determining stocking class, stand size class, and forest type 

for Forest Inventory and Analysis plots. Internal Rep. Newtown Square, PA: U. S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 10p.

Aubry, C., Devine, W., Shoal, R., Bower, A., Miller, J., & Maggiulli, N. 2011. Climate change 

and forest biodiversity: a vulnerability assessment and action plan for national forests in 

western Washington. Retrieved from [Portland, OR]: 

http://ecoshare.info/2011/05/09/climate-change-and-forest-biodiversity-a-vulnerabilityassessment-and-action-plan-for-national-forests-in-western-washington/

Avery, T. E., & Burkhart, H. E. (2002). Forest measurements. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Barrett, S.; Havlina, D.; Jones, J.; Hann, W.; Frame, C.; Hamilton, D.; Schon, K.; Demeo, T.; 

Hutter, L.; and Menakis, J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class guidebook. 

Version 3.0 [Homepage of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA 

Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy]. [Online], 

Available: www.frcc.gov

Botkin, D.B. 1990. Discordant harmonies: a new ecology for the twenty-first century. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 241 p. isbn:0-19-507469-6

Bradley, B.A.; Houghton, R.A.; Mustard, J.F.; Hamburg, S.P. Invasive grass reduces 

aboveground carbon stocks in shrublands of the Western US. Global Change Biology. 

12 (10) pp. 1815-1822.

Brenner, J., ed. 1998. Fire in Florida’s ecosystems; educator’s guide, grades 4-8. Tallahassee, 

FL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Forest Protection 

Bureau, Division of Forestry. 62 p.

British Columbia Habitat Branch. 2000. Environmental risk assessment (ERA): an approach for 

assessing and reporting environmental conditions. Tech. Bull. 1. [Place of publication 

unknown]: British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Habitat 

Branch. 70 p.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-6 Umatilla National Forest

Brown, R. 2002. Thinning, fire and forest restoration: a science-based approach for national 

forests in the interior northwest. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. 40 p. 

http://www.defenders.org/publication/thinning-fire-and-forest-restoration-science-basedapproach-national-forests-interior 

Brown, J.K.; Smith, J.K., eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 257 p.

Brown, R.T.; Agee, J.K.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context 

of place. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 903-912. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.521_1.x

Canadell, J.G.; Raupach, M.R. 2008. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science. 

320(5882): 1456-1457. doi:10.1126/science.1155458

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. 2008. A vision for Canada’s forests: 2008 and beyond. 

Ottawa, ON: Natural Resources Canada, Communications Branch. 15 p.

Center for Climate Strategies. 2007. Washington State Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference 

Case Projections, 1990-2020. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology. 

Accessed 18 Apr 2017. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/docs/WA_GHGInventoryReferenceCaseProjectio

ns_1990-2020.pdf 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Considering cumulative effects under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental 

Quality. 118 p. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/GCEQ-ConsidCumulEffects.pdf 

Chapin, F.S. III; Matson, P.A.; Mooney, H.A. 2002. Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. 

New York: Springer-Verlag. 436 p. isbn:0-387-95443-0

Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Dahlgreen, M.C.; Franklin, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Lutz, J.A. 2013a. 

Restoring forest resilience: From reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions 

and monitoring. Forest Ecology and Management. 291: 442-457. 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.007

Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Dahlgreen, M.C.; Franklin, J.F. 2013b. The ICO approach to 

quantifying and restoring forest spatial pattern: Implementation guide. Version 2.0. 

Vashon, WA: Stewardship Forestry. 36 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. 

Res. Note PNW-RN-513. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 21 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25113 

Crane, M.F. and W.C. Fischer. 1986. Fire Ecology of the Forest Habitat Types of Central Idaho. 

Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report INT -218. USDA-Forest 

Service, 86 pp.

Crookston, N.L.; Moeur, M.; Renner, D. 2002. Users guide to the most similar neighbor 

imputation program, version 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-96. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 35 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr096.pdf

Curtis, R.O. 1970. Stand density measures: an interpretation. Forest Science. 16(4): 403-414.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-7

Cubasch, U., Dai, X., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Hewitson, B., Houghton, J.T., Isaksen, I., Karl, T., 

McFarland, M., Meleshko, V.P., Mitchell, J.F.B., Noguer, M., Nyenzi., B.S., 

Oppenheimer, M., Penner, J.E., Pollonais, S., Stocker, T., and Trenberth, K.E. 2001. 

Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, 

X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.

Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Tech. Bull. 62. Pullman, WA: 

Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture, Washington State 

University. 131 p.

Diggins, C.; Fulé, P.Z.; Kaye, J.P.; Covington, W.W. 2010. Future climate affects management 

strategies for maintaining forest restoration treatments. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 19(7): 903-913. doi:10.1071/WF09109

Dillard, D.S. 2007 (June 20). Clarification of May 2nd, 2007, advice on documenting “best 

available science”; 1920/1950 memorandum to Regional Planning Directors. 

Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. 2 p.

Dixon, G.E., comp. 2002. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. 

Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service 

Center. 226 p. (Revised: January 8, 2014) 

http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/ftp/fvs/docs/gtr/EssentialFVS.pdf 

Dodson, S.I.; Allen, T.F.H.; Carpenter, S.R.; Ives, A.R.; Jeanne, R.L.; Kitchell, J.F.; Langston, 

N.E.; Turner, M.G. 1998. Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press. 433 p. isbn:0-

19-512079-5

Doliner, L.H.; Borden, J.H. 1984. Pesterms: a glossary of forest pest management terms. Pest 

Manage. Rep. Num. 3. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 34 p.

Drever, C.R.; Peterson, G.; Messier, C.; Bergeron, Y.; Flannigan, M. 2006. Can forest 

management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 36(9): 2285-2299. doi:10.1139/x06-132

Eycott, A.; Watts, K.; Moseley, D.; Ray, D. 2007. Evaluating biodiversity in fragmented 

landscapes: the use of focal species. FC Infor. Note 89. Edinburgh, UK: Forestry 

Commission. 8 p.

Eyre, F.H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: 

Society of American Foresters. 148 p. isbn:978-0686306979

Finkral, A.J.; Evans, A.M. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern 

Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 255 (7): pp. 2743-

2750. 

Forman, R.T.T.; Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley. 619 p. isbn:0-

471-87037-4

Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 417 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/26203 

Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, K.N. 2012. A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific 

Northwest. Journal of Forestry. 110(8): 429-439. doi:10.5849/jof.10-006
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-8 Umatilla National Forest

Franklin, J.F., Mitchell, R.J.; Palik, B.J. 2007. Natural disturbance and stand development 

principles for ecological forestry. Gen Tech. Rep. NRS-19. Newtown Square, PA: 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 44 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/13293

Franklin, J.F.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Van Pelt, R.; Buchanan, J.B. 2008. The case for active 

management of dry forest types in eastern Washington: perpetuating and creating old 

forest structures and functions. [Place of publication unknown]: Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources. 97 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, K.N.; Churchill, D.J.; Hagmann, K.; Johnson, D.; Johnston, J. 2013. 

Restoration of dry forests in eastern Oregon: A field guide. Portland, OR: Nature 

Conservancy. 202 p. 

https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPractices/FireLandscapes/FireLearni

ngNetwork/NetworkProducts/Pages/Dry-Forest-Guide-2013.aspx 

Franklin, J.F.; Hagmann, R.K.; Urgenson, L.S. 2014. Interactions between societal goals and 

restoration of dry forest landscapes in western North America. Landscape Ecology. 

29(10): 1645-1655. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0077-0

Goetz, S. J.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Law, B. E.; Hicke, J. A.; Huang, C.; Houghton,R. A.; McNulty, 

S.; O’Halloran, T.; Harmon, M.; Meddens, A. J. H.; Pfeifer, E. M.; Mildrexler, D.; 

Kasischke, E. S. 2012. Observations and assessment of forest carbon dynamics 

following disturbance in North America. Journal of Geophysical Research. 

117(G02022): 1-17.

Gunderson, L.H.; Allen, C.R.; Holling, C.S., eds. 2010. Foundations of ecological resilience. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 466 p. isbn:978-1-59726-511-9

Hall, F.C. 1973. Plant communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern 

Washington. R6 Area Guide 3-1. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. 62 p.

Halofsky, J.E., and Peterson, D.L., eds. 2017. Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the 

Blue Mountains Region. Portland, OR: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-939. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 331 p. 

Hassan, R.; Scholes, R.; Ash, N. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and 

trends, volume 1 (findings of the condition and trends working group of the Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment). Washington, DC: Island Press. 917 p.

Helms, J.A., ed. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. 

210 p. isbn:0-939970-73-2

Hessburg, P.F.; Smith, B.G.; Kreiter, S.D.; Miller, C.A.; Salter, R.B.; McNicholl, C.H.; Hann, 

W.J. 1999. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the interior Columbia 

River basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins; Part 1: linking vegetation 

patterns and landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-458. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 357 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/29638 

Heyerdahl, E.K. 1997. Spatial and temporal variation in historical fire regimes of the Blue 

Mountains, Oregon and Washington: the influence of climate. Ph.D. dissertation. Seattle, 

WA: University of Washington, College of Forest Resources. 224 p.

Hicke, J. A., Allen, C. D., Desai, A. R., Dietze, M. C., Hall, R. J., Hogg, E. H. Kashian, D. M.; 

Moore, D.; Raffa, K.F.; Sturrock, R.N.; Vogelmann, J. (2012). Effects of biotic 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-9

disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Global Change 

Biology, 18(1), 7-34. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02543.x

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology

and Systematics. 4: 1-23.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: 

Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. 

Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. 

von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx, eds. Cambridge, UK and New York: Climate 

Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge 

University Press. 31 p.

Janowiak, M.K.; Swanston, C.W.; Nagel, L.M.; Brandt, L.A.; Butler, P.R.; Handler, S.D.; 

Shannon, P.D.; Iverson, L.R.; Matthews, S.N.; Prasad, A.; Peters, M.P. 2014. A practical 

approach for translating climate change adaptation principles into forest management 

actions. Journal of Forestry. 112(5): 424-433. doi:10.5849/jof.13-094

Johnson, C.G., Jr. 1994. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: a plant ecologist’s perspective on 

ecosystem processes and biological diversity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-339. 

Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/5104

Johnson, C.G., Jr.; Clausnitzer, R.R. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco 

Mountains. Tech. Pub. R6-ERW-TP-036-92. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 164 p.

Johnson, J.; Spiegel, L.H.; McWilliams, M. 2015. Insect and Disease Review of Sunrise 

Planning Area. La Grande, OR: USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center. 11 p.

Justice, D. 2016. Process document for Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Management Project –

Forest vegetation modeling and database creation (forest vegetation modeling and 

miscellaneous datasets). Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Umatilla National Forest. 20 p.

Kaufmann, M.R.; Graham, R.T.; Boyce, D.A., Jr.; Moir, W.H.; Perry, L.; Reynolds, R.T.; 

Bassett, R.L.; Mehlhop, P.; Edminster, C.B.; Block, W.M.; Corn, P.S. 1994. An 

ecological basis for ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-246. Fort Collins, 

CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/7612

Kimmins, J.P. 1997. Forest ecology: A foundation for sustainable management. 2nd ed. Upper 

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 596 p. isbn:0-02-364071-5

Keane, R.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Landres, P.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2009. The use of historical range and 

variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(7): 

1025-1037. Doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.035.

Keeley, J.E.; Aplet, G.H.; Christensen, N.L.; Conard, S.G.; Johnson, E.A.; Omi, P.N.; Peterson, 

D.L.; Swetnam, T.W. 2009. Ecological foundations for fire management in North 

American forest and shrubland ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-779. Portland, 

OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 92 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/32483 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-10 Umatilla National Forest

Kerr, A. 2007. Thinning certain Oregon forests to restore ecological function. Larch Company 

Occasional Paper #3. Ashland, OR: The Larch Company. 31 p. 

http://www.andykerr.net/storage/other-matters-uploads/LOP%203%20Small%201.0.pdf 

Kline, J.P. 1995 (August 14). Reforestation and salvage sales; file designation 2470-3 

memorandum to District Rangers. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. 4 p.

Larson, A.J.; Churchill, D. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of western North 

America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for designing fuel 

reduction and restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 267: 74-92. 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.11.038

Larson, A.J.; Stover, K.C.; Keyes, C.R. 2012. Effects of restoration thinning on spatial 

heterogeneity in mixed-conifer forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42(8): 1505-

1517. doi:10.1139/x2012-100

Law, B.E.; Turner, D.; Campbell, J.; Sun, O.J.; Tuyl, S. Van; Ritts, W.D.; Cohen, W.B. 2004. 

Disturbance and climate effects on carbon stocks and fluxes across western Oregon 

USA. Global Change Biology. 10: 1429-1444

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Ottmar, R.D. 1993. Historical and current vegetation pattern and 

associated changes in insect and disease hazard, and fire and smoke conditions in eastern 

Oregon and Washington. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health

assessment--Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Everett, R.L.; Huff, M.H.; Ottmar, R.D. 1994. Historical and 

current forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington; part I: vegetation pattern 

and insect and disease hazards. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-328. Portland, OR: USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 88 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6407 

Lillebo, T. 2012. Restoring eastern Oregon’s dry forests: a practical guide for ecological 

restoration. Place of publication unknown: Oregon Wild. 15 p. 

http://www.oregonwild.org/sites/default/files/pdffiles/Eastside_Restoration_Handbook.pdf 

Littell, J.S.; McKenzie, D.; Peterson, D.L.; Westerling, A.L. 2009. Climate and wildfire area 

burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications. 19(4): 1003-

1021. doi:10.1890/07-1183.1

Martin, K. 2010 (October 5). Range of variation for forest vegetation project planning. 

Memorandum to S.O. Staff and District Rangers. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. 6 p.

Martinson, E.J.; Omi, P.N. 2013. Fuel treatments and fire severity: A meta-analysis. Res. Pap. 

RMRS-RP-103WWW. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 38 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/43632 

Maruoka, K.R. 1994. Fire history of Pseudotsuga menziesii and Abies grandis stands in the Blue 

Mountains of Oregon and Washington. M.S. thesis. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington, College of Forest Resources. 73 p.

Mauger, G.S.; Mantua, N. 2011. Climate change projections for USFS lands in Oregon and 

Washington. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of the Environment, 

Climate Impacts Group. Not paginated.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-11

McKinley, D. C., Ryan, M. G., Birdsey, R. A., Giardina, C. P., Harmon, M. E., Heath, L. S., . . . 

Skog, K. E. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the 

United States. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1902-1924. doi:10.1890/10-0697.1

Meigs, G.W., Turner, D.P., Ritts, W.D.; Yang Z.; Law, B.E. 2011. Landscape-Scale Simulation 

of Heterogeneous Fire Effects on Pyrogenic Carbon Emissions, Tree Mortality, and Net 

Ecosystem Production. Ecosystems 14(5): 758-775. doi:10.1007/s10021-011-9444-8

Melillo, J.M.; Richmond, T.C.; Yohe, G.W., eds. 2014. Climate change impacts in the United 

States: The third National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change

Research Program. 841 p. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2

Meurisse, R.T.; Robbie, W.A.; Niehoff, J.; Ford, G. 1991. Dominant soil formation processes 

and properties in western-montane forest types–Some implications for productivity and 

management. In: Harvey, A.E.; Neuenschwander, L.F., comps. Proceedings: 

management and productivity of western-montane forest soils. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT280. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 

7-19.

Moeur, M.; Stage, A.R. 1995. Most similar neighbor: an improved sampling inference procedure 

for natural resource planning. Forest Science. 41(2): 337-359.

Moghissi, A.A.; Love, B.R.; Straja, S.R.; McBride, D.K.; Swetnam, M.S. 2008. Best available 

science: its evolution, taxonomy, and application. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for 

Policy Studies. 93 p. 

http://www.potomacinstitute.org/publications/Best%20Available%20Science%20FINA

L.pdf

Morgan, P.; Aplet, G.H.; Haufler, J.B.; Humphries, H.C.; Moore, M.M.; Wilson, W.D. 1994. 

Historical range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. Journal of 

Sustainable Forestry. 2: 87-111. doi:10.1300/J091v02n01_04

Munger, T.T. 1917. Western yellow pine in Oregon. Bull. No. 418. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 48 p. 

http://organicroots.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT87211707/PDF 

Mutch, R.W.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K.; Carlson, C.E.; Ottmar, R.D.; Peterson, J.L. 1993. Forest 

health in the Blue Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 14 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/9056 

National Research Council: Committee on Air Quality Management in the United States, Board 

on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, 

Division on Earth and Life Studies (2004). Air Quality Management in the United 

States. National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-08932-8

Newton, A.C. 2007. Forest ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford, UK: 

Oxford University Press. 454 p. isbn:978-0-19-856744-8

O’Hara, K.L.; Latham, P.A.; Hessburg, P.; Smith, B.G. 1996. A structural classification for 

inland Northwest forest vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 11 (3): 97-102.

Oliver, C.D.; Larson, B.C. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. Update edition. New York: John Wiley. 

520 p. isbn:0-471-13833-9

Oliver, C.D.; Irwin, L.L.; Knapp, W.H. 1994. Eastside forest management practices: historical 

overview, extent of their application, and their effects on sustainability of ecosystems. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-12 Umatilla National Forest

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-324. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 73 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6294 

Olson, D.L. 2000. Fire in riparian zones: a comparison of historical fire occurrence in riparian 

and upslope forests in the Blue Mountains and southern Cascades of Oregon. M.S. 

thesis. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 274 p.

Powell, D.C. 1999. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and 

southeastern Washington: an implementation guide for the Umatilla National Forest. 

Tech. Pub. F14-SO-TP-03-99. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Umatilla National Forest. 300 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5405482.pdf 

Powell, D.C. 2000. Potential vegetation, disturbance, plant succession, and other aspects of 

forest ecology. Tech. Pub. F14-SO-TP-09-00. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 88 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5358579.pdf 

Powell, D.C. 2013. Stand density protocol for mid-scale assessments. White Pap. F14-SO-WPSilv-36. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla 

National Forest. 51 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5413734.pdf 

Powell, D.C. 2012. A State Is A Stage Is A Stage...Or Is It? Successional Stages, Structural 

Stages, Seral Stages. White Paper F14-SO-WP-Silv-10. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 14 p. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5413728.pdf 

Powell, D.C. 2014a. Active management of dry forests in the Blue Mountains: silvicultural 

considerations. White Pap. F14-SO-WP-Silv-4. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 179 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795910.pdf 

Powell, D.C. 2014b. Range of variation recommendations for dry, moist, and cold forests. White 

Pap. F14-SO-WP-Silv-3. Pendleton, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Umatilla National Forest. 58 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5326219.pdf 

Powell, D.C. 2014c. New perspectives in riparian management: Why might we want to consider

active management for certain portions of riparian habitat conservation areas? White 

Pap. F14-SO-WP-Silv-52. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Umatilla National 

Forest. 140 p. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3794794.pdf 

Powell, D.C. 2014d. Vegetation polygon mapping and classification standards: Malheur, 

Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman national forests. White Pap. F14-SO-WP-Silv-56. 

Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest. 16 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3794798.pdf 

Powell, D.C.; Rockwell, V.A.; Townsley, J.J.; Booser, J.; Bulkin, S.P.; Martin, T.H.; 

Obedzinski, B.; Zensen, F. 2001. Forest density management: recent history and trends 

for the Pacific Northwest Region. Tech. Pub. R6-NR-TM-TP-05-01. Portland, OR: 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 21 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev7_015663.pdf 

Powell, D.C.; Johnson, C.G., Jr.; Crowe, E.A.; Wells, A.; Swanson, D.K. 2007. Potential 

vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, 

southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-709. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-13

Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 87 p. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27598 

Progar, R.A., K.H. Hrinkevich, E.S. Clark, and M.J. Rinella. 2017. Prescribed burning in 

ponderosa pine: fuel reductions and redistributing fuels near boles to prevent injury. Fire 

Ecology 13(1): 149–161. doi: 10.4996/fireecology.1301149

Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the 

Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 2. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 4 volumes: 337-1055. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24921 

Rapp, V. 2002. Fire risk in east-side forests. Portland, OR: Science Update. 2: 1-11. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/scienceupdate2.pdf 

Reinhardt, E.; Crookston, N. L., tech. eds. 2003. The fire and fuels extension to the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 209 p.

Reyer, C.; Guericke, M.; Ibisch, P. 2009. Climate change mitigation via afforestation, 

reforestation and deforestation avoidance: and what about adaptation to environmental 

change? New Forests. 38(1): 15-34. doi:10.1007/s11056-008-9129-0

Ryan, Michael G.; Harmon, Mark E.; Birdsey, Richard A.; Giardina, Christian P.; Heath, Linda 

S.; Houghton, Richard A.; Jackson, Robert B.; McKinley, Duncan C.; Morrison, James 

F.; Murray, Brian C.; Pataki, Diane E.; Skog, Kenneth E. 2010. A synthesis of the 

science on forests and carbon for U.S. Forests. Ecological Society of America: Issues In 

Ecology. 13: 1-16.

Safranyik, L.; Nevill, R.; Morrison, D. 1998. Effects of stand density management on forest 

insects and diseases. Tech. Tran. Note No. 12. Victoria, BC: Natural Resources Canada, 

Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Center. 4 p. 

http://bookstore.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/detail_e.php?recid=35719

Schmitt, C.L.; Powell, D.C. 2008. Historical range of variability estimates for insect and disease 

susceptibility. Unpub. Rep. [Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest.] 10 p.

Schmitt, C.L.; Powell, D.C. 2012. Range of variation recommendations for insect and disease 

susceptibility. White Pap. F14-SO-WP-Silv-22. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

Umatilla National Forest. 16 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5358588.pdf 

Schooley, H. O., and D. G. Bryant. 1978. The balsam woolly aphid in Newfoundland. Can. For. 

Serv. Nfld For. Res. Ctr. Inf. Rep. N-X-160. 72 p.

Shiflet, T.N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for 

Range Management. 152 p. isbn:1-884930-01-8

Simberloff, D. 1999. The role of science in the preservation of forest biodiversity. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 115(2-3): 101-111. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00391-0

Simonin, K.A. 2000. Vaccinium membranaceum. In: Fire Effects Information System (on-line).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (producer).

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/vacmem/introductory.html 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-14 Umatilla National Forest

Sommers, W.T.; Coloff, S.G.; Conard, S.G. 2011. Synthesis of knowledge: fire history and 

climate change. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program. Fairfax, VA: George 

Mason University. 215 p. plus 6 appendices. http://www.firescience.gov/projects/09-2-

01-9/project/09-2-01-9_Final_Report_JFSP_09-2-01-

09_Fire_History_and_Climate_Change_by_Chapter_111013.pdf 

Steele, R.O., Pfiser, R.D. Ryker, R.A.,and Kittams, J.A. 1981. Forest Habitat Types of Central 

Idaho. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 138 p.

Stephens, S.L. 1998. Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on potential 

fire behaviour in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 

105(1-3): 21-35. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00293-4

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Edminster, C.; Fiedler, C.E.; Haase, S.; Harrington, M.; Keeley, 

J.E.; Knapp, E.E.; McIver, J.D.; Metlen, K.; Skinner, C.N.; Youngblood, A. 2009. Fire 

treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western 

U.S. forests. Ecological Applications. 19(2): 305-320. doi:10.1890/07-1755.1

Stephens, S.L.; McIver, J.D.; Boerner, R.E.J.; Fettig, C.J.; Fontaine, J.B.; Hartsough, B.R.; 

Kennedy, P.L.; Schwilk, D.W. 2012. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in 

the United States. BioScience. 62(6): 549-560. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.6

Stine, Peter; Hessburg, Paul; Spies, Thomas; Kramer, Marc; Fettig, Christopher J.; Hansen, 

Andrew; Lehmkuhl, John; O'Hara, Kevin; Polivka, Karl; Singleton, Peter; Charnley, 

Susan; Merschel, Andrew; White, Rachel. 2014. The ecology and management of moist 

mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a synthesis of the relevant 

biophysical science and implications for future land management. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-897. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 254 p.

Taylor, K.E.; Stouffer, R.J.; Meehl, G.A. 2012. Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design. 

Bull Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 485-498. Summarized for areas east of the Cascade 

Mountains, Washington, as part of a Regional Climate Analysis report prepared by the 

University of Washington Climate Impacts Group. Access April 29, 2017. 

https://cig.uw.edu/resources/analysis-tools/projections/ 

Toupin, R.; Filip, G.; Erkert, T.; Barger, M. 2008. Field guide for danger tree identification and 

response. R6-NR-FP-PR-01-08. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 64 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_025069.pdf 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. 

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane . Accessed 

May 8, 2017.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and resource management plan: Umatilla National Forest. 

Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Irregular pagination. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/umatilla/landmanagement/planning#forest plan 

USDA, Forest Service, Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Land and Resource Management Plan 

for the Umatilla National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Decision notice for the 

continuation of interim management direction establishing riparian, ecosystem and 

wildlife standards for timber sales; Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #1. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-15

Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 11 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5211880.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Appendix B; Revised interim direction establishing riparian, 

ecosystem and wildlife standards for timber sales; Regional Forester’s Forest Plan

Amendment #2. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 14 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5211858.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. 36 CFR Part 219. National forest system land management 

planning. Federal Register. 77(68): 21162-21276.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Blue Mountains national forests proposed revised land management 

plan. Baker City, OR: USDA Forest Service, Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

national forests. 159 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3792953.pdf 

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Decision notice/decision 

record, finding of no significant impact, and environmental assessment for the interim 

strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service; 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 72 p [plus glossary and many appendices]. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5211885.pdf 

Van Pelt, R. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests in eastern Washington. Olympia, WA: 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Land Management Division, 

Ecosystem Services Section. 168 p. 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/lm_hcp_eastside_oldgrowth_guide.pdf 

West, J.; Julius, S.; Kareiva, P.; Enquist, C.; Lawler, J.; Petersen, B.; Johnson, A.; Shaw, M. 

2009. U.S. natural resources and climate change: concepts and approaches for 

management adaptation. Environmental Management. 44(6): 1001-1021. 

doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9345-1

Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science. 313(5789): 940-943. 

doi:10.1126/science.1128834

Wickman, B.E. 1992. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: the influence of insects and disease. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-295. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 15 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/9032

Wiedinmyer, C.; Hurteau, M.D. 2010. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing forest carbon 

emissions in the western United States. Environmental Science and Technology. 44(6): 

1926-1932. doi:10.1021/es902455e

Williams, D.W.; Liebhold, A.M. 1995. Herbivorous insects and global change: potential changes 

in the spatial distribution of forest defoliator outbreaks. Journal of Biogeography. 

22(4/5): 665-671. doi:10.2307/2845968

Winthers, E.; Fallon, D.; Haglund, J.; DeMeo, T.; Nowacki, G.; Tart, D.; Ferwerda, M.; 

Robertson, G.; Gallegos, A.; Rorick, A.; Cleland, D.T.; Robbie, W. 2005. Terrestrial 

ecological unit inventory technical guide: landscape and land unit scales. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. WO-68. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, Ecosystem

Management Coordination Staff. 254 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/includes/TEUI_guide.pdf 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-16 Umatilla National Forest

Wright, C.S.; Agee, J.K. 2004. Fire and vegetation history in the eastern Cascade Mountains, 

Washington. Ecological Applications. 14(2): 443-459. doi:10.1890/02-5349

Youngblood, A. 2010. Thinning and burning in dry coniferous forests of the western United 

States: effectiveness in altering diameter distributions. Forest Science. 56(1): 46-59.

Hydrology

ACCD. 1995. Asotin County Conservation District. Asotin Creek Model Watershed Plan. Asotin 

County, WA. April 1995. 188 pp. https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/90404

Ager, A. A. and C. Clifton. 2005. Software for calculating vegetation disturbance and recovery 

by using the equivalent clearcut area model. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-637. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 11.p. 

Al-Chokhachy, R., B.B. Roper and E.K. Archer. 2010. Evaluating the Status and Trends of 

Physical Stream Habitat in Headwater Streams within the Interior Columbia River and 

Upper Missouri River Basins Using an Index Approach, Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, 139:4, 1041-1059, DOI: 10.1577/T08-221.1 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/T08-221.1

Belt, George H., Jay O’Laughlin, and Troy Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer

Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Report No. 

8. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, ID. 34 p.

Bennett, S., N. Bouwes and R. Camp. 2015. Asotin Intensively Monitored Watershed. Updated 

Study Plan. July 10, 2015. DRAFT. Prepared for: Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, 

Dayton, WA and Recreation and Conservation Office, Olympia, WA. 86 pp.

http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/AsotinCreekIMW_RevisedStudyPlan_2015.pdf

Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream 

temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. Chapter 6 IN: 

Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions, Salo EO, Cundy TW (eds). 

Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington: Seattle, WA; 191-232. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/labs/awae_flagstaff/Hot_Topics/ripthreatbib/besc

hta_etal_streamtempaquahab.pdf

Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall and D.L. Scheele. 1999a. Forest Service Interfaces for the Water Erosion

Prediction Project Computer Model. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research 

Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. October 1999. On-Line 

Documentation. https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/fsweppdoc.html

Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall and D.L. Scheele. 1999b. WEPP: Road (Draft 12/1999) WEPP Interface 

for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery Technical 

Documentation. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station and San 

Dimas Technology and Development Center. December 1999.

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html

FEMAT. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic and Social 

Assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. July 1993. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/nwfpnepa/FEMAT-1993/1993_%20FEMAT-ExecSum.pdf
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-17

Flanagan and Livingston 1995. in: D.C. Flanagan, M.A. Nearing (Eds.): USDA-Water Erosion

Prediction Project, Technical documentation. NSERL Report No. 10, USDA-ARS 

NSERL, West Lafayette, IN (1995).

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=18073

Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Sissel and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of forest 

practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: A state-of-science report for 

Western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-760. May 2008. 76 pp. 

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=M_9GvJ8tP7oC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq

=PNW-GTR760&ots=urYkbPwiCm&sig=eX_B_OKtpy4orkxU7y2FxHLbe_M#v=onepage&q=PN

W-GTR-760&f=false

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer and M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of 

scientific information. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr509.pdf

Harris, R.M., C.C. Clifton and S.M. Wondzell. 2007. Hillslope Erosion Rates in Areas with 

Volcanic Parent Materials and the Effects of Prescribed Fire in the Blue Mountains of 

Eastern and Oregon and Washington, USA. IN: Advancing the Fundamental Sciences.

Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Sciences Conference. 18-21 October 

2004, Volume 1. San Diego, CA. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research 

Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-689. October 2007. pp. 7-19.

https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/29375

Helvey, J.D. and W.B. Fowler. Umatilla National Forest Barometer Watershed Program. Effects 

of timber harvest on the hydrology and climate of four small watersheds. Prepared by: 

Helvey, Fowler and Associates. 1105 Crawford Street, Wenatchee, WA 98801. Contract 

No. 53-043R-5-42. Dated 09-06-95. 128 pp.

King, J.G. 1989. Streamflow responses to road building and harvesting: a comparison with the 

equivalent clearcut area procedure. Research Paper INT-401. USDA Forest Service 

Intermountain Research Station. 13 pp. http://agris.fao.org/agrissearch/search.do?recordID=US8934179

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest Road 

Sediment Production, in Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, Nevada. Pp. V67-V74.

MacDonald, L. and G. Sosa-Perez. 2017. Fire Effects on Road Sediment Production and 

Delivery. IN: StreamNotes. February 2017. USDA Forest Service. National Stream and 

Aquatic Ecology Center. Fort Collins, CO. pp. 7-10.

https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/nsaec/assets/streamnotes2017-2.pdf

McCammon, B. 1993. Determining the risk of cumulative watershed effects resulting from 

multiple activities – Endangered Species Act, Section 7. U.S. Forest Service. Pacific 

Northwest Region. Portland, OR. Unpublished Report. 

Pfeifer, E. 2005. Bear Creek Prescribed Burn Trial Monitoring and Evaluation Report. February 

8, 2005. Walla Walla Ranger District. Umatilla National Forest. 20 pp. On File at: Walla 

Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water 

Resources Research 20(12): pg 1753-1761.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-18 Umatilla National Forest

Scherer, Rob. 2001. Effects of Changes in Forest Cover on Streamflow: A Literature Review. In 

Watershed Assessment in the Southern Interior of British Columbia: Workshop 

Proceedings, March 9-19m 2000. Penticton, British Columbia, Canada. Pg. 44-55.

Sosa-Perez, G. 2016. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation. Road Sediment Production and Delivery: 

Effects of Fires, Traffic and Road Decommissioning. Summer 2016. Department of 

Geosciences. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO. 187 pp.

https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/handle/10217/176751

Stednick, John C. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal 

of Hydrology. Volume 176:79-95.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022169495027807

Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, C.H. Luce and I.J. Larsen. 2010. Chapter 7. Fuel Management 

and Water Yield. IN: Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western 

United States. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-GTR231. January 2010. pp. 126-148.

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Umatilla NF 2017 Invasive Planned Treatments – North Half. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd538620.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: level l inventory field guide:

inventory methods for assessment and planning. Gen. Tech. Report WO-86a. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 191 p. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/geology/GDE_Level_I_FG_final_March2012_rev1_printing.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP 

Technical Manual. USDA Forest Service. FS-990a. April 2012.

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/BMP.html

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

Invasive Plants Treatment Project. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest.

Pacific Northwest Region. July 2010.

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=15119

USDA Forest Service. 2008. EM-7730-20 Forest Service Specifications for Maintenance of 

Roads in Timber Sales. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, As 

Amended. https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/umatilla/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation. Biological 

Opinion. Land and Resource Management Plans for the: Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, 

Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. March 

01, 1995.

Umatilla National Forest. Best Management Practices monitoring 2001-2002. On File at: 

Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, 72510 Coyote Road, Pendleton, OR

97801.

USDA Forest Service. No Date. Umatilla National Forest School Fire Salvage Recovery Project 

FEIS. Milli, Oli, Sun Salvage Sales, PACFISH RHCA Implementation Monitoring. On 

File at: Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger District, 1415 West Rose Street, 

Walla Walla, WA 99362.

USDA Forest Service, 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Unpublished 

USFS Report. Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Portland, OR. 104 p. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-19

USDA Forest Service. 2000. U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region and Washington 

Department of Ecology, Memorandum of Agreement between the USDA Forest Service 

Region 6 and the Washington State Department of Ecology for Meeting Responsibilities 

under Federal and State Water Quality Laws. State and Federal Water Quality Rules and 

Regulations, November 2000.

USDA Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan

Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies.

Washington Department of Ecology. 2015. River and Stream Water Quality Monitoring. Station 

35D120 – NF Asotin Creek below Lick Creek.

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/eap/riverwq/station.asp?theyear=&tab=wqi&scrolly=undefin

ed&wria=35&sta=35D120&docextension=.xls&docextension=.xls#2

Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Asotin Creek Temperature Straight-toImplementation Vegetation Study. By Tighe Stuart Publication No. 12-03-014. 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/1203014.html

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Memorandum of Understanding between WDFW 

and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. January 2005

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Rain-On-Snow Zones Map.

November 1991. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data.

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/GIS

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1978. Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing 

E.O. 11988. 43CFR6030. February 10, 1978.

https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_14216.pdf 

Wheaton, J., S. Bennett, N. Bouwes and R Camp. 2012. Restoration Plan for Charley Creek, 

North Fork Asotin and South Fork Asotin Creeks. April 25, 2012. Prepared For: Snake 

River Salmon Recovery Board, Dayton, WA. 107 pp.

http://snakeriverboard.org/wpi/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/AsotinRestorationPlan_v1.pdf

Wondzell, S. and C. Clifton. 2009. Angle of Repose: Testing Erosion and Prescribed Fire in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington’s Blue Mountains. Joint Fire Sciences Program. Fire 

Science Brief. Issue 44. April 2009. http://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/01-3-3-

18_FSBrief44.pdf

Wondzell, S. and C. Clifton. 2005. Evaluating the Effects of Prescribed Fire and Fuels Treatment 

on Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat. Joint Fire Science Program Research Report. 

Project Number 01-3-3-18.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/umatilla/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stel

prdb5208811 

Zamora, B. and M. Martin. 2006. The Lick Creek Demonstration – Forest Renewal Through 

Partial Harvest and Fire. IN: Fuels Management – How to Measure Success: Conference 

Proceedings. March 28-30, 2006, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. RMRS-P-41. pp 501-511. https://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25973

Wildlife Species and Habitat

Abele, S.C., V.A. Saab, and E.O. Garton. (2004, June 29). Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes 

lewis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-20 Umatilla National Forest

Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/lewisswoodpecker.pdf 

Agee, J.K. 2002. Fire as a coarse filter for snags and logs. Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-181. 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service. 9 p. 

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for land birds in the northern Rocky Mountains of 

eastern Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 86 p. 

Andrews, H. and R. Huff. 2010. Species Fact Sheet: Pristine springsnail. The Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. 4 p. 

Armstrong, F.H. 1957. Notes on Sorex preblei in Washington state. The Murrelet 38(1), page 6. 

Bagne, K.E., K.L. Purcell, and J.T. Rotenberry. 2008. Prescribed fire, snag population dynamics, 

and avian nest site selection. Forest Ecology and Management 255:99-105. Ballard, W. 

B., P.R. Krausman, S. Boe, S. Cunningham, and H.A. Whitlaw. 2000. Short-term 

response of gray wolves, Canis lupus, to wildfire in Northwestern Alaska. Canadian 

Field-Naturalist 114(2):241-247. 

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. 

Zielinski, (Eds.), The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, 

fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RM-254. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. p. 99-127. 

Beecham, J.J., C.P. Collins and T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Region. 

Berkley, E. and T. Hickman. 2015. Status and trend of gray wolves and forest management on 

the Umatilla National Forest. Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, OR. 52 p. 

Brown, B. 2003. Current Vegetative Survey: Forest inventory and monitoring. U.S. Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland, 

Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/survey 

Bull, Evelyn L. 1980. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 109 p. 

Bull, E.L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 51(2):472-481. 

Bull, E.L. and A.K. Blumton. 1999. Effect of fuels reduction on American martens and their 

prey. Research Note PNW-RN-539, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Norwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 9 p. 

Bull, E.L. and B. Carter. 1993. Summary of pileated woodpecker monitoring in eastern Oregon, 

1992. Unpublished report, USFS Pendleton OR. 8 p. 

Bull, E.L. and M. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR265. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 39 p. 

Bull, E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:335-345. 

Bull, Evelyn. L.; Holthausen, Richard S.; Henjum, Mark G. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated 

woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal Wildlife Management 56:786- 793. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-21

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-391. Portland, Oregon: U.S. 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p. 

Bull, E.L., and T.W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American marten in northeastern 

Oregon. Northwest Science 74:179-185. 

Bull, E.L., and T.W. Heater. 2001. Home range and dispersal of the American marten in 

northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:7-11. 

Bull, E.L., T.W. Heater, and J. F. Shepherd. 2005. Habitat selection by the American marten in 

northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 79(1):37-43. 

Bull, E.L., N.Nielsen-Pincus, B.C.Wales, and J.L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of disturbance

events on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and 

Management 243: 320-329. 

Bury, R.B. and M.J. Adams. 1999. Variation in age at metamorphosis across a latitudinal 

gradient for the tailed frog Ascaphus truei. Herpetologica 55(2): 283-291. 

Buskirk, S.W., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, S.W.

Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski (Eds.), The scientific basis for conserving forest 

carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. p. 7-37. Butterflies and Moths of North America, 

http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org, accessed May 2017. 

Cook, J.G. 2002. Nutrition and food. In D.E. Toweill and J.W. Thomas (Eds.), North American 

elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. p. 259-

350. 

Cook, J.G, L.L. Irwins, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest 

cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. 

Wildlife Monograph No. 141. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4). 

Copeland, J.P., K.S. McKelvey, K.B. Aubry, A. Landa, J.Persson, R.M. Inman, J.Krebs, E. 

Lofroth, H. Golden, J.R. Squires, A. Magoun, M.K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C.L. 

Copeland, R.E. Yates, I.Kojola, and R.May. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the 

wolverine (Gulo gulo): do comatic constraints limit its geographic distributioin? 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 88: 233-246. 

Chapman, Joshua. 2011. American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis) Habitat Model v 

1.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. Unpublished 

Report. On file, USDA Forest Service, John Day, OR. 

Christy, R.E. and S.D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-308. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 28 p. 

Coggins, V. L., and P.E. Matthews. 1996. Rocky mountain bighorn sheep in Oregon, history and 

present status. In Biennial Symposium Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council Vol. 10, 

pp. 87-92. 

Crawford, J.A. 2000. Historic distribution of mountain quail in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 

194–197 in L.A. Brennan, W.E. Palmer, L.W. Burger, Jr., and T.L. Pruden, editors, 

Quail IV: Proceedings of the Fourth National Quail Symposium. Tall Timbers Research 

Station, Tallahassee, FL. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-22 Umatilla National Forest

Corkran, C.C. and C. R. Thoms. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British 

Columbia. Lone Pine Press, Auburn Washington. 176 p. 

Couch, L. 1932. Canada lynx in the Blue Mountains. The Murrelet 13(3):95. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3534606 

Csuti, B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. P. Huso. 

2001. Atlas of Oregon wildlife: distribution, habitat, and natural history. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 492 p. 

Dobbs, R.C. 2006. Green-tailed Towhee (Pipilo chlorurus): a technical conservation assessment. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/greentailedtowhee.pdf 

Dobbs, R.C., P.R. Martin, and T.E. Martin. 1998. Green-tailed towhee. No. 368 in A. Poole and 

F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. Duncan Hayward 1994 GGOW 

Duncan, N. and R. Huff. 2009. Species Fact Sheet: fir pinwheel. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 3 p. 

Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen and S.H. Black. 2008. Status review of three formerly common 

species of bumble bee in the subgenus bombus: Bombus affinis (the rusty patched 

bumble bee), B. terricola (the yellowbanded bumble bee), and B. occidentalis (the 

western bumble bee). The Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Available at 

http://www.xerces.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf 

Fleckenstein, J. and R. Huff. 2007a. Species fact sheet: Meadow fritillary. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 2 p. 

Fleckenstein, J. and R. Huff. 2007b. Species fact sheet: Barry’s hairstreak. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 2 p. 

Fleckenstein, J. and R. Huff. 2007c. Species fact sheet: Great Basin fritillary. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 3 p. 

Fleckenstein, J. and R. Huff. 2007d. Species fact sheet: lustrous copper. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 2 p. 

Fortin, N. and F. Cassirer. 2015. Annual report of the Hells Canyon Initiative: Restoration of 

bighorn sheep to Hells Canyon. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, Idaho 

2014-2015. 22 p. 

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special concern. 

Final report: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, 

WA. Deixis Consultants, Seatttle, WA. Contract #43-0E00-4-9112. 274 p. + appendices. 

Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1989. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed 

woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Non-game Wildlife Program 

Technical Report 87-3-02. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland. 

Grindal, S.D. and R.M. Brigham. 1999. Impacts of forest harvesting on habitat use by foraging 

insectivorous bats at different spatial scales. EcoScience 6(25-34). 

Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Unpublished report available online 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181908.pdf 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-23

Harrod, R.J., W.L. Gaines, W.E. Hartl, and A. Camp. 1998. Estimating historical snag density in 

dry forests east of the Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-428. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 16 p. 

Hitchcock, M. and A. Ager. 1992. Microcomputer software for calculating and elk habitat

effectiveness index on Blue Mountain winter range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-301. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p. 

Humes, M.L., J.P. Hayes, and M.W. Collopy. 1999. Bat activity in thinned, unthinned, and oldgrowth forests in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 63, pp. 553-561. 

Inman, R.M., M.L. Packila, K.H. Inman, A.J. McCue, G.C. White, J.Persson, B.C. Aber, M.L. 

Orme, K.L. Alt, S.L. Cain, J.A. Fredrick, B.J. Oakleaf, S.S. Sartorius. 2011. Spatial 

ecology of wolverines at the southern periphery of distribution. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 76:778-792. 

Jepsen, S., T. Burk, and S. F. Jordan. 2011. Final Report to the Interagency Special Status / 

Sensitive Species Program regarding Surveys for four terrestrial mollusk species on the 

Umatilla National Forest and Vale District BLM lands. The Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon. 25 p. 

Jepsen, S., A. Carleton, and S. Folts Jordan. 2012. Spring 2012 Blue Mountains terrestrial 

mollusk surveys. Final report to the Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species 

Program. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon. 88 p 

Korfhage, R.C., J.R. Nelson, and J.M. Skovlin. 1980. Diets of Rocky Mountain elk in 

northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 44(3):746-750. 

Korol, Jerome J., Miles A. Hemstrom, Wendel J. Hann, and Rebecca Gravenmier. 2002. Snags

and down wood in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. In: 

W.F. Laudenslayer, B. Valentine, C.P. Weatherspoon, T.E. Lisle (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-GTR181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/049_Korol.pdf 

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability 

concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4):1179-1188. 

Magoun, A.J., P. Valkenburg, C.D. Long, J.K Long. 2013. Monitoring wolverines in northeast 

Oregon. January 2011 - December 2012. Final Report. The Wolverine Foundation, Inc., 

Kuna, Idaho. http://wolverinefoundation.org 

Marcot, B.G., B.C. Wales, R. Demmer. 2003. Range maps of terrestrial species in the Interior 

Columbia River Basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. PNWGTR-583, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, Portland, OR. 304 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr583/ 

Mason, R. and B. Countryman. 2010. CVS inventory plot snag and down wood data for the Blue 

Mountain Forest Plan Revision. Unpublished report (9/1/2010). Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest, Baker City, OR. 

McGrath, M.T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Erwin, and G.J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit 

influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. 

Wildlife Monographs No. 154. 63 p. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-24 Umatilla National Forest

Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, eds. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University 

of Chicago Press, Chicago IL. 448 p. 

Mellen-McLean. 2011. Comparison of historical range of variability for dead wood: decAID vs. 

other published estimates. Available online at: HRV Dead Wood Comparison. 

Mellen-McLean, Kim. 2012a. MIS Information Sheet. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus 

pileatus). On file USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. 16 p. 

Mellen-McLean, Kim. 2012b. MIS Information Sheet. Northern three-toed woodpecker 

(Picoides dorsalis). On file USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR. 

Mellen-McLean, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Willhite, 

B.B. Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor 

for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of 

Washington and Oregon. Version 2.10. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 

and Pacific Northwest Research Station; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State 

Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml Last 

accessed May 2017. 

Moriarty, K.M., C.W. Epps, and W.J. Zielinski. 2016. Forest thinning changes movement 

patterns and habitat use by Pacific marten. Journal of Wildlife Management 80(4):621-

633. 

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Last accessed May 2017. 

Nielsen-Pincus, N and E.O. Garton. 2007. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to changes in 

available habitat reveal underlying determinants of nest selection. Northwestern 

Naturalist 88:135–146. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2003. Oregon’s elk management plan. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 63p. 

Ohmann, J.L. and M.J. Gregory. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure 

with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, U.S.A. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 32:725-741. 

Ohmann, J.L. and K.L. Waddell. 2002. Regional patterns of dead wood in forested habitat of 

Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181, U.S. Forest Service. 560 p. 

Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2012. Species Assessment Database, version 2012. 

Available at http://rmbo.org/pifassessment/ Accessed on May 11, 2017. 

Perkins, J.M. and T. Schommer. 1992. Survey protocol and an interim species conservation 

strategy for Plecotus townsendii in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. 23 p. 

Unpublished Report for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 

Boise, Idaho. 

Powell, D.C. 2003. Determining green-tree replacements for snags: a process paper. Umatilla 

National Forest, Pendleton, OR. 49. 

Powell, D.C. 2014. Range of variation recommendations for dry, moist, and cold forests. White 

Paper F14-SO-WP-Silv-3. July 2014 update. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 60 p. 

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. 

W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-25

Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. 

Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Partners in Flight website. 

www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan. 

Rose, C.L., B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, J.L. Ohmann, K.L. Waddell, D. Lindley, and B. 

Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for 

habitat management. In D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil, (managing directors), Wildlifehabitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling 

in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684. 

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and M.A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on 

elk: implications for management in forested ecosystems. In M.J. Wisdom (Ed.), The 

Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. p. 45-52. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific 

basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in 

the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p. 

Saab, V. A., T. D. Rich. 1997. Large-scale conservation assessment for Neotropical migratory 

land birds in the interior Columbia basin: Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-399. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 57 p. 

Sallabanks, R, B.G. Marcot, R.A. Riggs, C.A.Mehl, and E.B. Arnett. 2001. Wildlife of eastside 

(interior) forests and woodlands. In D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil (managing directors), 

Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. 

p. 213-238. 

Samson, F.B.; Knopf, F.L.; McCarthy, C.W. [and others]. 2003. Planning for population 

viability on Northern Great Plains national grasslands. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 31(4): 

986-999. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. 

The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2013. Version 

01.30.2015 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD 

Scheuering, E. 2006. Species fact sheet: Columbia Clubtail (dragonfly). Interagency Special 

Status/ Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) webpage. USDA Forest Service/ USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 2 p. 

Sheley, R.L. and J.K. Petroff (Eds.). 1999. Biology and management of noxious rangeland 

weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 438 p. 

Spiegel, L.H. 2014. Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly (Callophrys johnsoni) in the Blue Mountains. 

Report from the USDA Forest Service, Blue Mountains Forest Insect and Disease 

Service Center, La Grande, OR. 7 p. 

Stine, P., P. Hessburg, T. Spies, M. Kramer, C. Fettig, A. Hansen, J. Lehmkuhl, K. O'Hara, K. 

Polivka, P. Singleton, S. Charnley, A. Merschel, and R. White. 2014. The ecology and 

management of moist mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a 

synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and implications for future land 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-897. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 254 p. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-26 Umatilla National Forest

Squires, J.R. and P.L. Kennedy. 2006. Goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowledge 

and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 

31:8-62. 

Suring, L.H., W.L. Gaines, B.C. Wales, K. Mellen-McLean, J.S. Begley, and S. Mohoric. 2011. 

Maintaining populations of terrestrial wildlife through land management planning: a 

case study. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(4): 945-958. Thomas, D.W. 1988. The 

distribution of bats in different ages of Douglas-fir forests. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 52 (619-626). 

Thomas, J.W., R.G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E.L. Bull. 1979. Snags. In J.W. Thomas (ed.),

Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington 

(pp. 60-77). U.S. Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512 p. 

Thomas, J. W, D.A. Leckenby, M.A. Henjum, R.J. Pedersen, and L.D. Bryant. 1988. Habitat

effectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain Winter Ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-218. Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p. 

Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.), 

The birds of North America, No. 284. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, 

and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Umatilla National 

Forest (Forest Plan). Pendleton, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Umatilla National Forest. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, 

Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales, (Eastside Screens), Regional 

Forester's Forest Plan Amendment #2. Appendix B Revised Interim Direction. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region (6), Portland, 

Oregon. June. 14 p. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2006. Occupied mapped lynx habitat; amendment to the Canada 

lynx conservation agreement. Letter to Regional Foresters dated May 26, 2006. U.S. 

Forest Service, Washington D.C. 6 p. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2015. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Animal List. 2670/1950 Memo 

(to Forest Supervisors). U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 182 p. 49398-49411. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Washington D.C. December 31. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Notice of remanded determination of status for 

the contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx; 

clarification of findings; final rule. Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 128, p. 40076-40101. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 

23 pp. Last accessed March 7, 2011. 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BaldEagle/National

BaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United 

States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ Last 

accessed April 22, 2015 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-27

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Final Rule to identify the Northern Rocky 

Mountain population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment and to revise the list 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 62, p. 15123-

15188. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Reissuance of Final Rule to identify the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment and 

to revise the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 

87, p. 25590 - 25592. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Threatened status for the distinct population 

segment of the North American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States; 

Proposed Rule. Federal Register Vol. 78, No.23, p. 7864-7890. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Threatened status for the western distinct 

population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Federal 

Register Vol 79, No. 192, p. 59992-60038. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. List of threatened and endangered species that 

may occur in the Sunrise project area. Cover letter and list, 6p. 

Van Dijk, J., T. Andersen, R. May, R. Andersen, R. Andersen, and A. Landa. 2008. Foraging 

strategies of wolverines within a predator guild. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86:966-

975. 

Vekasy, M and P. Wik. 2015. Mountain quail translocation in the Asotin Creek Watershed. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 12p. 

Vogel, C.A., and K.P. Reese. 1995. Mountain quail status report: a document preliminary to a 

habitat conservation assessment for mountain quail. 33p. Unpublished Report for the 

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Boise, Idaho. 

Wales, B.C., W.L. Gaines, L.H. Suring, and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2011. Viability analysis of focal 

species for the Blue Mountain National Forests – Forest Plan Revisions (draft June 

2011). Unpublished report. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, OR. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Confederated Colville Tribes, Spokane 

Tribe of Indians, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2017. Washington gray wolf conservation and management 2016 annual report. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Colville, WA. 

Weber, K.T., C.L. Marcum, M.G. Burcham, and L.J. Lyon. 2000. Landscape influence on elk 

vulnerability to hunting. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 6(2): 86-94. 

Wiggins, D. 2004. American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): a technical 

conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 40 p. 

Available online at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182071.pdf 

Wik, P. and M. Vekasy. 2016. Blue Mountains elk herd. In 2016 Game Status and Trend Report. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. p. 74-83. 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01875/wdfw01875.pdf 

Wiles, G. J., H. L. Allen, and G. E. Hayes. 2011. Wolf conservation and management plan for 

Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 297 pp. 

Wisdom, M. J.; R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Wendel, 

T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitat for 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-28 Umatilla National Forest

terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad scale trends and 

management implications. Volume 1-3. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. 

U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Wisdom, M.J., B.K. Johnson, M. Vavra, J.M. Boyd, P.K. Coe, J.G. Kie, A.A. Ager, and N.J. 

Cimon. 2005. Cattle and elk responses to intensive timber harvest. In M.J. Wisdom 

(Ed.), The Starkey Project: A synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer (pp. 

197-216). Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS. 

Zielinski, W.J., K.M. Slauson, C.R. Carroll, C.J. Kent, and D.K. Kudrna. 2001. Status of 

American marten populations in the coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of 

Mammalogy 82:478–490. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), Potential Wilderness 

Areas (PWA), and Other Undeveloped Lands

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Umatilla National Forest. 

Economics

A Profile of Timber and Wood Products for Columbia County, WA; Garfield County, WA; 

Asotin County WA; and Nez Perce County, ID. 2015. Economic Profile System, 

Headwaters.org. 

C. Larry Mason and Bruce R. Lippke; Jobs, Revenues, and Taxes from Timber Harvest; An 

Examination of the Forest Industry Contribution to the Washington State Economy. 

2007. University of Washington 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMRP). 1991. USDA Forest 

Service, Pendleton, OR. 

Umatilla National Forest PTSAR (Sale Details). 2006-2016. USDA Forest Service 

USDA Forest Service 2002. Timber Sale Preparation Handbook Chapter 10 – Sale Program 

Development – Gate System and Chapter 20–Timber Sale Project Development–Gate 1. 

Washington State Timber Harvest Reports. 2006-2016. Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. Olympia, WA 

Air Quality

Achtemeier, Gary L., Jackson, Bill, and Brenner, James D. 2001. Problem and Nuisance Smoke. 

Smoke Management Guide For Prescribed and Wildland Fire. (pp 41-50). 

Core, John E. and Janice L. Peterson. 2001. Public Health and Exposure to Smoke. Smoke 

Management Guide For Prescribed and Wildland Fire. (pp 35-39). 

Ottmar, Roger D., et al. 2001. Smoke Management: Techniques to Reduce or Redistribute 

Emissions. Smoke Management Guide For Prescribed and Wildland Fire. (pp. 41-162). 

Ottmar, Roger D., and Timothy R. Reinhardt. Smoke Exposure Among Fireline Personnel. 

Smoke Management Guide For Prescribed and Wildland Fire. (pp 51-58). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-29

Ottmar, Roger D. 2001. Smoke Source Characteristics. Smoke Management Guide For 

Prescribed and Wildland Fire. (pp. 89-105). 

Peterson, Janice L. 2001. Regulations for Smoke Management. Smoke Management Guide For 

Prescribed and Wildland Fire. (pp. 61-74). 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Umatilla National Forest. Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009. Washington State Department of Ecology. July 

2009 <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/airhome.html> 

Fisheries

Behnke, R. J. 1979. Monograph of the native trouts of the genus Salmo of western North 

America. US Forest Service, Region 2, Lakewood, Colorado.

Bond, C. E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of the bull trout and the effects of 

human activity on the species. In: .E. Reiman and J. D. McIntyre. Demographic and 

habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-302, 

September 1993. 38 pp.

Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) from 

the American Northwest. California Fish and Game. 64(3): 139-174.

Clean Water Act (1972) and amendments. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cwatxt.txt

Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Steelhead Populations in the Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment. Carmichael R.W., and B.J Taylor. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2009.

Elmore, Wayne and Robert L. Beschta, Riparian Areas, Perceptions in Management; 

Rangelands, Vol. 9, No. 6 (December, 1987), pages 260-265. 

Ford, M.J. (Ed.), T. Cooney, P. McElhany, N. Sands, L. Weitkamp, J. Hard, M. McClure, R. 

Kope, J. Myers, A. Albaugh, K. Barnas, D. Teel, P. Moran and J. Cowen. 2010. Status 

Review Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed Under the Endangered Species

Act: Northwest. Draft U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum 

NOAA‐TM‐NWFSC‐XXX. 346 p. [Online] 

URL:http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Publications/Biological-Status-Reviews/upload/SR2010-all-species.pdf (last accessed August 15, 2014).

Frest, T. J., and E. J. Johannes. 1995. Interior Columbia Basin mollusk species of special 

concern. Final report: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla 

Walla, WA. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, WA. Contract #43-0E00-4-9112. 274 pp. plus 

appendices.

Haas, Gordon R. and J. D. McPhail. 1991. Systematics and distribution of Dolly Varden 

(Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in North America. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 48: 2191-2211.

Halofsky, J.E., Hibbs, D.E., 2009. Controls on early post-fire woody plant colonization in 

riparian areas. Forest Ecology and Management vol. 258, issue 7 (September 2009).

Hankin, D.G., and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in 

small streams based on visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 45: 834-844.
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-30 Umatilla National Forest

Lawler J. J., M. Mathias, A. E. Yahnke, and E. H. Girvetz. 2008. Oregon’s Biodiversity in a 

Changing Climate. Report prepared for the Climate Leadership Initiative, University of 

Oregon.

Luce, C.H. and Z.A. Holden, Declining annual streamflow distributions in the Pacific Northwest 

United States, 1948–2006, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, 

L16401, doi:10.1029/2009GL039407, 2009.McKinney, S.P., J. O’Connor, C.K. 

Overton, K. MacDonald, K. Tu, S.Whitwell. 1996. A Characterization of Inventoried 

Streams in the Columbia River Basin. Aqua-Talk USDA 11:1-119.

Meehan, W. R. and T. C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid Distributions and Life Histories. Chapter three 

in: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their 

Habitat, William R. Meehan, Editor, 1991.

National Marine Fisheries Service, 1996. Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of 

Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. Prepared by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service Environmental and Technical Services Division 

Habitat Conservation Branch. 33p.

National Marine Fisheries, 2011. Middle Columbia River steelhead 5-Year Status Reviews.

Portland, OR [online]. 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/middlecolumbiariver_steelhead_5yearreview.

pdf. [Last accessed August 15, 2014) 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 2011. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation of Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead. Prepared by the National Marine Fisheries Service. 14p.

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/status_reviews/salmon_steelhead/s

teelhead/5-yr-mcr.pdf

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1 

NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available http://www.naturserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 

Nov. 29, 2011).

Nedeau E.J., A.K. Smith, J. Stone, and S. Jepsen. 2009. Freshwater Mussels of the Pacific 

Northwest Sec Edition. The Xerces Society, Portland OR.

Neitzel D.A., T.J. Frest. 1990. Survey of Columbia River Basin Streams for Columbia 

Pebblesnail and Shortface Lanx. Fisheries. Vol. 15(2): 2-3.

Paulson, D. 1999. Dragonflies of Washington. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 31 pp.

Scheuering, E. 2006. Columbia Clubtail species fact sheet. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive

Species Program (ISSSSP) webpage. USDA Forest Service/USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, Oregon and Washington. Available Online 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml).

Section 7 Fish Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper Columbia River Basin. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1994. 

Umatilla National Forest. 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan, Umatilla National Forest,

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Pendleton Oregon.

USDA and USDI. 1995. Decision notice/decision record finding no significant impact: 

environmental assessment for the interim strategies for managing anadromous fishproducing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and portions of 

California (PACFISH).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-31

USDA Forest Service, 2004. Biscuit Fire Recovery Project Final Environmental Impact 

Statement [online]. Available from www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/biscuit-fire/feis 

(accessed 10 March 2005).

USDA Forest Service, 2005. B&B Fire Recovery Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

[online]. Available from www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/projects/units/sisters/b-bfire/bb-final-feis.shtml (Accessed 17 October 2006).

USDA Forest Service, National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands, Volume 1, National Core BMP Technical Guide, FS 

990a, April, 2012.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy, 

August 13, 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. General Water Quality Best Management Practices. Available on 

file at the Umatilla National Forest, Supervisors Office, Pendleton, Oregon.

Invasive Plants

Antos, Joeseph A.; McCune, Bruce; Bara, Cliff. 1983. The effect of fire on an ungrazed western 

Montana grassland. American Midland Naturalist. 110(2): 354-364.

Bushey, C. 1995. Fire effects on noxious weeds within the Columbia River Basin. Science 

report, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Available online at: 

http://www.icbemp.gov ( under Science Contract Reports, September 7, 1999.).

Floyd, M. Lisa; Hanna, David; Romme, William H.; Crews, Timothy E. 2006. Predicting and 

mitigating weed invasions to restore natural post-fire succession in Mesa Verde National

Park, Colorado, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 15: 247-259. 

Haskins, Kristin E.; Gehring, Catherine A. 2004. Long-term effects of burning slash on plant 

communities and arbuscular mycorrhizae in a semi-arid woodland. Journal of Applied 

Ecology. 41: 379-388.

Keeley, J.E. 2001. fire and invasive species in Mediterranean-climate ecosystems of California. 

Pp. 81-94 in K. Galley and T. Wilson (eds.). Proceedings of the invasive species 

workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire Conference 

2000: the first national congress on fire ecology, prevention, and management. 

Miscellaneous publication No.11, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.

Martin, Eveline L.; Martin, Ian D. 1999. Prescribed burning and competitive reseeding as tools 

for reducing yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) at Pinnacles National Monument. 

In: Kelly, Mike; Howe, Melanie; Neill, Bill, eds. Proceedings, California Exotic Pest 

Plant Council; 1999 October 15-17; Sacramento, CA. Volume 5. [Davis, CA]: California 

Exotic Pest Plant Council: 51-56. [40413]

Record of Decision. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Record of Decision. 2010. Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Umatilla National Forest, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Pendleton, Oregon. 

Roche, C.; White, G. R. 2000. Managing yellow starthistle in southwestern Oregon. EM 8750. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 8 p. [40378]
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-32 Umatilla National Forest

Schoennagel, T. and D. Waller 1999. Understory responses to fire and artificial seeding in an 

eastern Cascades Abies Grandis forest, U.S.A. Can. J. For. Res. 29:1393-1401.

Sutherland, Steve. 2008. Monitoring the impact of wildfire, fire suppression, and post-burn 

restoration on exotic weed invasion. Unpublished data on file at: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences laboratory, 

Missoula, MT. 

Turner, Monica G.; Romme, William H.; Gardner, Robert H.; Hargrove, William W. 1997. 

Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park. 

Ecological Monographs. 67(4): 411-433. 

Youngblood, Andrew; Metlen, Kerry L.; Coe, Kent. 2006. Changes in stand structure and 

composition after restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern 

Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 234(1-3): 143-163. 

Youtie, B., J. Ponzetti, D. Salzer, and J. Soll. 1998. Controlling annual exotic grasses on relict

grasslands (Oregon). Restoration and Management Notes 16:2.

Zouhar, Kris. (2001, July). Centaurea maculosa. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/censtom/all.html [ 2017, August 29].

Zouhar, Kris. 2002a. Centaurea solstitialis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2006, 

January 17].

Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/brotec/all.html [ 2017, August 29].

Zouhar, Kris. 2003. Chondrilla juncea. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/chojun/all.html [ 2017, August 29].

Zouhar, Kris. 2004. Hypericum perforatum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire 

Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/hypper/all.html [ 2017, August 29].

Soils

Amaranthus M.P., Page-Dumroese, D., Harvey, A., Cazares, E. and Bednar, L.F. 1996. Soil 

Compaction and Organic Matter Affect Conifer Seedling Nonmycorrhizal and 

Ectomycorrhial Root Tip Abundance and Diversity. PNW-RP-494. 

Archuleta, J.G. 2013. Kahler Dry Forest Restoration Project. Soils Report. On File at: Heppner 

Ranger District, 117 South Main Street. Heppner, OR 97836. 

Archuleta, James G. 1997. Lakeview #4 Monitoring of Soil Compaction and Severely Burned 

Soil. Unpublished report, Diamond Lake RD Umpqua National Forest. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-33

Archuleta, James G. 1999. Bearpaw #17 Post harvest evaluation of ground based equipment. 

Unpublished report, Diamond Lake RD Umpqua National Forest. 

Archuleta JG and Karr MW. 2006 US. Patent #7,086,184 B2 Subsoiling Grapple Rake. 

Archuleta J.G. and M.W. Karr. 2006 US. Patent #7,059,072 B2 Subsoiling Excavator Bucket. 

Archuleta, J. 2007. Temporary Road and Landing obliteration within Skyline Logging Units. In 

proceedings of: The International Mountain Logging and 13th Pacific Northwest Skyline 

Symposium, at Corvallis, OR, Volume: 1 

Archuleta, J.G. and E.S. Baxter. 2008. Subsoiling promotes native plant establishment on 

compacted forest sites. Native Plants Journal 9(2):117–122. 

Bennett, K.A. 1982. Report to the Siuslaw National Forest. Effects of slash burning on surface 

soil erosion rates in the Oregon Coast Range. 

Brady, N. C., and R. R. Weil. 1999. The nature and properties of soil. 12th Edition. Figure 3.4 

Bulmer, C.E. and Simpson, D.G. 2010. Soil Compaction Reduced the Growth of Lodgepole Pine 

and Douglas-fir Seedlings in Raised Beds after Two Growing Seasons. Soil Sci. Soc. 

Am. 74:2162-2174. doi:10.2136/sssaj2009.0458 

Elliot, W.J. and I.S. Miller. 2017. Watershed Analysis using WEPP Technology for The Clear 

Creek Integrated Restoration Project. Unpublished Paper. USDA Forest Service. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. January 6, 2017. 24 pp. 

Elliot, W.J. 2005. Watershed Analysis for Fuel Management Operations. USDA Forest Service. 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. February 2005. 14 pp. 

https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/fume/WEPP_FuME.pdf 

Elliott, W.J. and Robichaud, P.R., 2001. Comparing Erosion Risks from Forest Operations to 

Wildfire. Proceedings The International Mountain Logging and 11th Pacific Northwest 

Skyline Symposium p78-89. 

Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall and D.L. Scheele. 1999. FS WEPP. Forest Service Interfaces for the 

Water Erosion Prediction Project Computer Model. USDA Forest Service. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 

October 1999. On-line Documentation. 

https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/fsweppdoc.html 

Froehlich, H.A and McNabb, D.H. 1983. Minimizing Soil Compaction in Pacific Northwest 

Forests. Presented 6th North American Forest Soils Conference on Forest Soils and 

Treatment Impacts. 

Garrison-Johnston, M.T., Mika P.G., Miller D.L., Cannon, P., and Johnson L.R. 2007 

Proceedings RMRS-P-44; Fort Collins, CO: Ash Cap Influences on Site Productivity 

and Fertilizer Response in Forests of the Inland Northwest. Volcanic-Ash-Derived 

Forest Soils of the Inland Northwest: Properties and Implications for Management and 

Restoration. 9-10 November 2005; Coeur d’Alene, ID. 

Han, H.S., Page-Dumroese, D., Han, S.K., Tirocke, J. 2006. Effects of Slash, Machine Passes, 

and Soil Moisture on Penetration Resistance in a Cut-to-length Harvesting. Int. J. of For. 

Engr. Vol. 17 (2): 11-24. 

Harris, R.M., Clifton, C.F., and Wonzell, S.M. 2007. Hillslope Erosion Rates in Areas with 

Volcanic Parent Materials and the Effects of Prescribed Fires in the Blue Mountains of 

Eastern Oregon and Washington, USA. M Furniss, C Clifton, and K Ronnenberg, eds., 

2007. Advancing the Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings of the Forest Service National 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

R-34 Umatilla National Forest

Earth Sciences Conference, San Diego, CA, 18-22 October 2004, PNWGTR-689, 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 

Helvey, J.D. and W.B. Fowler. 1995. Umatilla National Forest Barometer Watershed Program. 

Effects of timber harvest on the hydrology and climate of four small watersheds. 

Heninger, R., Scott, W., Dobkowski, A., Miller, R., Anderson, H., and Duke, S. 2002. Soil 

disturbance and 10-year growth response of coast Douglas-fir on nontilled and tilled skid 

trails in the Oregon Cascades. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 233–246 

Lane, L.J., Shirley, E.D. and Singh, V.P. 1988. Modelling erosion on hillslopes. In M. G. 

Anderson. (Eds) Modelling Geomorphological Systems. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 

Larsen, I. J., and L. H. MacDonald (2007), Predicting postfire sediment yields at the hillslope 

scale: Testing RUSLE and Disturbed WEPP, Water Resources. Res., 43(11). 18pp. 

W11412, doi:10.1029/2006WR005560 

Luce, C.H., 1997. Effectiveness of Road Ripping in Restoring Infiltration Capacity of Forest 

Roads, Restoration Ecology 5(3):265-270. 

Miller, R.E., Colbert, S.R., and Morris, L.A. 2004. Effects of heavy equipment on physical 

properties of soils and on long-term productivity: a review of literature and current 

research. Technical Bulletin No. 887 Nat. Council for Air and Stream Improvement. 

Napper, C., Howes, S., and Page-Dumroese, D. 2009. Soil Disturbance Field Guide. USDA 

Forest Service. National Technology and Develoment Program. 0819 1815-SDTDC. 

1940 Inventory and Monitoring. August 2009. 103 pp. 

Page-Dumroese, D.S.; Abbott, A.M.; Rice, T.M.et al. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring

Protocol Volume I: Rapid Assessment. Gen Tech. Report WO-82a. U.S. Dept. 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Reeves, Derrick; Page-Dumroese, Deborah; Coleman, Mark. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance

associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Res. 

Pap. RMRS-RP-89 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 12 p. 

Robichaud P.R., Beyers, J.L., and Neary, D.G. 2000. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Postfire 

Rehabilitation Treatments. RMRS-GTR-63. 

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. ISBN: 0-9653289-0-2. 

https://www.wildlandhydrology.com/ 

USDA Forest Service. 1997b. Soil Disturbance from Helicopter Yarding in the Upper Pistol 

Timber Sale. Southwestern Oregon, Siskiyou N.F. White paper (0340) 

USDA Forest Service. Sunrise Project Record. Specialist Reports for Fisheries, Fuels, 

Hydrology, Silviculture and Transportation. On File at: Pomeroy Ranger District. 71 

West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347. 

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Asotin Creek Prescribed Fire Project Record. On File at: Pomeroy 

Ranger District. 71 West Main Street, Pomeroy, WA 99347. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. As Amended. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District R-35

USDA NRCS. 1998. Title 190. National Forestry Manual. Part 537-2. National Soil Information 

System Interpretations. Part 537.2: pp. 537-6 to 537-73. 

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050983.pdf 

USDA NRCS. Web Site for Official Soil Series Descriptions and Series Classification. 

https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/ 

Wondzell, S. M. and C.F. Clifton. 2005. Final Report. Evaluating the effects of prescribed fire

and fuels treatment on water quality and aquatic habitat. Project #: 01-3-3-18. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/umatilla/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stel

prdb5208811 

Visual Resources (scenery)

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1: The 

Visual Management System. Washington, DC: Agriculture Handbook 462. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. 

Washington, DC: Agriculture Handbook 701. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-1

Appendices

Appendix A: Maps

Map A-1: Vicinity Map................................................................................................................................................... 2

Map A- 2: Management Area Map.................................................................................................................................. 3

Map A- 3: Subwatershed Area Map ................................................................................................................................ 4

Map A- 4: Alternative B Vegetation Treatment Map ...................................................................................................... 5

Map A- 5: Alternative C Vegetation Treatment Map ...................................................................................................... 6

Map A- 6: Alternative B Fuels Treatment Map............................................................................................................... 7

Map A- 7: Alternative C Fuels Treatment Map............................................................................................................... 8

Appendix B: Cutting Unit Activities for Action Alternatives

Appendix C: Compliance with Eastside Screens
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

A-2 Umatilla National Forest

Appendix A: Project Maps

Map A-1: Vicinity Map
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-3

Map A- 2: Management Area Map
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

A-4 Umatilla National Forest

Map A- 3: Subwatershed Area Map
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-5

Map A- 4: Alternative B Vegetation Treatment Map
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

A-6 Umatilla National Forest

Map A- 5: Alternative C Vegetation Treatment Map
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-7

Map A- 6: Alternative B Fuels Treatment Map
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

A-8 Umatilla National Forest

Map A- 7: Alternative C Fuels Treatment Map
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-9

Appendix B: Cutting Unit Activities for Action

Alternatives

Cutting 

Unit

Alt B 

(acres)

Alt C 

(acres)

Timber 

harvest/

yarding

system

Primary 

Silvicultural 

cutting 

method

Primary fuels treatment

1 56 56 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

2 38 38 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

3 34 34 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

4 44 44 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

5 22 22 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

6 22 22 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

7 13 13 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

8 57 57 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

9 74 74 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

10 58 58 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

11 99 99 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

13 20 20 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

14 67 67 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

15 66 66 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

16 69 69 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

18 7 7 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

19 13 13 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

20 15 15 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

21 34 34 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

22 24 24 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

23 17 17 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

24 53 53 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

25 25 25 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

26 17 17 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

27 40 40 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

A-10 Umatilla National Forest

Cutting 

Unit

Alt B 

(acres)

Alt C 

(acres)

Timber 

harvest/

yarding

system

Primary 

Silvicultural 

cutting 

method

Primary fuels treatment

28 25 25 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

30 45 45 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

31 163 163 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

32 57 57 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

33 32 32 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

34 8 8 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

35 59 59 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

36 104 104 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

37 34 34 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

38 21 21 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

39 8 8 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

40 47 47 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

41 18 18 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

44 49 49 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

45 6 6 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

46 24 24 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

47 118 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

48 43 43 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

49 38 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

50 63 63 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

51 7 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

52 25 25 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

54 31 31 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

55 40 23 Ground-based Intermediate Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

56 21 21 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

57 22 22 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

58 29 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

60 79 79 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

61 105 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

62 10 10 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

63 64 64 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

64 111 95 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

65 10 10 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile burn

66 35 0 Skyline Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

67 67 60 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

69 4 0 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile burn

70 6 0 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile burn
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-11

Cutting 

Unit

Alt B 

(acres)

Alt C 

(acres)

Timber 

harvest/

yarding

system

Primary 

Silvicultural 

cutting 

method

Primary fuels treatment

71 141 99 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

72 8 4 Skyline Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

73 8 0 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile burn

74 19 19 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

75 15 15 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

76 52 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

77 91 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

78 53 53 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

79 46 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

80 87 0 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

81 7 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

82 83 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

83 52 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

84 10 0 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile burn

85 8 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

86 54 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

87 16 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

88 2 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

89 55 55 Ground-based Intermediate Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

90 13 13 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

91 33 33 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

92 41 0 Skyline Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

93 13 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

94 91 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

95 12 12 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

96 160 0 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

97 59 59 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

98 18 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

99 16 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

100 53 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

101 46 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

102 113 78 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

103 19 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

104 41 41 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

105 52 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

106 39 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

107 9 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

108 23 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn and 

mechanical thinning

(mastication)

109 27 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

110 5 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

111 93 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

112 40 0 Skyline Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

113 41 41 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

114 18 17 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

116 83 59 Skyline Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile and landscape burn

117 58 35 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

A-12 Umatilla National Forest

Cutting 

Unit

Alt B 

(acres)

Alt C 

(acres)

Timber 

harvest/

yarding

system

Primary 

Silvicultural 

cutting 

method

Primary fuels treatment

118 18 0 Skyline Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile and landscape burn

119 12 12 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

120 240 16 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

121 42 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

122 54 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

123 11 11 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

124 45 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

125 37 37 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

126 9 9 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile burn

127 90 90 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

128 15 0 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

129 24 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

130 21 21 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

131 79 77 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

132 7 7 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

133 35 35 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

134 43 0 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

135 54 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

136 35 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

137 19 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

138 70 44 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

139 53 53 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

140 12 12 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

141 20 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

142 5 5 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

143 8 8 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

144 8 8 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

145 35 35 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

146 104 88 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

147 5 5 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

148 8 8 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

149 16 16 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

150 57 57 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

151 7 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

152 8 8 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

153 41 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

154 7 7 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

155 34 34 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

157 6 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

158 46 46 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

159 56 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

160 47 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

161 43 0 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

162 44 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

163 38 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

164 38 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

165 31 31 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

166 26 26 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

167 11 11 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-13

Cutting 

Unit

Alt B 

(acres)

Alt C 

(acres)

Timber 

harvest/

yarding

system

Primary 

Silvicultural 

cutting 

method

Primary fuels treatment

168 27 27 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

169 26 26 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

170 9 9 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

171 18 0 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

172 7 7 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

173 7 7 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

174 5 5 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

175 42 42 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

176 34 34 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

177 4 4 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

178 24 24 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn and 

mechanical thinning

(mastication)

179 12 12 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn and 

mechanical thinning

(mastication)

180 25 25 Ground-based Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication)

181 7 7 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication)

182 45 45 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

183 7 7 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

184 18 18 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

185 28 28 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

186 17 17 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

187 13 13 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

188 8 8 Ground-based Intermediate Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

189 24 24 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication)

190 17 17 Ground-based Intermediate Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

191 1 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

192 6 6 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

193 3 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

194 7 7 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication)

195 11 11 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

196 56 56 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

197 8 8 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

198 11 11 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

199 15 15 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

200 18 18 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

201 15 15 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

202 12 12 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

203 15 15 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

204 17 17 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

205 22 22 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

A-14 Umatilla National Forest

Cutting 

Unit

Alt B 

(acres)

Alt C 

(acres)

Timber 

harvest/

yarding

system

Primary 

Silvicultural 

cutting 

method

Primary fuels treatment

206 21 21 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

207 7 7 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

208 57 57 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

209 10 10 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

210 20 20 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

211 2 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

212 18 18 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

213 2 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

214 20 20 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication) and landscape burn

215 7 7 None Intermediate Mechanical thinning

(mastication)

216 6 6 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn and 

mechanical thinning

(mastication)

217 7 7 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile burn

218 16 16 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

219 10 10 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile burn

220 5 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

221 6 0 Ground-based Intermediate Landing and/or grapple-pile burn

223 3 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

226 116 0 Ground-based Combination/b

oth

Landing-pile burn

227 30 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

228 12 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

229 27 27 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn

230 20 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

231 18 0 Ground-based Regeneration Landing-pile burn

232 31 31 Skyline Regeneration Landing-pile and landscape burn

233 47 47 Skyline Intermediate Landing-pile and landscape burn

235 208 208 None Intermediate Manual (hand) thinning, pruning, 

and landscape burn
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-15

Appendix C: Consistency with Eastside Screens

General Standards (Items 1-3 in Plan Amendment #11)

The Sunrise project action alternatives are consistent with the Screens general standards because 

they are designed to incorporate the interim ecosystem and wildlife standards as discussed 

below, and incorporate the riparian standard by avoiding any tree-cutting activities within 

Pacfish-designated RHCAs. Items 2 and 3 are not pertinent because the Sunrise project is not 

claimed as an exception to Item 1. 

Ecosystem Standard (Item 5 in Plan Amendment #11)

The Sunrise project action alternatives are consistent with the Screens ecosystem standards for 

reasons described below, with reference to the applicable required component in the Eastside 

Screens. 

• Item 5a: Proposed timber-harvest activities were assessed relative to their associated 

watershed for patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment, and comparisons were 

made to the Historic Range of Variability (Martin 2010). The HRV used was developed for 

large landscapes across which forest types, environmental settings, and disturbance regimes 

are relatively uniform (Powell 2014b). The component watershed used for the sunrise 

analysis has a range of conditions broadly reflective of the range of conditions for which the 

HRV was developed (interior Pacific Northwest montane forest ecosystems). Quantified 

vegetation analysis was limited to National Forest System lands within the Lick Creek and 

North Fork Asotin watersheds. Approximately 500 acres were classified on private and stateowned lands within the watershed from adjacent Forest Service lands and using aerial 

photographs. The distribution of structural stages appears similar to analogous Forest 

Service lands, with a heavy dominance of high density old forest multi-strata forests, of 

Douglas-fir, grand fir, and ponderosa pine cover types. Thus, their inclusion into the 

quantified ecosystem analysis of this report would not noticeably alter findings, activity 

types, or project consistency with Forest Plan requirements. 

• Item 5b: To characterize forest ecosystems relevant to the Sunrise silviculture analysis, HRV

was determined in Powell 2014b (and references therein) using the first 3 steps outlined in 

the Screens for Item 3b. Powell 2014b is incorporated by reference into this analysis. Step 4 

of Item 3b was mapped for the project analysis, and structural stage abundance was 

calculated by biophysical setting.

• Item 5c: Differences between percent composition of structural stages between HRV and 

current conditions are also reported in Section 3.6. Structural conditions and biophysical

environment combinations outside of HRV conditions were assessed to determine potential 

treatment areas. 

Wildlife Standard (Item 6 in Plan Amendment #11)

The Sunrise project action alternatives are consistent with the Screens wildlife standards for 

reasons described below, with reference to the applicable required component in the Eastside 

Screens. 

• Item 6a: Multi-strata with Large Trees (OFMS) and Single Strata with Large Trees (OFSS) 

were assessed for all biophysical environments within the Sunrise project area. 
Sunrise Vegetation and Fuels Project

A-16 Umatilla National Forest

• Item 6b: LOS stages (OFMS and OFSS) were calculated separately for each biophysical

environment, and Scenario A was chosen as the applicable scenario for all three biophysical 

environments (Most, Cold, and Dry Upland Forest). 

• Item 6c: The Sunrise analysis is not claiming an exemption from consideration of HRV, so 

this item does not apply. 

Item 6d (Scenario A): None of the proposed timber harvest would result in a net loss of LOS 

from any of the three upland-forest biophysical environments in the Sunrise planning area. There 

are no timber harvest activities planned under any action alternative in LOS stages below HRV. 

• Some tree-cutting activities are included under Alternatives B and C for areas in LOS stages 

within or above HRV and are designed as intermediate or individual-tree selection31 cutting 

treatments. Such treatments are designed to maintain or enhance LOS within the pertinent 

biophysical environment by converting a stage above HRV (OFMS) to one currently within 

or below HRV (OFSS), and/or by altering density and/or species composition to improve 

residual tree vigor, size, and/or longevity. 

• Other tree-cutting activities included under Alternatives B or C are planned in areas outside 

of LOS with the intent to maintain and/or enhance LOS components as appropriate to meet 

HRV by adhering to all standards listed in the Screens amendment. These items are directly 

related to silvicultural design criteria related to the Eastside Screens Forest Plan amendment, 

described previously in this report.

o All remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees >21” dbh that currently exist 

within stands proposed for harvest activities would be maintained

o Structure that does not meet LOS conditions would be manipulated in a manner that 

moves it towards these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV. Any areas treated in 

such a manner to move them away from LOS (e.g. seed-tree regeneration cutting 

activities) are included only because LOS conditions elsewhere are expected to meet 

HRV as a result of overall project effects. 

o Where open, park-like conditions occurred historically (areas characterized by frequent, 

low-severity fire regimes), all treatments will be designed to maintain, or reestablish,

such conditions by implementing intermediate thin-from-below treatments and/or 

emphasize the removal of fire-intolerant species. A sufficient number of seedlings, 

saplings, and poles will be maintained to allow for the development of future stands. 

a) Connectivity would be maintained and/or enhanced and fragmentation avoided 

because the project adheres to the following standards: 

b) Stands serving the purpose of connecting LOS stands and Forest Plan designated 

“old growth/MR” habitats would be maintained. These items are directly related to 

silvicultural design criteria related to the Eastside Screens Forest Plan amendment, 

described previously in this report.

1) Activity units and prescriptions for both action alternatives were explicitly 

designed in such a manner that LOS stands and MR/Old Growth habitats 

would be connected to each other in a contiguous network from at least 2 

different directions.

2) Any activities that may occur in a connectivity corridor would be designed 

such that following implementation, medium and larger trees would remain 

common, canopy closures would remain within the top one-third of site 

 

31 Individual-tree selection cutting is classified as a regeneration method—not an intermediate treatment.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Pomeroy Ranger District A-17

potential, and stands would remain >400’ wide at their narrowest point.

3) Length of connection corridors is as short as possible 

4) Harvests included under either action alternative and occurring within 

connectivity corridors would occur only if the above criteria are met, and if 

some amount of understory (if any occurs) is left in patches or scattered to 

assist in supporting stand density and cover. 

c) Stands that do not currently meet LOS but are located within, or surrounded by, 

blocks of LOS stands are not considered for even-aged regeneration or group 

selection. 

o Wildlife-related items:

a) Design criteria pertaining to Snags, Green Tree Replacements, and Down Logs are 

included in the silvicultural design criteria section above. Snags and green 

replacement trees >21 inches dbh (or whatever smaller representative dbh of the 

overstory layer) would be retained at levels prescribed by the project biologist. A 

consistency finding and rationale is also included in the project wildlife specialist 

report.

b) Every known active and historically used goshawk nest-site would be protected 

from disturbance. 30 acres of the most suitable nesting habitat surrounding all 

active and historical nest trees would be deferred from harvest. A consistency 

finding rationale for goshawks is also included in the project wildlife specialist 

report. 

Other, Non-Screens Consistency Findings

Concerning National Forest Land Suitability, all silvicultural activities would be implemented 

only on lands meeting the definition of forest land (16 U.S.C. 1604) and designated as suitable 

for timber production by the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990), as amended. Furthermore, 

even-aged management components are considered to comply with Forest Plan objectives, and 

are restricted to 40 acres or less. All silvicultural prescriptions recommending a clearcutting

activity would do so only if it is found to be an activity of last resort –only proposed when no 

other intermediate (preferred) or regeneration cutting method to meet stand management 

objectives would be appropriate or compatible with existing stand conditions. This method of 

determination is amenable with the Forest Plan. 

Vegetation manipulation must comply with the requirements found in 16 U.S.C. 1604. These 

include compliance with multiple-use goals and objectives under each action alternative, acres 

prescribed as regeneration cutting are replanted within five years, assuring the assigned 

prescription is chosen for the greatest positive ecological impact and not on dollar value, 

consideration of effects to residual trees and adjacent stands from silvicultural prescription 

implementation, consideration of effects to site productivity and RHCAs by utilizing BMPs, and 

that action alternative silviculture activities are both practical and would provide the desired 

effects with respect to water quantity and quality, wildlife and fish habitat, regeneration of 

desirable tree species, forage production, recreation uses, aesthetic values, and other resource 

yields.