USDA Forest Service is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT

July 2015 THOMAS CREEK 

RESTORATION PROJECT

Umatilla National Forest 

Walla Walla Ranger District

Umatilla and Union Counties, Oregon

Lead Agency:

Responsible Official:

For Information Contact:

USDA Forest Service 

Mike Rassbach, District Ranger

Walla Walla Ranger District

1415 W. Rose

Walla Walla WA, 99362

Holly Hutchinson

Walla Walla Ranger District

1415 West Rose

Walla Walla, WA 99362

(509) 522-6009 

hollyahutchinson@fs.fed.us
USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

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

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-

5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Map Products Contained in this Document

Map products in this document are reproduced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service 

or from other suppliers. The Forest Service cannot assure the reliability or suitability of this information 

for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various 

sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. 

This information may be updated, corrected or otherwise modified without notification. For more 

information contact: Umatilla NF Supervisors Office at 541-278-3976. 

Publication F14-WW-04-15
i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need........................................................................................................................1

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1

Project Location....................................................................................................................................1

Management Direction..........................................................................................................................3

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan....................................................3

Existing and Desired Future Condition of the Project Area..................................................................6

Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................................6

Desired Future Conditions................................................................................................................7

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

Proposed Action....................................................................................................................................8

Public Involvement ...............................................................................................................................9

Tribal Consultation and Treaty Rights..................................................................................................9

Issues...................................................................................................................................................10

Identification of Key Issues ............................................................................................................10

Decisions to be Made..........................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives.............................................................................................12

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................12

Alternatives Considered in Detail.......................................................................................................12

Alternative A- No Action................................................................................................................12

Alternative B- Proposed Action......................................................................................................13

Alternative C...................................................................................................................................22

Alternative D...................................................................................................................................26

Alternative E...................................................................................................................................28

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further Analysis........................................................30

Comparison of Alternatives................................................................................................................30

Management Requirements, Project Design Features, and Best Management Practices ...................33

Monitoring Framework.......................................................................................................................46

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................................47

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................47

Activities That May Contribute to Cumulative Effects ......................................................................47

Past Activities .................................................................................................................................47

Present and Ongoing Activities.......................................................................................................48
ii

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions.........................................................................................49

Best Available Science........................................................................................................................50

Soils ........................................................................................................................................................51

Scale of Analysis.................................................................................................................................51

Resource Indicators and Measures..................................................................................................51

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................52

Environmental Effects.........................................................................................................................53

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action................................................................53

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives....................................................53

Cumulative Effects..........................................................................................................................54

Consistency Finding............................................................................................................................54

Hydrology ...............................................................................................................................................55

Scale of Analysis.................................................................................................................................55

Resource Indicators and Measures..................................................................................................57

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................58

Water Quality..................................................................................................................................58

Water Yield and Peak Flow ............................................................................................................61

Riparian Condition..........................................................................................................................62

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems..............................64

Environmental Effects.........................................................................................................................65

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A – No Action ..............................................................65

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives....................................................65

WaterYield/Flow.............................................................................................................................66

RHCA Condition ............................................................................................................................67

Cumulative Effects..........................................................................................................................69

Cumulative Effects of No Action- Alternative A ...........................................................................69

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives...............................................................70

Consistency Finding............................................................................................................................72

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat.................................................................................................................73

Scale of Analysis.................................................................................................................................73

Resource Indicators and Issues.......................................................................................................74

Resource Element/Indicator............................................................................................................74

Measure...........................................................................................................................................74
iii

Water Quality..................................................................................................................................74

Stream temperature .........................................................................................................................74

Water Quality..................................................................................................................................74

Sedimentation .................................................................................................................................74

In-stream Habitat ............................................................................................................................74

Large Woody Debris (LWD)..........................................................................................................74

Pools per mile .................................................................................................................................74

Channel Stability.............................................................................................................................74

Width/Depth Ratio..........................................................................................................................74

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................74

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Fish and Habitat.....................................................74

Management Indicator Species (MIS) ............................................................................................76

Regional Sensitive Invertebrate and Vertebrate Species.................................................................77

Existing Condition ..........................................................................................................................77

Habitat Elements.............................................................................................................................79

Water Quality..................................................................................................................................81

Bank Stability..................................................................................................................................83

Habitat Access ................................................................................................................................83

Channel Conditions & Dynamics ...................................................................................................84

Environmental Effects.........................................................................................................................85

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action................................................................85

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B- Proposed Action ......................................................85

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C...................................................................................87

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative D...................................................................................88

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative E ...................................................................................89

Cumulative Effects..........................................................................................................................91

Effects to Management Indicator Species...........................................................................................93

Redband Trout ................................................................................................................................93

Steelhead.........................................................................................................................................93

Biological Evaluation and Determination of Effects..........................................................................94

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action................................................................94

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives....................................................94

Summary of Effects to Species and Habitat....................................................................................97
iv

Consistency Finding............................................................................................................................97

Forest Vegetation....................................................................................................................................98

Scale of Analysis.................................................................................................................................98

Resource Indicators and Measures..................................................................................................98

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................99

Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................................99

Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................104

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................104

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B- Proposed Action ....................................................107

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C.................................................................................111

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative D.................................................................................111

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative E .................................................................................112

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................113

Consistency Finding..........................................................................................................................113

Fuels......................................................................................................................................................114

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................114

Resource Indicators and Measures................................................................................................114

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................114

Existing Condition ........................................................................................................................114

Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................115

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................115

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives..............................................................115

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................117

Consistency Finding..........................................................................................................................119

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants .....................................................................................119

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................119

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................119

Federally Listed Plant Species......................................................................................................119

Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List (RFSSSL) Sensitive Species .............119

Ruckel Junction Botanical Area (Forest Plan MAS A9- Special Interest Area)...........................120

Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................121

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................121

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives..............................................................121
v

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................121

Consistency Finding..........................................................................................................................121

Invasive Plants......................................................................................................................................122

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................122

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................122

Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................123

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................123

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives..............................................................123

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................124

Consistency Finding..........................................................................................................................125

Range ....................................................................................................................................................125

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................125

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................125

Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................126

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................126

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives..............................................................126

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................127

Consistency Finding..........................................................................................................................127

Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................128

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................128

Affected Environment- Old Forest Habitat.......................................................................................128

Dedicated Old Growth ..................................................................................................................128

Old Forest Structure......................................................................................................................129

Environmental Effects - Old Forest ..................................................................................................130

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................130

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................131

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives..................................................131

Effects Unique to Alternative E....................................................................................................132

Cumulative Effects – Old Forest Habitat..........................................................................................132

Affected Environment – Management Indicator Species (MIS).......................................................133

Affected Environment - Dead and Defective Wood for Primary Cavity Excavators.......................133

Treatment unit standard ................................................................................................................134

Dead Wood Analysis ....................................................................................................................135
vi

Environmental Effects – Dead Wood Habitat...................................................................................139

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................139

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................139

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action alternatives...................................................140

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.............................................................141

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative E.....................................................................141

Forest Plan Consistency....................................................................................................................141

Affected Environment - Pileated woodpecker..................................................................................142

Environmental Effects - Pileated woodpecker..................................................................................143

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................143

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................143

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D.......................................................144

Cumulative Effects of All Action Alternatives.............................................................................144

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative E.....................................................................144

Forest Plan Consistency....................................................................................................................144

Affected Environment - Three-toed Woodpecker.............................................................................145

Environmental Effects - Three-toed woodpecker .............................................................................146

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................146

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................146

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D.......................................................146

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D..................................................................146

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative E.....................................................................147

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E.............................................................................................147

Forest Plan Consistency....................................................................................................................147

Affected Environment – Rocky Mountain Elk .................................................................................147

Scale of Analysis for Forest Plan Standards.................................................................................148

Environmental Effects - Rocky Mountain elk ..................................................................................150

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................150

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................150

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action alternatives...................................................150

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives........................................................................152

Forest Plan Consistency....................................................................................................................153

Affected Environment – American Marten (pine marten)................................................................153
vii

Environmental Effects - American Marten.......................................................................................154

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................154

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................154

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D.......................................................154

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D.................................................................155

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative E.....................................................................155

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E.............................................................................................155

Forest Plan Consistency....................................................................................................................155

Affected Environment– Northern goshawk ......................................................................................155

Environmental Effects – Northern goshawk.....................................................................................156

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................156

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................156

Direct/Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ........................................................156

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.............................................................157

Affected Environment – Migratory Landbirds .................................................................................157

Dry Forest Habitat.........................................................................................................................158

Late Successional Mesic Mixed Conifer Habitat..........................................................................158

Riparian Woodland and Shrub Habitat .........................................................................................158

Subalpine Forest............................................................................................................................158

Montane Meadow .........................................................................................................................159

Steppe-Shrubland..........................................................................................................................159

Aspen ............................................................................................................................................160

Alpine............................................................................................................................................160

Environmental Effects – Migratory Landbirds.................................................................................160

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................160

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................160

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action alternatives...................................................160

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.............................................................161

Affected Environment– Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife and Invertebrate Species161

Canada lynx ..................................................................................................................................163

Wolverine......................................................................................................................................163

Gray wolf ......................................................................................................................................164

Townsend’s big-eared bat.............................................................................................................164
viii

Bald eagle......................................................................................................................................164

White–headed woodpecker...........................................................................................................165

Lewis’ woodpecker.......................................................................................................................165

Columbia spotted frog - Great Basin DPS....................................................................................165

Rocky Mountain tailed frog ..........................................................................................................165

Fir pinwheel ..................................................................................................................................165

Johnson’s hairstreak......................................................................................................................165

Environmental Effects – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife and Invertebrate Species

..........................................................................................................................................................166

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action.............................................................166

Cumulative Effects of No Action..................................................................................................166

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action alternatives...................................................166

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.............................................................168

Findings of Consistency....................................................................................................................170

Recreation, Visual Resources and Scenery...........................................................................................170

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................170

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................170

Dispersed Recreation ....................................................................................................................170

Developed Recreation...................................................................................................................171

Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................171

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................171

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives..............................................................172

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................173

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, & D..............................................................173

Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative E ................................................................................174

Consistency Finding..........................................................................................................................174

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.................................................................................................174

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................174

Resource Indicators and Measures................................................................................................175

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................175

Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................177

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................177

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................177
ix

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives..................................................177

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................179

Other Undeveloped Lands ....................................................................................................................180

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................180

Resource Indicators and Measures................................................................................................180

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................180

Environmental Effects.......................................................................................................................183

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................183

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................183

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives..................................................183

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................................184

Consistency Finding..........................................................................................................................185

Economics.............................................................................................................................................185

Scale of Analysis...............................................................................................................................185

Effects...............................................................................................................................................185

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action..............................................................185

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives..................................................185

Other Resources Analyzed....................................................................................................................187

Climate Change.................................................................................................................................187

Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................187

Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policies.....................................................................188

Archaeological Resources Protection Act.........................................................................................188

National Historic Preservation Act ...................................................................................................188

Endangered Species Act and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species................................................188

Inventoried Roadless Areas, Wilderness, and Wild and Scenic Rivers............................................189

Clean Water Act................................................................................................................................189

Clean Air Act ....................................................................................................................................189

Executive Order 13186: Neotropical Migratory Birds......................................................................190

Migratory Bird Treaty Act................................................................................................................190

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .............................................................................................190

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation Executive Order.................................190

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990: Floodplains and Wetlands ......................................................190

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice................................................................................191
x

National Forest Management Act .....................................................................................................191

Prime Farm, Range, Park and Forest Lands......................................................................................192

Forest Plan Consistency....................................................................................................................192

Forest Vegetation..........................................................................................................................192

Fire and Fuels................................................................................................................................193

Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................................................193

Soils...............................................................................................................................................193

Water.............................................................................................................................................193

Aquatic – Fish Habitat ..................................................................................................................194

Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................194

Recreation and Landscape Characteristics....................................................................................194

Noxious Weeds.............................................................................................................................195

Other Jurisdictions............................................................................................................................195

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential............................................................................195

Consumers, Minority Groups, and Women ......................................................................................196

Unavoidable Adverse Effects............................................................................................................196

Short-term Use and Long-term Productivity.....................................................................................196

Irreversible and Irretrievable Effects ................................................................................................196

Chapter 4: Supporting information ...........................................................................................................198

Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................................................198

List of Agencies and Persons Consulted...........................................................................................198

Tribes............................................................................................................................................198

Government Agencies...................................................................................................................198

Interdisciplinary team .......................................................................................................................200

Core Interdisciplinary Team .........................................................................................................200

Interdisciplinary Team Consultants..............................................................................................200

References.................................................................................................................................................201

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Legal description of the Thomas Creek project area location...................................................1

Table 1.2 Forest Plan Management Area goals and acres within the Thomas Creek project area............4

Table 1.3 Key issues used in alternative development and other issues considered in analysis.............11

Table 2.1 Summary of acres proposed in Alternative B for vegetation treatments in RHCAs...............15

Table 2.2 Types of roads used for project implementation under Alternative B. ...................................19
xi

Table 2.3 Comparison of activities proposed by alternative...................................................................30

Table 2.4 Response to issues by alternative using established measures of change. ..............................32

Table 2.5 Management requirements, project design features, and best management practices for soil 

and water resources.................................................................................................................33

Table 2.6 Criteria for equipment trails in or around Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs (Class I, III and IV 

streams)...................................................................................................................................40

Table 2.7 Treatments in Category 1 RHCAs. .........................................................................................40

Table 2.8 Commercial and non-commercial treatments in Category 2 RHCAs (class III streams). ......41

Table 2.9 Commercial and non-commercial treatments in Category 4 RHCAs (class IV streams). ......41

Table 2.10 Best management practices for large woody debris placement. .........................................42

Table 2.11 Management requirements and project design features for all other resources. .................42

Table 2.11a Minimum green tree snag replacements and down wood retention per acre. ..................43

Table 3.1 Resource indicators and measures used in the Thomas Creek project soils analysis..............51

Table 3.2 Percent of soil orders in proposed activity units by alternative. .............................................52

Table 3.3 Effects of all alternatives on resource elements/indicators. ....................................................54

Table 3.4 Subwatersheds encompassing the Thomas Creek analysis area. ............................................55

Table 3.5 Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to water quality and water quantity. 57

Table 3.6 Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to riparian-wetland areas.................57

Table 3.7 Thomas Creek project area streams on the 303(d) list for temperature. .................................58

Table 3.8 Road and stream network in the analysis area. .......................................................................60

Table 3.9 Thomas Creek project area streams on the 303(d) list for Biological Criteria.*.....................60

Table 3.10 Interim Riparian Management Objectives and Reported Metrics.......................................62

Table 3.11 RHCA road interactions at the subwatershed scale. ...........................................................63

Table 3.12 RHCA road interactions within the project area.................................................................64

Table 3.13 Summary of proposed vegetation treatments in RHCAs for all alternatives (acres). .........68

Table 3.14 ETA modelling results used to evaluate water yield and peak flow. ..................................71

Table 3.15 Acres within each watershed (HUC5) in the project area...................................................73

Table 3.16 Indicators for assessing effects to fisheries and aquatic habitat.........................................74

Table 3.17 Miles of fish distribution and designated critical habitat (DCH) within each watershed and 

the project area....................................................................................................................76

Table 3.18 Regional Forester's list of sensitive aquatic invertebrate and vertebrate species present or 

suspected on the Umatilla National Forest..........................................................................77

Table 3.19 Hankin-Reeves stream surveys for the Thomas Creek project area....................................78

Table 3.20 PACFISH RMOs (UNF LRMP as amended by PACFISH, 1995).....................................78

Table 3.21 Calculated ICBEMP pool frequency values (McKinney et al. 1996).................................79

Table 3.22 Pool frequency in streams surveyed....................................................................................79

Table 3.23 Substrate percentages based on 2013 Wolman pebble counts. ...........................................80

Table 3.24 2013 Stream Survey Reaches and LWD/mile.....................................................................81

Table 3.25 Continuous recording thermograph data summary (7-day average maximum)..................81

Table 3.26 Instantaneous water temperature data summary – 2014. ....................................................82

Table 3.27 Percentage of stable stream banks found during stream surveys. ......................................83

Table 3.28 Culverts identified as fish passage barriers within the project area. ...................................84

Table 3.29 Average wetted width/depth ratio for streams. ..................................................................84
xii

Table 3.30 Current status of PACFISH RMO’s and trends for fish bearing streams in the analysis area.

.............................................................................................................................................85

Table 3.31 Summary of effects by alternative. .....................................................................................97

Table 3.32 Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects (environmental consequences)....98

Table 3.33 Existing condition for species composition of upland forest in the Thomas Creek analysis 

area....................................................................................................................................101

Table 3.34 RV analysis for forest cover types of Thomas Creek upland forest vegetation................102

Table 3.35 Existing condition for forest structural stages of upland forest vegetation in the Thomas 

Creek analysis area............................................................................................................102

Table 3.36 HRV analysis for forest structural stages of upland forest within the Thomas Creek 

analysis area......................................................................................................................103

Table 3.37 Existing condition for stand density classes of the Thomas Creek analysis area..............104

Table 3.38 HRV analysis for upland forest density classes of the Thomas Creek analysis area. .......104

Table 3.39 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on species composition in moist upland 

forest the Thomas Creek analysis area..............................................................................105

Table 3.40 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on species composition in dry upland 

forest the Thomas Creek analysis area..............................................................................105

Table 3.41 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on moist upland forest structure in the 

Thomas Creek analysis area..............................................................................................106

Table 3.42 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on dry upland forest structure in the 

Thomas Creek analysis area..............................................................................................106

Table 3.43 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on moist upland forest density in the 

Thomas Creek analysis area..............................................................................................107

Table 3.44 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on dry upland forest density in the Thomas 

Creek analysis area............................................................................................................107

Table 3. 45 Estimated impact of Alternative B on species composition in moist upland forest the 

Thomas Creek analysis area..............................................................................................108

Table 3.46 Estimated impact of Alternative B on species composition in dry upland forest the Thomas 

Creek analysis area............................................................................................................109

Table 3.47 Estimated impact of Alternative B on moist upland forest structure in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area......................................................................................................................109

Table 3.48 Estimated impact of Alternative B on dry upland forest structure in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area......................................................................................................................110

Table 3.49 Estimated impact of Alternative B on moist upland forest density in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area......................................................................................................................110

Table 3.50 Estimated impact of Alternative B on dry upland forest density in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area......................................................................................................................110

Table 3.51 Resource indicators and measures for fuels......................................................................114

Table 3.52 Condition class description and associated acres in the Thomas Creek project area........115

Table 3.53 Comparison of FRCC acres treated by alternative............................................................116

Table 3.54 Treatments designated for prescribed fire by alternative (acres). .....................................116

Table 3.55 Estimated emissions from prescribed fire (by acre)..........................................................117

Table 3.56 Extent (acres) and species of invasive plants known to occur within the Thomas Creek 

planning area.....................................................................................................................122
xiii

Table 3.57 Amount of acres for areas at low, medium, and high levels of risk to noxious weed 

invasion for action Alternatives B, C, D and E.................................................................123

Table 3.58 Percent of pastures in the Thomas Creek project area affected by proposed treatments. .......

..................................................................................................................................................................127

Table 3.59 Comparison of existing amount of old forest to Historic Range of Variability (HRV) in the 

Thomas Creek HRV analysis area. ...................................................................................129

Table 3.60 Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Umatilla National Forest.......................133

Table 3.61 Umatilla Forest Plan standards for harvest units, and Thomas Creek recommendation...135

Table 3.62 Tolerance levels for woodpeckers occurring in Eastside Mixed Conifer/Blue Mountains 

(EMC_ECB) habitat type (DecAID Table EMC_S/L.sp-22) (Mellen et al. 2012)...........139

Table 3.63 Activities potentially affecting dead wood habitat in the Thomas Creek project. ...........141

Table 3.64 Forest Plan standards and existing condition of the Thomas Creek elk analysis areas.....150

Table 3.65 Forest Plan standards and comparison of alternatives in the Thomas Creek elk analysis 

areas. .................................................................................................................................151

Table 3.66 Elk cover net reduction by alternative in the Thomas Creek elk analysis areas (acres). ..151

Table 3.67 Potential transitory forage created by timber harvest and non-commercial thinning by 

alternative in the Thomas Creek project area (acres)........................................................152

Table 3.68 Mechanical harvest and prescribed burning in goshawk habitat.......................................157

Table 3.69 Priority Habitat Features and Associated Landbird Species for Conservation in the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Landbird Conservation Region of Oregon and Washington 

(Altman 2000)...................................................................................................................159

Table 3.70 Endangered, threatened and sensitive species and their potential to occur within the 

Thomas Creek project area. ..............................................................................................162

Table 3.71 Summary of effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlife species. ...........169

Table 3.72 Summary of lands with wilderness characteristics analysis area......................................175

Table 3.73 Summary of LWC in the Thomas Creek project area.......................................................176

Table 3.74 Activities proposed in Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the Thomas Creek project 

area by alternative. ............................................................................................................178

Table 3.75 Size class and acres of other undeveloped lands in the Thomas Creek project area.........181

Table 3.76 Other undeveloped lands within the project area by Forest Plan Management Area. ......181

Table 3.77 Activities proposed in other undeveloped lands in the Thomas Creek project area. ........184

Table 3.78 Other undeveloped lands in Thomas Creek project area by alternative............................184

Table 3.79 Comparison of action alternatives.....................................................................................186

Table 3.80 Effects on local economies. ..............................................................................................186

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Map of the Thomas Creek project area.................................................................................2

Figure 1.2 Map of Forest Plan Management Areas within the Thomas Creek project area..................5

Figure 2.1 Map of Alternative B- Proposed Action. ............................................................................21

Figure 2.2 Diagram of learning design contrasts proposed under Alternative C. OHU indicates “old 

harvest unit” i.e. historic plantation. ...........................................................................................................23

Figure 2.4 Map of Alternative D. .........................................................................................................27

Figure 3.1 Watersheds encompassing the Thomas Creek project area. ...............................................56
xiv

Figure 3.2 Steelhead distribution within and adjacent to the Thomas Creek project..........................75

Figure 3.3 Ecologically “off-site” ponderosa pine in an historic Thomas Creek plantation (Unit 11).

100

Figure 3.4 Sabin’s lupine in Ruckel Ridge botanical area. ................................................................120

Figure 3.5 Distribution of old forest in the Thomas Creek project area.............................................130

Figure 3.6 Thomas Creek Project Dead Wood Analysis Area ...........................................................136

Figure 3.7 Distribution of Snags > 10 Inches DBH in Moist Upland Forest. ....................................137

Figure 3.8 Distribution of Snags > 20 Inches DBH in Moist Upland Forest. ....................................138

Figure 3.9 Mt. Emily elk population estimates. ................................................................................148
This page left intentionally blank.
1

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

This document was prepared using direction from the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations at 

40 CFR 1500-1508, the Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations at 36 

CFR 220, and Forest Service Manual direction at 1909.15, 41.2. In summary, these regulations state that 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) must include the (1) Need for the Proposal, the (2) Proposed Action 

and Alternatives, (3) Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives and the (4) 

Agencies and Persons Consulted. These topics are addressed in Chapters 1-4 of this EA.

This project EA is tiered to the 1990 Umatilla National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to avoid repetition and to allow this description to focus on 

the site-specific effects that would result from implementation of the proposed action and alternatives. 

The Forest Plan FEIS discusses the short and long-term effects, irreversible and irretrievable commitment 

of resources, and environmental effects associated with implementing management practices in the 

Umatilla National Forest forested environment. The project and effects that will be described in this EA 

will be the same as those anticipated by the Forest Plan FEIS and will not be repeated here. 

This chapter presents the purpose and need for the proposed Thomas Creek Restoration Project (Thomas 

Creek project), a brief description of public involvement to date, identification of issues, and decisions to 

be made.

PROJECT LOCATION

The Thomas Creek project area is approximately 15,800 acres and is located on the Umatilla National 

Forest, Walla Walla Ranger District. The project area lies in Umatilla and Union Counties, 

approximately 6 miles northwest of Elgin, Oregon, 25 miles east of Mission, Oregon, and 11 miles east of 

the Umatilla Indian Reservation boundary. It spans three subwatersheds (HUC 6) from east to west, 

including Phillips Creek, Dry Creek and Thomas Creek. Phillips and Dry Creeks drain to the southwest 

into the Lower Grande Ronde River system, while Thomas Creek flows northwest into the Umatilla 

River. Forest Road 31 (Summit Road) runs from the northeast to southwest corner of the area with 

Ruckel Junction as a major landmark. The area may also be accessed by Forest Road (FR) 3738 which 

runs along Phillips Creek from Elgin. The area is adjacent to the Hellhole Inventoried Roadless Area 

(IRA) on the north and southwest corners and the North Mount Emily IRA on the southwest corner. Table 

1.1 displays the legal description of the project area, and Figure 1.1 displays the project area vicinity.

Table 1.1 Legal description of the Thomas Creek project area location.

Township Range Section

1 N 37 E 1, 2, 12

1 N 38 E 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12

2 N 37 E 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 36

2 N 38 E 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 36
2

Figure 1.1 Map of the Thomas Creek project area. 
3

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

Analysis and documentation within this environmental assessment has been completed according to 

direction contained in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National 

Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan

The 1990 Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter referred to as Forest 

Plan), as amended, includes the current approved management direction for the Forest. The Thomas 

Creek planning area will also be tiered to the other Forest Plan amendments including PACFISH, and 

“Eastside Screens”. 

A management emphasis is assigned to each portion of the Umatilla National Forest. Chapter 4 of the 

Forest Plan describes specific multiple-use Forest-wide Management Area (MA) specific goals and 

objectives for each designated MA (pp. 144-146, 151-154 and 158-166). The Forest-wide goals apply to 

all areas of the forest, whereas management area goals apply to unique Management Areas (MA’s). For 

more information on Forest-wide goals, see pages 4-1 to 4-3 of the Forest Plan. The Forest-wide goals 

which are most applicable to the proposed Thomas Creek project are:

• Forest Plan Goal 1- To 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 state 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- To 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 26- To protect forest and range resources and values from unacceptable losses 

due to destructive forest pests through the practice of integrated resource management.

The Forest Plan designates management areas as a way to characterize the landscape for the type and 

intensity of management activities that may occur on Umatilla National Forest. These areas are shown in 

Table 1.2 and Figure 1.2. 
4

Table 1.2 Forest Plan Management Area goals and acres within the Thomas Creek project area.

Forest Plan MA Management Area Goal

Acres 

in 

Project 

Area

Percent 

of 

Project 

Area

A4 Viewshed 

2

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, as a natural appearing to slightly altered landscape.

1,508 9%

A5 Roaded 

Natural

Provide dispersed recreation opportunities in an area characterized by 

a predominately natural to near natural appearing environment with 

moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences 

usually harmonize with the natural environment.

89 <1%

A9 

Special 

Interest 

Area

Manage, preserve, and interpret areas of significant cultural, 

historical, geological, botanical, or other special characteristics for 

educational, scientific, and public enjoyment purposes.

9 <1%

C1

Dedicated 

Old 

Growth

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.

382 2%

C3

Big Game 

Winter 

Range

Manage big game winter range to provide high levels of potential 

habitat effectiveness and high quality forage for big game species. 875 5%

C4 Wildlife 

Habitat

Manage forest lands to provide high levels of potential habitat 

effectiveness for big game and other wildlife species with emphasis 

on size and distribution of habitat components (forage and cover areas 

for elk, and snags and dead and down materials for all cavity users). 

Unique wildlife habitats and key use areas will be retained or 

protected.

3,474 22%

C5

Riparian 

(Fish and 

Wildlife) 

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.

1,083 7%

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.

8,363 53%
5

Figure 1.2 Map of Forest Plan Management Areas within the Thomas Creek project area.
6

EXISTING AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION OF THE PROJECT AREA

Existing Conditions

The Thomas Creek project area has been affected by past timber harvest, grazing, fire suppression, and 

road building. Actions including selective logging, artificial reforestation, removal of wood from 

streams, and placement of fish barriers have influenced the condition of the landscape today. The area is 

at risk for mountain pine beetle (ponderosa and lodgepole pine) and western spruce budworm attack (true 

firs, Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce). Laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii) and Armillaria are common 

in the project area.

Two timber sales

1 have occurred within and around the project area over the last 10 years and have 

provided wood products to the market. Transportation systems are currently maintained in the planning 

area at varying degrees with the Summit Road (FR 31) and Phillips Creek Road (FR 3738) being the main 

arterial roads. Local and regional wood processing infrastructure exists and the demand for saw logs and 

wood fiber in the area is high. 

Vegetation

Plantations established in the early 1960s with off-site2 ponderosa pine occupy about 1,000 acres of the 

project area. Pines within these historic plantations tend to have relatively low vigor, broken tops, and a 

highly branched and stunted form. Some stands within the project area have retained these planted pines 

with some natural regeneration occurring sporadically throughout. In other stands, the planted pine 

quickly died and the stands were naturally regenerated with a mix of species. The survival of the planted 

pine is closely related to temperature and moisture regime of the site. On wetter and/or cooler site, fewer 

pine survived. On drier sites, more pine survived3

. 

Another 1,000 acres of harvested lands within the project area were shelterwoods or other treatments 

implemented in the 1970s and 1980s. These are stocked with a variety of tree sizes ranging from 

seedling/sapling to larger overstory trees. Approximately another 1,300 acres within the project area are 

stands that were regenerated in even aged stands starting in the 1980s. These more recently planted 

stands are now stocked with sapling and pole sized trees. 

Additionally, the Forest Service acquired lands near Phillips Creek from Boise Cascade Corporation in 

land exchanges totaling about 8,500 acres in 1983 and 1992. Plantation establishment, selective harvest, 

and overstory removal has occurred on these lands which are currently a mix of planted and natural 

regeneration, and grass mosaic. Most of the remaining lands in the project area have either been recently 

managed, harvested selectively, or intensively managed through un-recorded large tree harvest, selective 

harvest, or firewood harvest. 

 1 Pedro-Colt (2004) and Loon (2008) 2 Off-site means “Ex situ”, or “away from the place to which it occurs naturally (Roger and Montalvo 2004)”. In this case there 

is phenotypic evidence that the planted trees may be genetically mismatched to the environment where they have been planted. 3 Forest Service Handbook 2409.17, Silvicultural Practices Handbook, Chapter 2 – Reforestation states that a silviculturist 

should, “Evaluate the history of old plantations before considering them as a suitable seed source. Some older plantations were 

planted with off-site trees and are now of seed-bearing age. Off-site trees may have been from sources hundreds of miles away or 

they may have been from a local area but the wrong elevation zone. Off-site trees should be removed (harvested) whenever 

possible to avoid further seed and pollen contamination of the area.”
7

Soils

Soil compaction and reduced productivity is apparent in some of the historic pine plantations. The 

harvest methods originally used in these plantations employed ground based equipment which did not 

apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are common practice today. In addition, some units were 

burned relatively severely, likely for site preparation and brush disposal purposes following the 

accumulation of heavy post-harvest slash. Observation suggests that growth capacity has been reduced 

on these sites, especially when these historic harvest units are observed adjacent to a more recent harvest 

where BMPs were used and tree and shrub growth rates appears to exceed that of plantation sites. 

Riparian and Aquatic Habitat

Due to past harvest activities, the diversity and productivity of some riparian areas in the Thomas Creek 

project area has been negatively impacted. 

Watershed assessments completed for the Phillips and Dry Creek subwatersheds (Phillips-Gordon 

Ecosystem Analysis, 2001) and for the Thomas Creek subwatershed (Umatilla and Meacham Ecosystem 

Analysis, 2001) conclude that, in Phillips Creek and Spring Creek especially, PACFISH4 Riparian 

Management Objectives for pool frequency, large woody debris, temperature, and fish passage could be 

improved.

There are approximately 14 miles of designated critical habitat for Snake River steelhead (ESA listed 

threatened). One of the most limiting factors for fish production in the project area is dry channels during 

low flow conditions. 

Desired Future Conditions

In addition to the Forest Plan goals for forested lands identified above, upland forest resiliency to insects, 

disease, climate, and other disturbance agents is desired in the future. Maintenance and creation of 

wildlife habitat including snags, down wood, and in-stream structures, and forage is desired in both 

Timber and Big Game (E2) and Wildlife (C4) management areas (Forest Plan p. 4-158 and 4-182). 

Hydrologic and soil function maintenance is key to attaining long-term integrity, stability, and 

productivity of biological communities (Forest Plan p. 4-62). 

Providing wood to assist in maintaining local and regional community and economic needs is desired into 

the future (Forest Plan p. 4-9). Cultural interests, including tribal first foods are also of importance in the 

area.

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose and need of the Thomas Creek Restoration Project is based on the differences between the

existing and desired conditions as described above. The objectives of the Thomas Creek project were 

developed within the context of both internal and collaborative processes, and to address restoration 

opportunities in moist forest. Management of forest density, structure, and composition, especially in 

plantations, was identified as a restoration objective to promote forest resiliency, reduce the risk of 

 4 Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds on Federal lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington, 

Idaho and portions of California. This 1995 decision amended the Forest Plan.
8

uncharacteristic disturbances, provide high quality, well-distributed habitat for associated wildlife species, 

and contribute to social, cultural, and economic needs. 

Based on the existing conditions and desired future conditions stated in the Forest Plan, the purpose of the 

Thomas Creek project is to:

• Improve landscape resiliency and restore functions and processes in upland forest by moving the 

landscape’s vegetation toward Range of Variation (RV) in forest structure, density, and species 

composition;

• Restore Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) altered by past timber harvest and off-site 

planting by managing towards PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives;

• Provide forest products to assist in meeting local and regional social, cultural, and economic 

needs.

Specific needs in the Thomas Creek project area are:

• Decrease off-site ponderosa pine in both upland and riparian areas;

• Increase western larch and change conifer species composition in riparian areas where 

ecologically appropriate;

• Change structure of RHCAs in concert with upland forest restoration where ecologically 

appropriate; 

• Decrease high density upland forest;

• Decrease density in riparian areas to meet restoration objectives;

• Decrease multi-strata forest;

• Ameliorate detrimental soil conditions;

• Increase large woody debris in streams;

• Improve conditions for hardwood plants in RHCAs where ecologically appropriate.

PROPOSED ACTION

Restoration in upland and riparian areas is proposed, in addition to reforestation, soil restoration, 

prescribed burning. The proposed action includes connected actions to support commercial timber 

harvest. A complete description of the proposed action and alternatives follows in Chapter 2 of this EA.

The proposed action includes treatments in upland and riparian areas. Approximately 1,270 acres of 

commercial (mechanical) vegetation treatments and approximately 1,276 acres of non-commercial (hand 

only) treatments are proposed. Approximately 942 acres of historic ponderosa pine plantations would be 

restored. No trees greater than 21” diameter at breast height (dbh) would be removed and no snags greater 

than 12” dbh would be removed. Approximately 1,582 acres of landscape prescribed burning are 

proposed to restore areas that are departed from historic conditions, in addition to prescribed burning that 

would be done in harvest units as fuels treatments or site preparation. 

Restoration in PACFISH Category 1, Category 2 and Category 4 RHCAs would occur by thinning 

vegetation both commercially and non-commercially. Only non-commercial thinning is proposed in 

Category 1 RHCAs (Class I streams). Non-commercial and commercial treatments are proposed in 

Category 2 and 4 RHCAs (class III and class IV streams). Opportunities for placement of large woody 

debris would be sought.
9

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement began in 2013 when the Walla Walla Ranger District hosted the Umatilla Forest 

Collaborative Group (UFCG) on a field trip to the Thomas Creek project area. The Thomas Creek project 

is based, in part, on recommendations from the UFCG. The UFCG formed in 2011 to provide a platform 

for individuals and organizations to unite diverse interests toward common goals. The mission of the 

group is “to develop and promote balanced solutions from a diverse group of stakeholders to improve and 

sustain ecological resiliency and local community socioeconomic health in and near the Umatilla National 

Forest5

”. Members represent stakeholders from a broad range of interests, including tribes, federal and

state agencies, county government, the environmental community, timber industry, and recreational 

groups. 

Public scoping for the Thomas Creek project began in March, 2014, when a description of the proposed 

action and request for public input was mailed to over 200 individuals, organizations, and agencies, and 

the project was first listed on the Umatilla National Forest’s Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions 

(SOPA). The project has been published continually on the SOPA and on the Forest’s website since the 

start of public scoping in 2014. The Walla Walla Ranger District received seven responses to public 

scoping, which were used to assist in identifying key issues associated with the proposed action. Letters 

received represented the UFCG, environmental groups, industry, and individuals. Full text of scoping 

input is located in the project file at the Walla Walla Ranger District office. 

TRIBAL CONSULTATION AND 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 (National Historic Preservation Act, Executive 

Orders 13084 and 13175), cooperate, and coordinate with Indian Tribes in developing and planning 

management decisions regarding resources on National Forest System land that may affect tribal rights.

Trust responsibility resulting from the ratification of the 1855 Treaties dictate, in part, that the United 

States government facilitates the execution of treaty rights and traditional cultural practices of the Tribes 

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 Tribes or Federal 

Government.

Walla Walla Ranger District and tribal representatives meet periodically to discuss new and ongoing 

concerns, partnership opportunities, and issues that may affect sacred and spiritual sites with 

representatives from the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and the Nez 

Perce Tribes. The tribes were sent government to government letters describing the proposed action for 

the Thomas Creek project. The proposed Thomas Creek project was also presented to the (CTUIR) at the 

annual program of work meeting in the spring of 2013 and 2014. General concerns around first foods, 

traditional cultural properties, and protection of archaeological sites were discussed during these 

meetings.

 5 http://umatillacollaborative.org/
10

The effects of the proposed action and alternatives will be evaluated according to concerns raised during 

program of work meetings, and past statements of tribal interest that expressed concerns regarding similar 

projects and outlined Treaty Rights resources that could be affected by the project. Generally, these 

concerns have to do with potential effects on treaty rights, fish habitat and populations, water quality, and 

protection of archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and first foods resources.

ISSUES

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and 

alternatives. Identifying issues allows opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to 

meet the purpose and need for the proposal while reducing adverse effects; and comparison of trade-offs 

for the decision maker and public to understand. 

Issues are phrased as cause-effect statements, relating actions under consideration to effects. Issue 

statements describe specific actions and the environmental effect(s) expected to result from those actions. 

Cause-effect statements provide a way to understand and focus on the issues relevant to a particular 

decision. 

By reviewing responses received during scoping, the Thomas Creek project Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) 

identified issues relating to the proposed action based on input from other agencies, organizations, and 

other members of the public, as well as Forest Service resource specialists. The issues were then separated 

into two groups, as directed by the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500.4(g) and 1501.7): key issues and other

issues. Key issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. 

Other issues are identified as those that may serve to show differences between alternatives for various 

resources, but were not drivers in alternative development. 

Once a key issue was identified, measures were selected to compare how alternatives respond to it. Where 

possible, measures are quantifiable and are chosen with regard to predictability and responsiveness to the 

issue, and link to the cause-and-effect relationship of the issue. 

The Walla Walla District Ranger helped the IDT develop these key issues and measures, and approved 

them for further analysis (see project file). Full text of scoping comments is available in the project file.

Identification of Key Issues

The following key issues (Table 1.3) will serve to compare each alternative within the Thomas Creek 

environmental analysis. Specialists used these key issues to analyze how each indicator/measure is likely 

to differ under each alternative. Table 1.3 also includes other issues identified that were not drivers of 

alternative development, but are carried through the analysis. See Table 2.4 for comparison of how 

alternatives respond to issues.
11

Table 1.3 Key issues used in alternative development and other issues considered in analysis.

Issue # Key Issues Measures

1 Old trees: Proposed activities may reduce the abundance of 

trees over 150 years old.

1. Acres where trees greater than 

150 years old may be harvested.

2

Access Management: Proposed use of temporary roads and reopening of closed Forest system roads may cause soil erosion 

and compaction, contribute sediment to streams, and disturb 

wildlife.

2a. Miles of temporary roads 

utilized by alternative.

2b. Miles of existing closed roads 

utilized by alternative.

3

Jobs/Economics: Proposed activities may contribute to the local 

economy.

3a. Present net value of timber 

harvest.

3b. Number of jobs 

created/maintained

3c. Stumpage value

4

Learning Design: Including a learning design could contribute 

to information about historic plantation management, edge 

management, and hardwoods in historic plantation.

4a. Acres of edge and no edge 

contrast.

4b. Acres of plus hardwood and 

minus hardwood contrast.6

5

RHCA restoration: Non-commercial and commercial thinning 

could contribute to restoration goals in the project area by 

reducing off-site ponderosa pine and increasing desirable riparian 

vegetation. Additionally, treatments in riparian areas could cause 

short-term soil erosion, sedimentation, and reduction of shade. 

5a. Acres of RHCA with restoration 

treatment.

5b. Acres with RHCA restoration 

with commercial harvest.

Issue # Other Issues Measures

6 Snags and Dead/Down: Proposed activities may reduce to 

current and future abundance of snags and down wood. 6. Snags per acre by diameter class.

7 Wildlife Connectivity: Proposed activities may reduce the 

amount of connected old forest habitat for wildlife.

7. Acres of old forest connective 

corridors.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE

The scope of the analysis and the project decisions are limited to the area of the proposed Thomas Creek 

Restoration Project. This EA will provide the Deciding Official (Walla Walla District Ranger) with the 

information needed to make the following decisions regarding the proposed Thomas Creek project:

• Whether or not to proceed with the proposed action or one of the other action alternatives at this 

specific point in time.

• Which alternative would best move the Thomas Creek project area towards the desired condition 

per Forest Plan direction and address the identified needs and issues?

• Would additional design criteria and monitoring requirements need to be applied to the proposed 

activities? 

• Would the selected alternative have a significant effect on the human environment, therefore 

requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement?

 6 Contrasts are part of the learning design- see description of Alternative C in Chapter 2 for details.
12

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND 

ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the no action alternative, the proposed action, and four action alternatives that have 

been developed. It includes a list of design criteria that will be integrated into the proposed action and 

alternatives, and a brief description of monitoring associated with these alternatives. This chapter also 

includes a brief discussion of alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail along with the rationale 

for why they were not considered in detail.

Alternatives were developed using guidance provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 

40 CFR 1502.14, Forest Service NEPA Regulations at 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2), and in Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 10, section 14. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed the 

proposed action (Alternative B) to address the purpose and need for the project as stated in Chapter 1, and 

to take advantage of opportunities identified through comparison of existing conditions, desired future 

conditions, and Forest Plan direction. The IDT developed alternatives to the proposed action in response 

to issues raised during scoping, both internally and by the public. All alternatives are designed to be 

consistent with standards and guides listed in the 1990 Umatilla National Forest Land and Resources 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) as amended (including Eastside Screens and PACFISH).

The District Ranger for the Walla Walla Ranger District reviewed and approved the alternatives 

developed by the IDT and the alternatives eliminated from detailed study. Per CEQ guidance7

, the range 

of alternatives considered includes both those considered in detail and those eliminated from detailed 

study. The District Ranger found that the alternatives considered represented an adequate range of 

alternatives for this specific project (see documentation in project file). 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

Alternative A- No Action

Alternative A is the no action alternative and serves as a baseline by which to compare the effects of the 

action alternatives. Under this alternative, no new management activities as identified in the proposed 

action for the Thomas Creek project would occur. Restoration, vegetation management activities, and 

prescribed fire, and placement of large woody debris in streams would not be authorized. There would be 

no connected actions such as road reconstruction, construction of temporary roads, or removal of danger 

trees. 

Previously approved ongoing activities such as domestic grazing, fire suppression, firewood cutting, 

recreation, and road maintenance would continue. Current biological and physical processes would be 

 7 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 those other 

alternatives, which are eliminated from detailed study with a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. 
13

allowed to continue along their present path. Timber stands identified at this time as needing treatment 

would progress through successional processes at their own rate. Off-site Ponderosa pine would remain a 

significant component of both upland and riparian areas within the historic Ponderosa pine plantations. 

Alternative B- Proposed Action

Alternative B is the proposed action. Under Alternative B, a combination of treatments is proposed to 

restore vegetation in the Thomas Creek project area. This alternative is designed to increase the resiliency 

of the landscape and to meet the project purpose and need for action as stated in Chapter 1 (see pages 7-

8). Specifically, this alternative is designed to:

• Manage toward historical range of variation (RV) at the landscape scale;

• Ameliorate detrimental soil conditions;

• Manage Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA’s) toward PACFISH Riparian Management 

Objectives (RMOs);

• Provide forest products to assist in meeting local and regional social, cultural, and economic 

needs.

Alternative B proposes actions to restore both upland and riparian areas in the project area using 

mechanical (commercial timber harvest) and hand (i.e. non-commercial thinning using chainsaws) 

vegetation management methods. Use of ground based equipment in riparian areas would be limited (see 

Table 2.5). Under this alternative, approximately 942 acres of historic ponderosa pine plantations would 

be treated. Vegetation management would be accomplished through proposed silvicultural prescriptions 

(as described below) varying by stand condition in relation to project objectives. 

Removal of off-site ponderosa pine and other less desirable trees, and the regeneration of a new cohort in 

groups is proposed for some units, while prescriptions for other units focus on creating within stand 

heterogeneity though “skip and gap” methods. Even-aged or two-aged management (described below) 

may be appropriate in some units to meet restoration goals based on the level of off-site ponderosa pine 

currently present. Thinning from below is proposed in stands where stand goals are density reduction and 

species composition change. 

Small diameter tree removal (non-commercial) is also proposed. Natural and assisted reforestation of 

local native species and associated site preparation, sub-soiling, post-harvest fuels management, 

prescribed fire, placement of large woody debris in streams, and actions connected to commercial timber 

harvest are also included under the proposed action.

Commercial Vegetation Treatments

Even-Aged Prescription

Clearcut with reserves (25 acres): This harvest would be accomplished in one entry. Most trees in a 

stand would be harvested with the expectation that a new, even-aged stand would be established. Green 

trees would be reserved to meet snag recruitment standards in the Forest Plan. Both natural seeding from 

adjacent stands and assisted regeneration (planting) would be used to reforest the stand. This prescription 

is proposed to be applied in stands where few to no desirable trees exist on site and regeneration is 

desired.
14

Two-Aged Prescriptions

Seed-tree with retention (97 acres): This treatment would harvest all trees within the unit, except for a 

few (at least six trees per acre (tpa)) desirable seed producing trees selected to assist with natural 

regeneration of the stand and green tree retention would also meet snag recruitment standards in the 

Forest Plan. The expectation is that an even-aged stand would be regenerated.

Shelterwood with retention (65 acres): This treatment would retain trees to serve as “shelter” and seed 

trees for regeneration, ameliorating environmental site conditions such as direct sunlight. This 

prescription would be applied to stands where at least 12 desirable tpa exist on site, and where

environmental conditions may be harsh. Green trees would be retained at a level consistent with Forest 

Plan snag recruitment standards.

Group Shelterwood with retention (240 acres): Group openings, generally larger than two acres, would 

be created with the purpose of regenerating the stand. Natural or assisted regeneration would follow

harvest. Trees retained on site would ameliorate environmental conditions and provide seed. This 

prescription would be applied to stands where some desirable trees exist, and environmental conditions 

may be harsh.

Variable Density Regeneration

Variable Density with regeneration (306 acres): These prescriptions do not fit into a strict silvicultural 

system and would draw elements from several systems to achieve the objects for the current and future 

stand. Some of these types of dynamic prescriptions would be a “skips and gaps”, ICO, or any other type 

of prescription that combines various sized openings, thinning, leave patches and regeneration. This 

prescription would be applied where desirable trees exist in the stand in a patchy configuration, densities 

are high, special retention features exist, or regeneration is desired. For the purposes of this project, 

variable density prescriptions where regeneration on more than 40% of the stand is desired will be 

indicated as variable density-regeneration.

Intermediate Prescriptions

Variable Density (181 acres) and Thinning from below (328 acres): These treatments would generally 

remove the smallest diameter or least desirable trees to reduce stand density and increase vigor of the 

remaining trees. Horizontal diversity would be increased with various “skips and gaps” or “individual –

clumps – openings” (ICO) methods. This prescription would be applied to stands with little to no 

ponderosa pine and where development of large trees is desired, but regeneration is not desired. 

Non-commercial Vegetation Treatments

Approximately 1,037 acres of non-commercial thinning, and approximately 238 acres of non-commercial 

thinning using intermediate prescriptions (as described above) are proposed under Alternative B. Noncommercial thinning would be accomplished by hand using chainsaws. Material would be lopped and 

scattered or piled, and pulled back from road ditches and fence lines by hand. Hand thinning may also be 

implemented within all other units proposed for vegetation management to help meet desired conditions. 

No additional slash treatments would be needed when thinning by hand.
15

Activities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

The objective of proposed RHCA restoration activities under Alternative B is to move streams and 

riparian areas within the project area that do not currently meet Riparian Habitat Management Objectives 

(RMOs) as defined in PACFISH (Forest Plan) toward those RMOs. RMOs are based on habitat features 

including pool frequency, water temperature, large woody debris frequency, and width/depth ratios 

(PACFISH pg. C-6). 

Specific goals include:

• Restoring native vegetation diversity for the long term by:

o Decreasing off-site ponderosa pine in RHCAs;

o Decreasing density in RHCAs where appropriate;

o Changing conifer species composition in RHCAs where appropriate;

o Changing structure in concert with upland forest restoration where appropriate.

• Improving pool frequency, large woody debris, width/depth ratios and water temperature by:

o Increasing in-stream wood structure;

o Creating appropriate conditions for hardwood plants as appropriate.

These goals would be accomplished by a combination of commercial and non-commercial vegetation 

treatments, and placement of large woody debris.

Table 2.1 Summary of acres proposed in Alternative B for vegetation treatments in RHCAs.

Stream Class* RHCA Category* Treatment Acres

Class I Category 1 Non-commercial 172

Class III Category 2 Commercial 28

Class III Category 2 Non-commercial 101

Class IV Category 4 Commercial 155

Class IV Category 4 Non-commercial 234

See Table 2.5 #2 for description of how stream class and RHCA categories relate to each other.

Commercial Vegetation Treatments in RHCAs

In addition to RMOs, standards and guidelines are defined within PACFISH specific to several types of 

management in RHCAs. The standards and guides specific to timber management prohibit timber harvest 

in RHCAs. The exception to this prohibition is when silvicultural practices are necessary to achieve 

desired vegetation characteristics that are needed to attain RMOs. Any timber harvest in RHCA’s must 

avoid adverse effects on listed anadromous fish (TM-1b; PACFISH pg. C-10). 

Under Alternative B, commercial treatments are proposed in Category 2 and Category 4 RHCAs (class III 

and IV streams). These treatments would be accomplished by mechanical methods with commercial sized 

trees removed by ground and sky logging systems (see Appendix A for logging systems by unit). Tables 
16

2.6 through 2.9 display the criteria for use of mechanical equipment in each zone of the RHCA. Table 2.5 

describes all project design features pertinent to treatments in RHCAs.

Category 2 (Class III streams) Riparian Restoration- 28 acres: This intermediate treatment would target 

off-site ponderosa pine for removal in Class III RHCAs. Other species may be removed to reduce 

densities or change the species composition of conifers to meet the long term goals of the RMOs. Harvest 

would only occur where feasible and where design criteria (see Table 2. 5) could be effectively applied. 

Category 4 (Class IV streams)-155 acres: Trees would be selected for removal based on site-specific 

needs in the context of landscape scale RV metrics and in concert with upland restoration goals. These 

treatments would only occur where feasible and where design criteria (see Table 2.5) could be effectively 

applied. 

Non-commercial Vegetation Treatments in RHCAs

Under Alternative B, non-commercial restoration treatments are proposed in Category 1 2, and 4 RHCAs

(see Table 2.1). These treatments would be designed to meet the objectives stated above and would be 

accomplished using hand methods. Thinned trees would be lopped and scattered or utilized as large 

woody debris for instream restoration work (see below).

Large Woody Debris Placement and Hardwood Planting

Phillips Creek is the major fish bearing stream in the project area that has been identified for restoration 

needs to improve channel morphology and in-stream processes. Approximately 158 acres of the RHCAs 

along Phillips Creek within the project area overlap with even-aged stands proposed for non-commercial 

treatment in this project. In order to move Phillips Creek towards RMOs, RHCA treatments in these 

areas would include placement of LWD (from on or off-site); planting of local native conifers and 

hardwoods as appropriate; and hand thinning of small trees if stocking density is very high or if natural 

regeneration of hardwoods is desired.

Placement of LWD in other streams within the planning area is needed to varying degrees depending on 

the site. Wood may be placed in streams where historic plantation establishment removed LWD or cut 

trees adjacent to streams that contributed to LWD levels depending on site specific conditions.

All specifications and design features associated with wood size, configuration and placement would 

conform to the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO 2013) standards. To the extent 

practicable, existing vegetation will be maintained on the floodplain. Plant stock for native trees, shrubs 

and grasses would be from local seed sources that are adapted to growing conditions at the project site. 

The Thomas Creek project also proposes to increase riparian shade by releasing and/or planting 

understory alder and willow and improving the vigor and density of overstory cottonwood communities. 

Soil Restoration

Past management has created detrimental soil conditions (DSC) which are affecting the productivity of 

some stands within the Thomas Creek project area. This alternative proposes subsoiling activities within

historic Ponderosa pine plantations to restore soil tilth and productivity where existing DSC is >20%.
17

Landscape Prescribed Burning

Landscape burning would be used as a restoration tool on approximately 1,582 acres (mostly outside of 

units proposed for other vegetation treatments- see Figure 2.1). Proposed areas were selected based on 

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) and focus on those areas categorized as Condition Class 2 and 3 

(moderate to severe departure from historic conditions) to achieve restoration goals. Low intensity 

surface fire (underburning) would be prescribed 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. Underburning may also be used to reduce fuels in harvest units or other areas having a need to treat 

natural fuels. 

Handlines and blacklines would be required to control prescribed fire within desired areas. Handline 

would be used only when burn conditions indicate the need to control the creep of fire in the duff. Fall 

burning may require the use of more handline than spring burning because of lower fuel moisture and the 

higher risk of fire creeping into unwanted areas. Burning would occur during times (season and time of 

day) of relatively higher humidity to reduce the need of handline in riparian areas. Chainsaws would be 

used to cut overhanging brush and large logs. Line construction would remove the duff the layer to 

mineral soil no more than 18” wide. Any line constructed would be rehabilitated and would have water 

bars installed as an erosion control measure. Blackline (re-burned area used as fireline) would likely be 

used in landscape and meadow burn units. Natural barriers or roads would be used to widen the defensible 

area where possible. 

The burning of piles and construction of blacklines would be done by hand ignition. No mixing or 

preparing of slash fuels would occur in the planning area. Slash fuel needed for hand ignitions would be 

mixed prior to reaching the area. 

Mop-up would occur only when fire creep would cause unacceptable mortality to leave trees within the 

unit, fire spread threatens unit boundaries, or smoke management issues arise. Ponds and streams would 

provide fall and spring water sources for fire mop-up/control needs. 

Connected Actions

Connected actions necessary to support the proposed restoration actions (timber harvest) include felling 

of trees, logging systems, erosion control, log haul, road reconstruction, use of temporary roads, danger 

tree removal, and slash treatments. Timber harvest includes the removal of small diameter trees that 

would be utilized for woodchips in addition to trees that make sawlogs. Units proposed for harvest would 

utilize ground based or skyline logging systems.

Felling

Ground based logging systems would utilize either whole tree or cut-to-length systems. Whole tree 

harvest would use either hand or feller buncher harvester method with tractor skidding. Cut-to-length 

systems would utilize a mechanical harvester capable of felling, deliming, and bucking trees, and a 

forwarder to transport logs. Skyline yarding would utilize hand fallers. The small diameter material 

utilizable for chips may also be felled by hand. 
18

Utilization 

Trees would be harvested down to 6 inches dbh for chipwood. The average diameter of sawlogs would 

be about 11 inches. No trees over 21 inches dbh would be removed.

Logging Systems

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 would be used to fall and 

bunch logs near the trail and be allowed a single pass between skid trails to reduce compaction concerns. 

Harvester/Forwarder: This is a ground based system using a mechanical feller to cut and manufacture 

logs, placing them adjacent to the forwarder routes. Limbs are left on the forwarder route to aid in soil 

protection. The forwarder would pick up logs, place them in bunks and carry them to a landing for 

decking. This is a total log suspension logging system. Forwarder route spacing would be based on the 

reach of the felling equipment, 40 to 50 feet. 

Skyline: An aerial logging system that brings logs to a landing using cables. Logs are totally suspended 

when crossing riparian areas but most often partially suspended (that is one end suspended) when taken to 

the landing. Since prescriptions call for partial stand removals, skyline corridors are most often parallel, 

about 150 feet apart, with the machine moving along the road and using the fill slope

Landings 

Landings used for conventional skidding would be created at approximately a quarter to half an acre in 

size and would be large enough to pile tops for later burning. Skyline units would set the yarder on the 

road with little to no additional construction; skyline corridors would be parallel with logs being decked 

along the road edge. Forwarder landings would not be constructed because logs would be decked along 

the edge of roads without removing vegetation. Large landings that create significant amounts of bare soil 

would be replanted to native grasses. 

Erosion control

Any exposed soil caused from landing activities, the logging operation, or burning of slash would be 

revegetated with native plants and/or covered with mulch.

Transportation and Access

Road maintenance: Road maintenance may be needed to make roads accessible and safe for use during 

project implementation, and to protect water quality and aquatic resources. Road maintenance may 

consist of a variety of activities including surface rock replacement, spot surfacing, roadside brushing, 

erosion control, logging out, road surface blading, ditch cleanout, slide removal, dust abatement, culvert 

cleaning or replacement, danger tree removal (see below), and other items that contribute to the 

preservation of the existing road and its safe use.

Temporary roads: Construction of temporary road spurs would be needed to access multiple units which 

are not directly adjacent to open or closed (Forest system) roads. These temporary roads fall under two 

categories: newly constructed temporary roads and temporary roads that will be constructed using an 

existing template, such as a decommissioned road (a road previously removed from the Forest system), 
19

old skid trails, or unauthorized routes. Temporary roads would be obliterated after project implementation

(Forest Plan p. 4-85). 

Closed roads re-opened for haul with reconstruction: Forest system roads that are identified as closed, 

or in storage status (Maintenance Level 1) would be needed to access units. These roads would be 

temporarily re-opened for use during implementation. Actions needed to re-open these roads may include 

blading, installation of drainage features or culverts, hardening of soft spots, realignment of small 

segments and brushing. These roads would be restored and returned to closed status after project 

implementation. 

Table 2.2 Types of roads used for project implementation under Alternative B. 

Road Type Maintenance Level Miles

New temporary road construction Temporary 1

Temporary roads constructed on 

existing templates Temporary 0.5

Closed roads 1 14

High clearance vehicle roads 2 22

Maintained for passenger cars 3-4 4

Paved 5 10

Danger tree removal: “Danger trees” (trees which are, within the next 0-10 years, likely to fall in an 

uncontrolled manner in proximity to unprotected persons and property, and/or limit effective 

ingress/egress, and thereby pose a substantial risk to human life or property) would be felled and removed 

along all haul routes used for timber sale activity, as well as both open and closed system roads. If 

considered economically feasible, these trees would be sold as part of the timber sale. 

Material Sources: Two existing material sources (rock pits), and FR 3100250, would be utilized for this 

project. 

Water Sources: Two water sources, located along FR 3145 (Ruckel Junction) and near High Ridge, along

FR 3100270, would be utilized for this project.

Site Preparation and Slash Treatments

Fuel treatments would be used to prepare sites for regeneration and/or reduce fuel loads generated from 

harvest activities. The natural regeneration success of several species, including western larch, is greatly 

increased with appropriate site preparation. Exposure of mineral soil is key in the germination of species 

like western larch. The goal of site preparation, in most cases, would be to prepare a seed bed to 

encourage natural regeneration of this species. This would be achieved through a combination of both 

logging systems application and fuels treatment. Treatments would be conducted in a manner to minimize 

topsoil disturbance and maintain woody debris for wildlife habitat at levels compatible with desired fire 

behavior and the Forest Plan. Each ground based unit will be analyzed for the use of grapple piling 

and/or burning.
20

The following types of site preparation and slash treatments may be used singly or in combination 

depending on site specific site preparation goals and stand conditions:

Whole tree yarding: The whole tree will be skidded to a landing where it will be processed and all 

harvest residues will be piled. Landing piles would generally be large in size but no larger than 1/10 of an 

acre.

Tractor yarding- top attached: Tops would be left attached to the last log and yarded to the landing and 

piled after being severed from the attached log. This material may be utilized for bio-mass products or 

burned in the pile. 

Jackpot burning: This treatment would utilize spot ignitions to remove heavier fuel concentrations. This 

burning would be conducted by hand or with the use of ATV mounted ignition devices. This method 

would be used in stands dominated by fire resistant species or in stands where site prep is important for 

regeneration. 

Piling – hand: Hand piling would occur near riparian areas, steep slopes, where aesthetic values are 

important, or where resource values requires a low impact treatment method. Chain saws may be used to 

compact material in the pile and pile size would vary. 

Pile burning: Burning of piles created either mechanically (in the unit or at landings) or by hand piling

would occur when the threat of fire spreading from the pile location would be low. Piles would be lit by 

hand using drip torches. Pile construction specifications would ensure that pile burning would have 

minimal damage to residual trees in the stand. 

Broadcast Burning: This treatment uses strips or dot firing techniques to remove surface fuels over the 

entire unit and would be conducted by hand. This method would be used in stands dominated by fire 

resistant species or in stands where site prep is needed for reforestation activities.

Mastication of small diameter material: Excess woody material (less than 12 inches at large end 

diameter) would be cut on site after commercial entry. 

Reforestation

Conifer seedlings may be planted after harvest and site preparation in stands identified with a 

regeneration goal (Clearcut, Seedtree, Shelterwood, Group Shelterwood, and Variable DensityRegeneration). Natural regeneration is the preferred method of regeneration where stand and site 

conditions are appropriate and where natural regeneration does not conflict with other resource objectives

(Forest Plan 4-72). Silvicultural methods including seed tree selection and site preparation will be 

implemented to favor natural selection but there will likely be a need to plant or supplement regeneration 

with planted trees in many stands based on adequate stocking standards. Land were timber production 

objectives are a components shall be restocked within 5 years of final harvest (36 CFR 219.27(c)(3)) and 

in addition, the Forest Plan states that lands harvested must be expected to be adequately stocked with 

natural regeneration or fill-in planting to minimum acceptable stocking levels within 5 years after final 

harvest (Forest Plan 4-72). Site preparation should be completed within 2 years of harvest (Forest Plan 4-

70).
21

Figure 2.1 Map of Alternative B- Proposed Action.
22

Alternative C

Activities in Alternative C are designed to respond to the purpose and need for action outlined in Chapter 

1 and in Alternative B, while responding to the key topic of including a learning design (key issue 4). 

Under Alternative C, an experimental design would be implemented that would include treatment units 

designed to study edge management, hardwoods, and other aspects of historic plantations. A full report on

the experimental design is located in Appendix B. 

In addition to the design elements of Alternative B, Alternative C is designed to:

• Learn about edge management around historic plantations;

• Learn about hardwoods in historic plantations;

• Learn about historic plantation management;

• Establish no action (monitoring) areas as a component of the experimental design.

The differences between Alternative B and Alternative C include two additional types of vegetation 

treatments and two types of monitoring associated with the learning design.

Learning Design

Three experimental contrasts, designed to show differences in approaches, frame the learning design 

(described below). Contrasts would be implemented by two types of silvicultural treatments unique to

Alternative C (Edge – Hardwood and Edge + Hardwood), and different types of monitoring (No Go and 

No Edge) as described below.

Go/No Go

The experimental question under this contrast is whether or not to manage to historic plantations. The 

objective of the Go contrast is the same as discussed under the purpose and need section of this 

document- to manage the landscape towards the range of variation, reduce detrimental soil conditions, 

and to manage RHCA’s towards RMOs. The objective of the No Go contrast is to allow historic 

plantations to continue their development without management, and to establish a control group for the 

units that are part of the Go contrast.

Edge/No Edge

The experimental question under this contrast whether or not to manage a 100 foot buffer outside the 

boundary of the historic plantations. The objective of this contrast is to increase both ecological and 

societal community benefits. Under the Edge treatment, additional commercial harvest would take place 

outside the historic plantations. Under the No Edge treatment, no active management would take place 

outside the historic plantation (monitoring only). The No Edge treatment units would be monitored in 

conjunction with the Edge treatment units to determine differences within this contrast.

(+/-) Hardwood

The experimental question under this contrast is whether to increase hardwoods or reduce them. The main 

objective for this contrast is to evaluate the possible role hardwoods play in providing an expanded set of 

long-term community and ecological benefits, including increased aquatic and songbird productivity, 

increased water-holding capacity, soil organic matter, and nitrogen to increase productivity and resilience 

of residual conifers. Under the (+) Hardwoods treatment, the desired outcome is to create a mixed early-
23

seral community of western larch, Douglas-fir, and hardwood shrubs (with a focus on alders) in openings. 

Under the (-) Hardwood treatment, the desired outcome is to maximize young conifer seedlings, and in 

the process minimize hardwood cover, to aid in determining if hardwoods do contribute significantly to 

soil production and browser food chains.

Figure 2.2 Diagram of learning design contrasts proposed under Alternative C. OHU indicates “old 

harvest unit” i.e. historic plantation.

Commercial Vegetation Treatments

Under Alternative C, commercial vegetation treatments are the same as described in Alternative B, with 

moderate differences in acreage due to certain units being included in the learning design (see Table 2.3, 

and Appendix A). Overall, Alternative C includes approximately 60 additional acres of commercial 

treatment compared to Alternative B. Approximately 870 acres of historic Ponderosa pine plantations 

would be treated, with an addition 132 acres of commercial treatment in the managed 100 foot buffers 

around historic plantations. The following prescriptions are unique to Alternative C:

Edge + Hardwood (65 acres): The goal of the Edge + Hardwood treatment is to create a more complex 

edge around the historic plantations to create positive edge effects, including increased side light and 

wildlife habitat. Units designated for this treatment are historic plantations that would be designated the 

same silvicultural prescription as described under Alternative B. For Alternative C, a 100 foot buffer 

around the historic plantation is included, and designated the same unit number with an “L” after it (see 

Figure 2.2). Within the 100 foot buffer or “L” unit, a thinning from below prescription would be applied 

with the goal of moving the stand toward RV values in species composition, structure, and density. To 

encourage development of hardwoods, existing patches of hardwood would be avoided. Hardwoods may 

be planted if appropriate.

L
24

Edge – Hardwood (72 acres): This treatment is the same as described above under Edge + Hardwood, 

with the exception that the focus would be to maximize conifer seedlings. Through the process of 

maximizing conifer seedlings, it is expected that hardwood cover would be naturally reduced. 

Monitoring only areas

No Go (65 acres): These units are part of the Go/No Go contrast and would serve as experimental 

control. No harvest activity would occur in these units.

No Edge + Hardwood (62 acres): These units are part of the Edge/No Edge contrast and would serve as 

experimental control. These units are composed of 100 foot buffers (“L” units) around selected historic 

plantation. No harvest activity would occur in these units, and monitoring would focus on hardwoods.

No Edge – Hardwood (77 acres): These units are part of the Edge/No Edge contrast and would serve as 

experimental control. These units are composed of 100 foot buffers (“L units”) around selected historic 

plantation. No harvest activity would occur in these units, and monitoring would focus on conifers.

Non-commercial Vegetation Treatments

Under Alternative C, proposed non-commercial treatments are the same as proposed under Alternative B, 

with the exception of a slight difference in acreage (see Table 2.3). This difference is because several 

units are smaller under this alternative due to an Edge unit (“L” unit) with slight overlap.

Treatments in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

Under Alternative C, proposed treatments in RHCAs are the same as proposed under Alternative B, with 

the exception of slight differences in acreage (see Table 2.3). These differences are due to several units 

being designated No Go under Alternative C, and because some units are smaller under this alternative 

due to an Edge unit (“L” unit) with slight overlap.

No additional commercial vegetation treatment would take place within RHCAs that occur within Edge 

units (“L” units). Applicable PACFISH buffers would be followed in Edge units. 

Landscape Prescribed Burning

The prescribed fire activities proposed under Alternative C are the same as those proposed under 

Alternative B.

Connected Actions

Descriptions of connected actions described under Alternative B would be the same under Alternative C, 

including reforestation and soil restoration. 
25

Figure 2.3 Map of Alternative C.
26

Alternative D

Alternative D is designed to respond to the purpose and need for action outlined in Chapter 1 and in 

Alternative B, while responding to the key topics of access management, removal of trees more than 150 

years old, and commercial vegetation treatments within RHCAs (issues 1, 2 and 5).

Within the framework of Alternative B, Alternative D is designed to:

• Implement project activities while eliminating the use of temporary roads, and reducing the miles 

of road reconstruction required for implementation;

• Enhance stand level old forest characteristics by retaining the largest and oldest trees within 

managed areas;

• Limit vegetation treatment within RHCA’s to non-commercial thinning.

Activities in Alternative D would occur on fewer acres than proposed under Alternative B. To develop 

Alternative D, each temporary road and mile of road reconstruction (closed roads proposed to re-opened) 

proposed under Alternative B were evaluated and prioritized based on both economic cost of the road 

work and priority of restoration need. Portions of Forest Roads 3148 and 3100231 would not be 

considered for road reconstruction under Alternative D. Additionally, no temporary roads would be used. 

Alternative D would be consistent with Alternative B where activities would not occur outside previously 

managed stand footprints and therefore trees older than 150 years would not be removed.

Commercial Vegetation Treatments

Commercial vegetation treatments proposed under Alternative D are the same as described in Alternative 

B, with less acres treated (see Table 2.3). Overall, Alternative D would accomplish approximately 949 

acres of commercial treatment compared to 1,270 acres of commercial treatment in Alternative B. 

Approximately 836 acres of historic Ponderosa pine plantations would be treated.

Non-commercial Vegetation Treatments

Non-commercial vegetation treatments would be the same as described under Alternative B. 

Treatments in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

Activities associated with RHCA restoration under Alternative D would be modified from Alternative B.

No commercial treatments in Category 2 or Category 4 RHCA’s are proposed under Alternative D. 

Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCA’s within treatment units would be considered for non-commercial treatment 

based on site-specific needs. 

Landscape Prescribed Burning

The prescribed fire activities proposed under Alternative B are the same as those proposed under 

Alternative D.

Connected Actions

Connected actions, including reforestation and soil restoration, are the same under Alternative D as 

described under Alternative B, except there would be no temporary roads (new or on existing templates) 

constructed.
27

Figure 2.4 Map of Alternative D.
28

Alternative E

Alternative E is designed to respond to the purpose and need for action outlined in Chapter 1 and in 

Alternative B while responding to the key topic of jobs and economics (key issue 3). 

In addition to the design elements of Alternative B, Alternative E is designed to:

• Increase the production of forest products to assist in meeting local and regional social, cultural, 

and economic needs;

Increase activities that move the project area toward RV at the landscape scale. In addition to the 

vegetation management prescriptions described and assigned under Alternative B, Alternative E would 

include an additional 522 acres of intermediate (commercial harvest) outside of the footprint of stands 

with previously documented systematic harvest. Alternative E would restore 942 acres of historic 

ponderosa pine plantations (same as Alternative B).

Commercial Vegetation Treatments

Overall, Alternative E would increase the acres of commercial harvest to a total of approximately 1,793 

acres, compared to 1,270 acres proposed under Alternative B.

Non-commercial Vegetation Treatments

Non-commercial vegetation treatments would be the same as described under Alternative B. 

Treatments in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

Treatments in RHCAs would be the same as described under Alternative B. No commercial or noncommercial RHCA treatments are proposed within the additional acres proposed for commercial 

treatment under Alternative E.

Landscape Prescribed Burning

The prescribed fire activities proposed under Alternative B are the same as those proposed under 

Alternative E.

Connected Actions

Connected actions, including reforestation and soil restoration, are the same under Alternative E as 

described under Alternative B. Differences in miles of temporary roads and closed roads re-opened are 

shown in Table 2.3.
29

Figure 2.5 Map of Alternative E.
30

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

In addition to the action alternatives described above, an alternative that only used open Forest system 

roads was considered to respond to the key topic of access management. This alternative would not have 

proposed to re-open or reconstruct any closed roads for project implementation. Under this alternative, 

729 acres of commercial vegetation treatments would not have been proposed, as compared to Alternative 

B. This represents a 57% reduction in in restoration work that would be achieved. The IDT and District 

Ranger determined that this alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project, and therefore 

did not carry the alternative forward for detailed analysis.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Table 2.3 compares activities proposed under all action alternatives. Acres are not additive, i.e. acres of 

most types of fuels treatments take place within the same units as silvicultural treatments, and vegetation 

treatments in RHCAs are not in addition to acres shown for each type of silvicultural treatment. Appendix 

A shows the proposed activities by unit for each alternative.

Table 2.3 Comparison of activities proposed by alternative.

Activity

Alternative

B C D E

Silvicultural Treatments (Acres)

Clearcut 25 25 25 25

Seedtree 97 84 82 97

Group Shelterwood 240 240 240 240

Shelterwood 65 65 45 65

Variable Density- Regen 306 289 279 306

Variable Density 181 168 165 181

Riparian Restoration 28 0 0 28

Intermediate- commercial 328 322 114 850

Intermediate- NCT 238 238 431 238

NCT 1,037 1,032 1,037 1,037

Edge – Hardwood 0 72 0 0

Edge + Hardwood 0 65 0 0

No Edge – Hardwood (monitoring only) 0 77 0 0

No Edge + Hardwood (monitoring only) 0 62 0 0

No Go (control/monitoring only) 0 62 0 0

Total commercial treatment 1,270 1,330 949 1,793

Total non-commercial treatment 1,276 1,270 1,468 1,276

Total historic Ponderosa pine plantation treated 942 870 836 942
31

Activity

Alternative

B C D E

Soil Restoration (Acres)

Subsoiling 400 400 400 400

Vegetation Treatments in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (Acres)

Category 1 (non-commercial) 172 172 134 172

Category 2 (commercial) 28 5 0 28

Category 2 (non-commercial) 101 100 102 101

Category 4 (commercial) 155 145 0 155

Category 4 (non-commercial) 234 233 370 234

Total commercial RHCA treatments 183 150 0 183

Total non-commercial RHCA treatments 507 505 606 507

Fuels Treatments (Acres)

Hand Lop and scatter 1,276 1,270 1,468 1,276

Hand pile 38 38 38 60

Mechanical Landing pile 923 925 578 1221

Grapple pile 347 403 371 572

Prescribed 

Fire

Pile burn hand and grapple piles 385 441 409 632

Pile burn landing piles 923 925 578 1,221

Jack-pot burn 305 305 285 305

Broadcast burn 122 109 107 122

Landscape burn 1,582 1,582 1,582 1,582

Transportation and Access (Miles)

Newly constructed temporary roads 1 1 0 1

Temporary roads constructed on existing template 0.5 0.5 0 0.5

Closed roads re-opened 14 14 11 14
32

Table 2.4 Response to issues by alternative using established measures of change.

Key Issues Measures

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

1. Old trees 1. Acres where trees greater than 150 years 

old may be harvested. 0 acres 0 acres 132 acres 0 acres 522 acres

2. Access 

2a. Miles of temporary roads utilized by 

alternative.

2b. Miles of existing closed roads utilized by 

alternative.

0 miles

0 miles

1.5 miles

14 miles

1.5 miles

14 miles

0 miles

11 miles

1.5 miles

14 miles

3. Jobs/ Economics

3a. Present net value of timber harvest.

3b. Number of jobs created/maintained

3c. Stumpage

0

0

0

-$313,849 

63

$432,332

-$290,986

62

$429,234

-$286,712

51

$246,302

-$182,436

80

$316,820

4. Learning Design

4a. Acres of edge and no edge contrast.

4b. Acres of plus hardwood and minus 

hardwood contrast.

0 acres

0 acres

0 acres

0 acres

132 acres of edge; 

127 acres of no edge

127 acres of plus 

hardwood; 

132 acres of minus 

hardwood

0 acres

0 acres

0 acres

0 acres

5. RHCA 

restoration

5a. Acres of RHCA with restoration 

treatment.

5b. Acres with RHCA restoration with 

commercial harvest.

0

0

690 acres

183 acres

655 acres

150 acres

606 acres

0 acres

690 acres

183 acres

Other Issues Measures

6. Snags and 

Dead/Down 6. Snags per acre by diameter class. leave all > 12 

inches dbh

leave all > 12 

inches dbh

leave all > 12 inches 

dbh

leave all > 12 

inches dbh

leave all > 12 

inches dbh

7. Wildlife 

Connectivity

7. Acres of old forest connective corridors 

affected. 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 0 acres 13 acres
33

MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS, PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES, AND BEST 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Management requirements are standards that project activities must adhere to that are established to 

protect Forest resources; they may be implemented before, during or after a project to meet Forest Plan 

and other direction. The project design features listed in the following table are practices that the IDT

developed during this analysis to address site-specific environmental and resource concerns not 

sufficiently addressed by existing management requirements. Project design features are specific actions 

designed to address site-specific environmental or resource concerns that were not sufficiently addressed 

by existing management requirements. Project design features 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. Best 

management practices (BMPs) are a standard set of general guidelines used throughout the Forest Service 

that are primarily intended to provide protections for water and aquatic resources. The management 

requirements, and project design features and BMP’s listed in Tables 2.5 – 2.11 are proposed for all 

action alternatives.

Table 2.5 Management requirements, project design features, and best management practices for 

soil and water resources.

# Item

Aquatic Management Zones Activities Objective: To maintain and improve or restore the condition of land 

around and adjacent to waterbodies in the context of the environment in which they are located.

1

Proactively manage the AMZ to maintain or improve long-term health and sustainability of the riparian 

ecosystem and adjacent waterbody with desired conditions, goals and objectives in the land management 

plan. 

2

Determine the width of the AMZ for waterbodies in the project area that may be affected by the proposed 

activities. Stream and RHCA protection are based on the Forest Plan as amended by PACFISH. Default 

PACFISH RHCA widths are:

Fish Bearing Stream (PACFISH Category 1, R6 Stream Class I, II) 300 ft

Perennial Non-Fish Bearing Stream (Category 2, Class III) 150 ft

Ponds, Lakes, Reservoirs and Wetlands > 1 ac (Category 3) 150 ft

Intermittent Streams, wetlands < 1ac, landslide prone areas 100 ft

Tables 2.6 – 2.10 below identify limits for ground-based activities in RHCAs.

3 Specify RHCA layout, maintenance, and operating requirements in contracts, design plans and other 

necessary project documentation.

4 Use mechanical vegetation treatments in the RHCAs only when suitable to achieve long-term desired 

conditions and management objectives.

5 Modify mechanical vegetation treatment prescription and operations in the RHCAs as needed to maintain 

ecosystem structure, function and process. 

Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities Objective: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, 

water quality, and riparian resources that my result from mechanical vegetation treatment activities. Includes 

measures for protection of Riparian Habitat Management Areas (RHCA's), minimization measures for ground-based 
34

# Item

skidding and yarding operations, erosion prevention and control measures, and mitigations for winter harvest and 

mechanical site treatment.

General

6 Harvest unit design should ensure favorable conditions of water flow, water quality and fish habitat.

7 Prevent downstream water quality degradation by the timely identification of areas with high erosion 

potential and adjustment of harvest unit design. 

8

Delineate the location of protection areas and available water sources as a guide for both the purchaser and 

the sale administrator, and to ensure their recognition and proper consideration and protection on the 

ground.

9

Use existing roads, landings, skid trails and other previously disturbed areas where their use is compatible 

with protecting water, riparian and soil resources. Sale administrator would work with contractor to locate 

these areas on the ground wherever possible. 

10 Equipment staging, parking and refueling will be outside of RHCAs and in areas designated by the sale 

administrator that have previous soil disturbance. This includes prescribed fire activities. 

11 Locate transportation facilities for mechanical vegetation treatments, including roads, landings and main 

skid trails, outside of the RHCA to the extent practicable. 

12 Vehicular or skidding equipment shall not be used on meadows or lithosols (scab flats) except where 

roads, landings, and tractor roads are pre-approved.

13 Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practical, apply soil protective cover (such as 

mulch or slash) on disturbed areas.

Skidding/Yarding

14 Utilize yarding mechanisms or mechanical treatments that avoid or minimize disturbance to the ground and 

vegetation consistent with project objectives.

15 Design and locate skid trails and skidding operations to minimize soil disturbance to the extent practicable.

16 No ground-based equipment will operate on sustained slopes greater than 35% in order to reduce the

potential for soil movement.

17 All logging systems will provide at least one-end suspension.

18 Avoid ground equipment operations on unstable, wet or easily compacted soils and steep slopes.

19

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 150 feet apart. All trails will be approved prior to use.

20

Use of ground based harvest equipment will not be permitted when soils reach field capacity (heightened 

moisture content), to limit the potential of long-term detrimental soil conditions, as described in the Forest 

Plan, or if ruts greater than 2-4 inches occur. Log haul will only be permitted on dry or frozen roads. 

21 Directionally fell trees to facilitate efficient removal along pre-designated yarding patterns with the least 

number of passes and least amount of disturbed area.

23 Required skid trails will be reviewed by a soils specialist to the extent practicable.

24 Ephemeral draws and stream channels will not be used as forwarder trails, landing sites, slash or fuels pile

locations, or as road locations. Skidding up and down ephemeral draws/swales will be prohibited.

25 Logging systems will be designed to minimize crossing ephemeral draws.

• Ground based equipment will only cross ephemeral draws (swales) and channels at sites pre-
35

# Item

approved by the responsible Forest official, and crossings will be minimized.

• Ephemeral draws will not be crossed where equipment will cause bank breakdown.

• There will be minimum 100 foot spacing between designated stream crossings.

• Mechanical fuels treatments will use existing trails created by logging operations when

crossing ephemeral draws and channels

• If crossing swales during runoff is anticipated, culverts, bridges, and/or rock/earth work 

will be used to stabilize and armor channel banks and bottoms and prevent erosion.

• Debris may be placed into the crossings to reduce soil disturbance, compaction, and erosion. 

However, the debris must be removed before the unit is closed out.

• Trees within these swales may be cut and dragged or lifted out.

• In ephemeral draws, 25 feet each side of the channel centerline, retain all wood embedded in the

soil and maintain a number of down woody debris pieces equal to or exceeding the number and

size of pieces specified for snag retention below.

26

Within commercial harvest units, no harvest or heavy equipment will leave designated roads or trails, to 

limit the potential of detrimental soil disturbance. 

The exception to equipment leaving designated trails will be specific to harvester/forwarder operations. In 

the event that harvester/forwarder is used, they will be required to have no less than 1 foot of slash (depth) 

under both equipment tracks. This slash load should buffer the weight of equipment when operating on 

other than designated trails.

27 In non-commercial thinning units, mechanical thinning equipment may be used provided that equipment 

that exceeds 7 PSI is not allowed to travel over the same path more than once.

28

If grapple piling is used for fuels reduction, equipment will be required to travel over >1 foot of slash, and 

utilize designated trails. Once the equipment reaches a starting point it will back out of the unit riding on 

material being piled.

Erosion Control

29

Erosion control and sediment plans will cover all disturbed areas including skid trails and roads, landings, 

cable corridors, temporary road fills, water source sites, borrow sites or other areas disturbed during 

mechanical vegetation treatments.

30 Install sediment and stormwater controls prior to initiating surface disturbing activities to the extent 

practicable.

31 During and upon completion of harvest activities erosion control measures will occur on forwarder

trails and landings.

32

Install and maintain suitable erosion control on skid trails prior to spring runoff. This may include seeding, 

mulching, lop and scatter slash, waterbars, scarifying, subsoiling. Reshape the surface to promote dispersed 

drainage and install suitable drainage features. 

33

Post-activity exposed mineral soil will be treated as necessary to reduce soil erosion and compaction. This

may include seeding, installation of waterbars, mulching with native material, or subsoiling. Where

possible and needed, skid trails will be subsoiled and/or have logging slash and large wood left.

34

For maintaining soil productivity the upper limit of the following ranges for coarse woody debris

materials should be retained to levels specified below:

• 5 to 20 tons per acre for warm dry ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir ecotypes

• 10 to 30 tons per acre for cool Douglas-fir ecotypes

35 Subsoiling is to be implemented in units with post-project levels exceeding 20% of the unit area.

Recommendation for the amount and location of subsoiling will be made by the Forest Soil Scientist and 
36

# Item

will be based on site and soil characteristics.

RHCA Treatments

36 Aquatics specialists would monitor the RHCA whenever possible during mechanical operations to evaluate 

compliance with prescription and mitigation requirements.

37

RHCA mineral soil exposure will be limited to 10% or less. Heavy equipment would not operate within the 

inner 75 feet of PACFISH buffers (see Table 1 below). Trees to be removed from RHCAs would be 

directionally felled to allow one end suspension and whole tree yarded. 

38 Do not cross channels or operate within the inner gorge of channels with heavy equipment

39 Do not use drainage bottoms as turn-around areas for equipment during mechanical vegetation treatments. 

Do not cross channels or operate within the inner gorge of channels with heavy equipment.

40

Retain trees as necessary for canopy cover and shading, bank stabilization and as a source of large woody 

debris within the RHCA. Leave all trees on stream banks. Avoid felling trees into streams or waterbodies, 

except as planned to create habitat features. 

41 Retain all trees within the inner gorge area to maintain soil and slope stability. Bank and channel stabilizing

trees located on the inner gorge and the valley/channel bottom will remain uncut.

42

Fell trees larger than 6-inch dbh into Class III streams to provide large woody material needed for stream 

morphology and sediment capture, within the requirements for shade. Trees will be identified by aquatics 

specialists.

43

Trees may be felled in RHCAs when they pose a safety risk. If possible, keep felled trees on site to meet 

woody material objectives. Also, safety risk trees along roads within RHCAs or within 100 feet of stream 

crossings which are cut must be left on site. When feasible, fall safety risk trees toward streams.

44

Use suitable measures to disperse concentrated flows of water from road surface drainage features to avoid 

or minimize erosion, gully formation and mass failure in the RHCA and sediment transport to the 

waterbody.

45

All skid trails, forwarder trails, and landings which are within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas will be 

stabilized as necessary to reduce soil erosion and compaction. This may include planting, seeding, 

protection of plants, earthwork, and cultivation practices. Stabilization work will be done each year in 

October. Planting, seeding, protection of plants and shallow cultivation (chain harrowing) will generally be 

done by the Forest Service as funds are available.

Any seeding will use native seed provided by the FS. If the FS is unable to provide native seed, nonpersistent exotic species may be used if approved by Forest Botanist. Hay and straw used for mulch or 

erosion control will also be provided by the FS. 

46 Activities would be mitigated by operating in dry or frozen conditions. Outside of these exceptions, heavy 

equipment will not operate off roads within the RHCAs.

47 Winter harvest will be considered in areas with sensitive riparian conditions or other potentially significant 

soil erosion and compaction hazards.

48 Do not cut, masticate or drive over shrubs, hardwoods, or trees unnecessarily in RHCAs.

49

In areas of harvest within the RHCA, no equipment or scour from skyline corridors will be allowed within 

either 75 or 100 feet of the water; depending upon RHCA slopes. In the WEPP modeling it was determined 

that these no equipment buffers are needed to limit scour from the repeated activities of ground based or 

skyline activities. To implement this design feature see Table 1 below for criteria and distances.

Landings
37

# Item

50

Landings will be designed to minimize size and constructed to minimize adverse effects and provide

for safe operations. Select landing locations for least amount of excavation and erosion potential, 

where sidecast will neither enter drainages nor damage other sensitive areas.

51 Locate landings outside of the RHCAs and avoid locating landings on steep slopes or highly erodible soil.

52 Design roads and trail approaches to minimize overland flow entering the landing.

53 Existing landings will be used where their location is compatible with management objectives. 

54 Use suitable measures as needed and/or restore and stabilize the landing after use.

Road Management Activities Objective: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

instream riparian resources that may result from road management activities.

All Haul Roads

55

Ensure the road surface drainage system can intercept, collect and remove water from the road surface and 

surrounding slopes in a manner that reduces concentrated flow in ditches, culverts and over fill slopes and 

road surfaces.

56 Ensure road surface treatment will support wheel loads, stabilize the roadbed, reduce dust and control 

erosion consistent with anticipated traffic and use

57

Road blading would be done only when necessary. Ditches would not be routinely bladed, and exposed soil 

areas on road prisms, ditches, cuts, and fills would be seeded with plants non-palatable to wildlife if funds 

are available. To minimize the need for blading, haul roads would not be used when detrimental rutting 

occurs because of wet weather. 

58 Ensure culverts do not become plugged from logging activities and thereby do not affect the functionality of 

the roads.

59 Rock surfacing will be used on haul routes that cross or otherwise enter RHCAs

60

During road maintenance 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.

61

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 seed.

62

Commercial use of National Forest roads shall be suspended when commercial contract or permit

operations create a continuous discharge of sediment into live streams that result in an increase on turbidity.

This may be from pumping of saturated fines creating sediment-laden water on and/or from the road

surface. Visual evidence of this may be identified by the increase in turbidity in live running streams

evident at points downstream from the outflows of culverts, ditch-lines, or fords (Umatilla NF Road Use

Rules).

Temporary Roads – Construction/Reconstruction

63 New roads should be located outside the riparian area unless alternatives are determined to have higher 

adverse impacts

64

Temporary roads will be located to minimize or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality and riparian 

resources. Locate roads to fit the terrain, follow natural contours. Avoid steep grades and unstable 

soils/terrain. 

65 Use existing routes where practical. Existing routes include Operation and Maintenance Level 1 Roads, 
38

# Item

Decommissioned Roads and Non System Routes

66

Placement of new temporary roads will be on deep soils, if it is operationally feasible. This will allow for 

adequate restoration of temporary roads and over time will leave less measurable detrimental soil condition 

across the proposed activity units

67 Maintain the natural drainage pattern of the area wherever practical, apply soil protective cover (such as 

mulch or slash) on disturbed areas.

68 Temporary roads will be inspected to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are implemented and 

functioning and are appropriately maintained.

69

Provide sufficient buffer distance at the outfalls of road surface drainage structures for water to infiltrate 

prior to reaching a stream and limit the number and length of water crossing connected areas to the extent 

practicable

70

FR3145 culvert installation will be correctly sized, bedded in native material and placed on natural stream 

grades. Installation will occur during dry conditions. Culvert will be removed and streambank stabilized 

after units are treated. 

Temporary Roads – Road Storage and Rehabilitation

71 Obliterate temporary roads as soon as feasible after no longer needed for project activity.

72

All temporary roads that are used for this project would be obliterated to reduce compaction. These roads 

will be scarified or subsoiled (where possible depending upon the soil depth and slash will be placed over 

the surface) followed by reseeding upon completion of project. Seed with native seed mix as prescribed by

botanist. Place slash, adjacent woody debris or duff over disturbed ground to resist rain splash. See the 

subsoiling prescription in the Soils Report.

73

Implement suitable measures to re-establish stable slope contours, and surface and subsurface hydrologic 

pathways on temporary roads where necessary and to the extent practicable to avoid or minimize adverse 

effects to soil, water quality and riparian resources.

74

Implement measures to promote infiltration of runoff and intercepted flow and/or desired vegetation 

growth on the road prism and other compacted areas. This may include seeding, installation of waterbars, 

pulling berms, mulching with native material, scarifying or subsoiling. Where possible and needed, skid

trails will be subsoiled and/or have logging slash and large wood left.

75 Close and/or physically block re-opened closed roads and temporary road entrances so that unauthorized 

motorized vehicles cannot access the road after project implementation.

Snow Removal

76 Use existing standard contract language (C5.316# or similar) for snow removal during winter logging 

operations to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality and riparian resources.

77

During 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.

Equipment Refueling and Servicing

78 Refueling, repair, and maintenance of equipment will be done at landings or on forest roads outside of

RHCAs. 

79 Spill containment materials would be required on-site to ensure that spilled fuel will not leave the site.

80 Spill prevention, containment, and countermeasures (SPCC) plans are required if the volume of fuel exceeds 

660 gallons in a single container or if total storage at a site exceeds 1320 gallons.
39

# Item

Water Drafting (e.g. Dust Abatement and Prescribed Fire)

81 Draft from existing roads to the extent practicable.

82 Do not excavate stream bed to create pools to draft from.

83

When water drafting, sources will be monitored for reduced flows. When and if low flow (less than 5 CFS)

conditions are identified, spring-fed ponds will be used as sources prior to the use of stream sources whenever

feasible. When 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.

Prescribed Fire Activity Objective: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

instream riparian resources that may result from wild land/prescribed fire activities.

84 Alter prescribed fire prescriptions and control actions in the RHCAs as needed to maintain ecosystem 

structure, function and processes.

85 Slash piles will be placed at least 75 ft from the stream or lopped and scattered within the RHCA buffer. 

Slash piles within 100 ft of streams will be no larger than 100 ft2

.

86

Extreme care will be taken to avoid consuming more of the residues and forest floor (litter and duff) than 

necessary to meet burn objectives. Retain as much duff as possible, while meeting fuel reduction

objectives to control erosion and provide organic matter. 

87 Fuels management in Class I and III RHCAs will be designed and implemented within the constraints of 

10% exposed mineral soils and 80% stream surface shading. 

88

Extreme care will be practiced when burning on steep slopes and on volcanic soils which are highly 

erodible. With broadcast, jackpot and underburning, soil exposure will be limited to 20 % or less of the

area on steep slopes.

89

An unburned buffer of vegetation along streams will be maintained to protect riparian vegetation and 

reduce sedimentation. There will be no ignition within perennial RHCAs, however fire will be allowed to 

back into RHCAs. Prescribed fire may take place near perennial water in some locations. This low 

intensity fire will rarely kill shade-producing vegetation.

90

Care will be taken to limit the severity of the burn in and along intermittent streams. To decrease fire 

intensity and fire effects, ignitions will need to occur within Class IV stream channels. This allows 

prescribed fire specialist to control the rate of spread and flame length. If fire was to establish down slope 

with unburned fuels above a head fire could establish, especially on steeper slope. Lighting during 

prescribed burning will take place in Class IV RHCAs. This will be done to improve the effectiveness of 

existing roads and trails as fire breaks. Lighting in RHCAs eliminates the need for constructed fire lines.

91

Fireline construction will only occur where necessary. Any fireline constructed will be to minimal

standard. Locations will be evaluated post-harvest. All firelines will be waterbarred and seeded at

project completion, as needed.

92

Fireline construction - blackline: Backlines are the preferred method of fireline construction. Often they are

associated with natural barriers or roads to widen the defensible area. Black lining can provide a wide

fireline without the disturbance that occurs with other methods.

93

Fireline construction- handline: Hand firelines will be used only when burn conditions indicate the need to

control the creep of fire in the duff. There is the potential that fall burning will require the use of more

handlines than spring burning because of lower fuel moisture and the higher risk of fire creeping into 

unwanted areas. Burning will occur during times (season and time of day) of relatively higher humidity to

reduce the need of handline in RHCAs. Chainsaws will be used to cut overhanging brush and large logs.

Line construction will remove the duff the layer to mineral soil no more than 18 inches wide. Any line
40

# Item

constructed will be rehabbed (such as pulling berms and scattering slash) and water barred.

Table 2.6 Criteria for equipment trails in or around Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs (Class I, III and IV 

streams).

Sediment Buffer Width Activity Area Max Trail distance 

or activity allowed

A

First 100ft from stream 

edge has a slope between 

0%-20%

Yes Activity Area Slope < 35% or 

>35%?

<35% 600ft

>35%

Only Non-Ground 

Based Harvest and 

Prescribed Fire

No Go to B or C

B

First 75ft from stream 

edge has a slope between 

21%-35%

Yes

Activity Area Slope < 35% or 

>35%?

<35% 225ft*

No >35%

Only Non-Ground 

Based Harvest and 

Prescribed Fire

C 35% or more Yes

Only Non-Ground 

Based Harvest and 

Prescribed Fire

Table 2.7 Treatments in Category 1 RHCAs.

Height of trees to be cut

Treatment Zone Width (ft)1

Silvicultural2

Treatment

Fuels3

< 35% Treatment

Hillslope 

35 – 60% > 60%

none 0 -15 0 - 15 0 - 15 No treatment BF

< 20 ft 15 - 35 15 - 35 15 - 55 Hand thin BF, LS

< 60 ft 35 - 75 35 - 75 55 - 75 Hand thin BF, LS

< 60 ft 75 – 300 75 – 300 85 - 300 Hand thin BF, FL, HP, LS, L

1

width extends from the edge of the stream bank (Refer to Table 2.5 for skidding distance specs); 2thinning 

treatments would be consistent with Forest Plan Standards for shade (pg 4-60) and Upper Grande Ronde TMDLs for 

temperature, sedimentation, and dissolved oxygen and the Umatilla River Basin biological criteria TMDL; 3

Fuels: 

BF-Backing Fire; HP-Hand Pile; LS-Lop and Scatter; MP-Machine Pile; Lighting-L; Fire Line-FL 4

Ground-based: 

Skidder, Feller-Buncher, Harvester-Forwarder
41

Table 2.8 Commercial and non-commercial treatments in Category 2 RHCAs (class III streams).

Height of trees to be 

cut

Treatment Zone 

Width (ft)

Silvicultural

Treatment

Fuels

Treatment

Hillslope < 35%

none cut 0 -15 No treatment BF

< 20 ft 15 - 35 Hand thin BF, LS

< 60 ft 35 - 75 Hand thin, cable yard BF, LS

< 21” diameter 75 – 150 Hand thin, ground based4 BF, FL, HP, LS, L, MP

Hillslope 35 – 60%

none cut 0 - 15 No treatment BF

< 20 ft 15 - 35 Hand thin BF, LS

< 60 ft 35 - 75 Hand thin, skyline BF, LS

< 21” diameter 75 - 150 Hand thin, skyline BF, FL, HP, LS, L

Hillslope > 60%

none cut 0 - 15 No treatment BF

< 20 ft 15 - 55 Hand thin BF, LS

< 60 ft 55 - 85 Hand thin, skyline BF, LS

< 21” diameter 85 - 150 Hand thin, skyline BF, FL, HP, LS, L

Table 2.9 Commercial and non-commercial treatments in Category 4 RHCAs (class IV streams).

RHCA Zone

Treatment Zone Width 

(ft)1 Silvicultural Treatment2 Fuels Treatment3

Inner Gorge Site-specific Hand thin BF

Slope < 35%

Inner Zone 0-75 Hand thin, cable yard L, BF, LS

Outer Zone 75-100 Hand thin, ground-based4 All

Slope > 35%

Inner Zone 0-75 Hand thin, skyline L, BF, LS

Outer Zone 75-100 Hand thin, skyline BF, LS, HP, L, FL

1

width extends from the edge of the stream bank (Refer to Table 2.5 for skidding distance specs); 2thinning treatments would be consistent with 

the Upper Grande Ronde sedimentation TMDL and the Umatilla River Basin biological criteria TMDL; 3

Fuels: BF-Backing Fire; HP-Hand Pile; 

LS-Lop and Scatter; MP-Machine Pile; Lighting-L; Fire Line-FL4

Ground-based: Skidder, Feller-Buncher, Harvester-Forwarder
42

Table 2.10 Best management practices for large woody debris placement.

# Item

Aquatic Ecosystem Management Objectives: reestablish and retain ecological resilience of aquatic ecosystems to 

achieve sustainability; avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to water quality when working in aquatic 

ecosystems; design and implement stream channel projects in a manner that increases the potential for success of 

project objectives.

94 Use a reference condition to determine the natural potential water quality and habitat conditions.

95 Determine stream type and classification using suitable accepted protocols

96 Determine design velocities appropriate to the site

97 Design channels with natural stream pattern and geometry and with stable beds and banks; provide 

habitat complexity where reconstruction of stream channels is necessary

98 Consider sediment load (bedload and suspended load) and bed material size to determine desired 

sediment transport rate when designing channels

99 Add or remove rocks, wood, or other material in streams only if such action maintains or improves 

stream condition

100 Choose vegetation appropriate to the site to provide streambank stabilization and protection 

adequate to achieve project objectives

101 Use natural stabilization processes consistent with stream type and capability where practicable 

rather than structures when restoring damaged streambank

102 Use suitable measures to protect the waterbody when preparing the site for construction or 

maintenance activities

103

Schedule construction or maintenance operations in waterbodies to occur in the least critical periods 

to avoid or minimize the effects to sensitive aquatic and aquatic-dependent species that live in or 

near the waterbody

104 Use suitable measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the waterbody when implementing 

construction and maintenance activities

105 Use suitable measures to divert or partition channelized flow around the site or to dewater the site as 

needed to the extent practicable

106 Pursuant to project implementation, all necessary permits (e.g. CWA Sec. 404/401) and clearances would 

be obtained. 

Table 2.11 Management requirements and project design features for all other resources.

# Item

Air Quality Objective: Protect clean air and comply with the Clean Air Act.

107 Oregon State Smoke Management Plan regulations will be followed to protect air quality and avoid

smoke intrusion into sensitive areas.

108 Burning activities would be designed to utilize climatic conditions which favor rapid smoke dispersion.

Wildlife Objective: Protect wildlife and wildlife habitat.

109 Large snags will not be removed unless they are identified as a hazard to workers. Down log habitat and
43

green replacement trees will be provided at or beyond levels identified in Table 2.11a

110 Unique wildlife habitat such as, seeps, springs, bogs, wallows, cliffs, talus, and caves will be protected by

minimizing ground disturbance one and one half tree lengths from the area.

111

Lithosol (scab flats) and meadows will not be used for landings and skid trails unless no other location is

practical. If use is necessary disturbance will be kept to a minimum amount of the area, preferably at the

edges.

112

If any federally listed species are found in the project area, a biologist will be contacted immediately. The

Contracting Officer will take appropriate action to insure species are protected. Timber sale contract

provision BT6.24 will apply. Protection measure for known federally listed species would be listed in

provision BT6.24.

113

Protect goshawk nests from disturbance if any are located during project activities. No nest sites are

currently identified. 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.

114

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.

115

There will be no cutting of 21 inch dbh or larger trees in the Thomas Creek project area. Exceptions for this 

prohibition may occur when danger trees are assessed by a qualified individual and occur along roads used 

during implementation of the proposed activities or within harvest units. 

116 In regeneration harvest, green trees will be retained at the levels in Table 2.11a to provide for future snag 

recruitment to meet Forest Plan standards.

117

Snags will not be felled unless they are a hazard to workers. All dead trees and snags greater than or equal 

to 12 inches dbh will be not be removed. Snags over 20 inches dbh will be avoided to prevent hazard 

situations. Any large snags felled for safety reasons will remain on site as down wood unless an excessive 

amount of fuels exist. Minimum standards for green replacement trees and down wood habitat and are 

identified in the table below. 

Table 2.11a Minimum green tree snag replacements and down wood retention per acre. 

Ponderosa pine Mixed 

conifer

Grand 

fir

Lodgepole 

pine

Subalpine 

zone

Green Tree Replacements 16 16 9 14 19

Down Wood Pieces 3 – 6 15 – 20 15 – 20

 Diameter at the small end > 12 in > 12 in > 8 in

 Length per piece > 6 feet > 6 feet > 8 feet

 Total length per acre > 20 feet > 100 feet > 120 feet

118

During unit layout, trees that may be appropriate for snag creation would be identified and flagged for 

further review. Generally these trees would be off-site pine or other undesirable trees that are at least 12 

inches dbh. The number of suitable trees would be limited by the past management of these stands, but it is 

expected that on average two trees per unit could be candidates for snag creation. Once selected, snags 

would be creating by using explosives near the top third of the tree, climbing trees and cutting tops off, or 

by methods that slowly kill the tree such as girdling. Implementation would likely occur over several years 

as funding allows.

119 Blasting to create snags will not occur during the bird nesting season March 1 to July 31.
44

120

For units affected by connectivity corridors, maintain leave strips as described for each unit. Canopy should 

not be reduced below 70 % after all treatments are completed, including any burning. In general these areas 

should remain untouched. Use future KV or other funds to create snags from any remaining undesirable 

ponderosa pine trees.

Unit 41B: maintain trees at upper 1/3 of site potential along north boundary stream.

Unit 55: provide leave strip along southeast boundary.

Unit 92: provide leave strip along boundary with unit 55 as described for unit 55. In addition, leave trees in 

area joining the two sections of unit 92. This area is classified as old forest.

Unit 129B: is non-commercial thinning. If present, maintain larger over-story trees along East Phillips 

Creek, from 3148 road to north east corner of unit. (RHCA)

Unit 9: provide a leave strip on southwest boundary. The southern tip of unit to west of road is classed as 

old forest; avoid this area. RHCA treatment was withdrawn from proposal to maintain connectivity.

Unit 126: is non-commercial thinning. Leave old forest area in northeast portion of unit, which connects 

with unit 9 connective habitat. Avoid old forest area in RHCA.

Unit 18: Prescription is for a clear cut. Leave an east-west connection at northern tip of unit. RHCA 

treatment was withdrawn from proposal to maintain connectivity.

Units 14 and 91 Provide a leave strip between units.

Alternative E only:

Units 142, 145, 149: thinning units; mark leave areas to stay within upper 1/3 of site potential.

Native Plants Objective: Protect Threatened, Endangered, and sensitive plants.

121

Before implementation and during operations, if sensitive plant populations are discovered in the project 

area, the Forest Botanist will be contacted immediately and appropriate actions will be taken to insure the 

species is protected.

122

The Ruckel Junction Botanical Area, a Forest Plan MAS A9 Special Interest Area, featuring the uncommon 

Sabin’s lupine will be designated as an ‘Area to protect’ (ATP) and no ground-disturbing activities will be 

allowed in this area. 

All off-road vehicles, trucks, and equipment will avoid operation in this area. Decking, yarding, and piling 

of slash will not occur in this area. Camps and staging areas will not be allowed. Fire control lines will not 

be constructed in this area. ‘Areas to protect’ will be specified in timber sale contract maps. Trees will be 

directionally felled away from this ‘area to protect.’ Prescribed fire can be used in this area as long as fuel 

loadings can be reduced to minimize potential of high-intensity fire.

123

Before implementation and during operations, if sensitive plant populations are discovered in the project 

area, the Forest Botanist will be contacted immediately and appropriate actions will be taken to insure the 

species is protected.

Invasive Plants Objective: Control and prevention of invasive plants (noxious weeds).

124

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.

125

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. Invasive plant treatment 

and prevention practices will be incorporated as appropriate. This may include minimizing soil disturbance, 

but will not preclude it.

126 Project or contract maps will show currently inventoried high priority noxious weed infestations as a means 

of aiding in avoidance and/or monitoring.

127

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 
45

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).

128

Noxious 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

129 All soils disturbed by project activities will be re-vegetated with certified weed free native seed.

130 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.

Range Resources Objective: Protect cattle, fences and other range improvements.

131 All existing structural range improvements (fences, gates, ponds, and spring developments etc.) will be 

contractually protected.

132 Project manager will coordinate with the range manager and the permittee to develop an annual routing 

schedule to route sheep around the proposed project activities.

133 Range manager and permittee shall be notified of the schedule for prescribed fire to ensure that the herder 

has sufficient time to move sheep out of the area and to plan the next years routing schedule.

134 The prescribed fire units will be evaluated after implementation to determine the appropriate time of when 

sheep can return grazing the area.

Cultural Resources Objective: Preservation and protection of archaeological and historic sites.

135 Cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the project area. Cultural/historic sites will

be protected by avoiding them.

136 Since some project activities will be implemented over multiple years, project leaders will contact the

assistant Forest Archaeologist prior to project implementation for monitoring and avoidance purposes.

Recreation and Visual Resources Objective: Protect recreational access, dispersed camping, and proper 

transportation management. Meet visual quality objectives (VQOs).

137 Ensure that roads are closed during logging and prescribed fire activities and are re-opened as soon as

possible after work is completed, especially during hunting season.

138 During project activity alternative snowmobile routes will be designated in order to avoid conflict between

winter logging operations and snowmobile activity.

139 Areas around dispersed hunter camps will be retained with a Partial Retention VQO.

140

Commercial units located in the A4 Management Strategy Areas scheduled for ground based skidding would 

be designated to be logged using a feller buncher and forwarder with skid trails paralleling Forest Road 31 to 

minimize sight lines and with landings set back away from the road.

141 All harvest units in the foreground of FR 31 will be sized and shaped to blend with the natural terrain.
46

MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Monitoring for both implementation (whether the project was implemented as planned) and effectiveness 

(whether overall management objectives were met) would occur. Forest Service personnel would conduct 

monitoring in areas that have the highest probability of showing effects. 

BMPs have been identified for the proposed action (see Tables 2.5 – 2.11). Activities may be selected for 

implementation and effectiveness monitoring as part of the Forest-wide annual BMP monitoring program. 

The Forest Service contract representative or other staff will monitor during and after activities to ensure 

sediment and soil disturbance objectives are met. If objectives are not met, Forest Service personnel 

would identify and implement corrective action and document modifications to be used in future projects. 

The District noxious weed coordinator or crew would conduct noxious weed species surveys prior to 

initiation of harvest or other ground disturbing activities within the project area. 

Forest Service personnel would spot-check activities during implementation to determine whether 

noxious weed mitigation measures are implemented. Deviations would be corrected immediately.

Dependent on available funding and resources, the District noxious weed coordinator or crew would 

inventory portions of the project area determined to be at risk for weed spread due to project 

implementation for up to five years as needed. 

Anticipated effectiveness of each monitoring element for the Thomas Creek project is considered to be 

high. 
47

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 3 describes the physical, biological, and human resources of the environment that may be 

affected by the alternatives presented in Chapter 2, and the environmental effects that the alternatives may 

have on those resources. Affected Environment and Environmental Effects have been combined into one 

chapter to give the reader a more concise and connected depiction of what resources exist in the project 

area and what the effects to those resources would be. The environmental effects analysis forms the 

scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives shown at the end of Chapter 2. Past, 

present, foreseeable future actions, and best available science are discussed at the beginning of the 

Chapter to give the reader context for the following effects analysis.

ACTIVITIES THAT MAY CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

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 presented in CEQ’s letter dated June 24, 2005 

regarding past actions. Using this guidance, the following summary of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions within and adjacent to Thomas Creek project area was developed. These actions were 

considered, where relevant, when addressing the cumulative effects for various resources. 

“Cumulative impact” (or effects) is defined in the 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 non-Federal) 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). 

Past Activities

Timber harvest and vegetation management

Even-aged harvest occurred on approximately 3,943 acres within the project area between 1957 and 2006. 

Records also indicate that the majority of the project area was affected by Douglas-fir tussock moth 

salvage operations in the mid-1970’s. Salvage operations likely included high-grading, near clearcutting, 

commercial thinning, partial removal and true sanitation salvage cuts. A total of 14,210 acres within the 

project area are recorded to have been commercially thinning, partially removed, or salvaged. Appendix 

G contains acres of types of vegetation management that have occurred within the project area based on 

Forest Service records dating back to the 1950’s.
48

Wildfire

The Umatilla National Forest has the policy of suppressing any unplanned wildfire that occurs in the 

project area. No large wildfires have been recorded in the project area, and all fires have been suppressed 

in the area since the 1970’s. Records indicate that 57 fires, ranging from 1/10 of an acre in size to 22 

acres, have burned a total of 43 acres in the project area. Full suppression actions were taken.

Roads

The construction of these roads and their maintenance over time has resulted in the removal of vegetation 

for the initial construction of the travel way. Additionally, maintenance activities continued the pattern of 

vegetation removal along travel corridors.

Grazing

The Thomas Creek project area occurs wholly within the North End Sheep Allotment. Domestic sheep 

and goat grazing has occurred within the planning area since the late 1800s. The allotment covers 132,000 

acres.

Land Exchange

A land exchange with Boise Cascade in 1992 consisted of 800 acres along lower Phillips Creek including 

about 2.5 miles of Phillips Creek and 0.5 miles of East Phillips Creek. The exchange also included about 

145 acres along Ninemile Ridge. 

Present and Ongoing Activities

Wildfire

Wildland fire suppression policies and tactics are expected to remain the same as described above. 

Wildland fire suppression tactics include, but are not limited to; fireline construction, vegetation removal, 

water drafting, and aerial applications of fire retardant. 

Roads

Roads within the project planning area are maintained in order to provide for user safety and to alleviate 

the potential for road related effects to other resources. Road maintenance activities include but are not 

limited to, blading, surface rock replacement, brushing, removal of vegetation from roadway, removal of 

dangers from roadside and winter snow plowing. 

Grazing

Grazing activities on the North End Sheep Allotment are presently ongoing and expected to continue into 

the future. 

Invasive Plant Control

All known priority 1 noxious weed sites within the Thomas Creek project area are scheduled for herbicide 

treatment during 2015 and will have follow up treatments as prescribed in the Umatilla National Forest’s 
49

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.

New invasive plant populations would continue to be reported. When and if new invasive plant 

populations are found within the boundaries of the Thomas Creek project area the district noxious weed 

coordinator would determine how to document, treat, and monitor. 

Recreation

While there are no developed campgrounds or designated hiking trails in the project area, there are 

designated ATV trails. Dispersed camping, firewood cutting, mushroom picking, horseback riding, 

hunting, and hiking are all ongoing recreational activities in the project area that are expected to continue 

into the future.

Climate Change

The ability to maintain existing high quality habitats and to restore degraded habitats is expected to be 

influenced by climate change over the next several decades with projected higher average air 

temperatures, more winter precipitation falling as rain versus snow, and diminishing winter snow packs 

resulting in earlier snowmelt. Changes in runoff volume and lower summer base flows, higher surface 

water temperatures, and likely greater year-to-year variability in precipitation could also result in 

extended drought periods and more severe floods than have occurred in recent history. Changes in timing 

and amount of runoff associated with climate change affect every resource, including terrestrial 

vegetation, wildlife, riparian and aquatic species, and water availability for human use.

Lute and Abatzoglou (2014) predict that hydroclimatic changes in the western U.S. are expected to 

accelerate in the coming decades as human induced changes in temperature and precipitation become 

more profound (Ashfaq et al 2013). Changes in snowfall accumulation combined with warmer spring 

temperatures are projected to result in significantly earlier snowmelt and subsequent runoff, lower 

summer baseflow, and decreased summer surface runoff. In the western United States, the implications 

of these changes for snow metrics have already been observed in the form of less precipitation falling as 

snow, decreased April 1 snow water equivalent, earlier snowmelt, decreased spring snow cover extent, 

and shortened snow cover duration. In the Blue Mountain region of the Umatilla National Forest, declines 

of 20-30% are projected for snowfall water equivalents and number of snow days. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Actions are considered ‘reasonably foreseeable’ if there has been any public notice or planning regarding 

an activity, or if future activity can be projected based on ongoing or historical activity in the area with 

enough specificity to analyze effects. In general, reasonably foreseeable projects are expected to occur 

prior to approximately 2020. At this time there are no reasonable foreseeable future actions within the 

15,800 acre Thomas Creek project area.
50

BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE

Analysis information provided in this chapter is based on a variety of methodologies, models, and 

procedures, all of which are derived from scientific sources included in the References section. Many of 

the analytical processes were based on local protocols, and documentation for them is also included in the 

References section.

Forest Service policy is that proposed projects must be consistent with the Forest Plan and show 

consideration of “best available science” (Dillard 2007). Science is not absolute or irrefutable as much of 

what we know in a science context is constantly evolving (Moghissi et al. 2008). This means that what 

constitutes best available science might vary over time and across scientific disciplines (Dillard 2007). An 

objective of considering best available science is for scientists “to provide a meaningful context to 

scientific information so that its validity might be judged and therefore useful to the policymaker” 

(Moghissi et al. 2008).

The best available science for the Thomas Creek project analysis was evaluated and incorporated in 

specialist reports and included in the References section of this document. Personal opinions were 

generally judged not to be best available science. Local protocols and similar information issued by 

government agencies or others, which has not been subjected to an independent peer review, was 

evaluated for validity, meaningful context, and applicability of findings to the project area. Peer-reviewed 

science was evaluated, and we recognized the value of independent peer review. All Forest Service 

research literature is peer reviewed following UDSA Information Quality Scientific Research Guidelines.
51

SOILS

This section will focus on the soil resource for the Thomas Creek project and incorporates by reference

the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Soils Specialist Report located in the project file. The report 

contains the complete data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, and technical documentation that 

the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section. Appendix C contains additional 

data to support the soils discussion in this chapter, including descriptions of soil types and detrimental soil 

condition.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS 

The scale of analysis for soil resources is the areas where ground-disturbing operations would occur. 

Proposed activity units, associated system roads and temporary roads are included in the analysis. The 

ecological setting is the entire analysis area. Soils outside the proposed project area are not expected to 

be directly affected by the proposed action with the exception Forest and county roads used during 

implementation. 

Project mitigations and design criteria have been proposed to assure current Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines of minimizing detrimental soil conditions to less than 20 percent of the activity area would be 

met (see Chapter 2, Table 2.5).

Resource Indicators and Measures

The soils analysis will evaluate the proposed action and alternatives for consistency with the Forest Plan, 

laws, regulations, and policies. The Forest Plan directs that soil productivity and soil stability will be used 

as an indicator of change. In addition, the Thomas Creek soil analysis addresses the issues (see Chapter 1, 

Table 1.3) of temporary roads (key issue 2) and mechanical treatments in RHCAs (key issue 5). Table 3.1

displays the resource elements and measures to be analyzed.

Table 3.1 Resource indicators and measures used in the Thomas Creek project soils analysis.

Resource Element/ Indicator Measure

Slope Stability/ Landslide or other movement in 

proposed activity unit Mapped area of unstable acres in proposal

Soil Productivity (DSC)/

>80% acceptable productivity potential

<20% Increase in volcanic soil Bulk Density (Db)

<15% Increase in non-volcanic soil Bulk Density 

(Db)

< 50% top soil loss within 100 ft2

Mineral soil altered from burning and charring

Soil Productivity and Water Quality/ Erosion loss to soil 

productivity or change in water quality

Loss of surface soil

Change in water quality
52

Slope stability and soil mass movement was not identified in the area or as a risk that should play a role in 

any of the proposed activity units. Therefore, it is assumed that mass movement will not be influenced 

directly, indirectly or cumulatively by the proposed action, and will not be discussed further in this 

section. For more information on the slope stability indicator, see the Soils Specialist Report in the project 

file.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The TEUI was used to classify the existing types of soils within the project area. Table 3.2 shows the 

percent of soil orders found in proposed activity units by action alternative. 

Table 3.2 Percent of soil orders in proposed activity units by alternative.

Alternative

Soil Orders

Andic Mollic Mixed

B 49.1% 29.4% 21.6%

C 47.1% 27.3% 25.6%

D 48.4% 28.5% 23.0%

E 54.1% 25.9% 20.0%

Within the Thomas Creek project area, there have been human influences that caused some change to the 

soil resource and its resilience. These activities include burning, fire suppression, and concentrated 

activities that have created roads and trails. The most direct and recognizable influence left on the 

landscape is either from past harvest activity or unregulated recreation activities in the form of soil 

compaction and soil displacement.

Baseline overland erosion and the sediment it may create were modeled with WEPP for slopes and soil 

textures found within proposed harvest units. This modeling showed a baseline that was low probability 

(0%) of sediment and low volumes of sediment (undetectable). Since this is a model and may not 

represent actual occurrences, the nearby Barometer Watershed report (Helvey and Fowler 1995) was used 

to define baseline estimates to be used with the modeled results. Based on the Barometer Watershed 

report, modeled estimates above 0.03t/ac (Helvey and Fowler 1995) would need some mitigation or 

avoidance measures to allow for proposed activities to be considered sustainable from the perspective of 

the soil resource. Existing condition of resource indicators and measures are shown in Table 3.3.
53

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

Soil Productivity

Given the current Effective Ground Cover (EGC), the expectation is that erosion is elevated above 

background. However if the loss of EGC were to occur, existing DSC within 400ft of streams may 

produce some erosion. These DSC features could route erosion to streams. Under the no action 

alternative, no project related activities would occur; therefore this condition would remain the same. 

Water Quality

Given the current EGC, there is no expectation of sediment above background levels. However if the loss 

of EGC were to occur, existing DSC within 400ft of streams could become a conduit of sediment to 

streams above background levels. Under the no action alternative, no project related activities would 

occur, therefore this condition would remain the same. 

Existing DSC

Under the no action alternative there is no opportunity to obliterate existing DSC. These areas would 

continue to have diminished soil both in and outside of RHCAs. This alternative would leave more DSC 

in the project area than with implementation of any action alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Soil Productivity

Proposed activities under all action alternatives are not expected to increase erosion above background 

levels, even in the event of a wildfire post implementation. Under Alternative E, there are some acres 

where existing DSC will limit the soils ability to produce EGC. These effects would be mitigated by 

implementation of BMP’s and project design criteria (see Chapter 2, Tables 2.5-2.11).

Water Quality

With proposed BMP’s and project design criteria, no increase in sediment above background levels is 

expected. 

Existing DSC

Under Alternatives B, C, and E, existing DSC would be obliterated where existing non-system road 

templates are used as temporary roads. This reduction in existing DSC would increase soil productivity in 

and outside of RHCAs. Under Alternative D, no temporary roads (existing templates or new) would be 

used, therefore the opportunity to obliterate existing DSC is reduced. 
54

Table 3.3 Effects of all alternatives on resource elements/indicators.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects from erosion are expected to be localized unless influenced by a combination of 

wildfire and the erosion processes exposed to high winds. Winds can transport detached soil aloft and to a 

new location. This would prove to be a loss to soil productivity within a proposed unit, if this occurs it is 

unknown if some portion of this material would end up as sediment. The potential duration of expected 

erosion risk would be for at least 3 years immediately following wildfire (Elliott et al 2001 and 

Robichaud 2000). The volumes of erosion under this risk are also influenced by the intensity and duration 

of precipitation events that occur during elevated erosion risk.

Cumulative effects from sediment are expected to be small with no elevation above assumed background 

levels (Helvey and Fowler 1995) with the described mitigations and BMPs, unless like above influenced 

by wildfire. The potential duration of expected sediment risk would be for at least 3 years immediately 

following wildfire (Elliott et al 2001 and Robichaud 2000), assuming for a low severity wildfire and the 

reduced fuel loads.

CONSISTENCY FINDING

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. Action 

Resource 

Element/

Indicator Measure

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Miles/

Acres

Miles/

Acres

Miles

Acres

Miles/

Acres

Miles/

Acres

Soil Productivity/ 

Erosion

Activity unit 

acres 

modeled 

>0.03t/ac

0/

0

0/

0

0/

0

0/

0

0/

0

Water Quality/ 

Sediment

Activity 

units that 

may produce 

>0.03t/ac

0/

0

0/

0

0/

0

0/

0

0/

0

Detrimental Soil 

Conditions 

(DSC)/ Change or 

absence in 

vegetation growth

Total 

Disturbance

23/

33

8/

11

9/

13

7/

11

8/

12

Assumed 

DSC within 

planning 

area

7

10

2/

4

3/

4

2/

3

3/

4
55

alternatives have been designed to achieve project objectives with minimal soil disturbance to reduce 

added erosion hazard, while balancing operational feasibility considerations. Existing areas of detrimental 

soil disturbance (DSC) that would be re-used and additional DSC from the proposed activities would be 

mitigated with de-compaction activities as needed and native seeding, thereby ameliorating existing 

detrimentally disturbed area. This meets guidance included in the Forest Service Manual, Pacific 

Northwest Region 6 Supplement 2500.98-1.

HYDROLOGY

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Hydrology Specialist 

Report located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, 

and technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS

The hydrologic effects of proposed actions will be analyzed for National Forest System (NFS) lands by 

subwatersheds, or Hydrologic Unit Code 6 (HUC6). This geographic extent encompasses the area that 

reasonably could be affected by the proposed actions associated with the Thomas Creek project. Table 3.4

displays the subwatersheds that encompass the Thomas Creek analysis area for hydrologic resources. 

Table 3.4 Subwatersheds encompassing the Thomas Creek analysis area.

HUC 6

Subwatershed (SWS) Name

Total 

SWS

acres

Acres of NFS 

Land in

SWS

Acres in 

Project 

Area

% Project 

Area in 

SWS

170601040801 Dry Creek 14,740 7,184 5,332 36%

170601041101 Phillips Creek 24,762 17,389 7,480 30%

170701030101 Thomas Creek 12,325 12,325 2,962 24%

1707010030204 North Fork Meacham 31,842 30,271 8 <1%

*North Fork Meacham HUC6 is not included in the subwatershed scale analysis due to the small amount of acreage in this HUC

Effects to water quality are based on the stream reaches identified by Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality. PACFISH directs that effects to RMOs are defined at the watershed (HUC 5) 

scale. Dry Creek is part of the 53,500 acre Willow Creek Watershed; Phillips Creek is part of the 108,000 

acre Grande Ronde River-Cabin Creek Watershed and Thomas Creek is part of the 86,800 acre Upper

Umatilla River Watershed. Figure 3.1 displays watersheds and subwatersheds in the analysis area.
56

Figure 3.1 Watersheds encompassing the Thomas Creek project area.
57

Resource Indicators and Measures

The hydrology analysis evaluates the proposed action and alternatives for consistency with the Forest 

Plan, laws, regulations, and policies. In addition it will address key issue 2, and issue 5 (see Chapter 1, 

Table 1.3). Tables 3.5 and 3.6 display the resource elements and measures, to be analyzed.

Table 3.5 Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to water quality and water 

quantity.

Resource Element/Indicator Measure

Water 

Quality1

Temperature Water Temperature; RHCA canopy density 

Shade RHCA canopy density

Sedimentation RHCA road density; number of stream crossings; acres of 

detrimental soil condition in RHCAs; turbidity

Biological Criteria Macroinvertebrate communities

Dissolved Oxygen Oxygen concentration (linked to water temperature)

Nutrients ug/L (linked to water temperature and D.O.)

Water 

Yield Changes in Peak/Base Flows Road density (mi/mi2

); number of stream crossings; ETA 

(%)

1

Oregon Administrative Rules describe many water quality parameters. The indicators shown have been identified by ODEQ as not 

meeting water quality standards, have a TMDL in place to address impairments or have insufficient data to warrant a de-listing

Table 3.6 Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to riparian-wetland areas.

Resource Element/Indicator Measure

RHCA Condition

Channel 

morphology

Width/depth ratio; substrate composition; pool frequency; 

large wood

Riparian Soil 

Condition 

Number of stream crossings; roads in RHCAs; detrimental 

soil condition in RHCAs 

Floodplain 

Function Number of stream crossings; roads in RHCAs; large wood

Wetlands &

Groundwater 

Dependent Ecosystems

Wetland function Acres of detrimental soil condition in RHCAs
58

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water Quality

The State of Oregon is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA), which requires that 

water quality standards be developed to protect beneficial uses and a list be developed of water quality 

impaired streams (303d list). When water quality standards are not met the CWA further requires 

development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for the pollutants (calculated pollutant amounts or 

surrogate criteria that a water body can receive and still meet Oregon water quality standards). See 

Hydrology Specialist Report (project file) for further information on TMDLs.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) identifies the following beneficial uses for 

tributaries of the Grande Ronde and Umatilla Subbasins: public water supply, private domestic water 

supply industrial water supply, irrigation, livestock watering, fish and aquatic life, wildlife and hunting, 

fishing, boating, water contact recreation, aesthetic quality and hydro power. ODEQ has developed water 

quality standards to protect beneficial uses. Pollutants that may affect water quality and beneficial uses 

are addressed below. See Hydrology Specialist Report (project file) for water quality support status for 

streams listed on Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. 

Temperature

Table 3.7 summarizes beneficial use support for water temperature. Based on data collected during 1993, 

ODEQ has determined that upper Phillips Creek and East Phillips Creek are attaining beneficial uses for 

salmonid rearing and anadromous fish migration. ODEQ has either not assessed other streams or 

determined that additional data are needed to determine beneficial use support. 

Table 3.7 Thomas Creek project area streams on the 303(d) list for temperature.

Water Body

River Mile

(FS RM) Beneficial Use Season of Use Status

Dry Creek 0 – 14.3

(10 – 14.3)

Resident fish and aquatic life; 

Anadromous fish passage; Salmonid 

fish rearing; Salmonid fish spawning

Undefined Insufficient data

Phillips Creek 0 – 10.4

(7.0 – 10.4)

Salmonid fish rearing; Anadromous 

fish passage Summer Insufficient data

Phillips Creek 10.4 – 14.5

(10.4 – 14.5)

Salmonid fish rearing; Anadromous 

fish passage Summer Attaining

East Phillips 

Creek

0 – 5.9

(0 – 5.9)

Salmonid fish rearing; Anadromous 

fish passage Summer Attaining

Dry Creek RM 0 – 14.3 = mouth to headwaters; Phillips Creek Rm 0 – 10.4 = mouth to East Phillips Creek; Phillips Creek RM 10.4 – 14.5 = 

mouth to headwaters; East Phillips Creek RM 0 – 5.9 = mouth to headwaters
59

More recent Forest Service monitoring with continuous-recording thermographs indicates that Phillips 

Creek meets the temperature standard and that East Phillips, Thomas and Spring Creeks have exceeded 

water quality standards. The Umatilla National Forest collects these data by accepted methods and with 

QA/QC measures and considers the data to be accurate. Thermograph data are not available for Dry 

Creek and instantaneous grab temperatures do not satisfy ODEQ standards for listing/delisting. On NFS 

lands, Dry Creek and Phillips Creek flow continually only during spring runoff and contain nonconnected segments of surface flow during other times of the year. Data collected from interrupted 

streams are only applicable to the specific stream segment measured because there is no downstream 

surface water connection and therefore no ability to transfer surface thermal regimes down gradient. 

The Upper Grande Ronde and Umatilla Temperature TMDLs use shade as a surrogate for stream 

temperature. By reducing the amount of sunlight reaching stream surfaces, shade reduces the increase of 

temperatures caused by direct solar radiation. In order to reduce river and stream temperatures, 

streamside vegetation (particularly trees) is called for along the entire length of perennial streams. The 

Upper Grande Ronde River TMDL used a model to determine that a minimum of 80% stream shading is 

needed for streams that flow north to south and more than 90% shade is needed for streams flowing east 

to west. The Umatilla River TMDL model indicates that more than 90% shade is needed within 10 feet of 

streams to meet the temperature standard. 

Sediment

ODEQ has identified sediment as a pollutant in TMDLs and sources include hillslope and channel erosion 

and the road network. Suspended sediment yield measured in the High Ridge Evaluation Area of the 

Umatilla Barometer Watershed (adjacent to the northeast of the project) had an average annual yield of 18 

tons/mi2

. The TMDLs set the targets for sedimentation and turbidity. These targets are 80 mg/L for total 

suspended solids, and 30 NTU for turbidity.

Roads have the potential to intercept surface and subsurface water, reducing infiltration and speeding the 

delivery of water to channels. Sedimentation may be increased by surface erosion from roads and the 

ability of road drainage to route sediment to channels. 

The road system within the four subwatersheds of the analysis area contains about 244 miles of open, 

closed and decommissioned routes (Table 3.8). Routes on FS lands include 8 miles of maintenance level 

(ML) 5 roads, 2.5 miles of ML 4 roads, 3.5 miles of ML 3 roads, 57 miles of ML 2 roads and 57 miles of 

ML 1 (closed) roads. The MVUM database shows about 30 miles of decommissioned roads, however, 

some roads that were decommissioned are no longer in the database. Decommissioning generally 

involved removing drainage structures, installing dips and water bars, possible surface scarification and 

seeding, and blocking vehicle access to allow revegetation. Many of these routes have been successfully 

closed to motor vehicles. Motorized ATV trails (vehicles < 50” side) have been designated on 27.4 miles 

of closed roads and 11.5 miles of decommissioned roads.
60

Table 3.8 Road and stream network in the analysis area.

SWS Name

SWS 

(mi2)

Road 

Miles1

Road 

Density 

(mi/mi2

)

Stream 

Miles

Drainage 

Density 

(mi/mi2

) RD/DD

StreamRoad 

Intersections

Dry Creek 23.0 43.6 1.9 103 4.5 0.4 110

Phillips Creek 38.7 119.6 3.1 177 4.6 0.7 227

Thomas Creek2 19.3 61.5 3.2 (6.4) 91 (76.3) 4.7 (7.8) 0.7 (0.8) 91

Total 244 371 428

1

Includes closed roads and 11.5 miles of decom roads designated as ATV trails; 2Thomas Creek has about 9.5 mi2 in wilderness with 14.7 

miles of stream in wilderness; number in (6.4) do not include wilderness area. 

Biological Criteria

The biological criteria standard uses biological community (macro invertebrate) assessments as an 

indicator for aquatic life beneficial use support. DEQ’s protocol is based on biological assemblage 

information for freshwater macroinvertebrates collected by DEQ at reference sites throughout Oregon. 

DEQ identifies sites in a given region that are least disturbed by anthropogenic activities and uses these as 

reference sites. Thomas Creek was assessed for and is attaining the biological criteria (Table 3.9). ODEQ 

has not identified water quality issues related to biological criteria for other streams in the project area 

and there are no other known data for streams within the project area. PACFISH/INFISH Biological 

Opinion (PIBO) monitoring included one macroinvertebrate site on Thomas Creek, about 4 miles 

downstream of the project boundary. Water quality indices indicate fair to good water quality (see 

Hydrology Specialist Report in the project file for further information on biological criteria).

Table 3.9 Thomas Creek project area streams on the 303(d) list for Biological Criteria.* 

Water Body

River Mile

(FS RM) Beneficial Use Season of Use Status

Thomas Creek 0 – 5.7

(0 – 5.7) Aquatic life Year round Attaining

*Biological Criteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental changes in the resident 

biological communities (includes temperature, sediment, dissolved oxygen, etc). RM 0 – 5.7 = mouth to Ruckel Junction; Attainment status 

based on a sample collected in 2001.

Dissolved Oxygen

The Grande Ronde River is 303(d) listed for pH and dissolved oxygen (D.O.). The TMDL is based on 

modeling of the main stem Grande Ronde upstream of Dry Creek. 

Dry Creek is on the 303(d) list for D.O. and ODEQ has determined that additional data are needed to 

assess this stream for attainment of the D.O. standard. 
61

Nutrients

Dry Creek is on the 303(d) list for nutrients and ODEQ has determined that additional data are needed to 

assess this stream for attainment of this standard. 

Water Yield and Peak Flow

The mapped stream system in the Thomas Creek project area includes 28 miles of perennial streams, 96 

miles of intermittent streams and 12 miles of streams with a discontinuous flow regime. These streams 

represent the channeled system. The project area also contains numerous unchanneled colluvial hollows 

or ephemeral swales, which have not been mapped. 

Peak streamflows vary depending on winter and spring weather conditions. There are two general 

hydrograph types within the project area: a snowmelt-dominated hydrograph where peak streamflow 

results from normal spring runoff and a winter-dominated hydrograph where peak flows occur between 

November and February as a result of rain-on-snow. Rain-on-snow zones typically occur between 

elevations of 3,000 to 4,000 feet. See Hydrology Specialist Report in the project file for more background 

on flow. 

Forest disturbances (such as fire, insects, disease and timber harvest) that greatly reduce forest density can 

cause changes to water yield and peak flows (numerous studies summarized by Troendle et al 2010). A 

reduction in forest vegetation can lead to increases in water yield due to a reduction in transpiration (less 

water use by trees), reduced canopy interception (higher amount of snow/rain reaching the ground), 

redistribution of snow at the ground surface (due to winds) and more efficient conversion of snowpack to 

streamflow (solar and topographic effects) (Garn 1973). Water yield may be increased at the local 

hillslope scale (USDA Forest Service 1973), but approximately 20% of the basal area must be removed 

before a statistically significant change in annual water yield is detected at larger scales (Troendle et al 

2010). 

Roads and Water Yield

Roads have the potential to intercept surface and subsurface water, reducing infiltration and speeding the 

delivery of water to channels (see Table 3.8 for current road densities in the project area subwatersheds). 

Watershed risk classes based on road density were assigned in Determining Risk of Cumulative 

Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple Activities (Table 20, McCammon 1993). Road density and 

watershed risk for watershed with >30% relief are as follows:

Low- <2 mi/mi2 Moderate- 2.1– 3.5 mi/mi2 High- > 3.6 mi/mi2

These values are meant as a guide to assess the potential of road impacts (discussed previously) to 

adversely affecting hydrological function and water quality. The road density/drainage density ratio can 

also be used as an indicator to assess landscape dissection. As this ratio approaches or exceeds 1, the 

routing efficiency of water and sediment can increase due to higher risk of road-stream connectivity. 

Equivalent Treatment Area

The effect of road surfaces and past harvest on water yield and the timing of flows are analyzed using the 

Umatilla NF Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) methodology (Ager and Clifton 2005). An equivalent 

treatment acre (ETA) computer program was developed to simplify use of the model. The NRIS database 
62

was used to determine past acres harvested, harvest prescriptions, and year of harvest through 2015 and 

these values were entered into the model. McCammon (1993) assigned risk to watersheds from changes 

in cover and evapotranspiration as low (< 15%), moderate (15 – 30%) and high (> 30%). Using the ETA 

threshold for cumulative effects, ETAs for the existing condition are low and are due mainly to the effects 

of road surfaces. Equivalent treatment areas for project subwatersheds are as follows:

Dry Creek- 2.3% Phillips Creek- 2.8% Thomas Creek- 1.5%

Riparian Condition

Channel Morphology

Interim RMOs (see Table 3.10) were established by PACFISH as a baseline guide for describing good 

habitat for anadromous fish for 3rd to 7th order streams at the watershed (HUC5) scale. Data are 

summarized in Table 3.10 as a requirement to show compliance with interim RMO metrics. Note that 

RMO metrics are based on wetted width and the data in the table are based on the bankfull channel, 

therefore a direct assessment of compliance with interim RMOs is valid only for a stream flowing at the 

bankfull level. The assumption can be made that if the bankfull channel dimensions meet RMOs, then 

channel geomorphology is being met at all water level elevations. Based on best available science, the 

bankfull width/depth ratio of < 10 is not desirable for all stream types. The streams shown in Table 3.10 

are all 3rd to 5th order channels. 

Table 3.10 Interim Riparian Management Objectives and Reported Metrics.

Stream Miles BFW PF Tw LWD BF W/D Rosgen

PACFISH --- --- Varies 60/64 oF > 20 < 10* ---

Phillips Reach 2 3.9 35 24 (35) 63(1) 15 45 C3/B3

Phillips Reach 3 4.1 11 21 (95) 57(1) 12 19 B4a

E. Phillips Reach 1 6.2 12 90 (90) 65(1) 21 21 B4

Dry Reach 1 1.7 13 2 (90) 57(2) 24 15 B4a

Dry Reach 2 2.3 10 13 (96) 59(2) 19 20 B4a

Thomas Reach 1 2.4 26 42 (47) 63(2) 18 37 F2b/F3b

Spring Reach 1 1.7 19 51 (56) 67(1) 25 19 B3a

Spring Reach 2 2.0 12 61 (90) 63(2) 22 12 B3a

Italic = not attaining RMO; (1) continuous-recording thermographs, 7 day maximum average; 

(2) instantaneous grab temperatures; * PACFISH specifies wetted width/depth ratio; BFW = bankfull width (ft); PF = pool frequency 

(pools per mile showing measured and (RMO guide); TW = water temperature: spawning/ migration-rearing; LWD = large woody 

debris; BF W/D = bankfull width-to-depth ratio
63

Best available science indicates that the RMOs are not universally applicable. PACFISH allows RMO 

modifications based on local conditions and watershed analysis. Watershed analyses have been 

conducted for streams within the project area, however the watershed analyses did not propose to change 

RMOs. Stream channel shape and substrate are determined by the range of flow and sediment that the 

stream receives over time, for a given geographic setting (Rosgen 1996). When the amount of streamflow 

and sediment are highly altered, changes to the width, depth and gradient of the stream can occur. 

For this analysis, the stream survey data will be used to assess stream geomorphology based on Rosgen’s 

classification. Rosgen’s (1996) stream channel classification has been widely used since the 1980s and is 

an accepted procedure for measuring and documenting channel features. The Rosgen stream type is an 

alpha-numeric system that describes the sinuosity, gradient, bankfull width/depth ratio, entrenchment and 

substrate of a given stream reach (see Hydrology Specialist Report in the project file for further 

information on Rosgen methods). Region 6 Level II stream inventory data for stream reaches within the 

project area are summarized in the Hydrology Specialist report. 

Floodplain Function (Executive Order 11988)

Executive Order11988 is applicable to those Federal actions which will occur in or which will impact 

upon floodprone areas. The Water Resources Council Floodplain Management Guidelines (WRC 1978) 

define action as any “Federal activity including 1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands 

and facilities; (2) providing federally undertaken, financed or assisted construction and improvements; 

and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water 

and related land use resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.” 

Floodplains or floodways occur along all streams within the project area. Stream channel morphology, by 

default, includes the floodplain or floodprone area. Measures used to assess effects to floodplains and 

riparian areas include road-stream crossings, roads within RHCAs (Table 3.11) and large wood. Road 

decommissioning in Thomas Creek, Phillips Creek and Dry Creek subwatersheds in the 1990s reduced 

mapped RHCA road density by about 14% which has helped to improve the RHCAs by allowing 

vegetation to regrow along road corridors. 

Table 3.11 RHCA road interactions at the subwatershed scale.

SWS Name

RHCA

(Total mi2)

Road Miles 

w/in 

RHCAs

RHCA Road 

Density (mi/mi2

)

Road Miles

Decommission

Stream- Road 

Intersections

Dry Creek 5.1 16.3 3.2 5.1 110

Phillips Creek 7.7 35.2 4.6 2.8 227

Thomas Creek 4.2 11.7 2.8 0.7 91

Total 63.2 428
64

Riparian Soil Condition

Riparian areas include springs, streams, ponds, lakes and their associated wet areas and floodplains (FSM 

2526). The three subwatersheds containing the project area contain about 10,900 acres of streamassociated RHCAs (Table 28), as mapped using standard PACFISH buffers (see Management Direction 

section for buffer distance). RHCAs within the Thomas Creek project area total about 4,000 acres (see 

Table 3.13 below). The project area also contains 28 known riparian areas associated with springs and 

seeps, or about 2 acres when applying PACFISH buffers. 

Measures used to assess effects to riparian areas include road-stream crossings and roads within RHCAs. 

Road crossings of streams are often the places where eroded soil enters the water. Eroded soil is 

mobilized by rain and snow melt. Road decommissioning in Thomas Creek, Phillips Creek and Dry 

Creek subwatersheds in the 1990s reduced mapped RHCA road density by about 14% which has helped 

to improve the RHCAs by allowing vegetation to regrow along road corridors. Table 3.12 summarizes 

road-stream interactions at the project scale.

Table 3.12 RHCA road interactions within the project area.

SWS Name

RHCA

(mi2

)

Road 

Miles w/in 

RHCAs

Road Miles

Decommission

StreamRoad 

Intersections

Dry Creek 2.2 11.1 5.1 80

Phillips Creek 3.2 14.6 2.2 133

Thomas Creek 0.8 5.8 0.2 54

6.2 31.6 7.5 267

Riparian vegetation communities within the project area have been altered by recent and historic 

disturbances including road construction, timber harvest, and livestock trailing and grazing. See 

Hydrology Specialist Report for further information on riparian vegetation. 

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 

The project area contains two types of wetlands: riverine and slope. As discussed above, the project area 

contains about 4,000 acres of stream-associated RHCAs, although actual wetlands would comprise a 

smaller portion of the RHCAs. The extent of stream-associated wetlands have not been mapped in the 

subwatersheds or project area. 

Spring-associated wetlands within the three subwatersheds containing the project area have not been 

mapped in detail. The North End Allotment range improvements GIS layer identifies 34 stock tanks and 

2 spring developments in these subwatersheds. One other mapped spring (Squaw Spring) occurs at the 

head of Phillips Creek. The project area contains 29 known slope wetlands and 23 earthen stock tanks 

(see Hydrology Specialist Report, project file). Most of these wetlands occur as small (< 0.05 acres) 

seeps and springs and are located in valley bottoms of Class IV streams. PACFISH buffers would 

encompass about 5 acres of spring or seep-associated RHCAs. 
65

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A – No Action

Because the project would not occur, there would be no direct or indirect effects to the existing condition 

as described above in the Affected Environment section. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Water Quality

Temperature and Shade

Under Alternatives B and E, a total of 301 acres of thinning activities would occur within Category 1 and 

2 RHCA (class I and III streams). Approximately 28 of thinning activities would occur in Dry Creek, 230 

acres would occur in Phillips Creek, and 43 acres would occur in Thomas Creek. This thinning would all 

be outside of the shade producing area. (see USDA 2012 for discussion of shade zones). Under 

Alternatives C and D, less acres of thinning in Class I and III RCHAs are proposed, therefore the effects 

would be the same or less than described for Alternatives B and E (see Chapter 2, Table 2.3). Effects to 

temperature and shade would be least in Alternative D because no commercial treatment would occur in 

RHCAs. These actions would be within the standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan and within 

limitations specified in the design features (Chapter 2, Table 2.5). No material, standing trees or downed 

wood would be removed from within the inner gorge (the area including the stream and its floodplain and 

defined by a break in slope to uplands) of these channels. This action is consistent with the Upper Grande 

Ronde and Umatilla Subbasin Temperature TMDL target strategy of no increases in radiant energy above 

site potentials. Treatments within Category 4 RHCAs of intermittent streams (Class IV) would not affect 

stream temperature because shade is not the limiting water quality factor on these systems.

For all action alternatives, where large wood is placed into streams, the expected effect is to create 

channel conditions that would favor cooler water. These effects include increasing cover, reducing 

width/depth ratios and increasing exchange between shallow groundwater below the streambed with 

surface water. In addition, no adverse changes to channel condition from silvicultural treatments are 

predicted because water yield and peakflows will not be affected.

Under all action alternatives, hardwood and conifer planting may occur in the RHCAs. Hardwood and 

conifer release are expected to occur during the short term (1-5 years), while hardwood and conifer 

plantings are expected to take longer to become established and begin to provide effective shade (5 to 10 

years). The net result would be an increase in near-stream shade.

All action alternatives would not adversely affect water temperature (or associated beneficial uses) 

because road reconstruction, thinning, burning, danger tree falling, and placing large wood into streams 

would not measurably remove the shade component along any stream channel. Water temperature will be 

maintained and the conditions that allow growth of shade producing vegetation will not be retarded by 

project implementation. Because there would be no change to shade, there would be no effect on the 

303(d) listing status of streams listed for exceeding State temperature standards. 

Sediment 

Effects to sedimentation are expected to be limited when best management practices (BMPs) and other 

design features (Chapter 2, Tables 2.5-2.10) are implemented. 
66

Under Alternatives B, C and E, disturbance and compaction could occur in the Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas from low impact ground based equipment. However, it would not be to the 

magnitude, extent, or duration to cause sedimentation in to enter stream channels. Protection of soil 

resources is provided by the use of BMPs that minimize the potential for soil disturbance. Because 

project activities have the potential to affect hillslope erosion and sedimentation, surface erosion 

modelling was used to inform design features to protect soils and minimize sedimentation. These design 

criteria would prevent damage that could contribute to erosion and sedimentation into channels and 

streams. Since no commercial activities are proposed in RHCAs under Alternative D, there would be no 

effects from ground based equipment.

Under Alternatives B, C and E, approximately one mile or less of temporary road and one temporary 

crossing on an intermittent stream would be implemented. With the use of BMP’s and design criteria as 

identified in Chapter 2, these activities are not expected to increase sediment in the short or long term. 

Changes in the sediment regime at the subwatershed scale would be undetectable. No temporary roads are 

proposed under Alternative D, therefore there would be no short or long term increases in sediment due to 

temporary roads. 

Under all action alternatives, temporary increases in traffic on haul routes could mobilize sediment to 

streams in the short term, however with the use of BMPs and design criteria as identified in Chapter 2, 

these increases would be minimized are not expected to be detectable at the subwatershed scale. 

Sediment modeling indicates that the existing road system would continue to be the main source of 

sustained sediment input to streams under all alternatives. Road maintenance, reconstruction and 

construction would loosen surface soils, which would increase the short term risk of sediments being 

mobilized during rainfall. Design features related to timing of activities and installation of physical 

erosion measures would minimize the risk of erosion in the short term. Road maintenance and 

reconstruction, followed by closing/stabilizing Level 1 roads and obliteration of new temporary roads 

would reduce road-related sediment during the longer term.

Biological Criteria

There would be no direct changes to macroinvertebrate communities as a result of activities proposed 

under any action alternative. Because the amount, timing, and duration of stream flow and sediment 

dynamics would not be affected, there would be no indirect effects to macroinvertebrate communities.

WaterYield/Flow

Direct and indirect effects to water yield could occur if expansion of the road network increases landscape 

dissection and effectively routes water off the landscape via the road system. Additional effects could 

occur if road-stream interactions increase such that the road system becomes an extension of the stream 

network. Alternatives B and E would add 0.21 miles of temporary road in the Dry Creek subwatershed, 

0.23 miles of temporary road in the Phillips Creek subwatershed and 0.54 miles of temporary road in the 

Thomas Creek subwatershed. Under Alternative C, the amount of temporary road proposed in the 

Thomas Creek subwatershed is reduced to 0.29 miles, and no temporary roads are proposed under 

Alternative D. This small amount of road would fractionally increase road densities at the subwatershed 

scale and would increase the road density/drainage density ratio by a negligible amount. The installation 

of one culvert would not change the runoff patterns from FR 3145 because the road surface and ditchline 

runoff from this route currently enters the intermittent stream where the culvert would be re-installed. 
67

Neither of these actions would significantly increase the road density or number of stream crossings at the 

subwatershed scale such that there would be a measureable increase in streamflow. Therefore there 

would be no direct or indirect effect to water yield or peak flows from these actions under this alternative. 

RHCA Condition

Channel Morphology and Floodplain Function 

There would be no direct effects from timber harvest, thinning or burning to channel morphology because 

these activities would not occur within the bankfull channel. Proposed treatment within RHCAs would 

move stand structure and composition toward HRV and improve in-stream fish habitat. Treatment of 

riparian zones was identified as a need to enhance hardwoods. Enhancing hardwoods by removing 

competing conifers and/or planting would provide shade in the short and longer term. Thinning of off-site 

ponderosa pine and thinning other overly dense conifers is expected to improve the health and resilience 

of the remaining stand and therefore help to maintain overstory shade for the long term. Indirect effects 

would occur during the long-term (decades) as a result of improved streamside vegetation stand structure 

and composition using silvicultural techniques aimed at maintaining a relatively even delivery of large 

woody debris to the channel and providing a mix of riparian tree species. 

Under all action alternatives, channel morphology and floodplain function would improve at the habitat 

scale due to the addition of large wood along 1.5 miles of Phillips Creek. Other streams would remain 

unchanged at the habitat, reach and watershed scales.

Riparian Soil Condition 

Under Alternatives B and E, RHCA road density in Dry Creek subwatershed would temporarily increase 

from 3.20 to 3.25 mi/mi2 while the road is in use. Forest Plan direction requires that temporary roads be 

obliterated; therefore there would be no long term effect to RHCA soil from this alternative. The number 

of road-stream interactions in the Thomas Creek subwatershed would not change with the re-installation 

of one culvert where the insloped ditch along FR 3145 enters into the stream. Installation of the culvert 

would not increase DSC because the culvert would be installed at an existing disturbance area. Because 

less temporary road would be constructed under Alternative C and no temporary road would be 

constructed under Alternative D, these alternatives would have less effect to RHCA soil condition than 

described for Alternatives B and E. 

The Thomas Creek project proposes commercial and non-commercial treatments in the RHCAs of the 

Dry Creek, Phillips Creek and Thomas Creek subwatersheds (Table 3.13). Project design features for 

skidding, yarding and burning would limit DSC to < 10% (Forest Plan standard) within RHCAs. 
68

Table 3.13 Summary of proposed vegetation treatments in RHCAs for all alternatives (acres).

Alternative

Subwatershed

Category 1 

(Class 1) 

Category 2 

(Class 3)

Category 4 

(Class 4) Total

Dry Creek 1,041 693 1,522 3,256

Alternative B 

Non-commercial 21 6 72 99

Commercial 0 1 64 66

Alternative C

Non-commercial 21 6 72 99

Commercial 0 1 63 64

Alternative D

Non-commercial 21 4 65 90

Commercial 0 0 0 0

Alternative E

Non-commercial 21 6 72 99

Commercial 0 1 64 66

Phillips Creek 1,125 1,394 2,417 4,936

Alternative B

Non-commercial 151 75 105 331

Commercial 0 4 22 26

Alternative C

Non-commercial 151 75 105 331

Commercial 0 4 21 25

Alternative D

Non-commercial 114 77 126 317

Commercial 0 0 0 0

Alternative E

Non-commercial 151 75 105 331

Commercial 0 4 22 26

Thomas Creek 420 981 1,306 2,706

Alternative B

Non-commercial 0 20 57 76

Commercial 0 23 69 92

Alternative C

Non-commercial 0 19 42 61

Commercial 0 0 75 76

Alternative D

Non-commercial 0 20 115 135

Commercial 0 0 0 0

Alternative E

Non-commercial 0 20 57 76

Commercial 0 23 69 92

Wetlands

Ground disturbing activities would not occur in stream- or spring-associated wetlands; therefore, there 

would be no direct or indirect effects to wetlands as a result of this any action alternative. 
69

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for all hydrologic indicators will be analyzed using NFS lands in HUC 6 

subwatersheds. This geographic extend encompasses the area that reasonably could be affected by the 

Thomas Creek Project. Cumulative effects for water quality will be analyzed for short term (1 day to 1 

week) and for long term (up to one runoff season). These time scales were chosen to display short term 

concentrated effects, and longer term seasonal effects that are sometimes seen during spring runoff. 

Cumulative effects for water yield are calculated using records of timber harvest activity dating to the 

1950s. The Equivalent Treatment Acre (ETA) model has a 33 year time-frame for the slowest sites to 

recover hydrologically (collection, storage, and release of precipitation). Although vegetation 

management proposed in the project may occur over a number of years, the calculation assumes all 

treatments occur in 1 year, and therefore shows the maximum effect that could be expected. Time frames 

for stream flow and water yield are 1-10 years for short term and > 10 years for long term effects. 

Cumulative Effects of No Action- Alternative A

Water Quality

Stream temperatures would be unaffected under the No Action Alternative. Phillips and Dry Creeks 

would continue to exhibit discontinuous to intermittent flow regimes during the summer and fall, with 

influent groundwater maintaining summer water temperatures to support anadromous salmonids. Spring 

Creek would continue to maintain perennial flow and water temperatures would continue to exceed the 

threshold for bull trout. Thomas Creek would continue to exhibit intermittent flow along FR 32 until its 

confluence with Spring Creek and water temperature would also continue to exceed the bull trout 

temperature standard. 

The current use pattern of roads within the analysis area would not change. Road densities and road use 

designations would remain unchanged with the no action alternative. 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. 

Water Yield

In Dry Creek and Phillips Creek subwatersheds with existing recent harvest, vegetative recovery through 

time would continue to reduce ETA values. Current ETA values for all three subwatersheds are low 

(< 3%) and suggest that there is no measurable difference between current conditions and those with no 

harvest. Additional growth of conifer stands into the future would not measurably change water yield or 

peak flows.

RHCA Condition

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. Portions of 

Phillips Creek would remain deficient of large woody material due to past timber harvest. These stream 
70

segments would remain at higher risk to adverse channel adjustments from high stream flows due to the 

general lack of large woody structure. 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 periodic high flow 

events. The condition of seeps and springs in the project area would continue to be influenced by current 

management. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Water Quality

Temperature and Shade: 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 proposed Thomas Creek alternatives, prescribed fire ignition will not occur within 300 feet either side 

of fish bearing streams, within 150 feet each side of perennial non-fish bearing streams, or within100 feet 

of springs and other isolated wetlands. Shade will not be affected and there will 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 and former private lands 

that are now FS lands removed shade-producing 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. Dispersed camping 

occurs along Phillip Creek at 3 sites and this activity has a localized effect on vegetation. One large 

dispersed area near the mouth of East Phillips Creek was obliterated in 2013. Approximately 30 miles of 

roads have been decommissioned in the three subwatersheds during the past 20 years, including roads up 

Spring Creek and upper Dry Creek. These roads are effectively closed to motor vehicles and are slowly 

being overtaken by alder. The combined effect of these activities has had a positive effect to shadeproducing vegetation in RHCAs. 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.

Sedimentation: 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. 

Biological Criteria: Changes to aquatic macroinvertebrate communities as a result of cumulative effects 

from all action alternatives would not occur because there would be direct or indirect effects. 

Total Maximum Daily Load: The proposed action is consistent with the Upper Grande Ronde and 

Umatilla Subbasin TMDL Water Quality Management Plans, which identified the Willow/Phillips 

Watershed as a high priority area where action is needed to improve water quality for temperature, 

sediment and flow. As stated previously, implementation of action alternatives would have positive 

effects at the habitat scale. 
71

Water Yield

Past harvest within the analysis area had the potential to affect water yield and peakflow, but harvested 

areas have regrown and currently there is no measureable effect to these parameters. Proposed actions 

will lead to conifer mortality and created openings as described in the proposed action and Forested 

Vegetation section of this EA and Specialist Report, however the small scale of the mortality and created 

openings will not affect either water yield or peakflows and so there is no mechanism to create 

cumulative effects.

The silvicultural treatments proposed in the Thomas Creek project are not designed to increase stream 

flow. The proposed action would commercially and non-commercially treat about 4% of the Dry Creek 

subwatershed, 5% of the Phillips Creek subwatershed, and 6% of the Thomas Creek subwatershed. 

The effect of road surfaces, proposed harvest, activity fuel treatment, and prescribed fuel reduction, 

together with past harvest on water yield and the timing of flows is analyzed using the Umatilla NF 

Equivalent Clearcut Acre (ECA) methodology (Ager and Clifton 2005). An equivalent treatment acre 

(ETA) computer program was developed to simplify use of the model. McCammon (1993) assigned risk 

to watersheds from changes in cover and evapotranspiration as low (< 15%), moderate (15 – 30%) and 

high (> 30%). Table 3.14 reflects the ETA due to existing and proposed roads, thinning, harvest and 

landscape fire. 

Table 3.14 ETA modelling results used to evaluate water yield and peak flow.

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Dry Creek 

(170601040801) 2.3% 7.0% 7.1% 6.9% 8.0%

Phillips Creek 

(170601041101) 2.8% 7.4% 7.4% 7.1% 7.9%

Thomas Creek 

(170701030101) 1.5% 7.9% 8.4% 7.3% 9.2%

Based on ETA modelling results, literature review of the effects of timber harvest, field reconnaissance of 

Class I, III and IV streams within the project area and implementation of design features, statistically 

significant changes to water yield and peak flow would not occur. In addition, project implementation 

would occur during the course of years, thus the phasing of activities and asynchronous timing of 

treatments would further moderate hydrologic effects from thinning and road maintenance. 

Results from the High Ridge Barometer Watershed Study, in the upper Umatilla watershed showed no 

measurable changes in streamflow until 50% of catchments were in a cutover condition (Helvey and 

Fowler 1995). The High Ridge watershed is between 4,700 to 5,300 feet elevation, which is above the 

rain-on-snow zone (3,000-4,000 ft). A portion of the Thomas Creek analysis area falls within the rain-onsnow zone. For the transient snow zone of western Washington and Oregon, Grant et al (2008) showed 

that changes to peak flows were not detectable when < 20% of the basin was harvested. 

In studies of vegetation manipulation to increase water yield, a large percentage of the basal area must be 

removed to realize an increase in water yield. The increases in annual water yield following forest 
72

harvest are usually assumed to be proportional to the amount of forest cover removed, but at least 15-20% 

of the trees must be removed to produce a statistically detectable effect (Stednick 1996, Robichaud et al 

2010). Other studies have generally noted that 20 to 30 % of a watershed must be harvested before a 

significant change in streamflow can be detected (Troendle 1983). Robichaud et al (2010) reported that 

no measurable increase in runoff can be expected from thinning operations that remove less than 15 

percent of the forest cover and that any increase in runoff due to thinning operations is likely to persist for 

no more than 5 to 10 years because evapotranspiration rapidly recovers with vegetative regrowth in 

partially thinned areas.

RHCA Condition

Channel Morphology: The Thomas Creek 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. The addition of large wood to Phillips Creek would have a local effect. 

The upper 5 miles of Phillips Creek, outside of clearcut units, has active recruitment of large wood and 

this alternative would enhance the ability of this stream segment to dissipate flood flows, detain sediment, 

build floodplain and improve fish habitat. The lower 3 miles of Phillips Creek is lacking both in-stream 

large wood and potential recruitment of large wood and this project would not change that because there 

are no treatments proposed along this reach. 

Riparian Soil Condition: Cumulative effects to riparian soils would not occur because changes to road 

densities and stream crossings at the subwatershed scale of analysis are negligible and implementation of 

design features would not increase DSC above threshold amounts. 

Floodplain Function: Floodplain function is linked to channel morphology and riparian soil condition, 

and cumulative effects would be as described above. 

Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Ground disturbing activities would not occur in stream- or spring-associated wetlands, therefore, there 

would be no direct or indirect effects to wetlands as a result of this alternative. Spring, seep and other 

wetland areas not previously identified and which are identified during unit layout would also be 

protected with no-skid buffers. 

CONSISTENCY FINDING 

The actions proposed under the Thomas Creek project are consistent with the Umatilla Forest Plan and all 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies including the Clean Water Act, Executive Orders 11988 and 

11990, Safe Drinking Water Act, and direction on Municipal watersheds (see Compliance with Other 

Laws, Regulations and Policies section at the end of this chapter).
73

FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Fisheries Specialist Report 

located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, and 

technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section. 

SCALE OF ANALYSIS

The Thomas Creek project is located within the headwaters of the Willow Creek Watershed (HUC 

1700610408), Cabin Creek-Grande Ronde River Watershed (HUC 1706010411) and Headwaters 

Umatilla River Watershed (HUC 1707010301). The Headwaters Umatilla River watershed will be the 

analysis area for cumulative effects on Mid-Columbia River steelhead and Designated Critical Habitat. 

The Cabin Creek-Grande Ronde River watershed and Willow Creek Watershed make up the analysis area 

for cumulative effects on Snake River Basin steelhead and Snake River spring Chinook salmon and 

Designated Critical Habitat of each species. The three watersheds combined will make up the analysis 

area for cumulative effects to Essential Fish Habitat. The Headwaters Umatilla River, Cabin CreekGrande Ronde River and Willow Creek watersheds contain the Thomas Creek project area. 

Table 3.15 shows acreage of the Thomas Creek Project area within each of the watersheds.

Table 3.15 Acres within each watershed (HUC5) in the project area.

Watershed Name (HUC5)

Watershed Size

(acres)

Project 

Acres in 

Watershed

% Watershed 

in Project 

Boundary

Headwaters Umatilla River Watershed 

(HUC 1707010301) 86,795 2,962 3.4

Cabin Creek-Grande Ronde River Watershed 

(HUC 1706010411) 108,401 7,480 7.2

Willow Creek Watershed

(HUC 1706010408) 53,587 5,332 10.0

The geographical context for estimating direct and indirect effects is National Forest System (NFS) lands 

located within the Willow Creek Watershed, Cabin Creek-Grande Ronde River Watershed and 

Headwaters Umatilla River Watershed, and those areas directly affected by implementation of forest 

vegetation, in-stream restoration and fire/fuels management activities included in action alternatives.

Analysis of indirect effects considers the influence of direct effects occurring at a different time or place 

than the direct effects themselves.

The temporal context for evaluating environmental effects considers past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions in the Thomas Creek Restoration planning area, as described below.
74 

Resource Indicators and Issues

Table 3.16 is a list of indicators that will be used to assess the effects of the action alternatives for the 

proposed project. 

Table 3.16 Indicators for assessing effects to fisheries and aquatic habitat. 

Resource 

Element/Indicator Measure

Water Quality Stream temperature

Water Quality Sedimentation

In-stream Habitat

Large Woody Debris (LWD)

Pools per mile

Channel Stability Width/Depth Ratio

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Fish and Habitat

Snake River Basin (SR) and Middle Columbia River (MCR) Steelhead and Designated 

Critical Habitat

The steelhead population utilizing the Thomas Creek project area is part of the Grande Ronde River 

Major Population Group (MPG), within the Snake River Basin Steelhead Distinct Population Segment 

(DPS). Middle Columbia River (MCR) Steelhead are known to utilize streams adjacent to the Thomas 

Creek project area. They are part of the Umatilla/Walla Walla Rivers Major Population Group (MPG), 

within the Middle Columbia River Steelhead DPS. Figure 3.2 shows the Steelhead distribution within 

and adjacent to the Thomas Creek project area. Table 3.17 shows how many miles of streams are 

occupied by steelhead in each watershed.
75

Figure 3.2 Steelhead distribution within and adjacent to the Thomas Creek project.

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook salmon and Designated Critical Habitats

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). 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are not found within the Thomas Creek project boundary. 

They can be found approximately 6.9 miles downstream of the project area in the Grande Ronde River. 

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). Based on this narrative, an estimated 13.9 miles of 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon designated critical habitat exist within the project boundary.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

The Thomas Creek project area falls within two HUCs (Upper Grande Ronde River and Umatilla) 

identified in the Pacific salmon Fisheries Management Plan as EFH. The Upper Grande Ronde River 

HUC contains 885.3 miles of EFH and is associated with the Snake River spring Chinook ESU. The 

Umatilla HUC contains 425.1 miles of EFH and is associated with the Mid-Columbia River spring 

Chinook ESU. The Thomas Creek project area contains 14.5 miles of EFH from the Upper Grande 

Ronde HUC. There is no EFH from the Umatilla HUC within the Thomas Creek project area. 
76

Bull Trout and Designated Critical Habitat 

There are no Bull trout or designated critical habitat for Bull trout within the Thomas Creek project 

boundary. Bull trout have been found in Thomas Creek, approximately 1.7 miles downstream of the 

project area, during biotic surveys. The closest designated critical habitats are on the Grande Ronde River 

(~6.9 miles downstream of the project area) and the Umatilla River (~7.4 miles downstream of the project 

area).

GIS databases show Bull trout are known to occur in 17.5 miles of streams in the Cabin Creek – Grande 

Ronde watershed and 37.7 miles of streams in the Headwaters Umatilla River watershed. Designated 

Critical Habitat for bull trout can be found in 17.5 miles of streams in the Cabin Creek – Grande Ronde 

watershed and 25 miles of streams in the Headwaters Umatilla River watershed. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Redband/Rainbow Trout

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 near-natural rates of habitat 

restoration, and avoid adverse effects to listed species and their Designated Critical Habitats. Stream 

surveys and broad scale efforts, i.e. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion, (aka “PIBO”) monitoring, are 

in place to collect data and monitor habitat conditions. GIS data from Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (ODFW) show Redband/rainbow trout are present in 14.2 miles of streams within the Thomas 

Creek project boundary.

Table 3.17 Miles of fish distribution and designated critical habitat (DCH) within each watershed 

and the project area.

Distinct Population

Segment (DPS)

Watershed

Thomas 

Creek Project 

Area

Headwaters

Umatilla 

River

Cabin Creek –

Grande Ronde 

River

Willow 

Creek

SR steelhead - 79.0 29.7 11.8

SRsteelhead DCH 81.9 49.8 13.9

MCR steelhead 41.0 - - -

MCR steelhead DCH 67.2 - - -

Snake River spring Chinook salmon - 17.5 - -

Snake River spring Chinook salmon 

DCH

* 90.5 58.4 13.9

Mid-Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon

28.0 - - -
77

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 3.18 describes their known or suspected presence in the analysis area.

Table 3.18 Regional Forester's list of sensitive aquatic invertebrate and vertebrate species present or 

suspected on the Umatilla National Forest.

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.

Possibly Dry Cr., 

East Phillips Cr., 

Phillips Cr. and 

Thomas Cr. below 

the project area. 

Assumed present 

throughout 

analysis area.

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 mid-elevation 

riverine habitats. 

Common in 

unpolluted, cold, well 

oxygenated, perennial 

streams with cobbleboulder substrate.

Assume present in 

Umatilla River and 

tributaries. 

Assume present in 

Umatilla River and 

tributaries. Based 

on a Xerces 

Society 

spreadsheet that 

notes Jayne 

Brimbox re 

observed limpets 

in Ryan Creek 

during 2003. 

Found throughout 

the Snake River and 

the Mid-Columbia 

basin limited to 

large rivers: the 

Upper and Lower 

Deschutes, Lower 

John Day, Upper 

Columbia 

(Okanagan R.)

Westslope 

Cutthroat Trout

(Oncorhynchus 

clarkii lewisi)

Cold clear, water, 

high mountain 

streams with variable 

habitat complexity

No

No, the project 

area is outside the 

historic, known 

current and 

suspected spatial 

range of the 

species

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).

Existing Condition

Surveys were conducted in the Thomas Creek project area to document stream conditions and establish a 

baseline. Surveys have been completed and updated for most major streams in the project area. Data for 
78

Phillips Creek and East Phillips Creek came from stream surveys conducted in 1994. New stream 

surveys are currently being conducted and values will be updated before the final EA. See Table 3.19 for 

a list of completed stream surveys and the year they were surveyed.

Table 3.19 Hankin-Reeves stream surveys for the Thomas Creek project area.

Stream Name Survey Year Rosgen Stream Type

Spring Creek 1992, 2013 (Reach 1 and 2) B3a

Thomas Creek 1992, 2013 (Reach 1) F2b/F3b

Dry Creek 1992, 2000 (Reach 1 and 2) B4a

Phillips Creek 1994 (Reach 2) C3/B3;

(Reach 3) B4a

East Phillips Creek 1994 (Reach 1) B4

Activities proposed under the Thomas Creek project carry potential for effects to some component of 

aquatic habitat. Water quality, habitat quality, and the ability of the watershed and riparian areas to act as 

a buffer to timber management activity and its connected actions are components of aquatic habitat 

considered in this analysis. Pool frequency and quality, large woody debris (LWD), width/depth ratios, 

and water temperature are habitat components that are potentially affected by timber and fuel treatment 

activities. 

Habitat parameters 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), and are summarized in Table 3.20. These objectives are metrics used to assess 

the complexity of habitat available for fish within the analysis area. The RMO values may not occur in a 

specific stream segment within a watershed, but all generally should occur at the watershed scale for 

stream systems of moderate to large size (3rd to 7th order) (PACFISH EA, Appendix C-5).

Table 3.20 PACFISH RMOs (UNF LRMP as amended by PACFISH, 1995).

Habitat Feature RMO’s

Pool Frequency

Wetted 

Width (ft) 10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 200

Number 

pools/mile 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12 9

Water Temperature Compliance with Water Quality standard or maximum Temp. <68 oF

Large Woody Debris East of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington > 20 pieces/mile, >12 inch diameter, 

>35 ft. length

Bank Stability >80 percent stable

Width/Depth Ratio <10, mean wetted width divided by mean depth
79

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 3.19 above includes a list of streams and their associated Rosgen stream 

channel type. See Fisheries Specialist Report (project file) for more information on Rosgen stream 

classification.

Streams within or adjacent to the analysis area that do not fit these criteria include Spring Creek, Thomas 

Creek, Dry Creek , East Phillips Creek and Reach 3 of Phillips Creek. These Streams are more 

representative of a Rosgen Type B stream channel. Because of this, ICBEMP pool frequencies (Table 

3.21) are more applicable to these streams than the PACFISH standard. Reach 2 of Phillips Creek was 

classified as a B/C type channel and therefore would be expected to meet the RMOs.

Table 3.21 Calculated ICBEMP pool frequency values (McKinney et al. 1996).

Wetted 

Width (ft.) 0-5* 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-30 30-35 35-40 40-65 65-100

Pools/mile** 39* 20 12 8.4 5.9 4.5 3.9 2.8 1.8

*Streams less than 5 feet wide, reaches would be expected to have a lower density of pools; however, there is no available way to calculate an 

appropriate value so standard would defer to the value of 39 pools per miles selected by the USFWS.

**To calculate the standard pools/mile using ICBEMP value of 0.028 for specific widths 147.8/channel width = standard pools/mile.

Habitat Elements

Additional habitat parameters that are important for determining complex aquatic habitat and considered 

in this analysis include substrate embeddedness/percent fines, habitat accessibility, off channel habitat and 

refugia, floodplain connectivity, streambank condition, road density and location (measured as mi/mi2 and 

percent drainage network increase), and past disturbance to riparian conservation areas.

Pool Frequency and Quality

Pool quality and quantity was only summarized for those streams surveyed (Table 3.22). There are few

existing pieces of LWD that create pool habitat, however, there is potential for additional LWD 

recruitment. 

Table 3.22 Pool frequency in streams surveyed.

Stream/Reach

Surveyed 

pools/mile

PACFISH 

standard 

pool/mile

ICBEMP pool 

frequency

Residual pool 

depth (ft)

Dry Creek - R1 2 96 39 1.30

Dry Creek – R2 13 96 20 1.10

Spring Creek - R1 51 96 20 1.16

Spring Creek - R2 44 96 20 1.01

Thomas Creek- R1 42 96 12 2.45
80

Stream/Reach

Surveyed 

pools/mile

PACFISH 

standard 

pool/mile

ICBEMP pool 

frequency

Residual pool 

depth (ft)

East Phillips Creek – R1 90* 96 12 0.49*

Phillips Creek – R2 24* 96 8.4 0.92*

Phillips Creek – R3 21* 96 12 0.73*

* Pools per mile and residual pool depth based on 1994 stream surveys. Streams will be resurveyed during the 2015 field season.

Substrate Embeddedness

Cobble embeddedness is the degree to which larger particles (boulder, cobble, gravel) are surrounded or 

covered by fine sediment. Substrate was considered embedded in the Umatilla/Meacham Ecosystem 

Assessment, if > 35% coverage of larger particles by fine sediments, based on visual assessment. 

According to the NMFS/USFWS matrix of pathways and indicators, if embeddedness data are not 

available, an alternate way to address this concern is to determine the degree to which cobbles and gravels 

are the dominant portion of streambed substrate composition and whether interstitial spaces are relatively 

clear. 

Wolman pebble counts were conducted as part of the stream surveys in the project area and were used to 

calculate percent fines in term of substrate composition. Streams are considered to provide good fish 

habitat conditions when fines comprise less than 12% of the streambed substrate and cobbles and gravels 

comprise the majority of the streambed with clear interstitial interspaces. Substrate compositions in the 

surveyed stream reaches within the analysis area are dominated by gravels and cobbles. Only Dry Creek 

Reach 1 contains levels of fine sediment marginally high enough to warrant slight concern. The low 

levels of fines in the substrate composition in the other stream reaches, together with a dominance of 

gravels and cobbles, support the conclusion that embeddedness is low in the project area streams and that 

the majority provide good spawning habitat. Table 3.23 shows the percentage of each substrate category 

that was found in each stream survey reach. 

Table 3.13 Substrate percentages based on 2013 Wolman pebble counts.

Stream/Reach

Clay, Silt & 

Sand % Gravel % Cobble % Boulder % Bedrock %

Dry Creek - R1 13 63 22 2 0

Dry Creek – R2 11 58 28 3 0

Spring Creek - R1 4 37 36 23 0

Spring Creek - R2 7 51 35 7 0

Thomas Creek- R1 0 20 40 40 0
81

Large Woody Debris (LWD)

The Pedro-Colt Fisheries Report (USFS 2001) summarized stream conditions in Dry, Phillips and East 

Phillips Creeks. Crabtree (USFS 2001) found that about 3 miles of previous harvest units along Phillips 

Creek are lacking in large wood and habitat complexity. Large woody debris information was collected 

during recent stream surveys and is summarized in Table 3.24. Of the reaches surveyed, 2 out of 5 do not 

meet PACFISH RMO’s for LWD. Action alternatives of this project may provide opportunity for future 

large wood recruitment through prescribed fire treatments within RHCA’s as well as placing wood 

directly into Phillips Creek. 

Table 3.24 2013 Stream Survey Reaches and LWD/mile.

Stream Survey Reach LWD / mile PACFISH RMO

Dry Creek - R1 25

> 20 pieces/mile, >12 inch 

diameter, >35 ft. length

Dry Creek – R2 19

Spring Creek - R1 25

Spring Creek - R2 22

Thomas Creek- R1 18

East Phillips Creek – R1 *

Phillips Creek – R2 *

Phillips Creek – R3 *

* Previous stream surveys in 1994 did not use the same LWD parameters as the current stream survey protocol. 

East Phillips Creek and Phillips Creek will be resurveyed during the 2015 field season with updated protocols.

Water Quality

Stream Temperature

Table 3.25 summarizes continuous recording thermograph data collected within and downstream of the 

project area. Data indicate that East Phillips Creek has exceeded the standard in 2006 and 2007 and 

Spring Creek did not meet the bull trout temperature criteria. See Hydrology section above and 

Hydrology Specialist Report (project file) for additional information on stream temperature.

Table 3.25 Continuous recording thermograph data summary (7-day average maximum).

Watershed Stream Location Years Range (oF) Source

Cabin Creek –

Grande Ronde 

River

Phillips Creek

FS boundary 2004-2014 58 - 63 FS

Upper and Lower 1993 55 ODFW

Upper 2 miles (6 

sites)

1993 52 - 59 ODF

East Phillips Above mouth 1986, 

1988, 

56 - 65 FS
82

Creek 2006-2013

Upper 1993 54 - 57 ODF

Headwaters 

Umatilla River

Thomas Creek At mouth 2006 66 PIBO

Spring Creek At mouth 1992-2004 62 - 67 FS

Instantaneous ‘grab’ temperatures have also been collected from streams within and downstream of the 

project area. Temperatures in Spring Creek ranged from 50 – 58 o

F (40 samples) during the August 2013 

stream survey (USFS 2013a). Temperatures in Thomas Creek ranged from 52 – 63 o

F (23 samples) 

during the August 2013 stream survey (USFS 2013b). Table 3.26 summarizes data collected during field 

reconnaissance in 2014. Phillips Creek is characterized by discontinuous flow during the summer. The 

1994 stream survey reported about 30% of the lower 5 miles had surface flow and about 60% of the upper 

5 miles had surface flow. East Phillips Creek maintains perennial flow and the 1994 stream survey 

reported numerous springs occurred about mid-reach. Dry Creek is an intermittent stream, with about one 

mile of surface flow. Finley Creek is an intermittent stream and was flowing a couple hundred feet from 

its mouth, then dry to the headwaters. Thomas Creek flowed perennial below the confluence with Spring 

Creek and had isolated wetted segments upstream along FR32 and perennial flow in several headwater 

tributaries. Spring Creek maintains perennial flow, but the tributary in the project area has a 

discontinuous flow regime. 

Table 3.26 Instantaneous water temperature data summary – 2014.

Watershed Stream Location Date Range (

o

F) Source

Cabin CreekGrande Ronde 

River

Phillips Creek 3 sites 8/20/14 54 - 59 FS

East Phillips 

Creek

Above FR 3480 

culvert

8/20/14 59 FS

Willow Creek

Dry Creek 6 sites Aug, 

2014

50 – 59 FS

Finley Creek Above FR 32 

culvert

8/06/14 59 FS

Headwaters 

Umatilla River

Thomas 

Creek

3 sites 8/01/14 55 – 59 FS

Spring Creek At mouth 8/01/14 59 FS

Sediment

Fine sediment is detrimental to aquatic life through in-filling salmon and trout spawning gravels and 

water column abrasiveness and opacity. 

Sources of sediment include hillslope and channel erosion and the road network. Sediment mobilized 

from hillslopes and roads may be stored in channels for years or delivered into a stream within a season 
83

depending on precipitation patterns. Monitoring sedimentation downstream in the Umatilla River and 

North and South Forks indicated that much of the annual sedimentation was generated from only a few, 

large runoff events (Harris and Clifton 1999). Sediment transport during spring snowmelt was the 

dominant transport process, although rain-on-snow events produced some of the largest single event 

volumes. 

Roads have the potential to intercept surface and subsurface water, reducing infiltration and speeding the 

delivery of water to channels. Sedimentation may be increased by surface erosion from roads and the 

ability of road drainage to route sediment to channels. 

The major system roads up Thomas Creek (FR32), Dry Creek (FR32) and Phillips Creek (FR3738) are 

located parallel to the stream channels. Due to the narrow valley bottom and orientation, the roads reduce 

shade and increase sedimentation. For more information on sediment see the Soils and Hydrology 

reports.

Bank Stability

The stream surveys, within and adjacent to the project area, collected information on stream bank 

stability. Stream surveys conducted prior to 1996 did not collect stream bank stability information. Table 

3.27 summarizes the percentages of stable stream bank for surveyed streams. 

The Phillips Creek, East Phillips Creek and Dry Creek stream reaches are within the project boundary. 

Thomas Creek and Spring Creek reaches are adjacent to the project boundary.

Table 3.27 Percentage of stable stream banks found during stream surveys.

Stream

Percent Stable 

Stream Bank Year Surveyed

Phillips Creek (Reach 2) * 1994

Phillips Creek (Reach 3) * 1994

East Phillips Creek (Reach 1) * 1994

Dry Creek (Reach 1) 100 2013

Dry Creek (Reach 2) 100 2013

Thomas Creek (Reach 1) 100 2013

Spring Creek (Reach 1) 100 2013

Spring Creek (Reach 2) 99 2013

* Percent stable stream bank was not recorded during the 1994 stream surveys. New stream surveys are 

scheduled to occur during the 2015 field season.

Habitat Access

Physical Barriers

Access to habitat is being limited by segments of stream that go dry during the summer months and 

culverts. Phillips Creek stream surveys conducted in 1994 noted that the 3.9 mile reach from the Forest 

boundary upstream to East Phillips Creek was about 30% dry and the reach from East Phillips Creek 
84

upstream 4.1 miles was about 60% dry. The Umatilla Forest culvert GIS layer identified five culverts as 

not meeting regional aquatic passage criteria. Below, Table 3.28 provides the Forest Road number, 

stream name and the culvert ID of culverts identified as fish passage barriers within the Thomas Creek 

project area. 

Table 3.28 Culverts identified as fish passage barriers within the project area.

Forest Road

Number Culvert ID Stream Name

Miles of class 1 or 2 stream 

above culvert

3738 34 Phillips Creek 3.05

3738-090 35 Phillips Creek 0.81

3738 36 Phillips Creek 0.38

3200 37 Dry Creek 0.58

3200 63 Thomas Creek 0.00

Channel Conditions & Dynamics

Wetted Width/Depth Ratio

Width to depth ratio was calculated for those streams surveyed during 2013. The ratios calculated are 

average wetted width to depth ratio in riffles (Table 3.29). The width/depth ratios for Dry Creek are not 

very accurate. The Dry Creek stream surveys were conducted during August 2000. Based on the stream 

survey data 97% of Reach 1 was dry channel and Reach 2 was 50% dry channel.

Table 2.29 Average wetted width/depth ratio for streams.

Stream/Reach Average Wetted W : D Ratio PACFISH RMO

Dry Creek - R1 2.01

<10, mean wetted width 

divided by mean depth

Dry Creek – R2 16.01

Spring Creek - R1 17.7

Spring Creek - R2 14.5

Thomas Creek- R1 33.1

East Phillips Creek – R1 *

Phillips Creek – R2 *

Phillips Creek – R3 *

1 Extensive sections of creek with no surface water during stream survey may affect accuracy of survey.

* Width/Depth Ratio for East Phillips and Phillips Creeks will be calculated after the new stream surveys are completed 

(scheduled during the 2015 field season).
85

Current status of PACFISH riparian management objectives for fish bearing streams in the analysis area 

are summarized in Table 3.30 below. A (+) indicates that a stream is meeting PACFISH objectives while 

a (-) indicates a stream is not meeting PACFISH RMOs. The specific stream reach data concerning these 

PACFISH habitat and watershed condition elements are located in the project file. Most recent stream 

survey data was used and RMOs values reflect an average of stream reaches sampled. 

Table 3.30 Current status of PACFISH RMO’s and trends for fish bearing streams in the analysis 

area.

Stream Reach Temp

RMO 

Pools/ mile

ICBEMP

Pool/mile

Bank 

Stability

Width/Depth 

ratio LWD/mile

Dry 

Creek

R1 + - - + + +

R2 + - - + - -

Thomas 

Creek R1 - - + + - -

Spring 

Creek

R1 - - + + - -

R2 - - + + - -

Phillips 

Creek

R1 - * * * * *

R2 + * * * * *

East 

Phillips 

Creek

R1 + * * * * *

* Stream survey data from surveys conducted in 1994. New stream surveys will be completed during the 2015 field season.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

There are no direct or indirect effects under this Alternative. Under Alternative A of the Thomas Creek 

Restoration Project, the FS would not change management in the project area; there would be no 

proposed road maintenance/construction, harvest, thinning, prescribed burning or in-stream restoration 

activities. Therefore, there would be no mechanism for direct or indirect effects to ESA listed fish 

species, their DCH, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) or USFS R6 sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrates and 

their habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B- Proposed Action

Stream Temperature

See Hydrology section above and Hydrology Specialist Report (project file) for discussion of how the 

project alternatives would affect stream temperature. The hydrology analysis determined that this project 

would not change the angular canopy density and therefore shading would be maintained along all 
86

perennial streams. Because shade would not be changed, water temperature changes due to increased 

solar loading would not occur from this project. The project would not degrade this indicator under 

Alternative B.

Sedimentation

See Hydrology section above and Hydrology Specialist Report (project file) for discussion of how the 

project alternatives would affect sediment. The hydrology analysis determined that the proposed activities 

would cause a limited amount of soil exposure with the possibility of erosion. Eroded soil has the 

potential to increase stream sedimentation. However, all of these activities have been designed to 

minimize effects to sedimentation. The designs include the use of Best Management Practices, Design 

Criteria, and Management Requirements from the Forest Plan. The project would not degrade this 

indicator under Alternative B.

Large Woody Debris 

The proposed activities under this alternative will increase in woody debris available for streams. Hazard 

trees may be felled within RHCAs and left there to contribute to channel function by providing down 

wood to retain sediment and help meet LWD RMOs. Similarly, prescribed fire may cause tree mortality 

in the RHCA’s and provide for future LWD recruitment to the streams. 

Phillips Creek is the major fish bearing stream in the project area that has been identified for restoration 

needs to improve channel morphology and in-stream processes. Woody material would be placed directly 

in Phillips Creek. The exact location and quantities of wood to be placed in the stream have yet to be 

determined but would focus on the upper most 4-5 miles (Reach 3) and would likely affect approximately 

1.5 miles within that reach. The stream restoration project design would utilize existing data and 

collected on-site hydrologic and geomorphologic features to determine the best location of wood 

placement. The total wood (existing and placed) within the restoration reach would exceed the PACFISH 

standard of 20 pieces per mile.

Hazzard tree felling, within RHCAs, along with instream and riparian hardwood restoration activities 

would increase LWD amounts in Phillips Creek in both near and long term and make progress toward 

meeting LWD RMOs in that watershed. Effects to other streams would remain unchanged. The project, 

under Alternative B, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and improve this indicator 

within Phillips Creek watershed.

Pools/mile

There would be no direct effects from timber harvest, thinning or burning to pool frequency because these 

activities would not occur within the bankfull channel. Proposed treatment within RHCAs would move 

stand structure and composition toward HRV and improve in-stream fish habitat. Treatment of riparian 

zones was identified as a need to enhance hardwoods. Enhancing hardwoods by removing competing 

conifers and/or planting would provide shade in the short and longer term. Thinning of off-site ponderosa 

pine and thinning other overly dense conifers is expected to improve the health and resilience of the 

remaining stand and therefore help to maintain overstory shade for the long term. 

The placement of large wood in Phillips Creek will improve pool frequency upon implementation of the 

in-stream restoration project. The stream will start to scour the bed adjacent to the large wood due to a 
87

change in hydraulics of the stream. Over time the pool quantity and quality will improve due to high 

flows in the spring.

Indirect effects would occur during the long-term (decades) as a result of improved streamside vegetation 

stand structure and composition using silvicultural and prescribed fire techniques aimed at maintaining a 

relatively even delivery of large woody debris to the channel and providing a mix of riparian tree species.

Pool frequencies may increase with the addition of large wood and riparian woody vegetation in Phillips 

Creek and help to meet pool frequency RMOs at the subwatershed and watershed scales. Currently, Dry 

Creek is the only fish bearing stream in the project area not meeting ICBEMP pool frequency 

recommendations. Effects to other streams would remain unchanged. The project, under Alternative B, 

would not degrade this indicator across the project area and improve this indicator within the Phillips 

Creek watershed.

Width/Depth ratio

There would be no direct effects from timber harvest, thinning or burning to width-depth ratios because 

these activities would not occur within the bankfull channel. 

Direct effects to Width/Depth ratio are expected to occur when large woody debris is placed into Phillips 

Creek. Reintroducing roughness features (wood) would result in a more complex regime of bank and bed 

scour and in-channel deposition, which is expected to be closer to the historic regime. Rosgen (1996) 

found that channel stability and biological function of type ‘B’ streams is directly linked to the type, 

amount and extent of woody debris. 

Thinning and leaving some conifers in the bankfull channel and the floodplain or floodprone area of all 

stream classes would add structure that helps to dissipate energies associated with high stream flows (e.g. 

spring runoff), adds to bank stability and also aids in retaining sediment to help build floodplains and 

provides a growth medium for bank stabilizing vegetation. 

Indirect effects would occur during the long-term (decades) as a result of improved streamside vegetation 

stand structure and composition using silvicultural and prescribed fire techniques aimed at maintaining a 

relatively even delivery of large woody debris to the channel and providing a mix of riparian tree species.

Width-depth ratios may improve with the addition of large wood and riparian woody vegetation in 

Phillips Creek. However, it is unlikely that they will met the original PACFISH RMO since B-channels 

typically do not develop that type of cross-sectional channel morphology. Effects to other streams would 

remain unchanged. The project, under Alternative B, would not degrade this indicator across the project 

area and would improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian 

Management Objectives for this indicator.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C

Stream Temperature

Changes from Alternative B include a reduction of potential Category II RHCA treatment area from 42 

acres to 19 acres in the Thomas Creek subwatershed. This small change in affected area is within the 

scale of effects analyzed for Alternative B. Design features described in Tables 2.5 – 2.10 are applicable 

to this alternative for the maintenance of canopy density within the primary and secondary shade zone. 

Stream shade and water temperatures would be maintained.
88

The Project would not degrade this indicator under Alternative C.

Sedimentation

Alternative C would result in an overall increase of 74 treatment acres compared to Alternative B. 

Changes from Alternative B also include a reduction of 20 acres of treatment and 0.14 miles of road 

within Category II and IV RHCAs in the Dry and Thomas Creek subwatersheds. Alternative C would 

add one temporary culvert in a Class IV stream, as in Alternative B. Unit 39 would be dropped and this 

would eliminate one ML1 haul route stream crossing at a Class IV stream, compared to Alternative B. 

Haul routes in RHCAs would be reduced from 12.3 miles under Alternative B to 11.0 miles in Alternative 

C. These small changes in affected area are within the scale of effects analyzed for Alternative B. 

Road maintenance and reconstruction along haul routes would decrease the potential for water to 

accumulate, concentrate and runoff of road surfaces, which would decrease the potential for roadbed 

sediment to enter into stream channels. Design features described in Tables 2.5- 2.10 are applicable to 

this alternative for the protection of water quality due to sedimentation from treatment areas and haul 

roads. Sediment delivery to stream channels would be reduced relative to Alternatives A and B under this 

alternative.

The project would not degrade this indicator under Alternative C.

Large Woody Debris 

The effects of implementing Alternative C on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative C, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management

Objectives for this indicator.

Pools/mile

The effects of implementing Alternative C on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative C, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management

Objectives for this indicator.

Width/Depth ratio

The effects of implementing Alternative C on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative C, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management 

Objectives for this indicator.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative D 

Stream Temperature

Changes from Alternative B include a reduction of potential Category I and II RHCA treatment areas 

from 300 to 236 acres. Effects to shade-producing vegetation would be less than under Alternative B and 

this small change in affected area is within the scale of effects analyzed for Alternative B. Design 

features described in Tables 2.5- 2.10 are applicable to this alternative for the maintenance of canopy 
89

density within the primary and secondary shade zone. Stream shade and water temperature would be 

maintained.

The project would not degrade this indicator under Alternative D.

Sedimentation

Alternative D would result in an overall reduction of 298 treatment acres compared to Alternative B. 

Changes from Alternative B also include a reduction of 64 acres of treatment within Category I, II and IV 

RHCAs. Haul routes in RHCAs would be reduced from 12.2 miles under Alternative B to 11.0 miles in 

Alternative D. There would be 8 fewer haul route road-stream crossings in Alternative D, although there 

would be no change to the overall number of road-stream crossings in the project area. These small 

changes in affected area are within the scale of effects analyzed for Alternative B. 

Road maintenance and reconstruction along haul routes would decrease the potential for water to 

accumulate, concentrate and runoff of road surfaces, which would decrease the potential for roadbed 

sediment to enter into stream channels. Design features described in Appendix A are applicable to this 

alternative for the protection of water quality due to sedimentation from treatment areas and haul roads.

The project would not degrade this indicator under Alternative D.

Large Woody Debris 

The effects of implementing Alternative D on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative D, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management

Objectives for this indicator.

Pools/mile

The effects of implementing Alternative D on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative D, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management

Objectives for this indicator.

Width/Depth ratio

The effects of implementing Alternative D on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative D, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management 

Objectives for this indicator.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative E 

Stream Temperature

Riparian treatments would be the same as for Alternative B. Default PACFISH buffers would be applied 

to RHCAs of the additional 23 units (34 acres Category I and II RHCAs) therefore there would be no 

change to existing stream shade-producing vegetation within these stands. Stream shade and water 

temperature would be maintained. 
90

Compared to Alternative B, there would be an additional 2.0 miles of haul roads in Category I RHCAs 

along Phillips Creek (FR3738), including 5 Class III stream crossings. FR3738 is an open NFS road and, 

other than hazard tree removal, log haul would not change the amount of stream shade-producing 

vegetation in the RHCA.

Effects to shade-producing vegetation would be similar to those under Alternative B and this small 

change in affected area is within the scale of effects analyzed for Alternative B. The project would not 

degrade this indicator under Alternative E.

Sedimentation

Alternative E would result in an overall increase of 522 treatment acres compared to Alternative B. 

Compared to Alternative B there would be no additional RHCA treatment and default PACFISH buffers 

would be applied to all streams in these units. Sediment modeling has shown that a minimum 75 foot 

buffer is needed to prevent sedimentation to stream channels. 

The amount of new temporary road construction would be the same as Alternative B. Alternative E 

includes an additional 5.85 miles of NFS roads that would be used for log haul. Road maintenance and 

reconstruction along haul routes would decrease the potential for water to accumulate, concentrate and 

runoff of road surfaces, which would decrease the potential for roadbed sediment to enter into stream 

channels. Design features described in Tables 2.5- 2.10 are applicable to this alternative for the 

protection of water quality due to sedimentation from treatment areas and haul roads. These changes in 

affected area are within the scale of effects analyzed for Alternative B.

The effects of implementing Alternative E on this indicator would be similar to those from Alternative B. 

The project would not degrade this indicator under Alternative E.

Large Woody Debris 

The effects of implementing Alternative E on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative E, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management 

Objectives for this indicator.

Pools/mile

The effects of implementing Alternative E on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative E, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management

Objectives for this indicator.

Width/Depth ratio

The effects of implementing Alternative E on this indicator would be the same as those from Alternative 

B. The project, under Alternative E, would not degrade this indicator across the project area and would 

improve this indicator within Phillips Creek, moving the watershed towards Riparian Management 

Objectives for this indicator.
91

Cumulative Effects 

The geographical context for estimating cumulative effects is the Willow Creek Watershed, Cabin CreekGrande Ronde River Watershed and Headwaters Umatilla River Watershed. There is no need to extend 

the cumulative effects analysis area beyond those watersheds. The temporal context for evaluating 

environmental effects considers past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the Thomas Creek 

project area.

Cumulative Effects of 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. Phillips and Dry Creeks 

would continue to exhibit discontinuous to intermittent flow regimes during the summer and fall, with 

influent groundwater maintaining summer water temperatures to support anadromous salmonids. Spring 

Creek would continue to maintain perennial flow and water temperatures would continue to exceed the 

threshold for bull trout. Thomas Creek would continue to exhibit intermittent flow along FR 32 until its 

confluence with Spring Creek and water temperature would also continue to exceed the bull trout 

temperature standard. 

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 largescale 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. Portions of 

Phillips Creek would remain deficient of large woody material due to past timber harvest. These stream 

segments would remain at higher risk to adverse channel adjustments from high stream flows due to the 

general lack of large woody structure. 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.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Stream Temperature

In the proposed project, prescribed fire ignition will not occur within 300 feet either side of fish bearing 

streams. Shade will not be affected and there will be no effect to water temperature at the reach scale from 

the proposed project and so no mechanism for cumulative effects to water temperature. There would be 
92

no cumulative effects to stream shade or water temperature as a consequence of implementing this 

alternative. For additional detail on cumulative effects to stream temperature, refer to the Hydrology 

section above and the Hydrology Specialist Report (project file).

Sedimentation

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. For additional detail on cumulative effects to sedimentation, refer to the Hydrology 

section above and the Hydrology Specialist Report (project file)

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 addition of large wood to Phillips Creek would have a local effect. The upper 5 miles of Phillips 

Creek, outside of clearcut units, would have active recruitment of large wood, improving an actual 

estimated 1.5 miles within this 5 miles of stream, and this alternative would enhance the ability of this 

stream segment to dissipate flood flows, detain sediment, build floodplain and improve fish habitat, 

reducing the cumulative effects to LWD that have already occurred. The lower 3 miles of Phillips Creek 

is deficient of both in-stream large wood and potential recruitment of large wood and this project would 

not change that because there are no treatments proposed along this reach. The added LWD in the upper 

5 miles of Phillips Creek would help to move the entire watershed towards meeting RMOs, though the 

improvement may not be measurable at the watershed scale.

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. 

The addition of large wood to Phillips Creek (Reach 3) under the proposed action would improve 

pools/mile on a reach scale and reduce the cumulative effects of activities that have already occurred. 

The reintroduction of wood to Phillips Creek would improve channel roughness, bed scour and in-channel 

deposition, which would interact to create additional pools and move the watershed towards meeting 

Riparian Management Objectives for pool frequencies and reduce the cumulative effects of past 

management. 

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. 

The addition of large wood to Phillips Creek (Reach 3) under the proposed action would improve 

Width/Depth ratio on a reach scale. The reintroduction of wood to Phillips Creek would improve channel 

roughness, bed scour and in-channel deposition and reduce the cumulative effects of past management. 
93

Effects to other streams within the project area would be seen over time. Thinning and leaving some 

conifers in the bankfull channel and the floodplain or floodprone area of all stream classes would add 

structure that helps to dissipate energies associated with high stream flows (e.g. spring runoff), adds to 

bank stability and also aids in retaining sediment to help build floodplains and provides a growth medium 

for bank stabilizing vegetation. 

These effects would occur during the long-term (decades) as a result of improved streamside vegetation 

stand structure and composition using silvicultural and prescribed fire techniques aimed at maintaining a 

relatively even delivery of large woody debris to the channel and allowing sediment storage and transport 

processes to restore natural channel morphologies, reduce the cumulative effects of past management.

EFFECTS TO MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

Redband Trout

For redband trout, a Forest management indicator species, no alternatives would result in population level 

impacts nor a negative habitat trend at either the watershed or Forest scale. 

Resident redband trout and their habitat may be 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 unlikely and 

immeasurable to the extent they occur. Instream habitat improvement activities in Phillips Creek in the 

Cabin Creek watershed would be expected to create temporary disturbance, but provide long term habitat 

benefits to resident redband trout.

As a result, the proposed activities under these alternatives would not affect the viability of redband trout 

at the watershed scale. Thus, continued viability for redband trout as a species is expected on the 

Umatilla National Forest under all alternatives.

Steelhead

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 will ensure any impacts from activities to the fish habitat indicators in the Phillips Creek 

and Dry Creek watershed portions of the analysis area would be unlikely and immeasurable, with the 

exception of Large Wood restoration. The Large Wood restoration would entail short-term disturbance to 

fish and their habitats, with long term benefits to steelhead and their habitat in the upper 5 miles of 

Phillips Creek in the Cabin Creek watershed. 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 Middle Columbia River steelhead, the overall rating for the 

Umatilla/Walla Walla River populations remains at a “maintained” status, while the 5-year ESA status 

review of Snake River Basin steelhead determined that the Grande Ronde River populations remain not 

viable (NMFS, 2011). This project would support recovery of populations in the Grande Ronde MPG 

and would not retard recovery of populations in the Umatilla/Walla Walla MPG. The project is consistent 

with the Forest Plan as amended by PACFISH; none of the project alternatives would retard recovery of 
94

Middle Columbia River or Snake River Basin steelhead within NFS lands; they are all consistent with 

relevant standards and guidelines for the various activities.

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

There are no direct or indirect effects under this Alternative. Under Alternative A of the Thomas Creek 

Restoration Project, the FS would not change management in the project area. There would be no 

proposed road maintenance/construction, harvest, thinning, prescribed burning or in-stream restoration 

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 and 

no impact to Sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrate species and their habitats considered in this analysis.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Mid-Columbia River steelhead and Designated Critical Habitat

MCR steelhead are known to spawn and rear in 41.0 miles of streams within the Headwaters Umatilla 

River watershed. There are 67.2 miles of designated critical habitat (DCH) within the Headwaters 

Umatilla River watershed. The closest known spawning, rearing and designated critical habitats to the 

project area are located in Thomas Creek. Those habitats are approximately 0.7 miles downstream of the 

closest harvest unit (unit 45). There is no designated critical habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead

within the project boundary. 

Based on the distance from project activities, and due to project design features and BMP monitoring, the 

implementation of the Thomas Creek Restoration Project under the proposed action Alternatives would 

have ‘no effect’ on Mid-Columbia steelhead or their designated critical habitat. 

Snake River Basin steelhead and Designated Critical Habitat

The steelhead population that inhabits the Thomas Creek project area is part of the Grande Ronde River 

Major Population Group (MPG), within the Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS. They spawn and rear in 

11.8 miles of stream within the Willow Creek and Cabin Creek watershed portions of the project area. 

There are 13.9 miles of designated critical habitat (DCH) for Snake River Basin steelhead within the 

project area.

SRB steelhead and their DCH may be affected by harvest, burning and road management activities, 

particularly where those activities occur within RHCAs. Project design criteria and BMP monitoring will 

ensure that the probability and magnitude of those effects remain both negligible and discountable. 

Therefore, the implementation of the Thomas Creek Restoration Project activities (harvesting, prescribed 

fire/fuels management and road management) under the proposed action Alternatives ‘may effect, but 

are not likely to adversely affect’ Snake River Basin steelhead and ‘May Effect but are Not Likely to 

Adversely Modify or Destroy Designated Critical Habitat’ for SRB steelhead.
95

Instream project work may have short term adverse effects on SRB steelhead and their DCH from instream placement of Large Wood in Phillips Creek, that would be minimized by implementation of 

Project design criteria, BMP Monitoring and compliance with Terms and Conditions of an existing 

programmatic aquatic restoration Biological Opinion, and would ultimately provide long term habitat 

benefits to SRB steelhead and their DCH.

Effects of LWD restoration activities have already been consulted programmatically under the regional 

programmatic Aquatic Restoration Biological Assessment (ARBA) and Biological Opinion (ARBO). 

Because the short term adverse effects and long term benefits to SRB steelhead and their DCH from 

instream LWD restoration have already been considered through an existing consultation and Biological 

Opinion, they are not considered here further for determination of effects of the Thomas Creek project.

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook salmon, Designated Critical Habitat and Essential 

Fish Habitat

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon are not found within the Thomas Creek project boundary. 

They can be found approximately 6.9 miles downstream of the project area in the Grande Ronde River 

(Figure 3). 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). Based on this narrative, an estimated 13.9 miles of 

Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon designated critical habitat exist within the project boundary.

The Thomas Creek project area falls within two 4th HUCs (Upper Grande Ronde River and Umatilla 

subbasins) identified in the Pacific salmon Fisheries Management Plan as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). 

The Upper Grande Ronde River HUC contains 885.3 miles of EFH and is associated with the Snake 

River spring Chinook ESU. The Umatilla HUC contains 425.1 miles of EFH and is associated with the 

Mid-Columbia River spring Chinook ESU. The Thomas Creek project area contains 14.5 miles (1.6%) of 

EFH from the Upper Grande Ronde HUC. There is no EFH from the Umatilla HUC within the Thomas 

Creek project area. 

SRB spring/summer Chinook salmon and their DCH may be affected by harvest, burning and road 

management activities, particularly where those activities occur within RHCAs. Project design criteria 

and BMP monitoring will ensure that the probability and magnitude of those effects remain both 

negligible and discountable. The project is consistent with the Forest Plan as amended by PACFISH. 

Therefore, the implementation of the Thomas Creek Restoration Project activities (harvesting, prescribed 

fire/fuels management and road management) under the proposed action Alternatives would have No 

Effect on SRB spring/summer Chinook salmon due to distance downstream to occupied habitat, and 

‘May Effect but are Not Likely to Adversely Modify or Destroy Designated Critical Habitat’ and

‘May Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat’ for SRB spring/summer Chinook salmon.

Instream project work would have no effect on SRB spring/summer Chinook salmon due to distance 

between the project and occupied habitat. The project may have shortterm adverse effects on SRB 

spring/summer Chinook salmon DCH and EFH from in-stream placement of Large Wood in Phillips 

Creek, that would be minimized by implementation of Project design criteria, BMP Monitoring and 

compliance with Terms and Conditions of an existing programmatic aquatic restoration Biological 

Opinion, and would ultimately provide longterm habitat benefits to DCH and EFH for SRB 

spring/summer Chinook salmon.
96

Effects of LWD restoration activities have already been consulted programmatically under the regional 

programmatic Aquatic Restoration Biological Assessment (ARBA) and Biological Opinion (ARBO). 

Because the short term adverse effects and long term benefits to SRB spring/summer Chinook salmon, 

their DCH and EFH from instream LWD restoration have already been considered through an existing 

consultation and Biological Opinion, they are not considered here further for determination of effects of 

the Thomas Creek project. 

Bull trout and Designated Critical Habitat

There are no Bull trout or their designated critical habitat within the Thomas Creek project boundary. 

Bull trout are known to occur in Thomas Creek but are approximately 1.7 miles downstream of the 

project area. The closest designated critical habitats are on the Grande Ronde River (~6.9 miles 

downstream of the project area) and the Umatilla River (~7.4 miles downstream of the project area)

For the reasons stated above, the implementation of the Thomas Creek Restoration Project under the 

proposed action Alternatives would have ‘no effect’ on Bull trout or their designated critical habitat. 

Western Ridged Mussel

Gonidea angulata is known to occur in the North Fork and South Fork Umatilla River and Birch, East 

Birch, Butter, North Fork Butter, McKay, Ryan, Squaw, Thomas, and Wildhorse Creeks in Umatilla 

County and in Blitzen and Grande Ronde Rivers in Union County.(Xerces Freshwater Mussel database 

2009). Western Ridged mussel is not known to occur within the project boundary. Those found in 

Thomas Creek are located approximately 1.7 miles downstream of the Thomas Creek Project boundary. 

For reasons similar to those stated above for bull trout, the implementation of the Thomas Creek 

Restoration Project under the proposed action Alternatives would have ‘no impact’ to Western Ridged 

Mussel individuals or their habitat. 

Shortface Lanx

Shortface Lanx are not known to occur within or adjacent to the Thomas Creek Project area. Small 

populations are known to occur in the Grande Ronde in Washington and Oregon. The Grande Ronde 

River is approximately 6.9 miles downstream of the project boundary. 

Shortface lanx were found in Ryan Creek subwatershed of the Headwaters Umatilla River watershed 

during 2003. Although they have been found within the same watershed as the Thomas Creek project, the 

location of the discovery in the Ryan Creek subwatershed is approximately 10 miles from the project 

boundary and within a separate subwatershed. 

For reasons similar to those stated above for bull trout, the implementation of the Thomas Creek 

Restoration Project under the proposed action Alternatives would have ‘no impact’ to Shortface Lanx 

individuals or their habitat. 

Westslope Cutthroat

There are no Westslope cutthroat trout located in the Thomas Creek project area. The only known or 

suspected populations are located in high-elevation watersheds of the John Day River basin. 
97

For that reason, the implementation of the Thomas Creek Restoration Project under the proposed action 

Alternatives would have ‘no impact’ to Westslope cutthroat trout individuals or their habitat. 

Summary of Effects to Species and Habitat

Table 3.31 Summary of effects by alternative.

CONSISTENCY FINDING

All of these alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding native fish populations. 

None of the potential effects of timber, fire/fuels management and stream restoration 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 therefore there would not be adverse modifications to designated critical habitat or essential 

fish habitat. There would be no adverse effects to listed fish from any activities under any action 

alternative, other than instream habitat improvement projects. Short-term adverse effects to ESA listed 

steelhead may occur during instream restoration activities, with long term benefits to the species and their 

habitats. 

Effects Determinations1 by Alternative

Species

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Snake River Basin 

Steelhead and DCH NE

MA-NLAA 

/ NLAMD

MA-NLAA 

/ NLAMD

MA-NLAA 

/ NLAMD

MA-NLAA 

/ NLAMD

Mid-Columbia 

River Steelhead 

and DCH

NE NE NE NE NE

Snake River Spring 

Chinook salmon 

and DCH

NE NE / 

NLAMD

NE / 

NLAMD

NE / 

NLAMD

NE / 

NLAMD

Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) NE NLAMD NLAMD NLAMD NLAMD

Bull trout and DCH NE NE NE NE NE

Western Ridged 

Mussel NI NI NI NI NI

Shortface Lanx NI NI NI NI NI

1

 NE = No Effect; MA-NLAA = May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Individuals; NLAMD = Not Likely to Adversely 

Modify or Destroy (Designated Critical Habitat or Essential Fish Habitat);NI = No Impact to individuals or their habitat
98

FOREST VEGETATION

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist 

Report located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, 

and technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

Appendix D contains maps of the current condition of forested vegetation in the Thomas Creek project 

area.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS 

The Thomas Creek analysis area for vegetation (26,770 acres) extends beyond the Thomas Creek project 

area (15,773 acres). An area larger than the project area was selected for vegetation analysis based on 

2010 Forest direction (Martin 2010), which states that areas greater than 35,000 acres are “appropriate 

and preferable for an RV analysis (p. 4).” Although the analysis area is not greater than 35,000 acres, it 

was chosen because it includes a representative area of Moist Upland Forest (MUF) and captures some of 

the elevation gradient in this MUF to allow for a reasonable landscape level analysis. The Thomas Creek 

analysis area includes Forest Service lands with the Thomas Creek project area in addition to land 

adjacent to the project area to the north which are a continuation of the vegetation gradient found in the 

Thomas Creek project area.

The geographical context for estimating direct and indirect vegetation effects are upland forest located 

within the Thomas Creek forest vegetation analysis area.

Resource Indicators and Measures

Species composition, forest structure, and stand density are three indicators used when evaluating forest 

vegetation conditions and trends for this project because they can provide meaningful measures to 

develop an overall picture of upland forest vegetation historically, presently, and into the future. During 

analysis of upland forest vegetation conditions, the calculations and results were stratified by potential 

vegetation. The methodology for using potential vegetation to support the forest vegetation analyses is 

described in the Forested Vegetation Specialist Report (project file).

Additionally, through public scoping, the topic of old trees was brought forward as key issue 1 (see 

Chapter 1). Indicators were developed to measure removal of old trees. These are not stratified by PVG.

Table 3.32 Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects (environmental consequences).

Resource Element/Indicator Measure

Species composition/ Forest cover types Cover type percent

Forest structure/ Structural stages Structural stage percent

Stand density/ Density classes Density class percent

Old trees/ Trees older than 150 years Acres were trees older than 150 years 

may be harvested
99

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The affected environment within this report includes upland forest vegetation within the analysis area and 

the geographical and temporal context for effects analysis. For analysis purposes, the total lands in 

upland forest affected environment are 21,871 acres. 

Existing Conditions

Disturbances have influenced vegetation conditions in forested landscapes throughout the Blue 

Mountains, including the Thomas Creek analysis area. Bioregional assessments examining vegetation 

conditions and trends concluded that existing conditions for moist forests, such as those in the Thomas 

Creek area, are uncharacteristic (departed) when compared with the historical (pre-European settlement) 

situation (Caraher et al. 1992, Gast et al. 1991, Henjum et al. 1994).

A Umatilla National Forest white paper examines the effects of fire exclusion, ungulate herbivory, and 

selective timber cutting on the integrity and sustainability of moist forest ecosystems, and it does so in the 

context of the Blue Mountains. The white paper, entitled “Active Management of Moist Forests in the 

Blue Mountains: Silvicultural Considerations” (Powell 2013), is incorporated by reference for this 

Thomas Creek forest vegetation analysis; most material from the white paper will not be repeated in this 

section.

Timber Harvest History

Records of timber harvest in the Thomas Creek area begin in 1957 (See Appendix D, Figure D.1). Before 

this time, the area was likely selectively harvested. A variety of even-aged silvicultural systems have 

been implemented including clearcutting, seed-tree, shelterwood, patch clearcutting, and overstory 

removal from advanced regeneration. The majority of these stands (those planned before the current 1990 

Forest Plan) were planted with ponderosa pine primarily for the purpose of producing timber. Ponderosa 

pine plantations established in the late 1950s through the 1960s are prominent features of the Thomas 

Creek project area. Between 1957 and 2006 3,943 acres of even aged harvest occurred. During this era, 

pine plantations were established by clear cutting an area, burning fuels in the harvest area, and planting 

ponderosa pine seedlings. The source of these seedlings is unknown and there is phenotypic evidence 

that the ponderosa pine planted in these historic plantations is off-site. In most of these historic 

plantations the ponderosa pine is not vigorous (see Figure 3.3), or died in past decades to be replaced by 

natural regeneration of a mix of species. 
100

Figure 3.3 Ecologically “off-site” ponderosa pine in an historic Thomas Creek plantation (Unit 11).

Salvage operations in response to Douglas-fir tussock moth (DFTM) (Orgyia pseudotsugata) were also 

implemented in the mid 1970’s over a large area of the forest. 

Insect and Disease

The 1982 to 1992 Blue Mountain’s western spruce budworm (WSB – Choristoneura occidentalis) 

outbreak reached the Thomas Creek analysis area in approximately 1986. The damage (mortality) was 

low throughout the 6 years WSB was present. Presumably the limited severity of this activity was due to 

the infrequency of suitable host species for the WSB (true fir, Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce) in the 

overstory and understory. More recently, 2000 to 2010, there has been low level (endemic/sub-outbreak) 

insect activity with notable fir engraver (Scolytus ventralis) activity. Increased fir engraver activity often 

occurs during or just following periods of drought and/or targets trees weakened by root disease 

(laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii)/annosus (Heterobasidium annosum)/armillaria (Armillaria 

ostoyae)). Pockets of laminated root rot were noted in the Thomas Creek analysis area associated with 

true fir and Douglas-fir. Mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) is largely absent from the ponderosa 

pine in this area although there are broom-like deformities associated with Elytroderma needle blight 

(Elytroderma deformans) particularly visible on forest edges and areas with moist air conditions. 

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglasii) is also noticeable on the forest edge. 
101

Species Composition (Forest Cover Types)

Table 3.33 summarizes existing species composition (forest cover types) within the analysis area. It 

shows that in MUF most of the area is dominated by grand fir (62%), followed in coverage extent by 

Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir (11%), with all other cover types all consisting of less than 8% of the 

landscape each (subalpine fir, western larch, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and other). See 

Appendix D for a map of spatial distribution of forest cover types within the Thomas Creek analysis area.

Table 3.33 Existing condition for species composition of upland forest in the Thomas Creek analysis 

area.

Forest Cover Type

Moist Upland Forest Dry Upland Forest

Area (Acres) Area (Percent) Area (Acres) Area (Percent)

Grand fir 12,502 62 424 30

Engelmann spruce/

Subalpine fir 2,118 11 0 0

Western larch 1,098 5 0 0

Lodgepole pine 1,356 7 0 0

Ponderosa pine 1,479 7 311 22

Douglas-fir 1,492 7 686 48

Other 85 0 4 0

Total 20130 100 1425 100

Notes: Summarized from the Thomas Creek vegetation database based on photo interpretation (Cover type).

RV Analysis: Species Composition

An RV analysis was completed for species composition of the Thomas Creek forest vegetation affected 

environment (Table 3.34). Because species composition varies by biophysical environment, the HRV 

analysis is stratified by potential vegetation group. Forest cover types are used as an indicator for the 

species composition measure. The information presented in Table 3.34 suggests that in moist upland 

forest grand fir exists at levels far above reference conditions, and subalpine fire and Engelmann spruce 

are potentially slightly overrepresented. Western larch, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine are 

underrepresented as compared with reference conditions. In dry upland forest both Douglas-fir and 

grand fir exist at level above reference conditions while ponderosa pine and western larch is present at 

levels below RV values.
102

Table 3.34 RV analysis for forest cover types of Thomas Creek upland forest vegetation.

Forest Cover Type

Moist Upland Forest PVG Dry Upland Forest PVG

Range of

Variation %

Existing 

Amount %

Range of 

Variation %

Existing 

Amount %

Douglas-fir 15-30 7 5-20 48

Grand fir 15-30 62 1-10 30

Ponderosa pine 5-15 7 50-80 22

Lodgepole pine 25-45 7 0 0

Subalpine fir and spruce 1-10 11 0 0

Western larch 10-30 5 1-10 0

Western juniper 0 0 0-5 0

Western white pine 0-5 0 0-5 0

Whitebark pine 0 0 0 0

Notes: Existing amounts are taken from the Thomas Creek vegetation database. Gray shading indicates cover types that are 

above or below the historical range of variation. Historical ranges are taken from Martin (2010).

Forest Structure (Structural Stages)

Table 3.35 summarizes existing forest structure (structural stages) for the Thomas Creek forest vegetation 

affected environment obtained from the vegetation database. It shows that the predominant forest

structural stage is understory reinitiation (UR) at 56% of the upland forest landscape, followed in extent 

by Old Forest Multi-Strata (OFMS) (29%), Stem Exclusion (SE) (11%). Stand Initiation (SI), Old Forest 

Single Stratum (OFSS), and bare ground consist of 2, 1, and 1 percent of the landscape respectively. See 

Appendix D for map of forest structural stages across the project area.

Table 3.35 Existing condition for forest structural stages of upland forest vegetation in the Thomas 

Creek analysis area.

Moist Upland Forest Dry Upland Forest

Forest Structural Stage Area (Acres) Area (Percent) Area (Acres) Area (Percent)

SI: Stand Initiation 380 2 0 0

SE: Stem Exclusion 2204 11 135 9

UR: Understory Reinitiation 11360 56 521 37

OFSS: Old Forest Single Stratum 154 1 142 10

OFMS: Old Forest Multi-Strata 5903 29 616 43

Bare Ground (no structure 

assigned) 130 1 11 1

Total 20131 100 1425 100
103

RV Analysis: Forest Structure

An HRV analysis was completed for forest structure of the Thomas Creek forest vegetation affected 

environment (Table 3.36). Because forest structure varies by biophysical environment, the HRV analysis 

is stratified by potential vegetation group. Forest structural stage is used as an indicator for the forest 

structure measure. The information presented in Table 6 suggests that all structural stages in both dry and 

moist forest are outside of reference conditions. In both moist and dry upland forest, SI, SE, and OFSS 

are below reference conditions while UR and OFMS are above reference conditions. 

In general these results are indicative of the relative productivity of the analysis area and the lack of 

disturbances that create single layered forest stands. For both PVGs, all structural stages that include 

more than one canopy layer (UR, OFMS) are overrepresented and all structural stages that include only 

one canopy layer (SI, SE, OFSS) are underrepresented. 

Table 3.36 HRV analysis for forest structural stages of upland forest within the Thomas Creek 

analysis area.

Forest Structural Stage Moist Upland Forest PVG Dry Upland Forest PVG

Range of 

Variation

Existing 

Amount

Range of 

Variation

Existing 

Amount

Percent Percent Percent Percent

SI: Stand Initiation 20-30 2 15-25 0

SE: Stem Exclusion 20-30 11 10-20 9

UR: Understory Reinitiation 10-20 56 5-10 37

OFSS: Old Forest Single Stratum 10-20 1 40-60 10

OFMS: Old Forest Multi-Strata 15-20 29 5-15 43

Notes: Existing amounts are taken from the Thomas Creek vegetation database. Gray shading indicates structural stages that are 

above or below the historical range of variation. Historical ranges are taken from Martin (2010). 

Existing Condition for Stand Density (Density Classes)

Table 3.37 summarizes existing stand density (density classes) for the Thomas Creek analysis area

obtained from the vegetation database. It shows that in moist upland forest high density upland forest 

dominates the landscape (72%) while moderate and low density upland forest occupy less of the analysis 

area (13 and 15% respectively). In dry upland forest there is more high density upland forest (69% of the 

PVG), low (31%) density forest. No moderate (0%) density forest exists in the analysis area within the 

dry upland forest PVG. See Appendix D for a map of spatial distribution of stand density classes for the 

affected environment portion of the Thomas Creek analysis area.
104

Table 3.37 Existing condition for stand density classes of the Thomas Creek analysis area.

MOIST UPLAND FOREST PVG DRY UPLAND FOREST PVG

Stand Density Class Area (Acres) Area (Percent) Area (Acres) Area (Percent)

Low 3,016 15 446 31

Moderate 2,619 13 0 0

High 14,496 72 978 69

Total 20,131 100 1,425 100

RV Analysis: Stand Density

An RV analysis was completed for stand density of the Thomas Creek forest vegetation affected 

environment (Table 3.38). Because stand density varies by biophysical environment, the HRV analysis is 

stratified by potential vegetation group. 

Stand density class is used as an indicator for the stand density measure. The information presented in 

Table 3.38 suggests that in both moist and dry upland forest densities are far above reference conditions 

while moderate and low density forests are underrepresented in the analysis area. 

Table 3.38 HRV analysis for upland forest density classes of the Thomas Creek analysis area.

Stand Density Class

Moist Upland Forest PVG Dry Upland Forest PVG

Range of 

Variation

Existing 

Amount

Range of 

Variation

Existing 

Amount

Percent Percent Percent Percent

Low 20-40 15 40-85 31

Moderate 25-60 13 15-30 0

High 15-30 72 5-15 69

Notes: Existing amounts are taken from the Thomas Creek vegetation database. Gray shading indicates stand density 

classes that are above or below the historical range of variation. Historical ranges are taken from Martin (2010). 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

Species Composition

Moist upland forest would continue to increase in density of late seral species including grand fir and 

Engelmann spruce and move further away from RV values (Table 9). Earlier seral species including 

western larch and Douglas-fir would continue to decline across the analysis area moving further away 

from RV values. Lodgepole pine would also continue to decrease in density. 
105

Dry upland forest would continue to increase in density of late seral species including grand fir and 

Douglas-fir moving the PVG further away for RV values (Table 3.39). Early seral species would 

decrease through time. Both western larch and ponderosa pine would remain outside of RV values.

In both PVGs, ecologically off-site ponderosa pine would remain on site at low vigor excluding other 

native species from regenerating. 

Table 3.39 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on species composition in moist upland 

forest the Thomas Creek analysis area. 

Forest Cover Type

No 

Action 

(2014)

No 

Action 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

Douglas-fir 7 2 15-30

Grand fir 62 75 15-30

Ponderosa pine 7 5 5-15

Lodgepole pine 7 2 25-45

Subalpine fir and spruce 11 15 1-10

Western larch 5 1 10-30

Western juniper 0 0 0

Western white pine 0 0 0-5

Whitebark pine 0 0 0

Table 3.40 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on species composition in dry upland 

forest the Thomas Creek analysis area. 

Forest Cover Type

No Action 

(2012)

No 

Action 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

Douglas-fir 48 50 5-20

Grand fir 30 35 1-10

Ponderosa pine 22 15 50-80

Lodgepole pine 0 0 0

Subalpine fir and spruce 0 0 0

Western larch 0 0 1-10

Western juniper 0 0 0-5

Western white pine 0 0 0-5

Whitebark pine 0 0 0
106

Forest Stand Structure 

Forest stand structures would continue to diverge from Range of Variability values (Tables 3.41 and 

3.42). In both moist and dry upland forest, structural stages that include more than one canopy layer (UR, 

OFMS) would continue to be overrepresented and all structural stages that include only one canopy layer 

(SI, SE, OFSS) would continue to be underrepresented as compared with RV values. 

Table 3.41 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on moist upland forest structure in the 

Thomas Creek analysis area.

Forest Structural Stage

No Action 

(2014)

No Action 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

SI: Stand Initiation 2 0 20-30

SE: Stem Exclusion 11 8 20-30

UR: Understory Reinitiation 56 60 10-20

OFSS: Old Forest Single Stratum 1 0 10-20

OFMS: Old Forest Multi-Strata 29 32 15-20

Table 3.42 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on dry upland forest structure in the 

Thomas Creek analysis area.

Forest Structural Stage

No Action 

(2014)

No Action 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

SI: Stand Initiation 0 0 15-25

SE: Stem Exclusion 9 6 10-20

UR: Understory Reinitiation 37 42 5-10

OFSS: Old Forest Single Stratum 10 5 40-60

OFMS: Old Forest Multi-Strata 43 47 5-15

Stand Density

In the absence of disturbance (fire or insect outbreak), moist upland forest stands would continue to 

increase in density and move away from RV values in (Tables 3.43 and 3.44). Densities would continue 

to increase in dry upland forest also. A portion of low density forest would move into the moderate 

density class, moving that category closer to RV while moving low density forests away from RV values. 

High density forests would remain relatively constant in the absence of disturbance. 
107

Table 3.43 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on moist upland forest density in the 

Thomas Creek analysis area.

Table 3.44 Estimated impact of Alternative A (No Action) on dry upland forest density in the 

Thomas Creek analysis area.

Forest 

Density

No Action 

(2014)

No Action 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

Low 31 25 40-85

Moderate 0 6 15-30

High 69 69 5-15

Old Trees

No old trees (greater than 150 years old) would be harvested. These trees would remain as components of 

over dense upland forest and would contribute continue to contribute high density and multi-layer 

structures which are overrepresented in the analysis area, regardless of their size, species, or canopy layer 

position. Structural stages that include more than one canopy layer (UR, OFMS) would continue to be 

overrepresented on the landscape. Grand fir and Engelmann spruce greater than 150 years old would 

remain on the landscape and reproduce further moving the species composition of the area outside RV 

values. In dry upland forest older grand fir and Douglas-fir would also remain and continue to reproduce 

increasing the departure from RV values in dry upland forest. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative B- Proposed Action

This alternative proposes to move approximately 12% (2,546 acres) of the upland forest landscape 

(21,871 acres total of Upland Forest) toward RV values. Off-site ponderosa pine from historic plantations 

would be reduced on approximately 942 acres. Mechanical treatment is proposed on a total of 1,270 

acres (historic plantation treatment and other treatment of previously harvested lands).

Species Composition

Under Alternative B, 12% of the upland forest within the analysis area would be manipulated to favor 

native conifer species that currently exist at levels below RV values (Table 15 and 16). This means that 

in moist upland forest western larch, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine would be favored over grand fir and 

Engelmann spruce or regenerated in order to move species composition values closer to RV values. 

Forest Density

No Action 

(2014)

No Action 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

Low 15 10 20-40

Moderate 13 10 25-60

High 72 80 15-30
108

About 12% of MUF within the analysis area would be treated. Overall lodgepole and Engelmann spruce 

cover would not differ from Alternative A, as very few acres of this cover type is proposed for treatment 

under Alternative B. Western larch and Douglas-fir would move toward RV values. 

In dry upland forest western larch and ponderosa pine would be favored over grand fir and Douglas-fir,

moving the area closer to RV values for these species. Five percent of DUF within the analysis area 

would be treated.

Ecologically off-site ponderosa pine less than 21” dbh would be removed. Ponderosa pine would remain 

a component of these areas through regeneration to help maintain the species within RV values. Because 

Alternative B focuses on manipulating historic plantations and other previously managed stands rather 

than other areas which would be more appropriate for ponderosa pine growth, regeneration of native 

ponderosa pine dominated stands is not emphasized under this Alternative due to lack of site 

appropriateness. Some of these stands in Alternative B are appropriate for ponderosa pine retention while 

most are not. Ponderosa pine cover values would remain about the same as Alternative A, although “offsite” ponderosa pine cover would be reduced. 

Prescribed fire under this alternative would occur in areas more appropriate for ponderosa pine dominated 

stands. This under burning will thin stand from below, recycle nutrients and may, in small patches (up to 

2 acres), initiate early seral species regeneration, moving both dry and moist upland forest toward RV 

values in species composition. 

Table 3. 45 Estimated impact of Alternative B on species composition in moist upland forest the 

Thomas Creek analysis area. 

Forest Cover Type

No Action 

(2014)

Alternative B 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

Douglas-fir 7 8 15-30

Grand fir 62 56 15-30

Ponderosa pine 7 5 5-15

Lodgepole pine 7 2 25-45

Subalpine fir and spruce 11 15 1-10

Western larch 5 14 10-30

Western juniper 0 0 0

Western white pine 0 0 0-5

Whitebark pine 0 0 0
109

Table 3.46 Estimated impact of Alternative B on species composition in dry upland forest the 

Thomas Creek analysis area. 

Forest Cover Type

No Action 

(2014)

Alternative B 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

Douglas-fir 48 47 5-20

Grand fir 30 28 1-10

Ponderosa pine 22 23 50-80

Lodgepole pine 0 0 0

Subalpine fir and spruce 0 0 0

Western larch 0 2 1-10

Western juniper 0 0 0-5

Western white pine 0 0 0-5

Whitebark pine 0 0 0

Forest Stand Structure

Under Alternative B stands manipulated to change stand structure would generally follow the following 

model in the next 20 to 50 years: UR to SI or SE or OFSS; SE to SE, SI, or UR. OFMS, OFSS and SI 

stand are not proposed to be manipulated for structure. 

In MUF, OFSS and OFMS would structures would continue on approximately the same development 

pathways as under Alternative A (Table 3.47). Stand initiation would increase slightly while most of the 

change would be to move stands through SI into SE (by 2065). UR would decrease and move primarily 

to SE. 

In DUF, UR would be reduced while SE would increase (Table 3.48). Other stand structures would 

progress similarly as under Alternative A. 

Table 3.47 Estimated impact of Alternative B on moist upland forest structure in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area.

Forest Structural Stage

No Action 

(2014)

Alternative 

B (2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

SI: Stand Initiation 2 3 20-30

SE: Stem Exclusion 11 14 20-30

UR: Understory Reinitiation 56 51 10-20

OFSS: Old Forest Single Stratum 1 0 10-20

OFMS: Old Forest Multi-Strata 29 32 15-20
110

Table 3.48 Estimated impact of Alternative B on dry upland forest structure in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area.

Forest Structural Stage

No Action 

(2014)

Alternative 

B (2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

SI: Stand Initiation 0 0 15-25

SE: Stem Exclusion 9 14 10-20

UR: Understory Reinitiation 37 34 5-10

OFSS: Old Forest Single Stratum 10 5 40-60

OFMS: Old Forest Multi-Strata 43 47 5-15

Stand Density

Under Alternative B, approximately 12% of the landscape would be manipulated and be moved into a 

lower density class. In MUF, low and moderate density forest would increase over time while high 

density forest would decrease (Table 3.49).

In DUF, low density forest would decrease similar to Alternative A. High density forest would decrease 

and moderate density forest would increase (Table 3.50). 

Table 3.49 Estimated impact of Alternative B on moist upland forest density in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area.

Table 3.50 Estimated impact of Alternative B on dry upland forest density in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area.

Forest Density

No Action 

(2014)

Alternative B 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

Low 31 25 40-85

Moderate 0 11 15-30

High 69 64 5-15

Forest Density

No Action 

(2014)

Alternative B 

(2065) RV values

Percent Percent Percent

Low 15 17 20-40

Moderate 13 18 25-60

High 72 65 15-30
111

Old Trees

Harvest of trees older than 150 years old under Alternative B is not proposed, except where danger trees 

may exist along haul routes or within unsafe distance to timber harvest operations. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative C 

This alternative proposes manipulate approximately the same proportion of upland forest on the landscape 

(12%) toward RV values as Alternative B, with slight differences in the location of stand to be treated. 

Fewer acres of off-site ponderosa pine would be removed under Alternative C and this alternative 

proposes to manipulate areas outside historic plantations and previously systematically managed stands in 

a 100 foot extended edge area. No trees greater than 21” would be harvested under this alternative. 

There is the potential to remove trees greater than 150 years old within the 100 foot extended edge area. 

Species Composition, Forest Stand Structure, and Density 

The effects of Alternative C on species composition stand structure and density would be similar to 

Alternative B. One difference would be that approximately 72 acres of off-site ponderosa/historic 

plantation regeneration would not be manipulated to move species composition, structure or density 

toward RV values. Another difference would be that approximately an additional 137 acres of upland 

forest outside previously systematically harvested stands would be manipulated to move species 

composition, structure and density toward RV values. 

Within the 100 foot experimental buffer treatments fall primarily into stands where species composition is 

grand fir (64%) and ponderosa pine (25%). Approximately 145 acres of UR structure and 56 acres of SE 

structure would be treated within the 100 foot experimental buffers. Buffer treatments fall primarily into 

high density stand (84%). 

Overall, Alternative C treats approximately the same number of acres, moving the landscape toward RV 

values in all RV measures as in Alternative B. The two alternatives do not differ in landscape scale 

effects to vegetation. 

Old Trees

Alternative C differs from alternative B by proposing the harvest of trees greater than 150 years old 

within the 100 foot learning edge extension (in addition to the danger trees included under Alternative B). 

This would affect approximately 137 acres of upland forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative D 

This alternative proposes manipulate one percent less of the upland forest, approximately 10% of the 

landscape, toward RV values as compared with Alternative B (11%). There are approximately 55 fewer 

acres of upland forest proposed for vegetation treatment. Approximately, 234 acres that are proposed for 

intermediate-commercial treatment under Alternative B would not be accessible for wood product 

removal under Alternative D due to changes around road reconstruction and are either dropped under 

Alternative D (20 acres) or limited to hand thinning. 

Species Composition, Forest Stand Structure, and Density

The effects of Alternative D on species compositions would be similar to Alternative B but affect less of 

the landscape. Approximately 55 fewer acres of off-site ponderosa/historic plantation regeneration would 
112

not be manipulated to move species composition, stand structure and density toward RV values. Another 

difference between Alternative and Alternative D would be that approximately 234 fewer acres of 

intermediate-commercial type treatments, 213 acres of this would be limited to hand thinning that did not 

require removal of woody material or forest products or dropped as compared to Alternative B. This 

would reduce the effectiveness of species composition, stand structure, and stand density manipulation on 

these 213 acres. This effectiveness would mean that approximately 50% of this 213 acres, or about 100 

acres, would likely not be treated to move the forests toward RV values. 

The differences in species composition treatment under Alternative D means that primarily, fewer grand 

fir and ponderosa pine cover types would be treated (1% less of the upland forest). Fewer acres (1% of 

the landscape) of SE and UR forest structure would be treated. Fewer moderate density forest stands (1% 

of the landscape) would be treated. 

Overall, Alternative D would manipulate approximately 55 fewer acres toward RV values in all RV 

measures than Alternative B and reduce the effectiveness of manipulation of all RV measures on an 

additional 213 acres treating 1% less of the landscape than under Alternative B. 

Old Trees 

The effects under Alternative D are the same as Alternative B.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative E

This alternative proposes to treat 14% of the landscape upland forest toward RV values, which is 2% 

more than under Alternative B. 

The effects of Alternative E on species composition stand structure and density would be similar to 

Alternative B, but affect more of the landscape. One difference would be that approximately 522 

additional acres of upland forest would be manipulated to move species composition, structure or density 

toward RV values. 

The additional vegetation treatments are within primarily MUF (96%), with 3 and 1 percent in dry and 

cold upland forest respectively. 

Species Composition

Alternative E would primarily treat more grand fir cover types than Alternative B. In MUF, 

approximately 2% more of the landscape grand fir cover would be treated under Alternative D as 

compared with Alternative B. In DUF, there would be no differences between Alternative B and D in 

relation to species composition treatment. 

Forest Stand Structure

In MUF, Alternative D would treat 1% more of the landscape in UR structure, and 1% more of the 

landscape in OFMS structure that Alternative B, moving the landscape 1% closer to RV values in SE and 

OFSS respectively than under Alternative B. In DUF, there would be no differences between Alternative 

B and D in relation to structural treatment.
113

Density 

Overall, Alternative E would treat approximately 522 more acres of upland forest toward RV values in all 

RV measures than Alternative B. In MUF, these additional treatments (as compared with Alternative B) 

would primarily be in high density upland forest, moving approximately 2% more of the landscape 

toward RV values (out of high density and into moderate (1%) or low (1%) density forests). In DUF, 

there would be no change in density effects from Alternative B. 

Old Trees

Alternative E differs from alternative B by proposing the harvest of trees greater than 150 years old 

within the additional intermediate treatments (in addition to the danger trees included under Alternative 

B). This would affect approximately 522 acres.

Cumulative Effects

The temporal context for evaluating environmental effects considers past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions in the Thomas Creek analysis area, as described below.

For the purpose of cumulative effects analysis, future vegetation conditions incorporate direct and indirect 

effects from three sources: (1) implementation of proposed activities included in Thomas Creek action 

alternatives; (2) present (ongoing) activities; and (3) implementation of reasonably foreseeable actions. 

The timeframe for cumulative effects analysis is a 50-year period because this period adequately reflects 

the response of species composition, forest structure, and stand density to silvicultural manipulations.

When considering direct and indirect effects of Alternative B’s silvicultural activities on species 

composition, forest structure, and stand density, and when evaluating how direct and indirect effects of 

past actions, present (ongoing) actions, proposed actions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

overlap in space and time, then cumulative effects for Alternative B are considered to be mostly positive.

The estimated cumulative effects for Alternative B are considered to be positive when compared with 

those for Alternative A (no action). The cumulative effects to vegetation for Alternatives C and D are 

considered to be the same at the landscape scale as Alternative B. 

The estimated cumulative effects for Alternative E are considered to be the most positive as compared 

with Alternative A and are also estimated to be more positive than Alternatives B, C, or D. 

CONSISTENCY FINDING

All vegetation management is consistent with forest-wide and management area Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines. Consistency with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) is discussed below in the 

Other Laws, Regulations and Policies section. 
114

FUELS

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Fuels Specialist Report 

located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, and 

technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS 

The scale of analysis for the Thomas Creek project fuels resource is the 15,773 acre Thomas Creek 

project area for the Fire Regime Condition Class indicator. The air quality indicator scale of analysis is at 

the airshed level.

Resource Indicators and Measures

Resource indicators are used to describe the affected environment and compare the effects of the action 

alternatives (Table 3.51). Fire regime condition class (FRCC) will be used as an indicator to evaluate 

restorative effects on the Thomas Creek project area. Fire regime condition class measures the degree of 

departure from reference conditions, possibly resulting in changes to key ecosystem components, such as 

vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic 

pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances such as 

insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought. Smoke production will be the indicator to show the 

effects to air quality that the proposed prescribed burning will have at the airshed level. No additional 

issues for fuels were identified through scoping.

Table 3.51 Resource indicators and measures for fuels.

Resource Element/Indicator Measure

Fire/Fuels/ FRCC Acres 

Air Quality/Smoke Particulate Emission

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Existing Condition

The Thomas Creek project area has been impacted by past timber harvest, grazing, fire suppression, and 

road building. There is no record of any large fire occurring in the project area. Large fires did burn 

across thousands of acres to the north of the Thomas Creek project area (across Tollgate, Lookingglass, 

and east to the Grande Ronde) and to the south (Hellhole). There were 57 fires that burned a total of 43 

acres in recorded history and full suppression actions were taken. The fires ranged in size from 1/10 an 

acre to 22 acres. 

The majority of the Thomas Creek project area is in FRCC class 2 or 3, indication moderate to significant 

departure from the historical range. Possible causes of this departure include (but are not limited to) fire 

suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, 

and introduced insects and disease (Schmidt, Menakis, Hardy, Hann, & Bunnell, 2002). Table 3.52 shows 

the FRCC for the Thomas Creek project area. 
115

Table 3.52 Condition class description and associated acres in the Thomas Creek project area.

Condition 

Class Description Acres

1

Fire regimes are within or near historical ranges, and the risk of losing key ecosystem 

component is low. Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural 

stage are intact and functioning within the historical range.

6,955

2

Fire Regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of losing 

key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by one or more of the following:

• Fire Size

• intensity and Severity, and 

• Landscape patterns

Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural stage have been 

moderately altered from historical conditions.

4,360

3

Fire regimes have significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key 

ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by 

multiple return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following:

• Fire size

• Intensity and Severity, and

• Landscape patterns

Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural stage have been 

significantly altered from historical conditions.

4,228

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

The effects of no action would result in continued accumulation of surface fuels and ingrowth of 

understory conifers leading to increased stratification of forested vegetation. Without disturbance, these 

processes will continue over time leading to further departure from historic conditions. The direct effects 

of a wildfire burning under the existing and future conditions under the no action alternative have the 

potential to produce smoke levels that exceed visual and health standards. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

Fire Regime Condition Class

All action alternatives change species composition and stand structure commercially and noncommercially, reduce fuel loading, and apply prescribed fire. These actions move the Thomas Creek 

project area toward condition class one. Fire regimes would be within or near historical ranges, and the 

risk of losing key ecosystem components would be low. Vegetation conditions in terms of species 

composition and structural stage would be intact and functioning within the historical range. Over half the 

acres treated are already in condition class one and proposed treatment will maintain this condition.
116

Alternative E treats the most acres and therefore is the most effective at moving the project area toward a 

condition class 1. Table 3.53 compares the effects of the different action alternatives on fire regime 

condition class. The landscape prescribed fire acres are included in each alternative and have been 

separated out to show the effects. 

Table 3.53 Comparison of FRCC acres treated by alternative.

FRCC

Project Area 

Total

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Landscape 

Rx Acres

1 6955 2,397 2,476 2,289 2,533 577

2 4360 977 1,007 939 1,150 545

3 4228 792 857 779 900 445

% of Total FRCC

2 and 3 Treated 20.6 21.7 20 23.9 63.2

Smoke Management/Air Quality

Activity and natural fuel burns would be implemented during the spring and fall under environmental 

conditions that result in the consumption of surface fuels while limiting damage to overstory vegetation. 

Burns vary in size and would be designed where possible to allow for modification in burn acreage based 

upon emission limitations. Where burns are a first entry event (no fire has been within the stands in 

several decades), smoldering of larger material, particularly stumps and down logs, can be expected to 

last for several days. Where previous burning has occurred, maintenance or re-entry burns would produce 

much less smoldering and overall have reduced emissions, both in terms of amount and duration.

Landing, grapple, and hand pile burning would most likely occur late fall through mid-winter. Burn areas 

would be tailored to meet favorable emission conditions by limiting and varying the number and location 

of piles burned at any particular time. Piles would consume with minimum smoldering as they burn with 

a much higher intensity than seen with underburning, due to typically lower fuel moistures found with 

piled material and the vertical nature of the piled fuels. Table 3.54 shows proposed prescribed fire 

activities of the Thomas Creek project area.

Table 3.54 Treatments designated for prescribed fire by alternative (acres).

Alternative

Rx for

Reforestation

Natural Fuels 

Landscape Rx

Piled Acres 

(landing/grapple/hand)

B 427 1,582 1,308

C 414 1,582 1,366

D 392 1,582 987

E 427 1,582 1853

Table 3.55 shows the estimated emissions (per acre) for the various types of burning that would occur 

under the action alternatives. Acres that would produce emissions would be greater than actual on the 
117

ground acres due to multiple entries (i.e. burn landing piles, grapple piles and underburning on the same 

unit).Emissions within the table were modeled using BlueSky Playground web tool. Emissions under 

prescribed burning are less than emissions from wildfire (see Fuels Specialist Report, project file).

Table 3.55 Estimated emissions from prescribed fire (by acre).

CO 

(tons)

CO2 

(tons)

CH4 

(tons)

GHGs 

(tons CO2e)

PM 2.5 

(tons)

PM 10 

(tons)

Grapple Pile Burning

(10 piles/acre)

1.1 19.7 .01 52.97 .2 .2

Landing Pile Burning

1 pile for every 5 acres)

.094 4.146 .008 4.4152 .016 .02

Rx Fire Burning .79 8.32 .04 10.07 .07 .08

Cumulative Effects

Past, ongoing, and future Forest Service projects as well as adjacent ownerships of private property can 

influence management options for fuel treatments and prescribed fire. Activities considered for 

cumulative effects are limited to those that would further modify FRCC and smoke management/air 

quality. When considering the cumulative effects of the project on fuels, as reflected by the analysis 

indicators, and when evaluating how the direct and indirect effects of past actions, present (ongoing) 

actions, proposed actions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions overlap in both space and time, then 

the cumulative effects are considered to be beneficial. The reduction of accumulated fuels and 

modification of stand structure toward more open spacing with fire resilient species composition, 

treatments would increase management options for fire managers when determining how to deal with 

future wildfires. The cumulative effects of project activities under the action alternatives are very similar 

in scale. Alternative E would have the most affect simply because it proposes to treat more acres.

Air Quality

Due to air quality spatial effects being evaluated from the air shed level, several recent fuel treatment 

activities that have been implemented or are pending implementation near the Thomas Creek project area 

were considered for cumulative effects for the air quality analysis. Spatially, adjacent projects do not 

overlap as the units are separate and would not have any common overlapping effects in regards to fuel 

treatment activities. The exception to this is smoke emissions, which share the same air shed. Air quality 

effects are addressed below.

Air resources are somewhat unique in that, the past impacts to air quality are not usually evident. Smoke 

emissions during the spring and fall months primarily result from Federal prescribed fire activities (BLM 

and FS) in northeast Oregon and western Idaho. Federal land managers currently coordinate to manage 

the cumulative effects of prescribed burning across northeast Oregon. Private landowners treating forest 

fuels under the protection of Oregon Department of Forestry are required to follow the advice of the 

Departments smoke management forecaster when burning. 

Smoke from prescribed burning activities would temporarily cause impacts to air quality, usually during 

the spring and fall months. With the use of prescribed burning, there would be a notable increase in the 
118

amount of smoke produced during weather conditions conducive to underburning and pile burning. 

Spring time smoke would normally be short duration, lasting only a few days and dissipating. Fall burns, 

which are conducted when fuels conditions are drier, would consume greater portions of the available fuel 

on the ground, and would have smoke that tends to last between 2-5 days depending on fuels conditions 

and scale of the area that was burned. To minimize smoke impacts and protect public health, smoke 

management personnel (smoke forecasters) and implementation personnel work together to identify 

conditions with appropriate atmospheric conditions (mixing height and transport wind direction/speed) to 

minimize smoke impacts to local area residences. Coordination of prescribed burning activities would 

consider all ongoing burning projects, both federal and private, that would affect the air shed. Under any 

alternative that calls for burning, there is a potential for future restrictions to meet air quality standards.

Other emission concerns include summer wildfires, agricultural burning, and home heating in local 

communities. Both wildfires and agricultural burning typically occur mid to late summer. Home heating 

is generally limited to the winter months. In all three instances, the additional emissions produced are not 

expected to impact air quality at the time of prescribed fire implementation. 

FRCC

The emphasis on treatments of FRCC areas out of historical range (condition class 2 and 3) would 

continue. The project area implementation would have no effects on lands outside of the project area in 

regards to FRCC. Lands inside of the project area would be affected as previously discussed.

Climate Change and Fire

The combined effects of droughts and insects may lead to a pulse of tree mortality that increases the 

potential for intense fires. There is a short-term and a long-term facet to the increase in potential fire 

intensity. In the short-term, warmer, drier conditions would limit the capacity of the ecosystem to 

maintain the quantity of vegetation currently growing on site. (Vose, Peterson, & Patel-Weynand, 2012)

As this stress continues, vegetative capacity to resist insect, disease, and other disturbance mechanisms is 

reduced and the potential for mortality increases. Increased mortality provides additional available fuel 

for wildfire, thus increasing fire potential. Once the dead foliage drops, this danger may be considerably 

reduced for a few years. However, as the trees decay over the next decade or so following the pulse of 

mortality, they fall and can help create an accumulation of large, heavy fuels. These large and heavy fuels 

contribute to a longer-term potential for intense fires since they may take many years to decompose, 

especially in the dry environments of the west.

Even in the absence of increased mortality from either drought or insects, a warming climate would likely 

alter fire regimes in ways that would make it more difficult to manage forests influenced by many 

decades of fire suppression and other activities. Climate change influence fire regimes in complex ways 

due to differentials in responses to variation in temperature and precipitation regimes. Both tree-ring 

records and modeling indicate that the probability of having fires is primarily driven by temperature, 

whereas the extent and intensities of fires is driven more strongly by precipitation patterns. (Vose, 

Peterson, & Patel-Weynand, 2012) Warmer temperatures lead to an earlier onset and later end for the 

drying period, thus increasing the probability of a fire during the longer fire season. Precipitation 

influences the growth of vegetation (fuels). The amount of precipitation during the wet season would 

influence the amount of fuel produced.
119

The action alternatives manage the forest ecosystem so that it is better able to accommodate climate 

change and to respond adaptively as environmental changes accrue. The action alternatives encourage 

gradual adaptation to change to a warmer and drier environment by favoring disease and fire resistant 

trees, reducing stand density, and lowering fuel loadings.

CONSISTENCY FINDING

All activities proposed under the Thomas Creek project are consistent with Forest Plan direction on fire 

and fuels management, and the Clean Air Act. Consistency with other laws, policies and regulations are 

disclosed in Other Laws, Policies and Regulations section at the end of this chapter.

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE PLANTS

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Biological Evaluation of 

Botanical Resources located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, 

maps, reference, and technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions 

discussed in this section.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS 

The scale of analysis for threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) plant species is the 15,800 acre 

Thomas Creek project area.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Federally Listed Plant Species

Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii,), is federally listed as threatened and is known to occur on the 

Umatilla National Forest. This plant occurs primarily in open grasslands with deep Palousian soils and is 

documented on the Pomeroy District in Washington State. There are no documented occurrences of this 

plant in or anywhere near the project area and there is no habitat for this plant species in the project area.

Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List (RFSSSL) Sensitive Species

There are no documented occurrences of RFSSSL taxa in the Thomas Creek project area, and field 

surveys conducted in 2013 did not document any occurrences.
120

Ruckel Junction Botanical Area (Forest Plan MAS A9- Special Interest Area)

The Thomas Creek project area includes Ruckel Junction Botanical Area, a small 5 acre Special Interest 

Area (A9) designated in the Forest Plan. The unusual and beautiful plant, Sabin’s lupine (Lupinus 

sabinianus) occurs here and is featured in Figure 3.4 below. 

Sabin’s lupine is a narrow endemic, occurring on Walla Walla District in the northern Blue Mountains 

and undocumented in Washington state. This rare lupine is ranked ‘strategic’ in Washington state on the 

R6 RFSSSL on the December 2011 iteration and retains this ranking on the draft 2015 R6 RFSSSL 

reviewed in February 2015. Its rank in Washington state will change to ‘sensitive’ if it is documented on 

federal lands in Washington. This plant has no R6 RFSSSL ranking in the state of Oregon; its Oregon 

Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) list ranking is S4, taxa which are of conservation concern but 

are not currently threatened or endangered. 

Figure 3.4 Sabin’s lupine in Ruckel Ridge botanical area.
121

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

Under Alternative A, none of the proposed treatments would be implemented. Alternative A, the ‘no 

action’ alternative, will have no effect, direct or indirect, on federally threatened Spalding’s catchfly and 

will have no impact, direct or indirect, on any currently listed Region 6 sensitive vascular and/or 

nonvascular plant species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

As discussed above, there is no federally threatened Spalding’s catchfly known or suspected to occur in 

the Thomas Creek project area, and there are no R6 sensitive plant species known to occur in the Thomas 

Creek project area. The action alternatives will have no effect, direct or indirect, to federally threatened 

Spalding’s catchfly and no impact, direct or indirect, on any currently listed R6 sensitive vascular and/or 

nonvascular plant species. Design criteria listed in Chapter 2, Table 2.11 would ensure protection of 

sensitive plants discovered during project implementation, and protection of the Ruckel Ridge Botanical 

Area as no activities will occur in that area.

Cumulative Effects

The spatial scale of analysis for cumulative effects to TES plant species is the Thomas Creek proposed 

project area and adjacent subwatersheds. The temporal scale begins with the first European settlers in the 

area in the 1800’s and ends approximately 10 years into the future or 2025, based on the knowledge of 

proposed projects in the project area. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future events in the 

project area are described at the beginning of this chapter. 

Since there are no direct or indirect effects to federally threatened Spalding’s catchfly and R6 RFSSSL 

sensitive plants from the proposed Thomas Creek project, there are no cumulative effects to consider. 

CONSISTENCY FINDING

This project complies with present Federal regulations pertaining to the management of Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive plant species.

This project is consistent with the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Umatilla National Forest 

(1990).
122

INVASIVE PLANTS

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Invasive Plants Specialist 

Report located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, 

and technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS 

The geographic scale of this analysis is the 15,773 acre Thomas Creek planning 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, C, D and E. 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 2023).

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The majority of acres (12,964) in the Thomas Creek project area are currently at a low risk for noxious 

weed invasion. Approximately 1,796 acres are at a moderate risk, and 1,025 acres are at high risk.

Table 3.56 Extent (acres) and species of invasive plants known to occur within the Thomas Creek 

planning area. 

Common name Infested acres

Lesser burdock 36

Spotted knapweed 198

Diffuse knapweed 881

Canada thistle 404

Bull thistle 226

Hounds tongue 349

Teasel 19

Meadow hawkweed 7

St. Johnswort 258

Chicory 13

Sulphur cinquefoil 74

Tansy ragwort 142

Yellow-star thistle 36

Common mullein 230

Total 2873
123

Weed infestations planned for treatment in the Umatilla National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Project 

EIS and ROD (July 2010) and currently documented in the national Natural Resource Inventory System 

(NRIS) database include 14 species occurring separately or in combination at 340 sites on Forest Service 

land within the Thomas Creek planning area, covering approximately 2,873 acres (Table 3.56). 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

The No Action alternative does not include any activities related to the Thomas Creek 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. Existing 

native plant populations are healthy and thriving in the absence of recent wildfire or other disturbances. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

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.

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, C, D, and E were allocated 

across the Thomas Creek planning area (Table 3.57). 

Table 3.57 Amount of acres for areas at low, medium, and high levels of risk to noxious weed 

invasion for action Alternatives B, C, D and E.

Risk Level Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Low 10,983 10,778 11,034 10,526

Moderate 2,193 2,254 2,146 2,296

High 2,608 2,753 2,605 2,963
124

Cumulative Effects

This cumulative effects analysis considers the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

within and adjacent to the National Forest Lands on the Walla Walla Ranger District within the Thomas 

Creek project area. 

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 is located within an active allotment (North End Allotment, see Range section of this EA) with a 

season of use from June to October. As a result, sheep are within the planning area when seed maturity 

occurs and likely serve as a vector for seed spread. There will likely be some level of cumulative effects 

associated with sheep grazing and activities associated with this project. Those effects could include the 

spread of existing infestations and the establishment of new invasive species. Though design criteria will 

reduce the cumulative effects, they would likely not be eliminated; however, grazing activities in the 

North End Allotment are effectively 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 the North End Allotment are not expected to expand areas of high risk above 

and beyond what is expected to occur as a result of implementing actions included under any of the 

alternatives of the Thomas Creek project.

The spread of invasive plants from currently existing populations and off-forest seed sources will 

continue at the current level. Animal and vehicle vectors will 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.

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 (Defenders of Wildlife 2002).
125

CONSISTENCY FINDING

The proposed Thomas Creek 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.

RANGE

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Range Specialist Report 

located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, and 

technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS 

The Thomas Creek Restoration project is entirely located within the North End Sheep Allotment (see 

Range Specialist Report in the project file for a map of the allotment). For the purpose of discussing 

livestock grazing, the entire North End Sheep Allotment will be discussed.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The North End Sheep Allotment is approximately 52,000 acres in size and up to 2,000 ewe/lambs are 

authorized to graze the allotment between June 1st and October 9th each year. The current Allotment 

Management Plan was signed in 2012 and implemented the North End Sheep Allotment Record of 

Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement signed on August 24th, 2011.

The North End Sheep Allotment is divided into the Phillips Creek, Middle Ridge, and Spout Springs 

pastures. Each pasture is divided into sub-pastures. Sheep are routed through the allotment with herders 

in two separate bands of sheep at the sub-pasture scale. The routing schedule is determined annually 

based on the annual conditions of the allotment, resource issues, public use, and the previous year’s 

routing schedule. 

Upland conditions were assessed on the North End Sheep Allotment in the Record of Decision and FEIS 

for the North End Sheep Allotment in 2011. Multiple long term monitoring methods were used to assess 

the condition of plant communities on the allotment. This assessment determined that upland habitat 

types were in a stable trend and in a satisfactory condition defined by the Forest Plan. This assessment 

was primarily based on open rangeland vegetation. Future forest management activities (thinning and 

prescribed fire) was identified as an activity that could increase transitory range, improve livestock 

distribution, and improve livestock accessibility to available forage.
126

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

The proposed activities would not occur under the No Action Alternative. There would be no direct or 

indirect effects of the alternative to range activities.

Sheep grazing would continue to occur within the analysis area with current stocking levels and 

management techniques. There would be no transitory range created due to harvest or burning activities.

Livestock grazing distribution on the uplands would stay the same or continue to 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 decrease due to down wood, continuous small regeneration, and visibility. 

Forage would also stay the same or continue to decrease due to the reduction of sunlight on the forest 

floor reducing forest floor vegetation. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

All action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) would increase livestock distribution on the allotment 

by increasing access and/or increasing available forage for livestock. This would spread utilization of 

vegetation more evenly through the allotments and reduce soil and vegetation disturbance in areas of 

concentrated use. These effects would be observed in the short term (3-5 years) and long term (5-15 

years). There would be no change in authorized livestock numbers or season due to an increase in forage 

or accessibility to forage.

Proposed non-commercial thinning, commercial harvest, and prescribed burning could increase the 

amount of sunlight on the forest floor, stimulating grass growth and increasing the amount of available 

forage (transitory range) for domestic livestock (see Table 3.58). These treatments would decrease stand 

densities, which currently limit access and visibility for both livestock and livestock managers in portions 

of the analysis area. Management of livestock would improve with all action alternatives due to increased 

visibility and access for livestock herding.

Sheep are not allowed within 300 feet of streams with ESA-listed fish species within the North End 

Allotment. Due to this management requirement, sheep grazing has limited effects to riparian plant 

communities on the allotment. The proposed activities within the Thomas Creek project within RHCA’s 

will not affect grazing activities due to this management requirement.

Proposed burning could reduce the amount of forage in a one to two year period, however, the in the long 

term forage would be expected to be higher than the existing condition due to the reduction in 

competition from small trees and/or shrubs. If burning occurred during the grazing season, sheep 

management may have to be modified to ensure that sheep are not within proposed burning units. 

These effects to range resources would be proportionate to acres treated between alternatives. The 

difference between alternatives is relatively small since the acres treated between alternatives do not vary 

significantly. Prescribed fire will improve forage conditions on 1,350 acres in the Middle Ridge Pasture 

and 232 acres within the Phillips Creek Pasture.

The improvement in forage and accessibility will affect routing schedules on the North End Sheep 

Allotment. The annual routing schedules will be modified to utilize the treatment units and improve the 

distribution of the sheep throughout the grazing season. Overall utilization levels should be lower due to 
127

the increase in transitory range. The benefits will primarily be found within the upland forest habitat 

types. 

Table 3.58 Percent of pastures in the Thomas Creek project area affected by proposed treatments.

Pasture

Total Acres 

in Pasture

% Treated

Alt B

% Treated

Alt C

% Treated

Alt D

% Treated

Alt E

Phillips 

Creek 21,178

10% 

(2,177 acres)

11% 

(2,429 acres)

9% 

(2,048 acres)

12% 

(2628 acres)

Middle 

Ridge 14,982

2% 

(369 acres)

2% 

(371 acres)

2% 

(369 acres)

3% 

(440 acres)

Spouts 

Springs 18,520 0% 0% 0% 0%

Cumulative Effects

Under the no action alternative, livestock distribution and forage available for utilization would remain 

consistent with existing management. Potential improvements in livestock distribution from the creation 

of transitory range would not occur. Loss of forage due to canopy closure in some stands could 

potentially cause a need to reduce stocking rates in the future. Areas where burning would have occurred 

in the action alternatives would remain untreated for the foreseeable future. The potential for 

uncontrolled wildfire may increase in the absence of controlled burning. This could lead to reductions in 

livestock grazing if destructive wildfire occurred on a large scale.

Under the action alternatives, prescribed fire would allow for a return to more historic conditions that 

would carry forward in time. This could result in long term improvements in forage and accessibility for 

livestock.

CONSISTENCY FINDING

The actions proposed under the Thomas Creek project are consistent with Forest Plan direction for range 

management and resources. 
128

WILDLIFE

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Wildlife Specialist Report 

located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, and 

technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS

The quantity and quality of wildlife habitat and the effects of proposed activities was assessed using: 

district records; field reviews; aerial imagery; data in Geographic Information System (GIS); DecAID, 

Current Vegetation Survey and Gradient Nearest Neighbor datasets; publications, reports, and scientific 

papers; and personal communications with state and other wildlife biologists. 

The scale of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife varies depending on the 

species. The scale of analysis for most species is the 15,773 acre project area with the following

exceptions:

• 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. A logical boundary was used to include 

Management Area C4 beyond the project area so that the area was large enough for meaningful 

analysis. 

• Habitat for the primary cavity excavator group is assessed at the watershed scale. 

• NFMA viability compliance for management indicator species is determined at the forest scale.

Time frames considered for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to wildlife are short-term 

(within 5 years), mid-term (5-15 years) and long-term (more than 15 years). These spatial and 

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. 

Proposed harvest treatments would change forest stand structure and composition on a maximum of 3,080 

acres, or 19 percent of the 15,800 acre project area. Some wildlife species will benefit from these changes 

while others may not, and there are short term versus long term trade-offs. Overall, effects to wildlife 

habitat are not expected to result in measureable effects to wildlife populations, and should provide 

increased wildlife habitat diversity in the project area.

The following categories of wildlife or habitats are discussed: old forest habitat; management indicator 

species; threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife and invertebrate species; northern goshawk; and 

priority bird habitats. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT- OLD FOREST HABITAT

Dedicated Old Growth 

The Forest Plan allocated specific areas as Management Area C1-Dedicated Old Growth or C2- Managed 

Old Growth to provide old growth forest habitat across the Forest. Stand size and distribution are variable 

and depend on the vegetation type and target management indicator species (USFS 1990). 
129

One Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) areas is located in the center of the project area along Dry Creek (No. 

2552). Old Growth condition was assessed in this area in 2001 and 2004. Dense canopy cover, 2-3 tree 

layers, numerous snags, down wood, and larger diameter trees were noted. Dominant trees species are 

grand fir and Douglas fir. 

Old Forest Structure

The Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 (USFS 1995), commonly referred to as Eastside 

Screens, requires that large scale vegetation projects (timber sales) be screened to evaluate their potential 

impact on: riparian habitat; forest composition, structure and density; and old forest amounts, distribution 

and connectivity. It also established standards for goshawk and dead wood habitat. 

The amount of old forest structure is evaluated to determine if it is within, above, or below the historical 

range of variability. The Umatilla Forest uses the silvicultural terms Old Forest Multi Strata (OFMS), and 

Old Forest Single Stratum (OFSS) structural stages to assess the amount and distribution of old forest and 

large tree habitat. Old forest structure classes contain 10 or more live conifer trees per acre greater than or 

equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). The project silviculturist and wildlife biologist 

worked together to insure that old forest was accurately reflected in the vegetation data for this project. 

While only structure is considered here for the purposes of identifying old forest habitat, a number of 

other factors actually affect the quality and effectiveness of these stands for providing habitat to mature 

and old forest associated wildlife species. The intent of the Eastside Screens is to focus on keeping large 

trees in the landscape where they are scarce, as an interim measure.

A comparison of existing old forest habitat in the Thomas Creek HRV analysis area (Silviculture Report) 

to the historical range of variability (HRV) indicates that in both moist and dry upland forest, OFMS is 

within or above HRV. This would indicate that there are adequate amounts of multi strata old forest 

struture in the HRV analysis area. However, OFSS is below reference conditions (Table 3.59). There are 

slightly less than 300 acres of OFSS in the HRV analysis area. In general this is reflective of the relative 

productivity of the analysis area and the lack of disturbances that create single layered forest stands 

(Silviculture Report). The Eastside Screens state that for areas below HRV (gray shading), there should 

be no net loss of old forest structure.

Table 3.59 Comparison of existing amount of old forest to Historic Range of Variability (HRV) in 

the Thomas Creek HRV analysis area.

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Moist Upland Forest 20,130 ac Dry Upland Forest 1,425 ac

Historic Current Acres Historic Current Acres

OFMS 15-20 % 29 % 5903 5-15 % 43 % 616

OFSS 10-20 % 1 % 154 40-60 % 10 % 142

Total old forest 25-40 % 30 % 6057 45-75 % 53 % 758

Within the project area boundary, 89 percent of the forested area is moist forest (11,200 acres), and the 

majority of the old forest in the project area is a grand fir cover type (3540 acres). The small amount of 
130

dry old forest (1,370 acres) consists of Douglas fir, grand fir, and ponderosa pine in descending order of 

abundance. 

Old forest stands occur on nearly one third of the area. It is relatively well distributed and connected 

considering the natural openings throughout the area (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5 Distribution of old forest in the Thomas Creek project area.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - OLD FOREST

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

The No Action Alternative in this analysis is defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. 

Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect effects of the No Action Alternative. This does not 

mean conditions on the ground would remain static, they would in fact, continue to change as disclosed 

below.

Without treatments the Dedicated Old Growth and other old forest structure would likely remain in its 

current state in the short term. In the long term these stands will begin to deteriorate but would likely

continue to provide rich snag and down wood habitat. As long as fires do not occur in the planning area, 

there would be increasing amounts of old forest, stands with higher tree densities, mid and late seral 

species, and susceptibility to natural disturbances (Silviculture Specialist Report). Wildland fire under 

these conditions would exhibit extreme fire behavior and potentially remove large amounts of old forest. 
131

Some wildlife species such as the black-backed woodpecker depend upon a cycle of fire events, but 

many species that depend upon unburned old forest structure would be displaced if a large stand-replacing 

fire occurred. 

Cumulative Effects of No Action

No actions would be authorized, therefore there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action.Alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Dedicated Old Growth 

No actions are proposed within Dedicated Old Growth (MA C1) areas. The current composition, 

structure, and function of these areas would be maintained under all of the proposed alternatives in the 

short -term. In the mid and long -term, these dedicated areas may deteriorate to the point they no longer 

provide old growth habitat, or a wildland fire could alter these stands. These areas would likely become a

rich source of large diameter snag and down wood habitat. 

Old Forest Structure and Connectivity

Proposed harvest is designed to restore appropriate native trees and other vegetation in old plantations. 

Plantations generally have dense mixed conifer trees ranging from 7 to 21 inches diameter breast height 

(dbh). Many of these old clearcuts were planted with ponderosa pine that is not well suited for the project 

area. In some areas an even-aged prescription is proposed if the stand is dominated by off-site ponderosa 

pine that needs to be removed. Some stands are appropriate for ponderosa pine retention but most are not 

(Silviculture Report).

No trees greater than or equal to 21 inches dbh would be removed under any alternative, and there would 

be little to no effect to old forest. All dead trees and snags greater than or equal to 12 inches dbh would be 

left to provide dead wood habitat unless excess fuels exist in the stand. Hazard trees that are cut would be 

left to provide down wood habitat. In some areas, live off-site ponderosa pine would be topped or girdled 

to create snags. 

Some treatment units show small areas of old forest within them because the unit shapes are based on 

prior cutting unit boundaries. For various reasons a portion of the area was not harvested. For example, 

some of the non-commerical thinning units have small areas (1 to 5 acres) classified as old forest. During 

layout these areas will not be marked for treatment. 

Alternative C has adds ‘buffers’ around some units, allowing additional thinning adjacent to plantations, 

but old forest would be excluded from these treatments. Some trees less than 21 inches DBH but still 

considered old (>150 years) may be removed. 

Harvest activity would result in healthier stands with appropriate tree species for the area. Stands that are 

thinned would be immediately improved, and stands that are regenerated would grow into forest habitat 

over a longer term. At least 16 trees per acre would be retained in all units, as well as any trees > 21 

inches DBH. The healthiest large trees and all large snags would remain as the building blocks for present 

and future stand and wildlife habitat development. 

Treatment units that encroach on old forest connectivity corridors have design criteria to maintain cover 
132

in these areas. Specific instructions for leave areas have been developed. In addition, some commercial

harvest in riparian areas were reduced or eliminated in order to maintain current connectivity. Old forest 

structure would continue to be well distributed and connected within the entire project area.

Prescribed fire includes landscape fire as well as burning in harvest units to reduce slash and prepare units 

for planting. Since no harvest is proposed in old forest, unit burning would not affect old forest. The 

landscape burning would affect 150 acres of dry old forest and 250 acres of moist old forest. Low to 

moderate intensity fire would favor seral, fire resistant species while reducing surface and ladder fuels. 

The desired surface fuel reduction and mortality of understory and overstory components would be 

commensurate with effects that could be expected to occur historically (Fuels Specialist Report). Low 

intensity fire generally does not change stand structure (Harrod et al. 2009). While there is a potential for 

mortality of individual green overstory trees, and large-diameter snags and downed wood to be consumed 

during burning (especially those in later stages of decay), these potential impacts are not quantifiable due 

to the many variables involved. New snags created by burning would partially compensate for those lost. 

Burning conditions (weather, fuel conditions, general oversight of burning operations) would minimize 

the risk of losing larger-diameter green trees, logs, and snags. Design criteria would also be implemented 

to minimize the loss of large, old trees, snags, and down wood. 

Proposed construction of temporary spur roads would not impact old forest or connective stands. All 

closed roads that are temporarily opened would remain closed to the public, and therefore access to old 

forest stands for activities such as firewood cutting would not increase. Haul routes pass through about 

three miles of old forest stands. Removal of danger trees along these roads is expected to be minimal. 

Snag creation and tree planting would not occur in old forest.

Effects Unique to Alternative E 

Alternative E proposes some commercial thinning in OFMS (170 acres) and may also remove some trees 

more than 150 years old. Additional hand thinning may be implemented in old forest inclusions within the 

boundaries of old clear cuts. OFMS would convert to OFSS in these stands, and no large diameter trees 

(>21 inches dbh) would be removed. Other additional treatments in Alternative E are proposed in 

Understory Reinitiation or Stem Exclusion stand structure. These treatments would move the area closer 

to historic conditions than the other alternatives, but would disturb some old forest in the project area. The 

small amount (170 acres) would very slightly reduce the percentage on the landscape, and multi strata old 

old forest would remain well above historic ranges. 

Old forest connectivity corridors would be affected in three thinning units added in Alternative E, on 

about 13 acres. These connective corridors are mapped and the marking guide will provide for light 

thinning in those areas. Old forest structure would continue to be well distributed and connected within 

the entire project area because the thinned old forest would remain old forest single story, and 

connectivity would be maintained by design criteria.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – OLD FOREST HABITAT

Cumulative effects are evaluated at the project area scale. Past timber harvest and roading is reflected in 

the existing condition. Personal use firewood cutting may occasionally remove large snags (up to 24 inch 

stump diameter) within 300 feet of open roads. Since open road density is low in this area, and cutting is 

restricted to 300 feet off of open roads, the effects to snag availability in old forest would be minor. 
133

Ongoing recreational activities, sheep grazing, and weed treatment would not have cumulative effects to 

the old forest habitat in this project area. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS)

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 Thomas Creek project area (Table 3.60).

Table 3.60 Wildlife Management Indicator Species for the Umatilla National Forest.

Species Habitat Types

Rocky Mountain elk General forest habitat and winter ranges

Pine 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

• Vegetation data used to assess current habitat conditions were determined for American marten 

and pileated woodpecker by utilizing data from the Blue Mountains forest plan revision analysis 

(LRMP DEIS) (Wales et al. 2011) in conjunction with local vegetation data based on stand exams 

and photo interpretation. The LRMP DEIS analysis used Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) data 

(LEMMA) for broad scale information. 

• HRV for dead wood is from distribution histograms in DecAID (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). 

The most recent (2012) GNN data for our area was used to estimate current snag densities and 

compare to reference data found in DecAID. 

• For Rocky Mountain elk and Northern three-toed woodpecker local vegetation data was utilized 

from modelling based on stand exam data.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - DEAD AND DEFECTIVE WOOD FOR PRIMARY 

CAVITY EXCAVATORS

Primary cavity excavators (PCEs) 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 (Table 3.60). Primary cavity 

excavators 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. 
134

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 Forester’s Sensitive species list. They are addressed 

specifically later in this document (see TES wildlife section). 

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, 

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 this MIS group was selected to represent dead and defective wood habitat, 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 Forest Plan established minimum standards for snag retention in harvest units based on a 1970’s 

publication that synthesized the habitat requirements of snag-associated species (Thomas et al. 1979) 

(Table W4). Snag retention in harvest units, plus acre amounts of habitat in the area, presumed a level of 

PCE viability. The forest plan also determined that in addition to snag retention in harvest units, 

Dedicated Old Growth areas, the amount of other old forest, and the amount of forest that would not be 

managed (e.g. wilderness, etc.) would provide for viable populations. 

The biological potential model used in the forest plan is an outdated technique for determining both snag 

retention needs at the unit level and for determining viability of woodpecker populations at the forest 

level (Rose et al. 2001). New information about the ecology, dynamics, and management of decayed 

wood has been published since then, and the state of the knowledge continues to change. However, until 

the forest is amended to reflect the new science, 100% biological potential is the minimum number of 

snags that need to be maintained through the life of the stand rotation (Table 3.61).

Snag habitat is limited within the Thomas Creek plantation units. These are young stands growing up in 

former clear cuts, so the dead trees that are present are mainly less than 20 inches in diameter. While 

these areas provide foraging habitat for woodpeckers, there is limited opportunity for excavating cavities 

for nesting. Because of this condition, dead trees and snags 12 inches dbh and larger will not be removed 

in harvest units, unless a safety hazard exists. 

The intent of the Thomas Creek project is to improve stand conditions and promote long term 

development of large trees and snags for the future. Snags would also be created in some areas from 

larger undesirable trees by girdling, topping, or other means. Most of the live trees are also in smaller size 

classes than needed for woodpecker nesting, so this resource will be limited in the short term within 

harvest units. Snags outside of the old plantations are currently providing this resource to cavity 

excavators.
135

In addition to snag retention in harvest units, design criteria for snag replacement trees and down wood is 

in provided (see Chapter 2 Design Criteria). 

Table 3.61 Umatilla Forest Plan standards for harvest units, and Thomas Creek recommendation. 

Umatilla Forest Plan 

Standard (minimum)

Thomas Creek project 

recommendation

Diameter class 

(inches DBH)

Average snag density 

(#/acre) Snag Density

>10 2.25 Leave all snags > 12 inches

>20 0.14 Leave all

Total 2.25 Leave all snags > 12 inches

Dead 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 "metaanalysis") of the best available science: published scientific literature, research data, wildlife databases, 

forest inventory databases, and expert judgment and experience. In addition to data showing wildlife use 

of dead wood, DecAID also contains data showing amounts and sizes of dead wood across the landscape 

based on vegetation inventory data.

Project area contribution to the viability of primary cavity excavator MIS 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 will be provided because species survived those levels of habitat in the past to be 

present today. Thus, if we manage current habitats within the range of historic variability, we are likely to 

do an adequate job of maintaining population viability for those species that remain. The further current 

habitat conditions are from HRV, the more likely it is that population viability will 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 from plots that fell within 

unharvested areas of the Blue Mountains is used as a reference condition to approximate the historic 

range of variability in dead wood. 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 et al. 2012), it is comparable 
136

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 (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Even with 

this caveat, the 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; the data from 

unharvested stands are in the range of other published data on HRV of dead wood even in the drier 

vegetation types (Mellen-McLean 2011). 

Existing Conditions

Current dead wood habitat 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. For more information go to http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=imap&id=home. 

GNN snag data is organized by watershed and habitat type. The Thomas Creek project area falls within 

three watersheds and these three data sets were combined into the 109,000 acre Thomas Creek dead wood 

analysis area (Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6 Thomas Creek Project Dead Wood Analysis Area
137

The Thomas Creek snag analysis area falls into the Eastside Mixed Conifer E Cascades/Blue Mnts. 

habitat type (EMC/ECB) (Mellen et al. 2012). 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 

dead wood analysis area. A distribution analysis was used to determine how close current conditions for 

dead wood on the landscape match reference conditions. The following figures represent a comparison of 

approximated existing snag distributions in the Thomas Creek dead wood analysis area to reference 

conditions (Figures W4 and W5). 

For both > 10 and > 20 inches dbh snags, the amount of area with zero snags per acre is similar to 

reference conditions (Figures 3.7 and 3.8) . 

Figure 3.7 Distribution of Snags > 10 Inches DBH in Moist Upland Forest.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0-6 6-12 12-24 24-36 >=36

Percent of Area

Snags per acre

Umatilla Forest Reference

Thomas Creek Snag Analysis Area

Thomas Creek Snag Distribution, snags > 10 inches dbh
138

Figure 3.8 Distribution of Snags > 20 Inches DBH in Moist Upland Forest.

The amount of area with up to six snags per acre > 10 inches DBH is about 24 percent more than 

reference conditions, which indicates there is an abundance of area with more than zero but fewer than six 

snags per acre (Figure W4). Densities with 6-12 snags/acre is similar to reference conditions. The amount 

of area with high density snag conditions (> 12 snags per acre) is less than expected under unmanaged 

conditions, but does occur on 10 percent of the snag analysis area or about 10,000 acres. 

For larger snags > 20 inches DBH, the amount of area with up to two snags per acre is about 22 percent 

more than reference conditions, which indicates there is an over-abundance of area with more than zero

but fewer than two snags/acre (Figure W5). Densities four per acre or more is lower than reference 

conditions. The amount of area with higher densities of large snags (>4 large snags per acre) is less than 

expected under unmanaged conditions, but does occur on six percent of the snag analysis area or 6,540 

acres.

Generally, despite past harvest there is an abundance of snags in the Thomas Creek snag analysis area, 

but there are fewer pockets of high density snags than would be expected in unmanaged conditions. 

Snag densities at the 30 %, 50%, and 80% tolerance levels8 are being met for several PCE species (gray 

area in Table W-3). Some species such as black-backed woodpecker key in on recent fires with dense 

small snags. This condition is not currently available in the Thomas Creek snag analysis area. 

 8 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 had that snag density.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-10 10-18

Percent of Area

Snags per acre

Umatilla Forest Reference

Thomas Creek Snag Analysis Area

Thomas Creek Snag Distribution, snags > 20 inches dbh
139

Pileated woodpecker and Williamson’s sapsucker generally require higher snag densities. While this 

condition may be more limited in this area than desired, areas of high snag density do exist on the 

landscape. For snags greater than 20 inches dbh, habitat for Williamsons sapsucker would easily meet the 

30% tolerance level and the 50% tolerance level would be provided in fewer areas (Table 3.62). 

Numerous observations pileated woodpecker in the area indicate habitat suitability. 

Table 3.62 Tolerance levels for woodpeckers occurring in Eastside Mixed Conifer/Blue Mountains 

(EMC_ECB) habitat type (DecAID Table EMC_S/L.sp-22) (Mellen et al. 2012).

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS – DEAD WOOD HABITAT

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alternative. This does not mean conditions on the ground will remain static, 

they will in fact, continue to change as disclosed below.

The area would continue to provide snags and large down wood for cavity dependent species. Additional 

snags and large down wood would be created as overstory mortality occurs and dead trees eventually fall, 

creating new foraging and nesting habitat. Cavity excavator populations would likely be maintained or 

increase. Ongoing and potential increases in disease and insect occurrence could improve habitat by 

creating foraging and nesting habitat (dead wood). 

If a stand replacing fire occurred, habitat would be reduced for many cavity-excavator speices, but others 

would respond positively. The black-backed woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker would benefit in the 

short and mid -term, due to their preference for burned stands. Most other woodpecker species would 

respond to fire by shifting their use to adjacent unburned or lightly burned stands. 

Cumulative Effects of No Action

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Species

Snag density/acre for 30%, 50%, 80% tolerance levels

>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
140

Action Alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action alternatives 

Proposed activities would have minimal effects to dead wood habitat because the affected areas are old 

plantations with small to medium size trees and contain little existing dead wood habitat. The majority of 

high quality habitat for primary cavity excavators occurs ouside of managed units. Measures taken to 

provide current and future habitat within managed areas include the following:

• Snag retention;

• Down wood retention;

• Replacement trees;

• Retention of large live trees;

• Retention of old forest stand structure;

• Snag creation.

Commercial thinning would have a small effect to existing snags and future snag development. 

Overcrowded plantations are currently producing smaller diameter snags and are a fuels hazard. Thinning 

these stands would create more resilient conditions for stand longevity and allow larger trees to develop 

into snags in the future. Regeneration harvest such as seed tree and shelterwood (around 700 acres) would 

set back snag development in the long term; however all existing snags > 12 inches dbh would be retained 

unless there is a safety concern. 

Replacement trees would meet forest plan standards in both types of harvest. In addition, trees > 21 

inches DBH would be retained and may become future large snag habitat. Where snags are felled to meet 

operational requirements for safety, snags ≥12 inches dbh would be left on the ground to contribute 

toward down wood densities unless numbers are excessive. 

All functioning snag habitat (broken top, signs of excavation, etc) would be retained wherever possible. A 

minimum of 3-6 down logs per acre (in the dry plant association) or 15-20 down logs per acre (in the 

moist plant association) would be retained to meet Forest Plan standards as amended. A minimum of 16 

green trees per acre would be left for future snag development. Thinning units would exceed this number. 

Prescribed fire would likely create snags in both the short and mid term where trees are burned or 

partially burned (Table 3.63). Potential burning area affecting snags in Table 3.63 does not include nonforest.

Any existing snags or down wood in non-commercial thinning units would not be affected by proposed 

activities. Activites such as temporary road building and use, subsoiling and fuels disposal are expected to 

have mimimal effects to dead wood habitat. Placement of wood in streams would not affect dead wood 

habitat. The primary source of wood is blow down trees with root wads from off site. 

Snag creation would have a slightly positive effect. It is unknown at this time the number or type of trees 

that would be identified for snag creation. It is expected that on average, 2 snags per unit would be 

identified and reviewed prior to harvest operations. Appropriate trees would typically be undesirable 

ponderosa pine trees 12 inches dbh or larger. Other considerations would come into play such as location 

and safety. Snags would be created using explosives near the top third of the tree, by climbing trees and 
141

cutting tops off, or by methods that slowly kill trees such as girdling, disease injection, use of beetle 

phermones etc. Topped leave trees are more windfirm than natural snags, and are known to develop 

cavities within 10 years (Rose et al. 2001). Trees topped above two branch whorls may survive and 

continue to grow, providing even longer term habitat for cavity excavators and other species that utilize 

cavities. 

Table 3.63 Activities potentially affecting dead wood habitat in the Thomas Creek project.

Alternative A B C D E

Commercial thin 0 537 627 279 1059

Commercial regeneration 0 733 703 671 733

Prescribed fire 0 1130 1130 1130 1130

Total snag effects 0 2,400 2,460 2,080 2,922

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 majority of high 

quality habitat for primary cavity excavators occurs outside of managed units. Measures taken to provide 

current and future habitat within managed areas would also contribute to overall dead wood habitat needs 

on the forest.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Personal firewood collection can contribute to snag reductions, however the overall effects on snag 

dependent wildlife would be small because removal typically occurs along open roads. Other ongoing and 

proposed activities would have no cumulative effect to dead wood habitat and woodpeckers. Structural 

habitat for cavity excavating birds could be slightly reduced at the stand scale, but watershed averages 

would remain constant.

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative E 

The addition of 520 acres of tree thinning outside of plantations may reduce future large snag 

development in these stands in the short term. Mechanical operations in old forest and understory 

reinitiation stand structure could potentially result in larger snags being dropped as hazard trees. Efforts 

would be made to minimize this by avoiding high quality snag habitat. All other effects would be the 

same as other alternatives. 

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

The project would affect less than three percent (.020 - .026) of the forested areas in the Thomas Creek 

dead wood analysis area, and effects to dead wood habitat within treatment units is expected to be 

minimal considering the measures in place to provide current and future habitat . 

Effects to species viability are examined at the forest scale. Forest-wide average snag densities are 

relatively close to reference values (Mason and Countryman 2010). At the forest scale there may be areas 

depleted of snags due to fires, salvage, and past management, but there are also areas with high numbers 
142

of snags due to fire suppression and subsequent tree mortality. Recent fires on the forest provide high 

densities of snags for up to 10 years post-fire. The Thomas Creek project would affect less than one 

percent (.003) of the forested land on the Umatilla National Forest.9

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects could result in a very small negative habitat trend for 

primary cavity excavators. The amount of effect from this project would be too small to cause changes to 

cavity excavator populations. Therefore the project is consistent with the forest plan and continued 

viability of primary cavity excavators is expected on the Umatilla National Forest.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - PILEATED WOODPECKER 

The pileated woodpecker (Dryocupus pileatus) is an MIS for both dead and defective wood habitat and 

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 MellenMcLean (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. 2005, 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 2015). The pileated woodpecker is ranked as ‘widespread, abundant, and secure’ 

globally; more specifically in Oregon it is ranked as ‘apparently secure’ (NatureServe 2015). The state of 

Oregon lists pileated woodpecker as ‘vulnerable’. The PIF database (Partners in Flight 2012) indicates an 

increasing population and expect future ongoing stability.

Pileated woodpeckers are associated with late-seral stages of the subalpine, montane, lower montane 

forests and specifically OFSS and OFMS 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 dominated by ponderosa 

pine and 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. 

 9 1.062 million acres; does not include non-forest or forest land in stand initiation stage.
143

Due to an increase in dense, multi-canopy stands due to fire suppression, habitat for pileated woodpeckers 

is increasing across the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, densities of large-diameter snags 

(>21 inches dbh) have declined from historical to current levels (Wisdom et al. 2000, Korol et al. 2002). 

As discussed in the Dead and Defective Habitat section above, higher densities of large snags (>20 inches 

dbh) are well below reference conditions (Figure W5). Six to ten large snags per acre occurs on only two 

percent of the snag analysis area, about 2,000 acres. Current large snag density may be a limiting factor 

for pileated woodpeckers in this area, however mature forest conditions are available to create more snags 

in the future. 

Based purely on stand structure, about 5,000 acres of potential reproductive habitat is present in the older 

stands. 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. Almost all forested 

stands in the entire Thomas Creek project area (11,500 acres) could be used for pileated woodpecker 

foraging. Based on habitat distribution, the Thomas Creek project area could reasonably support five or 

six pair of pileated woodpeckers. 

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 

(Widsom et al. 2000). Overall there is little risk to pileated woodpecker viability (Wales et al. 2011). 

Dedicated Old Growth areas are generally providing good habitat for pileated woodpecker forestwide. 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. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - PILEATED WOODPECKER

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alterntative. This does not mean conditions on the ground would remain static.

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. Stands that are not currently in an old forest 

condition could develop into mature stands, which would provide additional habitat. 

Cumulative Effects of No Action

For the No Action alternative, the Thomas Creek project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore 

it would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative.
144

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D 

Alternatives B and D would affect about 80 acres of pileated woodpecker reproductive habitat; alternative 

C would add 20 more acres. None of these stands are within the larger more contiguous areas of pileated 

woodpecker reproductive habitat. All units affecting pileated woodpecker habitat are planned to be 

thinned. Off-site ponderosa pine would be removed to the extent possible and remaining desirable tree 

species would be favored.

No snags over 12 inches dbh are targeted for removal, but some may be felled to prevent hazardous 

conditions to workers. In addition, all live trees > 21 inches dbh would be retained, as well as an 

adequate number of replacement trees for future snag development. Where snags are felled to meet 

operational requirements for safety, snags ≥12 inches dbh would be left on the ground to contribute 

toward down wood densities unless numbers are excessive. (see Chapter 2 design criteria table for down 

wood) 

Landscape prescribed fire would affect 630 acres of pileated woodpecker reproductive habitat. Prescribed 

fire is planned to affect mostly the grassy areas in between forest stands. Tree mortality is expected to be 

low in forested stands where fire creeps through. 

Other activities such as unit burning, temporary roads, and large wood placement in streams would not 

affect pileated woodpecker habitat. 

The learning design proposed in Alternative C will have no different overall effect than other alternatives; 

the effects to pileated woodpecker habitat will be slightly more (20 acres) and in different areas.

Cumulative Effects of All Action Alternatives 

Cumulative effects are assessed at the project area scale because it is a large area that potentially could 

provide habitat for five to six pair of reproducing pileated woodpeckers. 

Past logging in old growth forest has reduced the densityof large diameter snags in the project area. This 

is reflected in the existing condition. Personal firewood collection and roadside hazard tree removals 

would contribute to snag reductions, however the overall effects on pileated woodpecker habitat would be 

small because removal occurs only along roads. Firewood removal is limited to trees with less than 24 

inches stump diameter. 

Ongoing activities such as grazing, weed treatments, and recreational activities would have no effect to 

pileated woodpeckers or their habitat and therefore would not cause cumulative effects in combination 

with the proposed projects. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative E 

Additional thinning in OFMS and UR stand structure (210 acres) would not render these areas unusable 

by pileated woodpecker. They would still be used for foraging and possibly even nesting because large 

trees and snags will be retained. Landscape fire and all other actions would have the same effect as the 

other alternatives.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects would result in a very small negative habitat trend for 

pileated woodpecker. Alternatives B, C, and D would affect less than one percent (.003) of the pileated 
145

woodpecker habitat on the forest and Alternative E would also affect less than one percent (.005) of the 

pileated woodpecker habitat on the forest. The amount of effect from this project is too small to cause 

changes to the population with any alternative. There would be no impacts on Dedicated Old Growth 

stands designated by the forest plan (USFS 1990) to provide for the viability of the pileated woodpecker. 

Thomas Creek project is consistent with the forest plan and thus continued viability of pileated 

woodpecker is expected on the Umatilla National Forest.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - 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 . 

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 2015).

Three-toed woodpeckers are considered vulnerable in the state by Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife and NatureServe. They are considered vulnerable primarily due to the following threats and 

risks: salvage of dead trees, fire suppression, and decline in old forests of lodgepole, subalpine fir, and 

Engelmann spruce (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, habitat for this woodpecker, and associated species, 

has been increasing in the Blue Mountains (Wisdom et al. 2000). The global status of three-toed 

woodpecker is ‘secure’ due to its wide distribution (NatureServe 2015). 

This species appears to prefer disturbed coniferous forests with trees that exhibit thin, flaky bark such as 

spruce and lodgepole pine. Most foraging occurs on large standing snags and dying trees. It is suggested 

that forest type may be less important than the presence of bark beetles (Marshall et al. 2003). A habitat 

relationship model developed for the three-toed woodpecker in Oregon indicates that that the presence of 

recently dead trees killed by mountain pine beetle was the best predictor of presence of the woodpecker 

(Chapman 2011).

Potential habitat for three-toed woodpeckers in the Thomas Creek 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 4,050 acres of potential foraging habitat for three-toed woodpeckers in 

the project area. Habitat is well-distributed and well-connected throughout the planning area.

In the Montane Mixed Conifer (MMC) Wildlife Habitat Type, snag densities between 6 and 12 snags per 

acre are similar to HRV (Figure W4). Densities higher than 12 per acre are less than reference conditions. 

Current estimates indicate there are 170,000 acres of three-toed woodpecker habitat on the forest (Wales, 

personal communication). The Thomas Creek project area contributes about two percent to the forestwide habitat for three-toed woodpeckers. Although no three-toed woodpeckers have been reported in the 

area, there are opportunities for foraging and the possiblity that nesting could occur. 
146

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - THREE-TOED WOODPECKER

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

The No Action alternative in this analysis is defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, 

under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect effects of the No Action Alternative. This does not mean 

conditions on the ground would remain static, they would in fact, continue to change as disclosed below.

Existing three-toed woodpecker habitat would remain in its current state in the short -term. There may be 

increases in insect outbreaks, which would benefit three-toed woodpecker. If fires occurred it would 

create high-quality short term habitat where snags are in high densities.

Cumulative Effects of No Action

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D 

Northern three-toed woodpecker habitat would be affected by porposed alternatives as follows: about 230 

acres in Alternative B, 240 acres in Alternative C, 220 acres in Alternative D. None of these areas are 

prime nesting habitat due to limited lodgepole pine, but nesting could potentially take place in spruce and 

fir stands. Effects are roughly equal for these alternatives. 

Overall thinning would be light in these units, and enough canopy cover would remain to allow three-toed 

woodpecker to continue to use these stands. Treatments would likely result in less potential for insect 

disturbances that three-toed woodpeckers depend upon in the short and mid -term. No snags over 12 

inches DBH are planned to be removed, but some may be felled to prevent hazardous conditions to 

workers. Snag creation may create more foraging opportunites on a small scale.

Landscape prescribed fire would potentially affect 180 acres of spruce and fir that may be occasional used 

by three-toed woodpeckers. However, any mortality associated with light burning would probably 

enhance foraging opportunities.

Other proposed activities such as non-commercial thinning, down wood placement in streams, and 

temporary roads would have no effect to three-toed woodpeckers or their habitat. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D

Cumulative effects are assessed at the Thomas Creek project area scale because it is an appropriate scale 

to show measurable effects to three-toed woodpecker habitat. The effects of past timber harvest and 

historic fire prevention is reflected in the existing condition. Cumulatively the effects of proposed 

activities in combination with other past, ongoing, and potential future projects are not expected to have 

lasting negative impacts to three-toed woodpecker populations. The amount of effect to foraging habitat 

is small (5%) and nesting habitat would not be affected.

Ongoing sheep grazing, weed treatments, and recreation activities do not affect woodpecker habitat. 

Firewood cutting in the area may affect a small amount of three-toed woodpecker habitat. 
147

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative E 

Alternative E would affect about twice as much three-toed woodpecker habitat as the other action 

alternatives. About 460 acres of three-toed woodpecker habitat would be thinned, or 11 percent of the 

foraging habitat in the project area. Despite that, overall effects would be about the same as the other 

action alternatives because it is unlikely that northern three-toed woodpeckers are nesting in the affected 

areas. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E

Cumulative effects are the same as other action alternatives. Ongoing sheep grazing, weed treatments, and 

recreation activities do not affect woodpecker habitat. Firewood cutting in the area may affect a small 

amount of three-toed woodpecker habitat. These activities in combination with proposed alternatives 

would have a small effect to three-toed woodpecker habitat.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects of any of the action alternatives would result in a very 

small negative habitat trend for three-toed woodpecker. Because the project impacts less than one percent 

of the three-toed woodpecker habitat on the forest, the amount of effect from this project is too small to 

cause changes to the population. There would be no impacts on Dedicated Old Growth stands designated 

by the forest plan (USFS 1990) to provide for the viability of the three-toed woodpecker. The project is 

consistent with the forest plan and thus continued viability of three-toed woodpecker is expected on the 

Umatilla National Forest. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

Rocky Mountain elk was selected as a management indicator species in the Forest Plan to represent 

general forest habitat and winter ranges for big game. Elk are the most popular big game species in 

northeastern Oregon and are an indicator of the quality and diversity of general forested habitat, the 

interspersion of cover and forage areas, and the security habitat provided by cover and low levels of 

human activity. 

Elk use a variety of habitat types in all successional stages and use patterns 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 off 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 high in nutrients and easily digestible. 

Early summer diets in the Blue Mountains include big huckleberry and snowberry, whereas 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 elk population in the Mt. Emily Wildlife Management Unit has been well below the state 

management objective of 5,700 animals for over a decade (Mark Kirsch, ODFW, pers. commun.). The 

estimated population has been hovering at around 3,000 animals for the past six years (Figure 3.9). 

Reasons for this are largely unknown because there are so many factors that influence elk survival. The 
148

management objective may simply be unattainable due to current habitat conditions, predation, and 

hunting pressure. 

Most of the project area is summer range for elk, but wintering elk may use fringe areas that just barely 

overlap the project area in the Dry Creek and Thomas Creek riparian areas. Portions of the project area 

are likely utilized by elk as transitional habitat for movement to and from wintering areas. Known elk 

calving areas are located a few miles to the west of the project area.

Forest plan standards for elk are specific to each Management Area. The Thomas Creek project area 

contains several management areas, the largest being MA-E2, Timber and Big Game, where most 

activities are proposed, followed by MA-C4, Wildlife Habitat. The forest plan also shows a very small 

area of MA-C3, Big Game Winter Range within the project area, but this area does not appear to be used 

by wintering elk according to field observations by the state.

Figure 3.9 Mt. Emily elk population estimates. 

Scale of Analysis for Forest Plan Standards

The forest plan standards used to evaluate effects of management actions on elk habitat include percent 

tree cover, open road density, and an index value from the Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI) model. 

The majoriy of proposed activities fall within Management Area(MA) E2. The MA-E2 area is large 

enough within the project area boundary to evaluate effects to elk habitat (9,730 acres). The HEI model is 

generally not used for areas under 5,000 acres. Management Area C4 occurs on both sides of the MA-E2. 

The MA-C4 analysis area on the west side was extended outside the planning area to the subwatershed 

line. The MA-C4 analysis area on the east side was extended outside the planning area boundary to the 

MA-C4 boundary. Riparian Areas (MA-C5) and Dedicated Old Growth (MA-C1) interior to these areas 

are included. Several proposed harvest units fall within MA-A3 Visuals along Forest Road 31, but this 

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Number of Elk

Year

Elk Population Estimates 

Mt. Emily Unit 2001-2013

Population

Estimate
149

management area does not have forest plan standards for elk. A small area of MA-C3 Winter range (880 

acres) on the forest boundary will not be evaulated because it is too small to provide meaningful 

information, and because no activities are proposed there. The Thomas Creek proejct does not propose 

any activities in MA-C3 or in known elk wintering areas.

• Currently, the Thomas Creek elk analysis areas are exceeding all forest plan standards for cover, HEI 

values, and road density (Table W4).

Elk Cover

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 > 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. Marginal cover provides hiding and escape cover, but 

the tree canopy may be less dense and often provides less security. There is no forest plan standard for 

marginal cover; rather it is added to satisfactory cover for the total cover standard. 

• Forest plan cover standards are being met in the Thomas Creek project elk analysis areas (Table W5). 

The majority of satisfactory cover is found in the riparian areas of the creeks, including Thomas, 

Spring, Dry, Phillips, East Phillips, and Pedro Creeks. Old forest areas are also providing contiguous 

elk cover.

Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI)

The elk habitat effectiveness index model (HEI) is used to predict the influence of forest management 

activities on elk and other big game species. This 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. 

• HEI values are within forest plan standards for all of the Thomas Creek project elk analysis areas 

(Table W4).

Roads

Disturbance due to roads is a major factor influencing elk distribution across the landscape as evidenced 

by the results from a variety of studies conducted in northeastern Oregon (Rowland et al. 2005). 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). The desired condition in the forest plan is an 

average of two miles per square mile or less in all areas of the Umatilla National Forest (Forest Plan p. 4-

11). 

• The Thomas Creek project elk analysis areas have between 1 and 1.5 miles of open or seasonally 

open miles of road per square mile. This is within the desired condition of an average of two miles 

per square mile or less (Table 3.64). 
150

Table 3.64 Forest Plan standards and existing condition of the Thomas Creek elk analysis areas. 

Scale Measure

Forest Plan 

Desired

Forest Plan 

Standard

Existing 

Condition

Management Area C4

(11,070 acres)

Satisfactory Cover 15-20 % 15 % 23 %

Total Cover NA 30 % 49 %

HEI NA 60 66

Open Road Density NA < 2.0 1.8

Management Area E2

(9,690 acres)

Satisfactory Cover 15-20 % 10 % 24 %

Total Cover NA 30 % 62 %

HEI NA 45 63

Open Road Density NA < 2.0 1.9

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

Under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect effects of the No Action Alternative, which is defined as not 

taking any of the proposed actions. However, this does not mean conditions on the ground would remain 

static. 

The amount and distribution of cover and roads would not likely change in the short-term. Over the mid 

and long-term (beyond 20 years), some stands could grow into thicker hiding cover while others may 

deteriorate. New openings may be created where trees fall, which would allow pockets of foraging areas 

to develop. 

Cumulative Effects of No Action

Taking no action would not add to any effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of 

the No Action Alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action alternatives 

Elk Cover and Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI)

• Satisfactory cover and HEI values would remain well above forest plan minimum standards (Table 

3.65).

A dozen of the proposed treatment units are currently providing satisfactory cover, even though they are 
151

relatively young stands that were clear cuts at one time. Many other proposed treatment units are 

providing marginal elk cover. Alternative D removes the least amount of cover and Alternative E removes 

the most. Cover remains well above Forest Plan standards with all alternatives (Table 3.65).

The HEI value slightly increases for all alternatives (Table 3.66). This is because cover to forage spacing 

is improved by the Thomas Creek project. There are slight differences in acreage between alternatives, 

but not enough to change HEI, so the overall effect to HEI is equal between all of the alternatives.

Table 3.65 Forest Plan standards and comparison of alternatives in the Thomas Creek elk analysis 

areas. 

Scale Measure

Forest Plan 

Standard

Existing 

Condition

Alternative

B C D E

Management 

Area C4

(11,070 acres)

Satisfactory

Cover 15 % 23 % 22 % 19 % 22 % 21 %

Total Cover 30 % 49 % 46 % 46 % 45 % 45 %

HEI 60 66 67 67 67 67

Management 

Area E2

(9,690 acres)

Satisfactory

Cover 10 % 24 % 22 % 22 % 22 % 22 %

Total Cover 30 % 62 % 53 % 53 % 53 % 52 %

HEI 45 63 65 65 65 65

Table 3.66 Elk cover net reduction by alternative in the Thomas Creek elk analysis areas (acres).

Alternative

B C D E

Satisfactory Cover -367 -367 -353 -525

Marginal Cover -780 -749 -695 -902

Total Cover Change - 1,147 - 1,116 - 1,048 - 1,427

Elk Forage

Early-seral openings in moist forest provide important late summer forage for elk. Opening up dense 

stands of trees would increase the availability of elk forage in the short and mid-term, with hiding cover 

remaining available in some areas and developing gradually in others, depending on harvest level (Table 

3.67). Proposed landscape burning would also enhance elk forage on an additional 1,580 acres. Controls 
152

to reduce or eliminate potential weed spread from logging operations would be in place (Invasive Plants 

Specialist Report). Any new weed sites will be treated as coordinated through the forest invasive plants 

program. Overall forage for elk would be improved by any proposed alternative.

Table 3.67 Potential transitory forage created by timber harvest and non-commercial thinning by 

alternative in the Thomas Creek project area (acres). 

Prescription creating 

elk forage

Alternative

B C D E

Clear cut, seed tree, and 

group selection 733 703 708 733

Thinning 775 728 545 1116

Non-commercial 

thinning 1,037 1,032 1,037 1,037

Total forage increase + 2,545 + 2,463 + 2,290 + 2,886

Roads

No changes in open road densities would occur. The project would require opening 14 miles of closed 

road. Harvest equipment and contractor vehicles using roads that have been closed for many years may 

cause elk to temporarily avoid these areas during logging activities. Generally only one road or network 

of roads would be used at a time. The closed roads would not be open to the public during project 

activities and would remain closed after the project is completed.

Maintenance of open roads, removal of danger trees along roads, and the construction and use of 

temporary roads would have a minimal impact to elk. New temporary road would likely be less than one 

mile total and consist of several small segments accessing different harvest units. Temporary roads would 

be closed to the public and revegetated upon completion of the project.

Because activities would take place gradually over several years, and would be spread out spatially, no 

effects to the elk population would be caused by the transportation plan for this project. 

Riparian Treatments

Riparian habitat that is important for elk and other wildlife would be affected in all alternatives with slight 

differences between each. The intent is to remove ponderosa pine and plant the area with more 

appropriate trees for the site. The expected outcome is a light thinning that retains adequate shade over 

live water. In some of the proposed riparian treatment areas, very little would be removed. Reduction of 

stunted ponderosa pine and planting with more appropriate species would improve riparian habitat over 

the long term. No negative effects to elk are expected from riparian treatments.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Past timber harvest and roading is reflected in the existing condition. In addition to timber harvest and 

roads, associated activity such as subsoiling, large woody debris placement, snag creation, and tree 

planting would have no effect to elk. Ongoing activities in the area include sheep grazing, weed 
153

treatment, recreation uses, and firewood collection. 

The addition of proposed activities would increase the amount of disturbance in the area but would not 

negatively affect elk distribution or populations. Many other factors besides habitat influence elk 

numbers, such as weather, predation, and hunter success. In general, little change in elk and deer 

numbers would be expected with the current hunting strategies set forth by ODFW.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a neutral habitat trend. Forest plan 

standards for elk habitat would be met, and no changes to the elk population are expected. The project is 

consistent with the forest plan and thus continued viability of Rocky Mountain elk is expected on the 

Umatilla National Forest.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – AMERICAN MARTEN (PINE 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. 

American marten are found throughout Canada and Alaska, south through the Rockies, Sierra Nevada, 

northern Great Lakes Region, and northern New England. In Oregon, they 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). 

American marten are typically associated with late-seral coniferous forests with closed canopies, large 

trees, and abundant snags and down wood (Zielinski et al. 2001). Wisdom et al. (2000) lists subalpine 

and montane forests in old multi- and single-story, and unmanaged young multi-story structural stages as 

providing source habitat for American marten in the Columbia Basin. 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 addition to providing rest and den sites, down wood is an important component of marten habitat 

because the primary prey of martens is small mammals associated with down wood. These small 

mammals include voles, snowshoe hares and squirrels in northeast Oregon (Bull and Blumton 1999). In 

the winter, they forage beneath the snow in downed wood for prey. 

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. Source habitat is defined as those habitats contributing to long-term population 

persistence (Widsom et al. 2000). 
154

There are two reports of marten outside but within two miles of the project area boundary. One marten 

was seen about one mile north of the project area, and another was found dead on Highway 204. It is 

possible that the Thomas Creek project area could support marten. 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 nonhabitat. 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. 

Recent vegetation data was used to determine the current amount and distribution of marten habitat in the 

project area. The project area provides about 3,000 acres of well-distributed marten habitat. In 

combination with habitat adjacent to the project area, it is possible that the area would support a pair of 

marten.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS - AMERICAN MARTEN

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alterntative. This does not mean conditions on the ground will remain static, 

they will in fact, continue to change as disclosed below.

As long as fires do not occur in the planning area, existing marten habitat would remain in its current state 

in the short and mid term. Overstocked plantations would continue to deteriorate and develop excessive 

ground and ladder fuels and would not likely grow into marten habitat. 

Cumulative Effects of No Action

For the No Action alternative, the Tollgate project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it 

would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D 

Marten habitat would not be affected by tree cutting proposed in Alternatives B, C, or D because 

treatments are proposed in previously managed stands that do not provide source habitat for marten. The 

landscape prescribed fire boundary includes about 270 acres of marten habitat. The expected result would 

mimic historic patterns of fire disturbance, with a mosaic of burned and unburned grassland and slow 

creep through forested portions. 

No temporary roads are proposed within marten habitat. Less than two miles of the haul route goes 

through or adjacent to marten habitat, and it is unknown at this time if any hazardous trees exist in those 

segments. Other associated activity such as subsoiling, burning, tree planting, and snag creation would 

have no effect to marten. 

Riparian treatments would not affect marten habitat because they are primarily previously managed areas 

that were planted with ponderosa pine, and there will be a reduced level of tree removal in these areas. 

Placement of large wood in streams would ultimately enhance marten habitat.
155

Alternative C has added buffers around units that only affect very small slivers of marten habitat. The 

extent that thinning in these areas on edges of stands is minimal since the main units do not contain 

marten habitat, therefore there is no value added for marten. It is unlikely that edge treatments at this scale 

would result in any meaningful information about marten habitat and use of the area.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D 

Cumulative effects are assessed at the project area scale because it is a large area that potentially could 

provide habitat for one or more reproducing female marten. Proposed activities in combination with other 

past, ongoing, and potential future projects are not expected to cause cumulative effects to marten or their 

habitat. Past timber harvest and road construction has occurred throughout the project area, which is 

reflected in the existing condition. Ongoing sheep grazing and weed treatments generally do not affect 

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. 

Direct and Indirect Effects Unique to Alternative E 

Alternative E proposes thinning in 170 acres of existing marten habitat. Thinning trees in these stands 

would make these areas less suitable for marten denning in the short and mid -term. With the addition of 

landscape burning, a maximum of 440 acres of marten habitat would be affected. This is about 15 percent 

percent of the marten habitat in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E

Cumulative Effects are the same as other action alternatives except that 170 additional acres of marten 

habitat would be affected by the proposed activities. This in combination with ongoing activities would 

cause a small reduction of habitat in the short term. 

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of Alternative E would result in a small negative 

habitat trend for marten. Because the project impacts less than 1 percent (.004) of the marten habitat on 

the forest, the the amount of effect from this project is too small to cause changes to the population. All 

other action alternatives would have less effect. The Thomas Creek project is consistent with the Forest 

Plan and thus continued viability of marten is expected on the Umatilla National Forest.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT– NORTHERN GOSHAWK

The northern goshawk is not a Management Indicator Species in the Umatilla Forest Plan, and is not 

listed as Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive. However, the Eastside Screens provides for specific 

protections for goshawk nesting territories (USFS 1995). Northern goshawk is considered ‘sensitivecritical’ by the state of Oregon.

The northern goshawk is 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 
156

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).

A query of vegetation data for areas with at least 50 percent tree cover and the presence of large diamter 

trees resulted in approximately 2,400 acres of potential goshawk nesting habitat. These stands are well 

distributed throughout most of the planning area. Quality nesting habitat would typically be within onequarter (1/4) mile of water, in the lower portion of the slope, and often on the north facing slope. 

If active nests are found at any time, they would be protected as specified in the project design criteria.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS – NORTHERN GOSHAWK

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alterntative. This does not mean conditions on the ground will remain static, 

they will in fact, continue to change as disclosed below.

In the mid and -long term, some stands would continue to grow and develop multiple dense canopy 

layers. The availability of nesting habitat would increase in the long -term due to a greater abundance of 

large trees and dense multi-layered habitat, while foraging areas with open understory would be reduced. 

The susceptibility of overstocked stands to high severity wildfires and insect or disease outbreaks would 

likely increase and could lead to long term loss of habitat. 

Cumulative Effects of No Action

For the No Action alternative, the project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore it would not be 

adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. Based on the 

definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No Action 

Alternative.

Direct/Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Timber harvest and fuels treatments follow the Eastside Screens requirements (USFS 1995) to maintain 

late old structure stands and connectivity corridors. The intent is to provide short term protections for 

species dependent on old forest such as northern goshawk. 

A small amount of commercial thinning is proposed on edges of potential goshawk habitat (Table W9). 

Thinning in these areas would would potentially make a small area unsuitable for nesting but would still 

be used for foraging. Design criteria to leave all trees > 21 inches dbh, leave all snags > 12 inches dbh, 

and protect nest sites if found ensure that goshawk would be minimally affected. 

The landscape prescribed fire boundary includes about 300 acres of goshawk habitat. These fires are 

intended to burn primarily nonforested areas, but may creep into forest stands and cause limited mortality. 

The actual affect would be expected to be much smaller than 300 acres. 
157

Table 3.68 Mechanical harvest and prescribed burning in goshawk habitat.

Alternative A B C D E

Commercial thin 0 20 10 20 125

Prescribed fire 0 300 300 300 300

Total snag effects 0 320 310 320 425

Riparian treatments would not affect goshawk habitat because they are previously managed areas that 

were planted with ponderosa pine, and there will be a reduced level of tree removal in these areas. 

Proposed non-commercial thinning, temporary roads, and other connected actions would not affect 

goshawk habitat. Snag creation would not be implemented during raptor nesting seasons to avoid any 

disturbances from from blasting or tree topping.

A reasonable estimate of actual effects to goshawk habitat would be less than ten percent of the goshawk 

habitat in the area, leaving over 2,000 acres unaffected. If active nests are found at any time, they would 

be protected as specified in the project design criteria.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Cumulative effects are assessed at the Thomas Creek project area scale because it is large enough to 

potentially support several goshawk nesting territories. Past timber harvest reduced potential goshawk 

habitat in the area by clearcutting stands. Those areas remain unsuitable for nesting because these stands 

are now overstocked with small trees. The proposed activities would move these stands toward a natural 

condition and provide opportunities for more goshawk habitat to develop in time. 

Ongoing activities in the area include sheep grazing, weed treatment, recreation uses, and firewood 

collection. The addition of proposed activities would increase the amount of disturbance in the area for a 

short time, but would not negatively affect goshawk. No nesting territories are known in the area at this 

time.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT – MIGRATORY LANDBIRDS

Neotropical migratory birds are those that breed in the United States and winter south of the border in 

Central and South America. Continental and local declines in population trends for migratory and 

resident landbirds have developed into an international concern. Roughly one half of all birds occurring 

on the Umatilla Forest are Neotropical migrants. Many of these species are associated with old forest, 

riparian areas, or unique features such as aspen, shrubs, and meadows.

Partners in Flight (PIF) led an effort to complete a series of Bird Conservation Plans for the entire 

continental United States to address declining population trends in migratory landbirds (Rich et al. 2004). 

These plans are used to address the requirements contained in Executive Order (EO) 13186 (January 10, 

2001), Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 
158

The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and 

Washington (Altman 2000) identifies the following priority habitat types: Dry Forest, Late Successional 

Mesic Mixed Conifer, Riparian Woodland and Shrub, and several “unique” habitats (Table W10).

Dry Forest Habitat

The dry forest habitat type includes coniferous forest composed exclusively of ponderosa pine, or dry 

stands co-dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir or grand fir (Altman 2000). Bird species 

associated with dry forest have shown the greatest population declines and range retractions in the 

northern Rocky Mountain province (Altman 2000). In particular, bird species highly associated with 

snags and old-forest conditions have declined. These species include white-headed woodpecker, 

flammulated owl, white-breasted nuthatch, pygmy nuthatch, Williamson's sapsucker, and Lewis' 

woodpecker. 

Habitat for focal species such as white-headed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and Lewis’ woodpecker is 

very limited here, because the project area is predominantly a cool moist forest. 

Currently there are only about 90 acres of single strata, large diameter ponderosa pine stands in the 

project area. 

Late Successional Mesic Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Mesic mixed conifer habitats are primarily cool Douglas-fir, grand fir sites and larch sites. The desired 

condition is a multi-layered old forest with a diversity of structural elements. Conservation focal species 

and habitat conditions include: Vaux’s swift for large snags; Townsend’s warbler for overstory canopy 

closure, varied thrush for structural diversity and multiple layers; MacGillivray’s warbler for a dense 

shrub layer in forest openings or understory; and olive-sided flycatcher for edges and openings created by 

fire. 

Mesic mixed conifer is the dominant habitat type in the project area. There are about 3,000 acres of 

primarily grand fir forest with multiple layers and large trees in the project area. Dense shrub layers in 

forest openings are found in many areas. There are no openings created by fire.

Riparian Woodland and Shrub Habitat 

Riparian vegetation is particularly important to Neotropical migratory songbirds (Sallabanks et al. 

2001:217). This habitat type includes riparian communities dominated by shrubs (willow, alder, etc.) that 

occur along bodies of water or in association with wet meadows and wetlands (Altman 2000). The desired 

condition is a structurally diverse vegetative community of native species that occur in natural patterns 

relative to hydrological influences. Focal species and habitat conditions include: Lewis’ woodpecker for 

large snags; red-eyed vireo for canopy foliage and structure; veery for understory foliage and structure; 

and willow flycatcher for willow/alder shrub patches. 

Riparian hardwood habitat is plentiful along numerous streams in the area. Cottonwood, maple, and alder 

are abundant along Phillips Creek. Alder and willow patches are also common throughout the project 

area. 

Subalpine Forest 

Within the project area there is a minor amount of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce cover types, and 

no lodgepole pine cover type. No activities are proposed in any of these areas.
159

Montane Meadow 

There is no true montane meadow in the Thomas Creek project area. This habitat type includes wet and 

dry meadows dominated by herbaceous vegetation and grass at moderate and high elevations. These 

meadows are generally associated with streams and springs. 

Table 3.69 Priority Habitat Features and Associated Landbird Species for Conservation in the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Landbird Conservation Region of Oregon and Washington 

(Altman 2000).

Habitat Type Habitat Feature/Conservation Focus Focal Species

Dry Forest

Large patches of old forest with large trees and 

snags

White-headed woodpecker

Old forest with large trees & snags interspersed 

with grassy openings and dense thickets Flammulated owl

Open understory with regenerating pines Chipping sparrow

Patches of burned old forest Lewis’ woodpecker

Mesic Mixed Conifer

Large snags Vaux’s swift

Overstory canopy closure Townsend’s warbler

Structurally diverse; multi-layered Varied thrush

Dense shrub layer in the forest understory or 

forested openings MacGillivray’s warbler

Edges and openings created by wildfire Olive-sided flycatcher

Riparian 

Large snags in riparian woodland Lewis’ woodpecker

Riparian woodland canopy foliage and structure Red-eyed vireo

Riparian woodland understory foliage and 

structure Veery

Shrub density Willow/alder shrub patches Willow flycatcher

Unique (special) 

Habitats

Subalpine Forest Hermit thrush

Montane meadow Upland sandpiper

Steppe shrubland Vesper sparrow

Aspen Red-naped sapsucker

Alpine Gray-crowned rosy finch

Steppe-Shrubland 

Steppe-shrublands occur in a wide range of habitat types, including grassland, sagebrush, montane 

meadows, fallow fields, juniper-steppe, and dry open woodlands and openings in forested habitats 
160

(Altman 2000). Habitat criteria (objectives) for the steppe-shrubland habitat type include maintaining a 

mosaic of steppe and shrubland habitats with less than 10 percent tree cover. Associated bird species 

include vesper sparrow, lark sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and long-billed curlew.

There are about 3,000 acres of these habitat types. Grassy ridges in particular are abundant and scattered 

throughout the project area. 

Aspen 

One small aspen stand (.01 acre) is known in the proejct area. Bird species associated with aspen include 

the red-naped sapsucker, Williamson sapsucker, tree swallow, northern pygmy owl, western screech owl, 

and others. Aspen stands have declined throughout the Blue Mountains, due to a combination of factors 

including fire suppression, competition with invading shade-tolerant species, overgrazing (livestock and 

wild ungulates), and drought. 

Alpine

There is not alpine forest in the area. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS – MIGRATORY LANDBIRDS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alternative. The current condition of habitats for birds in the planning area 

would not change in the short term. 

Cumulative Effects of No Action

For the No Action alternative, the Thomas Creek project would not be authorizing any actions; therefore 

it would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present and reasonably forseeable future actions. 

Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no cumulative effects of the No 

Action Alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action alternatives 

The short term reduction of forest cover in regeneration harvest stands (350 acres) would reduce habitat 

for some birds, but it would also allow restoration of the stands to appropriate conditions. These units are 

interspersed throughout the project and most will be adjacent to other forest stands providing forest 

habitat. Units to be thinned will continue to provide forest cover to varying degrees. All large trees (> 21 

inches DBH) and snags (> 12 inches DBH) would be left in harvest units. This would reduce the extent of 

effects to many birds of concern. Hazard trees and snags may have to be removed but that is expected to 

be minor.

Landscape prescribed fire would occur in two areas, one is 1,350 and the other is 230 acres. Burning 

would not occur during the nesting season. The expected result would mimic historic patterns of fire 

disturbance, with a mosaic of burned and unburned grassland and slow creep through forested portions. 
161

Dry Forest Habitat

Dry forest habitats described above would not be affected by proposed harvest in alternatives B through 

D. Only 8 acres in the ponderosa pine cover type would be commercially thinned in Alternative E. This 

would create a small amount of habitat for species associated with single story old forest ponderosa pine. 

Landscape prescribed fire would affect about 100 acres of ponderosa pine cover type and would reduce 

encroaching grand fir in those stands. Single story pine habitat would likely increase due to burning and 

birds associated with this condition would benefit. 

Mesic Mixed Conifer Habitat

Silvicultural treatments would serve to increase diversity in moist forest by restoring overly dense young 

stands in old clear cuts to a more resilient state. Alternatives B through D would not affect old forest. 

Alternative E would move less than 200 acres of moist old forest multi story (OFMS) to old forest single

story (OFSS). While this would decrease OFMS in the short term, over the course of 50 years, total old 

forest multi-story acres (OFMS) is expected to continue increasing in the area (Silviculture Report). 

Therefore habitat for birds associated with this condition would remain abundant under all alternatives.

Riparian

Riparian shrub habitat would likely increase as a result of this project. All action alternatives would 

remove some pine from riparian areas, which would allow shrub habitat to further develop. Landscape 

prescribed burning would creep into riparian areas and also create more open areas where shrubs can 

receive light. Overstory canopy closure and large snags would be maintained.

Other Unique Habitats

Proposed burning in steppe shrubland habitats would serve to invigorate shrub sprouting and reduce 

stagnant conditions in grasslands on about 400 acres. Aspen, montane meadow, subalpine and alpine bird 

habitats would not be affected by proposed activities. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

The scale of analysis for cumulative effects to birds is the project area. Past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable activities in the area in combination with proposed projects would not cause cumulative 

effects to bird species. Past activities such as timber harvest is reflected in the existing condition. 

Ongoing sheep grazing, road maintenance, and recreational activity would not have a cumulative effect 

on birds of concern due to the limited duration, amount, intensity and location of these and proposed 

activities. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT– 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. 

A sensitive species is an animal or plant species identified by the Forest Service Regional Forester for 
162

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.

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 (Table 3.70).

Because there is no indication that they may occur in the project analysis area, peregrine falcon, and 

upland sandpiper will not be discussed further. Because there is no indication that they may occur in the 

project analysis area, the following invertebrate species will not be discussed further: Columbia clubtail, 

Yuma skipper, Intermountain sulphur, and Hell’s Canyon landsnail.

The species that are addressed in this section are: Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, Townsend’s bigeared bat, bald eagle, Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, Columbia spotted frog, Rocky 

Mountain tailed frog, fir pinwheel, and Johnson’s hairstreak. 

Table 3.70 Endangered, threatened and sensitive species and their potential to occur within the 

Thomas Creek project area.

Species Status Umatilla Forest

Thomas Creek

project area

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis

Threatened Documented Not Expected

Wolverine

Gulo gulo

Sensitive Suspected Possible

Gray wolf

Canis lupus

Sensitive Documented Documented

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

Sensitive Documented Possible

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Sensitive Documented Possible

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus

Sensitive Suspected Not expected

White-headed woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus

Sensitive Documented Possible

Lewis’ woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis

Sensitive Documented Possible

Upland sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda

Sensitive Suspected Not expected
163

Species Status Umatilla Forest

Thomas Creek

project area

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris

Sensitive Documented Possible

Rocky Mountain tailed frog

Ascaphus montanus

Sensitive Documented Possible

Fir pinwheel

Radiodiscus abietum

Sensitive Documented Possible

Johnson’s hairstreak

Callophrys johnsoni

Sensitive Suspected Possible

Columbia clubtail

Gomphus lynnae

Sensitive Suspected Not expected

Yuma skipper 

Ochlodes yuma

Sensitive Suspected Not expected

Intermountain sulphur

Colias christina pseudochristina

Sensitive Suspected Not expected

Hells canyon land snail

Cryptomastix populi

Sensitive Suspected Not expected

Canada lynx 

Historical records indicate that Canada lynx was present on the forest at one time, but currently the 

Umatilla Forest is considered unoccupied (USFS 2006). 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). Bobcats are frequently 

mistaken for lynx, especially in this area where large grayish bobcats are common. Lynx have never been 

verified on the Walla Walla Ranger District. 

Wolverine 

The current range of wolverines in the U.S. includes the North Cascades of Washington, the northern 

Rocky Mountains of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and eastern Oregon, the southern Rocky Mountains of 

Colorado and Wyoming, and the Sierra Nevada of California (USFWS 2013). 

The northern Rocky Mountains, including the eastern Oregon 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). The wolverine is an opportunistic scavenger, 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, etal. 2008). They are known to travel 18-24 

miles in a day in their daily hunt for food (Banci 1994). 

The nearest known area of confirmed wolverine activity is in the Wallowa Mountain Range, 
164

approximately 25 miles to the southeast. 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 etal. 

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 etal. 2013). 

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. 

Numerous anecdotal sightings have been reported on the forest over the years, although none of them 

could be verified. 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 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 

within 10 miles of the project area.

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 Endangered Species List (USFWS 2011, USFWS 2009). The 

state of Oregon currently manages the gray wolf as a state endangered species (ODFW 2010). 

The gray wolf is a habitat generalist inhabiting a variety of plant communities typically containing a mix 

of forested and open areas with a variety of topographic features. The project area provides abundant 

deer and elk, as well as other prey species for wolves year-round. A wolf pack known as the Mt. Emily 

pack utilizes areas in and around the Thomas Creek planning area. The Mt. Emily pack is not denning 

within the Thomas Creek project area this year (Russ Morgan, ODFW, pers. commun.) 

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

A known big-eared bat roost is present in a collection of old buildings about 6 miles outside of the project 

area.The big-eared bat is strongly associated with spacious cavern-like structures for roosting during all 

stages of its life cycle (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Typically, they use caves and mines, but have been 

noted roosting in attics and abandoned buildings, large hollows of redwood trees, in lava tubes and under 

bridges (Gruver and Keinath 2006). These sites are highly sensitive to disturbance and human 

interference. 

Individuals or small groups of bats may also 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). 

Therefore they are not expected to be present near the proposed activities.

Bald eagle 

Bald eagles may travel through the project area. They have been seen at both Langdon and Jubilee Lakes, 

but no roost or nest sites are known in the project area. The nearest documented nest is on the Grande 

Ronde River, but has not been used for several years. A small number of bald eagles winter along the 

lower Umatilla River, west of the project area.
165

White–headed woodpecker 

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. 

This species will also utilize insects that are gleaned off ponderosa pine trees. Large ponderosa pine 

snags are utilized for nesting purposes. No records of white-headed woodpeckers are known in the project 

area. A small amount of this type of habitat (90 acres) is found in the project area as scattered small 

stands. The majority of ponderosa pine stands are multi-stata.

In addition to evaluating white-headed woodpecker habitat in the project area, snag habitat is evaluated at 

the watershed scale in the Management Indicator Species, primary cavity excavator section of this 

chapter.

Lewis’ woodpecker 

Lewis’ woodpecker may occur, but there are no records for this part of the district. Lewis woodpeckers 

tend to use open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodland dominated by cottonwood, and burned 

pine forest (Tobalske 1997). Open ponderosa pine is scarce (90 scattered acres), and there is no burned 

pine forest. Cottonwood woodland is present along Phillips Creek and young cottonwood is establishing 

in some of the more recent clear cuts.

In addition to evaluating Lewis’ woodpecker habitat in the project area, snag habitat is evaluated at the 

watershed scale in the Management Indicator Species, primary cavity excavator section of this chapter.

Columbia spotted frog - Great Basin DPS 

Spotted frogs have not been observed in the project area but may be present. A spotted frog was noted in 

Spring Creek, downstream of the project area in 2013. The species has been found in streams, ponds, and 

marshy areas with abundant aquatic vegetation throughout the Umatilla Forest. Columbia spotted frogs 

are highly aquatic and rarely found far from permanent water, but they can also utilize intermittent 

streams and meadows in the spring. They seasonally move between hibernacula (overwintering sites), 

breeding habitat, and wet meadow or riparian foraging areas (Bull and Hayes 2002).

Rocky Mountain tailed frog 

Tailed frogs have not been observed in the project area but may be present. Tailed frogs inhabit cold, high 

gradient, boulder and cobble dominated streams for breeding. Streams with dense overstory shade are 

preferred. Froglets and adults are closely associated with the streams, often hiding in gravel and cobble 

substrates. Tadpoles cling to boulders and cobbles; full development of this species requires as many as 5 

years to complete. 

Fir pinwheel 

Fir pinwheel are snails typically found near perennial water in or near talus or under down logs. They 

tend to be outside of the floodplain, low on a slope or in a ravine. A fir pinwheel was recently found near 

the mouth of Thomas Creek, about 4 miles outside of the project area (Duncan and Huff 2009). 

Johnson’s hairstreak 

Johnson’s hairstreak is a butterfly that lives on dwarf mistletoe in the tree canopy. It is widely distributed 

in Oregon, but considered to be very localized and scarce with few “big” years. In western Oregon it is 
166

associated with grand fir dwarf mistletoe, which is not present here. In northeastern Oregon it has been 

found feeding on western dwarf mistletoe on ponderosa pine. The species has not been documented on 

the Umatilla forest.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS – THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE 

WILDLIFE AND INVERTEBRATE SPECIES 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A - No Action

Under NEPA, an effect is the result of taking an action. The No Action alternative in this analysis is 

defined as not taking any of the proposed actions. Therefore, under NEPA, there are no direct or indirect 

effects of the No Action Alterntative. 

The condition of habitats for listed and sensitive wildlife species would not change in the short term. In 

the long term habitat would not change other than through natural processes. Most sensitive species 

would be unaffected. Habitat for white-headed woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker would contintue to 

be scarce due to over growth of understory in dry stands. No negative effects are predicted for any 

sensitive species from taking no action.

Cumulative Effects of No Action

The No Action alternative would not be adding anything to the effects of past, present, and reasonably 

forseeable future actions. Based on the definition provided in the CEQ regulations, there would be no 

cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action alternatives 

Canada lynx 

Because the Umatilla Forest is considered unoccupied, there would be no effect to Canada lynx. If lynx 

are detected and confirmed in the area, protection measures would be implemented. 

North American 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 range loss due to climate 

warming (USFWS 2013). Since denning is not expected in the area, there would be no effects to 

reproduction.

As far as direct and indirect impacts to individuals, there is a chance that a wolverine could be present or 

pass through the Thomas Creek area, but the likelihood of that occurring during project activities is 

extremely small. Travel corridors would remain available and food such as small mammals and dead 

ungulates would remain available. Therefore the implementation of any alternative proposed in the 

Thomas Creek project would have no impact to North American wolverine.

Gray wolf 

The proposed activities would not change prey availability, and would not increase public access in the 
167

area. If a den or rendezvous site is identified prior to or during project activities, the Forest Service would 

consult with Oregon 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. With these factors in 

mind, the proposed activities in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would have no impact to gray wolf.

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

Proposed activities would not affect caves, buildings, or mine adits that attract big-eared bats. The known 

building roost on private land is over 7 air miles from proposed activities at a very low elevation (2000 

feet). This species is not expected to occur where tree cutting activities are proposed on the Thomas Creek 

project at a much higher elevation and forest type, and far from the known roost on private land. Since 

they are not expected to be present near the proposed activities, there would be no impact to big-eared bat.

Bald eagle 

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. 

White–headed woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker 

No timber harvest would occur in existing white-headed woodpecker or Lewis’ woodpecker reproductive 

habitat. Both species may forage in the analysis area but it is unlikely that they nest there. There are no 

large stands of open ponderosa pine with large trees. No large snags would be removed unless they are a 

hazard to workers. A very small amount of thinning and underburning in ponderosa pine would help 

move these stands towards suitable conditions for these species.

No existing nesting habitat would be affected and therefore no impacts to the population would be 

expected. Therefore there would be no impact to white-headed woodpecker or Lewis’ woodpecker. 

Columbia spotted frog - Great Basin DPS and Rocky Mountain tailed frog 

Tree thinning in RHCAs may impact spotted and tailed frogs, but would not likely cause a trend toward 

federal listing. Tree cutting in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCA) has been carefully designed to 

avoid adverse effects to fish and aquatic habitat. Hand treatment may affect areas 15 feet from the 

streams, but most work would occur farther from streams. 

Large woody debris placement is planned in Phillips Creek. Spotted and tailed frogs have not been 

observed in these specific areas, but could be present. If they are present during project work, adults can 

move away. Larvae are confined to the water and less mobile. In-stream project work would affect small 

areas and short amounts of time to place wood. Any effects would be limited in time and space and no 

measurable effects to frog populations are expected. 

Fir pinwheel

Proposed activities within riparian areas have been carefully designed to avoid adverse effects to 

fish and aquatic habitat, but tree cutting would be implemented in RHCAs. Although fir 

pinwheels are not documented in these areas, there is a slight chance they could be present. 
168

Generally they are protected by existing logs and rock. Because there is a small risk of effects, the 

project may impact fir pinwheel, but would not likely cause a loss of viability or a trend toward 

federal listing. 

Johnson’s hairstreak

Because there is little known about Johnsons’ hairstreak and its relationship to mistletoe in the Blue 

Mountains, it is assumed that most any timber removal could have an effect on the species. Western 

dwarf mistletoe has not been reported in the ponderosa pines in the analysis area, and Johnson’s 

hairstreak has also not been documented. The nearest record is on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. 

Because there is a very slight risk of effects, the project may impact Johnson’s hairstreak, but would not 

cause a loss of viability or trend toward federal listing. 

Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Cumulative effects are evaluated at the project scale. Ongoing and proposed activities include sheep 

grazing, road maintenance, firewood collection, and recreational activities. 

Sensitive species which may have direct or indirect effects from the Thomas Creek project include 

spotted frog, tailed frog, fir pinwheel, and Johnson’s hairstreak. 

No cumulative effects are expected for Johnsons’ hairstreak. Presence of Johnson’s hairstreak is doubtful 

in this area. Firewood cutting would not likely impact this species because it is believed to be associated 

with dwarf mistletoe in live ponderosa pine trees in eastern Oregon. Firewood cutting of live ponderosa 

pine is not allowed. Ongoing non-commerical thinning would also not affect Johnson’s hairstreak habitat. 

No other activities are ongoing or proposed in riparian areas that could affect tailed forg, spotted frog, and 

fir pinwheel. No cumulative effects for these species is expected. 

The following table lists the biological determinations for listed and sensitive species analyzed for this 

project (Table 3.71). 
169

Table 3.71 Summary of effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlife species. 

Species Status

Species Occurrence

and Habitat Suitablility

Alternative

A

Alternatives

B,C,D,E

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis Threatened Potential NE NE

California Wolverine 

Gulo gulo Sensitive Potential NI NI

Gray wolf

Canis lupus Sensitive Present NI NI

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii Sensitive Potential NI NI

Bald eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive Potential NI NI

Peregrine falcon 

Falco peregrinus Sensitive No Habitat NI NI

White-headed woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus Sensitive Potential NI NI

Lewis’ woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis Sensitive Potential NI NI

Upland sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda Sensitive No Habitat NI NI

Columbia spotted frog

Rana luteiventris Sensitive Present NI May 

Impact

Rocky Mountain tailed frog

Ascaphus montanus Sensitive Present NI May

Impact

Fir pinwheel

Radiodiscus abietum Sensitive Potential NI May 

Impact

Johnson’s hairstreak

Callophrys johnsoni Sensitive Potential NI May

Impact

Columbia clubtail

Gomphus lynnae Sensitive Suspected NI NI

Yuma skipper 

Ochlodes yuma Sensitive Suspected NI NI

Intermountain sulphur

Colias christina pseudochristina Sensitive Suspected NI NI

Hells canyon land snail

Cryptomastix populi Sensitive Suspected NI NI

NE = No effect on a proposed or listed species or critical habitat; NI =No Impact to R6 sensitive species individuals, populations, or their 

habitat; MI =May impact sensitive species, but will not cause a loss of viability or trend toward federal listing.
170

FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines, because they would meet 

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 Thomas Creek project area, based on the suitability and capability of 

the project area. 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 (see Compliance with Other Laws, Regulations and Policies section at the 

end of this Chapter).

RECREATION, VISUAL RESOURCES AND SCENERY

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Recreation Specialist Report 

located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, and 

technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS 

The scale of analysis for recreation and visual resources is the 15,800 acres Thomas Creek project area. 

Effects will be discussed in terms of dispersed and developed recreation, special use permits and 

activities, and visual resources.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation is defined as recreation that does not take place at a developed site, and includes 

hunting, hiking, dispersed camping, snowmobiling, or horseback riding. The Thomas Creek project area 

does not include any hiking trails. Forest Road 31 is a groomed snowmobile trail used during the 

“snowmobiling season” which generally runs from December 1 through April 30. Forest Road 31 is 

closed to wheeled vehicle use from December 1 through March 31 to support the use of Forest Road 31 as 

a groomed snowmobile trail. Forest Road 31 is groomed regularly throughout the snowmobile season to 

the Ruckel Junction Warming Shelter and is groomed as needed beyond that point as part of a larger scale 

snowmobile trail grooming operation across the district.

There are 26 inventoried dispersed campsites in the Thomas Creek project area. Dispersed campsites have 

generally been created by big game hunters and are primarily used during deer and elk archery and rifle 

hunting seasons from August through November. These campsites have been created by the recreating 

public with no Forest Service involvement. The sites do not have any amenities such as metal fire rings, 

picnic tables, or toilets that are normally associated with a developed campsite. Fire rings at dispersed 
171

sites, if present, are generally rock fire rings. The Forest Service provides no services at a dispersed 

campsite. 

Developed Recreation 

Developed recreation sites have constructed features intended to provide user convenience and/or to 

provide resource protection. Constructed features may include an established access road and defined 

parking, a fire ring usually made from steel or concrete, a picnic table, toilet facilities, interpretive 

signing, garbage removal, and water. 

There is one developed recreation site within the project area. The Ruckel Junction Warming Shelter is 

located in a large natural opening near the junction of Forest Service Roads 31 and 32. This site consists 

of a log shelter and a log vault toilet. The warming shelter is used by snowmobilers during the winter 

months, primarily from December 1 through March 31.

There are no trail heads or hiking trails in the planning area.

Special Use Permits 

Special use permits are authorizations to use National Forest System lands for certain types of activities 

ranging from large group gatherings to commercial activities such as outfitting and guiding or commercial 

filming to the installation of physical improvements on the landscape such as communication facilities, 

weather monitoring equipment, telephone lines, or power lines. Special use permits that authorize 

activities are generally short term in nature with activities taking place over a period of one day to several 

days, where an authorized improvement could be on the landscape for a few years to several decades.

There are no facilities authorized by special use permit within the planning area. The project area is 

located in the Mt. Emily Game Management Unit, and there can be expected to be 1 or 2 big game

outfitters, operating under special use permit within the Mt. Emily hunting unit during the archery and 

rifle deer and elk hunting seasons.

Visual Resource 

The visual resource is defined as the scenery as seen by a viewer from a given location, or a travel way 

like a road or trail. The current Forest Plan utilizes the Visual Quality Objective (VQO) system which 

rates visual quality objectives in 5 classes from “Preservation” to “Maximum Modification”. Forest Road 

31 is designated a Sensitivity Level 2 travel way and is designated as an A4 Management Strategy area in 

the Forest Plan. The goal in an A4 Management Strategy Area is to manage for a Partial Retention Visual 

Quality where human activity may dominate the characteristic landscape, but must, at the same time, 

follow naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when 

viewed in foreground or middle ground.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

This alternative would have no effect on dispersed campsites, the developed recreation facility at Ruckel

Junction, special uses, or visual quality within the project area. 
172

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives

Dispersed Recreation

There may be a short term effect on access to dispersed hunter camps within the project area while the 

project is being implemented if a hunter camp is immediately adjacent to ongoing harvest activity. 

Additionally if fuels treatments include the use of fire, since most burning is done late in the fall, when 

there is higher moisture, there could be a short term effect from smoke in a hunter camp. If a unit is being 

harvested during a big game hunting season harvest activity or burning in that unit may have a short term 

effect on hunting since the activity could spook big game from the immediate area. However, once 

activity has ceased it is likely that game would soon be back. In addition, extra vehicle traffic associated 

with harvest activity could affect recreation traffic on the 31 road and other, normally open, roads in the 

planning area

If timber harvest extends into the normal snowmobile season there would be a direct effect on 

snowmobile activity in the area. In this case the snowmobile trail on the 31 road may be restricted to a

narrow by-pass.

Harvesting timber in a unit will change the level of hiding cover for big game and could affect the 

huntability of a specific area.

Timber harvest may affect wind patterns, snow drift, and sun exposure patterns along Forest Road 31 and 

could change snowmobile riding conditions. This change could be beneficial or detrimental.

Timber harvest will likely result in additional down material on the ground that could be suitable for use 

by firewood gatherers.

Developed Recreation

This project is not expected to have a direct effect on condition of the Ruckel Junction Warming Shelter, 

or access to the shelter unless harvest operations extend into the normal snowmobile season. 

The Thomas Creek project is not expected to have any Indirect Effects on developed recreation in the 

project area.

Special Use Permits

There may be a direct effect from the Thomas Creek project on special use permitted activities, such as 

outfitting and guiding, if harvest is taking place during hunting season. Extra traffic associated with 

logging operations may add to the heavier traffic normally seen during hunting season and could affect 

outfitter and guide activities including their camp. Generally the direct effects for this Resource Indicator 

are considered to be the same as for Resource Indicator and Measure 1 – Dispersed Recreation.

The indirect effects for this indicator are expected to be the same as for Resource Indicator and Measure 1

– Dispersed Recreation.

Visual Resource- A4 Viewshed 2 Management Area

A direct effect of the Thomas Creek Project on the visual quality along FR 31 will be a change in the 

foreground scenery where plantations be thinned or, in the case of plantations planted with off-site pine, 

the plantations will begin to go through a rehabilitation process. The stands of off-site pine are quite 

noticeable and management activities will stand out. Current marking and layout guidelines will have the 
173

units sized and shaped to blend with the natural terrain. In addition, tree spacing will be variable with a 

range of size classes being retained. Scattered individual trees and clumps will be retained.

Since the planning area has natural openings as large as 50 acres along FR 31 visual corridor, removal of 

off-site pine to rehabilitate those plantations will blend in the natural openings in size and shape. 

Rehabilitation of those off-site pine plantations will cause a short term change in visual quality. The 

harvest units will still meet partial retention but there will be a noticeable change in the appearance of offsite pine stands as they are rehabilitated, but over the long term a stand more in keeping with the Historic 

Range of Variability and with more site-appropriate tree species diversity will be established. 

Alternative E proposes treatments in approximately 128 more acres of A4 and A5 (A4 and A5 are 

combined because both have a VQO of Partial Retention). However, the marking guidelines for 

Alternative E will be the same as for Alternatives B, C, & D and all treated units in the A4 and A5 

strategy areas will still meet the Partial Retention VQO which is the Forest Plan direction for visual 

quality for the A4 and A5 management strategies.

The indirect effects for this resource indicator would be a relatively short term reduction of visual quality 

associated with the rehabilitation of the off-site ponderosa pine stands. 

Cumulative Effects

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to developed and dispersed recreation and 

special uses, are the project area boundaries, because the effects to these resources will be limited to the 

project area and are not expected to have effects beyond the project area. The spatial boundary for visual 

quality includes the foreground area along F.R. 31 within the Thomas Creek project area.

The temporal boundaries are the life of the Thomas Creek Restoration Project for the Developed and 

Dispersed Recreation resources because, while there may be short term effects to individual dispersed 

campsites if the campsite is located in an active harvest unit, once the sale is complete there will be no 

further effect on the use the dispersed campsite. Access to the developed recreation facility at Ruckel

Junction, and general access to the project area by hunters, outfitters and guides engaged in guiding 

hunters, or the recreating public in general may experience a short term effect while there is active 

logging, or when slash burning is taking place, however once the project work is complete those activities 

should no longer be effected.

The temporal boundary for effects to visual resources has a short term and a long term time frame. The 

short term timeframe is 5 years after completion of harvest activities. This timeframe has been chosen 

allow for completion of fuels treatment and reforestation activities. The long term temporal boundary is 

20-years after the completion of all reforestation activities for the Thomas Creek Project. This time frame 

has been added to allow for reforested areas to get established. 

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, & D

The cumulative effects are the same as described for direct and indirect effects of Alternatives B, C, & D, 

on the resource indicators.
174

Cumulative Effects Unique to Alternative E

As a result of more acres in management areas A4 and A5 being treated in Alternative E, there is a 

change in the direct effect and cumulative effect for this alternative. The difference is in Alternative E 128

more acres of A4 and A5 (A4 and A5 are combined because both have a VQO of Partial Retention) 

treated in Alternative E. However, the marking guidelines for Alternative E will be the same as for 

Alternatives B, C, & D and all treated units in the A4 and A5 strategy areas will still meet the Partial 

Retention VQO which is the Forest Plan direction for visual quality for the A4 and A5 management 

strategies.

CONSISTENCY FINDING

All proposed action alternatives are in compliance with Forest Plan direction for recreation and visual 

resources.

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Report on Wilderness,

Inventoried Roadless Areas, Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, and Other Undeveloped Lands

located in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, and 

technical documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

Appendix E contains the results of the inventory of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics and maps 

documenting that process.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS

The scale of this analysis includes all acres contained within the Thomas Creek project area (15,773 

acres) and adjacent Forest Service and other federal lands, as appropriate, sufficient to consider and 

identify affected lands with wilderness characteristics. The analysis area is approximately 52,760 acres. 

The scale of analysis is appropriate because it considers all lands within and adjacent to and outside the 

Thomas Creek project that are bounded by non-conforming features such as roads, past harvest activity 

and private land as defined in FSH 71.22a&b. (Appendix E, Maps 2 through 3).

The identification of lands with wilderness characteristics process 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. 

Each map (Appendix E, maps 1 and 1a, 2 and 2a, 3 and 3a, 4 and 4a, and 5 and 5a) documents the 

application and outcome of specific criteria. Criteria were applied in a different order than appears in 

Chapter 71 but all criteria were considered and accounted for as described below.

Examples of typical situations that required applications of professional judgment included, but are not 

limited to:
175

1. Determining whether other improvements or evidence of past human activities are 

substantially noticeable or are not substantially noticeable in the area as a whole (71.22b).

2. Extending placement of boundaries to the edges of development for purposes of inclusion in 

the analysis (71.22b (10).

3. Whether to extend the edge of development around, across, or between a series of adjacent 

semi-permanent human-made features. For example:

a) Whether to include lands through an isthmus (or pinch point) created between two 

roads or through isthmus’s between a series of two or more substantially noticeable 

timber harvest units or place the edge of development boundary across one or all the 

isthmuses.

b) Whether to locate a boundary around a peninsula of land between two maintenance 

level 3 roads or place the edge of development boundary through a logical pinch 

point in a peninsula. 

Resource Indicators and Measures

The measures used to compare between alternatives for lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC) are:

• Intrinsic biophysical values (soils, water, fisheries, plants, wildlife)

• Intrinsic social values (recreation, apparent naturalness, remoteness, scenic quality, cultural 

resources)

• Other locally identified unique characteristics

• Change in acres of lands with wilderness characteristics 

• How do the changes in acres impact a future wilderness evaluation in Forest Plan revision in 

terms of:

o Value of acres affected;

o Magnitude or amount of change;

o Geographic extent of change;

o Duration of effects.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The table below is a summary of all acres evaluated for lands with wilderness characteristics within the 

Thomas Creek LWC analysis area. Information summarized in this table can be found in Appendix E, 

Tables E-1, E-2 and E-3. Maps 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 4, 4a, 5 and 5a are a visual representation of this 

analysis process and are included in Appendix E. 

Table 3.72 Summary of lands with wilderness characteristics analysis area.

Map Description

Approximate Acres within

Thomas Creek LWC 

Analysis Area

Map 1. Total acres considered within analysis area*. 52,760

Map 2. Acres of non-conforming ‘other improvements’ excluded 

consistent with 71.22b (1-12). e.g. Acres of substantially noticeable timber 

16,907
176

Based on local knowledge, field information, and interpretation of digital imagery, approximately 26,757 

acres, contained in three separate polygons, were identified within the analysis area as lands with 

wilderness characteristics (Appendix E, Map 5).One of the three polygons, polygon 464 (20 acres) is 

located entirely outside the project area and is not affected by the proposed project. No further analysis of 

polygon 464 is needed. 

Portions of the other two LWC polygons, totaling 507 acres, extend into the project area and are 

discussed individually below:

Polygon 465 (306 acres): Approximately 101 acres of polygon 465 (33%) extend into the northwest 

corner of the project area in a narrow lobe. 

Polygon 506 (26,431 acres): Polygon 506 substantially overlaps the Hellhole Inventoried Roadless Area 

which is located to the north and east of the project area. About 406 acres (0.015%) extend into the very 

western edge of the project area in long narrow lobes and fingers (see Appendix E, Map 5).

Table 3.73 below is a summary of the lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC) located within the 

Thomas Creek project area.

Table 3.73 Summary of LWC in the Thomas Creek project area.

Polygons of LWC located 

within the LWC analysis area

LWC acres within the 

LWC analysis area

LWC acres located 

within the project area

LWC Polygon 464 20 0

LWC Polygon 465 306 101

LWC Polygon 506 26,431 406

Total 26,757 507

harvest and prior road construction (3), developed campgrounds (7) etc.

Map 3. Acres of non-conforming ‘road improvements’ excluded 

consistent with 71.22a (2a, b, c1-4). E.g. roads maintained to level 2, 3, 4, 

or 5.

1,212**

Map 4. Acres of land remaining to consider and compare to size criteria at 

71.21. 35,441***

Map 5. Acres of land identified with wilderness characteristics consistent 

with all criteria in Chapter 70, section 71. 26,757

Map 5. Acres of other undeveloped lands that did not meet criteria at FSH 

1909.12 Chapter 70, section 71. 8,684***

* This includes all acres contained within the 15,773 acre Thomas Creek project area and other adjacent USFS and federal lands, as 

appropriate, sufficient to consider and identify affected lands with wilderness characteristics.

** Some of these acres may overlap with acres of substantially noticeable harvest. 

*** This number does not include polygons less than one acre in size.
177

The 507 acres of LWC within the project area can be described as having certain intrinsic values in their 

existing condition. In general soils, water, fish, wildlife habitat, and vegetation have not been directly 

impacted by past timber harvest, road building, and other non-conforming activities.

Soils in vegetated areas that have not been previously impacted by activities described above are 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 LWC, have been indirectly 

impacted by past harvest, roads, etc., resulting in sedimentation, lack of large woody debris, and increased 

water temperature.

Most of the forested acres in the project area are considered moist forest (see Forested Vegetation and 

Wildlife Reports, project file), with old forest stands occurring in about a third of the project area. These 

areas are primarily Grand fir cover type, with smaller components of Douglas fir and Ponderosa Pine. 

These forested areas provide habitat for associated wildlife species, including connectivity corridors, 

snags, and downed wood habitat. 

Within the project area, approximately 229 acres of LWC are non-forested ridgetops, meadows, or other 

openings not dominated by forested vegetation. In the non-vegetated areas, the soil type is naturally less 

productive that soils found in vegetated areas (see Soils Report, project file). Various types of wildlife 

utilize these openings. The existing condition of wildlife habitat in these non-forested areas has not been 

directly affected by timber harvest or road building (see Wildlife Report, project file).

Recreation in LWC within the project area provides recreation opportunities that are similar to those 

which occur throughout the rest of project area. Dispersed camping, hunting, and hiking likely occur, 

though there are no designated hiking trails. These activities occur within closer proximity to evidence of 

past harvest, roads, and other non-conforming characteristics. 

No other unique characteristics were identified within LWC within the Thomas Creek project area.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

All 507 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics would remain as described in the Affected 

Environment section. These areas would continue to appear predominantly natural. Scenic integrity 

within these areas would remain high. 

Cumulative Effects

For the No Action alternative, the Thomas Creek 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 there would be no cumulative effects for the No 

Action Alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Table 3.73 displays the treatments proposed within lands with wilderness characteristics (LWC) by 

alternative that would affect the amount of LWC that would remain after implementation. Evidence of 

activity would be apparent to varying degrees in treatment areas. The natural appearance of the landscape 
178

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. The stands would likely be opened to the point that the 

skyline of the forest canopy appears highly manipulated to the casual observer. 

Reopening of closed roads and temporary road construction would expose soil and remove shrub and tree 

cover, making them more noticeable as well. Less than one mile of closed roads would be re-opened, and 

less than one tenth of a mile of temporary road construction would occur in LWC. Closed roads would be 

returned to their closed (ML 1) status after implementation and would continue to meet LWC criteria. 

Temporary roads would be obliterated after use and would continue to meet LWC criteria.

Within the project area, the sense of remoteness, opportunities for solitude, and primitive recreation 

would be reduced as the sights and sounds of management would intrude. 

Scenic integrity of portions of these LWC polygons would be reduced where heavy concentrations of 

activities occur. This would last for several decades until soils are revegetated, stumps substantially 

deteriorate, and tree regrowth blends with the remaining forest. 

Overall, tree cutting activities would affect between seven and 43 acres of LWC, depending on the 

alternative (see Table 3.74). These acres would no longer meet LWC inventory criteria because timber 

harvest and creation of stumps would make them appear developed. The resulting effect would be a 

reduction of up to 8% to the portions of the two LWC polygons within the projects area, and an overall 

reduction of 0.2% to the two LWC in their entirety (See Table 3.74).

Prescribed fire activities would result in short term effects including the sight and smell of smoke and the 

sight of burned vegetation. These effects to not meet the non-conforming activities described in section 

71. Therefore, there would be no reduction in LWC due to prescribed fire activities.

Effects to soils, water, fish and wildlife are described in detail in individual specialist reports in the 

project file and other respective sections of Chapter 3 of this EA.

Table 3.74 Activities proposed in Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the Thomas Creek 

project area by alternative.

Alternative

Acres of Tree 

Cutting 

Activities in 

Polygon 465

Percent of 

polygon 

465 

affected 

within the 

project 

area

Percent 

of the 

entire 

polygon 

465 

affected

Acres of 

Tree 

Cutting 

Activities 

in 

Polygon 

506

Percent of 

polygon 

506 

affected 

within the 

project 

area

Percent 

of the 

entire

polygon 

506 

affected

Total acres of 

LWC affected

A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 0 7 2 0 7

C 0 0 0 43 11 0.2 43

D 0 0 0 7 2 0.03 7

E 20 20 7 22 5 0.08 25
179

In summary, selecting any of the action alternatives would not preclude consideration of any polygons of

LWC in a future wilderness decision associated with a Forest Plan revision because the polygons of LWC 

would remain large enough to be considered, even after the effects of implementation have been realized.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects geographic boundary is the extent of the lands with wilderness characteristics (507 

acres) identified within project area. This boundary is appropriate because the types of direct/indirect 

effects expected to occur as a result of the Thomas Creek project (intrinsic physical and biological 

resources and intrinsic social values) are not expected to interact with any similar effects from past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that might occur elsewhere outside of the project area.

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Thomas 

Creek project activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only occur during this projects implementation. 

For LWC in which project activities would occur the 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 are disclosed in previous sections of this chapter and are not 

reiterated here. 

Within the project area, the apparent naturalness, solitude and remoteness of LWC (507 acres) would be 

cumulatively impacted by ongoing grazing, dispersed camping, and motorized ATV and vehicle use on 

roads. Effects associated with recreational use, including noxious weed spread, hunting, fishing, erosion, 

litter, and evidence of fire rings, are expected to remain cumulatively minor. Overall, cumulative impacts 

from these activities on apparent naturalness, solitude and remoteness are not measurable. 

On the remaining acres of LWC outside the project area (26,250 acres largely within Hellhole IRA) there 

would be no cumulative effects associated with the Thomas Creek project. Non-motorized recreation 

would continue to occur in the LWC within the IRA. MotorizEd recreation as described above would 

continue to occur on the portions of LWC that are outside the IRA and on the LWC that is contiguous to 

the NF Umatilla Wilderness. No other known activities would occur. 

Therefore, selecting any of these action alternatives would not preclude consideration of any polygons of 

LWC in a future wilderness decision associated with a Forest Plan revision because the polygons of LWC 

would remain large enough to be considered, even after the cumulative effects are considered.
180

OTHER UNDEVELOPED LANDS

An outcome of the lands with wilderness characteristics analysis process was the identification of 

polygons of other undeveloped lands (see Appendix E, Table E-2). These polygons did not meet criteria 

as lands with wilderness characteristics and they are not inventoried roadless areas or designated 

wilderness areas. Each individual polygon of land has no substantially noticeable harvest activity and 

does not contain maintenance level 2, 3, 4, or 5 forest roads. They are stand-alone polygons of varying 

acreages all less than 4,999 acres within the analysis area. All polygons less than one acre (227 polygons 

totaling approximately 50 acres) were dropped from detailed study because individual polygons this small 

could easily result from mapping error and they are too small to be meaningful. Detailed information 

regarding the methodology used for the Thomas Creek project analysis, along with maps and tables is 

located in Appendix E of this document. 

There are no forest-wide or management area standards specific to other undeveloped lands in the 

Umatilla Forest Plan. All lands, including other undeveloped lands, are managed consistent with forestwide standards and guidelines and by designated Forest Plan management area allocations. 

SCALE OF ANALYSIS

The scale of this analysis includes all acres contained within the Thomas Creek project area (15,773 

acres) and adjacent Forest Service and other federal lands, as appropriate, sufficient to consider and 

identify affected lands with wilderness characteristics. The analysis area is approximately 52,760 acres. 

The scale of analysis is appropriate because it considers all lands within and adjacent to and outside the 

Thomas Creek project that are bounded by non-conforming features such as roads, past harvest activity 

and private land as defined in FSH 71.22a&b. (Appendix E, maps 2-3).

Other undeveloped lands have intrinsic ecological and social values because they do not contain history 

of management or the past harvest is no longer substantially noticeable and the lands do not contain forest 

roads maintained to levels 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

Resource Indicators and Measures

The following values are used as indicators of comparison to display effects among alternatives on other 

undeveloped lands: 

• Change in acres of other undeveloped lands

• Locally identified unique characteristics

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The affected environment is the 4,379 acres of other undeveloped lands that are within the 15,773 acre 

project area. These acres are identified as isolated polygons that are at least one acre in size. 

Individual polygons of other undeveloped lands less than an acre were eliminated from further study 

because they are too small to be meaningful. 

Table 3.75 displays the number, size class, and approximate acres of other undeveloped lands represented 

(see Appendix E maps). The residual shape of each undeveloped polygon is the result of boundaries 

created by substantially noticeable past management activities and maintenance level 2, 3, 4, or 5 roads. 
181

Table 3.75 Size class and acres of other undeveloped lands in the Thomas Creek project area.

Number of 

polygons in the 

analysis area Size Class

Approximate 

acres in the 

analysis area

Number of 

polygons in the 

project area

Approximate 

acres in the 

project area

218 1 to 10 acres 741 168 581

51 11 to 100 acres 1,468 42 1,109

6 101 to 1,000 acres 1,714 4 655

1 1,000 to 4,999 acres 4,761* 1 2,033

276 Total 8,684 213 4,329

*polygon extends beyond the project area

The largest polygon of other undeveloped lands (polygon number 488) is approximately 4,761 acres and 

is located on the eastern side of the project area extending towards Highway 204 (see Appendix E, map 

4). The shape of the polygon is long, narrow and irregular. It encompasses forested and non-forested 

ridgetops, and stringers of riparian areas located between past harvest units. There are numerous areas of 

non-conforming past harvest scattered throughout the polygon. Because of these characteristics, the 

polygon does not meet the size criteria in Chapter 71.21 (2). 

The majority of the 4,379 acres of other undeveloped lands within the project area are allocated to Forest 

Plan management areas C4-Wildlife Habitat and E2-Timber and Big Game (see Table 3.75 below). Any 

areas with unique ecological values within the Thomas Creek project area are currently maintained for 

those values with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for management area allocations. 

Table 3.76 Other undeveloped lands within the project area by Forest Plan Management Area.

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 2 372 8

A5- Roaded Natural 36 0.08

A9-Special Interest Area 3 0.07

C1-Dedicated Old Growth 19 0.4

C3- Big Game Winter Range 590 13

C4-Wildlife Habitat 1473 34

C5-Riparian (Fish and 

Wildlife) 219 5

E2-Timber and Big Game 1,666 38

Total 4,379 100%
182

The 4,379 acres of other undeveloped lands have not been directly impacted by past timber harvest, road 

building, and other non-conforming activities.

Soils in vegetated area that have not been previously impacted by activities described above are 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 impacted by past harvest, roads, etc., resulting in sedimentation, lack of large woody debris, 

and increased water temperature.

Most of the forested acres are classified as moist forest (see Wildlife Report, project file), with old forest 

stands occurring in about a third of the project area. These areas are primarily Grand fir cover type, with 

smaller components of Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine. These forested areas provide habitat for 

associated wildlife species, including connectivity corridors, snags, and downed wood habitat. 

Approximately 2,471 acres of other undeveloped lands are non-forested ridgetops, meadows, or other 

openings not dominated by forested vegetation. In the non-forested areas, the soil type is naturally less 

productive that soils found in vegetated areas (see Soils Report, project file). Various types of wildlife 

utilize these openings. The existing condition of wildlife habitat in these non-forested areas has not been 

affected by timber harvest or road building (see Wildlife Report, project file).

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, and hiking 

likely occur, though there are no designated hiking trails. These activities occur within closer proximity to 

evidence of past harvest, roads, and other non-conforming characteristics. 

Polygons of other undeveloped lands are mostly small (less than 100 acres in size) and are very dissected 

and scattered throughout the analysis area. Opportunities for a feeling of remoteness are limited by the 

size and shape of polygons. Distance and topographic screening are also factors in creating such 

opportunities. Nearby, non-conforming sights and sounds of roads and timber harvest can be heard and 

often seen from within the other undeveloped lands. 

Scenic integrity 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 Thomas Creek 

analysis area have been identified by project resource specialists.

The existing condition of all remaining 10,877 acres of land within the Thomas Creek project area that are 

not lands with wilderness characteristics or other undeveloped lands present a landscape that has been 

managed and is generally developed in nature. These lands contain evidence of non-conforming past 

harvest and maintenance level 2 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.
183

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

There would be no direct effects to other undeveloped lands because no activities would occur in these 

areas. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural processes and ongoing 

management activities (see description of affected environment for a full list of resources considered). 

Biological and ecosystem functions would continue. 

Cumulative Effects

For the No Action alternative, the Thomas Creek 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 there would be no cumulative effects for the No 

Action Alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Table 3.76 displays the treatments proposed within other 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. The stands would likely be opened to the point that the skyline of the forest 

canopy appears highly manipulated to the casual observer. Overall, tree cutting activities would reduce 

other undeveloped lands within the project area by between 141 acres (3%) and 226 acres (5%) depending 

on the alternative (see Table 3.77 and 3.78). 

Reopening of closed roads and temporary road construction would expose soil and remove shrub and tree 

cover, making them more noticeable as well. Approximately 1.3 miles of closed roads would be reopened, and 0.14 miles of temporary road construction would occur in other undeveloped lands (see 

Table 3.76). Closed roads would be returned to their closed (ML 1) status after implementation and would 

continue to be considered other undeveloped lands. Temporary roads would be completely obliterated 

after use and would continue to be considered other undeveloped lands.

Prescribed fire activities would result in short term effects including the sight and smell of smoke and the 

sight of burned vegetation. These effects to not meet the non-conforming activities described in FSH 

1909.12 Chapter 70, section 71. Therefore, there would be no reduction in other undeveloped lands due 

to prescribed fire activities.

Within the project area, the sense of remoteness, opportunities for solitude, and primitive recreation on 

other undeveloped lands would be reduced as the sights and sounds of management would intrude. 

Scenic integrity in portions of other undeveloped polygons would be reduced where heavy concentrations

of activities occur nearby. This would last for several decades until soils are revegetated, stumps 

substantially deteriorate, and tree regrowth blends with the remaining forest. 

Effects to soils, water, fish and wildlife are described in detail in individual specialist reports in the 

project file and respective sections in Chapter 3 of this EA.
184

Table 3.77 Activities proposed in other undeveloped lands in the Thomas Creek project area.

Activity Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Tree cutting activities 165 acres 183 acres 141 acres 226 acres

Closed roads re-opened 1.34 miles 1.34 miles 1.34 miles 1.34 miles

Temporary road constructed 0.14 miles 0.14 miles 0 miles 0.14 miles

Prescribed fire 702 acres 702 acres 702 acres 702 acres

Other undeveloped lands with no proposed treatments would remain the same as described in the affected 

environment. Other undeveloped lands within the project area would still not be considered lands with 

wilderness characteristics, roadless areas, inventoried roadless areas, or a designated wilderness area. 

Table 3.78 summarizes the changes in acres for other undeveloped lands by alternative.

Table 3.78 Other undeveloped lands in Thomas Creek 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

A 4,379 0 / (0%) 4,379

B 4,379 165/ (4%) 4,214

C 4,379 183/ (4%) 4,196

D 4,379 141/3%) 4,238

E 4,379 226/ (5%) 4,153

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects geographic boundary is the Thomas Creek project area (15,773 acres). This 

boundary is appropriate because the types of direct/indirect effects expected to occur as a result of the 

Thomas Creek project (intrinsic physical and biological resources and intrinsic social values) are not 

expected to interact with any similar effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

that might occur elsewhere outside of the project area.

The temporal boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is 10 years. This timeframe is appropriate, 

because the effects to a sense of solitude and remoteness would be limited to the times when Thomas 

Creek project activities would be occurring since the sights, smells and sounds of mechanical activities 

would only be noticeable during project implementation. 

For other undeveloped lands in which project activities would occur the 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 are disclosed in previous sections of this 

chapter and are not reiterated here. 
185

Apparent naturalness and solitude and remoteness would be cumulatively impacted by grazing, dispersed 

camping, and motorized ATV and vehicle use on roads. Effects associated with recreational use, 

including noxious weed spread, hunting, fishing, erosion, litter, and evidence of fire rings, are expected to 

remain cumulatively minor. Overall, cumulative impacts from these activities on apparent naturalness, 

solitude and remoteness are very small (not measurable/indistinguishable). 

For the action alternatives, there would be no additional reduction in the amount of other undeveloped 

lands in the analysis area as a result of cumulative effects.

CONSISTENCY FINDING

Activities proposed in the Thomas Creek project area are consistent with the intent of the land allocation 

decisions made in the Forest Plan.

ECONOMICS

This section incorporates by references the Thomas Creek Restoration Project Economics Report, located 

in the project file. This report contains the data, methodologies, analysis, maps, reference, and technical 

documentation that the specialist relied on to reach the conclusions discussed in this section.

SCALE OF ANALYSIS

The scale of analysis for economics is the 15,800 acre project area.

EFFECTS

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative A- No Action

Under the No-Action Alternative, no harvest, pre-commercial thinning or fuel reduction activities would 

occur. Except for the planning costs to the Forest Service, Alternative A would incur no costs and 

produce no revenues.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Proposed ground-based units return relatively high rates of return for all alternatives although value is 

higher for Alternative E because of additional units proposed for harvest. Proposed skyline cable units 

are less cost effective. If volume/acre is low, purchaser cost increases, revenues decrease, and salability to 

potential purchasers decreases. Positive stumpage values indicated an economically viable timber sale 
186

project. Negative Net Present Values indicate a need for supplemental funding to accomplish proposed 

additional project activities.

Table 3.79 Comparison of action alternatives.

Commercial timber harvest may impact local economies by creating/retaining jobs both directly and 

indirectly related to harvest and manufacture of timber products, by contributing to personal income of 

forest workers, and by contributing to state tax revenue. Research shows that approximately 10.88 forest 

sector jobs are created or retained for every 1 MMBF of timber harvested. The average wage rate of 

forest workers in the Western U.S. is estimated at $19.30 per hour (Rasmussen et al. 2012). The Oregon 

Department of Revenue indicates the Oregon State income tax rate for an individual making 

approximately $40,000.00 per year is 9%.

Table 3.80 Effects on local economies.

Action Alternatives Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Harvest Revenue $1,678,688 $1,649,472 $1,359,392 $2,118,582

Harvest Cost ($1,246,356) ($1,220,238) ($1,015,278) ($1,531,950)

Stumpage $432,332 $429,234 $344,114 $586,578

Required 

Reforestation ($292,864) ($288,036) ($246,302) ($316,820)

Addition Project 

Activities ($603,492) ($608,042) ($571,307) ($624,277)

Net Present Value* -$313,849 -$290,986 -$286,712 -$182,436

*Net Present Value was obtained using the Region 6 approved R6_TEAEcon worksheet.

Action Alternatives Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

# Jobs Created/Maintained 

(Total) 63 62 51 80

Personal Income (per year) $2,551,154.41 $2,520,580.74 2,066,343.35 3,237,751.70

Estimated State Tax 

Revenue (per year) 229,603.90 226,852.27 185,970.90 291,397.65
187

OTHER RESOURCES ANALYZED

CLIMATE CHANGE

This proposed action would affect approximately 1,276 acres of forest by commercial timber harvest. 

This scope and degree of change resulting from this timber harvest would be minor relative to the amount 

of forested land being affected on the Umatilla National Forest as a whole. A project of this size would 

have such minimal contributions of greenhouse gasses that its impact on global climate change at the 

global scale, the proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate 

change would be negligible. Because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the proposed 

action’s contribution to cumulative effects on greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be 

negligible. 

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the top three anthropogenic (humancaused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (from 1970-2004) are: fossil fuel combustion (56.6% of 

global total), deforestation (17.3%), and agriculture/waste/energy (14.3%). IPCC subdivides the 

deforestation category into land use conversions, and large scale deforestation. Deforestation is defined 

as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and grassland into agricultural land or 

developed landscapes (IPCC 2000). The Thomas Creek Restoration Project does not fall within any of 

these main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Forested land will not be converted into a 

developed or agricultural condition. In fact, forest stands are being retained and thinned to maintain a 

vigorous forested condition that can continue to support trees and sequester carbon long-term.

This project is also consistent with IPCC recommendations for land use to help mitigate climate change. 

The 2007 IPCC report summarizes sector-specific key mitigation "technologies". For the forestry sector, 

the report recommends forest management including management to "improve tree species" and increase 

biomass. The proposed action is consistent with these recommendations because the action alternatives 

would increase forest resiliency by moving forested vegetation towards its range of variation (see 

Forested Vegetation, Chapter 3).

Timber management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in three main ways: (1) by 

increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding their damage or destruction (avoided 

deforestation), and (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed forests). Land-use changes, 

specifically deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global scale in forests’ role as 

sources or sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

2000). Projects that create forests or improve forest conditions and capacity to grow trees are positive 

factors in carbon sequestration. The proposed action falls into this category.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Thomas Creek project area has been surveyed for the presence of archaeological and historic 

properties. Cultural resources were inventoried and sites for avoidance would be protected by design 

criteria listed in Chapter 2, Table 2.11. Cultural resources surveys completed for the Thomas Creek 

project are compliant with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (see Compliance with 

Other Laws, Regulations, and Policies section).
188

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

This section describes how the action alternatives comply with applicable State and Federal laws, 

regulations, and policies.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT 

The purpose of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 is to protect irreplaceable 

archaeological resources of federal and Indian lands. This act provides more effective law enforcement to 

protect public archaeological sites over laws previously established by the Antiquities Act.

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

State Historic Preservation Office consultation will be completed prior to the signing of a Final Decision 

Notice for the Thomas Creek project 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 the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Cultural Resource 

Management on National Forests in the State of Oregon, dated March 10, 1995. 

Identified sites will be protected from all project activities associated with the Thomas Creek project. 

Should additional sites be found during ground disturbing activities, contract provisions would provide 

protection and the zone Archaeologist would be immediately notified. 

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). Biological 

Evaluations for Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive plant, wildlife, and fish species have been 

completed. Determinations were made that none of the proposed projects would adversely affect, 

contribute to a trend toward Federal listing, nor cause a loss of viability to the listed plant and animal 

populations or 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 Canada lynx is not 

necessary since a determination has been made that the proposed activities would have no effect to this 

species. 

Details regarding the actual species found within the Thomas Creek project area and the potential effects 

of proposed activities on those species and their habitat are contained under the Wildlife, Fisheries, and 

Botany sections: Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species sections of this EA.
189

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS, WILDERNESS, AND WILD AND SCENIC 

RIVERS

No Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) lie within the Thomas Creek project area. There is no wilderness 

within the project area. There are no wild and scenic rivers within the project area. The Thomas Creek 

project is consistent with all laws and policies regarding IRAs, designated wilderness areas, and wild and 

scenic rivers. See Lands with Wilderness Characteristics and Other Undeveloped Lands Specialist Report 

in the project file for further information on how IRAs and designated wilderness were considered in the 

context of the Thomas Creek project. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

This section incorporates by reference the Thomas Creek project Hydrology Report contained in the 

project file. Past roads, timber management, and grazing activities have been identified as contributing to 

non-point sources of pollution in the Thomas Creek project area. The strategy to protect water from nonpoint source pollution includes implementation of Best Management Practices, Project Design Criteria, 

and monitoring for detection and validation of water quality concerns. The Forest Plan (4-77) states that 

the Forest would implement Best Management Practices to meet water quality standards. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are steps taken in project planning as well as on-the-ground 

mitigations which protect water quality. The actions proposed for this project were designed during 

planning to protect water quality. Actions in riparian areas have site-specific mitigations to insure that 

water quality is not compromised. 

Project design criteria (see Chapter 2, Table 2.5) are practices that the interdisciplinary team developed 

during this analysis to address site-specific environmental concerns that may not be sufficiently addressed 

by existing management requirements. 

Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires the states to list the streams whose use is impaired because 

they do not meet water quality standards. The water quality standard that may be affected by thinning 

and mechanical fuels treatments, road building, and prescribed burning is stream temperature because of 

potential for reduced shade in riparian areas. 

By implementing any of the action alternatives including best management practices, project design 

criteria, and continued monitoring the Thomas Creek project would be in compliance with the Clean 

Water Act and the Forest Plan.

CLEAN AIR ACT

This section incorporates by reference the Thomas Creek Fire and Fuels Report contained in the project 

record. Methodologies, assumptions, and limitations of analysis and other details are contained in the 

report and the affected environment and predicted effects of the proposed action and its alternatives are 

discussed in this section.

All prescribed burning operations within the project would comply with the State of Oregon's Smoke 

Management Implementation Plan, and would be implemented within guidelines of the Smoke 

Management Program. Therefore, this project would comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
190

and be conducted in accordance with the operational guidelines agreed to by the Forest Service and the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13186: NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRDS

This section incorporates by reference the Thomas Creek project Wildlife Report and Biological 

Evaluation contained in the project record. 

The Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan is used to address the requirements contained in Executive 

Order (EO) 13186 (January 10, 2001), Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

Under Section 3(E) (6), through the National Environmental Policy Act, the EO requires that agencies 

evaluate the effects of proposed actions on migratory birds, especially species of concern. 

Activities under all action alternatives would be designed using the Partners in Flight Conservation Plan 

and Conservation Strategy for Landbirds (Altman 2000), and therefore would be consistent with 

Executive Order 13186. See the Migratory Landbirds section (Wildlife section, Chapter 3 of this EA) for 

further discussion of effects on Neotropical migratory birds.

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

All action alternatives are consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird 

Executive Order 13186. The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds (Altman 2000) was utilized to 

determin effects to focal bird species. Design features such as retention of adequate snags and down logs, 

retention of large trees, and restoration 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

Action alternatives meet the intent of this order by maintaining and improving elk habitat.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11988 AND 11990: FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS

This section incorporates by reference the Thomas Creek Hydrology Report contained in the project 

record. 

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 

Thomas Creek project is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to occupy or modify any 

floodplain. 
191

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 Thomas 

Creek project is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to destroy or modify any wetland. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies adopt strategies to address environmental justice 

concerns within the context of agency operations. With implementation of the proposed action or any of 

its alternatives there would be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income populations. The actions would occur in a remote area and nearby 

communities would mainly be affected by economic impacts as related to contractors implementing 

harvest, thinning, planting, fuels treatment, and burning activities. Racial and cultural minority groups 

could also be prevalent in the work forces that implement planting, prescribed fire or thinning activities. 

Contracts contain clauses that address worker safety.

NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA: 16 U.S.C.1604), 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” (16 U.S.C. 1604 (E) 

(ii)). The Forest Plan also includes this standard (see Forest Plan (FP), p. 4-70).

All of the timber harvest areas proposed for regeneration harvest, are proposed for both natural 

regeneration and appropriate site preparation in addition to tree planting as necessary to ensure that the 

stands would be adequately restocked within 5 years after harvest. The Forest Plan lists natural 

regeneration as the preferred reforestation method where site conditions and objectives are appropriate 

(FP, p. 4-72). 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 states that “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.”

All intermediate harvest (thinning), regeneration harvest, reforestation (tree planting and natural 

regeneration), and hardwood restoration proposals would be consistent with National Forest Management 

Act requirements to maintain forested lands in appropriate forest cover, and with related Forest Plan 

goals, objectives, standards and guidelines: promoting a stand structure and species composition 

minimizing risks from insects, disease and wildfire (FP, p. 4-67); a wide variety of activity methods are 

allowed, including site preparation, tree improvement, reforestation, tree protection, release and weeding, 

noncommercial thinning, fertilization, pruning, commercial thinning, salvage harvest and regeneration 

(final) harvest (FP, p. 4-68); natural regeneration should be the preferred forest regeneration alternative 

where economic, stand, and site conditions are appropriate and where natural regeneration does not 

conflict with other resource objectives identified and documented during the project planning process (FP, 

p. 4-72); favor species during development of silvicultural prescriptions for long-term stand health, vigor 

and productivity as specifically related to insect and disease impacts; economic efficiency; and biological 
192

diversity needs for wildlife species, visual quality or other resource values (FP, p. 4-72); for mixedconifer forest, maintain stands dominated by early-seral species, including ponderosa pine, western white 

pine and western larch, because the potential for insect and disease depredation is high if late-seral tree 

species are favored in these forest types (FP, p. 4-73); in the ponderosa pine working group, silvicultural 

prescriptions would feature ponderosa pine while other associated tree species would be maintained at 

low levels sufficient to provide for ecological diversity needs; in the lodgepole pine working group, tree 

species diversity should be encouraged by promoting western larch and Engelmann spruce (FP, p. 4-73); 

special and unique ecological communities such as aspen and other hardwood species should receive 

special attention; silvicultural prescriptions would specifically address measures to protect, maintain and 

enhance aspen and other hardwood clones, clumps and sprouts (FP, p. 4-74).

The Thomas Creek project is consistent with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (36 CFR 

219.8(e)) (see Forested Vegetation Specialist Report in project record). 

PRIME FARM, RANGE, PARK AND FOREST LANDS

The Thomas Creek project is consistent with the USDA Departmental Regulation 9500-3. The activities 

and effects of the Thomas Creek project would not affect or convert prime or unique farmlands, 

farmlands of statewide or local importance, or prime rangelands.

There are no parklands or ecologically critical areas that could be affected by this action.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

The Umatilla National Forest produced the Forest Plan in accordance with the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976. This plan provides guidelines for all natural resource management activities 

and establishes management standards. 

Forest Vegetation

The vegetative manipulation (commercial and non-commercial thinning, Shelterwood, Seedtree, clearcut, 

variable density, and intermediate harvest) associated with the Thomas Creek project is consistent with 

the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS and Record of Decision (see 

Forested Vegetation Specialist Report in the project record for details). 

Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens) incorporated additional wildlife 

habitat measures. To address this amendment, patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment 

have been compared to the Range of Variability (RV) for the analysis area. Late and old structural stage 

stands would be maintained and enhanced as a result of planned activities in the analysis area. No green 

trees greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height would be removed by timber harvest with 

the exception of those identified as likely or imminent danger trees (see Chapter 2, Table 2.11 design 

criteria). Stands would be thinned to move their condition towards an old forest condition. Connectivity 

would be maintained between Late Old Structure stands; snags, green tree replacements, and down logs 

would be maintained as recommended in the Thomas Creek Wildlife Specialist Report and Biological 

Evaluation. 
193

The vegetative manipulations and prescribed burning included in all action alternatives would not create 

any new forest openings. Uneven-aged management and even aged management would occur. Burning 

would be of low intensity such that newly created openings would not occur.

Fire and Fuels

Current Forest Plan direction identifies fuel standards by management area across the forest. Proposed 

activities would increase treated units toward the Forest Plan standard of an average of 9 to 12 tons per 

acre in the 0-3-inch size class (depending on management area). Proposed harvest treatments will 

increase fuel loading in the short term. All harvest treatment areas are planned for activity fuel treatments 

which will reduce or maintain fuel loading to within standards identified in the forest plan. 

The actions and treatments proposed in this project tier to and would successfully implement the Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines for fuels management.

Refer to Chapter 2, Table 2.5 project design features, for PACFISH requirements for prescribed burning 

and project design criteria measures.

Wildlife Habitat

These activities meet the specifications described in the Forest Plan Amendment #11 (Eastside Screens) 

interim wildlife standard, Scenario A. The treatment proposals would be consistent with items 1 through 

5 of Scenario A. All Forest Plan standards and guides pertaining to wildlife would be met.

Soils

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for achieving soil quality 

maintenance objectives. The proposed activities would increase detrimental soil conditions on individual 

units for a short time, but due to proposed obliteration of temporary roads and subsoiling activities, DSC 

would be reduced in the long term. All units would remain within Forest Plan standards for detrimental 

soil conditions following all treatments. Because the land would be left in a condition of acceptable 

productivity, these alternatives comply with the 1990 Forest Plan requirements for Soil Productivity.

Water

All alternatives in this project comply with the Clean Water Act standard of maintaining water quality. 

In accordance with the 1990 Forest Plan, the Thomas Creek project uses planning and application Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) to maintain and improve water quality, and includes monitoring of BMP 

implementation and effectiveness. Results of BMP monitoring have allowed managers to adapt to 

watershed conditions. Recent monitoring shows that BMPs are being implemented and that they are 

effective at maintaining water quality in timber harvest areas. 

Improvements in riparian conditions in timber sale areas result from using planning and application 

BMPs, and monitoring to see that BMPs are implemented and that they are effective. Because of using 

planning and application BMPs, and monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the BMPs, the 

Thomas Creek project is in accordance with the Clean Water Act and complies with the Clean Water Act 

requirements of the 1990 Forest Plan.
194

Aquatic – Fish Habitat

The Umatilla Forest Plan was amended in 1995 to incorporate PACFISH. PACFISH defines Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas surrounding streams and other riparian features, and identifies associated 

Riparian Management Objectives. The Thomas Creek project is consistent with PACFISH and proposes 

to move the project towards meeting RMOs.

These alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction regarding fish. None of the potential 

combined effects are expected to adversely affect PACFISH Riparian Management Objectives or 

steelhead or redband trout population viability. Application of PACFISH direction would maintain or 

improve fish habitat conditions in the analysis area. 

These alternatives are also consistent with the Basin wide Salmon Recovery Strategy (All-H Strategy), as 

it requires following existing management direction in the short-term and following ICBEMP science in 

the long-term. These alternatives are also consistent with Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wy-Kish-Wit --- The 

Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and 

Yakama Tribes. This restoration plan recommends that federal agencies follow existing land use and 

water quality laws and regulations – this would include PACFISH.

Falling of hazard trees, reopening closed roads, forwarding of wood across class four tributaries, thinning 

non-commercially and commercially, and prescribed burning may occur within Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas. These activities are designed to comply with PACFISH Riparian Management 

Objectives. The project is consistent with the Forest Plan for water resources and riparian management. 

Cultural Resources

Completed surveys followed the Umatilla National Forest Inventory strategy and can be accurately 

replicated from report maps and descriptions. State Historic Preservation Office consultation has been

completed 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 

the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Cultural Resource Management on National 

Forests in the State of Oregon, dated March 10, 1995. 

Identified sites would be protected from all project activities associated with the Thomas Creek project. 

Should additional sites be found during ground disturbing activities, contract provisions would provide 

protection and the Forest Archaeologist would be immediately notified. 

Recreation and Landscape Characteristics

The Thomas Creek project would be in compliance with the Forest Plan, forest wide standards and 

guidelines for recreation (p. 4-47) and standards and guidelines for Management Areas (see Recreation 

Specialist Report in the project file). None of the proposed activities or their alternatives would change 

the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class as described in the Forest Plan. Access, off-highway vehicle 

use, and dispersed recreation will not change from the current standards and guidelines. 

Landscape characteristics would maintain open-park like stands where they occurred historically and 

vegetation manipulation would encourage the development and maintenance of large diameter, open 

canopy structure (Landscape Characteristics). Temporary roads and skid trails would be rehabilitated to a 

vegetative condition following treatment. All activities would be consistent with visual quality 

objectives for all management areas (see Recreation section of this EA, and Recreation Specialist Report). 
195

Noxious Weeds

The Thomas Creek project is consistent with the Umatilla Land and Resource Management Plan 

direction, as amended, with respect to noxious weeds. Compliance with Prevention Standards and Forest 

Plan Goals and Objectives would be implemented to address noxious weeds (Regional Noxious Weed

EIS October 2005). Umatilla Forest Plan Goals and objectives, as amended are identified in the 

prevention standards in Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Record of Decision.

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

There are a number of other agencies responsible for management of resources within the Thomas Creek 

project area. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is responsible for management of fish and 

wildlife populations, whereas the Forest Service manages the habitat for these animals. The Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife has been contacted regarding this analysis. 

The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for enforcement of environmental quality standards, 

such as those established for water resources, while the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

sets standards, identifies non-point sources of water pollution, and determines which waters do not meet 

the goals of the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection Agency has certified the Oregon Forest 

Practices Act as Best Management Practices. Oregon State compared Forest Service practices used to 

control or prevent non-point sources of water pollution with the Oregon Forest Practices Act and 

concluded that Forest Service practices meet or exceed State requirements. These are periodically 

reviewed as practices change. The Forest Service and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality have 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding (2/12/79 and 12/7/82) outlining this. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon Department of Forestry are responsible for 

regulating all prescribed burning operations. The USDA Forest Service Region 6 has a Memorandum of 

Understanding with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Forestry, and 

the USDI Bureau of Land Management regarding limits on emissions, as well as reporting procedures. 

All burning would comply with the State of Oregon's Smoke Management Implementation Plan and, for 

greater specificity, the memorandum of understanding mentioned above. 

As stated above, State Historic Preservation Office consultation has been completed under the 

Programmatic Agreement dated March 10, 1995. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSERVATION POTENTIAL

Some form of energy would be necessary for proposed projects requiring use of mechanized equipment: 

Non-commercial thinning would involve small machines, while projects such as road repair could require 

heavy machinery for a small amount of time. Both possibilities would result in minor energy 

requirements. Alternatives that harvest trees and salvage dead down wood could create supplies of 

firewood or hog fuel as a by-product, which would contribute to the local supply of energy for home 

space heating or electricity production. 
196

CONSUMERS, MINORITY GROUPS, AND WOMEN

Effects on civil rights, including those of minorities and women, would be minimal. Activities associated 

with the action alternatives would be governed by Forest Service contracts, which are awarded to 

qualified purchasers regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc. Such contracts also contain 

nondiscrimination requirements. While the activities identified here would create jobs and the timber 

harvest would provide consumer goods, no quantitative output, lack of output, or timing of output 

associated with these projects would affect the civil rights, privileges, or status quo of consumers, 

minority groups, and women. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Implementation of any of the alternatives, including the No Action alternative, would inevitably result in 

some adverse environmental effects. The severity of the effects would be minimized by adhering to the 

direction in the management prescriptions and Standards and Guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan 

and additional mitigation proposed in Chapter 2 of this document. These adverse environmental effects 

are discussed at length under each resource section.

SHORT-TERM USE AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Maintenance of healthy soils in terms of organic matter and structure is a key prerequisite to maintaining 

healthy ecosystems. Long-term productivity depends on maintaining the basic ecosystem resources and 

their function. For this project, implementation of standards and guidelines as outlined in the FEIS for the 

Forest Plan are designed to provide for continued long-term site productivity. However, there would be 

some short-term effects related to the implementation of any of the action alternatives. There are no 

adverse effects associated with implementing any of the action alternatives that are not already identified 

in the FEIS for the Forest Plan (Chapter 4, pages IV 230-231).

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE EFFECTS

Irreversible commitment of resources refers to a loss of future options with nonrenewable resources. An 

irretrievable commitment of resources refers to loss of opportunity due to a particular choice of resource 

uses.

The soil and water protection measures identified in the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, project 

design criteria procedures in Chapter 2, and Best Management Practices (Forest Plan 4-77) are designed 

to avoid or minimize the potential for irreversible losses from the proposed management practices.

Concerning threatened and endangered plant, wildlife, and fish species, a determination has been made 

that the proposed actions would not result in irreversible or irretrievable loss of species. 

There is an irretrievable effect associated with the removal of timber within areas that have been 

identified using the inventory criteria found at FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70, as Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics within the project planning area. These effects occur under all action alternatives, but are 

limited to a very small number of acres. These acres would result in visibly detectable signs of timber 

harvest (such as stumps and skid trails) which may or may not preclude the areas inclusion as part of the 

inventory until such a future time as the signs of past harvest are no longer visible (likely several 
197

decades). The effects of project activities on Lands with Wilderness Characteristics are disclosed above. 

Although these areas would not be included as part of the Forest Service’s inventory, they would not 

eliminate the possibility of the areas inclusion as wilderness at some point by Congressional action.
198

CHAPTER 4: SUPPORTING INFORMATION

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Niimpuu (Nez Perce Tribe)

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

Government Agencies

State Government and Agencies

Columbia County Board of Commissioners

Inland Northwest Wildlife Council

Wallowa County Board of Commissioners

Union County Board of Commissioners

Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Region 1 Habitat 

Program

Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

Oregon Dept. of Forestry

Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality

Oregon State Division of State Lands

Umatilla County Watermaster

Umatilla County Board of Commissioners

Umatilla Basin Watershed Council

Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program

Federal Agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

National Marine Fisheries Service

Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Bureau of Indian Affairs

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Private Organizations

Adopt-A-Forest

Associated Oregon Loggers

Back Country Horsemen

Blue Mountains Audubon

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Forest Service Employees for Environmental 

Ethics 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council

Interfor
199

Lewis-Clark Valley Air Quality

Oregon Wild

Oregon Snowmobilers

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter

Larry Pennington, Sierra Club Eastside Forest 

Committee 

Mount Misery Snow Drifters

Northwest Trailbikers

Sierra Club Juniper Group

Desert Rats

Lewis-Clark Valley Air Quality

Center for Tribal Water Advocacy

Oregon Natural Desert Association

Washington Wilderness Coalition Center for 

Tribal Water Advocacy

Oregon Natural Desert Association

Washington Wilderness Coalition

Businesses

Associated Oregon Loggers Inc.

Boise Building

Boise Cascade

Blue Mountain Lumber Products

Columbia Helicopter

East Oregonian Newspaper

Guy Bennett Lumber Company

Henderson Logging, Inc.

Joe Cook Logging

Pine Creek Logging 

Ski Bluewood

Walla Walla Union Bulletin 

Pendleton Record

La Grande Observer

Healy Ranch LLC

Individuals

Chad Schoesler

Chey Powell

Dan Gran

Dave Price 

David Hunt

Don Stroeber

Earle and Shirlee Marvin

End and Barbara Hutsell

Erik Ryberg

Gary Moton

Glenn Warren

Jack Preston

Jerry Lauer

John Geddie

Joh M. Leonard

Lyle Jensen

Lyle Perkins

M. Sharp

Max R. Peterson

Mike Ziemantz

Richard Isaacson

Roberta Vandehey

Shirley Muse

Steve Corey

Tom Peterson

Tom Wood
200

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM

Core Interdisciplinary Team

Carrie Spradlin, Project Lead and Silviculturist

Holly Hutchinson, IDT Lead and NEPA

Steve Anderson, Roads and Trails

Jim Archuleta, Soils

Jeff Bloom, Recreation and Visuals

Bill Dowdy, Aquatics/Fisheries

Holly Harris, Wildlife

Lindsay Lockard, Economics

Zig Napkora, Hydrology

Larry Randall, Wilderness and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Joby Sciarrino, Fire and Fuels

Interdisciplinary Team Consultants

Mike Rassbach, District Ranger

Joy Archuleta, Hydrology

Jill Bassett, Cultural Resources

Bernard Bormann, PNW Research Station

John Evans, NEPA

Joan Frazee, Botany

Robin Harris, GIS

David Hatfield, Planning and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Brad Lathrop, Range

Amber Mahoney, NEPA

Eric Pfeifer, Invasive Plants

Terry Reynolds, Invasive Plants

Kathy Ramsey, Fisheries
201

REFERENCES

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, James G. 1997. Lakeview #4 Monitoring of Soil Compaction and Severely Burned Soil. 

Unpublished report, Diamond Lake RD Umpqua National Forest. 

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 JG and Karr MW. 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 JG, Baxter ES. 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. "The nature and properties of soil 12th ed." (1999). 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

Bustos, O and A. Egan 2011 A Comparison of Soil Compaction Associated with Four Ground-Based 

Harvesting Systems. NORTH. J. APPL. FOR. 28(4) 2011

Elliott, W.J.; 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.

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 RMRSP-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.
202

Helvey, D.J, and Fowler W.B 1995. Umatilla National Forest Barometer Watershed Program: Effects of 

timber harvest on the hydrology and climate of four small watersheds. Report prepared by 

Helvey, Fowler and Associates. Wenatchee WA.

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., Singh, V.P., (1988). Modelling erosion on hillslopes. In M. G. Anderson. (Eds) 

Modelling Geomorphological Systems. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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; Page-Dumroese, D. et al. 2009. Soil Disturbance Field Guide. 0819 1815-SDTDC

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.

Siskiyou National Forest, 1997. Unpublished report Soil Disturbances from Helicopter Yarding in the 

Upper Pistol Timber Sale. Southwestern Oregon 

LRMP -USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

HYDROLOGY

Ager, A.A. and C. Clifton. 2005. Software for calculating vegetation disturbance and recovery by using 

the equivalent clearcut area model. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-637. USDA Forest 

Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. April 2005. 11 pp. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/viewpub.jsp?index=9463

Andrus, C. and J. Middel. 2003. Meacham Creek Watershed Analysis and Action Plan. Final Report. 

Prepared for The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. April 16, 2003. 

http://data.umatilla.nsn.us/fisheries/downloads/Meacham_Creek_Watershed_Analysis_and_Actio

n_Plan_Final_Report_2003.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. 
203

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/labs/awae_flagstaff/Hot_Topics/ripthreatbib/beschta_etal_s

treamtempaquahab.pdf

Caldwell, J.E., K. Doughty and K. Sullivan. 1991. Evaluation of downstream temperature effects of type 

4/5 waters. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Timber, Fish and Wildlife Report 

TFW-WQ5-91-004. September 1991. 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/fp_tfw_wq5_91_004.pdf

Clean Water Act. 33 CFR Part 323. Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material Into Waters of the 

United States. http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/33cfr323.pdf

Cooper, R.M. 2006. Estimation of peak discharges for rural, unregulated streams in Eastern Oregon. 

State of Oregon. Water Resources Department. Open File Report SW-06-001. March 2006. 

http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/pubs/reports.aspx

Crabtree 2003. Fisheries Specialist Report for the Pedro-Colt Timber Sale and Fire Reintroduction 

Project. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service. On File at: Umatilla National Forest. Walla 

Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 

Crowe, E.A. and R.R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetland plant associations of the Malheur, 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. R6-NR-ECOL-TP-22-97. 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/16061/MidMontaneWetlandPlantAs

sociationsWallowaWhitnf.pdf?sequence=1

Ebersole, Joseph L, William J Liss, Christopher A Frissell. 2003a. Thermal heterogeneity, stream 

channel morphology, and salmonid abundance in northeastern Oregon streams. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2003, 60(10): 1266-1280, 10.1139/f03-107 

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f03-107#.VNufu5gcSUl

Ebersole, Joseph L., William J. Liss, and Christopher A. Frissell, 2003b. Cold Water Patches in Warm 

Streams: Physicochemical Characteristics and the Influence of Shading. J. of the American Water 

Resources Association (JAWRA) 39(2):355-368. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2003.tb04390.x/pdf

Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall, D.L. Scheele. 1999. WEPP Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion 

and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA. 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

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

Fowler, W.B., J.D. Helvey and C. Johnson. 1979. Baseling climatic and hydrologic relationships for the 

High Ridge Evaluation Area. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-091. USDA Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, OR. 17 pp. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25193

Fox, Martin and Susan M Bolton. 2007. A regional and geomorphic reference for quantities and volumes 

of instream wood in unmanaged forested basins of Washington state. North American journal of 
204

fisheries management. Vol. 27, no. 1 (Feb. 2007): pp. 342-359. 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M05-024.1#.VK3P2ZgcSUk

Gill, R.R. 1996. Sediment delivery to headwater stream channels following road construction and timber 

harvest in the Blue Mountains, Oregon. Proceedings of the Sixth Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference. March 10-14, 1996, Las Vegas, NV. Sponsored by the Subcommittee 

on Sedimentation, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water. Pages X-38 – X-45. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/misc/FISC_1947-2006/pdf/1st-7thFISCs-CD/6thFISC/6Fisc-V2/6Fsc2-

10.PDF

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=PNWGTR-760&ots=urYkbPwiCm&sig=eX_B_OKtpy4orkxU7y2FxHLbe_M#v=onepage&q=PNWGTR-760&f=false

Gravelle, J.A. and T.E. Link. 2007. Influence of timber harvesting on headwater peak stream 

temperatures in a northern Idaho watershed. Forest Science. 53(2):189-205. 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/fs/2007/00000053/00000002/art00008

Gucinski, H., M.F. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer and M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest Roads: A synthesis of 

scientific information. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. USDA Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 103 pp. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/2922

Harris, R.M. and C.F. Clifton. 1999. Upper Umatilla River Sediment Analysis. 1999. Annual Summer 

Specialty Conference Proceedings. Science into Policy: Water in the Public Realm/Wildland 

Hydrology. American Water Resources Association. Bozeman, Montana, June 30 - July 2, 1999. 

http://www.awra.org/~awra/proceedings/Montana99/Harris/index.htm

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. 53-043R5-42. Dated 09-06-95. 128 pp.

Herbst, John. 2002. Phillips Creek Watershed Assessment. Prepared for the Grande Ronde Model 

Watershed Program. La Grande, OR. Prepared by John Herbst Forestry. February 2002. 84 pp. 

Hirsch, R.M., Costa, J.E. 2004. USGS stream flow measurement and data dissemination improve. Eos 

85, 197–203. http://water.usgs.gov/osw/pubs/EOS-Streamflow.pdf

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., Black, T. A. 1999. 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. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2001_luce_c005.pdf

Lute, A.C. and J. T. Abatzoglou. 2014. Projected changes in the snowfall extremes and interannual 

snowfall variability in the Western United States. Proceedings of the 82dn Annual Western Snow 
205

Conference. Durango, CO. 2014. 

http://www.westernsnowconference.org/sites/westernsnowconference.org/PDFs/2014Lute.pdf

MacDonald, L.H. and J.D. Stednick, 2003. Forests and water: A state-of-the-art review for Colorado. 

Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Rep. No. 196. Fort Collins, CO. Colorado State

University. 65 p. http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/~leemac/publications/ForestandWater.pdf

Mayer, T.D. 2012. Controls of summer stream temperature in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of 

Hydrology. 475(2012):323-335. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169412008864

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. 

Meredith, Christy, Brett Roper & Eric Archer. 2014. Reductions in Instream Wood in Streams near Roads 

in the Interior Columbia River Basin, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 34:3, 

493-506, DOI:10.1080/02755947.2014.882451 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02755947.2014.882451

Moore, R. D., D.L. Spittlehouse and A. Story. 2005. Riparian microclimate and stream temperature 

response to forest harvesting: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

41(4):813-834. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03772.x/abstract

NMFS ARBO II. 2013. National Marine Fisheries Service. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 

Programmatic Consultation Conference and Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for Reinitiation of Aquatic 

Restoration Activities in States of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II). April 2013. 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ToolsForLandowners/Documents/ARBO%20II%20NMFS%20Fi

nal.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Biological Opinion on the Umatilla National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. 

NRCS. SNOTEL data. USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. High Ridge Site. 

http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/nwcc/view?intervalType=View+Current+&report=WYGRAPH&ti

meseries=Daily&format=plot&interval=WATERYEAR&sitenum=523&wateryear=

ODEQ. Water Quality Standards. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/standards.htm

ODEQ. 2010. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2010 Integrated Report and 2010 DEQ 

Water Quality Assessment Database. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/assessment.htm

ODEQ 2005. Letter of Conditional Approval of the Northwest Forest Plan Tempature TMDL to Regional 

Forester, Region 6 and BLM State Director, Oregon-Washington. Implementation Strategy. 

Dated September 9, 2005. 

ODEQ. 2001. Umatilla River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality Management Plan. 

Prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality in Partnership with the Umatill Basin 

Watershed Council and The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/umatilla.htm

ODEQ. 2000. Upper Grande Ronde River Sub-Basin Total Maximum Daily Load and Water Quality 

Management Plan. Prepared by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/granderonde.htm
206

ODF. 2015. Oregon Administrative Rules. Department of Forestry. Division 625. Forest Roads. Road 

Construction and Maintenance. 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_600/oar_629/629_625.html

ODF/ODFW. 2010. Guide to Placement of Wood, Boulders and Gravel for Habitat Restoration Oregon 

Department of Forestry. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. DRAFT. January 01, 2010. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/index.asp

OWEB. 2000. Addendum to Water Quality Monitoring Technical Guide Book: Chapter 14. Stream 

Shade and Canopy Cover Monitoring Methods. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/cwt/guidance/491.pdf

OWEB. 1999. Oregon Aquatic Habitat. Restoration and enhancement Guide. The Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds. May 1999. http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/habguide99-

complete.pdf

OWRD 2015a. Oregon Water Resources Department. Water Availability Analysis Report.

Thomas Creek: 

http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wars/wars_display_wa_tables/display_wa_details.aspx?ws_id=71

663&exlevel=80&scenario_id=1

Phillips Creek: 

http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wars/wars_display_wa_tables/display_wa_details.aspx?ws_id=70

569&exlevel=80&scenario_id=1

OWRD 2015b. Oregon Water Resources Department. Peak Discharge Estimation Mapping Tool. 

http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/sw/peak_discharge_map/

Park, C., B, McCammon, and J. Brazier. 2008. DRAFT – Changes to Angular Canopy Density from 

Thinning with Varying No Treatment Widths in a Riparian Area Measured Using Digital 

Photography and Light. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest 

Region. Portland, OR.

PIBO. PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Data. USFS Internal Web Site. 

Press, C. 2014. Glaze Shade Monitoring After Thinning Using the NWFP Temperature Strategy. 

Unpublished Report. Dated 8/14/14. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. Sisters 

Ranger District, Sisters, OR. 10 pp.

Rashin, Edward B.; Clishe, Casey J.; Loch, Andrew T.; Bell, Johanna M. Effectiveness of timber harvest 

practices for controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association. Vol. 42, no. 5 (Oct. 2006): p. 1307-1327. 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0603046.pdf

Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water Resources 

Research 20(12): pg 1753-1761. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reid/psw_1984_reid001.pdf

Robichaud, P.R., L.H. MacDonald and R.B. Foltz. 2010. Fuel Management and Erosion. Chapter 5 IN: 

Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States. USDA Forest 

Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. GeneralTechnical Report RMRS-GTR-231. 

January 2010. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr231.html

Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Press. Pagosa Springs, CO. 

http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/index.htm
207

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of 

Hydrology. 176(1996):79-95. 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022169495027807

Umatilla County. 2008. Umatilla Sub-Basin 2050 Water Management Plan. Report For: Umatilla 

County, Oregon. Prepared by: The Umatilla County Critical Groundwater Task Force. Final 

Draft 08-19-08. http://www.co.umatilla.or.us/planning/pdf/2050%20Plan%20Final.pdf

USFS. 2014. Memorandum of Understanding between State of Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality and the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. 17 pp. 

USFS. 2013. Spring Creek Stream Survey Report. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. On 

File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 

USFS. 2013. Thomas Creek Stream Survey Report. August 2013. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla 

National Forest. On File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, 

WA 99362. 

USFS. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest 

System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Manual. USDA Forest Service. FS990a. April 2012.

USFS. 2011. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the North End Sheep 

Allotment. Signed 8/24/11. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. On File at: Walla 

Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 

USFS. 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

USFS. 2008. EM-7730-20. Forest Service Specifications for Maintenance of Roads in Timber Sales. 

Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

USFS. 2005. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Plentybob 

Ecosystem Restoration Project. Signed 04/12/05. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National 

Forest. On File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA USFS. 

2004. Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact and Finding of Non-Significant 

Amendment and Environmental Assessment for the Pedro-Colt Timber Sale and Fire 

Reintroduction Project. Signed 5/13/04. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. On 

File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 

USFS. 2002. Phillips-Gordon Ecosystem Analysis. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. 

On File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 

USFS 2000. Dry Creek Stream Survey Report. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. On File 

at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

USFS. 1999. Umatilla-Meacham Ecosystem Analysis. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. 

On File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 

USFS 1994. Phillips Creek Stream Survey Report. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. On 

File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

USFS 1993. Dry Creek Stream Survey Report. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. On File 

at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.
208

USFS. 1992. Spring Creek Stream Survey Report. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. On 

File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 

USFS. 1992. Thomas Creek Stream Survey Report. August 2013. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla 

National Forest. On File at: Walla Walla Ranger District. 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, 

WA 99362. 

USFS 1990. Land and Resource Management Plan. Umatilla National Forest. As Amended. USDA 

Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. 1990.

USFS-BLM. 2012. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies. Evaluation 

of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. May 25, 2012. 

USFS-BLM. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies. Evaluation 

of the Northwest Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Associated Tools to achieve and 

maintain stream temperature water quality standards. FINAL. September 9, 2005. Conditionally 

Approved by DEQ. 

USFS-BLM. 1995. PACFISH. Decision Notice/Decision Record. Finding of No Significant Impact. 

Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing 

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and Portions of California. USDA Forest 

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. February 1995. 

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.

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. 
209

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.

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.

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.

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 

SecEdition.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 Audobon 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/faunainvertebrates.shtml).

Technical Reports

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.

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.
210

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/steelhead/

5-yr-mcr.pdf

Section 7 Fish Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper Columbia River Basin. U.S. Department of 

Agirculture, 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 fish-producing watersheds in 

eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and portions of California (PACFISH).

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-b-fire/bb-finalfeis.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.

FORESTED VEGETATION

Caraher, D.L.; Henshaw, J.; Hall, F.; Knapp, W.H.; McCammon, B.P.; Nesbitt, J.; Pedersen, R.J.; 

Regenovitch, I.; Tietz, C. 1992. Restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains: a report to the 

Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain forests. Portland, OR: USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 14 p.
211

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 PNWRN-513. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21 p.

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

Gast, W.R., Jr.; Scott, D.W.; Schmitt, C.; Clemens, D.; Howes, S.; Johnson, C.G., Jr.; Mason, R.; Mohr, 

F.; Clapp, R.A. 1991. Blue Mountains forest health report: “new perspectives in forest health.” 

Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur, Umatilla, and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Irregular pagination.

Henjum, M.G.; Karr, J.R.; Bottom D.L.; Perry, D.A.; Bednarz, J.C.; Wright, S.G.; Beckwitt, S.A.; 

Beckwitt, E. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds; 

national forests east of the Cascade crest, Oregon, and Washington. The Wildlife Society Tech. 

Rev. 94-2. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society. 245 p.

Justice, D. 2014. Existing Vegetation Dataset Creation Process Document: Thomas Creek Restoration 

Project. Forest Vegetation Modeling & Miscellaneous Datasets. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest 

Service, Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. 1 p.

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.

Oliver, C.D.; Larson, B.C. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. Update edition. New York: John Wiley. 520 p. 

isbn:0-471-13833-9

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-TP03-99. 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. 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. 2013. Active Management of Moist Forests in the Blue Mountain: Silvicultural 

Considerations. White Pap. F14-SO-WP-Silv-7. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 328 p. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5405491.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 
212

west-central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-709. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 87 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27598

Rassbach, M. 2014. Thomas Creek Restoration Project. Key Topics Identified through Public Scoping 

and Measures to be used in NEPA Analysis. Walla Walla, WA: USDA Forest Service, Umatilla 

National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger District. 2 p.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research. 46(7): 627-638.

Rogers, Dehorah L., and Arlee M. Montalvo. 2004. Genetically Appropriate Choices for Plant Materials 

to Maintain Biological Diversity. University of California. Report to the USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, CO.

FUELS

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C. Island Press. 493 p.

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science. 72 (special 

issue): 24-34

Agee, J. K. (2002). The fallacy of passive management: managing for firesafe forest reserves. Conserv. 

Biol. Practice 3(1), 18-35.

Agee, J.K., Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 211: 83-96

Brown, J. K. (1994). Fire Regimes and their Relevance to Ecosystem Management. Proceedings of 

Society of American Foresters National Convention, Sept 18-22, 171-178.

Finney, M. A. (1998, Revised 2004). Research Paper RMRS-RP-4 Revised, Farsite: Fire Area SimulatorModel Development and Evaluation. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Hann, W. J., & Bunnell, D. J. (2001). Fire and Land Management Planning and Implementation across 

Multiple Scales. Internationa Journal of Wildland Fire 10, 389-403.

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.

Hardy, C. C., Menakis, J., Menakis, J. P., & Sampson, R. N. (2001). Spatial Data for National Fire 

Planning and Fuel Mangement. International Journal of Wildland Fire, Scientific Journal of 

IAWF Volume 10, 353-372.

Huff, M. H., Ottmar, R. D., Alvarado, E., Vihnanek, R. E., Lehmkuhl, J. F., Hessburg, P. F., et al. (1995). 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-355, Historical and CUrrent FOrest Landscapes in Eastern 

Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking Vegetation Characteristics to Potential FIre Behavior 

and Related Smoke Production. Wenatchee, WA: Pacific Northwest Research Station.

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.
213

Van Wagner, C. (1977). Conditions for the Start and Spread of Crown Fire. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 7, 23-34.

Vose, J. M., Peterson, D. L., & Patel-Weynand, T. (2012). General Technical Report PNW-GTR-870, 

Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science 

Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Schmidt, K. M., Menakis, J. P., Hardy, C. C., Hann, W. J., & Bunnell, D. L. (2002). General Technical 

Report RMRS-87, Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel 

Management. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Skinner, C. N., & Chang, C.-R. (1996). Fire Regimes, Past and Present. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: 

Final Report to Congress. Vol. II. Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options., 

1041-1069.

USDA Forest Service, 1990, Land and Resource Management Plan, Umatilla National Forest.

NOXIOUS WEEDS

Beyers, Jan, 2004. Postfire seeding for erosion control: effectiveness and impacts on native plant 

communities. Conservation Biology 18:4 pp. 947-956.

Birdsall, J. L., McCaughey, W. and Runyon, J. B. (2012), Roads Impact the Distribution of Noxious 

Weeds More Than Restoration Treatments in a Lodgepole Pine Forest in Montana, U.S.A. 

Restoration Ecology, 20: 517–523

Brooks, M.L. and D.A. Pyke, 2001. Invasive plants and fire in the deserts of North America. Pages 1-14 

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.

Defenders of Wildlife, 2002. Impacts of off-road vehicles and roads on wildlife and habitat in Florida's 

National Forests http://www.defenders.org/habitat/florvs/ORVmain.pdf 

Goodwin, K. M. R. L. Sheley, 2001. What to do when fires fuel weeds: A step-by-step guide for 

managing invasive plants after a wildfire. Rangelands. 2001 Dec; 23(6):15-21

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.

Ibid, 2004. Ecological impacts of wheat seeding after a Sierra Nevada wildfire. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire 13:73-78.

Johnson, C.J. 1998. Vegetation response after wildfires in National Forests of northeastern Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service Technical Report R6-NR-ECOL-TP-06-98, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Portland, Oregon.

Kimberling, D. N.; Parks, C. G.; Shanafelt, B. J.; Knecht, D. E., and DePuit, E. J. 2005. Potential 

influences of Forest Service land management on invasive plant species in Pacific Northwest 

forests and rangelands: a review. In: Pacific Northwest Region invasive plant program final 
214

environmental impact statement, III: Appendix D, pp.1-32.

McIver, J. and L. Starr, tech. eds. 2000. Environmental effects of postfire logging: literature review and 

annotated bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-486. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

R6 FEIS: Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2005. 

Publication R6-NR-FHP-PR-02-05,USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, 

Oregon.

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. 

Reever-Morghan, K. J. Frequent fire slows invasion of ungrazed tallgrass prairie by Canada thistle. 

Ecological Restoration . 2000; 18(3):194-195.

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.

Trabaud, L. Fire as an agent of plant invasion? A case study in the French Mediterranean vegetation. Di 

Castri, F.; Hansen, A. J., and Debussche, M. Biological invasions in Europe and the 

Mediterranean Basin. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic; 1990; pp. 417-437.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and resource management plan: Umatilla National Forest. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Umatilla National Forest Environmental Assessment for the Management of 

Noxious Weeds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pendleton, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Umatilla National Forest Road Analysis Report. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Pendleton, Oregon

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Umatilla National Forest Invasive 

Plants Treatment . Umatilla National Forest, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Pendleton, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Final Environmental Impact Statement, North End Sheep Allotment. 160 p. 

Wright, H.A. and A.W.Bailey, 1982. Fire Ecology; United States and southern Canada. John Wiley and 

sons, New York, NY.

RANGE

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Umatilla National Forest (FEIS), 1990.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Walla Walla Ranger District 

Range Monitoring Data..

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Record of Decision and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the North End Sheep Allotment. August 2011.

WILDLIFE

Agee, J.K. 2002. Fire as a coarse filter for snags and logs. Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-181. Pacific 
215

Southwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service. 9p.

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for land birds in the northern Rocky Mountains of eastern 

Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 86pp

Andrews, H. and R.Huff. 2011. Species Fact Sheet: Johnson’s hairstreak. The Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR. 8p.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine.Chapter 5 in: Ruggiero, L.F., 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. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: 

U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp. 

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.

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, 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 pp.

Bull, E.L. and B.Carter. 1993. Summary of pileated woodpecker monitoring in eastern Oregon, 1992. 

Unpublished report, USFS Pendleton OR. 8p.

Bull, E.L. and M.P. Hayes. 2002. Overwintering of Columbia spotted frogs in Northeastern Oregon. 

Northest Science 76(2):141-147.

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.

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 
216

pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 243: 320-329.

Buskirk, S.W., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 In L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubrey, 

S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski (editors), 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.

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 Vol 62, No. 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.

Corkran, C.C. and C. R. Thoms. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone 

Pine Press, Auburn Washington. 176 pp.

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. 492p.

Duncan, N. and R. Huff. 2009. Species Fact Sheet: fir pinwheel. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region. Portland, OR. 3p.

Frazee, J. Umatilla Forest Botanist, personal communication regarding lack of Phragmites australis

which is associated with Yuma skipper.

Foltz, S., Jepsen, S. and R.Huff. Species Fact Sheet: Intermountain sulphur. The Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, OR. 6p.

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. 274pp + appendices.

Funk, W., C.A. Pearl, H.M. Draheim, M.J. Adams, T.D. Mullins, and S.M. Haig. 2008. Range-wide 

phylogeographic analysis of the spotted frog complex (Rana luteiventris and R. pretiosa) in 

northwestern North America. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49(1):198-210.

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.

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 
217

available online (last accessed 06-11-2011) at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf

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. 16p. 

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.

Hoffman Black, S., Lauvray, L. and S. Jepsen 2007. Species Fact Sheet: Yuma skipper. The Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, OR. 9p.

Hornocker, M.G. and H.S.Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology Vol. 59:1286-1301.

Imbeau, L. and A.Desrochers. 2002. Foraging ecology and use of drumming trees by three-toed 

woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(1):222-231.

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. 25p.

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: Laudenslayer, William 

F., Jr.; Valentine, Brad; Weatherspoon, C. Philip; Lisle, Thomas E., technical coordinators. 

Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. 

1999 November 2-4; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/049_Korol.pdf

Landres, P.B. , P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overvidw of the use of natural variability concepts 

in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4):1179-1188.

Leonard, Jr., David L. 2001. American three-toed woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Last accessed April 2011. 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/588

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
218

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. PNW-GTR-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 pp.

McKelvey, K.S., J.J. Claar, G.W. McDaniel, and G. Hanvey. 1999. National lynx detection protocol. 

Unpublished paper. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana. 

11 p.

Mech, L.D. and L. Boitani, eds. 2003. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of 

Chicago Press, Chicago IL. 448p.

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.

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 April 18, 2015.

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer . Last accessed 

April 2015.

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.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2010. Oregon wolf conservation and 

management plan. Salem, Oregon. 194p

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 
219

and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181, U.S. Forest Service. 560p

Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2012. Species Assessment Database, version 2012. Available at 

http://rmbo.org/pifassessment/ Accessed on April 22, 2015. 

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 Washinton. 23 p. Unpublished Report 

for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Boise, Idaho. 

Powell, D.C. 2014. Range of variation recommendations for dry, moist, and cold forests. White Paper 

F14-SO-WP-Silv-3. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla 

National Forest. 42 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. 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. Chapter 

24 in: Johnson and ONeil. Chapter 24 (pages 580-623) In: Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in 

Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Johnson, D.H.; O’Neil, T.A., Managing 

Directors. 

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. Pgs. 42-52 in Wisdom, M.J., tech. 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.

Ruediger, Bill, J. Claar, S. Mighton, B. Naney, T. Rinaldi, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. 

Williamson, L. Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, and S.Gniadek. 2000. Canada 

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. U.S. Forest Service. January 103p

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 pp. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires. 

1999. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Bolder, 

CO and U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report, 

RMRS-GTR-30WWW. 480p

Saab, V. A., T. D. Rich. 1997. 1998. 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.
220

Sallabanks, R, B.G. Marcot, R.A. Riggs, C.A.Mehl, and E.B. Arnett. 2001. Wildlife of eastside (interior) 

forests and woodlands. Chapter 8 (pages 213-238) In: Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon 

and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Johnson, D.H.; O’Neil, T.A., Managing 

Directors. 

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

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.

Stone, T. and R. Huff. 2010. Species Fact Sheet: Hell’s Canyon land snail. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 9p.

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.

Tait, C. 2007. Conservation assessment of the Great Basin population of the Columbia spotted frog 

(Rana luteiventris). U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. 

Thomas, J.W., R.G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E.L. bull. 1979. Snags. Chapter 5 in: Wildlife habitats in 

managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service. 

Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512pp. 

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. PNW-GTR-218. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28p.

Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In: The Birds of North America, No. 284 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The 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. Sept.

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. 14p.

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. 6p.
221

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011. 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 pages 49398 to 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, pages 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

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, pages 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, pages 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, pages 7864-7890. 

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.

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.

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 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf

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 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 
222 

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. Pp. 197-216 in The Starkey Project: A 

Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer (M.J. Wisdom, tech. ed.). 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. 

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHER 

UNDEVELOPED LANDS

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 Chapter 70. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Umatilla National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery 

Management. Agriculture Handbook #701. December 1995. 

ECONOMICS

Bell, J.L. Changes in Logging Injury Rates Associated with Use of Feller-bunchers in West Virginia. 

Proceeds from “The International Mountain Logging and 11th Pacific Northwest Skyline 

Symposium 2001”. 

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMRP). 1991. USDA Forest 

Service, Pendleton, OR. 

Conway, G.A., Lincoln, J.M., Bradley, H.J., Manwaring, J.C., Klatt, M.L., Thomas, T.K. Alaska’s 

Model Program for Surveillance and Prevention of Occupational Injury Deaths. Public Health 

Reports. November/December 1999 Vol. 114.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Preventing Injuries and Deaths of 

Loggers. NIOSH Publication No. 95-101. May 1995. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/95-101/

Rasmussen et al. 2012 The 2012 Forest Report, An Economic Assessment of Oregon’s Forest and 

Wood Products Manufacturing Sector. Prepared for: Oregon Forest Resources Institute. State 

of Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service 2003. Evaluating Economic Significance of the USDA Forest Service 

Strategic Plan (2000 Revision): Methods and Results for Programmatic Evaluations, Forest 

Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute Report No. 6. 
223 

USDA Forest Service 2002. Timber Sale Preparation Handbook Chapter 10 – Sale Program 

Development – Gate System and Chapter 20 – Timber Sale Project Development – Gate 1.

USDA Forest Service 2009. Internal Memo Subject: Forest Restoration and Industry Infrastructure 

Retention, to all Forest Supervisors within Region 6. March 30, 2012. 
APPENDICES
APPENDICES- TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A. Planned Activities by Unit and Alternative. ....................................................................... A-1

Appendix B. Learning Design................................................................................................................ A-14

Appendix C. Soils .................................................................................................................................. A-53

Appendix D. Forested Vegetation Maps................................................................................................ A-68

Appendix E. Lands With Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................ A-72

Appendix F. Transportation................................................................................................................. A-120

Appendix G. Past Activities................................................................................................................. A-126
A-1 

APPENDIX A. PLANNED ACTIVITIES BY UNIT AND ALTERNATIVE. 

Table A.1 Activities planned in Alternative B by unit.

Alternative B

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

2 9 Group Shelterwood Tractor

5 20 Variable Density Tractor

6 13 Variable Density Tractor

7 26 Variable Density Tractor

8 57 Group Shelterwood Tractor

9 48 Seedtree Forwarder

10 31 Variable Density-regen Tractor

11 64 Variable Density Tractor/Sky

13 53 Group Shelterwood Forwarder

14 73 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

15A 13 Seedtree Tractor

15B 11 Riparian Restoration Tractor

16A 20 Shelterwood Tractor

16B 10 Riparian Restoration Tractor

17 21 Shelterwood Tractor

18 11 Clearcut Forwarder

19 18 Group Shelterwood Forwarder

20 9 Variable Density-regen Skyline

21 15 NCT Hand

22 20 Variable Density-regen Tractor

24 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

25 16 Intermediate-NCT Hand

26 15 Clearcut Skyline

27 8 Intermediate-NCT Hand

28 7 Intermediate-NCT Hand

29 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

30 24 Shelterwood Skyline

31 11 Variable Density-regen Skyline

34 17 Variable Density Tractor

35 22 Intermediate-NCT Hand

37 26 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

38 20 Intermediate-NCT Hand

39 14 Variable Density Tractor

40 43 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

41A 18 Variable Density-regen Skyline
A-2 

Alternative B

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

41B 7 Riparian Restoration Skyline

42 29 Group Shelterwood Tractor

43 24 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

44 21 Seedtree Forwarder

45 16 Variable Density Skyline

46 11 Variable Density Forwarder

47 61 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

49 20 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

50 26 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

51 31 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

52 49 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

53 7 Intermediate-NCT Hand

54 5 Intermediate-NCT Hand

55 15 Seedtree Tractor

56 14 Intermediate-NCT Hand

57 28 Intermediate-NCT Hand

58 18 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

60 6 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

61 76 Intermediate-NCT Hand

66 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

67 17 Intermediate-NCT Hand

70 37 NCT Hand

73 29 NCT Hand

75 39 NCT Hand

76 45 NCT Hand

78 15 NCT Hand

80 17 NCT Hand

82 32 NCT Hand

84 16 NCT Hand

85 15 NCT Hand

86 5 NCT Hand

87 13 NCT Hand

89 12 NCT Hand

91 16 NCT Hand

92 117 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

94 34 NCT Hand

95 28 NCT Hand

96 31 NCT Hand

97 20 NCT Hand

98 23 NCT Hand
A-3

Alternative B

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

99 33 NCT Hand

100 27 NCT Hand

101 31 NCT Hand

102 33 NCT Hand

103 31 NCT Hand

104 38 NCT Hand

105 27 NCT Hand

106 36 NCT Hand

107 32 NCT Hand

108 20 NCT Hand

111 27 NCT Hand

112 20 NCT Hand

113 27 NCT Hand

114 11 NCT Hand

115 21 NCT Hand

116 18 NCT Hand

117 7 NCT Hand

118 4 NCT Hand

119 6 NCT Hand

120 11 NCT Hand

121 6 NCT Hand

122 12 NCT Hand

123 27 NCT Hand

124 5 NCT Hand

125 28 NCT Hand

126 20 NCT Hand

129A 73 Group Shelterwood Tractor

129B 37 NCT Hand

130 53 Variable Density-regen Tractor

Total 2,546

Table A-2. Activities planned in Alternative C by unit.

Alternative C

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

2 9 Group Shelterwood Tractor

5 20 Variable Density Tractor

6 13 Variable Density Tractor

7 26 Variable Density Tractor
A-4

Alternative C

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

8 57 Group Shelterwood Tractor

9 48 Seedtree Forwarder

10 31 Variable Density-regen Tractor

11 64 Variable Density Tractor

13 53 Group Shelterwood Forwarder

14 73 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

15 (A/B) 23 No-Go No Logging

16A 20 Shelterwood Tractor

16B

17 21 Shelterwood Tractor

18 11 Clearcut Forwarder

19 18 Group Shelterwood Forwarder

20 9 Variable Density-regen Skyline

21 15 NCT Hand

22 20 Variable Density-regen Tractor

24 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

25 16 Intermediate-NCT Hand

26 15 Clearcut Skyline

27 8 Intermediate-NCT Hand

28 7 Intermediate-NCT Hand

29 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

30 24 Shelterwood Skyline

31 11 Variable Density-regen Skyline

34 17 Variable Density Tractor

35 22 Intermediate-NCT Hand

37 26 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

38 20 Intermediate-NCT Hand

39 14 No-Go No Logging

40 43 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

41 (A/B) 25 No-Go No Logging

42 29 Group Shelterwood Tractor

43 24 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

44 21 Seedtree Forwarder

45 16 Variable Density Skyline

46 11 Variable Density Forwarder

47 61 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

49 20 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

50 26 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

51 31 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

52 49 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor
A-5

Alternative C

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

53 7 Intermediate-NCT Hand

54 5 Intermediate-NCT Hand

55 15 Seedtree Tractor

56 14 Intermediate-NCT Hand

57 28 Intermediate-NCT Hand

58 18 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

60 6 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

61 76 Intermediate-NCT Hand

66 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

67 17 Intermediate-NCT Hand

70 37 NCT Hand

73 29 NCT Hand

75 39 NCT Hand

76 45 NCT Hand

78 15 NCT Hand

80 17 NCT Hand

82 32 NCT Hand

84 16 NCT Hand

85 15 NCT Hand

86 5 NCT Hand

87 12 NCT Hand

89 9 NCT Hand

91 16 NCT Hand

92 111* Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

94 34 NCT Hand

95 28 NCT Hand

96 31 NCT Hand

97 20 NCT Hand

98 23 NCT Hand

99 33 NCT Hand

100 27 NCT Hand

101 31 NCT Hand

102 33 NCT Hand

103 31 NCT Hand

104 38 NCT Hand

105 27 NCT Hand

106 36 NCT Hand

107 32 NCT Hand

108 20 NCT Hand

111 27 NCT Hand
A

-6

AlternativeC

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

112 20 NCT Hand

113 27 NCT Hand

114 11 NCT Hand

115 20 NCT Hand

116 18 NCT Hand

117

7 NCT Hand

118

4 NCT Hand

119

6 NCT Hand

120 11 NCT Hand

121

6 NCT Hand

122 12 NCT Hand

123 27 NCT Hand

124

5 NCT Hand

125 28 NCT Hand

126 20 NCT Hand

129A 73 Group Shelterwood Tractor

129B 37 NCT Hand

130 53 Variable Density

-regen Tractor

10L 11 Edge 

- HW Tractor

11L 16 No Edge + HW No Logging

13L 17 Edge + HW Forwarder

14L 18 No Edge + HW No Logging

16L 11 Edge + HW Tractor

17L 14 Edge + HW Tractor

19L 11 Edge + HW Forwarder

20L

9 No Edge + HW No Logging

2L

7 No Edge + HW No Logging

34L 10 Edge 

- HW Tractor

37L 11 No Edge + HW No Logging

40L 14 No Edge 

- HW No Logging

42L 12 Edge + HW Tractor

43L 13 No Edge 

- HW No Logging

44L 13 Edge 

- HW Forwarder

45L 10 Edge 

- HW Skyline

55L

8 No Edge - HW No Logging

5L 11 No Edge 

- HW No Logging

6L 10 No Edge 

- HW No Logging

7L 13 Edge 

- HW Tractor

8L 22 No Edge 

- HW No Logging

9L 15 Edge 

- HW Forwarder
A-7

Alternative C

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

Total 2,799**

*Unit 92 is 111 acres in Alt C due to overlap of riparian buffer for 55L.

** Includes monitoring only acres.

Table A-3. Activities planned in Alternative D by unit.

Alternative D

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

2 9 Group Shelterwood Tractor

5 20 Variable Density Tractor

6 13 Variable Density Tractor

7 26 Variable Density Tractor

8 57 Group Shelterwood Tractor

9 48 Seedtree Forwarder

10 31 Variable Density-regen Tractor

11 64 Variable Density Tractor/Sky

13 53 Group Shelterwood Forwarder

14 73 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

15A 13 Seedtree Tractor

15B

16A

16B

17 21 Shelterwood Tractor

18 11 Clearcut Forwarder

19 18 Group Shelterwood Forwarder

20

21 15 NCT Hand

22 20 Variable Density-regen Tractor

24

25

26 15 Clearcut Skyline

27 8 Intermediate-NCT Hand

28 7 Intermediate-NCT Hand

29 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

30 24 Shelterwood Forwarder

31 11 Variable Density-regen Skyline

34 17 Variable Density Tractor

35 22 Intermediate-NCT Hand
A-8 

Alternative D

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

37 26 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

38 20 Intermediate-NCT Hand

39 14 Variable Density Tractor

40 43 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

41(A/B)

42 29 Group Shelterwood Tractor

43 24 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

44 21 Seedtree Forwarder

45

46 11 Variable Density Forwarder

47 61 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

49 20 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

50 26 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

51 31 Intermediate-NCT Hand

52 49 Intermediate-NCT Hand

53 7 Intermediate-NCT Hand

54 5 Intermediate-NCT Hand

55

56 14 Intermediate-NCT Hand

57 28 Intermediate-NCT Hand

58 18 Intermediate-NCT Hand

60 6 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

61 76 Intermediate-NCT Hand

66 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

67 17 Intermediate-NCT Hand

70 37 NCT Hand

73 29 NCT Hand

75 39 NCT Hand

76 45 NCT Hand

78 15 NCT Hand

80 17 NCT Hand

82 32 NCT Hand

84 16 NCT Hand

85 15 NCT Hand

86 5 NCT Hand

87 13 NCT Hand

89 12 NCT Hand

91 16 NCT Hand

92 117 Intermediate-NCT Hand

94 34 NCT Hand
A-9

Alternative D

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

95 28 NCT Hand

96 31 NCT Hand

97 20 NCT Hand

98 23 NCT Hand

99 33 NCT Hand

100 27 NCT Hand

101 31 NCT Hand

102 33 NCT Hand

103 31 NCT Hand

104 38 NCT Hand

105 27 NCT Hand

106 36 NCT Hand

107 32 NCT Hand

108 20 NCT Hand

111 27 NCT Hand

112 20 NCT Hand

113 27 NCT Hand

114 11 NCT Hand

115 21 NCT Hand

116 18 NCT Hand

117 7 NCT Hand

118 4 NCT Hand

119 6 NCT Hand

120 11 NCT Hand

121 6 NCT Hand

122 12 NCT Hand

123 27 NCT Hand

124 5 NCT Hand

125 28 NCT Hand

126 20 NCT Hand

129A 73 Group Shelterwood Tractor

129B 37 NCT Hand

130 53 Variable Density-regen Tractor

Total 2,417
A-10

Table A-4. Activities planned in Alternative E by unit.

Alternative E

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

2 9 Group Shelterwood Tractor

5 20 Variable Density Tractor

6 13 Variable Density Tractor

7 26 Variable Density Tractor

8 57 Group Shelterwood Tractor

9 48 Seedtree Forwarder

10 31 Variable Density-regen Tractor

11 64 Variable Density Tractor/Sky

13 53 Group Shelterwood Forwarder

14 73 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

15A 13 Seedtree Tractor

15B 11 Riparian Restoration Tractor

16A 20 Shelterwood Tractor

16B 10 Riparian Restoration Tractor

17 21 Shelterwood Tractor

18 11 Clearcut Forwarder

19 18 Group Shelterwood Forwarder

20 9 Variable Density-regen Skyline

21 15 NCT Hand

22 20 Variable Density-regen Tractor

24 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

25 16 Intermediate-NCT Hand

26 15 Clearcut Skyline

27 8 Intermediate-NCT Hand

28 7 Intermediate-NCT Hand

29 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

30 24 Shelterwood Skyline

31 11 Variable Density-regen Skyline

34 17 Variable Density Tractor

35 22 Intermediate-NCT Hand

37 26 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

38 20 Intermediate-NCT Hand

39 14 Variable Density Tractor

40 43 Variable Density-regen Forwarder

41 18 Variable Density-regen Skyline

41B 7 Riparian Restoration Skyline

42 29 Group Shelterwood Tractor

43 24 Variable Density-regen Forwarder
A-11

Alternative E

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

44 21 Seedtree Forwarder

45 16 Variable Density Skyline

46 11 Variable Density Forwarder

47 61 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

49 20 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

50 26 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

51 31 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

52 49 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

53 7 Intermediate-NCT Hand

54 5 Intermediate-NCT Hand

55 15 Seedtree Tractor

56 14 Intermediate-NCT Hand

57 28 Intermediate-NCT Hand

58 18 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

60 6 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

61 76 Intermediate-NCT Hand

66 6 Intermediate-NCT Hand

67 17 Intermediate-NCT Hand

70 37 NCT Hand

73 29 NCT Hand

75 39 NCT Hand

76 45 NCT Hand

78 15 NCT Hand

80 17 NCT Hand

82 32 NCT Hand

84 16 NCT Hand

85 15 NCT Hand

86 5 NCT Hand

87 13 NCT Hand

89 12 NCT Hand

91 16 NCT Hand

92 117 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

94 34 NCT Hand

95 28 NCT Hand

96 31 NCT Hand

97 20 NCT Hand

98 23 NCT Hand

99 33 NCT Hand

100 27 NCT Hand

101 31 NCT Hand
A-12

Alternative E

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

102 33 NCT Hand

103 31 NCT Hand

104 38 NCT Hand

105 27 NCT Hand

106 36 NCT Hand

107 32 NCT Hand

108 20 NCT Hand

111 27 NCT Hand

112 20 NCT Hand

113 27 NCT Hand

114 11 NCT Hand

115 21 NCT Hand

116 18 NCT Hand

117 7 NCT Hand

118 4 NCT Hand

119 6 NCT Hand

120 11 NCT Hand

121 6 NCT Hand

122 12 NCT Hand

123 27 NCT Hand

124 5 NCT Hand

125 28 NCT Hand

126 20 NCT Hand

129A 73 Group Shelterwood Tractor

129B 37 NCT Hand

130 53 Variable Density-regen Tractor

131 18 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

132 12 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

133 14 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

134 13 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

135 23 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

136 19 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

137 35 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

138 22 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

139 11 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

140 11 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

141 28 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

142 64 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

143 10 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

144 17 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder
A-13

Alternative E

Unit Acres Treatment Logging System

145 38 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

146 10 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

147 10 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

148 22 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

149 26 Intermediate-Commercial Forwarder

150 35 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

151 23 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

152 17 Intermediate-Commercial Skyline

153 46 Intermediate-Commercial Tractor

Total 3,068
A-14

APPENDIX B. LEARNING DESIGN

Study plan for NEPA alternatives with learning designs 

(as an appendix to the Thomas Creek Restoration Project environmental analysis)

Lead authors: B.T. Bormann, J.F. Lehmkuhl, D.C. Powell, P.F. Hessburg, E. Eisenbraun, 

S. Alexander, S. Mellmann-Brown, and B. Van Horne,

Contributing members of the Umatilla Forest Collaborative Group, including: C. Davis, R. Klavins, B. 

Kelly, L. Warness, M. Stern, P. Nachbar, R. Storm, and S. Stuvland

Contributing employees of the Umatilla National Forest: M. Rassbach, C. Spradlin, and H. Hutchinson

Version – March 27, 2015

INTRODUCTION AND PROCESS BACKGROUND

The Umatilla Forest Collaborative Group formed on Sept. 6, 2011, and on Oct. 25, 2012 agreed to a road 

map for the Thomas Creek project which included: “...to explore and develop greater scientific 

knowledge of moist, mixed-conifer restoration principles and consideration on a longer-term process of 

collaborative scientific inquiry.” The Collaborative’s effort, with assistance from the Umatilla National 

Forest and the Pacific Northwest Research Station, has culminated in the following study plan, [which 

will be included as an appendix in the final project environmental document after undergoing a full, 

independent peer review and reconciliation (facilitated by PNW Research Station line officers)]. The 

debate between Collaborative members, the Forest, and Station participants was remarkably fruitful from 

a conceptual point of view. Full consensus amongst the Collaborative on all aspects of the study was not 

possible after concerted effort. Therefore, the Collaborative adopted two learning designs (described 

later) that may be considered separately in the record of decision, as part of several project alternatives. 

The Collaborative decision was not unanimous, as two members disagreed and one abstained, even to the 

proposal that two designs be developed, with one design that did not include the controversial edge 

management that will be described later. A brief timeline follows:

Fall 2011. The Collaborative self-assembled to help better communicate community perspectives to the 

Umatilla National Forest.

Spring 2013. The regional accelerated landscape learning group (under direction from the Regional 

Forester) presented to the Umatilla Collaborative (among others) a learning proposal following the 

modified Regional adaptive management model (seen later in Figs. 2 and 3). 

Summer 2013. The Collaborative decided to adopt such an approach following a field trip that examined 

(1) old-harvest units (OHUs) that had been planted to Ponderosa pine in the 1960s and 70s; (2) adjacent 

mixed-conifer forest possibly managed before but lacking planted pines; and (3) riparian buffers for class 

3 and 4 streams inside the OHUs some even with surviving pines. The debate identified areas with some 

agreement:
A-15

• Planted Ponderosa pines were not doing well and were essentially genetically and ecologically 

off-site; they could be harvested to provide certain community benefits (mill volume and timberrelated employment).

• Deviation from historic range of variability (HRV or RV in some documents) was a focus of 

determining the need for management. Powell (2013) had already determined that these 

landscapes were “well above RV” in Ponderosa pine, at the high end for Grand-fir and “well 

below RV” in Larch (also known as tamarack) and Lodgepole pine and older single-strata and 

early-seral (stand initiation) stands. Stand density was also determined as well above RV. 

• OK to move OHUs to under-represented seral stages and lower densities by harvesting overrepresented species (pines and Grand fir), and regenerating Larch and Douglas-fir as an earlyseral mixture.

• High tree density, especially of Grand fir, contributes to insect and fire risk problems.

• More thought should be given to wildlife and hardwoods, especially in relation to riparian areas 

whether management for hardwoods should be considered as a way to meet objectives and 

improve riparian function and improve soils

and clear disagreement:

Whether to include a control, no-action treatment, possibly as a way to see if pines might do better if 

projected climate changes began to occur. 

Economic consequences of managing adjacent forest stands (“a few larger logs would make a big 

difference in whether sales paid for themselves”).

Ecological and legal consequences of managing adjacent forest stands (likely ecological damages, natural 

stands should be allowed to develop naturally, and this would set an undesirable precedent “slippery 

slope”).

Fall 2013 to Spring 2014. A mock-up design was presented to the Collaborative that created 

experimental treatments that tried to capture the different views within the group. Concerns about 

including a treatment that went beyond the OHU boundaries continued. This stimulated the group to 

begin thinking about why such management might be beneficial or detrimental. Patterns of seral-stage 

patches were discussed as an alternative way of looking at historical range of variation (HRV). Historical 

early-seral patches were typically much larger than the 10 to 40 ac OHUs and had irregular rather than the 

distinct boundaries and uniform shapes of OHUs. An aesthetic angle was discussed—that it was this 

footprint of dispersed harvest units that contributed to a negative view of National Forest management, 

especially from travelers passing above in commercial airplanes. A concept, called feathering was 

proposed that would alter the shape and hide the footprint to meet both the aesthetic and historical shape 

ideas. Modifications to the mock-up design were pursued, but the lack of information on the adjacent 

stands made this difficult. Strong opposition continued from several members.

Summer 2014. A second field trip was undertaken with stops to explore the question of whether 

consensus could be reached on including feathering as a treatment in the study. Unanimity did not appear 

possible, but a subgroup was formed to explore alternatives. After the field trip, a scaled back version of 

feathering was developed, limiting management in an edge treatment to 100 ft beyond the OHU 

boundary, and a new focus on managing the 100 ft buffer to: (1) increase effectiveness of management 

inside the OHU, (2) to make wildlife habitat improvements not possible inside the OHUs, and (3) 
A-16

consistent with the above, harvest of a limited number of trees including some larger that might make 

sales self-sufficient. 

Fall 2014. Specifics of what could be included in an edge buffer treatment continued, but it became 

apparent that proposed limits on activity in the buffer would curtail edge management effects and largely 

eliminate the contrast between with and without edge management to the point that little could be 

learned1

. At this point, the study design was put up for a vote within the Collaborative recognizing that 

support may not be unanimous. Using mutually agreed-on protocols, a vote was held and a majority 

agreed to the design (2 against, 1 abstention, and the remainder for). The Collaborative also agreed to ask 

for a second design without the edge treatment, and to let the Forest Service decide which design to adopt 

in the EA. This debate helped to uncover the different underlying philosophies discussed above that 

underlies the continuing divide in the Collaborative. The two designs will be described in this study plan. 

Each treatment describes a different vision of how to achieve a community/ecological win-win.

Complete learning design. This full design will use (A) 22 Old harvest units (OHUs) to contrast OHU ± 

Edge management and OHU ± Hardwood enhancement, and (B) 10 OHUs to contrast Go (treated) and

No go (not treated, or control). The OHU ± Hardwood treatments will be applied to entire OHUs 

including OHU ± Edge treatments.

Boundary-limited design. This limited design will not include any OHU ± Edge treatments. Instead 24 

OHUs are used (A) to compare the OHU ± Hardwood enhancement contrast, and (B) the 11 OHU 

contrast of Go and No go. 

The boundary-limited design is based on the ecological restoration first philosophy, and the complete 

design based on the sustainability philosophy (to be articulated later). 

Best available science on adaptive management

Here we adopt—as the method for collaborative learning—the best available science on adaptive 

management as facilitated by the 2012 planning rule2

. Adaptive management has taken on a wide range 

of definitions. Through this debate a consensus has developed on science-based adaptive management, 

that uses scientific processes to make results more rigorous (Williams et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2012). 

We consider this the best available science. The 

Northwest Forest Plan (NW Plan) adopted adaptive 

management in 1994 and set up specific areas, 

regional monitoring, and mandatory interpretation. 

The 10-year interpretive report—which was a 

success itself by closing the adaptive management 

loop—in general found more AM failures than 

successes (Bormann et al. 2007). The NW Plan 

regional executives adopted these findings and had 

a new AM framework developed and approved 

(Fig. 1). This framework was based on experiences 

in western Oregon without direct collaborative 

group involvement. It was modeled in part on the 

 1 Various documents are available from the Collaborative representing this debate. 2

See the Forest Planning Rule [www.fs.usda.gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprdb5359471]

Figure 1. New adaptive management framework adopted by 

regional executives for the Northwest Forest Plan area (NW 

FOREST PLAN 2007). Linking learning to decisions and 

management studies with local monitoring are the major new 

elements.
A-17

Five Rivers Landscape Management project on the Siuslaw NF (Bormann and Kiester 2004), where 

alternatives compared were based on a stakeholder debate in the North Coast Province advisory 

committee which failed to reach consensus a year earlier. This framework is relevant to the Umatilla 

project because the Forest is in Region 6, although not in the NW Forest Plan area. 

Experiences with adaptive management in the NW Forest Plan had considerable influence on the 2012 

Planning Rule which is now applied on all Forests. The 2012 Forest Service planning rule set out to 

promote Forest-scale collaboration and at the same time to promote science-based learning. What the rule 

ultimately comes to mean is being tested out in various pilot Forests outside of the Pacific Northwest. In 

this study plan, we are developing a vision for integrating collaboration and learning in the rule. Ideally, 

we’re trying citizen science by encouraging the collaborative members to participate in all aspects of the 

management experiment, where views and knowledge from a diversity of collaborators can be harnessed 

along with the underlying scientific knowledge to speed learning in a way that links to the most pressing 

issues of forest management and improves future decisions by doing so (Fig. 2). When this learning 

process is applied over the long term it is designed to lace together ecological and community concerns 

with the goal of sustainability (Fig. 3).

Figure 2. This modified framework blends together the planning rule and NW Forest Plan adaptive management framework (Fig. 1). 

It identifies collaboration as a new method of learning that can be linked to management experiments, and use results to feed long-term 

planning steps. This is the framework adopted in this project.

Questions development and formal priority

Implementation and 

Activities Records

National 

Performance

Reporting (OMB)

Outcome and 

Trend Analysis

Management 

Experiments

Traditional 

Research

Annual and Multiyear Synthesis and Interpretation

Collaborative Assessment

Future Decisions,

Plan revisions

Monitoring programs 

including new questions

Each question fitted to a specific learning method

Mandatory 

requirements

(legal and otherwise)

Collaboration
A-18

Figure 3. The lacing model represents an iterative process (expanded on the right) for any geographic scale 

to “lace” together societal values and ecological capacity to achieve sustainable ecosystems (Copied from 

Bormann et al. 1994). This model requires that managers, scientists, and the public work together through 

the steps outlined to achieve the overlap defined as sustainable ecosystems.

Priority question

In this collaborative learning approach, priority questions drive learning designs. The Umatilla Forest 

Collaborative Group developed a mission statement focused on ecological-local community win-wins, 

To develop and promote balanced solutions from a diverse group of stakeholders to improve and sustain 

ecological resiliency and local community socioeconomic health in and near the Umatilla National 

Forest.

This mission statement is similar to other Eastside collaboratives, and represents a merger of ecological 

and community objectives. Since the beginning of the National Forests, there have been times when 

ecological and community objectives gained dominance over the other. Most of the collaborative 

movement, and the new Forest Service planning rule, has been focused on placing both objectives on an 

even playing field so that, where possible, both can be achieved at the same time and even in the same 

place. This is commonly referred to as a win-win. This win-win mission framework serves to provide an 

over-arching collaborative adaptive-management question that a learning design can address,

What are different ways to approach the win-win mission as reflected in different perspectives and 

knowledge bases within the Collaborative?

Reactions to past management on federal lands, the spotted owl injunction, and Northwest Forest Plan as 

implemented led many people to adopt what might be called an ecological restoration first philosophy, 

where ecological objectives had to be met before community wellbeing could be considered. This is a 

valid philosophy that is consistent with some court rulings but at the same time appears inconsistent with 
A-19

the NW Forest Plan and existing Eastside Forest Plan3 goals, and also with founding Forest Service 

multiple-use legislation. The President’s principles (paraphrased) setting up the NW Forest Plan can be 

interpreted as suggesting a level playing field or even a different order: (1) consider the human and 

economic dimensions, (2) protect long-term health, (3) be legally responsible, (4) produce predictable and 

sustainable level of timber sales and nontimber resources without degrading the environment, and (5) end 

gridlock and emphasize collaboration among federal agencies. Legal concerns raised under the 

Endangered Species Act did require specific actions to allow Forests to continue to pursue their existing 

Forest Plans to lift the Spotted Owl injunction. Some believe a fear of potential litigation then developed 

and spread widely, affecting management on federal lands in the Northwest, even beyond the boundaries 

of the NW Forest Plan (western Oregon and Washington and northern California), including the Umatilla 

National Forest. This fear may be foundational to the ecological restoration first philosophy, where 

ecological objectives have to be identified first, and for some, only by people with pure ecological 

motivation, before community benefits including timber production can even be contemplated.4

 

A different philosophy has existed and is reflected in much of the ecosystem management literature, 

perhaps best called a sustainability philosophy, where the goal is to merge societal values and ecological 

capacity to provide them sustainably (Fig. 3). The Forest Collaborative movement began before the Plan, 

and most collaboratives appeared to adopt this philosophy. The Umatilla Collaborative’s mission 

statement does, by including “balanced” and “sustain ecological resiliency and local community 

socioeconomic health.” We suggest that philosophical differences may be the root cause behind the lack 

of full consensus, and minority opposition, to including the ± Edge treatment described later as part of the 

study. 

OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS (EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS)

Here, we develop specific objectives for each of six experimental treatments in the complete design (Fig. 

4), and management actions needed to meet them (Table 1). The collective set of treatments sets up 

contrasts to yield measureable and scientifically defensible differences to set the foundation for better 

decisions in the future. How we arrived at the legitimacy of each of these experimental treatments is 

based on the Conceptual model (section V) and is detailed further in the Review of what is known and 

unknown (section VI).

Figure 4. The 6 experimental 

treatments or pathways used to 

produce combinations of 

ecological and community benefits 

and desired conditions. The 

conceptual model (later, in Table 

1) presents a simple view of how 

processes vary between 

treatments.

 3 The NW Forest Plan did not include the Umatilla National Forest

4 Some members of the Umatilla Collaborative expressed this view.

Current 

condition

Desired 

condition

No go 

Go in OHU

-HW NoEdge

+HW NoEdge

-HW +Edge

+HW +Edge

Pathways

Improved choices 

next time

Ecological + Community

Benefits
A-20

Contrast A (Go versus No go): Manage plantations (OHUs initially planted with ponderosa pine) or 

not?

No go inside OHUs. No action allows stands to continue their development with the planted ponderosa 

pines. Objectives are: (1) avoid any possible negative consequence of direct intervention and allow 

stands to develop on their own under a changing climate, (2) provide data on what happens when and if 

some OHUs are never managed for various reasons (such as, access, lawsuits, or litigation), and (3) 

provide an experimental contrast to active management to determine background change. The effects of 

the Go and other treatments will be compared against what happens here in order to form conclusions on 

treatment effects (removing background effects). We expect continuing background changes that could 

change how we interpret other treatments. We also expect this treatment will have relatively little 

ecological or community benefit; but, we might be surprised by improving health and growth of the 

Ponderosa pine in response to lower summer moisture availability resulting from a declining snowpack. 

High density of Grand fir of all sizes will likely attract insects and provide fuel ladders for wildfire. 

Go inside OHUs. Objective is to provide ecological and community benefit (from Purpose and Need 

section): 

• Manage toward HRV at the landscape scale by

• Decreasing off-site ponderosa pine and increasing western Larch

• Decreasing stem exclusion and increasing stand initiation forest structure

• Decreasing young high density forests;

• Ameliorate detrimental soil conditions; and

• Manage Riparian Habitat Management Areas toward PACFISH (NW Forest Plan) riparian 

management objectives.

Actions include harvest of off-site pines and small-diameter trees that are making the stands too dense. 

Early-seral tree species (Larch and Douglas-fir) would be planted if enough receipts are collected. 

Vegetation and fuels management will follow normal protocols to give desired trees space and light and 

reduce fuels. This is the default treatment developed by the Ranger District. Without the experiment, this 

treatment would have been applied to all of the OHUs. 

The desired ecological benefit is to improve forest health with self-sufficient timber sales. Forest health 

and ecological resilience would be improved (1) in patches with pines by produce small pockets of earlyseral Larch and Douglas-fir where pines are removed, and (2) in the remaining stand by reducing tree 

density and disfavoring grand-fir. The desired community benefit comes in the harvesting of pines and 

selected other species. The marking priority is Ponderosa pine, Grand fir, spruce, Douglas-fir, and Larch. 

No trees above 21 in diameter will be harvested. The Go and No-go treatments provide ample 

experimental contrast to detect outcome differences (Fig. 5). 
A-21

Contrast B (OHU ± Hardwoods): Increase hardwoods in OHUs or reduce them?

The main objective for this contrast is to evaluate the possible role hardwoods play in providing an 

expanded set of long-term community and ecological benefits, including increased aquatic and songbird 

productivity and increased water-holding capacity, soil organic matter, and nitrogen to increase 

productivity and resilience of residual conifers. These treatments were applied randomly to 11 pairs of 

OHUs, where pair members were determined to be similar (Table S-2; suppl. mat.). 

OHU+Hardwood. The desired outcome is to create a mixed early-seral community of Larch, Douglas-fir, 

and hardwood shrubs (with a focus on alders) in openings. Here we assume that: (1) we can facilitate 

hardwood sprouting and regeneration by modifying the degree and type of ground vegetation 

management done; (2) we can plant alders if needed to have sufficient contrast to the –Hardwood 

treatment; and (3) favoring hardwoods will significantly increase soil organic matter and nitrogen, waterholding capacity, and both grazer browsing and aquatic foodchain production. If alder cover is large 

enough and is maintained for 15-20 years, we could also expect increases in residual conifer growth 

relative to trees lacking a hardwood component. Actions include avoidance of existing hardwood patches 

with skidders and planting of alders where appropriate. 

OHU-Hardwood. The desired outcome is to maximize young conifer seedlings, and in the process 

minimize hardwood cover, in areas opened by harvest. It’s based on several assumptions: (a) that early 

seral conditions are adequately described by the species of the conifer regeneration, (b) that favoring 

hardwood shrubs does not contribute significantly to soil productivity or browser or aquatic foodchains, 

and (c) brushing treatments will not tip the balance to prevent self-sufficiency. Actions of skidders or 

brush disposal equipment are to disrupt hardwood growth and re-emergence after harvest. This may 

include increased conifer planting densities in the Edge treatments that also are designated as OHUHardwood. 

Contrast C (OHU ± an external Edge): Manage OHUs with or without managing 100 ft beyond the 

OHU boundary?

Figure 5. Simple view of the how treatments might be assigned to OHUs, for contrast A (Go-No go; 

left) and nested contrasts B and C (OHU ± Edge and OHU ± Hardwoods; right). 

No go Go

Unmanaged 

Managed OHU

OHU

No go

Unmanaged 

OHU

Go

Managed 

OHU

Go-No go Block 2 Go

Managed 

OHU

Go

Managed 

OHU

OHU NoEdge

+Hardwood

OHU+Edge

+Hardwood

Managed 

100 ft buffer

Unmanaged 

100 ft buffer

Managed 

Managed OHU

OHU

Managed 

100 ft buffer OHU NoEdge

OHU+Edge -Hardwood

-Hardwood

OHU Pair

OHU Pair

Managed Managed OHU OHU
A-22

OHU-Edge (NoEdge). The desired outcome in this treatment or management strategy is to increase 

ecological benefits first, but also secondarily provide community benefit. This treatment is a more 

conservative vision of a win-win. The actions are to apply a removal priority of Ponderosa pine, grandfir, and mistletoe-infested Larch inside the OHUs designed to: (a) create early-seral openings within 

OHUs by removing pine and planting Larch and Douglas-fir; (b) remove smaller trees of other species to 

reduce density (to alter development trajectory and increase stand resilience); and (c) to reduce mistletoe 

and grand-fir seed rain by disfavoring residual Grand fir and mistletoe-infested Larch within 100 ft of 

openings inside OHU (created by removing pines; Fig. 6). The secondary objective is to provide 

harvested pine and smaller trees for community benefits. 

Figure 6. The NoEdge management concept (left): is confined to OHUs to generate community and 

ecological benefits by harvesting most off-site pines and as much Grand fir to achieve sale 

breakeven threshold, have dead Grand fir or other species provide wildlife structure, and reduce 

density in other species. The OHU+Edge concept (right) adds actions in the 100 ft external buffer, 

attempting to accentuate benefits. 

The initial assumption, like Go, is that OHUs with ponderosa pine are not ecologically or genetically 

sound and that conversion of pine patches to an early-seral tree composition and thinning of species other 

than pine to reduce density make both make these stands more ecologically resilient. Resilience at the 

unit scale (10 to 40 ac) is the key measure of success. Success will be determined by: (1) purchase of the 

timber sale; (2) increases in underrepresented successional (here mainly early seral) stages; (3) successful 

regeneration of these species without a need for extensive PCT later; (4) increases in diameter growth of 

residuals; (5) reductions in fuel loads and fire ladders; and (6) decreases in extent of undesired 

disturbance (insect and disease outbreaks, fire, and wind; if they happen). Local wildlife benefit will also 

be used as a measure of success (with the argument that more and diverse wildlife or habitat equals more 

resilience). Evidence of increased ungulate benefit will be gauged by quality and quantity of summer 

range forage as well as direct use. If resources can be found, increases in early-seral dependent 

Neotropical birds will serve as a yardstick of success. The secondary community benefit will be gauged 
A-23

by whether the timber sale can generate enough receipts to pay for the management action (achieve selfsufficiency). If not, this approach is not likely possible over many other OHUs given limited 

appropriations. Evaluating other community benefits such as recreation, hunting and fishing, wilderness, 

and cultural values can’t be evaluated directly because they occur at a much larger scale. Projections of 

effects by extrapolating effects to all OHU acres on the Umatilla National Forest may prove useful in 

future decisions. It’s important to recognize that all OHUs are not alike. For example, pine composition 

varies from 40 to 95%. In OHUs with low pine %, what to do with the other species becomes a key 

question. Trees other than pine, if retained in the OHU, could (a) prevent achieving a break-even value or 

(b) provide a wider range of ecological benefits, some in place of the early seral goal. Partial removal of 

trees may place the sale above a threshold value, reduce losses of the early seral goal, and achieve other 

benefits. Removing Grand fir and mistletoed Larch trees would improve the success of natural and 

planted Larch and Douglas-fir in openings and perhaps create more or larger openings. Retaining some 

scattered healthy Larch, Douglas-fir, and spruce is consistent with many early seral conditions. Some 

patches too dense to allow early seral species provides fine-scale stand diversity, and is not inconsistent 

with many early seral conditions. Removing most of the small trees of all species (except perhaps Larch) 

would increase the resilience of residual trees reducing likelihood of insect outbreaks and mortality from 

other causes, water stress, and fuel ladders. Retaining the small trees could endanger the longer-term 

early seral objective (you have to start over if it burns up). Trees of different species flow to benefits in 

different ways (Fig. 6). 

OHU+Edge. This treatment or management strategy starts with a different philosophy, where ways to 

increase community benefit can be conceived that may also provide ecological benefits, as well as the 

reverse. This is an attempt at a larger win-win than the Go inside OHUs treatment (Fig. 6) through the 

use of rudimentary landscape-ecology principles—that adjacent stands interact and management of that 

interaction can provide added ecological and community benefit. Objectives are: (1) to provide more 

community benefits through slightly larger timber sales that remove ecologically undesirable trees that 

may get sales above a critical sufficiency threshold; and (2) provide more ecological benefits through 

more active management steps. The stumpage value of the OHU Ponderosa pine is known to be low, 

perhaps just enough to avoid a below-cost timber sale5

. Thus, removing just a few larger trees in the 100 

ft buffer could tip the balance in favor of breakeven, increasing the number of successful sales for the 

project as a whole. Receipts in excess of costs can be reinvested in other activities in these and other 

treatment areas, or in the larger project area.

The OHU+Edge is the most complex treatment. Larch and Douglas-fir are planted inside the OHU to 

better assure their, and reduce Grand fir’s, success. The inside and outside buffers (± 100 ft) on both sides 

of the OHU boundary are managed to maximize success of the management inside the OHU, by reducing 

negative edge effects (mistletoe, Grand fir seed, insect outbreaks, undesired windthrow) and increasing 

positive edge effects (increased side light, wildlife structure, and receipts and revenues). Note that all 

inside and outside buffers will be monitored whether managed or not. Success of early-seral regeneration 

in the OHU will be gauged by (1) acres with free-to-grow, healthy saplings of Larch and Douglas-fir; (2) 

extent of competition from Grand fir seedlings and saplings; and (3) numbers of dead-tree habitat 

structures. A specific habitat structures list would be evaluated, including > 21 in diameter dead snags 

and better protected live, deformed trees in the buffers, and > 21 in diameter downed wood felled into the 

OHU. We know that the treatment increases desired habitat structures as part of the +Edge treatment, so 

 5 Lindsay Warness, Boise Cascade representative, pers. comm. 
A-24

the question is restructured to ask whether the added structure had any effect. Key bird species known to 

value these habitats would have to be monitored in areas with and without added structure to determine 

success. The interactions between unmanaged stands outside the OHU and between the managed buffer 

and the OHU would help determine if one had more benefits and fewer costs than the other. We would 

evaluate windthrow, fuels, Grand fir regeneration, and mistletoe infection across the transition from 100 ft 

inside to 100 ft outside the OHU boundaries. On OHUs selected for the OHU ± Edge treatments, about 

75% of the outside edge is available for treatment; the remaining edge is either in a riparian buffer or was 

identified by air-photo interpretation as old, multi-story (these are not available, unless perhaps the photointerpretation proves unreliable). This unavailable designation is also made on the NoEdge treatments to 

make comparable measures. Residual trees in the available outer 100 ft buffer (+Edge) would be 

compared to unmanaged trees in the “available” 100 ft buffer of the NoEdge treatments to determine if 

resiliency was improved by edge management. The contrast between OHU ± Edge treatments is 

evaluated by the magnitudes of, and relative balance between, gains and losses. Different people will 

interpret the desirability of the mix of costs and benefits coming from treatments differently. Thus, this 

study may not change some peoples’ minds simply because of how they value outcomes. The learning 

benefit comes from knowing more about how well the strategies work and informing the determination of 

beneficial mixes by Forest Service line officers responsible for decisions. 

Conceptual model of processes, outcomes, testable hypotheses, and links to better decisions

We start with the two contrasting philosophies, stated as premises:

• Management of OHUs on Thomas Creek will provide ecological benefits and may secondarily 

benefit communities; and 

• Management based on an even playing field will provide both ecological and community benefits 

(actions to benefit communities can also provide ecological benefit and vice versa). 

We expect the different management strategies implementing these philosophies (above) will produce 

different amounts and types of ecological and community benefit. The mix of benefits can only be 

determined by examining actual outcomes in the project over time. A foundational assumption behind 

this experiment is that future decisionmakers will benefit from a better understanding of the mix of 

benefits each strategy is likely to produce as well as better understanding of the tradeoffs. Here, we 

examine the contrasting proposed experimental treatments to look for key assumptions, bottlenecks, 

thresholds, and extrapolated impacts to develop key hypotheses and ways to monitor and test them 

through time (Table 1). 
A-25

Table. 1. Conceptual model of processes, including management actions, and predicted responses and differences in outcomes

Process1

Pathways to desired future condition (experimental treatments)

No go

control

Go 

inside OHU

-Hardwood NoEdge +Hardwood NoEdge -Hardwood 

+Edge

+Hardwood 

+Edge

Harvest for sawlogs

No harvest Harvest similarly from OHUs with these treatments Added harvest 

Harvest for fiber/biomass from the Edge, as well as OHU

Create large snags Small ↑ through selfthinning only

No response because 

no planting or special 

attention to wildlife 

structure

Moderate planting response; 

Only small response possible when creating 

wildlife structures from smaller trees inside the 

OHU

Larger response given planting and also creating 

wildlife structures from trees and other 

management in the Edge designed to benefit 

OHU

Add large wood to OHU?

Preserve special wildlife trees

No effect because not 

implemented in this 

treatment

Remove mistletoe near openings

Plant Larch and Douglas-fir

Plant alders No Yes No Yes

Collect net+ receipts? Uncertain Likely

Aesthetics (aerial) footprint Slowly declining Accentuated with activities limited in OHUs Accentuated but then softened

Elk, deer, moose browsing

Slow decline because 

of Grand-fir infilling 

after pine mortality

Increased because of openings but less so than 

treatments with hardwoods (except for earlyseral conifers)

Openings with 

hardwoods and Larch 

will increase these 

processes relative to 

-Hardwoods

Larger effect from 

openings and sidelight 

(not as much as the 

+Hardwoods +Edge 

treatment)

Largest effect from 

openings and sidelight 

(more than the 

-Hardwoods +Edge 

treatment)

Woodpeckers and cavity nesters

Early-seral conifers

Early-seral birds and mammals

↑↓Huckleberry fruiting

↑↓Mineral-soil organic matter

Energy to aquatic system

New mistletoe infection Continuing Reduced except within 50 to 100 ft from edge Most reduced

Fuel buildup

Initially high and 

increasing over time; 

delaying when desired 

condition reached

Resistance and resilience to fire, insects, and snow snap increased by 

reducing stand density and grand fir and increasing fuel heterogeneity 

compared to No go, (not as much as +Edge treatments); possible “wet 

blanket” effect from alders and other hardwoods, speeding when desired 

condition reached

Resistance and resilience to disturbance, 

including windthrow, higher because of the 

+Edge treatment

Fuel ladders

Intense wildfire risk

Self-thinning

Grand fir regeneration

Dead to total crown ratio

Insect outbreak

1

Processes not included in Table 1: (a) apply equally across all treatments (e.g., debate, design, and monitoring); (b) are not considered in the study; or 

 (c) are assumed not to be measurably affected by treatments (e.g., recreation).
A-26

KNOWLEDGE AND UNCERTAINTY 

In the preceding sections, we developed a conceptual model of how treatments will affect costs and 

benefits. Various processes (management steps, disturbances, and natural processes) are linked to gains 

and losses. On what basis can we make such assumptions and predictions? What do we think we know 

to begin with and what’s the size of the uncertainty associated with that knowledge? These are the 

questions we address in this section. If uncertainties are low, then the value of learning is quite limited. 

Alternatively, if processes are not known well, especially their interactions, then a comparison of different 

approaches should yield great benefit.

A. An ecological view of sustainability

Scientific knowledge tends to be accumulated in individual or small groups of disciplines. To attempt a 

first level of integration however, we proceed to describe what is known and uncertain within the major 

topical areas affecting our hypotheses focused on moist, mixed-conifer forests in NE Oregon and SE 

Washington and their associated local communities. 

Disturbance ecology of moist, mixed conifer forests. We know the moist, mixed-conifer forests 

surrounding the Thomas Creek project area were a mosaic driven by variation in climate, soils, 

topography, and low- to mixed- and occasional high-severity fire (Powell 2014, Stine et al. 2014). A host 

of factors, some related to forest practices, have substantially changed what we see today. Decades of 

wildfire suppression and exclusion, domestic livestock grazing, and selective and clearcut timber 

harvesting have interacted to alter the structure, composition, and disturbance regimes of these forests. 

They have become denser, have lost many large of fire-resistant individuals, and on many sites, have 

become dominated by dense patches of shade-tolerant Grand fir, less resistant to fire and less resilient to 

drought and insects (Rollins 1983). Fires have become less frequent, larger, and burn at higher 

temperatures. Large fires create larger and less diverse patches resulting in more homogenous structure 

and support more live and dead fuel than they did historically. We also know that the extent of changes 

are not uniform across the moist mixed-conifer forests, so knowledge of local conditions is important 

(Stine et al. 2014; Section 5). 

The historic range of variability (HRV) is a widely adopted concept in the intermountain West, based on 

the idea that episodic disturbances and other complex processes make forest ecosystems highly dynamic, 

leading to a distribution of conditions that fluctuate through time (Hessburg et al. 1999). Premise 1 is if 

the distribution across a broad landscape of seral stages stays within a historic range, the forests are more 

likely to be sustainable than if they were forced out of this range thereby impairing stability. Premise 2 is 

that sustainability is determined by resilience to disturbance (the same productivity, species, and 

structures are able to return). In other words, the past range of patterns (based on a disturbance regime 

less influenced by humans) were sustainable because many species and disturbances had become coadapted, which implies that management of the disturbance and responses to it is a way to achieve 

ecological sustainability. 

Many, likely interacting disturbances have long been at play in these forests, including human-caused and 

wild fires, insects and diseases, and wildlife and grazing (over and under abundance). A large fire was 

described near the Thomas Creek area by W.H.B. Kent in 1904 as follows: “Practically every portion of 

the [the Umatilla Nat. For.] has suffered more or less from fire. The largest and most important of these 

was one which came from the present Umatilla Indian Reservation about fifty years ago [circa. 1854], 
A-27

burned up the river Umatilla, into the Reserve, then turned north along the west slope, across the heads of 

the Walla Wallas, and reached as far as the head of the Wenaha [river]. This burn has generally restocked 

finely, principally to tamarack and lodgepole pine.” This is one of the oldest accounts dated 1904 

(Umatilla CWPP 2005). Since about 1950, fire attack and suppression has greatly reduced fire-burned 

forest. 

A wide variety of insects and disease have played a major role in disturbance of these forests, and much 

has been learned (Hessburg et al. 1994). Mountain Pine Beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) affected the 

Umatilla NF considerably 1955 to 1966 (Dolph 1966). The tussock moth (Orgyia pseudotsugata

McDunnough) outbreak in the 1970’s caused widespread mortality in the area (Wickman 1978) and 

resulted in over 350,000 acres sprayed with DDT in eastern Oregon in 1974 (Curtis and Hadfield 1974). 

A major outbreak of western spruce budworm, (Choristoneura occidentalis Freeman), peaked 1949 to 

1979 (Fellin and Dewey 1982). We know that the Ponderosa pines planted in the Thomas Creek OHUs 

are maladapted to these sites given the slow growth and stem deformations from the large disease and 

insect burden they carry. Dwarf mistletoes (Arceuthobium spp.) are common on overstory Larch and 

Douglas-fir, and young trees will be infected if seeds fall within a 50 to 100 ft. radius from existing 

mistletoe seed sources (Schmitt and Hadfield 2009). The USDA Plants database [http://plants.usda.gov/java/] 

does not list Larch dwarf mistletoe as present in Union County (although many infected trees were 

observed on site). 

Uncertainties with disturbance ecology:

• How do we know we're using the right metrics and scale for HRV? The linkage between all of the 

patterns and processes in play, and whether we are even using the right patterns or processes is poorly 

understood. The most common attributes used to quantify the acceptable range are: proportion of 

different successional stages, wildfire frequency, tree species composition, and stand density. What 

criteria to use for assessing whether a landscape is within the historical range, is vital. Patterns are 

often used because we have much more information on them, but underlying processes may actually 

determine sustainability. Other metrics (opening sizes, stand density, tree species, and stand 

structures) could be more closely linked to ecosystem processes behind sustainability (e.g., what 

picture of HRV would emerge if we used soil organic matter?). Most work has focused on upland 

forest. Work on riparian RV is thin even though riparian zones consume nearly 30% of the 

landscape. Shrublands, hardwoods, and range elements have also received little attention. 

Interactions between elements seem likely (fire, wildlife movement). 

Historic data may not include the full range of conditions we would like to represent the longer-term 

history to which we aspire. Data extending back in time also has decreasing availability and certainty, 

including the influence (burning and cultivation) by native peoples before the population crashes 

associated with first contact (in the 1700s). Other examples include certain artifacts of history (e.g., sheep 

grazing and mining). Substantial soil damage from overgrazing has been reported in other areas of the 

West (Sampson and Weyl 1918). Umatilla sites have likely had considerable grazing influence from 

fluctuating native ungulates and Nez Perce horses, followed by industrial beef cattle grazing (peaking 

between 1869 and 1890 corresponding to widespread European settlement; Tucker 1940). Sheep grazing 

peaked afterwards and was common until the 1940s. Pressure from deer, elk, and moose can be seen 

today, which may be modified by expanding wolf populations. Climate change obviously alters many of 
A-28

the basic parameters and has to be accounted for somehow. Efforts are underway to modify HRV to be 

more relevant to future conditions (Hessburg et al. 2013). 

Historic data specifically from Thomas Creek area was cursorily evaluated. Large-scale HRV analysis is 

not fully consistent with species presence as reported by GLO data from the 1880s (Fig. S-1, Suppl. 

Mat.). Although Larch and Douglas-fir were clearly the dominant species, there were some Ponderosa 

pines. Most striking was the complete absence of Grand-fir, even though small alders were occasionally 

used as witness trees. This is in stark contrast to the predominance of Grand fir today (Fig. S-2, Suppl. 

Mat.). Remotely conceivable, the survey crew may not have been able to distinguish between Douglas-fir 

and Grand fir, so this adds some uncertainty to these conclusions. 

Conclusion: HRV is a widely used approach, and most-likely the best available science to determine 

sustainability of landscapes in the moist, mixed conifer forests. A key issue is that HRV is a regional 

landscape concept being applied here at a much smaller scale. Also, moving key attributes closer to 

historic ranges on several thousand acres by itself will not make a dent in intermediate or larger scale 

areas. 

Landscape ecology of edges. Landscape ecology developed out of the idea that although forests do 

appear to have uniform patches, those patches are, at any scale, adjacent to others that can be sharply 

different (Turner 2005). The landscape mosaic therefore consists of an assemblage of dissimilar patches. 

Quickly, ecologists recognized that the place where patches meet (edges) have ecological processes that 

may define the function of the landscape itself (Forman and Godran 1986). This thinking connected back 

to an early positive perception of forest edges as desirable wildlife habitat (Leopold 1936). Later, 

research on edges in eastern U.S. deciduous forest, in agricultural landscapes, and fragmented forests 

documented some negative aspects of edges, notably predation and nest depredation of songbirds 

(reviewed in Patton 1994). In the western conifer forests, people saw the fragmentation resulting from 

dispersed harvest units, and edge assumed a negative connotation (e.g., windthrow, temperature, invasive 

species, limits to dispersal). 

Research on the positive or negative quality of edge in the west has been more nuanced, however. Sisk 

and Battin (2002) and Hejl et al. (2002) found little evidence for strong edge effects in western conifer 

forest, mainly because species are well adapted to dynamic forest pattern created by environmental 

diversity and fire and other disturbances. Recent studies in dry forests of northern Arizona showed 

positive one-sided edge effects for several early-seral wildlife species in treated thinned areas: 

abundances were high in untreated edges in closed-canopy forest adjacent to treated areas and declined to 

low levels in untreated stands within 100 m of the edge (Battin and Sisk 2011); whereas, no edge effects 

were detected for closed-canopy species in the adjacent untreated forest. The implication for Thomas 

Creek is that edge treatments are expected to extend the value of created early-seral habitat, especially for 

some songbird species. The back and forth debate among wildlife biologists appears to be based on which 

species or group of species are being studied. 

A more holistic view of edges (Candenasso et al. 2003) includes edges as where flows of energy, 

precipitation, nutrients, and species influence both sides of the edge. An even broader view incorporates 

how people create, use, and appreciate edges, or fail to perhaps in the case of some linear features like 

checkerboard ownership, OHU boundaries, and powerlines. Disciplines like landscape architecture have 

not been sought after other than for visual assessments. Some applied research has been set up on theory 

and practice of edge management in Scandinavia (Fry and Sarlov-Herlin 1997, Sarlov-Herlin 2001) and 
A-29

Britain (Ferris-Kaan 1991, Buckley et al. 1997, Smith 2007). Another example is the Canadians who 

developed ways to manage edges to reduce windthrow (Rowan et al. 2003).

Uncertainties about managing edges:

No recent publications were found in the U.S. scientific literature where edges were being purposefully 

managed to achieve a range of management objectives. This review did not include landscape 

architecture studies, however. 

Further work is needed to determine the extent that aerial fly-over perspectives have long influenced how 

people think of forest management in the West. Changing these patterns by blending OHUs into the 

landscape has the potential to alter social perspectives at a larger scale. 

Edge management may not have emerged in western U.S. forests because an ecological restoration-first 

philosophy often sees managed edges as undesirable because they are man-made. Other than facilitating 

managed areas to blend back into surrounding unmanaged areas, wildfires—largely out of control by 

managers—may be the only acceptable way to create larger patches with less edge, thought to be more 

prevalent in many forests historically. 

A sustainability philosophy, where communities and ecological restoration are put on an even playing 

field, opens the door for wider consideration of opportunities to manage existing edges (especially given 

all of what’s been learned in ecotone studies).

Limiting edge management to 100 ft of an external buffer is quite arbitrary. The concept of feathering 

extended much further, and even managing between to link OHUs to make larger early-seral patches was 

debated, but proved highly unacceptable to some members of the Collaborative, and were dropped to seek 

consensus. We suggest these ideas be pursued in different studies. Even the 100 ft edge treatment 

remained controversial. 

Conclusion: It follows that edges have great influence on landscapes and ecosystems through changes in 

flows across boundaries, and that influences are often a mix of beneficial and harmful, and could 

presumably be managed to achieve specified goals. Innovative ways to manage both sides of an edge (in 

our design, self-limited to 100 ft.) are possible by looking at individual elements like light, wildlife 

habitat, seed dispersal distances, and wind patterns. Developing experience with different approaches is 

essential to improving these approaches over time. 

Wildlife ecology of moist, mixed-conifer forests. Early successional habitats are important for many 

wildlife species. Recent research has highlighted the importance of high-quality late-summer forage for 

elk survivorship and reproduction (Cook et al 2013). Early-seral openings within moist, mixed-conifer 

forests can play a particularly important role by providing late-summer forage resources for ungulates 

(Lehmkuhl et al. 2013). Recently disturbed patches tend to support high plant productivity, and often 

exhibit a particularly high diversity of plant and animal species, including many specialist non-game 

species (Hagar 2007, Swanson et al. 2011). In an assessment of wildlife habitat values in three national 

forests in northeastern Oregon (the Umatilla, Wallowa Whitman, and Malheur National Forests), Wales et 

al. (2011) found that focal species representative of open, large tree forests and early-seral or post-fire 

habitats (including Cassin’s finch, white-headed woodpecker, western bluebird, fox sparrow, blackbacked woodpecker, and Lewis’s woodpecker) generally had experienced declines in habitat values 

relative to historic conditions. Alternatively, habitat for focal species associated with old forest 
A-30

conditions (including goshawk and pileated woodpecker) had current habitat values that were generally 

consistent with historical conditions at a regional scale. 

Deciduous tree patches provide important habitat characteristics for a variety of species (Hagar 2007), 

particularly migratory birds (Betts et al. 2010), and can provide abundant cavities for woodpeckers and 

other species (Martin et al. 2004). Aspen stands were an important component of the historic landscape in 

areas that support MMC forest, but the availability of aspen habitats has been reduced substantially due to 

altered disturbance regimes and herbivory impacts from both native and domestic animals (Shirley and 

Erickson 2001, Strong et al. 2010). 

Within patch (small-scale) variability is important to wildlife in moist, mixed-conifer forests. Varying 

tree clump and gap size distributions among patches has been shown to work well as a silvicultural 

practice (Larson and Churchill 2012, Churchill et al. 2013). A scattering of large and old early-seral 

trees—ponderosa pine in drier areas, and western Larch, western white pine, sugar pine (Pinus 

lambertiana), and Douglas-fir in moister areas—is essential to increase resilience of these forests to 

wildfire because seed supply is essential for the forest to recover from wildfire and other disturbances. 

Alive and dead, upright and down, large old trees are critical structural elements that provide important 

habitat components in undisturbed and recently disturbed areas by providing cavities, perches, escape 

cover, and protected microclimates (Bull et al. 1997, Franklin et al. 2000, Van Pelt 2008). 

Uncertainties about improving wildlife habitat: 

The size distribution of clumps, gaps, and scattered large early-seral trees—to optimally achieve pattern 

restoration and other silvicultural or resource objectives–is unknown because of past research has not 

been able to address site specificity in geology, soils, plant associations and disturbances. 

The current condition of these 60-100 year old forests reflects the site conditions, the initial conditions at 

the time of treatment, and the initial past treatment. These three factors create uncertainty in the outcome 

of general silvicultural prescriptions: hence, some attempts to bracket treatment levels and prescription 

elements is warranted to improve future management. 

Maintaining existing old trees is complicated by site conditions (e.g., soil attributes, windthrow 

likelihood, productivity) and stand composition and structure. Thus, expected outcomes of a prescription 

may vary, and one should not expect similar outcomes across a project area, District, or Forest from a 

single prescription. Development of old trees from young trees likewise depends on site conditions and 

initial conditions before treatment.

Any wildlife habitat improvement activity may be difficult to evaluate, especially when small patches of 

desirable habitat exist within a sea of less desirable habitat are overrun by hungry herbivore herds. This 

may require somewhat expensive measures with exclosure plots, plant level herbivory effects, and pellet 

counts. 

Snags, down wood, and deformed trees will be created in unmanaged edge at a rate we do not know well. 

The persistence of created snags will vary with the initial condition of the snag, site conditions, the 

structure of the treated remaining stand, as well as consequent disturbance dynamics. Creating and 

maintaining snags created from live trees can be difficult, since often heartrot develops where trees were 

girdled (much like heat-killed trees) and they can snap fairly quickly. Topping trees may prove to be too 

expensive, and with Douglas-fir may not kill the tree. 
A-31

Climate change may cause the Thomas Creek snowpack to decline over the next few decades. This may 

fundamentally alter the growth of forage plants through effects on tree growth and fire incidence. 

Conclusions: General guidelines for clump and gap sizes are a good first hypothesis that can be tested and 

refined in future learning projects. A scattering of large standing dead and down trees and live deformed 

trees (those with broken tops and limbs, cavities, structure for nesting and denning sites) is a first step 

toward providing critical structure for wildlife use. These deformed trees and snags were routinely cut 

down in the past. Techniques are now available to create and accelerate their development (Bull et al. 

1997). Information for both snag and down wood management in green and dead stands can be found in 

the Decayed Wood Advisor6

. Because of their rarity, we need to protect remaining old-forest refugia 

from wildfire and disease as best we can. Forests adjacent to these stands can be made more resistant to 

fire and insects by reducing overstory densities and fuel ladders from Grand fir and other shade-tolerant 

species, but protection from more intense fires may require work at a larger scale (Stine et al. 2014). 

Role of hardwoods in the moist, mixed conifer forests. Hardwoods are often overlooked in these 

forests, sometimes because there are so few of them and they mostly maintain a low stature. Historical 

extent and role of hardwoods is not well known. In other forests, hardwoods have been shown to build 

mineral-soil organic matter quickly (Ugolini 1968; Bormann and Sidle 1990; Bormann et al. 1993, 

Poulton et al. 2003). Conifers such as Douglas-fir and pines, growing rapidly can actually deplete 

mineral-soil organic matter, presumably in search for soil nutrients (Wells and Jorgenson 1975; Bormann 

et al. 2008). Increasing surface and mineral soil organic matter can increase infiltration, aggregation, and 

water-holding capacity to help maintain productivity during droughts in the inland Northwest (Jurgensen 

et al. 1996). Deciduous trees and shrubs also alter upper mineral soil layers by dropping more litter and 

cycling nutrients faster than conifers (e.g., Cole et al. 1978). The N2-fixing hardwoods like alder can add 

nitrogen, organic matter, and base-element nutrients where weatherable minerals are present (Bormann et 

al. 1993). Deciduous trees and shrubs support different soil organisms than conifers generally with more 

species that mix soil layers (e.g., earthworms). Conifers are associated with podsolization which clogs 

upper mineral soil layers and builds thick organic layers (Bormann et al. 1995). Many hardwood shrubs 

and trees root far deeper than conifers (Zweineiki and Newton 1995). Deciduous trees and shrubs support 

more and more kinds of mammal and insect grazers, many that can contribute to certain birds and stream 

foodchains. 

Uncertainties about hardwood restoration: 

Little research has been done on moist, mixed conifer forest hardwoods. Extrapolating results from other 

areas suggests managing for hardwoods could improve ecological benefits such as wildlife and plant 

diversity, and plant, animal, soil, and stream productivity. 

Given the scarcity of early-seral openings especially with hardwoods, treatments may attract more grazers 

than the area can handle, and excessive grazing may hide treatment effects. 

Larch is a conifer with a deciduous habit. It’s unclear whether it acts more like a hardwood or nondeciduous conifer.

Climate change. Climate change is one big uncertainty. Although atmospheric CO2 has been increasing 

at a steady pace and global temperatures are up, future changes remain uncertain largely because we do 

not understand all of the processes in play. For example, a recently discovered heat sink in the North 

 6 See [www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/]
A-32

Atlantic may be delaying temperature rises (Chen and Tung 2014). Many scientists are calling for the 

management of forests in the context of current and potential climates. Rates of climate change in the past 

century and projected for the coming century differ spatially across eastern Oregon and Washington 

(Stine et al. 2014). In some geographic settings, changes in climate in recent decades have altered fire 

regimes, increased insect infestations, and resulted in high levels of tree mortality (Stine et al. 2014). Such 

changes due to climate are likely to expand to larger portions of the region in coming decades. Consider 

identifying rates of change in climate and ecological response over the past century and those projected 

for future decades and setting management goals and treatments accordingly.

B. A humanistic view of sustainability

The moist, mixed conifer forests on the Umatilla and Wallowa Whitman National Forests are not 

separable from the communities that surround them—the character of the forests and communities would 

be quite different without the other, and neither can likely thrive without sufficient wellbeing in both. In 

reality, their interactions are complex and numerous. We do not have much capacity at this time to view 

this relationship in an integrated way. As a start, we explore basic economics of Forest Service selfsufficiency and infrastructure thresholds and then continue with jobs, services, and shared futures. The 

declining health of eastern Oregon and Washington counties, communities, and eminent closure of key 

infrastructure led the State’s congressional delegation and the State of Oregon Governor’s Office to argue 

for and obtain support for accelerated restoration in the region from the Forest Service. The stated goal for 

eastern and south central Oregon is to double7 the scale and pace of restoration over the next 20 years 

(Rasmussen et al. 2012 [Economic assessment for OR Governor]). This learning effort was intended to 

assist in achieving this initiative’s goals. 

Self-sufficiency. The Forest Service’s ability to manage the National Forests is constrained by everdeclining appropriations. Before the accelerated restoration program was initiated, the Forest Service 

spent about $40 million/yr on restoration activities, and a doubling of these appropriations is “likely 

needed” to double restoration activities (Rasmussen et al. 2012). Self-sufficiency is determined by total 

federal appropriations, regional shifts in appropriations, administrative (largely planning) efficiency, and 

incoming stakeholder contributions and receipts for commodities sold8

. Increasing planning efficiency 

with stakeholder contributions may be able to increase the number of projects attempted but incoming 

payments, such as timber receipts, at the end of the day have a largest effect on the proportion of the 

Forest that receives management attention. Receipts collected by the Forest Service are the net payment 

from a timber sale (or stewardship contract), subtracting costs of activities, profits, uncertainty in future 

markets from timber value, and payments to Counties?. What activities are mandated has a clear 

influence, for example helicopter logging is self-sufficient only with valuable trees are close to landings. 

Choices about what trees are sold, what activities are necessary, and administrative costs determine selfsufficiency. Forest Service employees are particularly important in many rural communities, providing 

additional intellectual capital that can make or break community adaptability (Kusel 1976)

Wood products economics and infrastructure thresholds. Timber processing capacity has greatly 

declined in many rural areas dominated by National Forest land because of sharp decline in harvest from 

 7 As measured in acres restored, with a target of 258,000 acres/yr

8 Also stewardship contracts
A-33

National Forests (OFRI 2012)9

. The 7 Oregon Counties closest to the Umatilla NF now have 10 mills, 8 

for sawtimber and 1 each for pulp & particle board production. Looking to the future, private forest 

volume inventories and growth have been declining in eastern Oregon because of high harvests and losses 

to insects and disease (Adams and Latta 2003, 2004, 2007). Harvests on private lands10 exceeded growth 

but still could not replace harvest reductions on public lands after the early 1990s. Before 2008, this was 

viewed as reversible with substantially increased public harvests (Adams and Latta 2005, Haynes et al. 

2007). When capacity declines, competition usually declines and prices offered at timber sales go down, 

reducing sale self-sufficiency. More important when all nearby mills close a threshold is passed where

the National Forest no longer can accomplish ecological restoration activities like fuel reduction that 

includes thinning of commercial sized trees. 

First foods. The food of pre-contact Native Americans intimately links tribal culture to the land 

(Richards and Alexander 2006). These so-called “first foods” are well known to local tribes and their 

provision on the Umatilla NF is a treaty right on ceded lands (Jones et al. 2011). We believe the major 

food gathered in the Thomas Creek area was huckleberry fruits. Several species are found throughout the 

area, the most important is Vaccinium membranaceum, Dougls ex Torr. With reduced disturbance from 

fire, mature stands appear to have too much shade to allow abundant huckleberry fruiting (Minore et al.

1979, Anzinger 2002). Openings from pine and Grand fir removal may increase fruiting for perhaps a 

decade (Minore 1984, Kerns et al. 2004). Traditional methods in British Columbia to improve fruiting of 

V. membranaceum suggest maintaining wide spacing in old stands or heavily thinning young stands, and 

reintroducing prescribed burns will increase fruiting (Burton 2000). Alexander et al. (2001) found that 

non-timber forest products are important to many people for many reasons. People harvest products from 

forests for personal use, cultural practices, and sale. The tremendous variety of species harvested for the 

many markets stands in stark contrast to our poor knowledge of the biology, prices, or responses to 

harvest and habitat change for most of the species. The diversity of species harvested, lack of knowledge 

about the plants or their use, and inadequate institutions to ensure sustainable harvesting complicate 

policymaking and law enforcement.

Societal learning. The new Forest Service Planning Rule offers yet another opportunity to implement 

adaptive management. We realize that many prior attempts to conduct adaptive management have failed, 

 

9 Data from OFRI (2012) about eastern Oregon: Average wood products wage is 45,000 dollars plus benefits. 

There have been 17 mills lost since 1992 (which compares to 106,000 jobs lost in Portland metro.) Mill job losses 

in 2005 had 86 companies = 776 employees; in 2012 = 62 companies and 418 employees. Many counties have 

aging demographics. Younger people are leaving due to lack of opportunities here. Union county lost 25% of its 

students since 1992. Increasing jobs can have a direct local effect on communities. Out of every million board feet 

of lumber, 20 direct jobs are produced ––and 36 indirect jobs. This is 154,773 people and 42 jobs per mbf. 10 Notes from Lindsay Warness: Boise Cascade milling capacity in Oregon: Only one mill is at 100% capacity 

(Elgin plywood). Blue Mt. Lumber is at 50% as is Malheur. Lindsay says need to be at 100% to make money. We 

are surrounded by 4.8 million acres of forest but bringing logs in from Idaho. This is not sustainable. Boise is big, 

but we have shut down mills before. We run Mt. Emily at 13% and just breaking even just to keep staff educated for 

future mill come-back. (LaGrande mill rebranded as Mt. Emily). We run Elgin at 72 million bd ft per year at 100%. 

Mt Emily capacity is 55 million, we run at 12 million board feet. The particle board is at 50%. Boise could add 500 

jobs and have an effect on the economy in the area. Sourcing circle is 500 miles from Mt Hood to Boise. We are 

working to make money. One trip a day is 4,500 board feet from far away. New Meadows Mill in Boise area is 

only mill there. Most supply comes from Hancock 43%. Local national forests provide 4%. We get a lot from 

Idaho department of lands. 12% is private local.
A-34

but the new rule provides a rich opportunity for flexible management approaches employing evidencebased, scientifically-credible methods.

Uncertainties in humanistic sustainability:

• Self-sufficiency can also be affected by threats or reality of lawsuits or public disobedience, driving 

up administrative costs and influencing bid prices.

• Many factors go into mill closures that are not necessarily predictable, including global and national 

markets, technology changes, regulations, and even supply of trained workers. 

• National economic forces have great influence over local economies and events like the great 

recession are not predictable. 

• The extent that recreation and timber jobs are tradeoffs is a key issue. 

• Very little research has been conducted on huckleberries on the Umatilla NF. Work in the Cascades 

suggests that underburning can increase fruiting in open berry fields (Anzinger 2002, Kerns et al. 

2004). Fruiting is likely controlled by a mix of processes including light, nutrition, grazing, climate, 

and plant competition. Careful monitoring of fruiting in our studies can help us to begin developing 

theories of management that can be tested in future contrasts—to get to the point where we could say 

that fruiting is being managed.

• Across North America, we are constantly learning more about historic tribal hunting, gathering, and 

active culturing of foods as well as use of plants for medicine and ceremony. Active interaction with 

Tribes on huckleberries may help advance future efforts. 

C. Extended impacts of accelerated restoration

Timber volume and acres managed are often used as a surrogate measure of community wellbeing. The 

Eastside accelerated restoration program11 seeks to quickly double acreage or timber volume to produce 

about 282 million board feet of sawlogs and 450,000 tons of biomass material annually from National 

Forests in Eastern Oregon and Washington. Fixed multipliers are used to estimate an additional 2,300 

jobs, $90.5 million total income, $231.5 million in industrial output, and 3.6 million in state tax revenue 

each year (Rasmussen et al. 2012). This analysis does not take into account that full-time jobs support 

requires housing and provides real estate taxes for City and County government, which in turn can supply 

more and a fuller range of community services. Neimi et al. (1999) present a polar opposite picture with 

societal benefits increasing broadly as timber harvest declines, but this work is focused on western 

Oregon and Washington forests. So we have a bit of a dueling scientist situation, driven in part in part by 

uncertainty in how communities and society are responding to changes. An important question then is, 

How will Thomas Creek contribute to this acceleration? The Full design has 1076 total acres, with an 

estimated harvest volume of 4.2 million board feet. The estimated harvested volume for the entire study 

is 4.2 MMBF12. Using the Rasmussen et al. (2012) multipliers, the study portion of the project would 

generate about 93 jobs, total income of $3.8 million, and State taxes of $1.8 million. Extrapolating the 

effects of proposed harvesting to the entire area with similar forest conditions across the Umatilla 

National Forest is difficult because of limits to record keeping. Units that were harvested in the mid1960s and early 1970s may or may not have been planted to ponderosa pine. Planting records that are on 

old TRI-card files could be captured electronically to bring files up to date. By accessing the current 

Forest Activities database, with date and opening-size but no planting records, we estimate about 50,000 

 11 See [www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=stelprdb5423597] 12 Alternative C has 1481 acres of commercial treatment out of a total of 2814 acres.
A-35

acres were planted to ponderosa pine (includes all units created from 1955 to 1972 less than 200 acres). 

Planted units sum to 30,000 acres if only those below 100 acres are included. This drops to 15,000 acres 

if only half of the above units were actually planted to pines. Based on this range of assumptions, effects 

on the study area can be extrapolated with multipliers of 14, 28, and 46. If the study were implemented 

on the potential range of similar plantations on the Forest—which would take a decade or longer—we 

could extrapolate an additional 1200 to 4200 jobs, $50 to 170 million in total income, and $24 to 83 

million in State taxes. If the +Edge treatment was applied on all remaining plantation units, this would 

create an additional 220 to 730 jobs, $9 to 30 million in income, and $4 to 14 million in taxes. The 

extrapolated production is consistent with the eastside-wide accelerated restoration program objectives. 

D. Collective uncertainties

We conclude [based on above] that the uncertainties are too many and large to have high confidence that 

we will know how well the 6 management systems included in the study will do relative to each other. 

We know success of these management systems is uncertain simply because no one has tried to do any of 

them in this area before—these will be the first attempts. We think we know what to expect from many 

individual actions (thinning, species changes, planting, snag and woody debris creation, debris disposal, 

etc.) that contribute to these systems response. It’s the initial conditions and interactions of multiple 

actions occurring through time, however, that makes the system uncertain. All of what we do know, 

however, is also subject to uncertainty in how the climate is changing. We conclude the combined, high 

level of uncertainty, prevents us from knowing which of the competing strategies in each contrast will 

prove more desirable than the other. By creating and monitoring these contrasts, we expect to learn about 

many plusses and minuses that will reveal themselves more quickly to us. Results will help to reshape 

our questions and give us direction in future efforts.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A. Methods

Complete design. We analyzed the 42 OHUs for the amount of intact, usable edge forest in the 100 ft. 

external buffer. Excluded areas in buffers were based on available GIS layers included open, nonforested; photo-interpreted multi-strata old forest; Pacfish class 3 and 4 buffers; and inoperable lands. We 

first segregated OHUs into 2 groups, OHU ± Edge and Go-No go treatments, based on amount of usable 

edge, using the logic that OHUs with low edge would not show a contrast. Within the OHU ± Edge 

group, we examined similarity of OHUs based on variables available in GIS layers, including: OHU size, 

Pacfish buffer size within OHUs, usable edge as % experimental unit size, % pine, and an estimate of 

acres that would be designated for early-seral patches (Table S-2). We then identified pairs of initially 

similar OHUs. This was an iterative and subjective process with reshuffling to find a near optimum set of 

pairs. We found 12 pairs of OHUs that work for the OHU ± Edge contrast (Fig. 7). The OHU+Edge and 

OHU NoEdge treatments were then randomly assigned to members of each pair by the District Ranger 

rolling dice (the exact randomization process and witness documents available upon request). 

All of the OHUs put in the OHU ± Edge group have enough available edge forest to expect a difference 

when edge management is included. Removing Pacfish buffers and photo-interpreted old multi-strata 

(OMS) forest from semi- to fully forested edges still provides an average of 75% of edge available for 

possible +Edge treatment. This averages 27% (range 12 to 50%) edge to edge plus OHU, or experimental 
A-36

unit acres. Differences in the treatments with and without managed edges should be detectable, if present, 

with this proportion. OHU ± Hardwood treatments were then assigned randomly to pairs in a similar 

fashion. That is, each member of an OHU ± Edge pair would have a similar hardwood treatment. 

The OHUs designated for the Go-No go contrast did not pair up easily, so they were shuffled to form 2 

groups (blocks) mostly based on pine% and OHU size. Within-block treatments were assigned by rolling 

dice and selecting which units would be assigned the No go control using the largest number in Block 1 

and the largest and smallest number for Block 2 (exact process and witness documents available upon 

request). The number of No go controls was limited to 3 to avoid reducing overall project economics. 

Boundary-limited design. To prepare an additional choice for the Forest Service, all random assignments 

(table 4) were maintained. The only difference is OHU+Edge treatments would be changed to OHU 

NoEdge (Fig. 8). The OHU ± Hardwood treatments assigned above would stay intact. Maintaining the 

OHU ± Hardwood assignments is necessary to limit NEPA analysis. 
A-37

Figure 7. Complete design after similarity analysis and random allocation of treatments.
A-38

Figure 8. Boundary-limited design after similarity analysis and random allocation of treatments.
A-39

B. Statistical analyses 

Boundary-limited design. Because edge treatments are not varied, the hardwood contrast can be tested 

with the 24 OHUs with a single factor ANOVA (table 4). 

Go-No go contrast. The Go-Nogo contrast remains the same with both limited and complete designs. 

This analysis has a sample size of 9 OHUs. Three OHUs were assigned the No go and the remaining the 

Go treatment. 

Complete design with OHU±Edge and OHU±Hardwood contrasts. The analysis has 13 tightly defined 

pairs, and each pair then gets a different hardwood treatment. A variety of analyses can be performed, 

including a randomized complete slit-plot design (Table 4). This latter test requires that interactions 

between edge and hardwoods are insignificant before identifying separating edge and hardwood effects. 

Table 4. Proposed analysis of variance models for the different designs; abbreviations: trt. is treatment, Errori are 

residual errors associated with hardwood (i = H); Go-No go (i = GNg); and Edge (i =E) treatments; the Go-No go 

study is part of both designs

Degrees of freedom for:

Limited design Complete design

OHU±Hardwood Go-No go (OHU±Hardwood/±Edge)

±Hardwood trt. 1 Go-No go trt. 1 ±Hardwood trt. 1

ErrorH 21 ErrorGNg 9 ErrorH 9

Total 22 Total 10 ±Edge trt. 1

Interaction 1

ErrorE 9

Total 21

Monitoring plan 

Monitoring is essential when it can differentiate between alternative approaches and provide critical 

evidence for future decisions (table 5). Monitoring takes time, however, and many results will not be 

available for years. Full growth response to density reduction soil changes may take at least a decade. 

Disturbance will be happenstance. Some questions, however, can be answered right away. For example 

timber-sale bids test pre-sale assumptions of timber value, costs of activities, and uncertainty in markets 

and determine self-sufficiency at that point in time. Experience in applying new activities may alter 

future bids, and may lead to modifications. Other questions will unfold in the first 5 years, such as 

success of planting and regeneration, and wildlife habitat improvement. 

The greatest challenge is find resources to do the monitoring and then to prioritize monitoring to answer 

the most important questions. The Forest Service may be able to get Knutson-Vandenburg funding to 

follow treatment implementation. The best way to assure future monitoring funding is to include this 

study in the Unit Plan Monitoring Program (due in the next few years as part of the new planning rule). 
A-40

This way, information from studies like this will feed into future plan revisions and may focus some of 

the mandated monitoring in the rule at this location. 

Given the history of underfunding, monitoring needs that are essential to the credibility of the study are 

specifically identified. Others can be considered as additional funding is found. The Collaborative will 

play an important role in following monitoring allocations. 

Table 5. The question-monitoring-cost matrix (those with a Ψ are considered essential to study credibility)

Key question: What are different ways to approach the winwin mission as reflected in different perspectives and 

knowledge bases within the Collaborative?

Link to decision narratives: Future decisions 

could plausibly be based on finding out whether 

elements of proposed win-wins actually worked.

Monitor what? Details, Method Link to decisions Cost

Ecological 

resilience

% high quality early-seral patches made of 

Larch & Douglas-fir seedlings, not Grand 

fir;Ψ

Growth and health of residual trees; 

 and

Fuel loads and laddersΨ

↑ under-represented earlyseral patches, ↑dependent 

wildlife habitat, ↓grand fir 

regen to avoid future PCT 

costs; and ↑diameter growth 

of residuals will support 

continuing an approach

Fuel transects,

tree and snag 

plots Ψ

$700/ unit;

Disturbance Records of wind, fire travel, and insects ↓insects disease, ↓fire travel, 

↓wind by incident

Repeat lidar 

$1500/unit Ψ

Basic economics Self-sufficiency: costs – receipts Ψ

Activity cost elements; Ψ

Within-unit receipt elements; Ψ

Timber and FS jobs; and

Excess receipts Ψ

Decide how many future 

similar units to include in 

projects and to choose among 

activities; 

Already 

covered

Ungulate 

grazing

Forage consumption;

Presence (via pellets); and

Elk model output

Project ungulate benefit based 

on observed use and similar 

areas on Forest.

Paired 3x3 m 

± exclosures; 

pellet counts 

$500/unit

Hardwood 

recovery

Understory productivity via BioCubes Ψ

Soil organic matter, via transects;

Hardwood cover;

Litter quality; and

Huckleberry fruiting

10-yr change from baseline 

SOM, infiltration, waterholding capacity, increased 

energy to aquatic foodchains

Understory

$400/unit;

soil, & littertrap transects

$1200/unit

Wildlife 

response

Woodpecker use and abundance on 

wildlife trees;

Early-seral songbird abundance; and

Snag persistence Ψ

Lack of wildlife response may 

be linked to scale of project; 

consider increasing scale of 

future projects

Bird surveys

$100/unit

Snag surveys

$/unit

+/- edge effects Georeference and segregate all measures 

to compare outside, inside edges and rest 

of OHU Ψ

Help future decisions on 

whether or not to add buffers 

or move to larger scales

No added cost
A-41

Other 

community 

benefits

Narratives and questionnaires on 

perceived problems and benefits; and 

visuals via photo monitoring

Help better understand the 

range and distribution of 

opinion

Uncertain

Learning 

efficiency

Narratives and questionnaires on what 

was learned; Ψ

Funds available for monitoring Ψ

Help better understand the 

range and distribution of 

opinion

Uncertain

Literature cited 

Adams, D.M. and G.S. Latta, “Costs and Regional Impacts of Restoration Thinning Programs on the 

National Forests in Eastern Oregon.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2005.

Adams, D.M. and G.S. Latta, “Effects of a Forest Health Thinning Program on Land and Timber Values 

in Eastern Oregon.” Journal of Forestry, 2004.

Adams, D.M. and G.S. Latta, “Future Prospects for Private Timber Harvest in Eastern Oregon.” Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry, 2007.

Adams, D.M. and G.S. Latta, “Private Timber Harvest in Eastern Oregon.” 2003.

Alexander, S.J., R.J. McLain, and K.A. Blatner. 2001. Socio-economic research on non-timber forest 

products in the Pacific Northwest. J. Sustainable Forestry, 13: 95-103.

Anzinger, D.L. 2002. Big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum Dougl.) ecology and forest succession, 

Mt. Hood National Forest and Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State 

Univ., Corvallis, OR.

Battin, J. and Sisk, T.D. 2011. One-sided edge responses in forest birds following restoration treatments. 

The Condor 113: 501–510.

Bormann, B.T., F.H. Bormann, W.B. Bowden, R.S. Pierce, S.P. Hamburg, D. Wang, M.C. Snyder, C. Y. 

Li, and R.C. Ingersoll. 1993. Rapid N2 fixation in pines, alder, and locust: evidence from the sandbox 

ecosystem study. Ecology 74(2): 583-598.

Bormann, B.T. M.H. Brookes, E.D. Ford, A.R. Kiester, C.D. Oliver, and J.F. Weigand. 1994. A 

framework for sustainable-ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-331. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 73p

Bormann, B.T., H. Spaltenstein, M. McClellan, F.C. Ugolini, K. Cromack, Jr. and S.M. Nay. 1995. 

Rapid soil development after windthrow in pristine forests. Journal of Ecology 83(5):747-757.

Bormann, B.T. and A.R. Kiester. 2004. Options forestry: acting on uncertainty. Journal of Forestry. 102: 

22-27.

Bormann, B.T., R.W. Haynes, and J.R. Martin. 2007. Adaptive management of forest ecosystems: some 

rubber hits the road? BioScience 57 (2):187-192. 

Bormann, B.T., P.S. Homann, R.L. Darbyshire, B.A. Morrissette. 2008. Intense forest wildfire sharply 

reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38: 2771-

2783. 
A-42

Buckley, G.P., R. Howell, T.A. Watt, R. Ferris-Kaan and M.A. Anderson. 1997. Vegetation succession 

following ride edge management in lowland plantations and woods. 1. The influence of site factors and 

management practices. Biol Cons. 82: 289-304. 

Bull, E. L., Parks, Catherine G., and Torgerson, TR. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the 

interior Columbia River basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-391, US Forest Service, Portland, 

OR. 

Candenasso, M.L., S.T.A. Pickett, K.C. Weathers, and C.G. Jones. 2003. A framework for a theory of 

ecological boundaries. BioSci 53: 750-758.

Cole, D. W., S. P. Gessel, and J. Turner. 1978. Comparative mineral cycling in red alder and Douglas-fir. 

In: D. G. Briggs, D. S. DeBell, and W. A. Atkinson, eds., Utilization and management of alder, pp. 327–

336. USFS Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.

Chen, X. and K. Tung. 2014. Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and 

acceleration. Science 22: 897-903

Chen, Y. and Weber, B. (2012). Federal policy, rural community growth, and wealth creation: the impact 

of federal forest policy and rural development spending in the Pacific Northwest. American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics, 94(2), 542-54.

Churchill, D.J., A.J. Larson, M.C. Dahlgreen, J.F. Franklin, P.F. Hessburg, J.A. Lutz. 2013. Restoring 

forest resilience: From reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring, Forest 

Ecology and Management, 291: 442-457.

Cook, R.C., J.G. Cook, D.J. Vales, B.K. Johnson, S.M. McCorquodale, L.A. Shipley, R.A. Riggs, L.L. 

Irwin, S.L. Murphie, B.L. Murphie, K.A. Schoenecker, F. Geyer, P. Briggs Hall, R.D. Spencer, D.A. 

Immell, D.H. Jackson, B.L. Tiller, P.J. Miller, and L. Schmitz. 2013. Regional and seasonal patterns of 

nutritional condition and reproduction in elk. Wildlife Monographs. 184: 1-45.

Curtis, D.j. and Hadfield. 1974. Important forest pest outbreaks in Oregon and Washington in 1974. U.S. 

Forest Service, Region 6 [attached to Dolph 1966 web reference]

Dolph Jr.,R.E., 1966. Mountain pine beetle damage in the Pacific Northwest. 

[http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_025837.pdf]

Eichman, H., Hunt, G.L., Kerkvliet, J., and Plantinga, A.J. (2010). Local employment growth, migration, 

and public land policy: evidence from the Northwest Forest Plan. Journal of Agricultural and Resource 

Economics 35(2), 316-333.

Fellin, D.G. and J.E. Dewey. 1982. Western Spruce Budworm. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 53, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

Ferris-Kaan, R. 1991. Edge management in woodlands. Occasional Paper, 28

Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Franklin, J.F., D. Lindenmayer, J.A. MacMahon, A. McKee, J. Magnuson, D.A. Perry, R. Waide, D. 

Foster. 2000. Threads of Continuity: There are immense differences between even-aged silvicultural 

disturbances (especially clearcutting) and natural disturbances, such as windthrow, wildfire, and even 

volcanic eruptions. Conservation in Practice 1: 8-17.
A-43

Fry, G., ans I. Sarlov-Herlin . 1997. The ecological and amenity functions of woodland edges in the 

agricultural landscape; a basis for design and management. Landscape and Urban Planning 31: 45-55.

Hagar, J.C. 2007. Wildlife species associated with non-coniferous vegetation in Pacific Northwest conifer 

forests: A review. Forest Ecology and Management 246: 108-122.

Hanley, T. 2005. Potential management of young-growth stands for understory vegetation and wildlife 

habitat in southeastern Alaska. Landscape and Urban Planning, 72: 95-112.

Haynes, R.W., D.M. Adams, R.J. Alig, P.J. Ince, J.R. Mills and X. Zhou, “The 2005 RPA Timber 

Assessment Update.” 2007.

Hejl, S.J., D.E. Mack, J.S. Young, J.C. Bednarz, and R.L. Hutto. (2002). Birds and changing landscape 

patterns in conifer forests of the north-central Rocky Mountains. Studies in Avian Biology 113-129.

Hessburg, P.F., Mitchell, R.G., and Filip, G.M. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and 

pathogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR--327. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

Hessburg, P.F., Smith, B.G., and Salter, R.B. 1999. Using natural variation estimates to detect 

ecologically important change in forest spatial patterns: A case study of the eastern Washington Cascades. 

PNW Res. Pap. PNW-RP-514. 65 p.

Hessburg, P.F., K.M. Reynolds, R.B. Saler, J.D. Dickinson, W.L. Gaines, and R.J. Harrod. 2013. 

Landscape evaluation for restoration planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, USA. 

Sustainability 5:805-840. 

Hessburg, P.F., Reynolds, K.M., Salter, R.B., Dickinson, J.D., Gaines, W.L., and Harrod, R.J. 2013. 

Landscape evaluation for restoration planning on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, USA. 

Sustainability 5: 805-840.

Jones, K.L., G.C. Poole, E.J. Quaempts, S. O’Daniel, and T. Beechie 2011. The Umatilla River vision. 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. First Foods may provide the appropriate context 

in which to report management and restoration progress to the tribal community.

Jurgensen, M.F., A.E. Harvey, R.T. Graham, D.S. Page-Dumroese, J.R. Tonn, M.J. Larsen, and T.B. Jain. 

1997. Impacts of timber harvesting on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity, and health of inland 

northwest forests. Forest Science 43: 234-251.

Kerns, B.K., S.J. Alexander, and J.D. Bailey. 2004. Huckleberry abundance, stand conditions, and use in 

Western Oregon: evaluating the role of forest Management. Economic Botany, 58: 668-678.

Kusel, J. 1996. Wellbeing in forest-dependent communities, Part I: A new approach. Sierra Nevada 

Ecosystems Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management 

options. Davis, University of CA, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 

Larsen A. J. and D. Churchill. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of western North 

America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for designing fuel reduction and 

restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, 31 267: 74-92.
A-44

Lehmkuhl, J.F., A.L. Lyons, E. Bracken, J. Leingang, W.L. Gaines, E.K., Dodson, and P.H. Singleton. 

2013. Forage composition, productivity, and utilization in the eastern Washington Cascade Range. 

Northwest Science. 87: 267-291.

Minore, D., A.W. Smart, and M.E. Dubrasich. 1979. Huckleberry ecology and management research in 

the Pacific Northwest. PNW-GTR-93. US Forest Service, Portland, OR

Minore, D. 1984. Vaccinium membranaceum berry production seven years after treatment to reduce 

overstory tree canopies. Northwest Science 58: 208-212. 

Niemi, E., E. Whitelaw, A. Johnston. 1999. The sky did not fall: the Pacific Northwest’s response to 

logging reductions. ECONorthwest, Eugene, OR

OFRI 2012. The 2012 Forest Report An Economic Assessment of Oregon’s Forest and Wood Products 

Manufacturing Sector. Oregon Forest Resources Institute (OFRI). 

Poulton, P.R., E Pye, P.R. Hargreaves, and D.S. Jenkinson. 2003. Accumulation of carbon and nitrogen 

by old arable land converting to woodland. Global Change Biology, 9: 942-955.

Powell, D.C. 2013. Thomas Creek forest vegetation: a range of variation analysis. Unpublished analysis 

by Dave Powell, Forest Silviculturist, February 28.

Powell, D.C. 2008. Using General Land Office survey notes to characterize historical vegetation 

conditions for the Umatilla National Forest. Umatilla National Forest. 50 p.

Powell, D.C. 2014. Active management of moist forests in the Blue Mountains: silvicultural 

considerations. White paper F14-SO-WP-SILV-7, Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, OR.

Rasmussen et al. 2012 National forest health restoration, an economic assessment of forest restoration on 

Oregon’s Eastside National Forests. Prepared for: Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative 

Leaders. State of Oregon.

Richards, R.T. and S.J. Alexander. 2006. A social history of wild huckleberry harvesting in the Pacific 

Northwest. PNW-GTR-657. US Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Riggs, R.A.; Tiedemann, A.R.; Cook, J.G.; Ballard, T.M.;E dgerton, P.J.; Vavra, M.; Krueger, W.C.; 

Hall, F.C.; Bryant, L.D.; Irwin, L.L.; and Delcurto, T. 2000. Modification of mixed-conifer forests by 

ruminant herbivores in the Blue Mountains ecological province. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-527. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p. 

Rollins, G. 1983. Management experience with Grand fir in the northern blue mountains. In: Oliver, 

C.D.; Kenady, R.M., eds. Proceedings of the biology and management of true fir in the Pacific Northwest 

symposium; 1981 February 24-26; Seattle-Tacoma, WA. Contribution No. 45. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington, College of Forest Resources: 253-255.

Rowan, C.A., S.J. Mitchell, and T. Hailemariam. 2003. Effectiveness of clearcut edge windfirming 

treatments in coastal British Columbia: short-term results. Forestry 76: 55-65. 

Sampson, A.W. and L.H. Weyl. 1918. Range preservation and its relation to erosion control on western 

grazing lands. USDA Bulletin No. 675, Wash. D.C.

Sarlov-Herlin, I. 2001. Approaches to forest edges as dynamic structures and functional concepts. 

Landscape Research, Vol. 26: 27–43.
A-45

Sisk, T.D. and J. Battin. 2002. Habitat edges and avian ecology: geographic patterns and insights for 

western landscapes. Studies in Avian Biology 25:30-48.

Stine, P., P. Hessburg, T. Spies, M. Kramer, C. J. Fettig, A. Hansen, J. Lehmkuhl, K. O’Hara, K. Polivka, 

P. Singleton, S. Charnley, A. Merschel, and R. White. 2014. The ecology and management of moist, 

mixed conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a synthesis of the relevant biophysical science 

and implementation for future land management. PNW-GTR-897, US Forest Service, Portland, OR.

Swanson, M.E., J.F. Franklin, R.L. Beschta, C.M. Crisafulli, D.A. DellaSala, R.L. Hutto, D.B. 

Lindenmayer, F.J. Swanson. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional 

ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 117-125.

Tucker, G.J. 1940. The history of the northern Blue Mountains. 

[http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev7_015563.pdf]

Turner, M.G. 2005. Landscape ecology: What is the state of the science? Annual Review of Ecology and 

Evolutionary Systems 36:319-344.

Ugolini, F.C. 1968. Soil development and alder invasion in a recently deglaciated area of Glacier Bay, 

Alaska. In: Trappe JM, Franklin JF, Tarrant RF, Hansen GM, editors. Biology of Alder pp. 115–148 

Portland: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. pp. 115–148.

Umatilla CWPP. 2005. Umatilla County community wildfire protection plan. Umatilla County, OR

Umatilla Plan. 1983, amended. Umatilla County Comprehensive plan.

Van Pelt, R.A. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests in eastern Washington. Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources.

Wales, B.C.; Mellen-McLean, K.; Gaines, W.L.; Suring, L. 2011. Focal species assessment of current 

condition and the proposed action (alternative B) for the Blue Mountains forest plan revisions (draft 

Oct.2011). Baker City, OR, Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision Team.

Waltert, F., and Schlapfer, F. (2010). Landscape amenities and local development: a review of migration, 

regional economic and hedonic pricing studies. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 141-152.

Wells, C.G., Jorgensen, J.R. 1975. Nutrient cycling in loblolly pine plantations. In: Forest Soils and 

Forest Land Management (B. Bernier, C.H. Winget, eds.), pp. 139–158. Proceedings of the Fourth North 

American Forest Soils Conference. Quebec, Canada: Les Presses de L'Universite Laval.

Wickman, B.E. 1978. Tree mortality and top-kill related to defoliation by the Douglas-fir tussock moth in 

the Blue Mountains outbreak. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper PNW-233, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 47 p.

Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of 

the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC.

Williams, B.K., and E.D. Brown. Adaptive management: The US Department of the Interior applications 

guide. US Department of the Interior, Adaptive Management Working Group, 2012.
A-46

Wuyts K. Verheyen , A.D. Schrijver, , W.M. Cornelis, and D. Gabriels. 2008. The impact of forest edge 

structure on longitudinal patterns of deposition, wind speed, and turbulence. Atmospheric Environment 

42: 8651-8660. 

Zwieniecki, M.A., and Newton, M. 1996. Seasonal pattern of water depletion from soil-rock profiles in a 

Mediterranean climate in southwestern Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26: 1346-1352.
A-47

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Thomas Creek GLO analysis

Figure S-1. Actual species calls for witness trees in the 1880s GLO surveys (FS database). Double black 

line is Thomas Creek project area.

Initial conditions measured in 100 ft outside-edge buffers
A-48

In the process of gathering ground data for lidar flights and lidar models, an OYCC student crew collected 

data in 16-m circular plots representing lower and higher trees densities in transects parallel to OHU 

boundaries of selected OHUs (Table S-1). In their sample, 3/4ths of trees over 21 in were Grand fir, 

while the remaining were Douglas-fir. Grand fir on average made up 84% of the species present. 

Table 1. Initial data from stands adjacent to OHUs where plots were positioned to represent both high 

and low tree density areas for the purpose of ground-truthing lidar and developing lidar models to monitor 

the learning design; data from plots inside the OHUs are not shown here; dbh distributions are shown at 

the end of the document (Fig. S-2)

Figure S-2. Normalized distribution of DBH (correcting for differences in species counts and the over-abundance of 

Grand fir). Most Douglas-fir and Grand fir are < 10 in DBH, the average Larch is 14 in DBH. The few pines are 

bimodal with peaks at 5 and 15 in. In the OHU+Edge treatment, most Grand fir in the outer 100 ft buffer would be 

converted to live, snag, or downed-wood habitat Larch with mistletoe of concern would be harvested or converted to 

habitat elements; while most remaining Larch and Douglas-fir would be retained.

Similarity analysis and random allocation of treatments
A-49

Table S-2. Final similarity pairing for OHU±Edge, OHU±Hardwoods, and Go-No go contrasts; colors 

used to visualize similarity; from SimAnalFinal.xlsx Pair or Block OHU No. OHU Edge Avail-Edgea ExpUnit Avail-Edge /ExpUnit

OHU RipRip/OHUPIPO_PRCTSilv_Rx

# Acre Acre Acre Acre % Acre % % Text

Pair The ±Edge and ±Hardwood study

A 2 9.0 7.0 3.9 12.9 30% 0.0 55% 85% Group Shelterwood

17 20.8 13.5 7.2 28.0 26% 0.0 25% 85% Shelterwood

B 5 20.0 11.4 9.9 30.0 33% 0.0 3% 45% Variable Density

7 26.3 12.9 11.6 37.9 31% 0.0 13% 45% Variable Density

C 6 9.4 11.7 9.5 18.9 50% 0.0 35% 45% Variable Density

34 16.7 10.4 6.9 23.7 29% 0.0 45% 45% Variable Density

D 8 57.5 21.8 20.2 77.7 26% 0.0 9% 80% Group Shelterwood

9 50.5 17.8 15.1 65.6 23% 0.0 3% 90% Seedtree

E 10 30.6 11.0 11.0 41.6 26% 0.0 5% 75% Variable Density-regen

43 23.8 12.6 12.1 35.9 34% 0.0 9% 70% Variable Density-regen

F 11 64.2 16.5 15.8 80.0 20% 0.0 0% 45% Variable Density

13 53.5 16.6 12.5 65.9 19% 0.0 7% 70% Group Shelterwood

G 14 72.9 18.0 9.8 82.7 12% 16.6 43% 60% Variable Density-regen

16 41.4 15.4 9.3 50.6 18% 10.3 37% 85% Shelterwood

H 19 17.7 11.0 9.6 27.3 35% 0.0 0% 70% Group Shelterwood

37 25.7 11.2 8.5 34.2 25% 0.0 5% 65% Variable Density-regen

I 20 14.7 12.6 8.4 23.1 36% 3.3 24% 90% Variable Density-regen

42 36.2 15.8 12.7 48.9 26% 9.4 42% 80% Group Shelterwood

J 40 42.8 13.6 8.9 51.7 17% 0.0 3% 60% Variable Density-regen

45 18.0 9.8 6.2 24.2 26% 0.2 19% 50% Variable Density

K 44 20.7 13.4 12.0 32.7 37% 0.0 15% 90% Seedtree

55 15.3 7.8 6.7 22.0 30% 0.0 0% 90% Seedtree

Block The Go and No go study

1 24 6.3 12.6 8.4 14.7 57% 2.1 34% 45% Variable Density

31 10.6 13.8 7.5 18.1 42% 1.3 37% 65% Variable Density-regen

46 10.8 8.5 4.9 15.8 31% 0.2 32% 45% Variable Density

39 13.5 8.8 6.5 20.1 33% 0.0 10% 30% Variable Density

2 26 14.5 9.0 4.9 19.4 25% 1.9 24% 95% Clearcut

18 12.0 9.3 4.7 16.7 28% 0.0 30% 95% Clearcut
A-50

30 c 24.1 13.8 7.5 31.6 24% 0.0 30% 85% Shelterwood

15 37.4 18.0 9.8 47.1 21% 20.0 54% 90% Seedtree

41 24.7 13.6 8.9 33.6 26% 4.1 37% 60% Variable Density-regen

130 52.6 7.8 6.7 59.3 11% 13.7 33% 95% Variable Density-regen

Removed from study because it's too large and will receive underburn

129 110.4 7.8 6.7 117.1 6% 17.6 16% 95% Group Shelterwood

Removed from study because or other reasons after random allocation (mainly harvest difficulties)

21 25.3 12.6 8.4 33.7 25% 23.0 91% 45% Variable Density

22 30.6 12.6 8.4 39.0 21% 0.5 33% 90% Variable Density-regen

25 15.8 8.8 4.1 19.9 21% 6.3 57% 90% Seedtree

 a OHU 30 was paired with OHU 25, and was switched to a Go No go unit after OHU 25 was dropped

Table 3. Final treatment assignments after random allocation

Experimental treatment6

TC_Unit1 Study2 Block3 Pair5 ±Edge ±HW Go-No go Full description

2 Edge&HrdW na A NoEdge PlusHW na7 NoEdge, PlusHW

5 Edge&HrdW na B NoEdge MinusHW na NoEdge, MinusHW

6 Edge&HrdW na C NoEdge MinusHW na NoEdge, MinusHW

7 Edge&HrdW na B Edge MinusHW na Edge, MinusHW

8 Edge&HrdW na D NoEdge MinusHW na NoEdge, MinusHW

9 Edge&HrdW na D Edge MinusHW na Edge, MinusHW

10 Edge&HrdW na E Edge MinusHW na Edge, MinusHW

11 Edge&HrdW na F NoEdge PlusHW na NoEdge, PlusHW

13 Edge&HrdW na F Edge PlusHW na Edge, PlusHW

14 Edge&HrdW na G NoEdge PlusHW na NoEdge, PlusHW

15 Go-No go 2 na na na No go Block 2, NoGo control

16 Edge&HrdW na G Edge PlusHW na Edge, PlusHW

17 Edge&HrdW na A Edge PlusHW na Edge, PlusHW

18 Go-No go 2 na na na Go Block 2, Go

19 Edge&HrdW na H Edge PlusHW na Edge, PlusHW

20 Edge&HrdW na I NoEdge PlusHW na NoEdge, PlusHW

24 Go-No go 1 na na na Go Block 1, Go

26 Go-No go 2 na na na Go Block 2, Go

30 Go-No go 2 na na na Go Block 2, Go

31 Go-No go 1 na na na Go Block 1, Go

34 Edge&HrdW na C Edge MinusHW na Edge, MinusHW

37 Edge&HrdW na H NoEdge PlusHW na NoEdge, PlusHW

39 Go-No go 1 na na na No go Block 1, NoGo control

40 Edge&HrdW na K NoEdge MinusHW na NoEdge, MinusHW

41 Go-No go 2 na na na No go Block 2, NoGo control
A-51

42 Edge&HrdW na I Edge PlusHW na Edge, PlusHW

43 Edge&HrdW na E NoEdge MinusHW na NoEdge, MinusHW

44 Edge&HrdW na L Edge MinusHW na Edge, MinusHW

45 Edge&HrdW na K Edge MinusHW na Edge, MinusHW

46 Go-No go 1 na na na Go Block 1, Go

55 Edge&HrdW na L NoEdge MinusHW na NoEdge, MinusHW

130 Go-No go 2 na na na Go Block 2, Go

Count of units: 10 22 22 22 10 32

1 TC_Unit: Thomas Creek project unit number (these are old harvest units)

2 Study name:Edge&HrdW is the +Edge/NoEdge and +/-Hardwood study; Go-No go is manage/don’t manage 

3 Block: groupings in the Go-No go study, where Block 1 has low Ponderosa pine%; Block 2 high pine%

4 na: not applicable (part of other study)

5 Pair: the Edge&HrdW units as paired up in the similarity analyses

6 Treatments: see text for fuller descriptions

7 Na is not applicable

Comment on learning choices 

Decision makers asked that the study plan team evaluate learning consequences of two designs to aid in 

their job of making the final decision about which design to choose or whether to choose another 

alternative without any learning design. We propose five criteria to assess learning potential:

• Likelihood that what is learned will be used in future decisions about achieving both ecological 

and community wellbeing (the central question);

• Inclusion of a broad spectrum of people or at least their ideas;

• Emergence of innovative solutions through open debate;

• Likelihood that monitoring will be carried out; and

• Potential scientific power of the evidence for justifying future decisions. 

Some degree of learning is possible without any learning design. The work of the collaborative group is 

itself a form of learning, mainly from each other about differences in knowledge and perspective. The 

work of the District in implementing a project never done before will make future similar projects go 

smoother after mistakes are made and corrected. The purchasers of the timber sale will learn if their 

estimates were good enough so they could make a profit. The work of this study plan team has learned 

much about collaborative and project development processes, and will receive more lessons from the 

peer-review. Science-based learning focused on a clear question important to society takes learning to a 

new level, where planning is directly affected by results, everyone has a chance to participate and a stake 

in the outcome, and management improves quickly and continually over time. Evaluation of learning 

choices based on the above criteria follow:

Alternative C with complete design. The complete design takes on the more controversial question 

whether to limit management to the exact boundaries of OHUs and by doing so has the most potential to 

alter future decisions. This question was the focus of most of the debate and helped the group formulate 

entirely new management concepts of buffering and feathering into adjacent stands—it would not likely 

have emerged without the collaborative debate. The complete design will likely provide quality evidence 
A-52

strengthened by the similarity analysis pairing, random allocation of treatments, and modest sample size. 

The recognition of uncertainty and the design itself demonstrate a commitment by the Forest, 

Collaborative group, and research consultants to reduce the high uncertainty about how to manage to find 

and increase win-wins. 

Alternative C with limited design. The limited design removes the controversial edge management 

treatments and focuses on better quantifying whether the inside OHU management is effective or not. It 

also examines the potential for increasing hardwoods and the hypothesized benefits to soils and 

watershed, and possibly tree growth. Again, some innovation emerged about increasing early seral larch 

and decreasing late-seral grand fir inside OHUs that was not envisioned in initial plans. The extrapolation 

of different treatments to all of the similar OHUs on the entire moist, mixed conifer forests of the 

Umatilla NF is projected to have significant economic consequences. This potential outcome for the 

limited and complete designs, along with collaborative group pressure and funding sources will increase 

the chances that the minimum monitoring regime will be implemented. 

Science-based learning not chosen (alternative other than C). Important questions will be addressed 

without the science-based learning design, including actual costs and bid prices. Simply having a broader 

group look at the stands beforehand and through time will likely allay some fears and offer a good venue 

for continued debate. Monitoring these stands can help to understand the spatial variability and thereby 

improve the debate, but will this evidence not carry much power, and will not be useful for informing 

science-based management or legal decisions.
A-53

APPENDIX C. SOILS

Soil Descriptions Mapped within Project Area

Within the project area there are 38 individual soil series identified. Each is series is then mapped with a 

soil consociations, associations or a complex. The consociation is a single series, while the complex is 

composed of two or more soils series, or soils and a miscellaneous area (Rock Outcrop), plus allowable 

inclusions in either case. In the case of the complexes, each has a dominant soil; which is the first series 

used within the complex name. Within the project area there is one consociation (Bocker Series), the 

remaining 68 complex map units within the area are comprised of various series (listed below) or soil 

series complexes include rock outcrops. 

ANATONE SERIES

The Anatone series consists of shallow, well drained soils formed in loess and ash mixed with residuum 

and colluvium from basalt, andesite or welded tuff. Anatone soils are on mountain side slopes, plateaus 

and ridgetops. Slopes are 0 to 90 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 23 inches and the mean 

annual temperature is about 43 degrees F.

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Lithic Haploxerolls 

TYPICAL PEDON: Anatone very cobbly silt loam, pasture. 

BALLOONTREE SERIES

The Balloontree series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils on gentle mountain 

backslopes and plateaus. Balloontree soils formed in volcanic ash over loess and colluvium from basalt. 

Slopes are 0 to 15 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 53 inches and mean annual air temperature 

about 38 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Ashy over loamy, amorphic over isotic Aquic Vitricryands 

TYPICAL PEDON: Balloontree ashy silt loam forested, on a 5 percent linear north facing slope 

at 5,100 feet elevation. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.)

BOCKER SERIES

The Bocker series consists of very shallow, well drained soils formed in colluvium and residuum derived 

from basalt mixed with loess and a small amount of volcanic ash in the surface. Bocker soils are on 

plateaus, hills and mountains. Slopes are 0 to 90 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 25 

inches and means annual temperature is about 42 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Lithic Haploxerolls 

TYPICAL PEDON: Bocker very cobbly silt loam - rangeland 

DARDRY SERIES

The Dardry series consists of very deep, well drained soils on high terraces of mountain valley floors and 

mountain toeslopes. Dardry soils formed in stream alluvium from mixed rocks. Slopes are 0 to 10 percent. 

Mean annual precipitation is about 26 inches and mean annual temperature about 45 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Cumulic Ultic Haploxerolls 
A-54

TYPICAL PEDON: Dardry loam - woodland, on a 0 percent slope at an elevation of 3,760 feet. 

(Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted. Soil textures are apparent field textures.).

FIVEBEAVER SERIES

The Fivebeaver series consists of shallow, well-drained soils on plateaus and backslopes of mountains. 

Fivebeaver soils formed in colluvium from basalt or andesite mixed with a small amount of volcanic ash. 

Slopes are 0 to 90 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and mean annual temperature 

about 42 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, isotic, frigid Lithic Ultic Haploxerolls 

TYPICAL PEDON: Fivebeaver gravelly ashy silt loam, forested, on an 8 percent northeast slope 

at 4,940 feet elevation.

GETAWAY SERIES

The Getaway series consists of deep, well drained soils formed in loess and colluvium from basalt, 

andesite, or andesitic basalt with an influence of volcanic ash mixed in the surface. Getaway soils are on 

mountain side slopes and canyon walls. Slopes are 15 to 90 percent. The mean annual precipitation is 

about 27 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 43 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, isotic, frigid Vitrandic Argixerolls 

TYPICAL PEDON: Getaway stony ashy silt loam- forested, on a 76 percent northwest-facing 

slope at an elevation of 3,360 feet. (Colors are for dry soils unless otherwise noted) 

HARL SERIES

The Harl series consists of very deep, well drained soils on side slopes of plateaus, canyons and 

mountains. Harl soils formed in volcanic ash over colluvium derived from basalt. Slopes are 30 to 90 

percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 43 

degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Ashy-skeletal over loamy-skeletal, amorphic over isotic, frigid Typic 

Udivitrands 

TYPICAL PEDON: Harl very gravelly ashy silt loam - Woodland, on a 65 percent planar 

northwest-facing slope at an elevation of 4,600 feet. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise 

noted.)

KAMELA SERIES

The Kamela series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in residuum and colluvium 

weathered from basalt, with an influence of loess and volcanic ash in the surface. Kamela soils are on 

mountains and have slopes of 0 to 90 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and the 

mean annual temperature is about 43 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, isotic, frigid Vitrandic Haploxerepts 

TYPICAL PEDON: Kamela stony ashy silt loam, timbered.

KLICKER SERIES

The Klicker series consists of moderately deep well drained soils formed in loess mixed with volcanic 

ash, and slope alluvium and colluvium from basalt. Klicker soils are on mountains, plateaus, and benches. 
A-55

Slopes are 0 to 90 percent. The average annual precipitation is about 30 inches and average annual 

temperature is about 42 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, isotic, frigid Vitrandic Argixerolls 

TYPICAL PEDON: Klicker stony ashy silt loam- forested

LARABEE SERIES

The Larabee series consists of well drained, moderately deep soils on hills and canyons. They formed in 

colluvium weathered from basalt or welded tuff with an influence of loess and volcanic ash. Permeability 

is moderately slow. Slope ranges from 0 to 90 percent. The average annual temperature is about 43 

degrees F and the average annual precipitation is about 27 inches. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, isotic, frigid Vitrandic Argixerolls 

TYPICAL PEDON: Larabee ashy loam -- on a 22 percent south-facing slope at 4,690 feet 

elevation in forest.

LIMBERJIM SERIES

The Limberjim series consists of deep, well drained soils on stable slopes of mountains, plateaus, 

canyons, and structural benches. Limberjim soils formed in ash over colluvium and residuum derived 

from basalt and andesitic breccias. Slopes are 0 to 90 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 30 

inches and the mean annual temperature is about 43 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Ashy over loamy-skeletal, amorphic over isotic, frigid Alfic Udivitrands 

TYPICAL PEDON: Limberjim ashy silt loam - Woodland, on a 5 percent planar southeast-facing 

slope at an elevation of 4,490 feet.

MOUNTEMILY SERIES

The Mountemily series consists of very deep, well drained soils on ridgetops, side slopes and shoulders of 

mountains. Mountemily soils are formed in volcanic ash overlying colluvium derived from basalt and 

andesitic basalt. Slopes are 0 to 90 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 38 inches and the 

mean annual temperature is about 37 degrees F.

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Ashy over loamy-skeletal, amorphic over isotic Typic Vitricryands

TYPICAL PEDON: Mountemily ashy silt loam - woodland, on a 43 percent convex north-facing 

slope at an elevation of 5,740 feet. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted. All textures 

are apparent field textures.)

MOUNTIRELAND SERIES

The MountIreland series consists of deep and very deep, moderately well drained soils on lower 

backslopes, footslopes and toeslopes of mountains. MountIreland soils are formed in volcanic ash 

overlying colluvium and residuum from andesites, or basalts. Slopes are 0 to 60 percent. The mean annual 

precipitation is about 48 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 37 degrees F.

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Ashy over loamy, amorphic over isotic Alfic Vitricryands

TYPICAL PEDON: MountIreland ashy silt loam, woodland, on a 5 percent south-facing slope at 

an elevation of 5,870 feet. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.)

MUGWUMP SERIES
A-56

The Mugwump series consists of very deep, well or moderately well drained soils on planar and complex 

terraces of mountain valley floors. Mugwump soils formed in mixed alluvium. Slopes are 0 to 25 percent. 

Mean annual precipitation is about 30 inches and mean annual temperature about 42 degrees F.

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid Cumulic Hapludolls

TYPICAL PEDON: Mugwump sandy loam - woodland, on a 3 percent slope at elevation of 4,380

feet. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted. Soil textures are apparent field textures.)

OLOT SERIES

The Olot series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed in volcanic ash and colluvium 

and residuum weathered from basalt. Olot soils are on plateaus and mountains and have slopes of 2 to 90 

percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 27 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 44 

degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Ashy over loamy-skeletal, glassy over isotic, frigid Typic Vitrixerands 

TYPICAL PEDON: Olot stony ashy silt loam, wooded.

SYRUPCREEK SERIES

The Syrupcreek series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on ridgetops and side slopes of 

mountains and plateaus. Syrupcreek soils formed in ash and loess over colluvium and residuum derived 

from basalt and andesitic brecias. Slopes are 0 to 60 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 35 

inches and the mean annual temperature is about 43 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Ashy over loamy-skeletal, amorphic over isotic, frigid Alfic Udivitrands 

TYPICAL PEDON: Syrupcreek ashy silt loam - Woodland, on a 3 percent planar northeast-facing 

slope at an elevation of 4385 feet.

TAMARA SERIES

The Tamara series consists of very deep, well drained soils on dissected basalt plateaus, canyons and 

mountains. Tamara soils are formed in a mantle of volcanic ash overlying material derived from a mixture 

of loess and colluvium and residuum from basalt. Slopes are 0 to 60 percent. The mean annual 

precipitation is about 30 inches and the mean annual temperature is about 38 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Ashy over loamy, amorphic over isotic, frigid Alfic Udivitrands

TYPICAL PEDON: Tamara ashy silt loam, woodland, on a 20 percent east-facing slope at an 

elevation of 4,660 feet. (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.)

TOMMYCORK SERIES

The Tommycork series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on backslopes of dissected basalt 

plateaus. Tommycork soils formed in colluvium from basalt with loess and a small amount of volcanic 

ash in surface horizons. Slopes are 0 to 60 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 19 inches and 

mean annual temperature about 43 degrees F. 

TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Vitrandic Argixerolls 

TYPICAL PEDON: Tommycork ashy silt loam - rangeland, on a 2 percent north facing slope at 

an elevation of 4,100 feet.
A-57

Subsoiling Prescription

TEMPORARY ROADS & OTHER SOIL COMPACTION ON VARIOUS SLOPES AND 

SOIL CONDITIONS

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

Proposed for use during harvest activities in the Thomas Creek project are “existing” temporary roads and 

created temporary roads. Though the name “existing” temporary roads seems to be an error, it describes 

remnant legacy trails and roads; left to recover via natural processes (passive restoration). Unfortunately 

the anticipated recovery did not occur, leaving the legacy impacts on the landscape. 

All estimates of area are the known distance of proposed roads and an assumed width of temporary road, 

(distance of road (ft.) * 12ft width = Acres) actual locations are identified in table 1. Actual width of these 

roads may vary + 3 feet along various segments of roads/trails from variation in traffic impacts. The 

variation in traffic impacts are from forest visitor use around fallen trees or other traffic obstructions. The 

following sections of this document segregate current and proposed road/trails to estimate the current 

impacts on the landscape. Any variation of treatment is to be based upon anticipated soil depth alone. All 

treatments will receive the addition of slash to amend the soil of both existing and proposed temporary 

roads/trails.

Table C.1 Soil Depth as an indicator of restoration opportunity.

SOIL DEPTH: INDICATOR OF SUBSOILING OPPERTUNTIY

Soil 2 

Shallow (<20”) Moderately Deep (20”-40”) Deep (40”-60”) Very Deep (>60”)

Soil 

1

Shallow (<20”) Scarify Scarify Scarify or Subsoil Scarify or Subsoil

Mod. Deep (20”-40”) Scarify or Subsoil Scarify or Subsoil Scarify or Subsoil Scarify or Subsoil

Deep (40”-60”) Scarify or Subsoil Subsoil Subsoil Subsoil

Very Deep (>60”) Subsoil Subsoil Subsoil Subsoil

Soil 1 and soil 2 are first and second soil named in the mapped soil complex for the area in being

examined. Soil depth is based on NRCS criteria.

Table C.2 Proposed obliteration equipment for temporary roads.

SOIL ROCK CONTENT (0 to 15inches): INDICATOR OF EQUIPMENT SUITED TO OBLITERATE TEMPORARY ROADS

Soil 2 has:

60% to 45% rock 44% to 30% rock 29% to 5% rock 4% to <1% rock

Soil 1

60% to 45% rock Excavator Excavator Excavator Excavator or Dozer

44% to 30% rock Excavator Excavator Excavator Excavator or Dozer

29% to 5% rock Excavator or Dozer Excavator or Dozer Excavator or Dozer Excavator or Dozer

4% to <1% rock Excavator or Dozer Excavator or Dozer Excavator or Dozer Excavator or Dozer

In Table C.2, when obliteration is prescribed and which equipment that is most likely to achieve best 

overall results when considering temporary road spatial location; with rock content of mapped soils

EXISTING TEMPORARY ROAD CONDITIONS

The use of the term temporary road in this case is erroneous, since temporary implies these roads will not 

remain on the landscape. Due to various environmental factors passive restoration did not take place; 

therefore these obliteration treatments are deemed necessary to ensure the use of temporary roads will 

indeed be temporary. Locating these roads/trails has been possible by identifying berms and/or wheel ruts 

consistent with roads, either from field observations or from remote sensing (Aerial Photographs). 

TREATMENT OF CREATED OR LEGACY SOIL COMPACTION
A-58

The presence of legacy compaction (existing temporary roads) within the proposed activity area is the 

reason for subsoiling all temporary roads utilized within the Thomas Creek project proposal. Location of 

specific roads are mapped and identified in GIS in the Thomas Creek project folder. In addition to 

removal of temporary roads, any temporary landing will also receive the same subsoiling treatment as its 

associated temporary road.

Ridge Top Roads

The soil conditions associated with these roads are typically a shallow in soil depth (some occurrence of 

moderately deep soil may be present).

1. If soil is to a depth >20 inches, subsoiling will be to a depth of at least 20 inches.

a. If bedrock is <20 inches surface, scarification will be to the lithic (rock) contact or at 

least 10 inches.

2. Effective Ground Cover (EGC) for all subsoiling treatments is a requirement. Where available EGC 

will take advantage of harvest create slash. If no suitable organic material is available, then use of 

certified weed-free straw is appropriate.

a. Stabilization of soil surface with Slash (or organic material) is done to prevent resulting 

subsoiling treatment from soil crusting conditions. Crusting can inhibit moisture 

infiltration and promote erosion (Luce 1997).

Mid-slope Roads

The soil conditions associated with these roads are typically a moderately deep to deep soil; depending 

upon associated geology and road fill depths.

1. If soil is to a depth >20 inches, subsoiling will be to a depth of at least 20 inches.

a. If bedrock is <20 inches surface, scarification will be to the lithic (rock) contact or at 

least 10 inches.

2. If there is a need to restore hillside hydrology by re-contouring the road; subsoiling will be limited to 

the compacted roadbed not excavated during re-contouring.

3. Effective Ground Cover (EGC) for all subsoiling treatments is a requirement. Materials used for EGC 

will take advantage of available harvest slash. If no suitable organic material is available, then use of 

certified weed-free straw is appropriate.

a. Stabilization of soil surface with Slash (or organic material) is done to prevent resulting 

subsoiling treatment from soil crusting conditions. Crusting can inhibit moisture 

infiltration and promote erosion (Luce 1997).

Toe Slope and/or Gentle Topography roads

The soil conditions associated with these roads can vary from deep soil in Toe slopes; to varying depth 

(shallow to very deep) in gentle topography.

1. If soil is to a depth >20 inches, subsoiling will be to a depth of at least 20 inches.
A-59

a. If bedrock is <20 inches surface, scarification will be to the lithic (rock) contact or at

least 10 inches.

2. Effective Ground Cover (EGC) for all subsoiling treatments is a requirement. Materials used for EGC

will take advantage of available harvest slash. If no suitable organic material is available, then use of

certified weed-free straw is appropriate.

a. Stabilization of soil surface with Slash (or organic material) is done to prevent resulting

subsoiling treatment from soil crusting conditions. Crusting can inhibit moisture

infiltration and promote erosion (Luce 1997).

Equipment for Subsoiling Activities: Benefits and prescriptive limits for each

Dozer: Rear mounted winged subsoiling shanks are the only dozer mounted option to be considered If 

project does not have adequate EGC component, then dozer subsoiling may be considered best economic 

value to for work. However for the above prescription dozer equipment alone is not the best suited for 

easy completion of all aspects of the above subsoiling prescription.

Benefits 

1. Subsoiling operation done with the greatest speed.

2. Some implements are built and well suited for use in areas with minimal trees.

Prescriptive Limits

1. Operator is not in constant visual contact with work activity.

a. Can cause subsurface rock and boulders to be brought to the surface in some

cases.

b. Subsoiling with a dozer can lead to vegetation accumulations in equipment that

will leave exposed soil from displaced vegetation.

c. Fuels Specialist may consider displaced vegetation concentrations, a fuel hazard.

d. Subsoiling can damage retained tree roots, since operator may not always be

aware of implement actions as they concentrate on driving the dozer.

2. Dozer subsoiling forms linear patterns, sometimes leaving subsoiling furrows.

a. Subsoiling furrows can offers the least desired amount of microsite conditions for

seeds and seedling plants and create un-natural appearance of planted furrows;

even if only seeds from soil seed bank sprout.

b. If treatment lacks EGC and soil lacks Organic Matter (OM or harvest debris), this

may lead to soil crusting that can cause the soil surface to seal; followed by

accelerated erosion (Luce 1997).

3. All subsoiling activities will require use some form of EGC. When harvest debris is not

available, straw (or other OM) will be required. Due to the operational limitations of the

dozer, this may require hand crew application of EGC following subsoiling.
A-60

Excavator (approximately a Cat 200LC or Log Loader) without the aid of any specialized subsoiling 

attachments. Equipment is not the best suited for easy completion of all aspects of the above subsoiling 

prescription.

Benefits 

1. Operator is in constant visual contact with work activity.

a. Therefore, they are aware of subsurface obstructions and prevent damage to

trees, equipment or bring large boulders and rocks to the surface.

2. Work can be done concurrently with machine piling project work, thus could be a cost

effective means of accomplishing both machine piling and subsoiling compacted soils like

temporary roads.

3. Subsoiling & Grapple Piling work is accomplished from a single work. (See Figure 2).

4. Excavator is able to take advantage of surrounding harvest slash for use as EGC. When OM

(Harvest Slash) is not available, straw (or other OM) will be required. The excavator has the

operational ability to apply EGC following subsoiling, without needing a hand crew.

5. Some operators have retrofitted their logging equipment to meet the needs of this prescription

and have accomplished similar results to the specialized equipment mentioned in the next

excavator example.

Prescriptive Limits

1. Excavator subsoiling operations has the slowest completion rate when using a bucket alone to

subsoil.

a. Because, the excavator accomplishes subsoiling by entering the soil with the

bucket as if to excavate, curling in the bucket to break compaction without rising

from the ground. The buckets action is then reversed to exit the soil without

mixing the soil profiles (i.e. horizons). Treatment area is little more than the area

in contact with the bucket.

b. The excavator may use an un-attached subsoiling implement to achieve defined

work, by holding implement between excavator thumb and bucket.

i. Improved rate of work, but still has problems with retaining implement

in a proper position for subsoiling. Over time this can also damage

subsoiling implements not constructed for use in this fashion.

2. When operating in grassed locations with widely spaced trees, the rate of accomplishment is

low when compared to dozer work.

Excavator (i.e. ~ Cat 200LC): with a specialized subsoiling attachment. This equipment is best suited 

for easy completion of all aspects of the above subsoiling prescription.

Benefits 
A-61

1. Specialized subsoiling attachments can be a Subsoiling Grapple Rake (Archuleta and Karr 

2006) or a Subsoiling Excavator Bucket (Archuleta and Karr 2006), or other suitable 

implement. 

a. Operator is in constant visual contact with work activity.

i. Therefore, they are aware of subsurface obstructions and prevent damage 

to equipment or surfacing of large boulders and rocks.

b. Subsoiling operation with this implement has an improved rate of completion 

over other excavator subsoiling methods.

i. This method is still slower than dozer subsoiling, but when considering 

the fast application of EGC; the total project time is faster than dozer 

work.

c. The excavator accomplishes subsoiling by; rotating head into subsoiling mode 

(see Figure 1). Subsoiling occurs from a single stationary work position (see 

Figure 2), then excavator moves to new position and process.

d. EGC is placed when implement is placed into grapple rake mode for placement 

of EGC (see figure 2).

2. Work can be done concurrently with machine piling project work, thus could be a cost 

effective means of accomplishing both machine piling and subsoiling compacted soils like 

temporary roads.

3. Excavator is able to take advantage of surrounding harvest slash for use as EGC. When OM 

(Harvest Slash) is not available, straw (or other OM) will be required. The excavator has the 

operational ability to apply EGC following subsoiling, without needing a hand crew.

Prescriptive Limits

1. When operating in grassed locations with widely spaced trees, the rate of accomplishment is 

low when compared to dozer work, since tightly spaced stumps limits the speed of dozer 

subsoiling. Areas with tightly spaced stumps that limit equipment are also likely to not have 

been compacted in the first place.
A-62

Table C.3 Proposed activities estimated DSC and calculated cumulative DSC. Detrimental estimates are based on previous monitoring of 

various harvest systems, Harvest Method Code: Ha=Hand (0% DCS), GBT= Ground Based Tractor (13% DSC), GBF=Ground 

Based Forwarder (11% DSC), Sky=Skyline (5% DSC), He=Helicopter (2% DSC), NCT=Non-Commercial Thin (1% DSC). Each 

of these DSC estimates has a different effective duration on the landscape.

Unit

Harvest System 

Proposed

Proposed Acres

Harvest System 

Proposed

Proposed Acres

Harvest System 

Proposed

Proposed Acres

Harvest System 

Proposed

Proposed Acres

Observed DSC Acres

Expected DSC=Harvest System 

DSC%* Unit Acres

Expected Cumulative DSC 

Acres=Observed DSC+ Expected 

DSC

Expected Cumulative DSC 

Percent=Observed DSC+ Expected 

DSC

Unit < 20% DSC

(Pass or Fail)

Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

2 GBT 9 GBT 9 GBT 9 GBT 9 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

2L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

5 GBT 20 GBT 20 GBT 20 GBT 20 0.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

5L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

6 GBT 13 GBT 13 GBT 13 GBT 13 0.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% Pass Pass Pass Pass

6L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

7 GBT 26 GBT 26 GBT 26 GBT 26 0.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% 13.2% Pass Pass Pass Pass

7L 0 GBT 13 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

8 GBT 57 GBT 57 GBT 57 GBT 57 0.3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 14.1% 14.1% 14.1% 14.1% Pass Pass Pass Pass

8L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

9 GBF 48 GBF 48 GBF 48 GBF 48 2.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 19.5% 19.5% 19.5% 19.5% Pass Pass Pass Pass

9L 0 GBF 15 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

10 GBT 31 GBT 31 GBT 31 GBT 31 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

10L 0 GBT 11 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

11 GBT 32 GBT 32 GBT 32 GBT 32 0.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

11 Sky 32 Sky 32 Sky 32 Sky 32 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

11L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

13 GBF 53 GBF 53 GBF 53 GBF 53 0.0 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

13L 0 GBF 17 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

14 GBF 73 GBF 73 GBF 73 GBF 73 0.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass
A-63

14L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

15 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

15A GBT 13 0 GBT 13 GBT 13 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.7 13.0% 0.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

15B GBT 11 0 0 GBT 11 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

16A GBT 20 GBT 20 0 GBT 20 0.4 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 0.4 3.4 16.9% 16.9% 0.0% 16.9% Pass Pass Pass Pass

16B GBT 10 0 0 GBT 10 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.2 0.2 1.6 16.2% 0.0% 0.0% 16.2% Pass Pass Pass Pass

16L 0 GBT 11 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

17 GBT 21 GBT 21 GBT 21 GBT 21 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

17L 0 GBT 14 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

18 GBF 11 GBF 11 GBF 11 GBF 11 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

19 GBF 18 GBF 18 GBF 18 GBF 18 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% 11.5% Pass Pass Pass Pass

19L 0 GBF 11 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

20 Sky 9 Sky 9 0 Sky 9 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 5.9% 5.9% 0.0% 5.9% Pass Pass Pass Pass

20L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

21 Ha 15 Ha 15 Ha 15 Ha 15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% Pass Pass Pass Pass

22 GBT 20 GBT 20 GBT 20 GBT 20 0.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

24 Ha 6 Ha 6 0 Ha 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

25 Ha 16 Ha 16 0 Ha 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

26 Sky 15 Sky 15 Sky 15 Sky 15 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% Pass Pass Pass Pass

27 Ha 8 Ha 8 Ha 8 Ha 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

28 Ha 7 Ha 7 Ha 7 Ha 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

29 Ha 6 Ha 6 Ha 6 Ha 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

30* Sky 24 Sky 24 GBF 24 GBF 24 0.4 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 8.3% 8.3% 14.3% 14.3% Pass Pass Pass Pass

31 Sky 11 Sky 11 Sky 11 Sky 11 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% Pass Pass Pass Pass

34 GBT 17 GBT 17 GBT 17 GBT 17 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

34L 0 GBT 10 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

35 Ha 22 Ha 22 Ha 22 Ha 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

37 GBF 26 GBF 26 GBF 26 GBF 26 0.0 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

37L 0 11 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

38 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass
A-64

39 GBT 14 0 GBT 14 GBT 14 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.0 1.8 1.8 13.0% 0.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

40 GBF 43 GBF 43 GBF 43 GBF 43 1.5 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 17.9% 17.9% 17.9% 17.9% Pass Pass Pass Pass

40L 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

41A Sky 18 0 0 Sky 18 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.3 1.5 8.5% 0.0% 0.0% 8.5% Pass Pass Pass Pass

41B Sky 7 0 0 Sky 7 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% Pass Pass Pass Pass

42 GBT 29 GBT 29 GBT 29 GBT 29 0.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

42L 0 GBT 12 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

43 GBF 24 GBF 24 GBF 24 GBF 24 0.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% Pass Pass Pass Pass

43L 0 13 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

44 GBF 21 GBF 21 GBF 21 GBF 21 0.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

44L 0 GBF 13 0 0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

45 Sky 16 Sky 16 0 Sky 16 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

45L 0 Sky 10 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

46 GBF 11 GBF 11 GBF 11 GBF 11 0.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Pass Pass Pass Pass

47 GBT 61 GBT 61 GBT 61 GBT 61 1.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% 16.3% Pass Pass Pass Pass

49 GBF 20 GBF 20 GBF 20 GBF 20 0.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% Pass Pass Pass Pass

50 GBF 26 GBF 26 GBF 26 GBF 26 0.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% Pass Pass Pass Pass

51 GBT 31 GBT 31 Ha 31 GBT 31 0.4 4.4 4.4 0.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 0.4 4.4 14.3% 14.3% 1.3% 14.3% Pass Pass Pass Pass

52 GBT 49 GBT 49 Ha 49 GBT 49 0.3 6.7 6.7 0.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 0.3 6.7 13.6% 13.6% 0.6% 13.6% Pass Pass Pass Pass

53 Ha 7 Ha 7 Ha 7 Ha 7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% Pass Pass Pass Pass

54 Ha 5 Ha 5 Ha 5 Ha 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

55 GBT 15 GBT 15 0 GBT 15 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 13.0% 13.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

55L 0 Ha 8 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

56 Ha 14 Ha 14 Ha 14 Ha 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

57 Ha 28 Ha 28 Ha 28 Ha 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

58 GBT 18 GBT 18 Ha 18 Ha 18 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 13.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

60 GBT 6 GBT 6 GBT 6 GBT 6 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% Pass Pass Pass Pass

61 Ha 76 Ha 76 Ha 76 Ha 76 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

66 Ha 6 Ha 6 Ha 6 Ha 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

67 Ha 17 Ha 17 Ha 17 Ha 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass
A-65

70 Ha 37 Ha 37 Ha 37 Ha 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

73 Ha 29 Ha 29 Ha 29 Ha 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

75 Ha 39 Ha 39 Ha 39 Ha 39 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Pass Pass Pass Pass

76 Ha 45 Ha 45 Ha 45 Ha 45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

78 Ha 15 Ha 15 Ha 15 Ha 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

80 Ha 17 Ha 17 Ha 17 Ha 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

82 Ha 32 Ha 32 Ha 32 Ha 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

84 Ha 16 Ha 16 Ha 16 Ha 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

85 Ha 15 Ha 15 Ha 15 Ha 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

86 Ha 5 Ha 5 Ha 5 Ha 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

87 Ha 13 Ha 12 Ha 13 Ha 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

89 Ha 12 Ha 9 Ha 12 Ha 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

91 Ha 16 Ha 16 Ha 16 Ha 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

92 GBT 117 GBT 111 Ha 117 GBT 117 0.0 15.2 14.4 0.0 15.2 15.2 14.4 0.0 15.2 13.0% 13.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

94 Ha 34 Ha 34 Ha 34 Ha 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

95 Ha 28 Ha 28 Ha 28 Ha 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

96 Ha 31 Ha 31 Ha 31 Ha 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

97 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

98 Ha 23 Ha 23 Ha 23 Ha 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

99 Ha 33 Ha 33 Ha 33 Ha 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

100 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

101 Ha 31 Ha 31 Ha 31 Ha 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

102 Ha 33 Ha 33 Ha 33 Ha 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

103 Ha 31 Ha 31 Ha 31 Ha 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

104 Ha 38 Ha 38 Ha 38 Ha 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

105 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

106 Ha 36 Ha 36 Ha 36 Ha 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

107 Ha 32 Ha 32 Ha 32 Ha 32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

108 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

111 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% Pass Pass Pass Pass
A-66

112 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

113 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

114 Ha 11 Ha 11 Ha 11 Ha 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

115 Ha 21 Ha 20 Ha 21 Ha 21 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% Pass Pass Pass Pass

116 Ha 18 Ha 18 Ha 18 Ha 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

117 Ha 7 Ha 7 Ha 7 Ha 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

118 Ha 4 Ha 4 Ha 4 Ha 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

119 Ha 6 Ha 6 Ha 6 Ha 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

120 Ha 11 Ha 11 Ha 11 Ha 11 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Pass Pass Pass Pass

121 Ha 6 Ha 6 Ha 6 Ha 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

122 Ha 12 Ha 12 Ha 12 Ha 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

123 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 Ha 27 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% Pass Pass Pass Pass

124 Ha 5 Ha 5 Ha 5 Ha 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% Pass Pass Pass Pass

125 Ha 28 Ha 28 Ha 28 Ha 28 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Pass Pass Pass Pass

126 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 Ha 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

129A GBT 73 GBT 73 GBT 73 GBT 73 0.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

129B Ha 37 Ha 37 Ha 37 Ha 37 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

130 GBT 53 GBT 53 GBT 53 GBT 53 0.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

131 0 0 0 Sky 18 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

132 0 0 0 Sky 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

133 0 0 0 Sky 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

134 0 0 0 Sky 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

135 0 0 0 Sky 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

136 0 0 0 GBF 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

137 0 0 0 GBF 35 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.8% Pass Pass Pass Pass

138 0 0 0 Sky 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

139 0 0 0 GBT 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

140 0 0 0 GBT 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

141 0 0 0 GBT 28 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

142 0 0 0 GBF 64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass
A-67

143 0 0 0 GBT 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

144 0 0 0 GBF 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

145 0 0 0 GBF 38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

146 0 0 0 Sky 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

147 0 0 0 Sky 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

148 0 0 0 Sky 22 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% Pass Pass Pass Pass

149 0 0 0 GBF 26 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

150 0 0 0 GBT 35 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

151 0 0 0 GBT 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

152 0 0 0 Sky 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

153 0 0 0 GBT 46 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% Pass Pass Pass Pass

Total 2545.6 2773.8 2417.2 3068.1 12.2 158.7 165.9 121.5 209.8 166.3 173.4 129.1 217.4 6.5% 6.3% 4.2% 7.1% Pass Pass Pass Pass
A-68

APPENDIX D. FORESTED VEGETATION MAPS

Figure D.1 Past harvest in the Thomas Creek project area.
A-69

Figure D.2 Existing condition (2014) for upland forest species composition in the Thomas Creek 

analysis area.
A-70

Figure D.3 Existing condition (2014) for upland forest structural stage in the Thomas Creek analysis 

area.
A-71

Figure D.4 Existing condition (2014) for upland forest density in the Thomas Creek analysis area.
A-72

APPENDIX E. LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Background:

This document describes the process and rationale used to identify potential project-level impacts to lands 

with wilderness characteristics defined by the Wilderness Act within the Thomas Creek project, Walla 

Walla Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest. The following analysis is based on the January 30, 2015 

criteria found at Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 Ch. 70, Section 71. 

Each step of the process is narratively and visually documented and displayed in this appendix. The 

Forest Service used professional judgment and local knowledge regarding unique, site-specific conditions 

of lands considered as having wilderness characteristics.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC): 

An inventory is conducted and a map created by the Forest Service during forest plan revision as the first 

step in a four step wilderness recommendation process (FSH 1909.12 at 70.62) with the purpose of 

identifying all lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Areas identified in the forest plan revision process using inventory procedures found in FSH 1909.12, 

Chapter 70, section 71 are called areas with wilderness characteristics. The agency then conducts an 

evaluation and analysis and then makes a decision on specific areas to recommend for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System; these areas can then be considered by Congress, who has 

reserved the authority to make the final decision on wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70, 

sections 72, 73, and 74).

A project-level analysis is conducted only to disclose potential impacts to wilderness characteristics of 

lands affected by the site-specific project. The identification process and resulting polygons (if any) 

themselves do not result in a land designation decision and do not imply or impart any particular level of 

forest plan management direction or protection (FSH 1909.12 at 70.62a). The identification of lands with 

wilderness characteristics does not change the administrative boundary of any congressionally established 

wilderness or inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) and does not change or amend any plan component or 

management area within a land management plan (forest plan). The project-level application of the 

section 71 criteria and the disclosure of site-specific impacts to wilderness characteristics of lands 

affected by a site-specific project does not initiate or conduct a forest plan revision evaluation and 

wilderness recommendation process at Chapter 70; sections 72, 73, and 74.

Typically, lands with wilderness characteristics substantially overlap, and/or are contiguous with 

inventoried roadless areas. Lands with wilderness characteristics may also be contiguous with designated 

wilderness. Some newly identified lands may be stand-alone areas (polygons) that were not inventoried 

as “roadless areas” in Appendix C of the 1990 Umatilla Forest Plan and “inventoried roadless areas” as 

identified in a set of maps in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Lands with wilderness 

characteristics overlap inventoried roadless areas only where those acres of land are consistent with 

criteria in section 71 and may extend beyond IRA and wilderness boundaries consistent with such criteria. 

The Thomas Creek project area is bounded by roads and private land. The scope of this analysis includes 

all acres contained within the Thomas Creek project planning area and adjacent USFS and other federal 

lands, as appropriate, sufficient to consider and identify affected lands with wilderness characteristics.
A-73

Methodology: 

The identification of lands with wilderness characteristics process 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. 

Each map (Appendix map I-0, I-1 and I-1a, I-2 and I-2a, I-3 and I-3a, I-4 and I-4a, and I-5 and I-5a)

documents the application and outcome of specific criteria. Criteria were applied in a different order 

than appears in Chapter 71, but all criteria were considered and accounted for as described below.

Examples of typical situations that required applications of professional judgment included, but are not 

limited to:

1. Determining whether other improvements or evidence of past human activities are substantially

noticeable or are not substantially noticeable in the area as a whole (71.22b).

2. Extending placement of boundaries to the edges of development for purposes of inclusion in the

analysis (71.22b (10).

3. Whether to extend the edge of development around, across, or between a series of adjacent semipermanent human-made features. For example:

a) Whether to include lands through an isthmus (or pinch point) created between two roads or

through isthmus’s between a series of two or more substantially noticeable timber harvest units or

place the edge of development boundary across one or all the isthmuses.

b) Whether to locate a boundary around a peninsula of land between two maintenance level 3 roads

or place the edge of development boundary through a logical pinch point in a peninsula.

Table E-1 displays the acres of land included and excluded for each step. Maps are contained in Figures 

E-1 through E-9 at the end of this appendix.

 Table E-1. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics; Map by Map Summary

Approximate Acres within

Thomas Creek LWC Analysis 

Area

Map 1 Total acres considered within analysis area*. 52,760

Map 2 Acres of non-conforming ‘other improvements’ excluded 

consistent with 71.22b(1-12). e.g. Acres of substantially noticeable timber 

harvest and prior road construction (3), developed campgrounds (7) etc.

16,907

Map 3 Acres of non-conforming ‘road improvements’ excluded consistent 

with 71.22a(2a,b,c1-4). e.g. roads maintained to level 2, 3, 4, or 5.

1,212**

Map 4 Acres of land remaining to consider and compare to size criteria at 

71.21.

35,441***

Map 5 Acres of land identified with wilderness characteristics consistent 

with all criteria in Chapter 70, section 71. 26,757

Acres of other undeveloped lands that did not meet criteria at FSH 1909.12 

Chapter 70, section 71. 

8,684***

* This includes all acres contained within the Thomas Creek project planning area and other adjacent

USFS and federal lands, as appropriate, sufficient to consider and identify affected lands with wilderness

characteristics.

** Some of these acres may overlap with acres of substantially noticeable harvest. 

*** This number does not include polygons less than one acre in size.
A-74

Map 1, 1a: Thomas Creek Area

Map 1 displays the Thomas Creek project planning area, forest roads maintained to maintenance levels 2-

5, and proximity of the planning area to Inventoried Roadless Areas and Wilderness. The project 

planning area for Thomas Creek is approximately 15,773 acres.

Map 2, 2a: (71.22b (1-12); Other Improvements)

Map 2 displays Thomas Creek project planning area, forest roads maintained to maintenance levels 2-5, 

and acres of relevant non-conforming other improvements described in section 71.22b (1-12).

Over fifty years of documented human activities, including but not limited to, clear-cuts, thinning, 

campgrounds, roads, range improvements etc. as described in section 71.22b (1-12) are stored in agency 

GIS and database systems (Project Record). Interpretation of digital photography, local knowledge, and 

field visits were used to verify past improvements and determine whether such improvements or evidence 

of past human activities are substantially noticeable or not substantially noticeable within the area as a 

whole. Interpretation of databases and digital photography revealed many areas where past timber 

harvest and related prior road construction were obvious and substantially noticeable. Areas where such 

conclusions were not obvious or ambiguous were identified and visited in the field to make an informed 

interpretation and judgement (Project Record). 

Personal firewood cutting is permitted within 300 feet of forest roads and danger tree maintenance has 

also removed trees and created localized visible stumps adjacent to forest roads. We recognize stumps 

are not present along every mile of forest road; for example roads adjacent to non-forested land such as,

but not limited to, meadow, step-shrub, talus, or a lake. Permitted uses and their noticeable effects are 

expected to continue into the future. Based on field review, scattered, individual stumps and localized 

concentrations of stumps were typically not substantially noticeable in this area as a whole. These 

activities and their effects are conforming improvements and were considered as having wilderness 

characteristics (section 71.22b ((33). 

Dispersed camping and associated wood gathering for campfires are permitted uses within 300 feet of 

forest roads. Associated stumps and user-created, unauthorized recreation routes and trails are also 

present. These activities and their effects are conforming improvements and will be considered as having 

wilderness characteristics (section 71.22a (1b) and 71.22b (7). 

Local knowledge, field information, and interpretation of digital imagery revealed approximately 16,907 

acres of the project area contained timber harvest areas where logging and prior road construction are 

substantially noticeable (project record). Past timber harvest acres where logging and prior road 

construction are substantially noticeable are displayed in Table I-1 and on Map 2 and will not be 

considered as having wilderness characteristics consistent with section 71.22b(3). 

The Ruckle Junction Warming Shelter area occurs within the analysis area boundary and does not have 

wilderness characteristics consistent with section 71.22b(7). 

Map 3, 3a: 71.22a (2a,b,c1-4); Road Improvements)

Map 3 displays the Thomas Creek project planning area and forest roads maintained to maintenance 

levels 2, 3, 4, and 5. 
A-75

The Walla Walla District Motorized Access and Travel Management decision was signed July 29, 1993 

(incorporated by reference). Subsequent project level NEPA decisions over the last 20 years have 

amended the District access and travel management plan by approving new permanent and temporary 

road, placing roads not needed into storage (maintenance level 1), and decommissioning roads. As a 

result, and consistent with section 71.22a and 71.22b(10), about 115 miles of forest roads, maintained to 

level 2, 3, 4, and 5, will be excluded from analysis. For the purposes of inclusion, the boundary of lands 

with wilderness characteristics will be extended to the edge of development; defined here as 50 feet from 

the centerline of a road maintained to level 2, 3, 4, and 5.

We recognize the edge of development varies based on many factors including but not limited to: 

topography, single-lane (native surface or gravel) verses double-lane (gravel or pavement) design, 

ditches, and size of cut and fill slopes. During initial road construction, trees were felled within a clearing 

limit to provide for safe and efficient construction and future operational safety of road users. All roadrelated developments described above fall within the clearing limit which represents a recognizable edge 

of development.

Using digital imagery and professional judgment we measured the edge of development (centerline of the 

road to the clearing limit) on a sample of single-lane and double-lane roads maintained to levels 2-5 

throughout the forest to develop a general range of variation. Clearing limits from centerline for single 

and double-lane roads on flat topography in non-forested settings were very small and clearing limits for 

double-lane roads on steep topography in forested settings were large. Measuring by hand taping or 

surveying the exact width of development is possible but is not reasonable or financially practical when 

indirect methods are sufficient. 

Selection of 50 feet as the edge of development is reasonable because our analysis indicated the clearing 

limit for nearly all single-lane roads falls within 50 feet of centerline and single-lane roads comprise about 

ninety-nine (99) percent of our road system maintained to levels 2-5. We recognize some double-lane 

roads exceed 50 feet however double-lane roads comprise about one percent of our road system 

maintained to levels 2-5. A uniform, measurable boundary is easily remembered and would facilitate 

easy on-the-ground identification where an undulating boundary would likely have created confusion for 

the public and USFS employees. Selection of 50 feet to represent the edge of development is a 

reasonable and practicable compromise that meets the broad and inclusive purpose and intent of this 

analysis as a whole.

Therefore, consistent with section 71.22a; and 71.22b(10) the lands with wilderness characteristics 

boundary will be located to include areas greater than 50 feet from the centerline of forest roads 

maintained to level 2, 3, 4, and 5. The result is about 1,212 acres including about 115 miles of road will 

be excluded as non-conforming road improvements.

Map 4, 4a: 71.21 (Size Criteria)

Map 4 displays the Thomas Creek project planning area and lands brought forward from Map 2 and 3. 

These lands include conforming improvements as described in sections 71.22a and 71.22b and are now 

considered individually and compared to the size criteria found at FSH 1909.12 at 71.21.

Approximately 50 acres occurred in polygons less than one acre in size (227 polygons) and were 

eliminated from further study. The removal of these acres resulted in 279 remaining individual polygons 
A-76

(each with its own unique, numeric identifier) ranging in size from 1 acre to approximately 26,431 acres; 

a total of 35,441 acres as displayed in Table I-2. 

Table E-2. Size Criteria Analysis (71.21)

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

2 3 No No No No No

5 2 No No No No No

6 11 No No No No No

7 4 No No No No No

10 1 No No No No No

14 2 No No No No No

16 10 No No No No No

17 39 No No No No No

20 3 No No No No No

21 2 No No No No No

22 92 No No No No No

27 1 No No No No No

30 4 No No No No No

32 2 No No No No No

34 2 No No No No No

35 13 No No No No No

40 3 No No No No No

42 22 No No No No No

52 1 No No No No No

53 1 No No No No No

54 2 No No No No No

56 14 No No No No No

57 61 No No No No No

58 2 No No No No No

60 2 No No No No No

61 2 No No No No No

63 510 No No No No No

64 2 No No No No No

65 2 No No No No No
A-77

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

68 4 No No No No No

71 12 No No No No No

72 1 No No No No No

73 3 No No No No No

74 12 No No No No No

77 1 No No No No No

82 2 No No No No No

83 2 No No No No No

87 55 No No No No No

89 3 No No No No No

91 15 No No No No No

93 3 No No No No No

94 3 No No No No No

96 31 No No No No No

97 8 No No No No No

99 4 No No No No No

103 8 No No No No No

104 1 No No No No No

106 5 No No No No No

107 2 No No No No No

108 3 No No No No No

109 1 No No No No No

112 2 No No No No No

113 1 No No No No No

114 132 No No No No No

115 2 No No No No No

116 2 No No No No No

117 5 No No No No No

118 2 No No No No No

119 2 No No No No No

122 17 No No No No No
A-78

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

127 16 No No No No No

131 2 No No No No No

132 4 No No No No No

133 6 No No No No No

135 6 No No No No No

137 1 No No No No No

138 3 No No No No No

139 69 No No No No No

140 2 No No No No No

141 2 No No No No No

143 7 No No No No No

144 6 No No No No No

147 7 No No No No No

148 5 No No No No No

150 2 No No No No No

151 16 No No No No No

152 2 No No No No No

153 4 No No No No No

154 1 No No No No No

156 4 No No No No No

160 2 No No No No No

163 3 No No No No No

164 2 No No No No No

166 1 No No No No No

171 21 No No No No No

172 20 No No No No No

173 1 No No No No No

175 1 No No No No No

176 3 No No No No No

178 2 No No No No No

185 2 No No No No No
A-79

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

187 2 No No No No No

189 6 No No No No No

190 3 No No No No No

191 35 No No No No No

193 153 No No No No No

195 11 No No No No No

196 4 No No No No No

198 9 No No No No No

200 3 No No No No No

201 1 No No No No No

202 1 No No No No No

203 3 No No No No No

204 2 No No No No No

205 7 No No No No No

207 5 No No No No No

208 2 No No No No No

209 254 No No No No No

211 2 No No No No No

212 2 No No No No No

213 10 No No No No No

214 30 No No No No No

215 2 No No No No No

217 1 No No No No No

218 5 No No No No No

221 42 No No No No No

222 2 No No No No No

223 8 No No No No No

225 2 No No No No No

227 5 No No No No No

228 1 No No No No No

229 5 No No No No No
A-80

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

230 6 No No No No No

231 4 No No No No No

232 2 No No No No No

233 1 No No No No No

234 4 No No No No No

235 9 No No No No No

237 13 No No No No No

239 2 No No No No No

240 8 No No No No No

243 6 No No No No No

245 5 No No No No No

247 2 No No No No No

248 8 No No No No No

249 2 No No No No No

250 1 No No No No No

251 3 No No No No No

252 5 No No No No No

253 8 No No No No No

255 1 No No No No No

256 2 No No No No No

257 2 No No No No No

258 3 No No No No No

259 2 No No No No No

260 3 No No No No No

262 52 No No No No No

264 2 No No No No No

266 2 No No No No No

267 3 No No No No No

269 4 No No No No No

272 23 No No No No No

273 13 No No No No No
A-81

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

274 19 No No No No No

275 4 No No No No No

276 1 No No No No No

278 3 No No No No No

279 5 No No No No No

281 2 No No No No No

282 2 No No No No No

284 6 No No No No No

287 10 No No No No No

288 24 No No No No No

289 27 No No No No No

291 2 No No No No No

292 3 No No No No No

295 4 No No No No No

296 4 No No No No No

299 45 No No No No No

303 4 No No No No No

305 4 No No No No No

306 1 No No No No No

307 4 No No No No No

309 3 No No No No No

310 5 No No No No No

312 1 No No No No No

313 2 No No No No No

314 1 No No No No No

315 3 No No No No No

316 5 No No No No No

317 2 No No No No No

320 14 No No No No No

321 6 No No No No No

324 57 No No No No No
A-82

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

326 4 No No No No No

329 2 No No No No No

333 22 No No No No No

334 2 No No No No No

336 2 No No No No No

338 14 No No No No No

340 2 No No No No No

342 19 No No No No No

345 4 No No No No No

346 6 No No No No No

347 5 No No No No No

348 8 No No No No No

354 1 No No No No No

357 5 No No No No No

358 4 No No No No No

359 12 No No No No No

360 38 No No No No No

362 4 No No No No No

363 7 No No No No No

365 4 No No No No No

367 4 No No No No No

368 22 No No No No No

369 1 No No No No No

372 1 No No No No No

374 11 No No No No No

378 5 No No No No No

383 5 No No No No No

386 34 No No No No No

387 5 No No No No No

390 62 No No No No No

394 1 No No No No No
A-83

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

396 3 No No No No No

398 20 No No No No No

402 4 No No No No No

405 8 No No No No No

406 2 No No No No No

407 17 No No No No No

408 1 No No No No No

409 8 No No No No No

410 4 No No No No No

414 2 No No No No No

415 5 No No No No No

418 2 No No No No No

420 3 No No No No No

423 2 No No No No No

424 2 No No No No No

428 3 No No No No No

429 4 No No No No No

431 4 No No No No No

432 20 No No No No No

435 3 No No No No No

437 4 No No No No No

438 2 No No No No No

439 6 No No No No No

440 2 No No No No No

441 2 No No No No No

443 7 No No No No No

445 7 No No No No No

446 3 No No No No No

450 13 No No No No No

451 2 No No No No No

452 27 No No No No No
A-84

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

453 3 No No No No No

454 2 No No No No No

455 4 No No No No No

457 2 No No No No No

458 2 No No No No No

461 6 No No No No No

462 12 No No No No No

464 20 Yes No No No No

465 306 Yes No No No No

466 1 No No No No No

469 4 No No No No No

470 58 No No No No No

471 6 No No No No No

472 2 No No No No No

474 7 No No No No No

475 17 No No No No No

477 2 No No No No No

478 5 No No No No No

479 4 No No No No No

480 471 No No No No No

481 2 No No No No No

482 2 No No No No No

484 2 No No No No No

485 195 No No No No No

486 22 No No No No No

488 4761 No No No No No

490 7 No No No No No

491 3 No No No No No

494 3 No No No No No

495 16 No No No No No

500 5 No No No No No
A-85

Polygon Acres

Does Area 

contain 5,000 

acres or 

more?

Is area 

contiguous 

with existing 

wilderness?

Is area 

contiguous 

with primitive 

area?

Is area 

contiguous with 

recommended 

wilderness?

Is area contiguous 

with wilderness 

inventory of other 

Federal ownership?

505 99 No No No No No

506 26431 Yes No No No No

507 1 No No No No No

Total 35441

Table E-3 displays the distribution of all 279 polygons by size groupings. 

Table E-3. Polygon size distribution inventoried lands for the Thomas Creek project.

1-999 ac 1000-1999 ac 2000-2999 ac 3000-3999 ac 4000-4999 ac >5000 ac Total

Polygons 277 0 0 0 1 1 279

Areas containing 5,000 acres or more

Based on local knowledge, field information, and interpretation of digital imagery, one of the 279 

individual polygons is greater than or equal to 5,000 acres. Polygon 506 is approximately 26,431 acres 

and meets the size criteria of 5,000 acres or more and is consistent with all criteria as stated in section 71. 

Approximately 20,492 acres overlap the Hellhole IRA. 

All of the remaining 278 polygons are less than 5,000 acres as displayed in Tables I-2 and I-3. This 

situation exists because all polygons were isolated by non-conforming, substantially noticeable timber 

harvest and non-conforming road improvements.

Areas Contiguous with Existing Wilderness Areas

Two of the 279 polygons identified are contiguous to an existing wilderness (Table I-2). 

Polygon 465 is 306 acres and meets size criteria because it is contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness. 

Polygon 464 is 20 acres and meets size criteria because it is contiguous to the North Fork Umatilla 

Wilderness. 

Acres of lands that did not meet criteria (other undeveloped lands) 

None of the remaining 277 polygons are of sufficient size as to make practicable their preservation and 

use in an unimpaired condition. This conclusion is based on the rationale that each of the 277 individual 

polygons are all part of a larger ecosystem and not a separate, self-contained ecosystem, such as found on 

an island surrounded by water. In addition, none could be separately and practicably preserved due to 

physical terrain or a natural condition in-part because of their small size and in-part because they are each 

part of a larger, continuous ecosystem distributed throughout the project area. 
A-86

The largest polygon of other undeveloped lands (polygon number 488) is approximately 4,761 acres and 

is located on the eastern side of the project area extending towards Highway 204 (see map I-4). The shape 

of the polygon is long, narrow and irregular. It encompasses forested and non-forested ridgetops, and 

stringers of riparian areas located between past harvest units. There are numerous areas of nonconforming past harvest scattered throughout the polygon. Because of these characteristics, the polygon 

does not meet the size criteria in Chapter 71.21 (2).

Areas Contiguous with Primitive Areas

No areas contiguous with primitive areas were found within the analysis area. 

Areas Contiguous with Recommended Wilderness

No areas contiguous with recommended wilderness were found within the analysis area.

Areas Contiguous with Wilderness Inventory of other Federal Ownership

No areas contiguous with wilderness inventory of other Federal ownership were found within the analysis 

area. 

Summary

Table E-4 displays the total lands considered, the acres of lands with wilderness characteristics, acres of 

other undeveloped land, and acres of developed landscape. All other acres of land remaining that are not 

identified as lands with wilderness characteristics displayed in Table I-4 are considered other 

undeveloped lands which are displayed in Map 5. 

Table E-4. Summary of lands considered for the Thomas Creek Project Analysis (see also Map I-4).

Acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics

Acres of other 

undeveloped lands

Acres of developed lands with nonconforming past harvest, roads, etc. Total Acres

26,757 8,684 17,287 52,760

Map 5, 5a Lands with wilderness characteristics and Other Undeveloped Lands

The completed analysis resulted in 26,757 acres (contained in three polygons) meeting all Section 71.21, 

71.22a and 71.22b criteria.

Map 5 and 5a also display the remaining 8,684 acres of land that did not meet criteria described in chapter 

71 will be evaluated as “other undeveloped lands” and discussed in Chapters 3 of the EA. 
A-87

Figure E.1 Thomas Creek project planning area and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics analysis area.

A-89

Figure E.1a Thomas Creek project planning area and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics analysis area with ortho background.

A-91

Figure E.2 Substantially noticeable other improvements in the analysis area.

A-93

Figure E.2a Substantially noticeable other improvements in the analysis area with ortho background.

A-95

Figure E.3 Road improvements within the analysis area.

A-97

Figure E.3a Road improvements within the analysis area on ortho background.

A-99

Figure E.4 Lands without roads and other improvements. 

A-101

Figure E.4a Lands without roads and other improvements on ortho background.

A-103

Figure E.5 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. 

A-105

Figure E.5a Lands with Wilderness Characteristics on ortho background.

A-106

Figure E.6. Interaction between lands with wilderness character and Alternative B. 

A-108

Figure E.6a. Interaction between lands with wilderness character and Alternative B on ortho background.

A-110

Figure E.7. Interaction between lands with wilderness character and Alternative C. 

A-112

Figure E.7a. Interaction between lands with wilderness character and Alternative C on ortho background.

A-114

Figure E.8. Interaction between lands with wilderness character and Alternative D. 

A-116

Figure E.8a. Interaction between lands with wilderness character and Alternative D on ortho background.

A-118

Figure E.9. Interaction between lands with wilderness character and Alternative E. 

A-119

Figure E.9a. Interaction between lands with wilderness character and Alternative E on ortho background.
A-120

APPENDIX F. TRANSPORTATION

Table F.1 Roads used as haul routes within the project area.

Road ID Operational Maintenance Level

Approximate 

Miles

3100000 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS 0.607653273

3100000 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 2.680460615

3100000 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 1.376553101

3100000 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 1.799686847

3100000 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 2.864633622

3100000 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 3.77322952

3100035 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.887973241

3100200 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.702075278

3100200 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1.102338464

3100228 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 1.14822968

3100233 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.045277889

3100239 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.1577683

3100240 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.618137915

3100245 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.755261202

3100246 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.400558022

3100247 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.090501893

3100248 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.103541974

3145000 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.074512544

3145000 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.970978979

3145000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.220131382

3145015 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.400992527

3145016 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.778868039

3145020 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.993935672

3148000 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.400581

3148000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.593055956

3148010 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 1.575134973

3148010 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3.923526614

3148015 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.059963107

3148015 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.283456198
A-121

Road ID Operational Maintenance Level

Approximate 

Miles

3148016 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.858011947

3148040 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.993347809

3148049 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 1.015103173

3148050 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.039573762

3148051 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.612797422

3150000 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS 0.03360883

3200000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1.566264118

3200000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1.569186013

3200130 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.770630334

3200130 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.107898907

3200140 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.859164578

3200141 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.537182675

3200142 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.290301518

3200143 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.109847308

3200143 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 0.13613054

3217000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 0.3639629

3738000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 1.639244465

3738000 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 6.271135913

3738090 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 2.014484674

Total 49.18
A-122

Figure F.1 Map of haul routes for Alternatives B.
A-123

Figure F.2 Map of haul routes for Alternatives C.
A-124

Figure F.3 Map of haul routes for Alternatives D.
A-125

Figure F.4 Map of haul routes for Alternative E.
A-126

APPENDIX G. PAST ACTIVITIES

Table G.1 Past activities related to vegetation management within the project area.

Activity* Approximate Acres

Animal Damage Control for Reforestation 196.30

Burning of Piled Material 351.24

Certification of Natural Regeneration with Site Prep 221.73

Certification of Natural Regeneration without Site Prep 849.64

Certification-Planted 2,344.87

Chipping of Fuels 579.32

Commercial Thin 11,104.92

Fill-in or Replant Trees 213.12

Group Selection Cut 31.73

Improvement Cut 699.60

Initiate Natural Regeneration 221.73

Invasive Species Inventories 1,251.19

Invasives - Pesticide Application 365.90

Jackpot Burning - Scattered concentrations 67.67

Overstory Removal Cut (from advanced regeneration) 25.96

Patch Clearcut 140

Piling of Fuels, Hand or Machine 110.57

Plant Trees 2,554.81

Plantation Survival Survey 231.91

Pre-commercial Thin 2,154.46

Pre-treatment Exam for Reforestation 491.19

Pre-treatment Exam for Release or Pre-commercial Thinning 3,910.91

Rearrangement of Fuels 218.57

Reforestation Need Change due to Other (windthrow, etc) 194.33

Reforestation Need Change due to Stocking Changes 163.95

Reforestation Need Created by Harvest 3,630.33

Reforestation Need created by Regeneration Failure 47.39

Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, not regeneration) 522.35
A-127

Sanitation Cut 1047.36

Seed (Trees) 136.57

Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without leave trees) 214.38

Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with or without leave trees) 1,669.86

Shelterwood Removal Cut 507.13

Silvicultural Stand Examination 2,427.15

Single-tree Selection Cut 835

Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration - Burning 222.21

Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration - Mechanical 55.71

Site Preparation for Planting - Burning 172

Site Preparation for Planting - Chemical 251.6

Site Preparation for Planting - Mechanical 71.74

Site Preparation for Planting - Other 1,538.82

Stand Clearcut 1,541.56

Stand Diagnosis Prepared 378.55

Stand Silviculture Prescription 1,245.85

Stocking Survey 1,597.5

Thinning for Hazardous Fuels Reduction 688.73

Tree Release and Weed 48.95

TSI Certification - Thinning 975.41

TSI Need (pre-commercial thinning) Eliminated 327.73

TSI Need Created- Pre-commercial Thin 2,510.33

Underburn - Low Intensity (Majority of Unit) 305

Activity descriptions are taken directly from Forest Service GIS records databases.

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

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

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-

5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Map Products Contained in this Document

Map products in this document are reproduced from information prepared by the USDA, Forest Service 

or from other suppliers. The Forest Service cannot assure the reliability or suitability of this information 

for a particular purpose. The data and product accuracy may vary due to compilation from various 

sources, including modeling and interpretation, and may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. 

This information may be updated, corrected or otherwise modified without notification. For more 

information contact: Umatilla NF Supervisors Office at 541-278-3976. 

Publication F14-WW-04-15